Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 12.12.1995
MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 1995 From: Charles L. Simor� To: City Council Members Subject: Final Plat of an 18.48 Acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight. Final Plat of a 20.006 acre tract in the William Roberts Survey, to be known as Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations. The two above referenced plats are on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda to be considered Thursday, December 7, 1995. Due to this late meeting date and the necessity to assemble Council packets by the same date, it is not possible to include revised plats that reflect the Commission's recommendation and address any technical issues. However, should you need to refer to the subject plats, there are reduced copies of each included with the exhibits for each case. These reduced copies have all of the information necessary to review the subject plats. I apologize for the inconvenience and would be happy to answer any questions you have regarding the plats. NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, December 12, 1995 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, December 12, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Street in Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for any type of disability, please advise in advance. Detailed explanatory information on the items listed below is compiled in an agenda packet which is distributed to the Mayor and each member of the Council. An agenda packet is also available at the Public Library, for the use of interested citizens. Workshw - Call to order at 5:30 p.m. A Goldstein Award Blue Hole presentation/Larry Hesser and David Morgan B Electric System future trends/Bob Hart Regular Session - to convene Executive Session (will begin no earlier than 6:20 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. C Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney D Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property E Sec.551.074 staff report Regular Session - to begin no earlier than 7:00 p.m. F Action on Executive Session items G Citizens wishing to address the Council H Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports 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. I Approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of November 28,1995/Sandra Lee City Council Agenda/December 12, 1995 Page 1 of 4 Pages J Award bid for three copiers to Texas Copy in the amount of $20,158.00/Susan Morgan and Terry Jones K Authorizing the City to submit a grant application for the 1995 Urban Forestry Grant for Tree Planting/Randy Morrow L Final Plat of a 20.006 acre tract in the William Roberts Survey, to be known as Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma M Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, Lot 3, located at 13th and Laurel Streets/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma N Final Plat of an 18.48 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: (Council may, at any time, recess the regular session to convene in executive session at the request of the Mayor, a councilmember, or the City Manager.) 0 Second reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-42 to extend the time period for payment of assessments on East I-35 Frontage Road/Marianne Banks P Concept Plan of an 11.85 acre tract in the Lewis Dyches Survey, to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Q Second reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg R Preliminary Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, to be known as the Physician's Center Tract; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma S License to encroach in the platted public utility easement located along Hacienda Lane of Lot 2, Block B, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma T Variances to the platted PUE and building setback requirements of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma City Council Agenda/December 12, 1995 Page 2 of 4 Pages U Variance to the building setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 31, located at 30407 La Quinta Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma V Approval of a letter requesting the Texas Department of Transportation (Tx.DOT) to include the relocation of entrance and exit ramps to IH35 south as a component of the third IH35 main lane project through Georgetown/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg W Approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement with Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., conceming the development of Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown/Marianne Banks X Approval of a Revised Concept Plan (Second) of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, a 5,314 acre tract in the L. Dyches, F. Foy, B. Eaves, W. Roberts, M. Lewis, R. Jenkins, L. Russell, A. Short, G. Thompson, W. Wilkinson and D. Monroe Surveys/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Y License to encroach into the platted public utility easement and public right-of-way and a variance to Section 37040B. Of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract D for an entry feature wall/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Z License to Encroach into the platted public utility easements and public right of way for signs within Sun City Georgetown/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma AA License to encroach into the platted public utility easements and a variance to Section 37040B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D for a fence along RM 2338/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma BB License to encroach into the platted public utility easements and a variance to Section 37040B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D for walls located at the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma CC Second Reading of an ordinance to rezone a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 acres in the W. G. Wilkinson and George Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A; from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma DD Preliminary/Final Plat of a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 Acres in the W. G. Wilkinson and Georgetown Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma City Council Agenda/December 12, 1995 Page 3 of 4 Pages 4 EE Preliminary Plat of a 475.52 acre tract to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma FF Second reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of a 33 ) .490 acre portion of the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the Daniel Monroe, W. G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R. T. Jenkins, and Mary Ann Lewis Surveys/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg GG First Reading of an ordinance Adopting Impact Fees/Ed Barry HH Appointment to the Williamson County Health District/Mayor Wood II Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission/Mayor Wood JJ Establish regular monthly workshop meeting schedule/Bob Hart KK Cancellation of second regular Council Meeting in December/Bob Hart Adjournment 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 , 1995, at a.m./p.m. Deputy City Secretary NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, December 12, 1995 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, December 12, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Street in Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for any type of disability, please advise in advance. Detailed explanatory information on the items listed below is compiled in an agenda packet which is distributed to the Mayor and each member of the Council. An agenda packet is also available at the Public Library, for the use of interested citizens. Workshop - Call to order at 5:30 p.m. A Goldstein Award Blue Hole presentation/Larry Hesser and David Morgan B Electric System future trends/Bob Hart \. Regular Session - to convene Executive Session (will begin earlier than 6:20 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. C Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney D Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property E Sec.551.074 staff report Regular Session - to begin no earlier than 7:00 p.m. F Action on Executive Session items G Citizens wishing to address the Council H Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports 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. r - I Approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of November 28,1995/Sandra Lee City Council Agenda/December 12, 1995 Page 1 of 4 Pages J Award bid for three copiers to Texas Copy in the amount of $20,158.00/Susan Morgan and Terry Jones K Authorizing the City to submit a grant application for the 1995 Urban Forestry Grant for Tree Planting/Randy Morrow L Final Plat of a 20.006 acre tract in the William Roberts Survey, to be known as Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma M Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, Lot 3, located at 13th and Laurel Streets/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma N Final Plat of an 18.48 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: (Council may, at any time, recess the regular session to convene in executive session at the request of the Mayor, a councilmember, or the City Manager.) 0 Second reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-42 to extend the time period for payment of assessments on East I-35 Frontage Road/Marianne Banks P Concept Plan of an 11.85 acre tract in the Lewis Dyches Survey, to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Q Second reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg R Preliminary Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, to be known as the Physician's Center Tract; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma S License to encroach in the platted public utility easement located along Hacienda Lane of Lot 2, Block B, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma T Variances to the platted PUE and building setback requirements of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma City Council Agenda/December 12, 199 Page 2 of 4 Pages j U Variance to the building setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block Al Lot 31, located at 30407 La Quinta Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma V Approval of a letter requesting the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to include the relocation of entrance and exit ramps to IH35 south as a component of the third IH35 main lane project through Georgetown/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg W Approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement with Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., concerning the development of Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown/Marianne Banks X Approval of a Revised Concept Plan (Second) of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, a 5,314 acre tract in the L. Dyches, F. Foy, B. Eaves, W. Roberts, M. Lewis, R. Jenkins, L. Russell, A. Short, G. Thompson, W. Wilkinson and D. Monroe Surveys/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Y License to encroach into the platted public utility easement and public right-of-way and a variance to Section 37040B. Of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract D for an entry feature wall/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Z License to Encroach into the platted public utility easements and public right of way for signs within Sun City Georgetown/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma AA License to encroach into the platted public utility easements and a variance to Section 37040B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D for a fence along RM 2338/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma BB License to encroach into the platted public utility easements and a variance to Section 37040B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D for walls located at the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma CC Second Reading of an ordinance to rezone a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 acres in the W. G. Wilkinson and George Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A; from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma DD Preliminary/Final Plat of a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 Acres in the W. G. Wilkinson and Georgetown Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma City Council Agenda/December 12, 1995 Page 3 of 4 Pages EE Preliminary Plat of a 475.52 acre tract to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma FF Second reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of a 333.490 acre portion of the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the Daniel Monroe, W. G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R. T. Jenkins, and Mary Ann Lewis Surveys/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg GG First Reading of an ordinance Adopting Impact Fees/Ed Barry HH Appointment to the Williamson County Health District/Mayor Wood II Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission/Mayor Wood JJ Establish regular monthly workshop meeting schedule/Bob Hart KK Cancellation of second regular Council Meeting in December/Bob Hart Adjournment 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 , 1995, at a.m./p.m. Deputy City Secretary Council meeting date: 12-12-95 10mrItem No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 1995. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TUESDAY, November 28, 1995 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 Staff Present: Hartley Sappington, Acting City Manager Marianne Banks, City Attorney Sandra Lee, City Secretary Ed Barry, Dir. of Development Services Workshop - Called to order at 5:50 p.m. A Report from the TML Conference Council Absent: (Councilmember Position for District 2 is vacant due to death of Winfred Bonner) Terry Jones, Purchasing Agent Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner Don Rundell, City Engineer Councilmembers shared information gained by attending various workshops and training sessions at the TML Annual Conference. Regular Session - Called to order at 6:30 p.m. Executive Session B Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney C Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property D Sec.551.074 personnel matters (Review applicants to serve as Assistant Municipal Court Judge) Regular Session - reconvened at 7:00 p.m. E Action on Executive Session items City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 1 of 9 Pages Motion by Hoyt, second by Bain to nominate Jack Webernick to serve as Assistant Municipal Judge to serve on a volunteer basis until Council does the assessment of the Council -appointed positions in January. Approved 6-0. Motion by Hoyt, second by Bain to enter into a new lease with the Heritage Society for Grace Church, the terms of which will be ten (10) years with a ten (10)-year option. Approved 5-0. (Curl abstained) F Citizens wishing to address the Council No citizens wished to address Council at this time. G Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports • March 14 Board and Commission Dinner Sappington informed Council that the dinner held annually to recognize the volunteer members of the City Boards and Commissions is to be held at Southwestern University. Bain and Hoyt will be out of town due to Spring Break. Arroyos asked that the Councilmember that was designated as voting delegate to the NLC Conference support Fred Guerra as Vice President of National League of Cities. That request was endorsed by Mayor Wood. Consent Agenda H Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of November 14,1995/Sandra Lee I Consideration of award of bid for 1996 Police Package Vehicles/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan J Consideration of approval of a Short Form Final Plat of a resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, located at SH29 and Laurel Street/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma K Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) L Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) M Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) N Consideration of a Variance to the plat note requirements for the Resubdivision of Berry Creek, Section Eight, Phase One, Block K, Lot 1, located at 30001 Edgewood Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma O Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 2 of 9 Pages P Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) Q Consideration of direction for partial releases of assessments for I-35 frontage road/Marianne Banks R Consideration of approval of a Revised Concept Plan (Second) of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, a 5,314 acre tract in the L. Dyches, F. Foy, B. Eaves, W. Roberts, M. Lewis, R. Jenkins, L. Russell, A. Short, G. Thompson, W. Wilkinson and D. Monroe Surveys/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma This item was deferred to the December 12 Council Agenda. S Consideration of a Preliminary/Final Plat of a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 acres in the W. G. Wilkinson and George Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma This item was deferred to the December 12 Council Agenda. T Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 475.52 acre tract to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma This item was deferred to the December 12 Council Agenda. U Pulled. (See Regular Agenda) - V Consideration of approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 714072 between the City of Georgetown and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs on behalf of Reedholm Instruments Company/Bob Hart Motion by Tonn, second by Arroyos to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items K, L, M, O, P, R, S, T, and U. Approved 6-0. Repaular Agenda M Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, to be known as the Physician's Center Tract; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (Pulled by Bain) Bain asked about the shared driveway. Kingma explained that because of the width of the lot, a variance was needed. She explained that staff was recommending a shared driveway to eliminate another future curb cut. Banks added that the lot was illegally subdivided with the lot to the north, so that's why they chose to share the driveway with the lot to the north. Bain asked about Exhibit D. Kingma explained that approval of that sketch was not requested on this agenda. She explained that this item was requesting approval of the plat so the developer would have a legal lot. She noted City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 3 of 9 Pages that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved, with the recommendation that the driveway be shared. Engineer Don Bizzell, representing the owner, claimed there was no current user of the lot to the north, and that the owner was concerned about future use and possible liability of the shared driveway with an unknown future owner. He noted that several large trees would be lost and asked that action concerning the shared driveway be delayed until the DDP stage of approval. Barry explained that because the lot was illegally subdivided the shared driveway would provide road access. Bain asked the timeframe on this item. Bizzell consented to delay until the next meeting. Motion by Bain, second by Curl to delay this item until the next Council Meeting on December 12. Approved 6-0. O Consideration and possible approval of a request for a one (1) year extension of final plat approval for the Resubdivision of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Seven, Phase Two, and Section Eight, Phases Two and Three/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (Pulled by Hoyt) Hoyt pointed out that the staff recommendation in the packet was a six-month extension. Kingma explained that the time limits had changed, allowing these plats a total of two years for a six-month extension. The one-year extension would allow two and a half years. Therefore, if they were not recorded by that time, it would have to come back to Planning and Zoning. Applicant, Bob Wunsch said the six-month extension was fine. Motion by Hoyt, second by Arroyos to approve a six-month extension. Approved 6-0. P Consideration of approval of Amendment No. 23 to the contract between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, & McKee for engineering services related to the design of the Berry Creek Water Main in the amount of $3 9) 5 00. 00/Jim. Briggs (Pulled by Curl) Curl asked and Rundell confirmed that this item had been budgeted in the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. Wood asked about the number of amendments. Banks explained that the main contract as far as basic engineering was approved, and then each project becomes a new amendment. Banks was asked and confirmed that engineering projects are not bid. Motion by Curl, second by Vincent to approve Amendment No. 23. Approved 6-0. W First reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg von Rosenberg explained that this was a Century Plan Amendment for a Concept Plan to allow 3 6 single-family lots to be developed, with adequate utility and transportation access. Bain asked why it was originally set up as Level Two. Engineer Bizzell, representing the owner, said that originally City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 4 of 9 Pages this land was a part of the Rabbit Hollow Subdivision. He said that when the owners parted ways, one owner received this part of the land as his share, the division occurring where a natural barrier provided an easy change in the land use. Bain asked about the comparison of the lot sizes. Bizzell answered that they are the same size as in the current Pleasant Valley, larger than the City minimum lot size. Barry explained that now that utility service will be extended, the lot sizes are allowed to be smaller than if they were served by septic. To Bain's concern about utility capacity, von Rosenberg said the area had been checked by Community Owned Utilities, and the capacity was found to be adequate. von Rosenberg read the caption only after satisfying the Charter requirements for first reading. Motion by Arroyos, second by Tonn. Approved 6-0. X First reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-42 to extend the time period for payment of assessments on East I-35 Frontage Road/Marianne Banks Banks explained that, at the request of the purchaser of one of the tracts along the East I-3 5 frontage road, this item was being brought to Council for an extension in the time for payment of the assessments. She noted that according to Finance Director Morgan, there would be no material affect on the amount of money to be received due to the difference in the interest rate over the extended period. Banks read the ordinance on first reading. Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve the ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0. Y Consideration of approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement with Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., concerning the development of Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown/Marianne Banks This item was deferred to the December 12 Council Agenda. AA Consideration and possible approval of a variance from the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations for the Resubdivision of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Seven, Phases One and Two; Section Eight, Phases One, Two and Three; and Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Eleven/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Kingma explained that Planning and Zoning first saw this item back in August, and that the side entry garages are not a part of the requested variance. She explained that the variance being requested is to go to 59% impervious cover per lot, instead of the standard 65%. The impervious cover calculations will be based on including the golf course. This will only apply to lots that are 80 feet wide or greater and have side -entry garages. Planning and Zoning recommended approval with documentation acceptable by the City Attorney regarding the inclusion of the golf course in the calculation for impervious cover. Banks explained that National Golf has a 35-year lease on the golf course, which would allow the variance to be in existence for the duration of that lease. City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 5 of 9 Pages Jack Hunnicutt, of 1809 E. 16th Street, a builder at Berry Creek, asked that the variance be approved. He said he has built 50 or 60 homes with side -entry garages. This request is very compatible with the needs of citizens of Georgetown. Don Bizzell, representing the owner of a piece of land that also adjoins the golf course, spoke in support of the variance. Bizzell distributed a letter to the Councilmembers asking that Berry Creek Section Five also be included in the Sections that will be allowed the variance. Bain asked and was told that no other portion of Berry Creek had used the golf course as part of their area for impervious cover. He asked and was told that 178 lots out of a total of 215 lots have the 80 foot width. Curl asked for Executive Session regarding the letter that was distributed. 7:27 p.m. returned to Executive Session - 7:40 p.m. resumed Open Session Motion by Arroyos, second by Tonn to approve the variance for the sections listed in the item. Approved 6-0. Bizzell asked how to proceed on getting Section 5 included in the variance approval and was told that Section 5 would have to go through the variance approval process. Arroyos explained that the Council was not allowed to act on an item that was not posted on the agenda. Wood explained that the items pulled from the Consent Agenda regarding Sun City would be taken now along with the remaining items on the Regular Agenda that pertained to Sun City. K Consideration of approval of a variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase I, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (pulled by Bain) Bain asked for an overview of what was to be accomplished on this agenda regarding Sun City. Kingma said the main reason for the large number of items on this agenda was because of the changes in the Development Agreement and the Revised Concept Plan, which need to be resolved before the items can be approved. She said that for the most part, the items pertained to moving forward with the different phases for plats in order to issue building permits. Kingma said that Items K and Z relate to fences and walls, including requests for variances and licenses to encroach. She said that the other items were routine. Barry added that these items were in accordance with the procedure as laid out in the Development Agreement and Concept Plan for Sun City. Kingma explained the variances that were being requested for the fence along FM223 8 and for the walls. She noted that the utility companies, including Community Owned Utilities, have recommended approval regarding the utility easements but do not speak to the liability issue of the wall encroaching into the right of way. City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 6 of 9 Pages Wilson Morris of Del Webb described the walls. Motion by Tonn, second by Vincent to approve the variance. Tied at 3-3 (Curl, Arroyos, and Bain opposed) Wood voted in favor, but due to the Subdivision Regulation requirement that a variance be approved by a majority plus one, the motion was defeated. Curl explained that she is concerned that the stone and concrete wall within the right of way would be a direct liability for the City in case of an accident. Morris replied that only the 13-foot wall encroaches into the right of way. Discussion ensued over which agenda items concerned which walls and fences. Barry suggested that since Council was not concerned about the height of the two walls, they could approve Item K. Then if the Council is concerned about the right of way issue, that would be addressed in Item Z. Curl asked and was told that the wall, as it was planned to be constructed, would be back far enough to allow clear visibility. Banks added that possible future expansion of the road could create a visibility problem. Paul Smith of Richardson-Verdoorn asked permission to clarify Item Z. He noted that Item Z called for encroachment into the right of way as well as encroachment into the Public Utility Easement. Arroyos asked that this item be deferred to the next meeting in order to obtain further clarification. Regarding the possible liability for the City, Larry Michaels of Del Webb suggested that Del Webb would indemnify the City, but Banks pointed out that both Del Webb and the City could be sued in case of an accident. Michaels suggested that they would come back to the next meeting with color renderings to help explain what Del Webb is requesting. Motion by Arroyos to defer items K and Z until the December 12 Meeting. Tied at 3-3 (Toren, Hoyt, and Vincent opposed) Mayor voted in favor to defer. L Consideration of a Final Plat of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Six/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (pulled by Bain) Kingma explained that this item asks for approval of a final plat for a residential neighborhood, with no commercial space involved. Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to approve. Approved 6-0. U Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 111.954 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe and Frederick Foy Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2A/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (Pulled by Bain) Kingma explained to Council that there were no controversial issues involved with this item. She said that the preliminary plat is for 236 residential lots. Motion by Tonn, second by Bain to approve. Approved 6-0. City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 7 of 9 Pages requirements. Motion by Tonn, second by Vincent to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0. FF Consideration of a priority list for the identification of specific routes for future road segments/Clyde von Rosenberg von Rosenberg explained to Council that this item was a follow-up from the October 10 Meeting. He noted that Planning and Zoning has more fully defined the order in which they will attempt to address the roadways, saying that they plan to begin discussion of the roadways at their December Meeting. He added that the order might change, but this priority list is an attempt to get the process started. Curl asked if Public Hearings would be held in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning regular meetings. von Rosenberg feels Planning and Zoning should be able to handle one roadway per month. One public hearing could be held for several roadways at one time. Curl asked if this timeframe would be sufficient to get these projects underway. von Rosenberg explained that these roads are being dealt with well in advance of any projected construction. Barry explained that this process was not designed to get the City to build roadways, but to address the configuration of future roadways, so that when new development is planned, there will be an awareness of the future roadways. Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to adopt the priority list as a recommended plan giving staff the authority to deal with possible deviations or changes in the priorities. Approved 6-0. Approved: Leo Wood, Mayor City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 9 of 9 Pages The Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Attest: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary Z Consideration of a License to Encroach for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma This item was deferred to the December 12 Agenda. BB First reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of a 333.490 acre portion of he Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the Daniel Monroe, W. G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R. T. Jenkins, and Mary Ann Lewis Surveys/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg von Rosenberg reminded Council of the Public Hearings previously held on this annexation. He explained that this is the same piece of property with a more accurate property description. von Rosenberg read the caption only on first reading after satisfying the requirements as established by the City Charter. Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0. CC First reading of an ordinance to rezone a 2.9 acre tract to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Tract Z, from RP, Planned Residential to C-1, Local Commercial/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Kingma advised Council that this rezoning concerned one of the new commercial lots involved in the Revised Concept Plan. She said that the second reading would not occur until the plat is recorded, probably well after the Revised Concept Plan is approved. She noted that this tract is located at the intersection of Sun City and Del Webb Boulevards. Bain asked and was told that a small retail center with a gas station was planned for that location. Kingma read the caption only on first reading after satisfying the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Vincent, second by Tonn to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0. DD First reading of an ordinance to rezone a 475.52 acre tract to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, from A, Agricultural, to C-1, Local Commercial, and RP, Residential Planned/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma Kingma explained that this tract was included in the changes to the Concept Plan. She said it includes quite a bid of residential and also contains commercial, adding that this rezoning will include the lot for the proposed Scott and White Clinic. Kingma read the caption only after satisfying the Charter requirements. Motion by Curl, second by Hoyt to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0. EE First reading of an ordinance to rezone a 111.954 acre tract in the Daniel Moore and Frederick Foy Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2A/Ed .Barry and Hildy Kingma Kingma noted that the preliminary plat was just approved (Item U), and again noted that this tract would be entirely residential. Kingma read the caption only after satisfying the Charter City Council Meeting Minutes November 28, 1995 Page 8 of 9 Pages Council Meeting Date: December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consider awarding the bid for three copiers to Texas Copy in the amount of $20,158.00. ITEM SUMMARY Bids were received for the purchase of three copiers to replace older copiers located at City Hall, Finance & Administration, and upstairs Police Station. The staff recommendation is to award this bid to the low bidder, Texas Copy of Austin. The past two years the City has purchased copiers from the state contract. Our evaluations this year of the copiers on state contract have shown that the brands available are unreliable in regards to quality and service response. As a result of these unfavorable evaluations, staff is recommending that we not utilize the state contract and instead award to Texas Copy. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS none FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.) Total amount of this bid is $20,158.00. $22,500.00 was budgeted in the 1995/96 Building Maintenance Internal Service Fund for this expenditure. COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions) none ATTACHMENTS (list individually) 1. bid tabulation Juummea by: Terry Jones, Purchasing Director Susan Morgan, Director of Finance & Administration BID NO. 960 :OPIERS ITEM #1 - 40 CPM COPIER WITH 20 BIN SORTER DESCRIPTION 1 Copier, wlstapler sorter, 2 each 2 Maintenance for 1 st year 3 Maintenance for 2nd year 4 Warranty on Copier ITEM #2 - 30 CPM COPIER WITH 10 BIN SORTER DESCRIPTION 1 Copier, wlstapler sorter, 1 each 2 Maintenance for 1 st year 3 Maintenance for 2nd year 4 Warranty on Copier TOTAL FOR ITEMS 1 & 2 * Does not meet spec ** Low Bid TEXAS COPY AUS. BUS. MACH. CTWP DAHILL DANKA PROGRESSIVE CANON NP4050 MINOLTA EP4050 GESTETNER SHARP SF8875 KONICA 4145 TOSHIBA 4550 7323.00 7734.20 * 7834.00 8256.00 9787.50 11544.00 997.00 825.00 1875.00 500.00 2500.00 1750.00 1086.00 1050.00 1875.00 1000.00 2750.00 1750.00 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days TEXAS COPY AUS. BUS. MACH. CTWP DAHILL DANKA PROGRESSIVE CANON NP3050 MINOLTA EP3050 GESTETNER SHARP SF2027 KONICA 3135 TOSHIBA 5512.00 4971.00 8547.00 6246.00 8850.00 8727.00 859.00 555.80 1125.00 258.00 1950.00 1050.00 1005.00 660.60 1125.00 438.00 2550.00 1050.00 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 90 Days 20158.00 ** 20439.40 24215.00 22758.00 28425.00 31815.00 Council Meeting Date: December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Authorizing the City to submit a grant application for the 1995 Urban Forestry Grant for Tree Planting. ITEM SUMMARY Congress has decided not to offer this grant program next year, so this will be the final tree grant from the Small Business Administration/Texas Forest Service. The Texas Forest Service has been designated by the Governor to administer the program in Texas. The City has completed a grant application to receive $7,500 in federal funds under the program to plant 125 trees along the San Gabriel River Corridor with a $7,500 match from the City of Georgetown. The opportunity to participate in the tree planting program meets objectives under Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy I of the Century Plan Policy Plan, which encourages a program of tree planting within the City. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Staff is requesting $7,500 out of the council contingency budget for the tree grant match due to the fact that the grant came in after the 95/96 budget deadline. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City will be committing $7,500 match money out of council contingency for the completion of the grant project. The total project is $15,000 with a 10% administrative fee to the Texas Forest Service. $14,250 Trees 750 Administrative fee to Texas Forest Service $15,000 Total COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from the Texas Forest Service 2. Resolution 3. Grant Agreement 4. Assurances and Certifications Submitted by: Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation TEXAS FOREST SERVICE ' The Texas A&M University System , i I Forest Resource Development Department (409) 845-2641 3rd Floor, John B. Connally Building FAX (409) 845-5764 College Station, Texas 77843-2136 5.35 November 13, 1995 Randy Morrow City of Georgetown 1003 North Austin Ave. Georgetown, TX 78628 Re: Urba Tre Planting (SBA) Grant #95-12-04, titled "San Gabriel Park/Hike Bike Trail" Dear We received word last Friday from SBA administrators in Washington, D.C., that our revised grant proposal for 1995-96 tree planting projects has finally been accepted. This letter represents official notification of your grant, in the amount of $7,500, and means that we can execute a formal contract with you and allow you to make arrangements with local small businesses for the purchase and planting of your trees. Instructions for completing the paperwork to start this process are as follow s. First, the two original copies of the Grant Agreement contract included in this packet must be signed and returned as soon as possible, but by December 31,1995, at the latest. Also, two copies Assurances and Certifications are included; please fill out the g appropriate information on page 9 n the sign both copies on page 10. Keep one copy of the A&C for your records and return the otherone and us with the contracts. The representative who signs these documents must be the person authorize to o organization to execute contracts on its behalf. ed by your Contracts returned to us will be signed by th6State Forester and a copy mailed to you for you records. At that time, we will send you an invoice for the administrative fee in the amount f y r which equals ten percent of your grant award. As described in our application guide, this fee isnon refundable, will count towards your matching requirement, and is used to cover TFS non - during project administration and field inspections. No grant payments will be made until this Incurred received in our office. s fee is Second, you must provide us with a resolution from your group's governing body that endor the project, commits to the matching requirement, and authorizes tree planting on the site. ses resolution is attached. Some groups may also need to provide a second resolution from the entity that owns or controls the planting site, authorizing tree planting on the site. We must have the appropriate resolutions on file before any grant payments will be made. Third, be aware that you are expected to use a competitive bid process that conforms to federal guidelines. Rules are detailed in the attached Code of -Federal Regulations for Business Cr Assistance, but your group probably has bidding requirements that you must follow. We h Credit and limit for purchases below which you can avoid this process; rather, we want you to seek have a set ethical manner, the best price available among qualified vendors in your area or all ma'or t' in a fair and involving grant funds in this project. aurc_ haws The Forest Resource Agency of Texas An Equal Opportunity Employer 1995 Urban Tree Planting (SBA) Program Grant Agreement Transmittal Letter November 13, 1995 Page 2. Remember that one major reason for this grant program is to provide new opportunities to small. businesses, so you should make your bid notifications as widespread as possible. Occasionally, we receive requests from vendors in your area to provide them with a list of grant recipients that they can solicit business from, so you may be contacted by a contractor requesting to bid on your project. In addition to these requests, your bid invitation must be open to minority- and women -owned businesses to encourage these historically underutilized businesses (see attached HUB list) to become involved in the program. If you need assistance in developing bidding specifications for your project, call me or your local forester and we will provide you with a sample document. Fourth, grant payments will only be made on a reimbursement basis. At the time of planting, submit a cost report detailing all purchases and in -kind contributions, along with supporting documentation such as copies of invoices, cancelled checks, and work records (as detailed in the attached Documentation Guidelines). We will then process payment equal to the federal share of the approved project costs, not to exceed the full amount of the grant. This means that the entire grant will be paid only after all matching requirements have been met, which may take the full contract period. It also means that you must possess the cash resources to pay your contractors at the time of planting, since we can only process a payment to you within about 30 days. You should make potential contractors aware of this 30 day payment period in your bid package, as well as a notice that they will not be paid in full until the job passes the TFS field inspection. This last item is not a requirement, but it will protect you from paying for substandard work. As stated above, your project must pass a field inspection by one of our field foresters before grant payments will be issued. Exhibit A has been attached to the contract detailing specific tree planting and maintenance procedures that you must use when installing and caring for these trees. Our field foresters will use these specifications to inspect and approve your planting, both initially and throughout the three-year maintenance period. Maintenance procedures such as regular weed control and mulching may make the difference between healthy and marginal trees, and future grant awards will depend on these annual inspections. Finally, grant recipients who receive $100,006 or more in federal assistance from all sources must comply with federal Single Audit Act requirements, as detailed in OMB circular A-128 (for governments) or A-133 (for non-profit groups), available upon request. This means that you may have to hire an accounting firm to review your internal cost accounting procedures and compliance with federal regulations and laws. If applicable, a copy of the audit report should be sent to the TFS program administrator for review. Good luck with your project and if you have any questions or need more information, please contact me in College Station at 409/845-2641. Sincerely, Peter.D. Smith Grants Administrator /pds Enclosures cc: TFS Regional or District Forester RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO BE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN AND SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION TO THE 1995 URBAN FORESTRY GRANTS FOR TREE PLANTING, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City, in its Century Plan - Policy Plan, has found that the City should take necessary steps to protect the physical attributes which make Georgetown attractive; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that planting of trees along thoroughfares and in parks enhances the aesthetic appeal of the community; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit an application to the Small Business Administration National Tree Planting Program; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this action implements Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, and is not found to be inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policy as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. 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 to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to act as the authorized representative for the City to sign and submit a grant application to the 1995 Urban Forest Grant for Tree Planting on behalf of the City of Georgetown. SECTION 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney 1995. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Leo Wood Mayor Tree Planting Grant Resolution No. Page 1 of 1 Federal Program Grant Number: 95-12-04 CFDA Number: 59.045 Grant Amount: $7,500 Period: 10-01-95 to 9-30-99 Local Match: $7,500 1995 Urban Tree Planting Program A Cooperative Program Between the Texas Forest Service and the U.S. Small Business Administration GRANT AGREEMENT This Grant Agreement is hereby entered into by and between the Texas Forest Service (TFS), a Member of The Texas A&M University System, and the City of Georgetown, Texas, hereafter referred to as Grantee. Article 1. The purpose of this grant is to assist the Grantee with the purchase, planting, and care of 125 trees, of the sizes, species, and at the locations listed on the approved grant application. All funds must be used for this purpose and any modifications must be requested in writing and approved by the TFS. Grantee must raise the entire balance of funds necessary to complete the budget as proposed, from non-federal sources. Article 2. The $7,500 grant shall be paid on a reimbursement basis upon submission of approved cost records AND upon passing the field inspection by a TFS Forester. The amount paid will equal 50% of the approved project expenditures, not to exceed the full amount of the grant. The Grantee shall be responsible for a local match of at least $7,500, in cash purchases and in -kind contributions. Article 3. A non-refundable administrative fee, in the amount of $750, shall be paid by the Grantee to the Texas Forest Service at the time this Agreement is fully executed. No grant payments will be made until the fee has been paid. �. Article 4. The Grantee shall only let contracts associated with this grant to firms with 100 or fewer employees. All grant funds must be used for payments to small businesses for trees, planting services, and other materials and services relating to the establishment and maintenance of trees planted through this grant. Article 5. All landscape and shade tree planting included in this grant must be completed between November 1, 1995 and April 30, 1996, and palm tree plantings must be installed between March 1, 1996 and August 31, 1996. These trees must be planted on lands owned or controlled by local or state governments, and according to the specifications of Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorporated for all purposes. Article 6. The Grantee is responsible for maintaining all trees planted through this grant for three full years following planting, as detailed in Exhibit A. The Grantee must replace any dead trees within the period of this Agreement if the number of live trees falls below 90% of the original number planted and included in project cost reports. -2- Article 7. The Grantee must provide the TFS with an official resolution passed by its governing body that authorizes its representative to execute any agreements associated with this grant and commits the organization to the matching contribution as proposed in the grant application and listed above. Article 8. The Grantee must provide the TFS with a resolution or letter from the governing body of the entity that owns or controls the property where the trees are to be planted. This document must grant permission to the Grantee to install this planting and commit to providing reasonable protection for the trees. Article 9. The Grantee shall be responsible for providing proof of payment records for all purchases and in -kind contributions. These include source documentation such as cancelled checks, paid bills, payrolls, time and attendance records, contract documents, and third party donations. Article 10. Applicable federal cost principles (OMB A-87 for governments or OMB A-122 for nonprofit groups), federal program regulations (Code of Federal Regulations for Business Credit and Assistance) and the Grantee's grant application will be followed in determining reasonableness, allowability and allocation of costs. Article 11. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable federal laws, as specified in the Assurances and Certification. Grantee's procurement procedures must conform to standards defined in the Code of Federal Regulations for Business and Credit Assistance, 13 C.F.R. § 101.1-146.605 (1994). Article 12. The Grantee shall submit a project performance and financial report within 60 days of project completion or by October 31,1996, whichever comes first. Cost records must be retained for three years following conclusion of the project and after other pending matters are closed. Article 13. The State Forester and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized representatives, shall have the right of access to any pertinent books, documents, papers, or other records of subgrantee which are pertinent to the grant in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. Article 14. If a Grantee materially fails to comply with any term of this award, as stated above, the TFS may temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by Grantee, disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance, wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current award for the Grantee, withhold further awards for the program, demand repayment of the grant, or take other legally available remedies. Article 15. The Grantee may terminate this entire Agreement, without cause, prior to the expiration of the term set forth, upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. The Grantee must return any unexpended funds with the understanding that the Grantee will continue to maintain -3- any trees planted for the remainder of the three year term in accordance with Exhibit A. If the Grantee chooses to return the full amount of the grant, the Grantee is fully released of all obligations under this Agreement. Article 16. The Grantee agrees to hold the Texas Forest Service (TFS) harmless from any injury to person or property occurring in connection with project operations by Grantee, its agents, or employees, to the extent allowed by law. Article 17. If any part of this Agreement shall be deemed to be or shall, in fact, be invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable as applied, such circumstance shall not have the effect of rendering any other provision of this Agreement invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent whatever. Acceptance: We accept this grant subject to the terms and provisions stated above. Grantee: Signature Title Organization Date Grantor: Bruce R. Miles State Forester Texas Forest Service Date ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS The applicant hereby assures and certifies that he/she will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines, andrequirements including 13 C.F.K Part 143; OMB Circulars A-73, A-87, A-88, A-110, (or any regulations which are later promulgated to supplement or replace it), and A-130, as appropriate and as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also the applicant assures and certifies with respect to the grant/cooperative agreement that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of the Act no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. 3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -aided activity. 4. It will comply with requirements of the provision of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally assisted programs. 5. If it is a State of local governmental entity, that those of its employees whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency will comply with the relevant provisions of the Hatch Act. See U.S.C. Sections 1501-1503. 6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational institution employees of State and local governments. 7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for a private gain for themselves, or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 8. It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General through any authorized representative the access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal grantor agency concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other administrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-110 (and any regulations which are later promulgated to supplement or replace it.) C.F.R. Part 143 as appropriate. 10. This application does not propose any activities that would involve human beings who might be considered subjects, human material, or personal data from primary or secondary sources. 11. This is to hereby certify that this project does not have an effect on the environment such as on the following areas: natural resources, pollution, populations, and any adverse effect through the delivery of services. 12. This is to hereby acknowledge that the U.S. Small Business Administration has a royalty -free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license the reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use any copyrighted materials and reports which shall have been developed under this grant. The recipient also, hereby agrees to notify and provide three copies of any copyrighted materials developed under this grant to the Small Business Administration. 13. This hereby certifies that applicant possesses adequate grant management capabilities as required by OMB circulars and SBA Federal Assistance Administration Regulations and Guidelines in all of the following areas: fiscal administration, facilities management, management information, personnel, planning and budget, procurement and property management. 14. This hereby certifies that applicant meets the standards for fund control and accountability as prescribed in 13 C.F.R. Part 143 or OMB Circular A-110 (or any regulations which are later promulgated to supplement or replace it) as appropriate in accordance with the legal status of the applicant's organizational status and has established or can demonstrate the willingness and ability to establish procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the Treasury and their disbursement by the grantee if advance payment procedures are used. 15. It will ensure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating facilities and that it will notify the Federal grantor agency of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA. 16. It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93-234, 87 stat. 975, approved December 31, 1976. Section 102(a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of any Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area that has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area having special flood hazards. 17. It will assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), Executive Order 11593, and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer on the conduct of investigations, as necessary, to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are subject to adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the activity, and notifying the Federal grantor agency of the existence of any such properties, and by (b) complying with all requirements established by the Federal grantor agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such properties. 18. It will comply with the requirements which provide that no person it the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 19. It will comply with P.L. 93-112 and P.L. 93-516 which provide that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, bee denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 20. It will comply with P.L. 94-135 which provides that no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 2 21. Certification regarding debarment, suspension, and other responsibility matters: primary covered transactions. Appendix A - Certification Regarding Debarment. Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions Instructions for Certification 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set our below. The certification or explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction. 3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause of default. 4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to whom this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant leans that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 5. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible," "lower tier covered transaction," "participant," "person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction. 7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction," provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decided the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List. 9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction with a person that has been suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions (1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: (a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (b) have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgement rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State anti-trust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and (d) have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default. (2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Appendix B - Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions Instruction for Certification By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible," "lower tier covered transaction," "participant," "person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and 'voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participation further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 7 A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by the clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into�a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may purse available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. Certification Regarding Debarment. Suspension. Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Appendix C - Certification Regarding Compliance With Section 5153 of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, Public Law 100-690, Title V. Subtitle D By signing and submitting this proposal the applicant is providing the certification set out below. 1. The applicant hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by -- (A) publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the applicant's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employee for violations of such prohibition; (B) establishing a drug -free awareness program to inform employees about-- (i) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (ii) the grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (iv) the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (C) making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph (A); (D) notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph (A), that as a condition of employment is such grant, the employee will-- (i) abide by the terms of the statement; and (ii) notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than 5 days after such conviction; (E) notifying the granting agency within 10 days after receiving notice of a conviction under subparagraph (D)(ii) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction; (F) taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted-- (i) taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or (ii) requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; (G) making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (E), (F), and (G). The grantee shall insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant; Place of Performance (Street Address, City, County, State and zip code) 2. The applicant hereby certifies that, as a condition of this grant, he/she will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of controlled substance in conduction any activity with such grant. Appendix D - Certification, Regarding Lobb�g Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements The undersigned certifies, to the best of his/her 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 any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of and 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 of attempting to influence an officer of 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-111, "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 of 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. The applicant also certifies that the information in these assurances and certifications in support of this application is correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and the filing of this application has been duly authorized. (Legal Name of Applicant) (Address) (Signature of Authorized Officer) (Date of Application) 10 Council meeting _ December 12, 1995 Item No. /06 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Plat of a 20.006 acre tract in the William Roberts Survey, to be known as Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations. ITEM SUNMARY: The proposed 48 lot subdivision generally conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat with regard to design. One of the major issues of this plat is shared driveways for the residences along Champions Drive and Merion Drive. When the Concept Plan for this subdivision was reviewed it was determined by the City Council that a minor arterial street with shared residential access would be provided generally in the location of the proposed Champions Drive and Merion Drive. The method proposed by the applicant and recommended by the Commission involves centering a driveway on the common lot line of the lots that will share the driveway that is no wider than 24 feet, the standard driveway width. The shared driveway must continue from the back of the curb to the front lot line, at which point it may then split into two (2) separate driveways. This option is viable when used with side entry garages. The applicant states that he will deed restrict the subject lots to require side entry garages. Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Block D are proposed to have frontage on both Merion Drive and Hazeltine Cove, which are non -intersecting streets. This is prohibited by the standards for residential lots and a variance is requested to permit them. The only instance where double frontage residential lots are permitted is where they abut an arterial street and a local or collector street. In these instances access may only be taken from the local or collector street. On this plat, the rear lot lines of the subject lots are on Merion Drive, a collector street. Had this street been classified as an arterial street as originally recommended, the double frontage would be permitted and this variance request would not be necessary. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: The December 5, 1995, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was rescheduled to December 7. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to assembling the City Council packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. As a result of the late Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Technical Issues were not addressed, but will be required to be addressed prior to staff approval. 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 Final Plat Submitted Bv: _�ell Edward Aarry, AICP - Director Divisio of Developm it Services Hildy L. gma, AI Chief Planner FINAL PLAT OF A 20.006 ACRE TRACT IN THE WILLIAM ROBERTS SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS BERRY CREEK, SECTION ELEVEN, PHASE TWO, WITH VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Bob Wunsch, Managing Partner Berry Creek Partnership 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 FAX: 930-9317 AGENT: Mr. Charles Wirtanen, P.E. 30444 Berry Creek Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-9995 FAX: 930-9317 REQUEST: Final Plat of a 20.006 acre tract in the William Roberts Survey, to be known as Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two, as recorded in Volume 2231, Page 114 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: Location: Champions Drive southwest of Berry Creek Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: This tract is located out of the City so zoning does not apply. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase One, single family residential (out of City) South: Historic Acres Subdivision, single family residential (out of City) East: Berry Creek, Section Eleven, future development (out of City) West: Berry Creek, Section Eleven, future development (out of City) Final Plat - Berry Creek, Sec. Eleven, Ph. Two December 6, 1995 F#95-23 /File:BC-11-2.FP Page 1 Proposed Use: 48 single family residential lots Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as Intensity Level 3. The proposed development can be accommodated within the assigned intensity. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Concept Plan for Berry Creek, Section Eleven was approved by City Council on December 8, 1992. A Preliminary Plat was approved by City Council on March 28, 1995, and the Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase I, Final Plat was approved by Planning and Zoning Commission on April 4, 1995. The Final Plat has not been considered by the City Council yet due to some outstanding conditions of approval. ANALYSIS: The proposed 48 lot subdivision generally conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat with regard to design. SEE EXHIBIT C One of the major issues of this plat is shared driveways for the residences along Champions Drive and Merion Drive. When the Concept Plan for this subdivision was reviewed it was determined by the City Council that a minor arterial street with shared residential access would be provided generally in the location of the proposed Champions Drive and Merion Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that it be a minor arterial street with no residential access. During the review of the Preliminary Plat, a variance was approved to allow the subject streets to have 64 foot right-of-way widths with 44 foot wide roadways. The Concept Plan approval required an 80 foot right-of-way width. The applicant requested the variance to the right-of-way width in order to create lots with greater depth than if an 80 foot wide right-of-way was provided. The applicant was offered two (2) options to design a system of sharing driveways. The option chosen by the applicant involves centering a driveway on the common lot line of the lots that will share the driveway that is no wider than 24 feet, the standard driveway width. The shared driveway must continue from the Final Plat - Berry Creek, Sec. Eleven, Ph. Two December 6, 1995 F//95-23 /File:BC-11-2.FP Page 2 back of the curb to the front lot line, at which point it may then split into two (2) separate driveways. This option would be required if the street is constructed as proposed with a 64 foot right-of-way width and a 44 foot pavement width. The applicant states that this option is made possible by a variance which was approved by the City Council at its November 28, 1995, meeting, which allows up to 65 percent impervious coverage on several lots including these in Section Eleven. By increasing the amount of impervious coverage permitted, side entry garages can be used rather than front entry garages, since side entry garages require longer driveways and result in more impervious coverage. Side entry garages are also more conducive to shared driveways rather than front entry garages. The applicant states that he will deed restrict the subject lots to require the side entry garages. The reason for having shared driveways is to reduce the number of access points along roads which could experience relatively high traffic volumes. While shared access points will not reduce the frequency of vehicles entering or exiting the driveways, it will reduce the number of locations where a potential conflict can occur, and therefore reduce the hazard. The curve in Hazeltine Drive located near Lot 10 of Block D is actually a street intersection and therefore shall not intersect at an angle with a variation greater than ten (10) degrees from a right angle. The angle indicated on the plat is approximately 110 degrees. The applicant indicates that the intersection will be corrected to comply with the standard. Note #12 states that Lot 1 of Block D shall take access from Merion Drive. Given the length of frontage of Lot 1 on Merion Drive compared to the length of the frontage on Champions Drive and the fact that vehicles exiting the driveway onto Merion drive may not be visible to vehicles approaching from Champions Drive, a safer location for the driveway for Lot 1 of Block D is on Champions Drive. Note #12 shall be revised to reflect this and the proposed location shall be indicated on the plat. Final Plat - Berry Creek, Sec. Eleven, Ph. Two F#95-23 /File:BC-11-2.FP December 6, 1995 Page 3 VARIANCES: 34020 C.3.a Double Frontage Lots Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Block D are proposed to have frontage on both Merion Drive and Hazeltine Cove, which are non - intersecting streets. This is prohibited by the standards for residential lots. The only instance where double frontage residential lots are permitted is where they abut an arterial street and a local or collector street. In these instances access may only be taken from the local or collector street. On this plat, the rear lot lines of the subject lots are on Merion Drive, a collector street. Had this street been classified as an arterial street as originally recommended, the double frontage would be permitted and this variance request would not be necessary. If staff's recommendation to identify the access points along Champions Drive and Merion Drive and a variance to permit the double frontage lots are approved, then no access points shall be identified for these lots' frontages along Merion Drive. A note shall also be added to the plat clarifying the identification of those access points on Champions Drive and Merion Drive. 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." Final Plat - Berry Creek, See. Eleven, Ph. Two December 6, 1995 Ft/95-23 /File:BC-11-2.FP 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." 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 December 291 1995, 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. PRIOR TO RECORDING: 1. Access easements for shared driveways shall be identified on the plat based on the option chosen by the applicant or recommended by the Commission for Lots 26-29 of Block A, Lots 1 and 2 and 9-18 of Block C, and Lots 12 and 13 of Block D. 2. Note # 12 shall include no access to Merion Drive for Lots 4 -6 and Lot 1 of Block D. 3. The signature blocks for the City Secretary and the Mayor shall be changed to reflect the current ones indicated in Appendix C of the Subdivision Regulations. 4. The rear building setback lines of Lots 4 - 6 of Block D shall be labeled as 25 feet. 5. The northwest intersection of Hazeltine Drive shall be corrected such that it has an angle with a variation of nor greater than ten (10) degrees from a right angle. 1. The fees in lieu of parkland dedication must be paid. The fee for 48 lots is $10, 800. 2. An approved Water Pollution Abatement Plan must be submitted to the City. 3. The document number reference for the temporary turn - Final Plat - Berry Creek, Sec. Eleven, Ph. Two December 6, 1995 F#95-23 /File:BC-11-2.FP Page 5 around easement must be included on the plat. 4. The City shall receive authorization from FEMA that the Flood Insurance Rate Map has been amended to contain the 100 year flood plain within the proposed drainage easements. 5. Either the public improvements shall be constructed or fiscal surety shall be provided for their construction in accordance with Section 28000 of the Subdivision Regulations. 6. The Phase 1 public improvements shall either be constructed or fiscal surety shall be provided for their construction in accordance with Section 28000 of the Subdivision Regulations. 7. If the option proposed by the applicant is approved by the Commission and Council, deed restrictions indicating that the lots using shared driveways are required to have side entry garages must be submitted to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Final Plat of Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council Consideration. Approval of a variance to Section 34020 C.3.a to allow double frontage lots provided the plat indicates that there is no access to Merion Drive from the three (3) subject lots after making the required findings of fact. P&Z ACTION: The December 5, 1995, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was rescheduled to December 7. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to assembling the City Council packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. Final Plat - Berry Creek, Sec. Eleven, Ph. Two December 6, 1995 F1/95-23 /File:BC-11-2.FP Page 6 EXHIBIT A --- , EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': November 8, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Berry Creek Section Eleven, Phase Two Final Plat 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 20.01 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 20.01 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 48,014 13,004 80 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 48,014 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 13,004 Maximum Trip Ends: 80 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER 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 41 48 48 74 91 74 250 139,984 155,891 258,142 115,419 131,908 73,868 30,778 147.737 131,908 842,358 12,003,600 45 52 52 74 83 67 213 141,347 156,673 260,078 116,106 142,900 79,779 27,091 147,772 142,900 928,850 13,003,900 (b) (c) MAXIMUM PER DEV TRANSPORTATION UNITS REGS 134 41 40 2Q M 14-5 a 90 48 194 74 74 290 35 35 579 94 67 581 58 95,153 95,153 5,143 5,143 111,1441 111,144 24,798 24,798 31,382 31,382 4,845 4,845 7,038 7,038 16,665 16,665 17,4881 17,488 133,373 133,373 307,785 i 307,785 i I (d) DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED/UN IT 40 housing units 4M housing units 48 housing units 74 housing units 35 housing units 67 housing units 58 rooms 95,153 square feet 5,143 square feet 111,144 square feet 24,798 square feet 31,382 square feet 4,845 square feet 7,038 square feet 16,665 square feet 17,488 square feet 133,373 square feet 307,785 square feet EXHIBIT G 5 i 1 S87.45'32-E 23 00 •r .W 23r-11208'- �9 i h 00 ;� n 20 ����' a 8 g5 26 14 0- g s N=10 229 596.27 // �� E- 3,131.356 95 0e Ex_ 100 YR fL000 PLAIN i 1 7 �17l3; 29• i Q�� p S 25.28' ELF OPERATING PARTNER:'iHIP. L.P. �p >J. \ N7g5 FACT I-D, 33.054 ACRES 66 °s'• 1 6 �- L tiy' °c esp0 a_o.00' N75 4q W 163 E' G BERRY CPEE;; 'AR I:�ER O F� \ 5� E 52-44•µ�� ' 55 1 .� /n ?C:RES VOL 2677, PG. 323 �6. °o ti4 Set, - 7'16E oo !y'� ,2o B`^� W _, 1g834 °ti V01 �231. O /- N75� 1p0. 1 3 / 10 Ile, g0 p0� a 0 n pryp S� 'O'1 9 i7' 31 a N p ,� �p,40 O`s�„/L` , �c^,I,Cf g0°°� ; .0 32 _ 30 4 ?- y °° `C,� + �' �' i` 77 f 0 229 39 7.32 O� ?J. N z / / N .F COURSE�o °o n 1� �s0 E=13.132.2tt n �- 33 S�b.YL� OP.U.EC52- 5� 'j3c51 C18 S 3 4j 3 J 1 \ •�°p �, n°'°iO,P �`� o. c+.35�g0�� Ni6E C26 S<7:8.03 E E36.2.72 _ J4'O-Cv/ m $ v S F 177 • ry/oo�' "�j k.� �" ✓ h 60 (o`PUE 41 J1 a v 21 �r ^ ,0 �L 3 % _> o p0 11 w.) l % S77 Z 8 ,n �� 9 522 R 0 C c., / 28'3 �a ro ,LSO ►A 0 r0� r� a JCJ -n�` <. 25 g.E. \ -00ul N 5°a, lS0 7EUPORARr S Z 00� c �•\3°pO '44 j< p o; m;�o "1 V TURN -AROUND I o (N > `LiC50 "� g0 `•E j511 S2 n ga ma u J ���5 8�.2 2050� 39 ��, 3 . % 1 S IIUJ( j E F EASEMENT 16 p0' " S 12i C i21 o n i i I N8112� g0 00- �<0' / (8.172 So. FT.) 104o � I �6 C17 P►�•75 ,95 n I I 00 g1-' - o O /Q. L N N ' G O� �T.1 EI N 90 �� 3 zo W 00 O } VOL o IN89'17'28 W la 00' g� <`, o. 7 1 7S'0 g2"40_S�. W) m 55' n M- .o - to , 95 ; 2` N 8� ; o , P /-a _� + n Vt 100.00 c� W I K C o M o a . Cl, PG.----- N 1 P \1� O ,(� ,! H O I r Q ool 40' ��. `�Q C' o� 9 \t o 830E-V6AL�9 �'�s �2 = 4 I 1.o o 4 _ -OD 5 �11 o Q' O m �` E 10 ' d� l o n m o cn> T co 1 z� J to i o rn g n l 15 43 21' C59� \, r v Y Q 1 3 o g 4� "US 90. o. v N 1 3» ; S S o m� 1 � z25' 00- I o 0'3 N� i. m 1 0 <, Ilo.4-5 21'E 95 o� �o `v j ' 1. ?Q a 1 t o 1 l� 9 o C6 a • . . h N NHS i o N !�. 9' o 1 N ,90 0. Z �173.99�yi °a rn j %v g5�i iI� o. N 6 'V� _^ C ?1�Z� 7 �80�� 260p0 o� I �.s e.E. (50 Jti' I i o 0 8}241 E ` ; 'ml� ct o ^ ¢Y �, 20 eJ - F C6 - -79.25 cry CS N8In2 2 ' . R 0 W.) 41 m ^< a n N6 16g 8 ; C 1� d o 1 3 ,z Ci �5 20 0010311E -C66 s$172 27" _ g0.� 1 2 C30 3.25' 00- �1 w S8112'27W ;1M o 4 W c� °' / r g` j z-,C67 _ - .90` W 182.90' 2j`N 5E90. 1 n 23.94' 17. I o ( t 25 584 24 07- ^„ 1 17 OO io 45^ a ; ; 1 1i" 4' G68 C31 ..^^UU �1'N� �' (64 R.O.W.) 58 9p p0.� �90 r25• e.� °= 1- 137. v ^ o �59RM` C9 5g.30 1 r"' 0 6 a 1 10 N 00' . 18Og4 bo S84.2 '07'W 1829 a._C43- 42'- �j'1 i om Q C4 -7 i w 1 on E 43 ; o 0 42 0. N s n` .,1\5 724 w 10 9°-00 �4 `' o. CJ a. J N780530 a \ m ;n Z 574.3 C c,0 63.9 W- - 9S• t% ^ p a 'rid =' p�'i o5g� 7 y C32 t C45= r r. 0 25 g= n1 1 0 e n '' ,p g� 280.25. p U 82.52 4 E c, 353 26 -g° p0io. rni� n 1 2 n ^ 1 1 a MCI toi `^ 68.30 90.02 578 07'27W. Z C12 NT4 S, 2 sl 3T,24•W �90 00 �2S °� 14 n Nn 13 v I '� C� t o� jg 0,• 90 00 S82'18'S5• If 175.41' S)476' 24.46' 15 rt ,e -� 107 49' sg1 1727'W 1� 78' 4Qeq `'k N472.104•W v 8C.2i -� 0 16 r' J l 4B• 90.00• -W 3 1• 72.10' �o' P\ 1 ^1 in 1 - J)s, SS,w S84Z4.p7 17.9 Ti n' o m `�' .� �6? •12 uANUEL LozANa �-n p r,-r 5 575�1fi v L0ZAN0 18 r' 1 `� �� g0. 4 3 6 24 I 20 z \.✓ q0 574 �, 14 W 32 OAteEI vRfBEI BERRY CREEK SECTION ELEVEN, PHASE TWO rrl Council meeting -December 12, 1995 Item No. . - fA - AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consider approval of a variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, Lot 3, located at 13th and Laurel Streets ITEM SUMMARY: Lot 3 is part of a three (3) lot subdivision that was approved as University Place by the Commission and Council .at their November meetings. The subdivision was approved with no variances. Just prior to Commission consideration of the plat, but after the public notification had been initiated, the applicant notified staff of their concern regarding the buildable area on Lot 3. This is the smallest lot of the subdivision, and it is a corner lot. Therefore, 25 foot front yard setbacks are required on both street frontages. The applicant has requested a variance to Section 34020 F.4. and Table 34020 to allow the front yard setback on 13th Street to be less than 25 feet. The University Place Subdivision is located in an old, well -established residential area. The Snyder Addition contains no building setback requirements. Further, the homes in this neighborhood were built before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted and therefore they do not conform to the building setback requirements of that ordinance either. It seems reasonable to allow the home on Lot 3 to be built in a manner that is consistent with the development patterns already existing in the area. Based on the location of a corner monument found at 13th and Laurel Streets, it appears that the existing structure on Lot 3 is built on the property line along 13th Street: Using this monument as the benchmark, the house and carport at the northeast corner of 13th and Olive Streets are approximately three (3) and five (5) feet, respectively, from the property line. The house on the northeast corner of 13th and Laurel Street is approximately 15 feet from the property line. Based on an average of the setbacks of the two houses, the front yard setback for Lot 3 should be nine (9) feet. This methodology is consistent with a provision of the Zoning Ordinance that permits exceptions to the yard regulations of that ordinance. Along with the requested variance, the Commission also considered a variance to Section 33044 regarding the location of a driveway relative to the intersection. In this case, the driveway cannot be from 13th Street with the reduced setback or any vehicle in the driveway will extend into the right-of-way. Further, given the width of the lot, a driveway onto Laurel Street will not conform to the required 60 foot separation. The alternatives are to either consider a variance to Section 33044 to allow the driveway to be on Laurel Street, or to allow the driveway to be on 13th Street provided the garage is setback a minimum of 20 feet regardless of what the front yard setback becomes with the requested variance. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was delayed until December 73, 1995. Therefore, no recommendation was available at the time the City Council packets were prepared. The Commission's recommendation will be provided to the City Council at the December 12 meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report Submitted Bv: Edward J. a ry, AICP - irector ildy L. ingma, AICP Division o Development Services Chief Planner VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF BLOCK 9 OF THE SNYDER ADDITION, TO BE KNOWN AS UNIVERSITY PLACE, LOT 3, LOCATED AT 13TH AND LAUREL STREETS OWNER/APPLICANT: Ms. Tonie Eady, Secretary/Treasurer Capitan Enterprises, Inc. 12434 FM2244 Austin, TX 263-1124 FAX: 263-2292 AGENT: Ms. Clare Easley Moreland Properties 912 Forest Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 480-0848 FAX: 480-9761 REQUEST: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, Lot 3 as recorded in Volume 1230, Page 531 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: Location: Located at 13th and Laurel Streets. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: A vacant garage apartment remains on this site. The entire vacant parcel at SH29 and Laurel Street was approved as the University Place Subdivision at the November Commission and Council meetings. Existing Zoning: RS, Residential single family Proposed Use: One (1) single family lot. Surrounding Uses North: Southwestern University (RP) and Zoning: South: Single family residences and duplex (RS and RM-1) East: Single family residences and duplex (RS and RM-1) West: Single family residences (RS) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as Intensity Level 3. The proposed development can be Short Form Final Plat - University Place December 6, 1995 VR 95-33/File: UNVR-PLC.VAR Page 1 CM:HLK accommodated within this intensity assignment. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: Lot 3 is part of a three (3) lot subdivision that was approved as University Place by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council at their November meetings. The subdivision was approved with no variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Just prior to Commission consideration of the plat, but after the public notification had been initiated, the applicant notified staff of their concern regarding the buildable area on Lot 3. This is the smallest lot of the subdivision, approximately 7,200 square feet, with dimensions of 61 feet by 117 feet. Further, it is a corner lot, so 25 foot setbacks are required on both street frontages by Section 34020 F.4. Given these facts, the buildable area on this lot is approximately 2,260 square feet, or 72 feet by 31 feet in size. The applicant has requested a variance to Section 34020 F.4. and Table 34020 to allow the front yard setback on 13th Street to be less than 25 feet. The University Place Subdivision is located in an old, well -established residential area. The Snyder Addition, the original plat in this area, contains no building setback requirements. Further, the homes in this neighborhood were built well before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1968, therefore they do not conform to the building setback requirements of that ordinance either. It seems reasonable to allow the home to be built on Lot 3 in a manner that is consistent with the development patterns already existing in the area. One way to determine what those setbacks should be can be found in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 6.201.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the following as an exception to the yard regulations established by the ordinance: "where the building farthest from the street provides a front yard not more than ten (10) feet deeper than the building closest to the street, then the front yard for the frontage is and remains an average of the then existing front yards". This method, while not strictly applicable to the subject property, seems to be a reasonable way to establish a setback for the 13th Street frontage on Lot 3. Based on the location of a corner monument found at 13th and Laurel Streets, it appears that the existing structure on Lot 3 is built on the Short Form Final Plat - University Place VR 95-33/File: UNVR-PLC.VAR CWHLK December 6, 1995 Page 2 property line along 13th Street and, possibly, into the right-of-way along Laurel Street. Using this monument as the benchmark, the house and carport at the northeast corner of 13th and Olive Streets are approximately three (3) feet and five (5) feet, respectively, from the right-of-way of 13th Street. The house on the northeast corner of 13th and Laurel Streets is approximately 15 feet from the right-of-way. Based on an average of the setbacks of the two houses, the front yard setback for Lot 3 should be nine (9) feet. SEE EXHIBIT B If a variance is approved to allow a reduced front yard setback on 13th Street, the condition established by plat note #12 must be reconsidered. This plat note requires that access to Lot 3 be from 13th Street. This was suggested by staff during the review of the plat in order to ensure that the driveway could be located 60 feet from the intersection as required by Section 33044 of the Subdivision Regulations. However, whenever the Commission and Council have approved variances to allow the secondary front yard setback of a corner lot to be reduced, they have required that the driveway be from the frontage that has the full 25 foot front yard setback. This ensures that any car parked in the driveway will be located fully on the property and not in the right-of- way (assuming a 20 foot car length). The alternatives on this lot would be to either consider a variance to Section 33044 to allow the driveway to be on Laurel Street where it probably cannot meet the required 60 foot separation or to allow the driveway to be on 13th Street provided the garage is setback a minimum of 20 feet regardless of what the front yard setback becomes with the requested variance. STAFF RECOMIVMNDATION: Approval of a variance to Section 34020 F.4. and Table 34020 for the Resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, Lot 3, thereby allowing a nine (9) foot front yard setback along 13th Street, and to Section 33044 regarding the separation of the driveway and the intersection, after making the required findings of fact, provided plat note #12 is revised to state that the driveway access to Lot 3 may be from either 13th or Laurel Streets; however, if it is from 13th Street the garage must be setback a minimum of 20 feet. 11 O_ 7 ♦ l"TTl11kT_ December 6, 1995 Page 3 EXHIBIT A I N7 li � 'T 1 r I, 11 \.AL �I PLACE RESTJB PORTION OF BLOCK 9 SNYDER ADDITION i I i i � 1 I I I I i 1 J 122 l I 1I UNIVERSITY A'V-ENUE N 2144.9W N 21"-9628 E 1126.9768 f ' 309.702E S tOWOCr E 160.73 w5rar c W x a � ' LOT 1 i O = �_ 1 �u 1 $ I 39.91. 160.47 ry LOT 2 °ti i x e SS'S-C w S 89'S7'S� E . C N 1964.8623 BIDG. U E 112&371620' GIRvrnLOT I-Vrw 3YOL 401. PG. �l5' SLOG. i LN.f E 1309.7792 117.30 s , 13TH STREET 8{ NOTES: 1 Water, Wastewater and electricity service for all lots sholl be provided by the City of Georgetown. Texas. 2 Total no. of Lots 3 3 Total lineor feet of street 0 4 Total no. of acres 0.9154 5 Owner: CAPITAN ENTERPRISES 6) Maximum impervious cover ptr lot Is 40 % 7) Side building setback lines will be a total of 15' with a minimum of 5' on one side 8) Current zoning for subject tracts in residential 9) Alf lots will be developed in compliance with the Century Plan - Development Plan 10) Site is designated as Intensity Level 3 11 Construction of a sidewalk will be required along Un(versi'y Ave. when a home Is constructed on Lot 1 12) Access to I-ot 1 will be required to be from Lourel Stree! and access to La' 3 will be reouired to be from 13th street. 1.3) Surveyor: Herman Crichton, R.P.L.S. 4046 107 North Lampasas Round Rock, Texas 78664 0 xil x 7 LAUREL STREET IF— — — - I I ow I 101 I Lli (D OLIVE Sl HOU-09-1995 16 : 218 MORELAND PROPERTIES 512 480 9761 P . 02%03 DOCUMENTATION OF )BASIS FOR REQUESTED VA RIASCE 11/6/95 Date: Applicant: Capitan Enterpris This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) of the Subdivision Regulations. Give a brief description of the variance requested: The variance requested is a new building set back line on the 13th St side of Lot3, University Place, specifically a reduction from 25' to 101. You have requested a variance to the design stwi.dards of the Subdivision Regulations_ In order to be able to recommend an.d approve such a variance, Section 60070 B. of the Regulations, requires that the Planning and ZoR.Ing 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 deilberations 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. I. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? The reduced set back line will bring construction on the lot into an appropriate distance from the street in keeping with the existing homes on 13th Street in the same area. 2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your arts�ver to be supportable. It will be diminished in no manner, see#1. ��. What are the. hu..dshlps ire olved`> blow were those hardships created`' How are those hardships different from those afFec.ting the rest of the pciblic. faced w th the. enforcement of this same provision'? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the, hardship cla1rr7Gtl is solely of an oconomic nature. The hardship will be to locate a residence on the lot, which is 60' wide, with a 25' set back line on two sides as well as comply with the driveway restrictions. Revised 12/94 fl-1OU-013-1995 16 : 2 1-110RELAHD PROPERTIES 51122 480 9761 P . 03i 03 4. If the requested variance it 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 aliswer to be supportable. Absolutely not. The other homes in the area already enjoy this privilege. 5. How is the public; interest affected? Not at all. 6_ List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the. variance_ This lot is a standard 60'x120' lot on the corner of 13th and Laurel. An attractive home can be built on the lot, appropriate for the area with this variance. Without it, the house will have to conform to a minimal lot area which will detract from the homes wound it. 7. How «gill the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? 'there will still exist appropriate building set back lines $. HOW Will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? This lot will enjoy the same privileges as the other lots on the street. Revised 12/94 Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. 61 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Plat of an 18.48 Acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight. ITEM SUMMARY: This 74 lot subdivision is proposed for use as Sun City's vacation villas. The villas' function will be similar to a hotel; however, the design and appearance will be consistent with that of single family residential homes. The villas will be sold as residences when their use is no longer necessary. The plat conforms to the standards for lot and street design; however, the plat differs slightly from the approved Preliminary Plat for Phase 1. The Preliminary Plat showed villa lots where the 2.9 acre commercial tract is shown on the Final Plat at the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard. The Second Revised Concept Plan, to be considered by the City Council on hte same agenda, includes this change. The applicant indicates that the Neighborhood Eight plat will be recorded in two (2) phases. Generally, Larkspur Lane and all of the lots fronting on it will be included in the first phase. The remaining area will be included in the next phase. The plat must be revised to indicate the boundaries of the phases and schedule of the phases. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: The December 5, 1995, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was rescheduled to December 7. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to assembling the City Council packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. As a result of the late Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Technical Issues were not addressed, but will be required to be addressed prior to staff approval. 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 Final Plat Submitted Bv: Edward J. rry, AICP - irector Division Q'f Development Services Hildy L. K gma, AICP Chief Planner FINAL PLAT OF AN 18.48 ACRE TRACT IN THE DANIEL MONROE SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD EIGHT, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF DEL WEBB BOULEVARD AND SUN CITY BOULEVARD OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Company 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6776 AGENT: Mr. Scott Smiley, P.E. Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. 5000 Plaza On The Lake, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746 329-5002 FAX: 329-0802 REQUEST: Final Plat of an 18.48 Acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight as recorded in Volume 2679, Page 744 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located southwest of the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: RP, Residential Planned Proposed Use: 67 single family residences, seven (7) open space tracts. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Sun City Georgetown, future phase (currently undeveloped) South: Proposed Sun City Park Pavilion (RP) East: Proposed Sun City Village Center (C-2A) Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight December 6, 1995 /1FP95-24/File:SCG8.FP Page 1 CM/CS West: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2B (currently undeveloped, to be annexed) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level 2 by a Plan Amendment approved by City Council on December 13, 1994. The proposed development on this property can be accommodated within the development allowances assigned to the entire 5,300 acres. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: Section 26050 does not require notification for a Final Plat that has been considered in some other form within the previous year. HISTORY: A Revised Concept Plan was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan, which is consistent with the proposed land use of this subject Final Plat, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995, and the City Council on November 28, 1995. ANALYSIS: This 74 lot subdivision is proposed for use as Sun City's vacation villas. The villas' function will be similar to a hotel; however, the design and appearance will be consistent with that of single family residential homes. The villas will be sold as residences when their use is no longer necessary. The plat conforms to the standards for lot and street design; however, the plat differs slightly from the approved Preliminary Plat for Phase 1. The Preliminary Plat showed villa lots where the 2.9 acre commercial tract is shown on the Final Plat at the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard. SEE EXHIBIT C The Second Revised Concept Plan, approved by the Commission and Council, included this change. As established in the review of the Preliminary Plat of Phase 2, any lower classification street that intersects with one of the arterial streets must be designed with a 60 foot wide right-of- way for 150 feet from the intersection with the arterial then transition to a 50 foot width over a distance of an additional 150 Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight December 6, 1995 #FP95-24/File:SCG8.FP Page 2 CM/CS feet. The width of Larkspur Lane at its intersection with Del Webb Boulevard is 90 feet, but reduces to 50 feet over a distance of approximately 150 feet. The right-of-way shall be designed consistent with the established policy. The applicant indicates that the Neighborhood Eight plat will be recorded in two (2) phases. Generally, Larkspur Lane and all of the lots fronting on it will be included in the first phase. The remaining area will be included in the next phase. The plat must be revised to indicate the boundaries of the phases and schedule of the phases. 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 December 29, 1995, 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. 1. Construction plans for the public improvements in this subdivision are currently being reviewed by the City. 2. The plat shall be revised to indicate the two (2) phases that will be recorded separately with a proposed phasing schedule indicated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Final Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. P & Z ACTION: The December 5, 1995, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was rescheduled to December 7. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight December 6, 1995 #FP95-24/File:SCG8.FP Page 3 CM/CS assembling the City Council packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight #FP95-24/File : SCG 8 . FP CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 4 EXHIBIT A { \{ 4\ \ ; Ln o; hood N `• a r rA hod 2 m _ Neighborhood 1 a-, Neigh \ r REEK j r 0 JQ 4 Cjal� GQ j C• � N I r N14hood 1 ,� 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 5,314.00 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD 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 ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 12,753,600 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 3,454,100 Maximum Trip Ends: 21,256 5. EFFECTIVE ALLOWABLE SYSTEM INTENSITIES: GPD/Acre Water: 2,400 GPD/Acre Wastewater: 650 Trip Ends/Acre Traffic: 4 6. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT BASED ON GIVEN MIX OF LAND USES: (b) (a) TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND (1) LAND USES I -ACRES- WATER WASTEWATEF TRANSP SF I btached arge 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 I 0 0 0 Mobile Home 1 0 0 0 Lodging I 0 0 0 Institutional I 29.15 69,960 18,948 117 Church 1 -with day care I 0 0 0 -w/o day care 1 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, Restaurant I 0 0 0 1 Retail, Store I 0 0 0 1 Employment Centers I 0 0 0 1 Warehouse I 0 0 0 1 Mini -Warehouse I 0 0 01 Greenbelt ' I - Sub -Total 5,314.00 ---------- ---------- - --I Road Right -of -Way TOTAL 5,314.00 (c) (d) (e) (1) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT WATER WASTEWATEF TRANSP I UNITS I REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT (2) 0 0 I 0 1 I 0 1 I 0 I 0 housing (units in this section should be multiplied by 1000) feet feet feet feet feet feet eet eet eet eet eet mmmmmm� EXHIBIT C 10.733.630 36T- 991 /9.V DE i- F 8 x 0-POLi-VT 5 vcl L OA4E W. -961 C-) n C' TRACT �) 0 c0i- TRACT A % SPACE AND D. E. OPEN \ A - a, f- .10 \ // - OPEN SPACE AND D. E. ZONED RP)- S, 7 (ZONED RP) 75.012 So.F7, `AE W,!E zt SE NOTE 20. f /0 N72 07-30E 378. 74 SO -. " . , I i t TRACT . .�l I f _. I, . I - 9 . :- . ?; 0 7 1 1 OPEN SPACE AND D.E. OPEN RP) roe $ ZONED . . . . . . . 'SEE MO,E IO.r� j .V" VERBENA DRIVE '76 %A: 63 61 S .9 0 J 4C4 Id IN -?s .66 1 lo I.,— TRACT C- )EN SPACE AND 0. E. 1 ZONED -?6 -, lz cpjR LANE C9� RP) 7 7, s. a- sc ;* - , 7 VOPLY TRACT -D- S/ OPEN SPACE AND D.E. lb I lo A 2. G,. (ZONED RP' '19 2.31 O3() -9 co 'S' TP4CT 140 0 2. -t, OPEN SPLI.-F AND 0 W, � -% , *Y A/6 QD tAA " 671 34 L -�6' S 64-03-09 vi 25 /TRACT -G soms m F. WF88 OPEN SPACE AN Council meetingdate: December 12 1995 Item N V o. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Second reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 93-42 to extend the time period for payment of assessments on East 1-35 Frontage Road ITEM SUMMARY This ordinance extends the time period for payment of assessments from five to seven years after completion of the frontage road improvements and acceptance by the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT We are treating these funds as a specially authorized investment of the Electric Fund Contingency 5 to 7 years Reserve. It will not have a material effect on operations. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance. Submitted By: Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-42 TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS ON EAST 1-35 FRONTAGE ROAD WHEREAS, on December 14, 1993, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 93-42 levying assessments on certain properties abutting the East 1-35 Frontage Road Project; determining the method of apportionment; establishing the terms and conditions for payment of the assessments; authorizing the issuance of certificates of assessment; and establishing an effective date; and WHEREAS, Section 4.a. of the Ordinance set the time for payment of the assessments at a set for a period of five years; and WHEREAS, the City desires to extend the time or payment of the assessments to a period of seven years; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the extension of the time period for payments of the assessments is in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: 1. Ordinance No. 93-42 is hereby amended in Section 4.a. to read as follows: The assessments shall be due and payable over a period of seven years in annual installments to begin after completion of the frontage road improvements and acceptance by the City. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 28th day of November, 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 12th day of December, 1995. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary East 1-35 Frontage Road Assessment Ordinance No. Page 1 of 2 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: 2 Leo Wood, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney East 1-35 Frontage Road Assessment Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2 Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. I? AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Concept Plan of an 11.85 acre tract in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed Concept Plan divides the 11.85 acre area into Phases One and Two that are scheduled to be developed in Spring of 1996 and Fall of 1996 respectively. Of the 36 proposed lots, 35 will be used for single family residences and the other lot for a stormwater detention pond. The proposed subdivision streets conform to the standards for street design. There are two (2) streets outside of the Concept Plan boundary that stub -out into the proposed subdivision and do not meet current standard. As a condition of Final Plat approval, the portions of the Georgetown View Lane and Rabbit Run which are outside of the Concept Plan boundary will be constructed to current standard. The stormwater detention pond is proposed to be located in Phase Two of the subdivision; however, its use will be needed as soon as Phase One is developed. Its proposed location can be permitted provided easements are dedicated through instruments separate from the Phase One Final Plat to permit the drainage of stormwater from Phase One into the unplatted property and the pond must be constructed with the public improvements of Phase One. There are no roadways indicated on the Future Traffic System Map of the Century Plan that conflict with the proposed subdivision. The transportation needs of the proposed subdivision appear to be adequately served by the three (3) access points into the subdivision. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the Concept Plan for Pleasant Valley Estates provided the Technical Issue is addressed prior to City Council consideration. The attached Concept Plan does not address the Technical Issue that requires the electricity provider to be indicated; however, the applicant has indicated that he has chosen the City of Georgetown as such. Since this requires a minor change to the plan and the plan has already been delayed from City Council consideration by two (2) weeks, the staff will not require the revision until after the City Council takes action on the request. 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 BiL. Edward J. a ry, AICP - irector Division f Development Services ! (:� . - r,L-,V,�a Hildy L. gma, AICP Chief Planner CONCEPT PLAN OF AN 11.85 ACRE TRACT IN THE LEWIS DYCHES SURVEY TO BE KNOWN AS PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES, LOCATED ON GEORGETOWN VIEW LANE AND SUNRISE VALLEY LANE OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Vincent L. Bove 2101 Wychwood Drive Austin, Texas 78746 328-9252 AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell, P.E. Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 863-4521 FAX 863-4523 REQUEST: Concept Plan of an 11.85 acre tract in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates, and recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on Georgetown View Lane, off F.M. 1460 SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: This property is located outside the City limits so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: 36 lots, 35 for single family residential use, one (1) for a stormwater detention pond. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Pleasant Valley, single family residential (out of City) South: Rabbit Hollow, single family residential (out of City) East: Georgetown South, Phase One, single family residential (out of City) West: Rabbit Hollow, single family residential (out of City) Concept Plan - Pleasant Valley Estates CP-95-04 / File:PL-VLE-2.CCP CM/CS December 7, 1995 Page 1 Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this development as Intensity Level 2. A Century Plan Amendment to change to an Intensity Level 3 is being considered by separate agenda item. SEE EXHIBITS B 1 AND B2 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, land uses, utility service, and the phasing plan. This proposed Concept Plan includes all required information, with the exception of the proposed park land location. It actually contains more information than what is required. The Subdivision Regulations require that all arterial and collector streets be shown, but does not require that local streets be shown. Concept Plan - Pleasant Valley Estates CP-95-04 / File: PL-VLE-2.CCP CM/CS The proposed Concept Plan divides the 11.85 acre area into Phases One and Two that are scheduled to be developed in Spring of 1996 and Fall of 1996 respectively. Of the 36 proposed lots, 35 will be used for single family residences and the other lot for a stormwater detention pond. SEE EXHIBIT C Although not typically a consideration in the Concept Plan stage, all proposed lots are designed in conformance with the lot design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The streets also conform to the standards for street design. Since Georgetown View Lane will serve as a minor collector street, it is proposed with a 60 foot right-of-way width for the portion that is in the proposed subdivision. The existing portion of Georgetown View Lane has a 50 foot wide right-of-way. The existing Rabbit Run in Rabbit Hollow Subdivision is proposed to be extended into Pleasant Valley Estates. It may eventually intersect with the Inner Loop Road south of Rabbit Hollow Subdivision which will provide access to an arterial street other than FM1460 for Pleasant Valley Estates as well as Pleasant Valley. SEE EXHIBIT D December 7, 1995 Page 2 Concept Plan - Pleasant Valley Estates CP-95-04 / File:PL-VLE-2.CCP CM/CS The stormwater detention pond is proposed to be located in Phase Two of the subdivision; however, its use will be needed as soon as Phase One is developed. Its proposed location can be permitted provided easements are dedicated through instruments separate from the Phase One Final Plat to permit the drainage of stormwater from Phase One into the unplatted property and the pond must be constructed with the public improvements of Phase One. There are three (3) streets which stub -out into the proposed subdivision. Of these streets, Sunrise Valley Lane, in Pleasant Valley Subdivision, is the only one constructed to City standard. Georgetown View Lane, in Georgetown South Subdivision, Phase 1, and Rabbit Run, in Rabbit Hollow, are not constructed to City standard. The City staff has indicated to the applicant that the existing substandard portions of the streets that are north of Rabbit Hollow Lane must be improved as a condition of Final Plat approval. Although the extension of Georgetown View Lane is included in Phase One, the improvement of the existing, off -site portion will not be required until the development of Phase Two. The existing portion of Rabbit Run, which is currently only right-of-way, must also be improved when Phase Two is developed. There are no roadways indicated on the Future Traffic System Map of the Century Plan that conflict with the proposed subdivision. The transportation needs of the proposed subdivision appear to be adequately served by the three (3) access points into the subdivision. The proposed subdivision will tie into the existing water and wastewater lines currently serving Pleasant Valley Subdivision. These facilities are adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in dwelling units. Electricity will either be provided by the City of Georgetown or Texas Utilities. Since this is a dual service area, the developer may choose either of these utility companies as the electricity provider. December 7, 1995 Page 3 TECHNICAL ISSUE: The following Technical Issue must be addressed prior to City Council consideration of this Concept Plan. If it is not addressed by December 1, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the Concept Plan to allow the Technical Issue to be addressed, the Concept Plan will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. The proposed electricity provider shall be determined and indicated on the Concept Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Concept Plan for Pleasant Valley Estates provided the Technical Issue is addressed prior to City Council ping and Zoning )t Plan for Pleasant addressed prior to December 7, 1995 Page 4 EXHIBIT A .Elf. 20 K 2 2 A GOGC rE— TA 2 • SA 5A vc fts"o 3 se w '00 s.00 a, C.T.Ouc 3A \.A 50 L .... \ 1A \ 9A SA 11 6 Z1A A 28 29 3i \ \ N A woad Cow..w. 40� C ...... .... ell 116 c G.c c 3 272 :\�. \ PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES EXHIBIT B-2 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': October 5, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Pleasant Valley Estates Concept Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 11.85 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 11.85 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 44,556 12,798 119 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 44,556 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 12,798 Maximum Trip Ends: 119 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 ---- 39 44 I 198 45 51 134 45 51 134 69 73 109 84 82 52 69 66 140 232 210 85 129,901 139,109 140,904 144,662 154,193 I 7,616 239,548 255,960 164,583 107,106 114,268 36,721 122,407 140,637 46,471 68,548 78,515 7.174 28,562 26,663 10.422 137,095 145,432 24,677 122,407 140,637 25,896 781,684 914,143 197.500 11,139,000 ------------------------- 12,798,000 ------------------- 455,769 (b) (c) MAXIMUM PER DEV UNITS I ----------------- I ------------- REGS I 391 I 241 45 1 86 45 I 115 691 1721 52 I 342 66 I I 85 I I 129,901 I I 7,616 164,583 36,721 46,471 7,174 10,422 24,677 25,896 197,500 455,769 (d) DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED/UNIT 24 housing units 45 housing units 45 housing units 69 housing units 52 housing units 66 housing units 85 rooms 129,901 square feet 7,616 square feet 164,583 square feet 36,721 square feet 46,471 square feet 7,174 square feet 10,422 square feet 24,677 square feet 25,896 square feet 197,500 square feet 455,769 square feet c Pleasant Valley 11 Cab. D, SI. 98 I EX 12• riL I Thunder Valley `; Trail " OL �* ---------------------- �- =► --- `° ' _ ---°•---_—------_ --� — I \\ I I Block IrrKr, I `.�\ ol� I I Block �rr�,r \ 1 6 2 I 3 I 68 3,1 IN61,'II N6?H4973 < 6)89�e3 j6 •�_ O�IF49? 6-8- �'_ �94�0'0'80. 3` -1-y6&89-S9 4g g 9p B�p1!' \\, ISF 13•F /- � IZ-•�--- �-- --- _8 300.9r9' -9 --- -. -•f - l — — —�— — — ----, — —I-r/— / ' 119.79 1DO. o4 --- ---- - -------- -- --- - - --------- ------- ---- --- / -" //•' !• 17 N., m O D �J 0 �T q p �S 0 p �6 O �� b tj �4 " m l 9. q A 5 �Lll '�'S8839'196p0 1218' \/ �� ��„ 80.00' /' 79.76' 180.11' 79.83' 81.22' 74.88' °/J. m Z e 70 \��', � - / N68'39'191E 487.54' / // Bove Lade /' �, 2 ° � I 6 I a N66'39'14 505.64' / Ic � 588'39'19'W� I �, r-----S68,46,15, N 116.94'g 110,94' /J, 65.94' Phase 8 .94' One 65.94' 85.94' , ,� 80.94' 1 �- F N O 112�r• D I I I + N I 9 / i N -a N a w _� N _ + 2 f l N I N A _ + 4 f N j / + S I U + 6 Q V 0 3 U , del o l m x ..�s- - - - m - 568'46.15•W `^ r•' ri r•i / , /H I "� — ,.y rri OCi 125.25' 0 Block / rr C 1, / ' 97.74' — -- -- -- — — — — _ f .r U) g O 8 0 r+ Georgetown o Vew Lane %eor eto n View g /� = 8'39'19'E 535.64 / _ o o - ' - - �� rn i o - l 1) U N In o 10 r 9 J /' 8 Nn j n10 50' S 97.92'Ln d J / 1 TT- Y- ♦ fa a0a 00 ; ------- Two •1 U I �' `O S66'46'1S•» P� 60.94' 55.94' 55.94 85.94' / 85.94' I 1 �! O 106.09' a R _ 50_ N68'J9'19•E f15.6� Valle Oaks Lane -,� i S68'39'19'W i \- N68'39'19'E - - - - - _-Z¢8.04 - " ' " N66'39'19'E 121.39' 33.06 DO:00' 60.00' 75.00' E'O~ CT z OQ o Ln U a 4 N Q = O N m O O a O Tf / ( �, I TQ l IQ 9 9 n_ _ ;760 ? net h_- B I O itrt B i i I 7 5a -- �� - — — — 150.82' 1.1s .4E' 138. 70i'- S68.3 2 43' 3803'W 2f7 3717w 187.98' S68.37'17 W 145.21' 1e I So 0 W ,- 4� f 7p, r7 ' I I ��I / I ----758--T---- �LJ (T Block C - Ion �l - I \\, --------------ro o+_ 6 ___ t0A I Hollowa6 EXHIBIT D G'T WN_ •[..• .O . -77 PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Pleasant Valley Estates - Concept Plan Name of Respondent: ©, E Address of Respondent:—ILk I am in favor: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 1.1 / 1 /95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 4-09 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Council meeting December 12, 1995 item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and second reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three. ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant has proposed a Concept Plan with 36 single family residential lots on the 11.85 acre site. At the site's current Intensity Level Two designation, only 28 average sized single family lots are allowed, with water and wastewater service as the utilities limiting development. The proposed increase to Intensity Level Three would allow for 45 single family lots to be developed on the site. The increase in the actual demand level from 28 single family detached units to 36 single family detached units is only 29 percent for both water and wastewater. The Community Owned Utilities Division reports that there are adequate water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed 36 single family detached units. The increase in the actual transportation demand level between 28 single family detached units and 36 single family detached units is 28 percent. The site will have access to FM1460, an arterial street, via Georgetown View Lane and two other access points will be provided into the subdivision. These will be adequate to serve the site with the increased number of trip ends generated. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: The first reading of this ordinance was approved by the City Council on November 28, 1995. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report; Ordinance Submitted Bv: Edward J Barry, AICP irector Division �f Development Servic es ices Cly e von Rosenbe CP Chief Planner, Long ange Planning CENTURY PLAN AMENDMENT OF 11.85 ACRES IN THE LEWIS DYCHES SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES, LOCATED ON GEORGETOWN VIEW LANE AND SUNRISE VALLEY LANE, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL TWO TO INTENSITY LEVEL THREE OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Vincent L. Bove 2101 Wynchwood Drive Austin, Texas 78746 512/328-9252 AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell, P.E. Steger & Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 512/863-4521 FAX 863-4523 REQUEST: Century Plan Amendment of 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on Georgetown View Lane, off F.M. 1460 SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: This property is located outside the City limits so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: 36 single family residential lots. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Pleasant Valley, average lot single family residential (out of City) South: Rabbit Hollow, average lot single family residential (out of City) East: Rabbit Hollow, average lot single family residential (out of City) Century Plan Amendment - Pleasant Valley, Section Two November 17, 1995 Page I West: Georgetown South, Phase I, single family residential (out of City) Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this development as Intensity Level Two. The surrounding properties are designated as Intensity Levels Two and Three. SEE EXHIBIT A A Concept Plan is being considered by separate agenda item. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. ANALYSIS: The applicant has proposed a Concept Plan with 36 single family residential lots on the 11.85 acre site. At the site's current Intensity Level Two designation, only 28 average sized single family lots are allowed, with water and wastewater service as the utilities limiting development. SEE EXHIBIT B-1 The proposed increase to Intensity Level Three would allow for 45 single family lots to be developed on the site. SEE EXHIBIT B-2 Water and Wastewater From Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three, the total allowable demand, measured in maximum gallons per day of water and wastewater capacity, increases by 57 percent for water and 66 percent for wastewater. However, the increase in the actual demand level from 28 single family detached units to 36 single family detached units is only 29 percent for both water and wastewater. SEE EXHIBIT C The Community Owned Utilities Division reports that there are adequate water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed 36 single family detached units. Transportation Since water and wastewater are the limiting factors for the development of single family detached residential units in both Intensity Level Two and Intensity Level Three, the total allowable demand created for trip ends is not a factor in this analysis. However, the increase in the actual transportation demand level between 28 single family detached units and 36 Century Plan Amendment - Pleasant Valley, Section Two November 17, 1995 Page 2 single family detached units is 28 percent. SEE EXHIBIT C The site will have access to FM 1460, an arterial street, via Georgetown View Lane, which will serve as a minor collector street. Two other access points will be provided into the subdivision, Sunrise Valley Lane to the north and Rabbit Run to the south, both local streets. Rabbit Run is planned to eventually intersect with the Inner Loop Road, which is an arterial street. Existing substandard portions of Georgetown View Lane and Rabbit Run will be improved as a condition of Final Plat approval. These access points will be adequate to serve the site with the increased number of trip ends proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed Century Plan Amendment of 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three. P & Z ACTION: At their November 7, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Century Plan Amendment. Century Plan Amendment - Pleasant Valley, Section Two November 17, 1995 Page 3 EXHIBIT A INTENSITY LEVEL MAP lu.f..( �l/ - of + a e.. .: C, T'.N 7 fit LEVE -L\5 LEVEL I A 5aL—A 5 L VEL•2 EVEL 6 OA 28 JA 26 LEVEL 5 001, "A k PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES EXHIBIT B-1 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE': October 5, 1995 'PROJECT NAME`: Pleasant Valley Estates Concept Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 11.85 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 11.85 TOTAL ACRES 3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND: INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends 1 0 0 0 2 28,440 7,703 47 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 28,440 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 7,703 Maximum Trip Ends: 47 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY LAND USES -------------- WATER ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION Detached SF Large Lot 25 27 79 Average Lot 28 31 53 Zero Lot Line 28 31 53 Attached SF 44 44 44 Multifamily 54 49 21 Mobile Home 44 40 56 Lodging 148 126 34 Institutional 82,915 83,723 56,361 Church I -with day care 92,338 92,801 3,046 -w/o day care 152,903 154,050 65.833 Medical Office 68,365 68,772 14,689 General Office 78,132 84,643 18,588 Retail, Mixed 43.754 47,255 2,870 Retail, Restaurant 18,231 16,047 4,169 Retail, Store 87.508 87,528 9,871 I Employment Centers 78,132 84,643 10,358 Warehouse 498,947 550,179 79.000 Mini -Warehouse ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7,110,000 7,702,500 182,308 ------- (b) (c) (d) MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT UNITS I -------------- I ------------- REGS I I --------------------------- ALLOWED/UNIT I 25 I I 24 I 24 housing units 28_ 1 N8 28 housing units 28 I 115 I 28 housing units 44 I 172 I 44 housing units 21 I 342 I 21 housing units 40 I I 40 housing units 34 I I 34 rooms 56,361 I I 56,361 square feet I 3,046 I I I 3,046 square feet 65,833 I I 65,833 square feet 14,689 I I 14,689 square feet 18,588 I I 18,588 square feet 2.870 I I 2,870 square feet 4,169 j I 4,169 square feet 9,871 I I 9,871 square feet 10,358 I I 10,358 square feet 79,000 I 79,000 square feet 182,308 I ---------------- I ----------------- I I -------------- 182.308 square feet ----------- ------------ EXHIBIT B-2 DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. 'DATE`: October 5, 1995 'PROJECT NAME': Pleasant Valley Estates Concept Plan 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 11.85 acres of Intensity Level 3 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 11.85 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 44,556 12,798 119 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPO Water Capacity: 44,556 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 12,798 Maximum Trip Ends: 119 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION -------- --------------------- ----------------------------------- Detached SF ------------------------------------- ------------------ I Large Lot 39 44 198 Average Lot 45 51 134 Zero Lot Line 45 51 134 Attached SF 69 73 109 Multifamily 84 82 52 Mobile Home 69 66 140 Lodging 232 210 85 Institutional 129,901 139,109 140,904 Church -with day care 144,662 154,193 7,616 -w/o day care 239,548 255,960 164,583 Medical Office 107,106 114,268 36,721 General Office 122,407 140,637 46,471 Retail, Mixed 68,548 78,515 7,174 Retail, Restaurant 28,562 26,663 10,422 Retail, Store 137,095 145.432 24,677 Employment Centers 122,407 140,637 25,896 Warehouse 781,684 914,143 197,500 Mini -Warehouse ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11,139,000 12,798,000 455,769 I I (b) (c) (d) MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT UNITS I REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT I 39 I I 24 I 24 housing units 45 1 86 j 45 housing units 45 I 115 I 45 housing units 69 I 172 I 69 housing units 52 I 342 I 52 housing units 66 ( I 66 housing units 85 I I 85 rooms 129.901 I I 129.901 square feet I 7,616 I I 7,616 square feet 164,583 I I 164,583 square feet 36,721 I I 36,721 square feet 46,471 I I 46,471 square feet 7,174 I I 7,174 square feet 10,422 I I 10,422 square feet 24,677 I I 24,677 square feet 25,896 I I 25,896 square feet 197,500 I I 197,500 square feet 455,769 I ------------- -- I - --------- - 455,769 square feet - ------------ EXHIBIT C UTILITY DEMAND LEVELS FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY, AVERAGE LOT DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES 28 UNITS 36 UNITS WATER (Peak GPD) 285000 361000 WASTEWATER (Average GPD) 79000 95000 TRANSPORTATION (Peak Trip Ends) 25 32 (Based on Development Plan Exhibit 3 - Land Use Activity to Demand Conversion Chart) (figures are rounded) PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Century Plan Amendment of Pleasant Valley Estates from Intensity Le% -et Two to Intensity Level Three Name of Respondent: r Address of Respondent:A& / T 1110//t) I am in favor: r nhiPrt % d by 11/1/95; it will be provided to the nent and City Council. 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 11.85 ACRES IN THE LEWIS DYCHES SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES, LOCATED ON GEORGETOWN VIEW LANE AND SUNRISE VALLEY LANE, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL TWO TO INTENSITY LEVEL THREE; 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. Vincent L. Bove for the approval of a Concept Plan of an 11.85 acre tract in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates, necessitating changing the intensity assignment of the tract from Intensity Level Two to Intensity Level Three; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on November 7, 1995, conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to EXHIBIT 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, which stated the time and place of hearing which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and Century Plan Amendment -Pleasant Valley Estates Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and WHEREAS, the applicant for such Plan amendment placed on the property at the 11.85 acre tract in the Lewis Dyches Survey, 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 November 7, 1995, recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to EXHIBIT 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION I. 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 -Pleasant Valley Estates 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 Two designation to Intensity Level Three for the 11.85 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey to be known as Pleasant Valley Estates, as recorded in Volume 613, Page 419 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and as shown on Attachment 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 28th day of November, 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 12th day of December, 1995. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Century Plan Amendment -Pleasant Valley 'Estates Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Leo Wood Mayor EXHIBIT A INTENSITY LEVEL MAP LEVE LEVEL c F GA 0," 3A LEVEL 6 L VEL r� �' r \ 3 A 2 A 3 0 LE EL5 , v 0 00 Ao, 0.01 A X, '000or 0- 0 'Al 7 2 7 PLEASANT VALLEY ESTATES / 1 Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, to be known as The Physician's Center Tract; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed lot contains all of the contiguous property held by the owners and the proposed use is for a medical office. Water service to the proposed lot is provided through a 20 inch line along the RM2338 right-of- way. There are existing fire hydrants in the area that satisfy the distance requirements. Therefore, no new fire hydrants or water lines are required. This property was identified in the 1987 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Reata Wastewater Interceptor Improvements, Cost Allocation Analysis which computed the additional loads imposed on the existing system. The contribution cost for this development is based on $275.23 per one (1) Living Unit Equivalent, which is equal to 1,000 square foot of commercial space. Ordinarily, such a cost would be remitted prior to recording the Final Plat; however, the proposed square footage will be undetermined at that time and the cost cannot be calculated. Therefore, a note should be placed on the plat which states that the fee will be required prior to approval of a Detailed Development Plan for the lot. The proposed lot is only 128 feet wide compared to the minimum standard of 150 foot width for commercial lots. Therefore, a variance is requested to permit a lot with less than the standard width. The narrow width also causes the lot to be non -conforming to the width to depth ratio standard. The only possible way to correct the non -conformities is to add land and bring the lot into conformance, which is not easily achievable since all adjacent land is owned by other parties. The narrow lots are a direct result of the illegal subdivision of the parent tract. Another result is the number of accesses that will be requested along Williams Drive in this area. Reducing the number of access points along arterial streets is one of the concerns of the design standards. Taking the number of access points concerns into consideration and realizing that the number of accesses are directly related to the amount of frontage for each lot, approval of a variance to allow a lot narrower than the standard 150 feet should be conditioned upon the provision of a shared access. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Physician's Center Tract provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Recommend approval of variances to Table 34020 B. to permit a lot with less than 150 foot width provided a shared access is established and shown on the plat and Section 34020 to permit a lot with a depth to width ratio greater than 2.5:1, after making the required findings of fact. A revised plat has been submitted to the City that does not addresses the Technical Issue of indicating the shared driveway. The applicant is requesting that the City Council not require the shared driveway. 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 Preliminary Plat Submitted Bv: E cCward arry, AIC -Director Divisio of Development Services Q42� r-L", Hildy L. Mngma, AICP Chief Planner PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A 1.44 ACRE TRACT IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY TO BE KNOWN AS THE PHYSICIAN'S CENTER, LOCATED ON RM23389 SOUTH OF BRIARWOOD DRIVE; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNER/APPLICANT: Dr. Richard C. Male Dr. Murray A. Snook 3010 Williams Drive, Suite 25 Georgetown, Texas 78628 869-7310 AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell, P. E. Steger and Bizzell Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 858 Georgetown, Texas 78627 863-4521 FAX:863-4523 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, to be known as The Physician's Center Tract, as recorded in Volume 2565, Page 785 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. FACTS: Location: Located on F.M. 2338 south of Briarwood. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Vacant lot. Existing Zoning: C-2A, Commercial First Height. Proposed Use: A clinic/doctor office is proposed for this site. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Rocky Hollow Estates (RM-1) and Briarwood (RM-2) South: San Gabriel Heights, single family residential (out of City) East: Lansdale Automotive and Northwest Animal Clinic (C-2A) West: Undeveloped land (C-2A) Preliminary Plat - The Physician's Center Tract December 6, 1995 PP 95-10/File: PHY-CTR.PP Page 1 CM:CS Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as Intensity Level 4. SEE EXHIBIT B Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: According to City and County records, the subject property was part of a six (6) acre tract that also included the property to the northwest and southeast of the proposed lot. The property was illegally subdivided in June 1989 when a deed conveying the subject property to Georgetown National Bank was recorded in the Williamson County Deed Records. ANALYSIS: The proposed lot contains all of the contiguous property held by the owners. SEE EXHIBIT C The proposed use of the lot is for a medical office. For the purpose of considering a variance request discussed later in this report, the applicant provided staff with a sketch of the detailed development plan to evaluate prior to filing the actual DDP. SEE EXHIBIT D Water service to the proposed lot is provided through a 20 inch line along the RM2338 right-of-way. There are existing fire hydrants in the area that satisfy the distance requirements. Therefore, no new fire hydrants or water lines are required. One issue of this proposed subdivision is the extension of wastewater service to the lot. The Community Owned Utilities Division has offered two alternatives to make the connection. The applicant proposes a connection in conformance with one of the alternatives. SEE EXHIBIT E Although the plat indicates that the line will terminate at the northeast corner of the proposed lot, the applicant has indicated that the line will be extended to the northwest corner in accordance with the alternative presented by COU. This property was identified in the 1987 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Reata Wastewater Interceptor Improvements, Cost Allocation Analysis which computed the additional loads imposed on the existing system capacity. The contribution cost for this development is based on $275.23 per one (1) Living Unit Equivalent (LUE), which is equal to 1,000 square foot of commercial space. Ordinarily, such a cost would be remitted Preliminary Plat - The Physician's Center Tract PP 95-10/File: PHY-CTR.PP CM:CS December 6, 1995 Page 2 prior to recording the Final Plat; however, the proposed square footage will be undetermined at that time and the cost cannot be calculated. Therefore, a note should be place on the plat which states that the fee will be required prior to approval of a Detailed Development Plan for the lot. Variances: Table 34020 Lot Width The proposed lot is only 128 feet wide compared to the minimum standard of 150 foot width for commercial lots. As mentioned earlier, the lot under consideration encompasses all of the contiguous property under common ownership. Prior to the illegal subdivision, the parent tract was substantially wider than 150 feet. In order to bring the proposed lot up to standard, an additional 22 feet of land would have to be acquired from the adjacent properties to the northwest or to the southeast. This would force the current owners to acquire property that is not under their control and approval of this plat would then be subject to the owner of the adjacent property's willingness to sell. Like the proposed lot, the other properties that front RM2338 in this area are relatively narrow. Therefore, there are several driveways existing or possible over a short distance. There are already six (6) driveways in the same block and on the same side of RM2338. All of them are actually located between the proposed lot and Western Trail, a distance of approximately 750 feet. The undeveloped section of the block that has no driveways on it currently is approximately 550 feet long. If each undeveloped property is permitted to have a driveway exclusively for its use, there will be at least four (4) additional driveways onto RM2338 in this block. In an effort to allow access to all sites while managing the access points to RM2338, it was suggested to the applicant to propose a shared driveway with the property to the northwest, which is also a part of the original parent tract. The applicant requests that this lot be allowed a driveway for its exclusive use for the reasons in the attached letter. SEE EXHIBIT F Had the parent tract been subdivided through the subdivision review process, the possible access points would have been an Preliminary Plat - The Physician's Center Tract PP 95-10/File: PHY-CTR.PP CM:CS December 6, 1995 Page 3 item of concern at that time, and the properties as they exist today would probably not have been approved as lots without a provision for managed access to RM2338. Therefore, the narrow lot frontages and the pressure to allow additional driveways on this block are a direct result of the illegal subdivision. Taking the number of access points concerns into consideration and realizing that the number of accesses are directly related to the amount of frontage for each lot, approval of a variance to allow a lot narrower than the standard 150 feet should be conditioned upon the provision of a shared access. Section 34020 B. Lot Depth to Width Ratio Since the dimensions of the lot are 493 feet deep and 128 feet wide, the lot exceeds the standard of 2.5:1 depth to width ratio. Such ratio is approximately 3.85:1. The depth to width standard does not apply to lots that are at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the minimum lot size standard and are the required width and depth. Since this lot has less than the 150 foot width standard it is not eligible for this exception. It does satisfy the other two criteria, however. Therefore, the only possible way to correct the non -conformity is to add land and bring the lot into conformance with the width standard, which is not easily achievable. The concern that the approval of this plat would be dependant on the adjacent property owner's willingness to sell should be considered in this variance request also. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special Preliminary Plat - The Physician's Center Tract PP 95-10/File: PHY-CTR.PP CM:CS December 6, 1995 Page 4 right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance form is attached. SEE EXHIBIT G TECIINICAL ISSUES: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to City Council consideration of this Preliminary Plat. If they are not addressed by December 1, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the Preliminary Plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the Preliminary Plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. The plat shall be revised to indicate that the proposed wastewater line shall be extended to the northwest corner of the proposed lot with a 20 foot public utility easement established along the rear lot line. 2. The plat shall indicate a proposed 20 foot wide easement centered on that portion of the proposed wastewater line that is off -site. The easement is to be dedicated by separate easement and will be required prior to recordation of the Final Plat. The Final Plat shall indicate the volume and page reference of the easement dedication. 3. If required, the plat shall be revised to indicate an easement for a proposed shared driveway with the Hartman property to the northwest. The easement shall be designed to accommodate a driveway in accordance with Section 33042 of the Subdivision Regulations. 4. A note shall be placed on the plat which states that a fee of $275.23 per one (1) Living Unit Equivalent, which is equal to 1,000 square feet of commercial space shall be paid prior to approval of any Detailed Development Plan for this lot. Preliminary Plat - The Physician's Center Tract PP 95-10/File: PHY-CTR.PP CM:CS December 6, 1995 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Physician's Center Tract provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of variances to Table 34020 B. to permit a lot with less than 150 foot width provided a shared access is established and shown on the plat and Section 34020 to permit a lot with a depth to width ratio greater than 2.5:1, after making the required findings of fact. P & Z ACTION: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Physician's Center Tract provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Recommend approval of variances to Table 34020 B. to permit a lot with less than 150 foot width provided a shared access is established and shown on the plat and Section 34020 to permit a lot with a depth to width ratio greater than 2.5:1, after making the required findings of fact. December 6, 1995 Page 6 EXHIBIT .A PHY. SICIANS CENTER ental Off o 0 EXHIBIT B DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE 1. `DATE`: October 5, 1995 'PROJECT NAME`: Physician's Center Tract Preliminary Plat 2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1 acres of Intensity Level 2 acres of Intensity Level 3 1.44 acres of Intensity Level 4 acres of Intensity Level 5 acres of Intensity Level 6 1.44 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 9,677 2,765 115 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND: Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 9,677 Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 2,765 Maximum Trip Ends: 115 5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a) (b) (c) (d) POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION I UNITS I REGS I ALLOWED/UNIT ---- -------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Detached SF -------------------- I ----------------- I -------- ------------ ----- Large Lot Average Lot 8 10 10 I I I units Zero Lot Line 10 11 11 130 I 10 I 10 I 10 housingg units Attached SF 15 16 130 I 10 I 14 I 10 housing units 9 Multifamily 18 1 106 I 15 I 21 I 15 housing units Mobile Home 15 14 51 I 136I 18 I 14 I 40 I 18 housing units Lodging 50 45 83 83 I 45 I I 14 housing units 45 Institutional Church 28,212 30,052 136,980 28,212 I rooms ,12 square feet -with day care -w/o day care 31,418 33,311 55,296 I 7,404 square feet52,026 Office 23,262 24,686 160,000 35 52,026Medical II 2 I 52,026 square feet 23,262 General Office Retail, Mixed 26,585 30,382 45,176 26,585 squareft 26,585 square feet Retail, Restaurant 14,887 6,203 16,962 5,760 6,974 I 6,974 I I 6,585 square feet Retail, Store Employment Centers 29,775 31,418 10,132 I 23,175 I 5,760 25,175 I I I 5,760 square feet 23,990 square feet Warehouse Mini 26,585 169,768 30,382 197,486 25,175 I 192,000 I 25,175 � 169,768 I I 25,175 square feet 169,768 -Warehouse ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,419,200 2,764,800 443,077 443,077 I i square feet 443,077 square feet 2 n z c m owm D m X. ^�7 cl) 0 D -i .�. 0 0c,+ (AWZO. zi Wo0, a o o -� N I.4 4 AC. �OCEC Y - m N N DAV I D A. HARTMAN 'aNp N MCDO . �o N I I A N 2348 /032 Ep'VAR p SPOIJSE, EL✓� w m I I o) . MCpONAIc NZ I I NN I X� (n 'Y~�•�' rn? m 0n@�'ci0 l I I I Nw 497 A j CD v O n CO fo D 0 I �� N 49° 19' E,493.20' I CDw c� 2 n « O `" I,S49018 35�� W 493.14 REC.) co `°---- �m 3 Ro z I _ (N49°19'E, 493.20 REC.)]cn 3W TNOMA x _ 10'BL 20 BT� S v _�o ETA A. '< S fnxOu)O� m'� v+ t�jNZN 5O vo tD� j EN m ? � `-i �n I 0 v w R'CHARD M.4 �� L ,a 0. 45O/24 CA -1 p rn< l N o HURRAY C. MALE $ �' '� o� f 2 0 m 2 � orn 1 .4 VOE.2565 PGOOK f Im °�o� �� ^ v° — _. ` (� r.� 0) m m - 85 = rCD ' v �' �'A BED°D (D -10'BL °- H Nti Om? D(S49 19W 493.27REC.) Q OIECK Coo x m (N49°i9'�, 493.19',REC. ) nx0 S 49019 V� 493.27 OZ� 40 0 mrn O OW --1 X��Z Z -� • W I Nw z� Q ^' I 1.85 AC. m N _ m Qb O J I N LANSDALE AUTOMOTIVE INC. m N L' �' O (� m THE NORTHWEST ANIMAL CLINIC i - A 7' m c i1J (A^' CAB. E, SL. 113 I 2563/608 ro jO W 00 i I wm rm0 CID o z o`^' r N J 00 2 Z z i ti o D D EXHIBIT BRIARWOOD SECTION ONE _ CAB. D., SL. 337- 338 Q ROCKY HOLLOW -ESTATES ROCKY HOLLO TRAIL ---- BLOCK B Q� N CAB. E; SL. 130- 131-- — — I 5_ �i\ 2 3 4 I_ _w a I N I m W iI I Y(N) = 375,349.119 -10 I Q= I I X(E) = 2,828, 836.149 I I o i (S 34 ° 54'E) Y(N) = 375,244.226 i Coo(79. 87 ) 4.8-14, X(E) = 2,828, 909' 327 I _ (S4055'30NE I -- — 1 7.91' REC.)' 6„PROPOSE D S34055'3CE, � z W W. LINE w U m W 1 i , o Qi -o M a ` I 2i 1-1 Q00 N M Q M It tf) tD 00 Ln � di I _ JN W � - ' U Q1 I Ot0 w UJ c- Q m 0.- GP� c- / O� LOESM �k"�` N Z Q N_ Z N � PpP O �0�� � � M -- — _ - — F _- _ $ 20'P .E. -3 w ao CD E `_ 1 m T 00Uzi �' U Z � PG c T I C; Q ul Z co � � < M I m d Yam\ J J O N lm z J a cn I Q ? a 10 H I cn ``' I w . Lo cr Q J cD OZ 250'± 'I =cO m U I w �� _ - e" ww LINE ►- i� Y(N)=375,027.624 090 i(E) =2,828,462.136 25 BL �� Y(N) , 374,922 705 (N 34054 X(E) = 2.828.535.305 - 127.92' RE . �_ ——��20"wL 7-77 NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY 6v _ _ 0-101 N 34054'W, 127.92 30-FOOT- WIDE EASEMENT CITY OF GEORGETOWN RIGHj � — _--OLD RIGHT -OF-WAY VOL.1141, PG.352 VOL\4 6 wPG. 0 E 20.10 FARM o TO 0:189 AC. MARKET NO.2338 CAUSE NO. 88-521-C277 STYLED CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TX BILLY CHARLES WILLIAMS VS. GEORGETOWN IND. SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF GEORGETOWN. WILLIAMSON COUNTY 8 GEORGETOWN NATIONAL BANK OF THE 277TF . DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIA COUNTY, TEXAS MSON r - L7- V v N Ij JO-N FS DONNA 1209 goo N -ES7 G(:QGETOWN 907 Ac EXHIBIT: G 89IQRW000 SECTION ONE _ Z Q ROCKY HOLLOW ESTATES CAB. D, SL. 337- Q $j p 0) z cv BLOCK a CAB. E, SL. 130- t31 338 � C 5 0 2 z� M ti� 0 �( 3 Ili Q Q I U 3 W C' Y(N) : 375349I.119 O , I j I X(E)=2,828,836.I49 _ �S 34 ° 54' �) I (4787(. '8.14 ) 375,244.226 (E) 2,828. 909.327/00, �N— S�3405530 E� -- C127.91' .E) S 34055`30E cj z ci m 127.91 ' - W Cr ^o N W > _ 4 W ~O OD O . (V PO O CQ 20 U O Q �M fn� re) Q (D [t CD W) N W M -� - Z - CO - ^ w U a' SON W ^ J U Q W a cn 2 a)0) CO � pX Lp 1 `5 ip 4 r- PLO �y� PG 0 ti Q J Q� Z Q = O —__E Z PP 4 Jp� � M — V Qrn (� Q o �; I �O� PC a) 0a) ° I Z i i J to I Qto 2 - o m Q cn ! UQ� o - U) W _ O U I Q (2 W Q] �� } n1 I U Cr Q � -� U ,O O I Z Proposer. Joint access — _ J 25'8L fl _ �- <€ N 34°54� 127 92 wREC' Y(N) ' 374,922 .705 X(E) =2.628,535.305 — 7— 0-� , N 34°54'W 30 FOOT _ T CITy WIDE EASEMENT � 127• 92 OF _ - �� �_�� NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY i GEORGETOµ�N RIGHT-OF-WAY P VOL 4 6 WAY OEEDJ G 352 PG.60 -- —OLD RIGHT-OF-WAY 20.10' % FARM TO - 0.189Al. MARKET NO. CAUSE NO. M521-C277 2338 STYLED C1TY OF GEORGETOW BILLYCHARLES N. CITY WILLIAMS TX. OF GE VS. GEORGETO NATIONAL BANK OF THE MSON COUNTY COON ORK TOWN.�TH WN IN GSCHOOL DISTRICT, COUNTY. TEXAS DISTRICT g COURT EORGETOWN OPWILLtAMSON PHYSICIAN'S CENTER EXHIBIT H-1 J. PATRIC:K ROEDI'.It ekRCHITECT Si i 1)cc Gave Road, SUitC J16.ALJSd11,Tncas 787•161 Phonic: (51218-2169 f, Mr. Charles Simon, AICP Senior Planner City of Georgetown RE: Physicians Center Tract Preli,tiinary Plat of 1.44 Acres DRC review comment concerning Dear Mr. Simon, Oct. 13, ?995 in David Wright Survey shared entry. Please find enclosed a preliminary schematic site plan of t;;e above referenced development. This building will be natural limestone veneer designed at a scale that is compatible with residential type development including porches and a pitched roof. As the sketch indicates, it would be preferable to locate the majority of the parking area at the rear of the lot with the building toward the front. We feel this would look much better than the parking at the front. Toward this goal, we request not to establish shared parking with the lot to the northwest, as it would be difficult to share an entry unless we locate our parking lot in front of the building. in addition, the northwest corner of the lot contains several large oak trees that would have to be removed in order to place the shared entry. We feel these oaks in our "front yard" is a valuable asset to the development and to the community that we would like to preserve if possible. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Your consideration is appreciated. Best regards, �A 7 a,i c- te—, Patrick Roeder Architect EXHIBIT H-2 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown RE: Variance request Physicians Center Tract Oct,13, 1995 Applicant: Richard Male Murray A. Snook Variance request from required 150' minimum to 127.9' Varience request from width to depth ratio greater than This request is for the formation of a one lot subdivision that encompasses all of the property in its present configuration. This is not a situation of subdividing a larger tract into several smaller parcels. This variance would allow for the development of a planned Physicians Office that would serve the general public. The use of the surrounding property would not be substantially or permanently impaired as the adjacent property to the south is presently developed (animal clinic) and this variance request has no effect on the property to the north. The present tract configuration was created prior to knowledge of the most appropriate use of this tract (C-O). This hardship is different because this subdivision is a one lot subdivision involving the entire tract which is different from a request that would involve subdividing a larger tract into smaller parcels. This lot could not be developed for its most appropriate use (c- 0) without a variance. This approval would not confer a special right or privilege as this minor variance has no appreciable effect on the surrounding property. The public interest would be affected by allowing the most appropriate use of the property. The special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance is that this involves creation of a one lot subdivision out of the entire tract and that the most appropriate use of the property (presently zoned C-O) could not otherwise be achieved. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed as this tract ;s 1.44 acres, which is much larger than the minimum 0.5 acre required. Substantial justice will be done as even though the lot will be slightly narrower than required ( 127.9 in lieu of 150' ) 1- aril= be much deeper than required ( 493.2' in lieu of 120' ) Council meeting _December 12, 1995 AGENDA Item No. 5- COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolutiojn to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted public utility easement located along Hacienda Lane of Lot 22, Block B, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of Community Owned Utilities and other utility providers have agreed to allow a License to Encroach into the platted ten (10) foot public utility easement located along Hacienda Lane as illustrated in Exhibit A. This request is being made to allow the construction of a fence within the public utility easement. The proposed fence encroaches into both the platted public utility easement and the front yard setback. In a separate agenda item the City Council will consider a request for a variance for the fence, swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback that exists in the same location on this lot. The December 5 Manning and Zoning Commission meeting has been rescheduled to December 7, 1995. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to assembling City Cou�cil packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Unless will approve the requested License to E� Director of Community Owned Utilities ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution i Submitted Bv. �611 Edward J. rry, AICP - irector evel Division f Dopment ervices )therwise stated, the City Council's action on this item -,roach in accordance with the recommendation of the Hildy L. ingma, AIC 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 CLIFFORD AND NANCY FRIESEN, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FENCE INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON HACIENDA LANE OF LOT 22, BLOCK B, BERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION, SECTION FOUR, AS RECORDED IN CABINET H, SLIDES 374-376, OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 30107 BRIARCREST DRIVE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown, has received an application for a license to encroach into the public utility easement on Hacienda Lane; 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 Clifford and Nancy Friesen to encroach into the public utility easement on Hacienda Lane, 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 its present status. 2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the property in its present status. 3. That the proposed fence will intrude into the public utility easement to such a degree that it is not economically feasible to move the part of the structure within the 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 similar to other uses in the neighborhood; and 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 it is not economically feasible to move the part of the proposed fence within the easement area constitutes special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into consideration would deprive the ap- 30107 Briarcrest License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 plicants 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 move the part of the structure within the easement does provide a basis for granting the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the applicants. 3. The fact that the use of the easement area by the property owners does not in- terfere 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 applicants agree 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: 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." 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. SECTION 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with Clifford and Nancy Friesen, pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed fence located at Lot 22, Block B, Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, into the public utility easement on Hacienda Lane. 30107 Briarcrest License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: 1995. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney 30107 Briarccest License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 ac 0 F- T p Qj NZ Al ♦♦ I .2 SD 6,9L �R�PnJETR�K EUtPMaili f � / PAD. ♦ �rG 'QQ 10 Proposed Pool and equipment �4� encroachment Sep tir KESI DENGE �. al nioniinn Setback fSERR`( CKG%RK SL K LOT 22 4 4�Of.GE TTx. 9�. X 4 D� i Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. !�r_ AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of Variances to the platted PUE and building setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed development concerns the installation of a fence within the Public Utility Easement (PUE), and the encroachment of a fence, swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck into the 15 front yatt-setback. This request is for variances to Sections 34020 E. and 34030, and to Section 34020 G.1. of the Subdivision Regulations, to Berry Creek, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22. Section 34020 E. requires that all lots provide a ten (10) foot PUE adjacent to all public rights -of -way to accommodate utilities and drainage. Section 34030 prohibits any permanent structure to be placed in or over any easement or right-of-way. The applicant has proposed to install a fence inside the PUE to accommodate a swimming pool, pool equipment pad, deck and existing trees, thereby increasing the amount of front yard space on Hacienda Lane. A representative of Rogers Construction Company located the water lines on Hacienda Lane approximately four and one-half feet (4.5) from the back of the curb and 13.5 feet from the location of the proposed fence. Given this information, the Community Owned Utilities Division supports a License to Encroach for the fence. Section 34020 G.1. states that no structure or impervious cover shall be allowed in the front yard setback. The requested variance would allow a fence, swimming pool, pool equipment pad, and deck to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback along Hacienda Lane. Without the variances, the fence will have to be moved back two and one-half (2.5) feet, and the swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck will need to be redesigned to fit within the setback requirements outlined on the plat. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to Sections 34020 E. and 34030 thereby allowing a five (5) foot fence to encroach into the PUE, and to Section 34020 G.1., thereby allowing a fence, swimming pool, pool equipment pad, and deck to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback line for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, after making the required findings of fact. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of November 7, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the proposed variance to the platted setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive. This item will be reconsidered on Tuesday, December 5th at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. Full renotification will be done prior to the December 5, 1995, meeting. The December 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting has been rescheduled to December 7, 1995. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to assembling City Council packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. 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 attached exhibits. Submitted By: Edward J. a ry, AICP - D' ector Division I Development S rvices Hildy L. Ki ma, AICP Chief Planner VARIANCE TO THE PLATTED BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR BERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION, SECTION FOUR, BLOCK B, LOT 229 LOCATED AT 30107 BRIARCREST DRIVE OWNER: Mr. Jim Caskey 8040 East Airport Road Georgetown, Texas 78628 863-8568 AGENT: Mr. Clifford D. Friesen 30107 Briarcrest Drive Georgetown, Texas 78628 863-8568 REQUEST: Variances to the platted PUE and building setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22 as recorded in Cabinet H, Slides 374-376 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: Location: Intersection of Briarcrest Drive and Hacienda Lane. Residence located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Single family residence. Existing Zoning: This property is located outside the City limits, so zoning does not apply. Proposed Use: The applicant proposes to improve his property with a fence which will encroach into the ten (10) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE), and a swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck which will encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback. SEE EXHIBIT B Surrounding Uses: Single family residences. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Four, Blk B, Lot 22 VR95-28/ File:BC4-22.VAR CM:HK December 5, 1995 Page 1 HISTORY: This plat was recorded on October 27, 1986, prior to the adoption of the current Subdivision Regulations and was not in our jurisdiction at the time of platting. The plat addendum approved by the City of Georgetown and recorded in deed records in 1991 amended the Zero (0) Lot Line on particular interior lot lines to a Three (3) foot Building Line. As a result of this plat addendum, the request falls under the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore the variances must be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The applicant's original site plan showed a fence, swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck inside the ten (10) foot PUE platted along Hacienda Lane. The revised site plan shows that the fence remains inside the PUE, while the swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck have been relocated outside of the PUE. These latter improvements, however, still encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback. The Community Owned Utilities Division previously denied an Application for a License to Encroach that would have allowed the pool in the PUE. ANALYSIS: This request is for variances to Sections 34020 E. and 34030, and to Section 34020 G.1. of the Subdivision Regulations to Berry Creek, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22. Section 34020 E. states that all lots shall provide a ten (10) foot PUE adjacent to all public rights -of -way. The purpose of this provision is to accommodate utilities and drainage. Section 34030 prohibits any permanent structure to be placed in or over any easement or right-of-way except a structure which is necessary to the designated use of the right-of-way or easement or which otherwise will not affect the use, maintenance or repair of such easement. The applicant's fence is situated inside the PUE to accommodate the pool, pool equipment pad, deck, and existing trees, thereby increasing the amount of front yard space on Hacienda Lane. A representative of Rogers Construction Company located the water lines on Hacienda Lane approximately four and a half (4.5) feet from the back of the curb and 13.5 feet from the location of the proposed fence. Given this information, the Community Owned Utilities Division supports approval of a License to Encroach for the fence. If this property were inside the City limits, the Building Code Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Four, Blk B, Lot 22 December 5, 1995 VR95-28/ File:BC422.VAR Page 2 CM:HK would require that the swimming pool be enclosed by a four (4) foot high fence, with automatic, self -closing latches and the rails would need to be spaced no more than six (6) inches apart, for child safety reasons. The applicant's proposed fence consists of a two (2) foot wrought iron fence atop a three (3) foot stucco wall, thus exceeding the minimum requirements established in the Building Code. Section 34020 G.1. states that with four (4) types of exceptions, no structure or impervious construction shall be allowed in the front yard area. None of the exceptions listed in this section apply to the applicant's proposed improvements. The requested variance would allow a swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback requirement along Hacienda Lane. Without the variances, the fence will have to be moved back two and one-half (2.5) feet, the pool, pool equipment pad and deck will need to be redesigned to fit within the setback requirements outlined in the Subdivision Regulations. VARIANCE: After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff s recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070 B. of the Subdivision Regulations: "In granting approval of a request for variance the Commission shall make findings that: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Four, B(k B, Lot 22 VR95-28/ File:BC4-22.VAR CM:HK December 5, 1995 Page 3 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the requested variance is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variances to Sections 34020 E. and 34030 thereby allowing a five (5) foot fence to encroach into the PUE, and to Section 34020 G.1. of the Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing a fence, swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback line, after making the required findings of fact. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of November 7, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the proposed variance to the platted setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive. This item will be reconsidered at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday, December 5th at 6:00 p.m. Full renotification will be done prior to the December 5, 1995, meeting. Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Four, Blk B, Lot 22 VR95-28/ File:BC4-22.VAR CW HK December 5, 1995 Page 4 EXHIBIT A 8 � � 5 6 8 20 49 `° 7 4 .� 6 •d 10 �1 y 3 19 18 O 3. \� 2 20 11 17 z 40 31 2 1 \-� 2 �� 30� ! 7 o OFRRY 22 0 �9 zv CREEK 23 GpPME 12 p 16 3e ze PARTMEAS i6 2114 / oa. 24 \ 25 �� ' 35 • 133.33 •C. (, 26 27 26 40 i5 14 L 2r 7� 4 s 14 ? 12 29 39 32 �, Z9 zS 1t 2 Z9 ! 3 i• II 3O 38 37 36 N 9 8 31 35 11 15 r- 14 32 3 3 4 Cif 13 1 1a 7 131_ I I) \FP 10 11 T4 5 6 7 © 9 10 i- t 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 I 1� L1 L I 11_ I J. E L L A SON 938/ 335 ;31_ . !, 5.72 A.C. 0 _ rn 0 4 a 2 , ac .. �...�. CA uII v . BR 43 7 4.5 i 9 S,etb ♦ ♦ ' x1i- 6,9L ` / I I>R,2 P A4f TA K �c�u�PMa►iS r rnv. ��-- I Proposed Pool and equipment encroachment Kb — :?I Vr— ivt--F u � u �Gf�L)w =►o-U B1�J,�I���sn�ycetback_ a� u Y� Y Y Y W Y �� ^i��►y �� 51TC 'PSERR`( CK6�K BLY, 6 LOT 22 4 4SOKC-S TO\.,u ,Tx. CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of t1Ze PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 7th day of November , 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 briarcrest Road. 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: 10/23/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library- no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek, Sec Four, Blk B, Lot 22 - Variance Name of Respondent: -r- tom/ JOW-4/ v Address of Respondent: C;,5 f�Xdt7 I at.► iii favor: V I Object: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 1 1 / 1 /95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROU NG PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PU � � ETING JrNotice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown wi a1 its reapublic meeting of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. This meeting will be held on the 7th day of November , 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to t1E Subdivision fcr Her,- Crelks Section Foz?-. Bloc! B. Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Road. 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: 10/23/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek Sec. Four Blk B Lot 22 - Variance Name of Respondent: Tf%�A� P 3o/a� 11,4e1�Nb11 44*5- G 5D� c 7-,Joitl Adores-, of Resnnndent: _ _ j , v r: I vbj ea: !/ `- Iaminta o .J If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 1 1 / 1 /95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. 7-6 Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 October 27, 1995 City of Georgetown Development Services Division P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Tx 78627 Reference: variance Request, Property identified as Berry Creek, Section Four, Blk B. Lot 22 To Whom It May Concern; The variance requested is to locate a swimming pool and hot tub on an already crowded lot. As proposed, the pool, tub, and related equipment will be near the street and within ten feet of the front of our home and our front door area; not at the rear out of sight. This is, of course, due to the particular layout of the area plat. Nonetheless, it remains near the street and our front door. The proposed pool area is planned to have a three foot stucco wall surrounding the complex. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Swimming pools have a long and well documented history of being attractive dangers for children. We have two small boys and scaling a three foot wall will be an easy matter. we also have a number of small children frequently visiting as well. The only alternative is to build a much higher wall in violation of the fence standards, as well as create visual obstructions in backing out of our driveway and obscure playing children from passing cars. Moreover, the noise and the commotion of activity in the pool perched on our front door area will, in our judgement, detract f ron the quietness and ambiance of the neighborhood, and in the short/long term drag down property values. Uncertain is the further impact, if any, on property taxes. We believe that our neighbors share our same views. Almost everyone moved here to be away from noise, commotion, and traffic. One family has a sick wife in the immediate area and does not need any of this. Lastly,if the City, knowing of the aforewarned risks, wants to grant a variance, it should stand fully aware of the potential liabilities it will face if something terrible should happen to one of our children. We 'y you 'l1 n t gra Ae s variance request. 30106 Hacienda L ne vi W ' U Q p- TSB 5�7c 0 0 PjLK B sF-c sit LOT 22 T 4 68�+k , /4�o�GE jo�vu ,Tx. 1 / Aso 6,9 ` � S►J - 1; R 0 v. � D TAJ)< f MwT Proposed Pool and equipment encroachment .Se< ti, i J Ex�s -qa♦ � I I TO RGM, Q pxt5-riQG J I / % ?) % Al r F JFT O I / v � � �_ KESI GENGE. °=ion-0 rROrfiRT-( LINE PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek, Sec. Four Blk B Lot 22 - Variance Name of Respondent:�-- i Address of Respondent: o' / a i a �_Vor : I ooj `ct: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 1 1 / 1 /95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 fir PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek Sec. Four Blk B Lot 22 - Variance Name of Respondent: Tokn 3 0 o g14&c-i'enh, Lr-)_Address of Respondent. I am in favor: I object: r If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 1 1 / 1 /95. rt=��1-te proti-id�a�' �z Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. —_ Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division ,= P. O. Box 409 I Georgetown, Texas 78627 ' tcD M e t�� ICZ O l sC--- to d C` 0 5 to St�� e7� noe h o v to ('o v tA e �v o�c w .__z � � �o � ,w e-- L.K-S r.e. hboc-:s t oCT i CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY 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 7th day of November , 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30101 Briarerest Road. 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: 10/23/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575. Project Name: B Name of Respondent: PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS . Four. Blk B. Lot 22 - Van &P J -4 Address of Respondent: I am in favor: i object: �SL�-�% /�C��E'� Z- If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 1 1 / 1 /95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 October 30, 1995 City of Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission 101 East 7th St. Georgetown, TX 78626 RE: Variance for Berry Creek, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22 To Whom It May Concern: We object to the proposed encroachment because it will permanently change the appearance of the Garden units. The setback requirements have worked to provide a pleasant, consistent neighborhood which doesn't result in recreation spilling into the streets. While we appreciate the notice, it doesn't seem right that those in compliance should have to be a party to enforcing zoning rules. From the plan, it appears that the owner and/or the builder thought it was better to ask for forgiveness than permission before building the house. If this encroachment is permitted, on what fair basis will the city restrict similar violations of the setback? That is, how could the city in fairness deny our right to build a fence in our front yard for a pool or whatever? Sincerely, J r Joseph Reedholm Karolyn Reedholm 30109 Hacienda Lane Georgetown, TX 78628 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek, Sec Four, Blk B, Lot 22 Name of Respondent : h��j ZZ1 Address of Respondent: L, i I am in favor: _ , I object • If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 11f29/95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Al Lea CG rArNI xr i-n - O; +-xr r,f r_or„-getown Services Division 9 texas 78627 PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berr Creek Sec. Four Blk B Lot 22 Name of Respondent: I.. Address of Respondent: I am in favor: I object : If 2''ola �J�ivh to svbmj +- ;;►� i+ v 11/29/95on v="=pert, please r�sn�n Commission and City provided to the Planning and , it will be y Council, g Please reply to: City of Georgetown Developmentg n Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OF A PUBLIC MEETING r ... / OWNERS 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 December , 1995, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to reconsider the proposed: Due to an error in notification the Commission will reconsider a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Road. 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: 11/20/95 City of Georgetown A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services Division at 930-3575. PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek, Sec Four, Blk B, Lot 22 Name of Respondent: f" r� �- u-�; P/,, i r- Address of Respondent: I am in favor: I object: if you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 11/29/95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 i� Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. --at AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Variance to the building setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 31, located at 30407 La Quinta Drive ITEM SUMMARY: This request is for a variance to Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations which states that single family dwellings must be set back at least 20 feet from the rear property line. The applicant proposes to reduce the 25 foot rear building line along the southern portion of the lot to five (5) feet. The applicant owns the adjoining irregular shaped easement lot, and thus, the proposed location of the residence would not infringe upon an adjacent property owner. The property deed limits the use of the easement lot to residential and / or drainage purposes. The applicant also proposes to abandon 20 feet of the 35 foot wide drainage access easement on the eastern portion of the lot in order to reduce the side setback line to 15 feet. According to Section 34030 of the Subdivision Regulations, Public Utility Easements, which include drainage easements, cannot be encroached upon. Since drainage pipes have been located within the easement, the Community Owned Utilities Division has indicated it is not appropriate to reduce the side setback line to 15 feet and abandon a portion of the drainage access easement. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: The December 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting has been rescheduled to December 7, 1995. Therefore, the Commission's recommendation was not available prior to assembling City Council packets. City Council will be notified of the Commission's recommendation at its December 12 meeting. 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 attached exhibits. Submitted By. - Edward J. arry, AICP - irector Division f Development Services . --e -L�2�- CtL Hildy L. gma, AIC Chief Planner VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR BERRY CREEK, SECTION NINE, PHASE THREE, BLOCK A, LOT 319 LOCATED AT 30407 LA QUINTA DRIVE OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Richard Wieneke P. O. Box 227 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0227 930-9546 REQUEST: Variance to the building setback requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 31 as recorded in Cabinet K, Slides 316- 317 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. FACTS: Location: 30407 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: North: Single family residences South: Berry Creek Golf Course East: Drainage easement and single family residences West: Single family residences Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: The final plat of Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase III was recorded on October 22, 1993. In July 1993, Berry Creek Partners granted and conveyed to Westover Venture a perpetual and exclusive easement to use the surface of a 1.10 acre area consisting of Lot 31 and an adjacent, irregular -shaped easement lot. SEE EXHIBIT B Berry Creek Partners, however, restricted the use of the easement to residential and / or drainage Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 31 December 5, 1995 VR 95-32/ File:BC9-3-31.VAR Page 1 CM:WW purposes only. The restrictions further state that any fence erected along the south side of this property must be made of wrought iron, be five (5) feet tall and have white rock posts placed at 20 foot intervals. In April 1995, Westover Venture granted and conveyed Lot 31 together with the perpetual and exclusive 0.17 acre easement lot to the applicant. ANALYSIS: The subject property is undeveloped and situated on a fairly heavily treed lot. A 0.17 acre easement lot granted and conveyed to the applicant adjoins Lot 31 on the south and remains undeveloped. A 35 foot wide drainage access easement and building line is established adjacent to the east property line of Lot 31. This easement originally included a sedimentation pond, but this structure has since been filled in. The eastern edge of Lot 31 slopes approximately ten (10) feet to the bottom of the drainage course and includes one panel of concrete lining. The applicant proposes to reduce the existing 25 foot rear building line along the southern portion of the lot to five (5) feet and the 35 foot east side building line to 15 feet. Along with the reduction of the side building line, the applicant proposed to abandon 20 feet of the 35 foot drainage access easement on the eastern side of the lot. The applicant states these modified building lines will preserve several established Live Oak and Cedar Elm trees fronting La Quinta Drive. The requested variance concerns a reduction of the rear and side building setback requirements outlined in Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations and an abandonment of a portion of the drainage easement on the eastern side of the property. According to Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations, single family dwellings must be set back at least 20 feet from the rear property line. The applicant proposes to reduce the 25 foot rear setback to five (5) feet. Staff considers, however, that since the applicant owns the adjoining irregular shaped easement lot, the proposed location of the residence would not infringe upon an adjacent property owner. The easement lot is 25 feet wide at its narrowest. As defined in the property deed, the use of the easement lot is confined to residential and / or drainage purposes. Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 31 VR 95-32/ File:BC9-3-3LVAR CM:WW December 5, 1995 Page 2 The applicant also proposes to abandon 20 feet of the 35 foot wide drainage access easement on the eastern portion of the lot in order to reduce the side setback line to 15 feet. The drainage easement includes a sedimentation pond that has been filled in, a 21 inch reinforced concrete pipe that extends from La Quinta Drive to Lot 31 along the eastern building line and an 18 inch reinforced concrete pipe along the eastern lot line. According to Section 34030 of the Subdivision Regulations, Public Utility Easements, which include drainage easements, cannot be encroached upon. There are also existing drainage pipes within the easement. For these reasons, the Community Owned Utilities Division has indicated that it is not appropriate to reduce the side setback line to 15 feet and abandon a portion of the drainage access easement. One option the applicant may want to consider is to have a certified surveyor inspect and record the location of the existing drainage pipes and provide documentation describing a new easement that is 20 feet wide centered on the existing storm water pipes. In that case, a variance to reduce the platted building setback requirements may be appropriate provided the proposed side building line does not extend into the drainage access easement. VARIANCES: After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff s recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by 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 Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 31 VR 95-32/ File:BC9-3-31.VAR CM:WW December 5, 1995 Page 3 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variance to reduce the rear building line of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A. Lot 31, from 25 feet to five (5) feet, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the requested variance to reduce the side building line from 35 feet to 15 feet based on the existence of a drainage easement and drainage pipes within that easement, unless the location of the existing drainage structures can be documented otherwise. December 5, 1995 Page 4 EXHIBIT \ e / e� 4 .5 6 3 F 2 \ \ \� r, I 20 / 11ARVEY PIY.OFF ly, �' 21 ?059/033 :�fr` a rr.x,p.1i 23 22 a]r� (Im.211 AC) G \ e.t/z6a I C\ P (129.301AC.) aee.i•-mot �Jl_ `J- I 14 24(` 32.401 AC B'_ r• 6 'z 95A- �, ST.YroK— \ r _ 215 0 - �2.3K rIRtT it G1+CV+o \ 13 29 12 z;ARvEY PIKOFF a s e r e a t 11 13 `• ,zv I' II 29 2059 /033 2 ] (31 0' 11 c; Iz 13 K t �♦ ,G ) r— f 31 (176.217 AC-) zr ie v + t c IO �f 129.301 AC. 32.40tA e 9 z, 'r z]` le 'r '• '] Ia U1 f Ir J ] 8 Io n3 LgRr Cot-. ]. Ia ! J Is S ►A#%TkCR_ 3 y• 1, r J t 1 2 • • 10 a [114/064 ] r ,a32 7 P- i H 'S 16 21 ] ' • I33.33.r 'j 31 `3 lY r :2 '] � `z1 13 '2 � 22 1 1 1G ] I 22 i3 2. 3• '6 i\ 6 • _2` 5 � 2� La � 7'' p 2 h c O 4, b e zi ze � �� 4 �' 1 z 3 Iz z I X �� t} `D /. S r� e r^ z 3 s z t1 t \Q1 21 xI O Ac st 2 1 za ]'- to r aG D ANY ] . �5 Iv It ], + 3 r zz 2 Z7 - t 11 12 1• I• a� t • e e t A p � e ,o - Is It 3 �., 'O �� rs z tt 1 z 1• Lt �� � •t 2 r^ 1 a s e 2 z., n �� �. 1 I v ��� • n � 2. 3 zr , w c t • p .� Na I a3 I ] y1 Z b • _ 1 G 11 w \\ _ 43 113 al �` ] 33 I• p P Q • Z 12 •C IS t6 re 2 ao ]2 Z6 1• ONE to O +�tt 39 ]n GQL It 11 ]� 'P �ie 16 Oy �e 111�G\J17 • '��� V 21 17 13 Z Ir 27 zs ]' •a a r� t 22 '+ all-I.r ,� 13 s v z' 70 1 t 1e `� a/ 3 > >> a N 22 1 : 3 � '• t1 z+ , I z se f3)_Ya. (� Q,\ Y, 33 Sf 71 3z 3] 3a It RY CJ�L3 t! 2 a e 3 t a FIRST TEXASDEVEIOPMENT ORP 02 1')I- ' to \ 1852 / 307 1 st s. ] a• �( e te' 199.12 7 Ar— � �I !3 I C ^� h( J. ar If 11 (l1 �/•- r, �e • t t + n Fi7 e ♦ 44 f 1 `J ♦ � \C,- 254A I.44A uaz so BERRY CREEK PARTNERS �r7e- 9 2 5242 52AC 2 534C ao 254ACy 1_ ::L,••. 2231 /114 VI t 254AC t• 1- 561476/L 7 7 S• 12 L- / tt Sa ] t f f \yJ \ BERRY CREEK PIRTNER:; / m 13 J2C) 2 114/0f i (833/ x 7-A 133.394, / 59.04 AC \ / 00 I OERRY CREEK PARTNERS 14 / 2231 /114 1.82 Ac. L91 Ac 2 .11 Ac 2 28Ac- 1.36Ac- 13 i N014N NO ROAD 6 13 14 1.83AC. 12 2.76 Ac. 2.30Ac- 1 15 369Ac , I 2 11 LA QUINT.A DRIVE CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY O OF A PUBLIC MEETING - -------------------------------- � NOV 2 8 i LV 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 December , 19951 at 6:00 p.m. at its regular meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider the proposed: Variance to the platted building line requirements, for Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase III, Block A, Lot 31, located at 30407 La Quinta 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: 11/20195 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 OWNERIS COMMENTS Project Name: Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Ph III, Blk A, Lot 31 Name of Respondent: %J n Address of Respondent:- Lot 2� I am in favor: I object: If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 11/29 95, it will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Please reply to: City of Georgetown Development Services Division P. 0. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 November 24, 1995 City of Georgetown Development Services Division P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 RE: Variance, Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase III, Block A, Lot 31 Dear Sirs: We object to the proposed variance for the following reasons: Setbacks are provided for the good of the community. The current lot size and setbacks are more than adequate to accommodate any house of any size relative to the scale of the Berm Creek community. The "eastern" setback was established for the concrete culvert and drainage channel. Encroaching onto this easement may impact "recharge areas" of the drainage easement as well as establish precedent for variance of Lot 30. The "southern" setback is a standard 25' setback required of all property owners. The unique situation for many of the adjacent lot owners is that they have exclusive access and use of the respective "drainage easement" to the south of their respective properties. In this case, the area identified as .17 acres provides more than the 25' intended setback. Therefore, if you choose to allow a variance for Lot 31, then one would assume that variances would also be granted for Lots 29, 30, and 32, etc. I believe the "drainage easement" areas located to the south of these lots were specifically identified to protect the related drainage patterns. Prior to recommending a "favorable" opinion of the variance, I would want assurances that revising the proposed setbacks would not have a negative impact on the drainage areas associated with the topography of this area. As an architect, I have difficulty in rendering a favorable opinion in that the "hardships" of the current setbacks have not been identified. Additionally, you may open Pandora's Box (in regard to adjacent lot owners) without understanding the full ramifications of the drainage easement. Sincerely, r l / % Kevin L. Schlaht 30308 Oak Tree Drive Georgetown, TX 78628 Patricia A. O'Leary Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET V SUBJECT: Consideration of approval of a letter requesting the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to include the relocation of entrance and exit ramps to IH35 south as a component of the third IH35 main lane project through Georgetown. ITEM SUN MARY: The Council passed a resolution requesting TxDOT to relocate the entrance ramp to IH35 south from the southbound frontage road between Lakeway Drive and RM2338 (Williams Drive) on June 13, 1995. The intent of this project is to provide relief to Williams Drive by providing an alternative for traffic destined for southbound IH35. Further discussions resulted in the determination that it would also be advantageous to swap the entrance and exit ramps between RM2338 and SH29 to provide an entrance ramp for traffic from the Rivery site, therefore a request has been made that TxDOT consider that project as well. The most effective strategy for getting these projects completed appears to be having them included in TxDOT's plans for adding a third main lane to IH35, which is scheduled to begin in June 1997. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There may be other locations where relocating the entrance and exit ramps will benefit traffic flow. With the approval of this letter, staff will analyze these locations and include them in the request to TxDOT at a later date. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: None ATTACHMENTS: Draft letter for signature by the Mayor. Submitted By - Edward . Barry, AICP - Director Divisiotn of Developm nt Services ( - a "-%-U- -.1 Clyd9 von Rosenber ICP Chief Planner, Lon , Planning December 121, 1995 Bill Garbade, P.E. District Engineer, District 14 Texas Department of Transportation 7901 N. IH35 Austin, TX 78761 Dear Mr. Garbade: Re: IH35 ENTRANCE/EXIT RAMPS FROM THE SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROADS BETWEEN LAKEWAY DRIVE AND RM2338 AND BETWEEN RM2338 AND SH29 As you are aware, on June 13, 1995 the Georgetown City Council passed a resolution requesting the Texas Department of Transportation to relocate the entrance ramp to IH35 south from the southbound frontage road between Lakeway Drive and RM2338 (Williams Drive) in Georgetown, in order to allow traffic traveling south on the frontage road from Northwest Boulevard to enter IH35 without first passing through the frontage road's intersection with RM2338 (Williams Drive). Subsequent discussions resulted in a November 22, 1995 request from the City to relocate the entrance and exit ramps between RM2338 and SH29 in a similar fashion, to provide an entrance ramp for traffic from the proposed Rivery Boulevard and other future development projects. At this time, we request that these two projects be included as a part of the addition of a third main lane to IH35 through Georgetown, which is currently scheduled for contract letting in June 1997. The City has placed a high priority on these ramp relocations, due to their importance in providing an improvement to the traffic flow in the northwest quadrant of Georgetown, as evidenced by budgeted improvements to Northwest Boulevard for both the current fiscal year and fiscal year 1996-97. We appreciate the excellent working relationship that the City has with TxDOT and look forward to working with you to ensure the completion of these important projects. Please contact Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner for Long Range Planning, at 930-3575, if you have any questions or need any additional information on this request. Sincerely, Leo Wood Mayor cc: James Klotz, TxDOT Area Engineer, Georgetown Tim Weight, TxDOT Assistant Area Engineer, Georgetown EA Council meeting date: 12/12/95 Item No. -L/ AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Amendment to Development Agreement with Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., concerning the development of Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown ITEM SUMMARY This amendment substitutes the proposed Amended concept Plan for the current Concept Plan under which Sun City Georgetown is developing. No additional acreage is being added to the site. The development is still within the original 5,302.774 acres. The Amended Concept Plan adds 25 additional acres of commercial development within the project, while retaining the ability to develop 9,500 residential units. The additional commercial acreage will not be tied to the SIP fees established in the Development Agreement, but will pay an SIP fee based on the size of meter needed to serve the commercial development. The City is making a commitment to provide the water and wastewater service to this additional commercial acreage. The City is also agreeing to repay Del Webb for the construction of a portion of the 16-inch wastewater force main. The Planned Unit Development standards are being modified to allow for the construction of swimming pools. Screen fencing is not proposed; however, fencing of the swimming pool in compliance with the Building Code will be provided. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement S itted By: 'L4 �-;��Z�Marianne Landers Banks Ci City Attorney First Amendment to Development Agreement This First Amendment to Development Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered into as of the _ day of December, 1995 by and between Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Del Webb") and The City of Georgetown, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation (the "City"). Recitals: A. Del Webb and the City have entered into that certain Development Agreement Concerning Proposed Subdivision and Construction of Master Planned Community By Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., dated February 14, 1995 (the "Development Agreement"). The concept plan attached to the Development Agreement (the "Original Concept Plan") reflected, inter alia, the proposed construction of 9,500 residential homes and 10 acres of commercial development. B. On August 7, Del Webb submitted an application to the City to replace the Original Concept Plan with the amended concept plan (the "Amended Concept Plan") attached hereto as Exhibit A, which reflects, inter alia, the proposed construction of 9,500 homes and approximately 35 acres of commercial development, including an approximately 10.5 acre parcel intended to be used for medical facilities (the "Medical Facilities Parcel") and two additional 3-acre and 21 acre commercial sites (collectively, the "24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage"), all as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. C. The City and Del Webb desire to enter this Amendment to acknowledge that the Medical Facilities Parcel shall be substituted for the ten acres of commercial development depicted on the Original Concept Plan (the "Original Ten Acres") and to address the commitment of utility capacity and associated fees applicable to the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage reflected on the Amended Concept Plan. Agreement: Now therefore, in consideration of the recitals above and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Del Webb and the City agree as follows: 1. Approval of Amended Concept Plan. Pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Development Agreement, the City Council has approved the Amended Concept Plan on December 12, 1995. The Original Concept Plan is hereby deleted and the Amended Concept Plan is substituted in lieu thereof. The City and Del Webb agree that the development regulations of the City in effect as of the date Del Webb submitted its application for the Amended Concept Plan were identical to the Development Regulations defined in and attached to the Development Agreement. Accordingly, any development of areas within the Project that were modified by the Amended Concept Plan will be governed by the identical Development Regulations (as modified by the Development Agreement) that are applicable to the remainder of the Project, except as expressly provided otherwise in this Amendment. 2. SIP Fees Applicable to Additional Commercial Acreage. Del Webb agrees to pay, with respect to the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage, the following development fees: a. Until such time as the City has enacted a city-wide impact fee, Del Webb will pay a SIP Fee equal to $2,432 per Service Unit Equivalent as a water and waste -water SIP fee, in lieu of the SIP fee specified in Section 5(f)(ii) of the Development Agreement. A Service Unit Equivalent is defined as the capacity attained through a 3/4" water meter. If a larger water meter is installed , a proportionately higher SIP Fee shall be payable. All other fees with respect to the development of the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage and associated approvals will be calculated in accordance the Development Agreement during such time. b. After the City enacts a city-wide impact fee pursuant to the Texas Local Government Code, the City and Del Webb agree that the SIP Fee established above or in Section 5(f) of the Development Agreement will not be applicable to units developed within the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage. Instead, the City will charge, and the owner of the unit will pay, the city-wide impact fee in effect from time to time, in accordance with the procedures established by the City with respect to such impact fees. It is agreed that after the City enacts a city-wide impact fee pursuant to the Texas Local Government Code, fees applicable to the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage will no longer be calculated pursuant to the Development Agreement, but will be calculated in accordance with the City's standard city-wide fee schedules in effect from time to time. This Paragraph 2 of the Amendment is applicable only to the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage and shall not be construed to alter any terms of the Development Agreement with respect to the remainder of the Project, including the Medical Facilities Parcel. 3. Commitment of Capacity. The City agrees to provide domestic water and wastewater service to all development within the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage that is a permitted use under the Amended Concept Plan and subsequent zoning approvals for the Additional Commercial Acreage. This commitment of capacity to serve the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage is in addition to the commitment of capacity set forth in Section 3 of the Development Agreement. The City agrees that the utility infrastructure described in the Development Agreement contains sufficient capacity to provide the commitment of service to the 24 Acres of Additional Commercial Acreage as set forth above. The City and Del Webb acknowledge and agree that the total construction on the Medical Facilities Parcel may not exceed 100,000 square feet of floor space. The City and Del Webb agree that the mechanical system within the lift station connecting the sewer line interceptor located within the Project to the 16' wastewater force main has not been built to the ultimate capacity needed to serve the entire Project. In the event additional flows originating from outside the Project accelerate the upgrades to the mechanical system of the lift station, then the City will be responsible for providing the necessary upgrades. 4. Reimbursement. The City agrees to reimburse Del Webb its direct costs incurred in relation to the design, review, construction and installation of the approximately 6,350 foot, 16", on -site wastewater force main connecting the wastewater interceptor to the City's 16" wastewater force main located at the southeast corner of the Project, as more particularly described in the plans prepared by Turner, Collie & Braden and approved by the City on September 5, 1995. The City's reimbursement obligation will be reduced by an amount equal to the extra cost of materials incurred by the City in connection with the City's up -sizing of the City's portion of the non -potable irrigation line from 16" to 18". The City will reimburse Del Webb within ten (10) days following the City's receipt of funds for the on -site wastewater force main from the Texas Water Development Board ("TWDB") following inspection and approval by theTWDB of the Del Webb installed line. 5. Planned Unit Development Standards. Exhibit "G" to the Development Agreement is hereby amended to include the following: Swimming pools constructed on residential lots shall be allowed within the required rear yard setback areas so long as they are located at least three (3) feet from the property line; no privacy fence shall be required, provided that fencing (which may be wrought iron or similar type fencing) shall be required to satisfy other city requirements regarding safety. 2 6. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Development Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Development Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall be construed as one and the same instrument. City of Georgetown: al Leo Wood, Mayor STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P.: By: Del Webb Communities, Inc. Its: General Partner Bv: rLarry M. Michels Vice President § ACKNOWLEDGMENT This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the day of , 19_, by Leo Wood, a person known to me in his or her capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, on behalf of the City of Georgetown. Notary Public, in and for the State of Texas STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1995, by Larry M. Michels, as Vice President of Del Webb Communities, Inc., an Arizona corporation, the general partner of Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., on behalf of said limited partnership. Notary Public, in and for the State of Texas Notary Typed/Printed Name My Commission Expires: 3 �i 1 )( ,S\ I . I • `,ya- -•linear_... - _- —gip '. I ; o,:ar; i � \ .. � _�\ /', - ... ./ " •• gyIpp, , �. I \ � ��• I. 1 � it •'�• •I ' ' � ', ii �\� �` i �, 1`! �• ,�VAelr '••' pmq AV Mmg.0 RICHARDSON VERDOORN UMDSCAn ARCII1117 7 ruMMM DLTMr1IR COMMUM 712 COMCUS! ATtWM surm MOD AUS M, TEM 7e701 ►AZ (6 12) 4ee-01117 y:i + k' I III �tffTjjG lr. {j`1j'� O} 'a Sr. 1) u,lew Sr�.``i W P, aalo�aeAa!►r 1'' ' 'I r uNqu` . ' �; y� 1 A \ O \ "k �\ V -\ �/��� ��r.R \ •.i�,� _ •, u' .1 � � 'I war, fly;. I _ J OW C.. LAW � I" RES "DF-ADDS �7■L • ,� IIyii ,r,.d,r- %n se. rTir r.F.M1...4r. a r �T- %1 �� IKLr /� k'41 11 (i ♦ �1 � S.lt,�;ArIw1..... = = ` CQ�; CIAL ACR��� ` ..+Iw TMW 1etA0aee. Ms.r c.... ?• r \� No • r..y..w w .DD r� n..rw / f � - i f .. PIL 'Le.iOl0—r1�r..r vm ea ry r..l. e r , I • I �IJ,tlCi( \ i 1 j - M eerr.. 1 r `t I �• •lrM4r W lnr� G. Yww� LwYM1w !1�•r . lM�. r M.A � � r � ��r� { i � � � t I / R I r.11e1}�d .Irwr. /Mr.. M M.ry.b.4 r�.� lie. 4� ...•.`mow. • r. ti..• � \ � `/ -/ � w➢ 1 �pW /' .. ` �. w.y rrapw.. M.11.� v...ley rr - �Ioe Y , �, . , . � J i : �+• •-, _ 6r...t 4 L /1Krr ♦ V 11L 1 e.. seta-^ r,r,,,n., a,,,,,y . u r,...•wu - ruoo r�+r.. � �- ' - \ Holm N A—% M...W. L M G"w r r. dl w A rlr rr. ` .ML. Lc..ar. n...a tlr.. MYrQ G`. ew sae 1 = AwM �•.r r.d. W rw .Mrr..A , �� 1 �( • , '' ' " ...... aw.w. ,.reA.. N...w . .b. cam", , _ .ITIES M.ww .d 2aw r r y.."a cam", wr'lYrr.~i ~'li.w new wr. ® IOO YINe Mom PL M w.t nr = 1 l to LAI..I.Yr.• IrYrbw VrYMw �..,y.. ry' M'�'� r r ®ICMeT aRTm t O�1 IrK.0 raj N0m r+. rvr .wrr .ww..w.e� e.�r...r� I�s1 arm" rMILY t dov GQAtY er o'r.e wM'`r"Lr. w e Mr<..� I�rr..r"�'� .r.er. a uo er /eoe AtlA •..1w rr.� +rw r.r . w • M.....r..l.�..�..r..�•rr EXWIT B smpDo .� h v{aiwrr ~ I roar-931685 I .m 1. )t�l I( Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. IN AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consider approval of a Revised Concept Plan (Second) of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, a 5,314 acre tract in the L. Dyches, F. Foy, B. Eaves, W. Roberts, M. Lewis, R. Jenkins, L. Russell, A. Short, G. Thompson, W. Wilkinson and D. Monroe Surveys ITEM SUMMARY: The subject second revision to the Concept Plan for Sun City Georgetown involves changes to the proposed land uses in specified areas of the development, including: 1) A 10.5 acre commercial tract at the south end of the property along RM2338, which is shown on the current Concept Plan as open space (0.5 acres) and single family residential (10 acres). This property is being considered as a plat of Neighborhood Ten -A on a separate agenda item, and will be developed for a medical clinic. 2) A 21 acre commercial tract at the north end of the property along RM2338. Ten (10) acres of this property, with frontage on RM2338, is already platted, zoned and used for commercial purposes (the Sun City temporary sales and construction offices). The remainder of this property is shown on the current Concept Plan as single family residential. 3) A 2.9 acre commercial tract at the southwest corner of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard is currently shown on both the Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 as single family residential (the "vacation villas"). The proposed new use will be a retail shopping center. 4) The original proposal to build 9,500 dwelling units in the overall Sun City development is still applicable. 5) Two (2) fire station sites have been designated, consistent with the requirements of the Development Agreement. Staff has conducted a review of the Development Agreement and the Century Plan to determine if these revisions can be supported by those documents. It has been determined that sufficient capacity exists in the utility systems to support these increases in utility demands. Further, the intensity allocation for the entire Sun City development is sufficient to support these localized changes in intensities. It may be advisable, however, to amend the Century Plan for the specific commercial parcels because they will likely not be developed by Del Webb. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Consideration of this item was delayed, with the applicant's consent, to make the necessary revisions to the Development Agreement, being considered by a separate agenda item. Approval of this revised Concept Plan must be contingent on approval of the Development Agreement revisions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Revised Concept Plan (Second) for Sun City Georgetown conditioned on the following occurring: 1. If required, Development Agreement revisions and Century Plan amendments are completed. 2. All provisions of the Development Agreement are fulfilled. 3. Utilities are provided by the City as agreed to in the Development Agreement. 4. At the time a preliminary plat is submitted for the applicable section of the development, additional information must be submitted regarding how and when upgrades will be made to CR245. The attached Concept Plan has been revised to address the Technical Issues. 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 Bv: Edward J. arry, AICP - irector Hildy L. ngma, AICP Division o Development ervices Chief Planner I REVISED CONCEPT PLAN (SECOND) OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, A 5,314 ACRE TRACT IN THE L. DYCHES, F. FOY, B. EAVES, W. ROBERTS, M. LEWIS, R. JENKINS, L. RUSSELL, A. SHORT, G. THOMPSON, W. WILKINSON AND D. MONROE SURVEYS OWNERS: Del E. Webb Development Company Mr. Clark Lyda Mr. Theron E. Bradford - 778 L.T.D. Mr. John Byram Mr. John Yearwood Mr. D.C. Young Estate Mr. Ernest C. Young Lewis E. Cook, Jr. APPLICANT: Mr. Robert L. Eck, P.E. Director, Land Development Del E. Webb Development Company 203 South IH35, Suite 100 Georgetown, TX 78628 930-6753 AGENT: Mr. Joe Verdoorn Richardson Verdoorn 712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78701 480-0032 REQUEST: Revised Concept Plan (Second) of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, a 5,314 acre tract in the L. Dyches, F. Foy, B. Eaves, W. Roberts, M. Lewis, R. Jenkins, L. Russell, A. Short, G. Thompson, W. Wilkinson, D. Monroe Surveys as recorded in Volume 2183, Page 982, Volume 1875, Page 518, Volume 1898, Page 597, Volume 2041, Page 155, Volume 1922, Page 382, Volume 623, Page 429, Volume 544, Page 582, Volume 444, Page 121, Volume 444, Page 98 and Volume 2185, Page 060 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located between FM2338 and SH 195, northwest of IH35. See attached Concept Plan. Revised Concept Plan - Sun City Georgetown December 6, 1995 Project // CP 94-0/File:SUNCn'Y.RCP Page 1 Existing Site: Phase 1 of the project, which encompasses 983 acres, is underway. Phase 1 includes single family residential, the sales center, village center, a park, the golf course, and related facilities. The remainder is undeveloped land at this time. Existing Zoning: Phase 1 is zoned A. RP, C-1, and C-213. The remainder of the property is outside the City limits, so zoning does not apply. It will be annexed and rezoned as appropriate as preliminary plats are submitted and the property purchased by Del Webb. Proposed Use: An active adult retirement community, known as Sun City, of approximately 9,500 dwelling units and 72 planned holes of golf on 3,344 acres. The applicant estimates that 80 percent of the dwelling units will be detached and 20 percent will be attached. Community facilities will occupy 71 acres and commercial sites are proposed for a total of 90 acres, including a large parcel identified as boat/recreational vehicle storage. The remaining 1,809 acres will be in roads, open space and flood plains. Surrounding Uses North: Undeveloped land and Whisper Wood Subdivision, and Zoning: single family residences (out of City) South: Undeveloped land and Chaparro Estates Subdivision, single family residential (out of City) East: Undeveloped land, (out of City) West: Undeveloped land, a portion of the 4-T Ranch Subdivision and Lakewood Estates Subdivision, single family residences (out of City) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level Two. Additional analysis is underway to determine if the land use changes proposed by this Second Revised Concept Plan can be accommodated within this intensity designation. Notification: The notification requirements have been met. HISTORY: The original Concept Plan for Sun City Georgetown was approved by the City Council on April 26, 1994. That Concept Plan included 3,991 acres. A Revised Concept Plan for the current 5,314 acres was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. That approval included the following conditions: 1) the required Century Plan amendments are Revised Concept Plan - Sun City Georgetown December 6, 1995 Project N CP 94-0/File:SUNCITY.RCP Page 2 approved; 2) the development agreement is finalized and all provisions are fulfilled; 3) utilities are provided by the City as agreed to in the development agreement; and 4) at the time a preliminary plat is submitted for the applicable section of the development, additional information must be submitted regarding how and when upgrades will be made to CR245. A Development Agreement was approved by the City Council on February 14, 1995. The Development Agreement addresses issues such as the commitment of utility capacity; the required public improvements; compliance with the City's development regulations; and the fees to be paid by the Del Webb Corporation. The Agreement makes specific modifications to the design standards in the Subdivision Regulations which apply to this development. These modified design standards include such elements as street design, sidewalk location, setbacks, lot layout, and impervious cover. It was determined to be appropriate to make these modifications specifically for the Sun City Georgetown development because of its size and the fact that it is being developed and built by one developer. These facts ensure a greater level of control and consistency throughout the life of the project than would be possible for the same number of dwelling units built by numerous developers. ANALYSIS: The revisions in this Concept Plan involve changes to the proposed land uses in specified areas. These changes include: 1. A 10.5 acre commercial tract is identified at the south end of the property along RM2338. This is the parcel that will be optioned by Scott & White for their proposed new clinic. The current Concept Plan shows the 0.5 acre portion of the tract along RM2338 as part of a larger open space lot, and the remainder of the tract (10 acres) as single family residential. The approved Final Plat for Neighborhood One designates the 0.5 acre tract for commercial use, and it was rezoned to the C-1 zoning district. 2. A 21 acre commercial tract is identified at the north end of the property along RM2338. The current Concept Plan shows the 10 acre portion of this tract along RM2338 as commercial and the remainder as single family residential. The approved Final Plat for Neighborhood One designates the 10 acre tract along RM2338 for commercial use and it is zoned C-1, Local Commercial. This tract is now being used as the temporary sales and construction administration offices. It is likely that the entire 21 acre tract will be used for a single commercial Revised Concept Plan - Sun City Georgetown December 6, 1995 Project # CP 94-0/File:SUNCITY.RCP Page 3 development. 3. A 2.6 acre commercial tract is identified at the southwest corner of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard. This tract is currently shown on both the Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 as single family residential lots (the "vacation villas"). The proposed new use will be a retail shopping center. 4. The original proposal to build 9,500 dwelling units in the overall Sun City development is still applicable. 5. Two (2) fire station sites have been designated, consistent with the requirements of the Development Agreement. The changes in land use and intensity proposed by the Second Revised Concept Plan may have an impact on the utility capacities planned for by the Development Agreement, the Service Improvements Program (SIP) fees established by the Development Agreement, and the overall Intensity Level Two assigned to the entire property. City staff is conducting a review of the Development Agreement and Century Plan to determine if changes to those approvals will be required to finalize approval of the Revised Concept Plan. Staff review of those approvals has not been completed as of the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission review of this application. If no changes to the Development Agreement or Century Plan are determined to be necessary, then City Council consideration of this application can proceed within the 45 day time period required by Section 23060 of the Subdivision Regulations. If either or both of those approvals must be reconsidered as a result of this proposed revision, then the applicant must authorize a delay in the approval time period, or this application will proceed to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration of this Concept Plan by the City Council. If they are not addressed by September 29, 1995, or by the time this item is forwarded to City Council if that is a later date, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the Concept Plan will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. If staff determines that sufficient utility capacity is not available to accommodate the revisions proposed by the subject application, then Del Webb shall work with the City to consider revisions to the Development Agreement and Concept Plan. 2. Identify on the Concept Plan the proposed elevated water storage Revised Concept Plan - Sun City Georgetown Project // CP 94-0/File:SUNCITY.RCP December 6, 1995 Page 4 tank locations. 3. Pay the required concept plan review fee. 4. Provide more detail in Note ##6 regarding the proposed square footage for each non-residential tract, by tract. This will act as the approved development limit per tract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Revised Concept Plan (Second) for Sun City Georgetown conditioned on the following occurring: 1. If required, Development Agreement revisions and Century Plan amendments. 2. All provisions of the Development Agreement are fulfilled. 3. Utilities are provided by the City as agreed to in the Development Agreement. 4. At the time a preliminary plat is submitted for the applicable section of the development, additional information must be submitted regarding how and when upgrades will be made to CR245. P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of September 5, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Revised Concept Plan (Second) for Sun City Georgetown conditioned on the following occurring: 1. If required, Development Agreement revisions and Century Plan amendments are completed. 2. All provisions of the Development Agreement are fulfilled. 3. Utilities are provided by the City as agreed to in the Development Agreement. 4. At the time a preliminary plat is submitted for the applicable section of the development, additional information must be submitted regarding how and when upgrades will be made to CR245. Revised Concept Plan - Sun City Georgetown Project # CP 94-0/File:SUNCTTY.RCP December 6, 1995 Page 5 '.J Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted public utility easement and public right-of-way and a Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract D for an entry feature wall. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposal is for a wall to encroach into the front building setback line, the public utility easement and street right-of-way at a location opposite Del Webb Boulevard from the proposed entry house. To construct a wall at this location a variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations is necessary to encroach into the front building setback line because the height of the wall exceeds that allowed by the design standards. In addition, a License to Encroach is required to encroach into the public utility easement and right-of-way. All affected utility companies have approved the request for the License to Encroach including the Community Owned Utilities Division. However, the Director of COU approves the License to Encroach into the road right-of-way with regard only to the effect that the proposal has on water, wastewater and electrical facilities. His approval does not include any other issues that may be affected by locating such a structure in the right-of-way. A denial of either of the requested actions would effectively prohibit the subject structure from being placed in the proposed location. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Since the proposed structure encroaches into the right-of-way for Del Webb Boulevard, the City has concerns with the liability of allowing it. The Director of Community Owned Utilities' approval does not address the issue of liability by allowing the wall to be placed in the right-of-way. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit a five (5) foot tall stone wall with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house, after making the required findings of fact, provided a License to Encroach, which permits the wall to encroach into the public right -of way and public utility easement, is also approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the variance request 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 Resolution Submitted Bv: Edward J. arry, AICP � Director Division 6f Development Services r _ Hildy L. kingma, AICIY Chief Planner VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, TRACTS B AND D, LOCATED AT RM2338 AND DEL WEBB BOULEVARD OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Corporation 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6776 AGENT: Richardson Verdoorn, Inc. 712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 480-0032 FAX: 480-0617 REQUEST: Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D as recorded in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on F.M.2338. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: A, Agricultural. Proposed Use: Entry fence and walls. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, (A and C-1) South: Undeveloped land (out of City) East: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2(C-1 and to be annexed) West: Casa Loma, single family residential (out of City) Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, December 6, 1995 Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC.VAR Page 1 CM/CS Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level 2 by a Plan Amendment approved by City Council on December 13, 1994. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Revised Concept Plan was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995. The Final Plat for Neighborhood One was approved by the City Council on June 24, 1995, and recorded with the County on September 5, 1995. ANALYSIS: The proposal is to construct four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot tall columns along RM2338 for a total distance of approximately 1,120 feet, five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot tall columns facing the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and a five (5) foot tall stone wall on the opposite side of the northbound lane of Del Webb Boulevard from the entry house. Both fences are proposed to encroach into the 25 foot front setback on RM2338 over their entire lengths. The two (2) walls near the intersection encroach into the 25 foot front setback on Del Webb Boulevard and the proposed wall near the entry house encroaches into the 25 foot front setback as well as the public right-of-way for Del Webb Boulevard. All proposed features also encroach into public utility easements that are adjacent to the right-of-way. SEE EXHIBIT B Licenses to Encroach into the easements and the public right-of-way are also being processed at this time. Both the request for the variance and the License to Encroach must be approved to allow the fences and walls to be constructed as proposed. Approximately 970 feet of the proposed fence will be located on Tract D of Neighborhood One, which is the tract immediately south of Del Webb Boulevard. The other fence is approximately 150 feet long and is located on Tract B of Neighborhood One, which is the tract immediately north of Del Webb Boulevard. The proposed fences will have metal railings with two (2) foot Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC.VAR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 2 by two (2) foot stone columns that are five (5) feet tall placed every 50 feet. Between the stone columns there are metal posts located every ten (10) feet that are approximately four and one- half (4 1/2) feet tall. Two (2) of the proposed walls are joined to the fences near the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and RM2338. These walls are placed at a 45 degree angle to RM2338, thereby creating the required sight triangle for motorists using the intersection. The other wall is located on the opposite side of Del Webb Boulevard from the entry house. It is designed in an "M" shape and is approximately 50 feet wide by 30 feet deep. The right-of-way for the northbound lane of Del Webb Boulevard is 60 feet wide, and the distance from the edge of pavement of Del Webb Boulevard and the right-of-way line is approximately 25 feet. The proposed fence is located in a narrow strip of Tract D that is about 55 feet deep. Given that there is a 25 foot front setback, there is 30 feet in which the wall can be placed without a variance. If the wall was moved out of the front yard setback it would be located approximately 50 feet from the roadway. At this location its affect on the adjacent property would be similar to a wall or fence placed on the rear lot line of a residence or other use. The applicant states that the request for encroachment into the front yard setback along RM2338 is based in the "great future road widening width." Prior to the recording of the Final Plat of Neighborhood One, 20 feet of right-of-way was dedicated along RM2338, and an additional 20 feet for right-of-way is reserved on the plat for future road widening. The 25 foot building line is measured from the back of the future right-of- way line. The proposed fence is located approximately two (2) feet behind the future right-of-way line. Therefore, it encroaches into the front building setback line by approximately 23 feet. The proposed wall encroaches into the 25 foot building setback measured from the Del Webb Boulevard right-of-way line by approximately 15 feet. SEE EXHIBIT B Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC .VAR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 3 Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations allows fences in the front building setback that are less than or equal to three (3) feet in height. None of the proposed fences and walls conform to this standard. As mentioned previously, the distances from the existing roadways are a reason for the applicant requesting this variance. The two (2) dedications equal a distance of 40 feet from what was the RM2338 right-of-way prior to the recordation of Neighborhood One. If the proposed fences were placed to conform to the standard they would be located approximately 85 feet from the existing roadway. The request is to place them approximately 62 feet from the roadway. The fences could be placed at the proposed location if they are reduced to three (3) feet in height. Generally, Tract B, north of Del Webb Boulevard, is at least 300 feet deep in the area where the fence is proposed. Tract D is approximately 200 feet deep where the fence is proposed. A pond and various landscape features are proposed to be located in this area of Tract D. A reason for the subject standard is to ensure a uniform height of structures in front yards that are visible from a roadway. Undoubtedly, the fence will be visible from RM2338. However, since the fence will be located along frontage all owned by the Del Webb Corporation that is zoned A, Agricultural and will be used as open space, the desired appearance can result by keeping it uniform over much of this frontage. Such uniformity is proposed in this request. By comparison, this situation does not occur in areas where there are 80 foot frontages along a street with individual properties tinder different ownership, such as a residential street. The two (2) properties adjacent to the tracts that are the subject of this request are commercial lots that are part of Sun City. The Community Owned Utilities Division is currently reviewing the License to Encroach request and indicates that the main electric line that feeds Sun City is located directly beneath the proposed wall across from the entry house. COU may possibly Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 4 not approve the request. If not, then the wall cannot be placed in the requested location. In order to avoid locating the wall above the electric line, the wall would need to be moved approximately nine (9) feet closer to the lot line. The proposed walls near the intersection are located above buried electrical and water lines. However, the electric lines in this location are not the same type as the one located under the other wall and are not as critical. COU indicates that it may be possible to approve the requested License to Encroach for these walls provided the footings and pilings are not placed directly over the lines. Approval of the variance request should be conditioned upon the approval of the Licenses to Encroach. Since the License to Encroach issue will not be resolved until after the Planning and Zoning Commission acts on this request, any motion for approval should be worded such that it provides for the wall to be located in accordance with the outcome of the License to Encroach request. By doing this, the variance request would not have to be considered again by the Commission. Variances: After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is 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 Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D V R95 -10/File : S CG-FEN C .VAR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 5 economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's Documentation of Basis for Requested Variance form is attached. SEE EXHIBIT C STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338 and five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house after making the required findings of fact, provided Licenses to Encroach, which permit the walls to encroach into the public right-of-way or public utility easements, are also approved. P & Z ACTION: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338 and five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house, after making the required findings of fact, provided Licenses to Encroach, which permit the walls to encroach into the public right -of way or public utility easements, are also approved. Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 6 SUN CITY GEORGETOWN Proposed Fen-ceand Walf ml x 3: EXHIBIT B--1 PRO -POSED FENCE AND WALL ON F.M. 2338 � z 71 1 I� A� n r r, i z o .. •n j r T � • ti x c � s 1�1jr. I , DEL _ WEBB BL VD. IIi � z f Ij 1 t N I A r n II O f 1 � _ i 3 � r r. I F I 101 n �^ TT C E W 2 �I 7 C 4_ y I � i f 1(p f� r_ 1 1ro , tm DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: 10/20/95 Applicant; Del Webb Development Corporation, L.P. .This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) of the Subdivision Regulations. 37040 Give a brief description of the variance requested. variance to allow a 4' height open rail fence along F.M. 2338 and 5' height stone landscape walls at the edge of F.M. 2338 and Del Webb Blvd. and at the Entry House on Del Webb Blvd. 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 "Coning 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? Public convenience and welfare will be substantially served with the construction of these attractive, appropriately scaled landscape walls and fence. The fence an entry wall features will serve to alert drivers and visitors of the upcoming community entrance. These features are an integral part of the entire community entrance landscape which includes a lake, fields of wildflowers and native land- scaping which will be a source of pride for citizens of Georgetown. 2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding propert)F6eSubstantially or permanentty impairea vr- diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The area where the variance occurs does not abut any neighboring properties. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The great distances from the existing roadway edges to the right-of-way make a 3' height fence and wall inappropriate in scale. Since we have set the fence and wa beyond the future right-of-way a 4' height fence and a 5' height wall are required to be visible and at an appropriate scale. This project differs due to its vast size. The visibility of these entry features is important because it alerts the driver of the upcoming major community intersection. :U-11L.ULr1Vi rr•VIV! 1 `, U D - A U 0 1 1 A 1V 400001 f fUUU/UUU 4. if the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. If the surrounding property owners were to have similar circumstances, we believ that the same opportunities for a variance would be available to them. 5. How is the public interest affected? Public safety is protected. The special entrance notifies drivers of upcoming intersection prior to a curve in F.M. 2338. 6. List the special Conditions that affect this property and Justify the apnrovr-d of the variance. Additional setbacks for future R.O.W. Curve in F.M. 2338 hides upcoming community entrance. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? Good visibility is provided through the open style fence to the open fields and the water feature. The stone landscape walls are angled to provide a clear distance of 70' from intersecting right-of-way for safety and excellent vehicular visibility. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? The entry fences and walls are part of a comprehensive antrance design that is in keeping with the safety and aesthetic issues implied by the ordinance requirements. Revised 12/94 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 THE DEL WEBB DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A PROPOSED STONE WALL INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOT D OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, AND INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR DEL WEBB BOULEVARD, AS RECORDED IN CABINET M, SLIDES 95-116 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT RM2338 AND DEL WEBB BOULEVARD; 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 street right-of-way; 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 Richardson Verdoorn, Inc. to encroach into the public utility easement and street right-of-way, 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 proposed structures are in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate them outside the public utility easement or street right-of-way. 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 Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lot D and Del Webb Boulevard Right -of -Way 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 proposed structures are in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate them outside the public utility easement or street right-of-way 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 proposed structures that encroaches into the public utility easement or street right-of-way 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 or street right-of-way 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: 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 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. Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lot D and Del Webb Boulevard Right -of -Way 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 the Del Webb Development Company, pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed stone wall into the public utility easement located on Lot D of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, and into the right-of-way for Del Webb Boulevard, located at RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lot D and Del Webb Boulevard Right -of -Way License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 1995. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor s � _ NORTH if ENTRY HOUSE - .:.�.� .a. vim......... WEBB B LVD, .------- BACK MIGHT OF WAY OPOSED STONE WALL o ---------------- 4— 401 25'addinq Liftsow - P.1J.E. li PORTION OF WALL IN P.U.E. OR RIGHT-OF-WAY- WALL AT ENTRY HOUSE � ' M Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. Zo AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted public utility easements and public right-of-way for signs within Sun City Georgetown ITEM SUMMARY: The Del Webb Development Company has submitted a Second Master Signage Plan that includes a total of 38 signs, 30 of which are new signs, for various locations throughout the development. Fifteen of the new signs will be in the platted ten (10) foot public utility easement located along the right-of-way, and three (3) will be in the public right-of-way. The actual locations of these signs are illustrated in the attachment and they are described in more detail in the staff report. The Director of Community Owned Utilities and other utility providers have agreed to allow a License to Encroach into the public utility easement. However, the Director of COU has approved the encroachments into the road right-of-way only to the effect that the proposal has on water, wastewater, and electrical facilities. His approval does not address the issue of liability by allowing the wall to be placed in the right-of-way. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Unless otherwise stated, the City Council's action on this item will approve the requested License to Encroach in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Community Owned Utilities. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Resolution Submitted Bv: Edward J/ garry, AICP - Director Division bf Development Services Hildy L. Ki gma, AICP 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 THE DEL WEBB DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF SIGNS INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown, has received an application for a license to encroach into the public utility easements and road right-of-way; 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 the Del Webb Development Company to encroach into the public utility easements and the public right-of-way, 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 its present status. 2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the property in its present status. 3. That the proposed signs will intrude into the public utility easements and public right-of-way to such a degree that it is not economically feasible to move the part of the structure within the easements or right-of-way. 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 similar to other uses in the neighborhood; and 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 it is not economically feasible to move the part of the proposed signs within the easements or right-of-way area constitutes special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into consideration would deprive the applicants 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 move the part of the structure within the easements or right-of-way does provide a basis for granting the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the appli- cants. Sun City Signs License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 3. The fact that the use of the easements or right-of-way area by the property owners 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 applicants agree 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: 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." 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. SECTION 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with the Del Webb Development Company, pertaining to the encroachment of signs as proposed by the Master Signage Plan - Second Submittal, into the public utility easements and public right-of-way. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sun City Signs License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 1995. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor SIGN #'S 20 (GOLF CLUBHOUSE), 23 (SALES CENTER), 31 (MAIN DRIVEWAY @ VILLAGE CENTER) AND 38 (PARK PAVILION) ARE LEVEL 2 SIGNS, 2-FACED AND PERPENDICULAR TO R.O. W. SIGN #'S 19 (GOLF MAINTENANCE), 25 AND 30 (SECONDARY DRIVES @ VILLAGE CENTER) ARE LEVEL 3 SIGNS, SINGLE -FACED AND ANGLED 45 FROM R.O.W. DRIVEWAY STREET Sun. City Georgetown Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign#s 1911 20, 231 251 30, 31, & 38 JDv MIN. SETBACK FR&4 DRNEWAYIEDGE 10' P.U.E. 5' MIN. SETBACK • FROM R.O.W. R.O.W.! THIS LAYOUT PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. SIGNS MAY BE LOCATED ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF DRIVEWAY, BUT SETBACKS WILL BE AS SHOWN. SCALE. 1" = 101 0 10 20 IN THE EVENT OF FUTURE R.O.W. DEDICATION, SIGN WILL BE RELOCATED OUT OF R.O.W. AND INTO P.U.E. 25' P.U.E. \ \\ LEVEL I -A N SIGN FUTURE R.O.W. (RESERVED) O N 5' CURRENT R.O.W. FM 2338 0 N OLD R.O.W. EXIST. PAVING EDGE APPROX. 550' FROM �•IDEL WEBB BLVD Sun City Georgetown Master Signage Plan scale: 1"=30' Site Plan' Drawings Sign. # 6 o - 15 30 60 North rmi; IN THE EVENT OF R.-O.W. DEDICATION, SIGN WILL BE RELOCATED OUT OF R.O.W. AND INTO P.U.E. 25' P.U.E. 'va . N FUTURE R.O.W. (RESERVED) .. o � N CURRENT R.O.W. OLD R.O.W. dun City .Georgetown . Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 7 E.. LEVEL 1-A SIGN 5' EXIST. PAVING EDGE FM 2338 APPROX. 1,100' FROM �;'DEL WEBB BLVD 1 Scale: 1" T 30' 0 15 30 60 North 25' P.U.E. N FUTURE .R.O.W. (RESERVED) .. , • o CURRENT R.O.W. 0 N OLD R.O.W. EXIST. PAVING EDGE Sun City Georgetown Master Signa.ge Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign #12 LEVEL 1-B SIGN FM 2338 Scale: 1" = 30' 0 15 30 60 North � W O I U j C LI 7 � • I_ - 1 I Sign - r C. I 3' 24' 24' Su, n City Georgetown Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 13 Scale: in = 20' 0 20 40 North Cn C�^^ VQ r-I CO CD �. n �. —0 CD ter* VJ (D (0 — � ' to p median _ curb ' Del Webb Blvd (Inbound) Sta. curb CO N .. drainage ditch (varies) . c�centeMid © elec. property line o W, 10, P.U.E. o to 0 f NO r 19 0 V4 acacia UV�Y Sun City Georgetown Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 15 0s I O/ N68• Fo..16• E r � o r L1 8 s� Scale: i" _ 40, V 0 40 - 80 North a.� C) Q � i �•� M� M %> �evel 3 p,p / Sign N 3 Q Edo cd 9. I . • , i I i 1'_6" 1'-6" 3' 24' 24' Sun City Georgetown Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 16 Scale: 1 n = 20' - 20 40 North V/ a C CD C/). n .._. ..D CD r * 5)7 VJ F�--+ 0 �--� • v r* O CO 8 CD N � o I I N O r Q curb ' Del Webb Blvd curb s w drainaR ditch (varies .. .: centerline- propertyline I Pu. F. - N� C V) CD rC24 h-..► 00 \ V 0 (Q V CO CD P+ 0 io CD 2 cD I I 0 z 0 curb ' Del Webb Blvd (Inbound) Sta. ? 400 - - - curb Cn CD�R • C property line -- 10' P.U,E. AP ACK 65� To AgaKSee,rINf r C/Rg or- Awlwew/N# Gt M D Sr. V, C/) CD n .... -.� CD VJ c� 0 N, 0 M O �( �� O N N O median curb Del Webb Blvd (Inbound) .Sta.88t/5 curb drainage ditch (varies) centeilihe elec. --�- w — -- — — property line O 10' P.U.E. A PRACCK. /*0 � TV /N 2F SC%TlA41�w 4OZs IV/% zM Ae4wl N.-vO . Cn � CDCO CD Cl) o� O Q• �• CD CQ N Cn O N Cn 2 CD II N 0 10, P.U.E. t� Property line curb curb curb ' Texas Drive All Sta. 1+75 curb N � n property line v?° _ � 10' P.U:E. w, t i o ,c 3VEL 2 Z SIGN LANDSCAPED MEDIAN II Larkspur Lane Sun City Georgetown Master. Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Scale: V = 40' Sign # 37 1 _ .a R, . b t9 - r .� A I elect MR . I I 1'-6" 24' 32' Sun. CityGeorgetown Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 39 Scale: 1" = 20' 020 40 North Sun City Georgetown, Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 40 - W 'a a 00 0 b � � �v Level 3 Sign N to .Cd3r I 24' ......................................24' Scale: 1"=20' �W 0. 20 40 North Sun City Georgetown Master Signage Plan Site Plan Drawings Sign # 41 4) b . ^v c� a A j 1 Level 3 Sign l " F-6" V-6" 24' 24' Scale: i" = 20' �\ 0. 20 40 North r, � Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted public utility easements and a Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D for a fence along RM2338. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposal is to construct four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot tall columns along RM2338 for a total distance of approximately 1,120 feet. Both fences are proposed to encroach into the 25 foot front setback on RM2338 over their entire lengths and into the platted public utility easement. A variance to allow the fence that is taller than three (3) feet into the front building setback is required, as well as a License to Encroach to allow the fences to encroach into the public utility easement. Both the request for the variance and the License to Encroach must be approved to allow the fences to be constructed as proposed. The applicant states that the request for encroachment into the front yard setback along RM2338 is based in the "great future road widening width." The fence is proposed to encroach into the front building setback line by approximately 23 feet. All utility providers, including the Community Owned Utilities Division, have approved the License to Encroach application. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338, after making the required findings of fact, provided a License to Encroach, which permits the fences to encroach into the public utility easements, is also approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the variance request 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 Resolution Submitted By: Edward J. ar y, AICP - birector Division o Development Services Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Chief Planner VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, TRACTS B AND D, LOCATED AT RM2338 AND DEL WEBB BOULEVARD OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Corporation 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6776 AGENT: Richardson Verdoorn, Inc. 712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 480-0032 FAX: 480-0617 REQUEST: Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D as recorded in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on F.M.2338. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: A, Agricultural. Proposed Use: Entry fence and walls. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, (A and C-1) South: Undeveloped land (out of City) East: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2(C-1 and to be annexed) West: Casa Loma, single family residential (out of City) Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, December 6, 1995 Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC.VAR Page 1 CM/CS Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level 2 by a Plan Amendment approved by City Council on December 13, 1994. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Revised Concept Plan was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995. The Final Plat for Neighborhood One was approved by the City Council on June 24, 1995, and recorded with the County on September 5, 1995. ANALYSIS: The proposal is to construct four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot tall columns along RM2338 for a total distance of approximately 1,120 feet, five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot tall columns facing the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and a five (5) foot tall stone wall on the opposite side of the northbound lane of Del Webb Boulevard from the entry house. Both fences are proposed to encroach into the 25 foot front setback on RM2338 over their entire lengths. The two (2) walls near the intersection encroach into the 25 foot front setback on Del Webb Boulevard and the proposed wall near the entry house encroaches into the 25 foot front setback as well as the public right-of-way for Del Webb Boulevard. All proposed features also encroach into public utility easements that are adjacent to the right-of-way. SEE EXHIBIT B Licenses to Encroach into the easements and the public right-of-way are also being processed at this time. Both the request for the variance and the License to Encroach must be approved to allow the fences and walls to be constructed as proposed. Approximately 970 feet of the proposed fence will be located on Tract D of Neighborhood One, which is the tract immediately south of Del Webb Boulevard. The other fence is approximately 150 feet long and is located on Tract B of Neighborhood One, which is the tract immediately north of Del Webb Boulevard. The proposed fences will have metal railings with two (2) foot Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC.VAR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 2 by two (2) foot stone columns that are five (5) feet tall placed every 50 feet. Between the stone columns there are metal posts located every ten (10) feet that are approximately four and one- half (4 1 /2) feet tall. Two (2) of the proposed walls are joined to the fences near the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and RM2338. These walls are placed at a 45 degree angle to RM2338, thereby creating the required sight triangle for motorists using the intersection. The other wall is located on the opposite side of Del Webb Boulevard from the entry house. It is designed in an "M" shape and is approximately 50 feet wide by 30 feet deep. The right-of-way for the northbound lane of Del Webb Boulevard is 60 feet wide, and the distance from the edge of pavement of Del Webb Boulevard and the right-of-way line is approximately 25 feet. The proposed fence is located in a narrow strip of Tract D that is about 55 feet deep. Given that there is a 25 foot front setback, there is 30 feet in which the wall can be placed without a variance. If the wall was moved out of the front yard setback it would be located approximately 50 feet from the roadway. At this location its affect on the adjacent property would be similar to a wall or fence placed on the rear lot line of a residence or other use. The applicant states that the request for encroachment into the front yard setback along RM2338 is based in the "great future road widening width." Prior to the recording of the Final Plat of Neighborhood One, 20 feet of right-of-way was dedicated along RM2338, and an additional 20 feet for right-of-way is reserved on the plat for future road widening. The 25 foot building line is measured from the back of the future right-of- way line. The proposed fence is located approximately two (2) feet behind the future right-of-way line. Therefore, it encroaches into the front building setback line by approximately 23 feet. The proposed wall encroaches into the 25 foot building setback measured from the Del Webb Boulevard right' of -way line by approximately 15 feet. SEE EXHIBIT B Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi 1e: SCG-FENC .VAR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 3 Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations allows fences in the front building setback that are less than or equal to three (3) feet in height. None of the proposed fences and walls conform to this standard. As mentioned previously, the distances from the existing roadways are a reason for the applicant requesting this variance. The two (2) dedications equal a distance of 40 feet from what was the RM2338 right-of-way prior to the recordation of Neighborhood One. If the proposed fences were placed to conform to the standard they would -be located approximately 85 feet from the existing roadway. The request is to place them approximately 62 feet from the roadway. The fences could be placed at the proposed location if they are reduced to three (3) feet in height. Generally, Tract B, north of Del Webb Boulevard, is at least 300 feet deep in the area where the fence is proposed. Tract D is approximately 200 feet deep where the fence is proposed. A pond and various landscape features are proposed to be located in this area of Tract D. A reason for the subject standard is to ensure a uniform height of structures in front yards that are visible from a roadway. Undoubtedly, the fence will be visible from RM2338. However, since the fence will be located along frontage all owned by the Del Webb Corporation that is zoned A, Agricultural and will be used as open space, the desired appearance can result by keeping it uniform over much of this frontage. Such uniformity is proposed in this request. By comparison, this situation does not occur in areas where there are 80 foot frontages along a street with individual properties under different ownership, such as a residential street. The two (2) properties adjacent to the tracts that are the subject of this request are commercial lots that are part of Sun City. The Community Owned Utilities Division is currently reviewing the License to Encroach request and indicates that the main electric line that feeds Sun City is located directly beneath the proposed wall across from the entry house. COU may possibly Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 4 not approve the request. If not, then the wall cannot be placed in the requested location. In order to avoid locating the wall above the electric line, the wall would need to be moved approximately nine (9) feet closer to the lot line. The proposed walls near the intersection are located above buried electrical and water lines. However, the electric lines in this location are not the same type as the one located under the other wall and are not as critical. COU indicates that it may be possible to approve the requested License to Encroach for these walls provided the footings and pilings are not placed directly over the lines. Approval of the variance request should be conditioned upon the approval of the Licenses to Encroach. Since the License to Encroach issue will not be resolved until after the Planning and Zoning Commission acts on this request, any motion for approval should be worded such that it provides for the wall to be located in accordance with the outcome of the License to Encroach request. By doing this, the variance request would not have to be considered again by the Commission. Variances: 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 Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/File:SCG-FENC. VAR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 5 economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's Documentation of Basis for Requested Variance form is attached. SEE EXHIBIT C STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338 and five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house after making the required findings of fact, provided Licenses to Encroach, which permit the walls to encroach into the public right-of-way or public utility easements, are also approved. P & Z ACTION: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338 and five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house, after making the required findings of fact, provided Licenses to Encroach, which permit the walls to encroach into the public right -of way or public utility easements, are also approved. Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 6 SUN CITY GEORGETOWN Proposed Fenceand Wav- Ar A- Jc o m x co k EXHIBIT B-1 -- PROPOSED FENCE AND WALL ON F.M. 2338 ' ' z i " ( i j I i F 2 i r ^ =� z _ D i I Z F 1 � � Y Z � N " y Z F• F � 1 � i i •i -'�- DEL WEBB BLVD. - ' ice`- ------ ITI eo ' I s ' z f , z II C O > r ' i 1 - i n 3 N F I ' Z Z r^ F c 1C 1 m i Im EXHIBIT B-2 ``��z ji LU 0) CL 0 Fr If I ♦ ♦ of cl DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIArICE Date: 10/20/95 Applicant: Del Webb Development Corporation, L.P. This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Sections) of the Subdivision Regulations. 37040 Give a brief description of the variance requested: Variance to allow a 4' height open rail fence along F.M. 2338 and 5' height stone landscape walls at the edge of F.M. 2338 and Del Webb Blvd. and at the Entry House on Del Webb Blvd. 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 public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal the variance is not contrary to the 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? Public convenience and welfare will be substantially served with the construction of these attractive, appropriately scaled landscape walls and fence. The fence al entry wall features will serve to alert drivers and visitors of the upcoming community entrance. These features are an integral part of the entire community entrance landscape which includes a lake, fields of wildflowers and native land- scaping which will be a source of pride for citizens of Georgetown. 2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding propeff_)F Substantially or permanently impaireQ -Or- diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The area where the variance occurs does not abut any neighboring properties. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those - hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The great distances from the existing roadway edges to the right-of-way make a 3' height fence and wall inappropriate in scale. Since we have set the fence and w; beyond the future right-of-way a 4' height fence and a 5' height wall are require( to be visible and at an appropriate scale. This project differs due to its vast size. The visibility of these entry features is important because it alerts the driver of the upcoming major community intersection. U-1•)-yU 16.ULr1Y1 r VIY1 1 ki a G - A V 0 1 1 A 1V 4000O1 ( rUUU/UUU 4. If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. If the surrounding property owners were to have similar circumstances, we belieN that the same opportunities for a variance would be available to them. 5. How is the public interest affected? Public safety is protected. The special entrance notifies drivers of upcoming intersection prior to a curve in F.M. 2338. 6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approve of the variance. Additional setbacks for future R.O.W. Curve in F.M. 2338 hides upcoming community entrance. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? Good visibility is provided through the open style fence to the open fields,and the water feature. The stone landscape walls are angled to provide a clear distance of 70' from intersecting right-of-way for safety and excellent vehicular visibility. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? The entry fences and walls are part of a comprehensive antrance design that is in keeping with the safety and aesthetic issues implied by the ordinance requirements. Revised 12/94 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 THE DEL WEBB DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF PROPOSED STONE AND METAL FENCES INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOTS B AND D OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, AS RECORDED IN CABINET M, SLIDES 95-116 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT RM2338 AND DEL WEBB BOULEVARD; 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 Richardson Verdoorn, Inc. to encroach into the public utility easement and street right-of-way, 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 proposed structures are in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate them 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 WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts as stated above now concludes and finds that: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lots B and D License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 1. The fact that the proposed structures are in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate them 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 proposed structures 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: 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 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. 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 the Del Webb Development Company, pertaining to the encroachment of proposed stone and metal fences into the public utility easements located on Lots B and D of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One. Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lots B and D License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: 1995. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lots B and D License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 Y4 LLI z LU LL _ U r40. J i: LLJ c i LL i - MATCH LINE TO EXHIBIT A Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted public utility easements and a Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D for walls located at the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposal is to construct five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot tall columns facing the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard. The two (2) walls encroach into the 25 foot front setback on Del Webb Boulevard and the public utility easement that is adjacent to the right-of-way. A variance to allow the walls that are taller than three (3) feet into the front building setback is required, as well as a License to Encroach to allow the walls to encroach into the public utility easement. Both the request for the variance and the License to Encroach must be approved to allow the walls to be constructed as proposed. All utility providers, including the Community Owned Utilities Division, have approved the License to Encroach application regarding the compatibility with water, wastewater and electric facilities only. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard, after making the required findings of fact, provided a License to Encroach, which permits the walls to encroach into the public utility easement is also approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the variance request 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 Resolution Submitted B-3LI Edward arry, AICP /-'Director Divisio of Development Services Hildy L. Kingma, AICP Chief Planner VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, TRACTS B AND D, LOCATED AT RM2338 AND DEL WEBB BOULEVARD OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Corporation 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6776 AGENT: Richardson Verdoorn, Inc. 712 Congress Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 480-0032 FAX: 480-0617 REQUEST: Variance to Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D as recorded in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located on F.M.2338. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: A, Agricultural. Proposed Use: Entry fence and walls. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, (A and C-1) South: Undeveloped land (out of City) East: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2(C-1 and to be annexed) West: Casa Loma, single family residential (out of City) Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, December 6, 1995 Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC.VAR Page 1 CM/CS Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level 2 by a Plan Amendment approved by City Council on December 13, 1994. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Revised Concept Plan was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995. The Final Plat for Neighborhood One was approved by the City Council on June 24, 1995, and recorded with the County on September 5, 1995. ANALYSIS: The proposal is to construct four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot tall columns along RM2338 for a total distance of approximately 1,120 feet, five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot tall columns facing the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and a five (5) foot tall stone wall on the opposite side of the northbound lane of Del Webb Boulevard from the entry house. Both fences are proposed to encroach into the 25 foot front setback on RM2338 over their entire lengths. The two (2) walls near the intersection encroach into the 25 foot front setback on Del Webb Boulevard and the proposed wall near the entry house encroaches into the 25 foot front setback as well as the public right-of-way for Del Webb Boulevard. All proposed features also encroach into public utility easements that are adjacent to the right-of-way. SEE EXHIBIT B Licenses to Encroach into the easements and the public right-of-way are also being processed at this time. Both the request for the variance and the License to Encroach must be approved to allow the fences and walls to be constructed as proposed. Approximately 970 feet of the proposed fence will be located on Tract D of Neighborhood One, which is the tract immediately south of Del Webb Boulevard. The other fence is approximately 150 feet long and is located on Tract B of Neighborhood One, which is the tract immediately north of Del Webb Boulevard. The proposed fences will have metal railings with two (2) foot Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 2 by two (2) foot stone columns that are five (5) feet tall placed every 50 feet. Between the stone columns there are metal posts located every ten (10) feet that are approximately four and one- half (4 1/2) feet tall. Two (2) of the proposed walls are joined to the fences near the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and RM2338. These walls are placed at a 45 degree angle to RM2338, thereby creating the required sight triangle for motorists using the intersection. The other wall is located on the opposite side of Del Webb Boulevard from the entry house. It is designed in an "M" shape and is approximately 50 feet wide by 30 feet deep. The right-of-way for the northbound lane of Del Webb Boulevard is 60 feet wide, and the distance from the edge of pavement of Del Webb Boulevard and the right-of-way line is approximately 25 feet. The proposed fence is located in a narrow strip of Tract D that is about 55 feet deep. Given that there is a 25 foot front setback, there is 30 feet in which the wall can be placed without a variance. If the wall was moved out of the front yard setback it would be located approximately 50 feet from the roadway. At this location its affect on the adjacent property would be similar to a wall or fence placed on the rear lot line of a residence or other use. The applicant states that the request for encroachment into the front yard setback along RM2338 is based in the "great future road widening width." Prior to the recording of the Final Plat of Neighborhood One, 20 feet of right-of-way was dedicated along RM2338, and an additional 20 feet for right-of-way is reserved on the plat for future road widening. The 25 foot building line is measured from the back of the future right-of- way line. The proposed fence is located approximately two (2) feet behind the future right-of-way line. Therefore, it encroaches into the front building setback line by approximately 23 feet. The proposed wall encroaches into the 25 foot building setback measured from the Del Webb Boulevard right-of-way line by approximately 15 feet. SEE EXHIBIT B Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC.VAR CM/Cs December 6, 1995 Page 3 Section 37040 B. of the Subdivision Regulations allows fences in the front building setback that are less than or equal to three (3) feet in height. None of the proposed fences and walls conform to this standard. As mentioned previously, the distances from the existing roadways are a reason for the applicant requesting this variance. The two (2) dedications equal a distance of 40 feet from what was the RM2338 right-of-way prior to the recordation of Neighborhood One. If the proposed fences were placed to conform to the standard they would be located approximately 85 feet from the existing roadway. The request is to place them approximately 62 feet from the roadway. The fences could be placed at the proposed location if they are reduced to three (3) feet in height. Generally, Tract B, north of Del Webb Boulevard, is at least 300 feet deep in the area where the fence is proposed. Tract D is approximately 200 feet deep where the fence is proposed.,,- roposed. A pond and various landscape features are proposed to be located in this area of Tract D. A reason for the subject standard is to ensure a uniform height of structures in front yards that are visible from a roadway. Undoubtedly, the fence will be visible from RM2338. However, since the fence will be located along frontage all owned by the Del Webb Corporation that is zoned A, Agricultural and will be used as open space, the desired appearance can result by keeping it uniform over much of this frontage. Such uniformity is proposed in this request. By comparison, this situation does not occur in areas where there are 80 foot frontages along a street with individual properties under different ownership, such as a residential street. The two (2) properties adjacent to the tracts that are the subject of this request are commercial lots that are part of Sun City. The Community Owned Utilities Division is currently reviewing the License to Encroach request and indicates that the main electric line that feeds Sun City is located directly beneath the proposed wall across from the entry house. COU may possibly Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 4 not approve the request. If not, then the wall cannot be placed in the requested location. In order to avoid locating the wall above the electric line, the wall would need to be moved approximately nine (9) feet closer to the lot line. The proposed walls near the intersection are located above buried electrical and water lines. However, the electric lines in this location are not the same type as the one located under the other wall and are not as critical. COU indicates that it may be possible to approve the requested License to Encroach for these walls provided the footings and pilings are not placed directly over the lines. Approval of the variance request should be conditioned upon the approval of the Licenses to Encroach. Since the License to Encroach issue will not be resolved until after the Planning and Zoning Commission acts on this request, any motion for approval should be worded such that it provides for the wall to be located in accordance with the outcome of the License to Encroach request. By doing this, the variance request would not have to be considered again by the Commission. Variances: After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.B of the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is 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 Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 5 economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's Documentation of Basis for Requested Variance form is attached. SEE EXHIBIT C STAFF RECOAIMIFNDATION: Approval of the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338 and five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house after making the required findings of fact, provided Licenses to Encroach, which permit the walls to encroach into the public right-of-way or public utility easements, are also approved. P & Z ACTION: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the requested variance to Section 37040 B. to permit four (4) foot tall fences with five (5) foot columns to encroach into the 25 foot front building line along RM2338 and five (5) foot tall stone walls with six (6) foot columns to encroach into the 25 front building line near the intersection of RM2338 and Del Webb Boulevard and on Del Webb Boulevard across from the entry house, after making the required findings of fact, provided Licenses to Encroach, which permit the walls to encroach into the public right -of way or public utility easements, are also approved. Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase One, Neighborhood One, Tracts B and D VR95-10/Fi1e:SCG-FENC. V AR CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 6 SUN CITY GEORGETOWN Proposed Fent-eandW-al- Ar EXHIBIT B-1 PROPOSED FENCE AND WALL ON F.M. 2338 Z �f i I P i f > 7 f L = Y i z E tw y F > c > S r DEL WEBB BLVD. T 0 1 � I = � 3 V _ N r � Z n � O c i. 'W 1 I CA 1 � jC im i , NORTH WEBE BLVD. ROPOSED STONE WALL ............ ........... 74� 25Wding Line. ----------- -------------------------------------- P.u.E. WALL AT ENTRY HOUSE 10 BACK RIGHT OF WAY m x m CD EXHIBIT B-3 a DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARUNCE Date: 10/20/95 Applicant: Del Webb Development Corporation, L.P. This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) of the Subdivision Regulations. 37040 Give a brief description of the variance requested: Variance to allow a 4' height open rail fence along F.M. 2338 and 5' height stone landscape walls at the edge of F.M. 2338 and Del Webb Blvd. and .at the Entry House on Del Webb Blvd. 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 "Coning 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? Public convenience and welfare will be substantially served with the construction of these attractive, appropriately scaled landscape walls and fence. The fence ar entry wall features will serve to alert drivers and visitors of the upcoming community entrance. These features are an integral part of the entire community entrance landscape which includes a lake, fields of wildflowers and native land- scaping which will be a source of pride for citizens of Georgetown. 2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding propertyFbeSubstantialty or permanently inipairec ar- diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. The area where the variance occurs does not abut any neighboring properties. 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those - hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The great distances from the existing roadway edges to the right-of-way make a 3' height fence and wall inappropriate in scale. Since we have set the fence and w� beyond the future right-of-way a 4' height fence and a 5' height wall are require( to be visible and at an appropriate scale. This project differs due to its vast size. The visibility of these entry features is important because it alerts the driver of the upcoming major community intersection. .: U- 1 J-�j0 1 L : U6fly' r r.V1r: 1 k, U D - A V 0 1 111 IV g00001 ( r UUU/ UUU 4. If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. If the surrounding property owners were to have similar circumstances, we believ that the same opportunities for a variance would be available to them. 5. How is the public interest affected? Public safety is protected. The special entrance notifies drivers of upcoming intersection prior to a curve in F.M. 2338. b. List the special :onditions that affect this property and justify the approv-,d of the variance. Additional setbacks for future R.O.W. Curve in F.M. 2338 hides upcoming community entrance. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? Good visibility is provided through the open style fence to the open fields and the water feature. The stone landscape walls are angled to provide a clear distance of 70' from intersecting right-of-way for safety and excellent vehicular visibility. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? The entry fences and walls are part of a comprehensive '-ntrance design that is in keeping with the safety and aesthetic issues implied by the ordinance requirements. Revised 12/94 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 THE DEL WEBB DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF PROPOSED STONE WALLS INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOTS B AND D OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, AS RECORDED IN CABINET M, SLIDES 95-116 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT RM2338 AND DEL WEBB BOULEVARD; 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 Richardson Verdoorn, Inc. to encroach into the public utility easement and street right-of-way, 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 proposed structures are in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate them 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 WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts as stated above now concludes and finds that: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lots B and D License Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 1. The fact that the proposed structures are in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate them 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 proposed structures 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: 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 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. 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 the Del Webb Development Company, pertaining to the encroachment of proposed stone walls into the public utility easements located on Lots B and D of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One. Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lots B and D License Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED this day of ATTEST: 1995. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Lots B and D License Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 RIGHT OF WAY -LANDSCAPE STONE WALL QD f eV RIGHT 01�-WAY LAN, DSCAPE STONE WALL- U. E. FAt 23M + + C13 Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance to rezone a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 Acres in the W.G. Wilkinson and George Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposal is to conduct the second reading of an ordinance to rezone Neighborhood Ten -A, which is to be the site of the proposed medical clinic. This area was included in the 475.52 acres, to be known as Sun City Georgetown Phase 2, which was approved for First Reading ,on November 28, 1995. Since Neighborhood Ten -A will be recorded prior to the remaining area of Phase 2, an ordinance rezoning only the portion of Phase 2 that it occupies is being considered for Second Reading at this time. This is consistent with the City's practice of withholding Second Reading of rezoning ordinances until the accompanying plat is prepared for recordation. The consideration of the approval of the Final Plat for Neighborhood Ten -A is on the same City Council agenda as this rezoning request. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of a 475.52 acre tract, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial (Tracts G and J, Block 1, and Tract O, Block 26), and RP, Residential Planned (all other lots) subject to completion of the changes to the Development Agreement and the Century Plan if such are determined to be necessary. At its November 28, 1995 meeting, the City Council approved for First Reading the ordinance rezoning all of the proposed Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2. 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 Preliminary/Final Plat Submitted Bv: Edward J. j3arry, AICP - irector Division of Development Services Hildy L. Kr gma, AICP Chief Planner REZONING OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 2, A 475.52 ACRE TRACT IN THE B. EAVES, R. JENKINS, D. MONROE, M. LEWIS, A. SHORT, G. THOMPSON, AND W. WILKINSON SURVEYS FROM A, AGRICULTURAL TO C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL, FOR TRACTS G, J, AND O, WITH THE REMAINDER TO RP, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED OWNERS: Del E. Webb Development Company Mr. Clark E. Lyda, Trustee Mr. Theron S. Bradford, Trustee APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck, P.E. Director, Land Development Del E. Webb Development Company 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6770 AGENT: Mr. Scott Smiley, P.E. Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. 5000 Plaza On The Lake, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746 329-5002 FAX: 329-0802 REQUEST: Rezoning of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, a 475.52 acre tract in the B. Eaves, R. Jenkins, D. Monroe, M. Lewis, A. Short, G. Thompson and W. Wilkinson Surveys from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial for Tract J and O with the remainder to be RP, Residential Planned as recorded in Volume 2679, Page 744, Volume 2687, Page 945, Volume 2712, Page 103, Volume 1898, Page 597, Volume 1270, Page 305, Volume 2246, Page 561 of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas. Location: Located northeast of F.M. 2338. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Rezoning- Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown #RZ95-17/Fi1e:SUNCrrY2.REZ CM/CS August 31, 1995 Page 1 Existing Zoning: Annexation of this property will be considered by the City Council as parcels within the Preliminary Plat are purchased by the Del Webb Development Company. Proposed Use: 1,261 single family residential lots with the remaining area used as commercial, open space, drainage easements, and golf course. Surrounding Uses North: Undeveloped land (out of City) and Zoning: South: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1 (A, RP and C-1) and undeveloped land and Chapparo Estates (out of City) East: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1 (A, RP and C-1) and undeveloped land (out of City) West: Undeveloped land (out of City) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level Two. Additional analysis is underway to determine if the land use changes proposed by the Second Revised Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 (see separate agenda items) and reflected in the subject rezoning request can be accommodated within this intensity designation. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: The original Concept Plan for Sun City Georgetown was approved by the City Council on April 26, 1994. That Concept Plan included 3,991 acres. A Revised Concept Plan for the current 5,314 acres was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan will be considered by the Commission and Council on a separate agenda item. That Concept Plan proposes land uses that are consistent with the subject Preliminary Plat. A Development Agreement between the City and Del Webb was approved by the City Council on February 14, 1995. The Development Agreement addresses issues such as the commitment of utility capacity; the required public improvements; compliance with the City's development regulations; and the fees to be paid by the Del Webb Corporation. The Agreement makes specific modifications to Rezoning- Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown //RZ95-17/Fi1e:SUNCITY2.REZ CM/CS August 31, 1995 Page 2 the design standards in the Subdivision Regulations which apply to this development. These modified design standards include such elements as street design, sidewalk location, setbacks, lot layout, and impervious cover. It was determined to be appropriate to make these modifications specifically for the Sun City Georgetown development because of its size and the fact that it is being developed and built by one developer. These facts ensure a greater level of control and consistency throughout the life of the project than would be possible for the same number of dwelling units built by numerous developers. ANALYSIS: This request would result in the following zoning districts applied to the subject property: Tracts G and J, Block 1: C-1, Local Commercial Tract O, Block 26: C-1, Local Commercial All remaining lots: RP, Residential Planned This request is consistent with the Second Revised Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 of Sun City Georgetown, both of which are to be considered by separate agenda items. Since the area of this rezoning is based on the possible change in intensity due to the Revised Concept Plan, the rezoning request cannot proceed to City Council for consideration unless any changes determined to be necessary to the Century Plan and Development Agreement are completed. The following portion of this report will describe the impact of each of the requested zoning districts. SEE EXHIBIT A C-1, Local Commercial Tract G, Block 1 is a 5.0 acre parcel shown on the Second Revised Concept Plan as a commercial lot and on the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 as a single family or commercial lot. An alternate lot layout for this tract is shown on the Preliminary Plat if it develops for single family residential. This tract, along with Tract J, is currently optioned by Scott and White for development of their health care clinic. Tract G will be purchased in the future only if it is determined to be necessary for expansion of the clinic. For this reason, the Preliminary Plat shows the two alternate uses of this tract. The City's practice when rezoning parcels that are undergoing platting is to hold the second reading of the Rezoning- Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown #RZ95-17/Fi1e:SUNCrrY2.REZ CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 3 rezoning until the final plat is recorded with the County. At the time the subject tract is included within a final plat, it will be known whether it will develop as commercial or single family residential. The City Council will then be able to finalize the rezoning to the appropriate district, either C-1 as requested in this application, or RS if that is the proposed use at the time. The City's primary concern with development of this tract for commercial purposes is its roadway access. The Preliminary Plat designates Acacia Way, the only public street access to the tract, as a residential collector. This provides additional right-of-way and street width to accommodate the increased traffic likely to be generated by a commercial use. Further, staff review of the Preliminary Plat includes the recommendation for a plat note to state that Tract G will only be developed for commercial purposes if it is developed with Tract J, and its primary access in that case will be from RM2338. Tract J, Block 1, is a 5.00 acre tract designated on both the Second Revised Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 as a commercial tract. As noted above, this tract is optioned by Scott and White for development of their health care clinic. This tract is likely to be the first parcel purchased, along with Tract U in Phase 1, for the clinic. As currently designed in the Preliminary Plat, Tract J has no access to a public right-of-way, as required by Section 33010 of the Subdivision Regulations. In order to address this concern, staffs recommendation on the Preliminary Plat is that a plat note be added to state that Tract J will only be developed if part of a resubdivision with Tract U so it will have access to public right-of-way. In addition, the plat note shall state that the primary access to Tract J will be from RM2338. Tract O, Block 26, is a 9.693 acre tract designated on both the Second Revised Concept Plan and the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 as a commercial tract. The plat shows that the only access to this tract will be from the residential collector streets within the adjacent residential area. This tract is, however, adjacent to Tract A in Phase 1, which is platted and zoned for commercial use. Currently, Tract A is developed for the temporary sales and construction administration offices for Sun City Georgetown. It is likely that these uses will be discontinued within the next year when the permanent sales center within Sun City is Rezoning- Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown #RZ95-17/File:SUNCTTY2.REZ CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 4 completed. At that time Tract A, combined with the subject tract, may redevelop for a larger commercial development. As a result, staff's recommendation on the Preliminary Plat is that a plat note be added to state that primary access to Tract O will be from RM2338 through Tract A in Phase 1. The C-1 zoning district allows all residential uses, as well as general retail, service shops, and indoor recreation uses. Commercial uses are most appropriate when the primary access is from an arterial. The plat notes recommended as part of the Preliminary Plat consideration are intended to address any potential concerns about access to Tracts G, J, and O, and to make them more suitable parcels for commercial development. Provided the recommended plat notes are added, each of the tracts proposed for C-1 zoning will conform to the design standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations. RP, Residential Planned The remainder of the property included within Phase 2 of Sun City Georgetown is proposed to be zoned RP, Residential Planned district. This district is consistent with the consideration of the Preliminary Plat as a planned unit development (PUD) under the Subdivision Regulations. In Phase 2, the primary use in the RP district will be single family residential lots, although there are also golf course and open space lots. The Zoning Ordinance allows any residential use in the RP district, as well as commercial facilities which will provide a needed service or convenience for the PUD and the immediate area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested rezoning of a 475.52 acre tract, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial (Tracts G and J, Block 1, and Tract O, Block 26), and RP, Residential Planned (all other lots) subject to completion of the changes to the Development Agreement and the Century Plan if such are determined to be necessary. P & Z ACTION: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of a 475.52 acre tract, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, from A, Agricultural to C-1, Local Commercial (Tracts G and J, Block 1, Rezoning- Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown #RZ95-17/Fi1e:SUNCTTY2.REZ CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 5 and Tract O, Block 26), and RP, Residential Planned (all other lots) subject to completion of -the changes to the Development Agreement and the Century Plan if such are determined to be necessary. August 31, 1995 Page 6 EXHIBIT A ,.. : ... , EXHIBIT B-2 rNOWMAM FmAra, III III IN! III III III III III 7-- IN 0 0 Proposed C-1 ED Proposed RP ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1968, AND AMENDING PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE A RESUBDIVISION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD 1, TRACT U AND A 10.0 ACRE TRACT IN THE W. G. WILKINSON AND GEORGE THOMPSON SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD TEN -A FROM THE A, AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the zoning district classification of the following described real property ("the property"): A RESUBDIVISION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD 1, TRACT U AND A 10.0 ACRE TRACT IN THE W. G. WILKINSON AND GEORGE THOMPSON SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD TEN -A, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2687, PAGE 945 OF THE OFFICIAL DEED RECORDS AND CABINET M, SLIDES 95-116, OF THE OFFICIAL PLAT RECORDS OF THE OFFICIAL DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the property"; WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days for the first day of such publication; and WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on September 59 1995, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property from the A, Agricultural district zoning classification to the C-1, Local Commercial district zoning classification, in accordance with Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element: 1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations"; and 2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and 3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 4, which states: "The City will encourage new development and infill redevelopment in the community"; and 4. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The City will take the steps necessary to protect the physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive"; and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan. SECTION 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the A, AGRICULTURAL district to the C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL district, in accordance with Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 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 28th day of November, 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of . 1995. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A Rezoning Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 By: LEO WOOD Mayor SUN CITY GEORGE rr 0 WN - PHASE 2 Neighborhood Ten -A :3- If -'A �l�'r'ir � �r i'if � r\ Jam/,(/� \ � i• 3_ \ 1 l ' y\ � - ., �.J, � j �v/ / yi'I'��ClA1r�l 4t �I'�.. . -i I I � •' `. J � \��' �\ 1` ,'1 • i'. � � ^I `\' ', �\ /. 1�'_",. • ..11 r/ \ / Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. !!D n AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Preliminary/Final Plat of a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 Acres in the W.G. Wilkinson and George Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations. ITEM SUMMARY: The proposal combines the existing Tract U in Neighborhood One with ten (10) acres that was included in the Preliminary Plat of Phase 2 and creates a 10.499 acre tract for a proposed medical clinic. The plat conforms to the Final Plat for Neighborhood One with respect to Tract U and to the proposed design of Phase 2 for the additional ten (10) acres. The purpose of including Tract U in the proposed subdivision is to give the property access to RM2338. Without it, the proposed medical clinic would be forced to take its only access through the residential streets of Phase 2. It is undesirable to route all the traffic generated by the clinic through the residential streets. Therefore, frontage on RM2338 is supported by the City. The applicant proposes Acacia Way as a secondary access so that Sun City residents can avoid the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and RM2338 when travelling to the clinic by vehicle. This will allow that intersection to maintain a higher level of service than if all trips were routed through it. Consequently, a high rate of traffic, including emergency vehicles, will occur on the section of Acacia Way between the clinic and Red Poppy Trail. Therefore, that section of Acacia Way and the section of Red Poppy Trail between Acacia Way and Del Webb Boulevard should be designed with a Neighborhood Collector pavement width of 44 feet, but within the existing 60 foot wide right-of-way. The required frontage for commercial lots is 150 feet. The frontage of the proposed lot on RM2338 is approximately 139 feet. Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to the standard. As stated in the report, the staff supports a variance to this standard. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a Preliminary/Final Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration and provided Acacia Way and the portion of Red Poppy Trail between Acacia Way and Del Webb Boulevard are constructed with a 44 foot wide pavement width. Recommend approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 to permit a lot width less than 150 feet, after making the required findings of fact. A revised plat has been submitted to the City that addresses all Technical Issues. 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 Preliminary/Final Plat Submitted Bv: Edward J, Barry, AICP , Director Hildy L. Angma, AICP �� Division of Development Services Chief Planner PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT OF A RESUBDIVISION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD ONE, TRACT U, AND 10.0 ACRES IN THE W.G. WILKINSON AND GEORGE THOMPSON SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 2, NEIGHBORHOOD TEN -A, LOCATED ON RM2238; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Eck II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Corporation 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6776 AGENT: Mr. Scott Smiley, P.E. Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. 5000 Plaza On The Lake, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746 329-5002 FAX: 329-0802 REQUEST: Preliminary/Final Plat of a resubdivision of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood One, Tract U, and 10.0 Acres in the W.G. Wilkinson and George Thompson Surveys, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A as recorded in Volume 2687, Page 945 of the Official Deed Records and Cabinet M, Slides 95-116, of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Location: Located northeast of F.M.2338. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: The original Tract U is zoned C-1, and the zoning for the additional ten (10) acres will be finalized upon annexation. The Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995, recommended zoning the remaining ten (10) acres C-1, Local Commercial. First reading of the rezoning ordinance for that Preliminary/Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, December 6, 1995 Neighborhood Ten -A #PP95-09/File:SCG10A.PFP Page 1 CM/CS land is being withheld until the Development Agreement is amended to address the Second Revised Concept Plan, which includes this additional commercial property. Proposed Use: Medical clinic. Surrounding Uses and Zoning: North: Sun City Georgetown, Phase Two (currently undeveloped, to be annexed) South: Single family residential (A) East: Sun City Georgetown, Phase Two (currently undeveloped, to be annexed) West: Sun City Georgetown, Phase One (A) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level 2 by a Plan Amendment approved by City Council on December 13, 1994. The proposed development on this property can be accommodated within the development allowances assigned to the entire 5,300 acres. However, it may be desirable to amend the intensity assigned to this property so the development on it can be accounted for without regard to the development throughout Sun City Georgetown. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: A Revised Concept Plan was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan, which is consistent with the proposed land uses of this subject Preliminary/Final Plat, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995. The Final Plat for Neighborhood One was approved by the City Council on June 24, 1995, and recorded with the County on September 5, 1995. Neighborhood One includes Tract U, the 0.5 acre tract that is part of this resubdivision. ANALYSIS: The proposal combines the existing Tract U in Neighborhood One with ten (10) acres that was included in the Preliminary Plat of Phase 2 and creates a 10.499 acre tract for a proposed medical clinic. SEE EXHIBIT B Preliminary/Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, December 6, 1995 Neighborhood Ten -A #/PP95-09/File:SCG10A.PFP Page 2 CM/CS The plat conforms to the Final Plat for Neighborhood One with respect to Tract U and to the proposed design of Phase 2 for the additional ten (10) acres. At the time the Preliminary Plat of Phase 2 was reviewed, five (5) of the ten (10) acres was indicated as being either commercial or residential use. This was done because it was uncertain how much property the prospective buyer would acquire. The purpose of including Tract U in the proposed subdivision is to give the property access to RM2338. Without it, the proposed medical clinic would be forced to take its only access through the residential streets of Phase 2. It is undesirable to route all the traffic generated by the clinic through the residential streets. Therefore, frontage on RM2338 is supported by the City. The Preliminary Plat for Phase 2, which was approved by the Commission, shows that Acacia Way, a residential collector street, will stub -out into the proposed lot. SEE EXHIBIT C The applicant proposes this as a secondary access so that Sun City residents can avoid the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and RM2338 when travelling to the clinic by vehicle. Among other things, this will allow that intersection to maintain a higher level of service than if all trips were routed through it. On the other hand, the number of trips on Acacia Way is increased. In the review of the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2, Acacia Way was required to be designed as a residential collector with a 60 foot right-of-way width to accommodate the traffic generated by the medical clinic. A calculation of the possible number of trips generated by the clinic based on its 100,000 allowable square feet results in a total number of trips greater than 5,000 using rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. An exact figure cannot be calculated since the exact square footage of the clinic is not known. According to the Kirkham, Michael and Associates Study of Internal Roadway Classifications for Sun City, roadways with 4,000 or greater trips per day should be classified as neighborhood collectors which have a 90 foot right-of-way width according to the Development Agreement. Given that the trips generated by the clinic will be distributed between RM2338 and Acacia Way, the actual number of trips on Acacia Way will Preliminary/Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A /1PP95-09/File:SCG 1 OA.PFP CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 3 most likely be below the 4,000 trip per day threshold. However, a high rate of traffic, including emergency vehicles, will occur on the section of Acacia Way between the clinic and Red Poppy Trail. Therefore, that section of Acacia Way and the section of Red Poppy Trail between Acacia Way and Del Webb Boulevard should be designed with a Neighborhood Collector pavement width of 44 feet, but within the existing 60 foot wide right-of-way. The off -site utilities serving this proposed lot are included in Phase 2. The construction plans for public improvements in Phase 2 have not been received by the City for review. The construction plans that include the improvements that will serve Neighborhood Ten -A must be submitted prior to City Council consideration of this plat. The Subdivision Assurance Trust currently being held by the City shall act as the guarantee for the construction of the improvements which will enable the plat to be recorded prior to actually providing the improvements. No building permits will be allowed, however, until the public improvements are in place. Variances: Table 34020 Lot Width The required frontage for commercial lots is 150 feet. The frontage of the proposed lot on RM2338 is approximately 139 feet. Although this is a resubdivision of Tract U in Neighborhood One which was platted under the same standards without a variance, the substandard lot width went undetected in the initial review, and must be addressed at this time. One reason for the minimum lot width requirement is to ensure adequate area for development of a commercial use. Although a copy of the Detailed Development Plan for the clinic has not been prepared, the applicant indicates that the clinic parking and buildings will be located at the rear of the lot where it widens to greater than 1,000 feet. The 10.499 acres is substantially adequate to accommodate the clinic buildings and associated features without the need for variances to the building setbacks. Another reason for the lot width standard is to space driveway access points on the arterial street. In this case, the tract to the Preliminary/Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A NPP95-09/File:SCG l OA.PFP CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 4 north of the subject lot that fronts on RM2338 has approximately 1,200 feet of frontage. It is zoned A, Agricultural and is proposed as open space on which there will be a pond and landscaping. There are no driveways onto RM2338 planned for this tract. Therefore, with a driveway into the subject lot, the result will be one (1) driveway over a distance of approximately 1,300 feet. This exceeds the 400 foot standard of driveway separation on major arterial streets. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070.13 of the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served; and 2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and 3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which relief is sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's Documentation of Basis for Requested Variance form is attached. TECHNICAL ISSUES: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to City Council consideration of this Preliminary/Final Plat. If they are not addressed by December 1, 1995, or if the applicant does not Preliminary/Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A /1PP95-09/File:SCG I OA. PFP CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 5 concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the Preliminary/Final Plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the Preliminary/Final Plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. Construction plans for the off -site utilities must be submitted to the City for review. 2. The volume and page reference for the 20 foot road widening dedication along RM2338 shall be indicated on the plat. 3. The title of the plat shall be changed to be consistent with the heading on Page 1 of this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Preliminary/Final Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration and provided Acacia Way and the portion of Red Poppy Trail between Acacia Way and Del Webb Boulevard are constructed with a 44 foot wide pavement width. Approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 to permit a lot width less than 150 feet, after making the required findings of fact P & Z ACTION: At its November 7, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a Preliminary/Final Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration and provided Acacia Way and the portion of Red Poppy Trail between Acacia Way and Del Webb Boulevard are constructed with a 44 foot wide pavement width. Recommend approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 to permit a lot width less than 150 feet, after making the required findings of fact. Preliminary/Final Plat - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, Neighborhood Ten -A #PP95-09/File:SCG 10A. PFP CM/CS December 6, 1995 Page 6 SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - PHASE 2 Neighborhood Ten -A .... ....... �Jpf 11! 41 JIM 4:N m x M !9 EXHIBIT B X = 3. 1 12, 57 1. 53 Y = 1 22 7.981.29 / BOULEVARD ,o g.t• W 1 S A cz -95 \ o V 3. 112. 4 00. 3 2 -- ,� Z Y = i0. 227. 482. 89 -33 / 1 o ;cORGETOwN \4) � L N- GHBORr-!00D ONE 1 \ Lj w. C. P. R. CIO G� PLANNED UPS T DE V. SUN GITY GE \ I \ TRACT .. A., s�2`,' 1 '\�E 1 GH4 30R;;r - Ad \ m 1O. 499 ACRES 45�. 939 S0. FT. CID (ZONED C !) \l, A Y \ t c _ N3 / ! m 1 W. G. WILK INSO� _ �GEORGE THOMPSOP �N \ S 69-03-37 W 492.27 \ r = In.:26. 778.64 EXHIBIT C co to p Opp 60, CT 9 W. AV 0 cb- -< Q- 40. tr F- < C)l) if) LLJ m CO CL/ Cb 00 Cb C) z (b o) A cp) co 0) (V x A e. k Ilk. 0 o Ln ko, LD LAJ C) No- tij S... O ---i C3 ct: CC >- L c) 0 CC _j CC) LJ I LL LLJ CJ, LIJ < uj -i Z) 0 Z Z X Lij ON -9+ -9" /V 0 Z N6 3 9`N 26-30 460.68 Lu Q') Q) �j . L-Li � Q) co DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Date: 10/16/95 Applicant: Del E. Webb Development Co., Inc./Del Webb's Sun City Georgetown This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Section(s) Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations. Give a brief description of the variance requested: To plat a lot on an arterial with less than 150' frontage 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. L. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served? The proposed commercial property will have frontage on an arterial in addition to a local street. This is appropriate for the use. 2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. No. Resubdivision is of an existing tract with less than 150' frontage. Frontage is to support a driveway to the primary use behind a significant open space parcel. - 3. What are the hardships involved? How were those hardships created? How are those hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced with the enforcement of this same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for which the hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The existing tract has been contracted for sale along with the additional acreage. The resubdivision is to provide primary access to the site from the arterial roadway in lieu of residential streets. Revised 12/94 4. If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable. .No. This is the resubdivision of an existing lot to add additional unplatted land to the existing tract. Tract U is adjacent to another parcel that has a very long frontage, but without driveways to the arterial. 5. How is the public interest affected`' It is not. Adequate ROW and reserves are being maintained through the re - subdivision. The adjacent open space tract creates an average driveway spacing exceeding ordinance requirements. 6. List the special conditions that af;ect this orop%-rty and iustity the ar,nroval of the variance. 1. Frontage is a legal lot at less than 150'. 2. Frontage on the ROW reserve (20' additional to the 20' dedicated) is greater than 150'. 3. Property is under contract for sale as described in the resubdivision. 4. The average lot frontage of all lots on this arterial is significantly greater than 150'. 7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted? What was once approved would be reapproved. 8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted? The owner of the land under contract is still the same as the adjacent open space tract. However, the open space lot would have to be resubdivided as well to increase the frontage. Tract U can be sold and developed as is if the re - subdivision is denied. The approval of the variance does not alter the owner's ability to subdivide and develop the land. Revised 12/94 Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of a 475.52 acre tract to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2 and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations. ITEM SUNMARY: The plat submitted substantially meets the information requirements and design standards of the Subdivision Regulations and the Development Agreement. The plat proposes 1,261 single family residential lots, three (3) commercial tracts and the remainder as open space. The City has examined the request to shorten the distance that selected local streets must be widened to collector street standard and recommends that such streets be widened to 60 feet for a length of 150 feet from the intersection with an arterial street with a transition down to the 50 foot right-of-way width over a distance of 150 feet. The Development Agreement permits back to back corner lots to reduce their secondary front yard setback to 15 feet provided the driveway access is from the front yard with a 20 foot setback. In several instances, corner lots are adjacent to streets of unequal classification and the frontage with a 20 foot setback is along the higher classification street. Such access is not permitted by Section 34020 F.3. The variance would allow that access. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Consideration of this item was delayed with the applicant's consent, to make the necessary revisions to the Development Agreement being considered by a separate agenda item. Approval of this Preliminary Plat must be contingent on approval of the Development Agreement revisions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. COMMENTS: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration (Technical Issue #2 changed to: If the proposed design of the local streets that intersect with minor arterials or neighborhood collectors is determined to be sufficient, ensure that each affected local street is designed as a residential collector for a minimum distance to 500 feet from the intersection unless staff. determines a lesser distance is sucient), and recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.3. , thereby allowing corner lot access to the residential collectors, after making the required findings of fact. This approval is subject to completion of the changes to the Development Agreement and Century Plan if such are necessary. The revised plat addressing the Technical Issues and the right-of-way width concerns is attached. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and Preliminary Plat Submitted Bv: Edward J./Barry, AICP - Jbirector Division f Development Services Hildy L. K gma, AICP Chief Planner PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN, PHASE 2, A 475.52 ACRE TRACT IN THE B. EAVES, R. JENKINS, D. MONROE, M. LEWIS, A. SHORT, G. THOMPSON, AND W. WILKINSON SURVEYS; AND VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OWNERS: Del E. Webb Development Company Mr. Clark E. Lyda, Trustee Mr. Theron S. Bradford, Trustee APPLICANT: Mr. Robert L. Eck, II, P.E. Director, Land Development Del Webb Development Company 203 South IH-35, Suite 100 Georgetown, Texas 78628 930-5424 FAX: 930-6776 AGENT: Mr. Scott Smiley, P.E. Mr. James Bolduc, P.E. Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. 5000 Plaza On The Lake, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746 329-5002 FAX: 329-0802 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, a 475.52 acre tract in the B. Eaves, R. Jenkins, D. Monroe, M. Lewis, A. Short, G. Thompson and W. Wilkinson Surveys as recorded in Volume 2679, Page 744, Volume 2687, Page 945, Volume 2712, Page 103, Volume 1898, Page 597, Volume 1270, Page 305, Volume 2246, Page 561, of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Location: Located northeast of F.M. 2338. SEE EXHIBIT A Existing Site: Undeveloped land. Existing Zoning: Rezoning of this property is being considered by separate agenda item. Annexation will be considered by the City Council as Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown September 1, 1995 #PP95-05/File:SUNCTTY2.PP Page 1 CM/CS parcels within the Preliminary Plat are purchased by the Del Webb Development Company. Proposed Use: 1,261 single family residential lots with the remaining area used as commercial, open space, drainage easements, and golf course. Surrounding Uses North: Undeveloped land (out of City) and Zoning: South: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1 (A, RP and C-1) and undeveloped land and Chaparro Estates (out of City) East: Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, (A, RP and C-1) undeveloped land (out of City) West: Undeveloped land (out of City) Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location to be Intensity Level Two. Additional analysis is underway to determine if the land use changes proposed by the Second Revised Concept Plan (see separate agenda item) and reflected on the subject Preliminary Plat can be accommodated within this intensity designation. Notification: The notification requirements have been completed. HISTORY: The original Concept Plan for Sun City Georgetown was approved by the City Council on April 26, 1994. That Concept Plan included 3,991 acres. A Revised Concept Plan for the current 5,314 acres was approved by the City Council on October 25, 1994. A Second Revised Concept Plan will be considered by the Commission and Council on a separate agenda item. That Concept Plan proposes land uses that are consistent with the subject Preliminary Plat. A Development Agreement between the City and Del Webb was approved by the City Council on February 14, 1995. The Development Agreement addresses issues such as the commitment of utility capacity; the required public improvements; compliance with the City's development regulations; and the fees to be paid by the Del Webb Corporation. The Agreement makes specific modifications to the design standards in the Subdivision Regulations which apply Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown //PP95-05/File:S UNCrrY2. PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 2 to this development. These modified design standards include such elements as street design, sidewalk location, setbacks, lot layout, and impervious cover. It was determined to be appropriate to make these modifications specifically for the Sun City Georgetown development because of its size and the fact that it is being developed and built by one developer. These facts ensure a greater level of control and consistency throughout the life of the project than would be possible for the same number of dwelling units built by numerous developers. ANALYSIS: The subject Preliminary Plat substantially meets the information requirements and design standards of the Subdivision Regulations as modified by the Development Agreement. SEE EXHIBIT B The significant issued related to this Preliminary Plat deal with the roadway design and access to the proposed commercial tracts. The Preliminary Plat under consideration proposes four (4) streets to be designed to the residential collector roadway status. The residential collector is a roadway classification established by the Development Agreement for the Sun City development. These streets have 60 feet of right-of-way and will be built with a 40 foot section. The residential collectors in Phase 2 include Pedernales Trail, that portion of Red Poppy Trail north of Del Webb Boulevard, Plover Pass, and Acacia Way. In a conventional development, several more of the streets designed to a local standard in Sun City would likely function as collectors, and therefore should be designed to the same standard described above. The applicant has indicated that due to the different traffic generation characteristics of Sun City residents, residential collector streets are not necessary. They have indicated this is supported by a traffic study that examines the internal traffic generation patterns within Sun City Georgetown. At this time, the City has not received the study, nor had the opportunity to review its conclusions. Therefore, City staff has indicated that it is possible that additional streets will have to be developed to the residential collector level status. In response to this concern, the applicant has designed each local street that intersects with a minor arterial (Del Webb Boulevard or Sun City Boulevard) or neighborhood collector so it widens to the residential collector standard at the intersection with the higher classification street. This will increase the capacity of those streets at the point where the most traffic is likely to accumulate. The Community Owned Utilities Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown //PP95-05/File:SUNCTTY2.PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 3 has indicated that, subject to the review of the traffic study, this may be a reasonable alternative provided the additional right-of-way and street section extends for a distance of 500 feet from the streets' intersection with the higher classification street. In the event it is determined that the proposed design is not sufficient, the Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to review the plat again based on the new information regarding the additional residential collector streets. At that time the proposed street alignment must either be redesigned or additional variances regarding the radii of curves on those streets must be considered. Currently, the proposed curve radii conforms to the standard for local streets, but not residential collector streets. The subject Preliminary Plat proposes three (3) commercial tracts. Three (3) of the residential collectors, Red Poppy Trail, Plover Pass, and Acacia Way, provide access to these tracts from within the residential areas. This design was required by the City in order to provide a minimum level of access to the commercial areas. However, the optimum design of a commercial tract would include access from an arterial level street. In addition, one (1) of the proposed commercial tracts provides no access to a public right-of-way as required by Section 33010 of the Subdivision Regulations. Tracts G and J are currently optioned by Scott and White for development of their health care clinic. SEE EXHIBIT C-1 Tract J is likely to be the first parcel purchased, along with Tract U in Phase 1. Tract G will be purchased in the future only if it is determined to be necessary for expansion of the clinic. For this reason, the Preliminary Plat indicates that Tract G will develop either commercial or residential, and an alternate lot layout for residential development is provided. In order to address the City's concerns about traffic access to these lots, and the fact that Tract J currently has no access, a note should be added to the plat to indicate that Tract J will only be developed if part of a resubdivision with Tract U so it will have access to a public right-of-way. The note shall also state that Tract G will only be developed for commercial purposes if it is developed with Tract J. Further, the primary access to both Tracts J and G, if developed for a commercial use, will be from RM2338. Similarly, at this time it appears that the only access to Tract O will be from the residential collector streets within the adjacent residential area (Red Poppy Trail and Plover Pass). SEE EXHIBIT C-2 This tract is, Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown //PP95-05/File:SUNCrrY2. PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 4 however, adjacent to Tract A, located in Phase 1, which is platted and zoned for commercial use. Currently, Tract A is developed for the temporary sales and construction administration offices for Sun City Georgetown. It is likely that these uses will be discontinued within the next year when the permanent sales center within Sun City is completed. At that time the tract, combined with Tract O in Phase 2, may redevelop for a larger commercial development. Given that likely scenario, it is recommended that a note be added to the plat that primary access to Tract O will be from RM2338 through Tract A in Phase 1. This does not preclude access from the residential collectors, but encourages a site design that will route traffic to the RM2338 access. As noted in the report on the Second Revised Concept Plan, amendments to the Development Agreement and the Century Plan may be required as a result of the proposal to revise land uses. City staff is conducting a review of the Development Agreement and Century Plan to determine if changes to those approvals will be required to finalize approval of the Second Revised Concept Plan. Staff review of those approvals has not been completed as of the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission review of this application. Because Phase 2 reflects the revisions to the Concept Plan it cannot proceed to City Council approval until the Concept Plan proceeds. If no changes to the Development Agreement or Century Plan are determined to be necessary, then City Council consideration of the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat can proceed within the 45 day time period required by Sections 23060 and 24060 of the Subdivision Regulations. If either or both of those approvals must be reconsidered as a result of the proposed revision to the Concept Plan, then the applicant must authorize a delay in the approval time period, or both the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat applications will proceed to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. Denial will also be recommended if such changes are needed, but not agreed upon. VARIANCES: Section 34020 F.3. Access to Streets of Unequal Classification This variance is the same as that requested for Neighborhoods Two, Three, and Four. It involves two design standards, one in the Subdivision Regulations and one in the Development Agreement, that conflict. Section 34020 F.3. states "corner lots adjacent to streets of Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown #PP95-05 /File:SUNCTTY2.PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 5 unequal classification shall access the lower classification street only and only one (1) drive approach shall be allowed, except as otherwise approved by the Commission." The PUD standards in the Development Agreement allow residential back-to-back corner lots to provide a 15 foot front yard setback on the secondary front yard, provided the driveway access is from the front yard with the 20 foot setback. This ensures that the driveway on the private property is sufficient to accommodate a vehicle without encroaching into the public right-of- way. Four (4) corner lots have been identified in Phase 2 that are required to access the adjacent higher classification street when they take advantage of the PUD standard. These include Lots 238 and 254, Block 31, and Lots 23 and 32, Block 42. It is possible that additional lots may be impacted if some streets currently designed to a local standard are required to be upgraded to a residential collector standard. This variance will not be required for those segments of the local streets that are widened to the residential collector standard when they intersect with a minor arterial or neighborhood collector. During its consideration of the requested variance related to Neighborhoods Two, Three and Four, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined that given the limited number of additional driveways that will be allowed onto the residential collectors as a result of granting this variance, the impact would not be substantial. Therefore, they voted to recommend approval of the variance, and the City Council concurred with that recommendation by approving the variance. The same basis appears to exist for approving the requested variance. After listening to the testimony presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and reading the documentation provided by the applicant and the staff's recommendation, the Commission makes the following findings of fact as required by Section 60070. B of the Subdivision Regulations: 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 Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown #PP95-05 /File: S UNCTTY2. PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 6 0 sought; and 4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding property; and 5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of an economic nature; and 6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and 7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and 8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done." The applicant's documentation for the variance is attached. Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. If they are not addressed by September 29, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a recommendation for denial. 1. Provide the traffic study documenting roadway design issues internal to Sun City Georgetown. 2. If the proposed design of the local streets that intersect with minor arterials or neighborhood collectors is determined to be sufficient, ensure that each affected local street is designed as a residential collector for a minimum distance of 500 feet from the intersection. In the event it is determined that the proposed design is not sufficient, the plat shall be redesigned to include the required collectors and the Planning and Zoning Commission reserves the right to review the plat again based on the new information regarding the additional residential collector streets. 3. Add a note to the plat to indicate that Tract J will only be developed if part of a resubdivision with Tract U. Tract G will only be developed for commercial purposes if it is developed with Tract J. The primary access to both Tracts J and G, if developed for a commercial use, will be from RM2338. 4. Add a note to the plat that primary access to Tract O will be from RM2338 through Tract A in Phase 1. Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown NPP95-05/File:S UNCrTY2. PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 7 5. Provide some indication on all lots impacted by plat note #19 that there is a plat note that impacts their development. 6. Revise the setback lines on Tracts G, J, and O, such that a 20 foot setback is provided along the tracts that are designated for open space and zoned A, Agricultural (Tracts B and D) . 7. Revise Lots 87 and 88, Block 26, and Lots 238 and 266, Block 31, to provide 15 foot setbacks on the secondary front yards. 8. Lots 37 and 58, Block 26, should be reconfigured or eliminated to prevent future concerns about unbuildable lots, irregular setbacks, and driveway access. 9. Provide the water, wastewater, and drainage plans for the residential development of Tract G, as required by Section 24032 B. Issues to be addressed at final plat: The following items should be addressed when the final plat for each neighborhood is submitted: 1. Wastewater and water line easements should be established in their specific alignment as indicated on the utility plans. 2. The side and rear building setback lines shall be indicated on each lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration, and approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.3., thereby allowing corner lot access to the residential collectors, after making the required findings of fact. This approval is subject to completion of the changes to the Development Agreement and Century Plan if such are necessary. P & Z ACTION: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 2, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration (Technical Issue #2 changed to: If the proposed design of the local streets that intersect with minor arterials or neighborhood collectors is determined to be sufficient, ensure that each affected local street is designed as a residential Preliminary Plat, Phase 2 - Sun City Georgetown 1/PP95-05/File:SUNCTTY2.PP CM/CS September 1, 1995 Page 8 collector for a minimum distance to 500 feet from the intersection unless staff determines a. lesser distance is sufficient), and recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 F.3., thereby allowing corner lot access to the residential collectors, after making the required findings of fact. This annroval is subiect to completion of the changes to the ;uch are necessary. September 1, 1995 Page 9 EXHIBIT A IIEXHIBIT B"l '� /^ -Y. m Al SUN I rl,Y GEORGETOWN - PHASE 2 ZI N SUN CITY - J FORGE TOWm, ,;k + ;�BORRDOO-ONE I B 'AVE T SL fDE --- W. C. P. P. C F0q ' 6,e>O 63a _ - � r CEOP , c rowN tr ry ITS L /N/E P.O.C. PARCEL TWO P. o. a. PARCE, TWO EXHIBIT C-1 " N646 - t 6ro _ --�.14645 N6Ae TRACT COMMERCIAL �E O� ZONED. C- 1I a /- f _ -------------. `1• �� n �K INSON SURVEY, 'GE THOMP$QN.._ U - - ; - -- V S 69-03- 37 w 293. i g ' pP TRACT ` H- z v SPACE D. E a �' /69 AND P. U. E . j / ( ZONED RP) CEORGE 7-0" Y iM I rs —L llvr 3. EXHIBIT C-2 DAN I t L MONPCE SuPVE Y, 0 4 5D v 67-A5-06 E ?8?. a9 N.61 4- w. �. N.• iLKINS✓N S'JPVEr, n 6 7 7 ' 2s =K 6 / 9 _ � O 2/ . I 10 -41 RED POPPY TRAIL " f _•o= ._L.� _fir mo - ZONEO C" v, o e S y.. o HEPON S. BRQOFuPO � • :� 3•� VOLUME 1898, PAGE 59 7 w.C.O.R, , - O i sly •S \ � �", V. \. rn ol � �? t � ,, � �� . •,, BOA. �9\� r �, � •°� -�� TRACT C , e� ,� ,. sue" �' •-�� �e'. N)48 I \001 e e Sr t / O 9 e � .^JE_ • iy .. � 26 _c 89_ <. :Y j Turner ColheOBraden Inc. Engineers • Planners • Proiecl 1\4anagers August 17. 1995 Mr. Paul T. Weyrauch, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown 113 East 8th Street P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 Attn: Ms. Hildy Kingma Re Request for Approval of Driveway Locations in Sun City Georgeto, k n Phase 2 - Preliminary Plat TC&B Job No. 72-07558-100 Dear Mr. Weyrauch: rcl I1 2,72110 'i(I00 )ii 1 On behalf of Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P. ("Del Webb"), this letter requests the City's approval of Del Webb's proposed location of driveways on certain back-to-back corner lots that front on a residential collector and are adjacent to local streets. This situation arises for at least two lots in Sun City Georgetown Phase 2; Block 42, Lots 23 and 32. Additional lots may be affected by changes in the street rights -of -way recommended by the City's staff. Del Webb is requesting driveway access to the residential collector from all corner lots fronting on the residential collector. In response, the City has referred to the Subdivision Regulations Section 34020 F.3., which states as follows: Corner lots adjacent to streets of unequal classification shall access the lower classification street only and only one (1) drive approach shall be allowed, except as otherwise approved by the Commission. Del Webb has proposed, for certain back-to-back corner lots along a residential collector, that driveway access be taken from the residential collector (instead of the adjacent local street). We believe that tills proposal is reasonable and approvable for several reasons, as discussed below First, the safety considerations that may form the basis of the general guidance in Section 34020 F.3 have been addressed in this specific situation. The residential collector will have driveways along it for many other lots, and the driveway separation distances established by the City for intersection setbacks will be satisfied. The wider pavement of the residential collector also provides additional room for vehicles to steer around residents who are entering or exiting their driveways along this street. Second, from an aesthetic perspective, these back-to-back corner lots appear to front oil the residential collector, and driveway access from the front of the lot is preferred to driveway access from another side of the lot. According to lot shape and lot orientation provisions included in Section 34020, it appears reasonable to consider the front of the lots as facing the residential collector TurnerCollieOBraden Inc. August 17, 1995 Mr. Paul T. Weyrauch Planning and Zoning Commission City of Georgetown Page 2 Third, the Development Agreement between the City and Del Webb dated February 14, 1995 addresses this situation. In Paragraph 6g of the Development Agreement, the Cite approved the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development Standards that appear as Exhibit G to the Agreement. These standards in Exhibit G are the standardsapplicable to all applications for developing the property. and are deemed to be included within the development regulations for the project Fxhibit G- I of the Development Agreement includes specific standards that have been approved by the Cit} for setbacks on the residential lots. For standard lots, a 20' front setback is established. and 20' is the approved distance for corner side setbacks. However, "(o)n back-to-back corner lots only. 15' setback is allowed on secondary front setbacks. Driveways on back-to-back corner lots must take access from the 20' front yard." Del Webb interprets this provision to authorize driveways that take access from the front of the lot, which, in this case, would be access to the residential collector. If the City disallows driveway access to residential collectors for back-to-back corner lots, the purpose of this negotiated standard would be defeated. Further, a City requirement to take access from the corner side of these back-to-back corner lots creates a significant hardship for Del Webb with respect to the size and orientation of a home garage and a driveway on such lots. We appreciate your consideration of this request. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let us know. Very truly yours, Scott A. Smiley;_`P.E. Manager, Land Developil nt SAS/JWB:vgm ( xc: Bob Eck %: %7558 1 UOU W H-U I9. LTR Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and second reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the City of a 333.490 acre portion of the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the Daniel Monroe, W.G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R.T. Jenkins, and Mary Ann Lewis Surveys. ITEM SUNMARY: On October 10, 1995, the City Council passed a resolution to adopt the proposed service plans and set the public hearing dates for the annexation of this property. Two (2) public hearings were held, on October 18, 1995 and on October 24, 1995, as required by State law to describe and receive comments on the City's plans for providing services to the annexation areas. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The property owner(s) have requested voluntary annexation. 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 prior Council actions referred to the proposed annexation area as an approximately 300.6 acre portion of the Sun City Planned Unit Development, Phase 2. A more accurate description of the property resulted in the 333.490 acreage figure. The first reading of this ordinance was approved by the City Council on November 28, 1995. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance and exhibits. Submitted Bv: Edward J. a y, AICP - irector Division of Development Services Clyde von RosenbergCge P Chief Planner, Long 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 CONSISTING OF 333.490 ACRES IN THE DANIEL MONROE, W.G. WILKINSON, GEORGE THOMPSON, ABNER SHORT, R.T. JENKINS, AND MARY ANN LEWIS SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS A PORTION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - PHASE TWO, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE; 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: AN APPROXIMATELY 300.6 ACRE PORTION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - PHASE TWO, WITHIN IN THE W.G. WILKINSON, GEORGE THOMPSON, ABNER SHORT, R.T. JENKINS, MARY ANN LEWIS AND DANIEL MONROE SURVEYS, LOCATED NORTH OF RM2338 APPROXIMATELY ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES NORTH OF CEDAR BREAKS ROAD; were held, the first being on the 18th day of October 1995, and the second being on the 24th day of October 1995; and WHEREAS, at such public hearings, a proposed service plan was presented to and discussed by the Council and all interested persons; and 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 Sun City - Portion of Phase 2 Annexation Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the legal description for the property to be annexed has since been more accurately described as: 333.490 ACRES IN THE DANIEL MONROE, W.G. WILKINSON, GEORGE THOMPSON, ABNER SHORT, R.T. JENKINS, AND MARY ANN LEWIS SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS A PORTION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - PHASE TWO, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the total corporate area of the City of Georgetown, Texas, on the 1st day of January, 1995, was 9,577 acres; and WHEREAS, the population of the City of Georgetown, Texas includes approximately 18,800 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 I. 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"; Sun City - Portion of Phase 2 Annexation Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 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: 333.490 ACRES IN THE DANIEL MONROE, W.G. WILKINSON, GEORGE THOMPSON, ABNER SHORT, R.T. JENKINS, AND MARY ANN LEWIS SURVEYS, TO BE KNOWN AS A PORTION OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - PHASE TWO, as described in Exhibit A of this ordinance, which contains maps, descriptions, and the service plans for the tracts. 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 28th day of November, 1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 12th day of December, 1995. ATTEST: Sandra D. Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Sun City - Portion of Phase 2 Annexation Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 22 333.490 ACF SUN CITY GEORGE r. ANNEXATIOr sai,o.a\\'Mu x ase 1 /Phase 2 Boundary COMVERCFAL SUN C"Y CEORCETOWN oIASE NEIGHBDRROOD 1 SUN Clt GEORGETOWN -RASE NEIGHBORHODG ' 1 Sa TT & JV" 7. S' �. N CITY scc"T & A- r � ti O 2 �YA�T U -ASE -�-r SCALE: 1" =500' I 1 C 5� .iUh Cry GEORGE-O*N -AS' a�nas[ x\ PO�HD.r V A THIS MAP IS TENTATIVE AND REMAINS SUBJECT TO CHANCE PENDING FINAL GWERNNENTAL APPRI THE DEVELOPER HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT, WITHOUT NOTICE, TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS MAP R EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 2 2 Metes and Bounds Description For City of Georgetown, Texas Annexation 333.490 Acres (14,526,840 Sq. Ft.) Being a tract of land containing 333.490 acres (14,526,840 Sq. Ft.) of land situated in the Daniel Monroe Survey, Abstract No. 450, W. G. Wilkinson Survey, Abstract No. 671, George Thompson Survey, Abstract No. 792, Abner Short Survey, Abstract No. 5931 R. T. Jenkins Survey, Abstract No. 360 and the Mary Ann Lewis Survey, Abstract No. 406, Williamson County, Texas, and portions of a called 330.927 acre Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P. tract as recorded in Volume 2679, Page 744, Doc. No. 9506561 of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas (O.R.W.C.T.), and a called 566.05 acre Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract, as recorded in Volume 1898, Page 597 of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas. Said 333.490 acre tract being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: with all coordinates and bearings being referenced to the Texas Coordinate System, Central Zone; all coordinates recited herein are grid; all surface distances recited herein may be converted to grid by multiplying by the combined factor of 0.999856056: Metes and Bounds Description Parcel 1 83.102 Acres (3,619,942 Sq. Ft.) Commencing for reference at a 1/2-inch iron rod (X=3,110,494.4369, Y=10,228,777.6545) found on the northeasterly right-of-way of R.M. 2338 (80' wide) as recorded in Volume 834, Page 809 of the Williamson County Deed Records (W.C.D.R.), said 1/2-inch iron rod also being the most westerly northwest corner of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Williamson County Plat Records (W.C.P.R.), and common to the most westerly southwest corner of Lakewoods Estates Subdivision as recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 323 of the Williamson County Plat Records (W.C.P.R.). THENCE, leaving the said northeasterly right-of-way of R.M. 2338, and along and with the line common to said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and Lakewoods Estates Subdivision, said common line also being the same line called out in a Boundary Line Agreement recorded in Volume 739, Page 654 W.C.D.R., the following two (2) courses: 1. North 67027'50" East, passing at 32.25 feet a point for the westerly corner of Tract "A", said point also falling on the easterly 20 foot widening dedication for said R.M. 2338, per said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One plat, and continuing for a total distance of 122.72 feet; 2. North 77002'31" East, a distance of 802.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described (X=3,111,389.6170, Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 3 of 22 Y=10,229,004.5838) said point also being a common corner for said Tract "A" and the said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract; THENCE, continuing along and with a line common to said Lakewoods Estates Subdivision and the said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract the following eight (8) courses: 1. North 20033'36" East, a distance of 177.46 feet; 2. North 67045'06" East, a distance of 787.49 feet; 3. North 67043'11" East, a distance of 284.71 feet; 4. North 68002'01" East, a distance of 356.85 feet; 5. North 67047'46" East, a distance of 173.32 feet; 6. North 71 °05'26" East, a distance of 257.52 feet; 7. North 48053'11" East, a distance of 5.34 feet; 8. North 43017'06" East, a distance of 29.41 feet to a point for the most westerly southwest corner of a called 330.927 acre tract conveyed to Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., as recorded in Volume 2679, Page 0744 of the O.R.W.C.T.; THENCE, leaving the said line of Lakewoods Estates and along and with the line common to said Del E. Webb called 330.927 acre tract and the northerly line of said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract the following three (3) courses: 1. North 72052'44" East, a distance of 104.00 feet; 2. North 68045'01" East, a distance of 898.74 feet; 3. North 69017'56" East, a distance of 86.52, feet to a point falling on a westerly line of a Tract "F", a golf course and drainage easement of said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One to a point for the most north northeasterly corner of the parcel herein described; THENCE, along and with the said westerly line of Tract "F" the following four (4) courses: 1. South 29002'48" East, a distance of 473.88 feet; 2. South 12036'53" West, a distance of 346.12 feet; 3. South 22010'57" East, a distance of 161.82 feet; Page 2 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 4 of 22 4. South 57003'31" East, a distance of 221.78 feet to a point falling on a non -tangent curve to the left; 5. THENCE, 40.76 feet along and with said arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 01 °51'13, a radius of 1,260.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 26039'10 West, 40.76 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 6. South 25043'33" West, a distance of 41.08 feet to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right; 7. THENCE, 1,384.34 feet along and with said arc to the right, having a central angle of 63027'12", a radius of 1,250.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 57027'09" West, 1,314.67 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 8. THENCE, South 89010'45" West, a distance of 322.09 feet to a point for the most southerly southeast corner of Tract "B", an open space, of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One; THENCE, along and with a line common to said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract and said Tract "B" and Tract "A" of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One the following nine (9) courses: 1. North 4404248" East, a distance of 31.60 feet; 2. North 00017'13" West, a distance of 93.46 feet; 3. South 76007'52" West, a distance of 304.06 feet; 4. North 89021'37" West, a distance of 504.74 feet; 5. South 84014'19" West, a distance of 326.03 feet; 6. South 79036'17" West, a distance of 111.05 feet; 7. North 79003'31" West, a distance of 95.63 feet; 8. North 65049'18" West, at 17.43 feet passing the common corner for said Tract "B" and Tract "A" of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and continuing for a total distance of 199.82 feet; 9. North 32005'04" West, a distance of 525.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described and containing a computed area of 83.102 acres (3,619,942 Sq. Ft.) of land for Parcel 1. Page 3 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 5 of 22 Metes and Bounds Description Parcel 2 52.743 Acres (2,297,489 Sq. Ft.) Commencing for reference at a 1/2-inch iron rod (X=3,110,494.4369, Y=10,228,777.6545) found on the northeasterly right-of-way of R.M. 2338 (80' wide) as recorded in Volume 834, Page 809 of the Williamson County Deed Records (VV.C.D.R.), said 1/2-inch iron rod also being the most westerly northwest corner of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Williamson County Plat Records (W.C.P.R.), and common to the most westerly southwest corner of Lakewoods Estates Subdivision as recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 323 of the Williamson County Plat Records (W.C.P.R.). THENCE, leaving the said northeasterly right-of-way of R.M. 2338, and along and with the line common to said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and Lakewoods Estates Subdivision, said common line also being the same line called out in a Boundary Line Agreement recorded in Volume 739, Page 654 W.C.D.R., the following two (2) courses: 1. North 67027'50" East, passing at 32.25 feet a point for the westerly corner of Tract "A", said point also failing on the easterly 20 foot widening dedication for said R. M. 2338, per said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One plat, and continuing for a total distance of 122.72 feet; 2. North 77002'31" East, a distance of 802.39 feet to the point for a corner of said Del E. Webb tract, said point also being a common corner for said Tract "A" and the said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract; THENCE, continuing along and with a line common to said Lakewoods Estates Subdivision and the said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract the following eight (8) courses: 1. North 20033'36" East, a distance of 177.46 feet; 2. North 67045'06" East, a distance of 787.49 feet; 3. North 67043'11" East, a distance of 284.71 feet; 4. North 68002'01" East, a distance of 356.85 feet; 5. North 6704746" East, a distance of 173.32 feet; 6. North 71 °05'26" East, a distance of 257.52 feet; 7. North 48053'11" East, a distance of 5.34 feet; Page 4 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 6 of 22 8. North 43017'06" East, a distance of 29.41 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING herein described (X= 3,11-3,203.2149, Y=10,229,884.0772), said point also being the most westerly southwest corner of a called 330.927 acre tract conveyed to Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., as recorded in Volume 2679, Page 0744 of the O.R.W.C.T.; THENCE, continuing along and with a line common to said Lakewoods Estates Subdivision and the said Del E. Webb called 330.927 acre tract the following twenty- two (22) courses: 1. North 01 °27'36" East, a distance of 34.16 feet; 2. North 17050'06" East, a distance of 41.42 feet; 3. North 21 °56'06" East, a distance of 247.97 feet; 4. North 22008'36" East, a distance of 308.00 feet; 5. North 22020'46" East, a distance of 178.05 feet; 6. North 251,35'01" East, a distance of 23.19 feet; 7. North 21 °38'56" East, a distance of 57.09 feet; 8. North 21 °10'16" East, a distance of 270.00 feet; 9. North 21 °17'56" East, a distance of 93.56 feet; 10. North 22047'16" East, a distance of 161.25 feet; 11. North 21 °15'01" East, a distance of 298.18 feet; 12. North 21 °58'46" East, a distance of 172.30 feet; 13. North 11050'41" East, a distance of 15.97 feet; 14. North 22013'46" East, a distance of 186.05 feet; 15. North 211,25'41" East, a distance of 280.72 feet; 16. North 23017'21" East, a distance of 261.58 feet; 17. North 33002'31" East, a distance of 52.25 feet; 18. North 84026'01" East, a distance of 26.25 feet; 19. North 77057'31" East, a distance of 17.91 feet; Page 5 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 7 of 22 20. North 86049'26" East, a distance of 48.28 feet; 21. North 85026'31" East, a distance of 28.65 feet; 22. South 5805343" East, a distance of 46.86 feet; THENCE, leaving the said common line for Lakewood Estates Subdivision and the said Del E. Webb called 330.927 acre tract the following sixty-three (63) courses: 1. South 57058'24" East, a distance of 71.70 feet; 2. South 20002'43" East, a distance of 118.20 feet; 3. South 52051'55" East, a distance of 54.82 feet; 4. North 76023'25" East, a distance of 90.00 feet; 5. South 68011'40" East, a distance of 154.88 feet; 6. South 18046'21" East, a distance of 70.00 feet; 7. South 02021'09" East, a distance of 70.00 feet; 8. South 23046'45" West, a distance of 77.88 feet; 9. South 42015'43" West, a distance of 314.53 feet; 10. South 34059'21" West, a distance of 90.20 feet to a point of curvature of a non -tangent curve to the right; 11. THENCE, 54.68 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the right, having a central angle of 10029'47", a radius of 298.50 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 49°53'07" East, 54.61 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 12. North 72003'05" East, a distance of 108.30 feet; 13. North 66018'58" East, a distance of 55.03 feet; 14. North 64016'19" East, a distance of 54.92 feet; 15. North 62030'34" East, a distance of 52.06 feet; 16. North 56031'51" East, a distance of 310.77 feet; 17. North 60059'25" East, a distance of 72.04 feet; Page 6of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 8 of 22 18. North 73015'16" East, a distance of 72.20 feet; 19. North 83057'33" East, a distance of 72.20 feet; 20. South 85020'09" East, a distance of 72.20 feet; 21. South 74037'51" East, a distance of 72.20 feet; 22. South 63055'33" East, a distance of 72.20 feet; 23. South 51 °38'13" East, a distance of 72.04 feet; 24. South 41 °45'45" East, a distance of 140.46 feet; 25. South 86033'15" East, a distance of 85.27 feet; 26. South 81 °2235" East, a distance of 85.40 feet; 27. South 73018'17" East, a distance of 85.48 feet; 28. South 66025'48" East, a distance of 155.97 feet; 29. South 66019'32" East, a distance of 43.68 feet; 30. South 60045'04" East, a distance of 77.65 feet; 31. South 19027'17" East, a distance of 157.86 feet; 32. South 33049'37" West, a distance of 245.00 feet; 33. North 67034'41" West, a distance of 248.65 feet; 34. North 50000'31" West, a distance of 218.81 feet; 35. South 85011'24" West, a distance of 177.19 feet; 36. South 61 °45'49" West, a distance of 992.52 feet; 37. South 61 °45'49" West, a distance of 10.72 feet to the point of curvature of a non -tangent curve to the left; 38. THENCE, 130.83 feet along and with the arc of said non -tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 30035'47", a radius of 245.00 feet and a chord which bears South 36°55'34" East, a distance of 129.28 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 39. South 52013'27" East, a distance of 234.77 feet to the point of curvature Page 7 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 9 of 22 of a curve to the right; 40. THENCE, 146.60 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the right, having a central angle of 13026'20", a radius of 625.00 feet and a chord which bears South 45030'17" East, a distance of 146.26 feet to a point of tangent of the curve herein described; 41. South 38047'07" East, a distance of 154.95 feet to the point of curvature of curve to the left; 42. THENCE, 155.47 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the left, having a central angle of 10010'49", a radius of 875.00 feet and a chord which bears South 43052'31" East, a distance of 155.27 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 43. South 55005'40" East, a distance of 91.94 feet to the point of curvature of a non -tangent curve to the left; 44. THENCE, 8.96 feet along and with the arc of said non -tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 0003524", a radius of 870.00 feet and a chord which bears South 55017'32" East, a distance of 8.96 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 45. South 55035'14" East, a distance of 157.98 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 46. THENCE, 38.74 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the left, having a central angle of 88047'11", a radius of 25.00 feet and a chord which bears North 80001'10" East, a distance of 34.98 feet to a point, falling on the northerly right-of-way line of Del Webb Boulevard (width varies) of said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One; 47. South 34033'38" West, along and with the said northerly right-of-way of Del Webb Boulevard, a distance of 109.47 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 48. THENCE, 39.27 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the left, having a central angle of 90°0010011, a radius of 25.00 feet and a chord which bears North 10035'14" West, a distance of 35.36 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 49. North 55035'14" West, a distance of 89.71 feet to a point; 50. North 55029'07" West, a distance of 84.73 feet to a point; 51. North 48036'00" West, a distance of 90.59 feet to the point of curvature of a non -tangent curve to the right; Page 8of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 10 of 22 52. THENCE, 164.35 feet along and with the arc of said non -tangent curve to the right, having a central angle of 10010'49", a radius of 925.00 feet and a chord which bears North 43052'31" West, a distance of 164.14 feet to a point of tangent of the curve herein described; 53. North 38047'07" West, a distance of 154.95 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 54. THENCE, 134.87 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the left, having a central angle of 13026'20", a radius of 575.00 feet and a chord which bears North 45030'17" West, a distance of 134.56 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 55. North 52013'27" West, a distance of 234.77 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right; 56. THENCE, 147.06 feet along and with the arc of said curve to the right, having a central angle of 28033'44", a radius of 295.00 feet and a chord which bears North 37056'35" West, a distance of 145.54 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 57. South 67036'16" West, a distance of 111.47 feet to a point; 58. North 42012'31" West, a distance of 248.04 feet to a point; 59. South 88047'13" West, a distance of 183.37 feet to a point; 60. South 57052'48" West, a distance of 119.83 feet to a point; 61. South 21 °35'14" West, a distance of 293.57 feet to a point; 62. South 53011'49" East, a distance of 289.55 feet to a point; 63. South 29002'48" East, a distance of 323.20 feet to a point falling on the northerly line of said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract; THENCE, -along and with the line common to said Del E. Webb called 330.927 acre tract and the said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract the following three courses: 1. South 69017'56" West, a distance of 86.52 feet; 2. South 68045'01" West, a distance of 898.74 feet; 3. South 72052'44" West, a distance of 104.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described and containing a computed area of 52.743 acres (2,297,489 Sq. Ft.) of land for Parcel 2. Page 9of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 11 of 22 Metes and Bounds Description Parcel 3 120.366 Acres (5,243,127 Sq. Ft.) Commencing for reference at a 1/2-inch iron rod (X= 3,112,678.2841, Y=10,226,769.9059) found on the northeasterly right-of-way of R.M. 2338 (80' wide) as recorded in Volume 834, Page 809 of the Williamson County Deed Records (W.C.D.R.), said 1/2-inch iron rod also being the most westerly southwest corner of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One as recorded in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Williamson County Plat Records, and also being common to the most westerly corner of a called 6.25 acre W. D. Ischy tract as recorded in Volume 836, Page 887 W.C.D.R.; THENCE, North 69003'37" East, leaving the said northeasterly right-of-way of R. M. 2338 and along and with the common line for said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and the Ischy tract, at 24.43 feet passing the southwesterly corner of Tract "U" Commercial of said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One, said point also falling on the easterly 20 foot widening dedication for said R.M. 2338, per said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One plat, and continuing for a total distance of 223.52 to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described (X = 3,112,887.01411 Y=1012261849.7780); THENCE, leaving the said line common to the said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One tract and the Ischy tract and following the line common to said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract, the following eighteen (18) courses: 1. North 69017'41" West, a distance of 179.78 feet; 2. North 11 °01'38" East, a distance of 140.99 feet; 3. North 82039'27" West, a distance of 142.69 feet; 4. North 26017'30" West, a distance of 460.68 feet; 5. North 10054'24" West, a distance of 105.14 feet; 6. North 03031'36" East, a distance of 97.16 feet; 7. North 12028'57" East, a distance of 89.36 feet; 8. North 20004'02" East, a distance of 81.09 feet; 9. North 39041'18" East, a distance of 113.39 feet; 10. North 54003'13" East, a distance of 152.41 feet; Page 10of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 12 of 22 11. North 65025'44" East, a distance of 87.56 feet; 12. North 54022'55" East, a distance of 74.57 feet; 13. North 47058'39" East, a distance of 85.71 feet; 14. North 54018'38" East, a distance of 99.59 feet; 15. North 67029'17" East, a distance of 189.15 feet; 16. North 88022'08" East, a distance of 101.18 feet; 17. North 05004'48" West, a distance of 32.69 feet; 18. North 50004'47" West, a distance of 26.53 feet to a point falling on the southerly right-of-way line of Del Webb Boulevard (width varies) of said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One; THENCE, along and with the said southerly right-of-way of Del Webb Boulevard the following four (4) courses: 1. THENCE, 21.31 feet along and with a non -tangent arc to the right having a central angle of 02017'27", a radius of 533.00, a chord bearing and distance of South 88005'04" East, 21.31 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 2. South 86056'20" East, a distance of 353.82 feet to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the left; 3. THENCE, 1,249.52 feet along and with said arc to the left, having a central angle of 59039'37", a radius of 1,200.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 63013'51" East, 1,193.83 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 4. THENCE, North 33024'03" East, a distance of 128.79 feet to a point falling on a curve to the right; THENCE, leaving the said southerly right-of-way of Del Webb Boulevard, 40.00 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 91 °40'22", a radius of 25.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 79014'14" East, 35.87 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; THENCE, South 54055'35" East, a distance of 98.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right; THENCE, 23.56 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 90000'00", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of Page 11 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 13 of 22 South 0905535" East, 21.21 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; THENCE, South 54055'35" East, a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right; THENCE, 23.16 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 88°27'11", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 79018'00" East, 20.92 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein describe; THENCE, South 56028'24" East, a distance of 156.43 feet to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the left; THENCE, 41.97 feet along and with said tangent curve to the left having a central angle of 04022'18", a radius of 550.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 58039'33" East, 41.96 feet to the point of curvature of a reverse curve to the right; THENCE, 22.50 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 85056'25", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 17052'30" East, 20.45 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; THENCE, South 64054'17" East, a distance of 50.00 feet to a point for the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right; THENCE, 22.50 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 85056'25", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 68003'55' East, 20.45 feet to the point of curvature of a reverse curve to the left; THENCE, 166.59 feet along and with said tangent curve to the left having a central angle of 17021'17", a.radius of 550.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 77038'31" East, 165.96 feet to the point of curvature of a reverse curve to the right; THENCE, 22.58 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 86015'25", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 43011'26" East, 20.51 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; THENCE, South 88°40'53" East, a distance of 50.01 feet; THENCE, South 00003'43" East, a distance of 112.58 feet; THENCE, North 88040'48" East, a distance of 306.50 feet; Page 12 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 14 of 22 THENCE, South 77000'25" East, a distance of 68.45 feet; THENCE, South 65050'18" East, a distance of 273.89 feet; THENCE, South 48020'41" East, a distance of 229.90 feet; THENCE, North 64°40'42" East, a distance of 74.95 feet; THENCE, North 27027'13" East, a distance of 82.05 feet; THENCE, North 01 041'58" East, a distance of 93.30 feet to a point falling on a curve the left; THENCE, 96.30 feet along and with said non -tangent curve to the left having a central angle of 06041'17", a radius of 825.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 86031'33" East, 96.25 feet to the point of curvature of a reverse curve to the right; THENCE, 22.89 feet along and with said tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 87024'55", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 46009'43" East, 20.73 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; THENCE, North 88031'29" East, a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of curvature of a non -tangent curve to the right; THENCE, 23.56 feet along and with said non -tangent curve to the right having a central angle of 90000'00", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 42032'44" East, 21.21 feet to the end of the curve herein described; THENCE, North 87032'44" East, a distance of 81.51 feet to the point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right; THENCE, 207.60 feet along and with said curve to the right having a central angle of 3805956", a radius of 305.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 72057'18" East, 203.62 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; THENCE, South 53°27'20" East, a distance of 34.33 feet; THENCE, South 36032'40" West, a distance of 132.00 feet; THENCE, South 24009-40" West, a distance of 51.94 feet; THENCE, South 37011'23" West, a distance of 158.00 feet; THENCE, South 16037'08" East, a distance of 140.11 feet; Page 13of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 15 of 22 THENCE, South 56031'46" East, a distance of 95.00 feet; THENCE, South 40046'32" East, a distance of 53.19 feet to a point falling on the south line of the said 566.05 acre Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract, said point also falling on the north line of the Chaparro Estates Subdivision as recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 276 of the W.C.P.R.; THENCE, South 68°38'37" West, along and with the common line for said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract and Chaparro Estates Subdivision a distance of 3,500.46 feet to a point falling on the easterly line of said Ischy tract; THENCE, along and with the common line for said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract and the Ischy tract the following four (4) courses: 1. North 2904021" West, a distance of 25.50 feet; 2. North 34023'06" West, a distance of 190.54 feet; 3. North 40025'06" West, a distance of 188.06 feet; 4. South 69003'37" West, a distance of 293.18 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing a computed area of 122.116 acres (5,319,366 Square Feet) of land for Parcel No. 3. Metes and Bounds Description Parcel 4 75.529 Acres (3,290,043 Sq. Ft.) Commencing for reference at a 1/2-inch iron rod (X=3,112,678.2841, Y=10,226,769.9059) found on the northeasterly right-of-way of R.M. 2338 (80' wide) as recorded in Volume 834, Page 809 of the Williamson County Deed Records (W.C.D.R.), said 1/2-inch iron rod also being the most westerly southwest corner of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One as recorded in Cabinet M, Slides 95-116 of the Williamson County Plat Records, and also being common to the most westerly corner of a called 6.25 acre W. D. Ischy tract as recorded in Volume 836, Page 887 W.C. D. R.; THENCE, North 69003'37" East, leaving the said northeasterly right-of-way of R. M. 2338 and along and with the common line for said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and the Ischy tract, at 24.43 feet passing the southwesterly corner of Tract "U" Commercial of said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One, said point also falling on the easterly 20 foot widening dedication for said R.M. 2338, per said Sun City Georgetown neighborhood One plat, and at 223.52 feet passing a corner of said Tract U of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One and continuing for a total distance of 516.70 to a point for the northeasterly corner of said Ischy tract, said point also being an interior corner of the said 566.05 acre Theron S. Page 14 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 16 of 22 Bradford, Trustee tract; THENCE, along and with the common line for said Ischy tract and the Bradford Trustee tract the following three (3) courses: 1. South 40025'06" East, a distance of 188.06 feet; 2. South 34023'06" East, a distance of 190.54 feet; 3. South 29040'21" East, a distance of 25.50 feet to a point falling on the south line of said Bradford Trustee tract, said point also falling on the north line of Chaparro Estates Subdivision as recorded in Cabinet D, Slide 276 of the Williamson County Plat Records (W.C.P.R.); THENCE, North 68038'37" East, along and with the common line for said Bradford Trustee tract and said Chaparro Estates Subdivision a distance of 3,500.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described (X-311161662.54641 Y- 1012271906.5780); THENCE, leaving the said Bradford Trustee tract south line the following thirty- four (34) courses through the interior of the said Bradford Trustee tract: 1. North 40046'32" West, a distance of 53.19 feet; 2. North 56031'46" West, a distance of 95.00 feet; 3. North 16037'08" West, a distance of 140.11 feet; 4. North 37011'23" East, a distance of 158.00 feet; 5. North 24009'40" East, a distance of 51.94 feet; 6. North 36032'40" East, a distance of 132.00 feet; 7.. North 53027'20" West, a distance of 34.33 feet; 8. THENCE, 207.60 feet along and with a tangent curve to the left having a central angle of 38059'56", a radius of 305.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 72057'18" West, 203.62 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 9. South 87032'44" West, a distance of 81.51 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 10. THENCE, 23.56 feet along and with a tangent curve to the left having a central angle of 90°00'00", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 42032'44" West, 21.21 feet to the point of tangent Page 15of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 17 of 22 of the curve herein described; 11. South 88031'29" West, a distance of 50.01 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 12. THENCE, 22.89 feet along and with a curve to the left having a central angle of 87024'55", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 46009'43" West, 20.73 feet to a point for a reverse curve to the right; 13. THENCE, 96.30 feet along and with said curve to the right having a central angle of 06041'17", a radius of 825.00 feet and a chord bearing of North 86031'33" West, 96.25 feet to a point of tangent of the curve herein described; 14. South 01 041'58" West, a distance of 93.30 feet; 15. South 27027'13" West, a distance of 82.05 feet; 16. South 64040'42" West, a distance of 74.95 feet; 17. North 48020'41" West, a distance of 229.90 feet; 18. North 65050'18" West, a distance of 273.89 feet; 19. North 77000'25" West, a distance of 68.45 feet; 20. South 88°40'48" West, a distance of 306.50 feet; 21. North 00003'43" West, a distance of 112.58 feet; 22. North 88°40'53" West, a distance of 50.01 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 23. THENCE, 22.58 feet along and with a curve to the left having a central angle of 86015'25", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 43011'26" West, 20.51 feet to the point of curvature of a reverse curve to the right; 24. THENCE, 166.59 feet along and with said curve to the right having a central angle of 17021'17", a radius of 550.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 77038'31" West, 165.96 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 25. THENCE, 22.50 feet along and with said curve to the left having a central angle of 85056'25", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 68003'55" West, 20.45 feet to the point of tangent of Page 16of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 18 of 22 the curve herein described; 26. North 64054'17" West, a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 27. THENCE, 22.50 feet along and with a curve to the left having a central angle of 85056'25", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 17052'30" West, 20.45 feet to a point of curvature of a reverse curve to the right; 28. THENCE, 41.97 feet along and with said curve to the right having a central angle of 04022'18", a radius of 550.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 58°39'33"West, 41.96feet tothe point of tangent of the curve herein described; 29. North 56028'24" West, a distance of 156.43 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 30. THENCE, 23.16 feet along and with a curve to the left having a central angle of 88027'12", a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 79018'00" West, 20.92 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 31. North 54055'35" West, a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left;�- 32. THENCE, 23.56 feet, along and with a curve to the left having a central angle of 90000'0011, a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of North 09055'35" West, 21.21 feet to the point of tangent of the curve herein described; 33. North 54055'35" West, a distance of 98.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left; 34. THENCE, 40.00 feet along and with a curve to the left having a central angle of 91 °40'22", a radius of 25.00 feet and a chord bearing and distance of South 79014'14" West, 35.87 feet to a point falling on the southerly right-of-way line of Del Webb Boulevard (width varies) of said Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood One; THENCE, North 33°24'03" East, along and with the said southerly right-of-way of Del Webb Boulevard, a distance of 110.37 feet; THENCE, leaving the said southerly right-of-way of Del Webb Boulevard and through the said Theron S. Bradford, Trustee tract the following twelve (12) courses: 1. South 05003'11" East, a distance of 32.16 feet; Page 17 of 19 EXHIBIT A, Page 19 of 22 2. South 56004'20" East, a distance of 292.96 feet; 3. South 89050'33" East, a distance of 728.30 feet; 4. North 66053'21" East, a distance of 432.95 feet; 5. South 68046'23" East, a distance of 156.04 feet; 6. North 61 °27'05" East, a distance of 345.41 feet; 7. North 67028'10" East, a distance of 790.53 feet; 8. North 49050'12" East, a distance of 411.75 feet; 9. North 57024'59" East, a distance of 168.78 feet; 10. North 63059'32" East, a distance of 263.31 feet; 11. South 37055'50" East, a distance of 608.35 feet; 12. South 74015'24" East, a distance of 415.31 feet to a point falling on the line common to said Bradford Trustee tract and a called 195.137 acre tract conveyed to Joy Shell Adkins as described in Exhibit "E" out of a partition deed recorded in Volume 1872, Page 708 of the W.C.D.R.; THENCE, along and with the common line for said Bradford Trustee tract and the Joy Shell Adkins tract the following seven (7) courses: 1. South 31 °55'30" West, a distance of 72.58 feet; 2. South 02056'30" East, a distance of 66.91 feet; 3. South 20000'30" East, a distance of 59.51 feet; 4. South 11 029'30" East, a distance of 135.80 feet; 5. South 06004'30" East, a distance of 125.11 feet; 6. South 05004'30" West, a distance of 111.87 feet; 7. South 13014'30" West, a distance of 44.60 feet to a common corner for said Bradford Trustee tract, the Joy Shell Adkins tract, and the northeasterly corner of said Chaparro Estates Subdivision; THENCE, South 68038'37" West, along and with the line common to said Bradford Trustee tract and Chaparro Estates Subdivision a distance of 2,254.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing a computed area of 75.529 acres (3,290,043 Square Feet) of land for Parcel No. 4. Page 18of19 EXHIBIT A, Page 20 of 22 Prepared by: Larry L. Conwell Registered Professional Land Surveyor Texas Registration No. 4002 SURVCON INC. 5000 Plaza On The Lake Suite 180 Austin, Texas 78746 Job No. 4728-47 November 6, 1995 ZASURVC0M4728-47VVH-M1.M&B Page 19 of 19 EXHIBIT A. Page 21 of 22 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - 333.490 ACRE PORTION OF PHASE 2 Introduction This service plan has been prepared in accordance with Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 43 - Municipal Annexation. This requires that the service plan provide for the extension of full municipal services to the area to be annexed by any of the methods by which it extends services to any other area of the municipality. Police Protection Regular and routine patrolling of streets, responses to calls, and other police services will be provided upon the effective date of the annexation. Fire Protection and Code Enforcement Fire protection and prevention services are currently being provided to the area through an agreement with Williamson County. These services will continue to be provided to the area upon the effective date of the annexation. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the City Code Enforcement Officer will periodically patrol streets in the area to ensure that all properties are in conformance with City Code. Solid Waste Collection Solid waste collection and disposal services will be provided upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code. Water Service Water service will be provided to the annexation area through the terms of a development agreement with the City of Georgetown. Sewer Service Wastewater service will be provided to the annexation area through the terms of a development agreement with the City of Georgetown. Maintenance of Roads, Streets, and Drainage Roads, streets and drainage facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Street Lighting Street lighting will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, upon request of the property owners, in accordance with City Code and policy. Annexation Service Plan, Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A, Page 22 of 22 Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Recreation services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code. Planning and Zoning Upon the effective date of the annexation, the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to this area. The area will be zoned according to the uses described in the Sun City Georgetown Revised Concept Plan (Second), as approved through regular procedures. Inspection Services All inspection services, including building, electrical, plumbing, etc., provided by the City will be extended to the area upon the effective date of the annexation. Library Services Library services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms, and conditions contained in the City Code upon the effective date of the annexation. Other Services Other services provided by the City, such as animal control, court, and general administration, will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the City Code and policies. Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy City Ordinance Number 900404, a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, guides the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all utility system improvements, including water, wastewater and electrical service. Annexation Service Plan, Page 2 of 2 Council meeting December 12, 1995 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action on first reading of an ordinance adopting impact fees for the City of Georgetown ITEM SUMMARY: For the past fifteen (15) months the City has been engaged in evaluating the possibility of adopting impact fees for the Community. With the assistance of our planning consultants, Jim Duncan and Associates, the City performed a feasibility analysis on the appropriateness of impact fees for Georgetown. Early on it was decided that the City would limit itself to considering only water and wastewater impact fees and forgo at the present time, impact fees for transportation improvements and stormwater infrastructure. Under state law the City is required to adopt a set of land use assumptions that form the foundation for determining the level of public improvements necessary to serve future development. A second requirement of State law requires the preparation of a Capital Improvements Plan which identifies the specific improvement that will be made and funded by impact fees. Both these steps have been completed and approval of the impact ordinance also adopts the capital improvements plan. Similarly, public hearings are required on these items and these have both been held. The Impact Fee advisory Committee appointed by the City Council to assist with development of the impact fees has met and reviewed the impact fee program and has previously presented recommendations for their implementation. Based upon the direction received, the ordinance will institute impact fees for water and wastewater improvements for future development in Georgetown. For a conventional single family home, the typical impact fee for water system improvements will be $825, and for wastewater impact fees, $600, for a total of $1,425. There will be a phase -in period which for the first year as required by the State Statute will exempt platted lots from having to pay impact fees. For residential properties, impact fees will also be reduced by fifty percent during the second year after adoption of the ordinance. For non-residential development the impact fees will be $1,325 for water and $1,098 for wastewater for a service unit equivalent as set forth in the CIP report. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: In the future as new development occurs and permits are issued the City will collect for a typical single family home after full implementation of the ordinance an additional $1,425 and for non-residential development, an additional $2,423. COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: The impact Fees Ordinance Submitted Bv: Edward J. Barry, #CP - Director Division of Development Services ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ESTABLISHING WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395, the Texas Impact Fee Act authorizes a city to adopt impact fees for the purpose of financing capital facilities required by new developmend; WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has duly appointed an Impact Fee Advisory Committee and has adopted Land Use Assumptions and an Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Impact Fee Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown, having complied with all substantive and procedural requirments of the Texas Impact Fee Act, the City of Georgetown finds it necessary and appropriate to establish water and wastewater impact fees to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for new development; 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 hereon, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance implements Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 2, Finance Policy 2, and Utilities/Energy Policy 3 and 5 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Elements, which state: The City has a water resources system that provides a sufficient water supply of high quality to meet future City needs, economic development and recreational requirements, and to conserve wildlife; Each utility system is a self -supported operation; The City's Functional Plan for utilities creates and maintains a posture that encourages and provides economic development in the City of Georgetown; and Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Ordinance No. Page 1 of 2 1 Water, wastewater, electricity, and solid waste collection cervices meet the immediate and future needs of all citizens and encourage and provide for economic development; 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. Attachment "A", relating to water and wastewater impact fees is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of ATTEST: Sandra Lee City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marianne Landers Banks City Attorney Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2 F) THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: LEO WOOD Mayor . 1995. 1995 . Attachment "A" CHAPTER 13.32 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES Section 13.32.010 General Provisions 13.32.020 Land Use Assumptions 13.32.030 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area 13.32.040 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Facilities 13.32.050 Determination of Service Units 13.32.060 Impact Fees Per Service Unit 13.32.070 Assessment of Impact Fees 13.32.080 Computation of Impact Fees 13.32.090 Collection of Impact Fees 13.32.100 Credits 13.32.110 Grandfathered Plats 13.32.120 Exceptions and Exemptions 13.32.130 Establishment of Accounts 13.32.140 Use of Proceeds of Impact Fee Accounts 13.32.150 Refunds 13.32.160 Updates to Plan and Revisions of Fees 13.32.170 Use of Other Financing Mechanisms 13.32.180 Impact Fees As Additional And Supplemental Regulation 13.32.190 Relief Procedures 13.32.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the water and wastewater impact fees are to generate revenue for funding or recouping the cost of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to new development. (b) Applicability. This chapter shall be applicable uniformly to new development which occurs within the water and wastewater service area. For new development which occurs within the boundaries of the city's wholesale customers or other political subdivisions, the applicability and terms for the assessment and collection of the impact fee shall be defined by agreement. (c) Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority of the Texas Local Government Code Ann. Chapter 395 (Vernon 1988), hereinafter to be known as the "Texas Impact Fee Act". The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the power of the city to adopt an impact fee pursuant to any other source of local authority nor to limit the 1 utilization of any other methods or powers otherwise available for accomplishing the purposes set forth herein. (d) Development approval. No application for new development shall be approved by the city without assessment of an impact fee pursuant to this chapter, and no application for tap purchase shall be approved until the applicant has paid the impact fee imposed by and calculated hereunder. (e) Definitions. As utilized in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them herein below: (1) ASSESSMENT means a determination of the amount of the impact fee per service unit in effect on the date or occurrence established for same herein and is the maximum amount that can be charged per service unit of development. (2) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT means water supply, treatment and distribution facilities and wastewater collection and treatment facilities owned and operated by or on behalf of the City of Georgetown having a live expectancy of three or more years. (3) IMPACT FEES means a charge imposed upon new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by or attributable to new development. The term does not include dedication of site -related water distribution or wastewater collection facilities required by other ordinances of the City Code or fees placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines. (4) DIRECTOR means the Director of the City of Georgetown Community Owned Utilities or his designee. (5) EXISTING DEVELOPMENT means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. (6) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT means a new development project which has been designated an Exonomic Development Project by the City Council and which has received any one of the following: (a) Federal funds in the form of loans or grants; (b) City funds in the form of fee waivers, tax incentives, discounted costs or rates for city services; or (c) any discount or cost reduction not available without specific action of the City Council. (7) FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT means the map, drawing or chart on which is provided a subdivider's plan of a subdivision which has received final approval by the 2 Planning Commission or City Council and which is recorded with the office of the County Clerk. (8) GROWTH RELATED COSTS means capital construction cost of service related to providing additional water and wastewater capacity to new development, either from excess capacity in existing facilities, from facility expansions or from new capital facilities. Growth related costs do not include: (a) Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital improvements or facilities expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (b) Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facilities expansions; (c) Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to met stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; (d) Upgrading, updating expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (e) Administrative and operating costs of the city; and, (f) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except for such payments made with respect to growth related facilities identified in the impact fee capital improvements plan. (9) IMPACT FEE means the water and wastewater impact fee as defined hereinabove. (10) IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN means the plan required by the Texas Impact Fee Act as adopted or amended from time to time by the City Council that identifies the capital improvements or facilities expansions and the associated costs for which impact fees may be assessed. (12) LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS means a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population in the service area over at least a ten year period as adopted and amended from time to time by the City of Georgetown. (13) NEW DEVELOPMENT means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land, any of which increases the number of service units for water and wastewater service. New development includes the sale of water or 3 wastewater taps resulting from the conversion of an individual well or septic or other individual waste disposal system, to the city's water or wastewater utility. (14) SERVICE AREA means that area within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown to be served by the water and wastewater capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan. (15) SERVICE UNIT means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions. For water and wastewater facilities, the service unit shall constitute the basis for establishing equivalency within various customer classes based upon the relationship of the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a water meter of a given size and type compared to the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a 3/4-inch diameter simple water meter using American Water Works Association C700-C703 Standards. (16) SITE -RELATED FACILITY means an improvement or facility which is for the primary use or benefit of a new development and/or which is for the primary purpose of safe and adequate provision of water and wastewater facilities to serve the new development and which is not included in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and for which the developer or property owner is solely responsible under subdivision and other applicable regulations. (17) TAP PURCHASE means the filing with the city of a written application for a water or wastewater tap and the acceptance of applicable fees therefor by the city. The term "tap purchase" shall not be applicable to a master water meter or master wastewater connection purchased from the city by a wholesale utility customer. (18) WASTEWATER FACILITY means a capital improvement or facility expansion for providing wastewater service including but not limited to land or easements, treatment facilities, lift stations, and interceptor mains. The term does not include wastewater lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of facilities and which are maintained in dedicated trusts. The term "wastewater facilities" also does not include dedication of easement or rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of on -site wastewater collection facilities required by valid ordinances of the city and necessitated by and attributable to new development. (19) WATER FACILITY means improvements for providing water service including but not limited to land or easements, water supply facilities, treatment facilities, pumping facilities, storage facilities or transmission mains. The term does not include water lines or mains constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of the facilities maintained in dedicated trusts. The term does not include 4 dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of on -site water distribution facilities required by valid ordinances of the city and necessitated by and attributable to new development. (20) WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS means water or wastewater customers of the city's water and/or wastewater utilities which purchase such utility service at wholesale for resale to their retail customers. 13.32.020 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS. (a) The Land Use Assumptions for the city dated December, 1994, on record in the Office of the City Secretary, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. (b) Said Land Use Assumptions for the city shall be updated at least every three years utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in the Texas Impact Fee Act. (c) Amendment to the Land Use Assumptions shall incorporate projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for the service area over at least a ten year period. 13.32.030 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA. (a) There is hereby established a Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area, the boundaries of which are depicted on the map attached hereto as "Exhibit A" on record in the Office of the City Secretary and incorporated herein by reference. (b) The boundaries of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area may be amended from time to time in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Texas Impact Fee Act. 13.32.040 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES (a) The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Facilities dated July, 1995, on record in the Office of the City Secretary, is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. (b) The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Facilities may be amended from time to time pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Texas Impact Fee Act. 13.32.050 DETERMINATION OF SERVICE UNITS (a) Conversion table. The number of service units for both water and wastewater service is determined by the size and type of the water meter purchased for the property in accordance with the following schedule: Meter Size (Inch) Type Service Units 5/8 x 3/4 Simple 0.667 3 /4 Simple 1.000 1 Simple 1.667 1 lh Simple 3.333 2 Simple 5.333 2 Compound 5.333 2 Turbine 6.667 3 Compound 10.667 3 Turbine 16.000 4 Compound 16.667 4 Turbine 28.000 6 Compound 33.333 6 Turbine 61.333 8 Compound 53.333 8 Turbine 106.667 10 Compound 76.667 10 Turbine 166.667 12 Turbine 220.000 (b) Calculation. Upon application for tap purchase, service units shall be calculated based upon the size of the water meter as set out above. (c) Pressure anomalies. If a larger or smaller meter is required solely due to abnormally low or high pressure in the city's main, the Director or his designee may adjust the number of service units to reflect more accurately the flow rate and system pressure conditions. (d) Fire demand meters. The number of service units for a fire demand meter shall be determined as follows: (1) If a fire demand meter composed of a combination of independent units in separate housings monitoring both fire and domestic usage is purchased for property, the meter size utilized to calculate the number of service units shall be the dimension of the largest independent unit for the fire demand meter that provides only domestic service to the property. For purposes of this section, only a simple or compound meter shall be used to calculate the number of service units represented by the fire demand meter. 51 (2) If the fire protection capacity of the fire demand meter is routinely utilized for domestic purposes, as evidenced by the registration of consumption recorded on the city's meter -reading and billing systems, the owner of the property shall be assessed the current fee for the fire protection capacity that has been converted to domestic capacity by routing usage. (3) No service units shall be attributed to a tap purchased to provide only fire protection capacity. (e) No water meter. Upon application for a building permit for lots for which no water meter has been purchased, wastewater service units shall be determined by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Texas subject to the approval of the Director. (f) Nonstandard meter. No adjustment in service units shall be made for water use or fire demand that falls between standard meter sizes or combinations. (g) Revision of service units designation. The City Council may revise the service units designation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Texas Impact Fee Act. 13.32.060 IMPACT FEES PER SERVICE UNIT. Maximum allowable fee. The maximum impact fee per service unit shall be computed by dividing the cost of water and wastewater capital improvements and facilities expansions necessitated by and attributable to new development identified in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for each category of capital improvements by the total number of projected service units in the impact fee service area based upon the land use assumptions. Maximum impact fees per service unit shall be established for each category of capital improvements and shall be as set forth in "Exhibit B" attached hereto, on record in the Office of the City Secretary, and incorporated herein by reference. 13.32.070 ASSESSMENT OF HYWACT FEES. (a) The approval of any subdivision of land or of any new development within the Impact Fee Service Area shall include as a condition of development the assessment of the impact fee applicable to such development. (b) The impact fee per service unit to be assessed within the service area shall be an amount less than or equal to the maximum impact fee per service unit as set forth in "Exhibit B" attached hereto, on record in the Office of the City Clerk, and incorporated by reference. (c) Assessment of the water and wastewater impact fees for any new development shall be made as follows: 7 (1) For a development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations following the effective date of this chapter, assessment shall be at the time a final plat is obtained and shall be in the amount of the assessed fee per service unit then in effect as set forth in "Exhibit C", attached hereto, on record in the Office of the City Secretary, except as provided in (c)(2). (2) For a development for which no plat is required or issued, assessment shall occur at the time of building permit. (3) For a development for which a plat was obtained, but which plat has expired after the effective date of this act, assessment shall occur at the time a new plat approval is sought. (4) For septic tank cutovers, assessment shall be at the time of connection to the City's wastewater facilities. (d) Following assessment of the impact fee hereunder, the amount of the impact fee per service unit may not be increased above the assessed fee unless the owner obtains final approval for replatting in which case a new assessment shall occur at the assessed water and wastewater impact fee per service unit in effect at the time of such replatting. (e) An application for an amended plat made pursuant to Tex. Local Government Code § 212.016 (Vernon 1988) or the city's subdivision rules is not subject to a reassessment of the impact fee. 13.32.080 COMPUTATION OF IMPACT FEES. (a) The impact fees due for the new development shall be collected at the time of building permit. (b) Following the filing and acceptance of a written application for building permit, the city shall compute the impact fee due in the following manner: (1) The number of service units shall be determined by the size of the water meter purchased or by evaluation of the Director at the time of tap purchase as hereinabove provided; (2) Service units shall be summed for all meters purchased for the development; (3) Total service units shall be multiplied by the collected fee per service unit for water or wastewater service as depicted in "Exhibit B" attached hereto and on record in the Office of the City Secretary; (4) All applicable offsets, credits or discounts per service unit allowable under this chapter for water or wastewater service shall be subtracted from the product derived under the preceding subpart. (c) The amount of impact fee due for new development shall not exceed the amount computed by multiplying the assessed fee for water or wastewater service by the total number of service units generated by the development. (d) Whenever the property owner increases the number of service units for a development, the additional impact fees collected for such new service units shall be determined based on the assessed fee and applicable offsets, credits, and discounts then in effect and such additional fee shall be collected at the time the additional meters are purchased. (e) In the event the property owner decreases the number of service units for a development, the property owner shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fee for impact fees actually paid, but only for the amounts represented by the decrease in service units based on the assessed .fee and offsets credits, or discounts applicable at the time the fee was paid. (f) Payment of an impact fee in accordance with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall entitle the payor to receive a credit for same to be used in the event the tap for the property for which the fee is paid expires and must be repurchased provided, however, that the impact fee is not refundable upon expiration of the tap. (g) If the tap or building permit for the property on which an impact fee is paid has expired and a new application is thereafter filed for the identical property and the number of service units, the impact fee previously paid satisfies the requirements of this chapter. (h) The impact fee shall attach to the property for which the impact fee was paid and shall not be transferable to other properties or service units. (i) No request to connect to the water and wastewater system shall be granted and no building permit shall be issued if the applicant cannot verify payment of the appropriate impact fee and other applicable fees or if existing facilities do not have actual capacity to provide service to the new connection(s) . E 13.32.090 COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES. (a) The impact per service unit to be collected within the service area at the time of tap purchase shall be that fee established by Ordinance by the City Council from time to time and shall be an amount less than or equal to the fee assessed pursuant to Exhibit B. Save and except for impact fees established by contracts with political subdivisions or other wholesale customers, water and wastewater impact fees to be collected at the time of building permit shall be as set forth in "Exhibit C" attached hereto, on record in the Office of the City Secretary, and made a part hereof for all purposes. (b) Except as otherwise provided by contracts with wholesale customers or other political subdivisions, no building permit shall be issued until all impact fees have been paid to the city. (c) For a development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations subsequent to the effective date of this chapter, impact fees shall be collected at the time of building permit. (d) For a development which has received final plat approval prior to the effective date of this chapter and for which no re -platting is necessary prior to the purchase of a water or wastewater tap, impact fees shall be collected at the time of the tap purchase. 13.32.100 CREDITS. In the event that the City requires as a condition of development approval, or otherwise enters into an agreement with a developer, to have the developer construct, fund or otherwise contribute toward the cost of a capital improvement or facility expansion included in the adopted water or wastewater capital improvements plan, the City shall provide for reimbursement in the form of credits against impact fees that would otherwise be due from the development. Such credits shall run with the land and shall be used to reduce the amount of the impact fee that would otherwise be owed at the time of collection of impact fees. In the event that the amount of such credits would be insufficient to reimburse the developer for the cost of required improvements, the City shall provide for reimbursement to the developer up to the balance of the cost of said required improvements from water or wastewater impact fees collected from other new development within the same service area. In determining the amount of such credits, the developer shall submit evidence of the actual, fair -market cost of the required improvements. Such credits shall only be applicable against the impact fees for the type of facility (water or wastewater) for which the capital improvement is made. 132.32.110 GRANDFATHERED PLATS. (a) For property which has received a final plat before the effective date of this ordinance, no impact fee will be assessed, if a building permit is issued within one year of the effective date of this ordinance. 10 (b) For residential property which has a final plat before the effective date of the ordinance the following will apply: (1) If a building permit is issued within one year of the effective date of this ordinance, no impact fee will be assessed. (2) If a building permit is issued after one year but before two years of the effective date of this ordinance, only fifty percent (50 %) of the assessed fee in Table C-1 will be collected. (3) If a building permit is issued any time two years or more after the effective date of the ordinance, one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed fee in Table C-1 will be collected. 13.32.120 EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS. (a) Limitation on modification. Except as provided in this chapter or by contract in existence on the effective date of this act, any reduction, change or modification in the amount or time of payment of the impact fee must be approved by a duly enacted ordinance of the City Council. (b) Private system connected. An impact fee shall not be assessed on any property that receives service forma central water supply system owned by a person or an entity other than the city of a wastewater treatment plant owned by a person or entity other than the city and which water supply system or wastewater treatment system is to be tied into the city's water and wastewater system. (c) Consumption meter. The owner of a meter used to monitor water that is utilized exclusively for consumptive purposes and/or that cannot enter the city wastewater system will not be charged the wastewater impact fee. (d) Fire protection capacity. No fee shall be collected for the purchase of a tap that is utilized to provide only fire protection capacity. (e) Nothing hereinabove stated shall be construed to alter the terms of a contract with a wholesale customer of the city regarding the payment of impact fees and shall not be construed to authorize the payment of impact fees in installments in areas encompassed by such a contract for wholesale service. (f) Exchange. A tap may be exchanged before any water or wastewater service has been received for another tap without collection of the impact fees established in this chapter if the exchange will result in an equivalent or lesser number of service units to be utilized on the property for which the tap was originally purchased. The number of service units to be 11 exchanged shall be determined in accordance with § 13.32.050 and shall not be based on the number of units at the time of initial purchase. (g) Government and Church -owned Property. Any building or property that is owned and entirely occupied by the Federal or State government, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, or a church may be eligible for a waiver of impact fees. A request for waiver of impact fees authorized by this provision shall be made in writing and must be approved by action of the City Council during a scheduled Council Meeting. In granting a waiver of impact fees allowed herein the Council shall first determine that the use for which the waiver is requested will provide a public service or benefit of value to the general community. Nothing contained in this provision shall obligate the City Council to approve a request for waiver of impact fees. (h) Economic Development Projects. No fee shall be collected from any new development designated by the City Council as an Economic Development Project. 13.32.130 ESTABLISH LENT OF ACCOUNTS. (a) The City's Division of Finance and Administration shall establish separate interest - bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvement (i.e. water facilities and wastewater facilities) within the service area for which the impact fee is collected. (b) Interest earned by each account shall be credited to the account on which it is earned and shall be used solely for the purposes specified for impact fees as authorized hereinbelow. (c) The City's Division of Finance and Administration shall establish adequate financial and accounting controls to ensure that impact fees disbursed from the account are utilized solely for the purposes authorized in this chapter. Disbursement of funds shall be authorized by the City at such times as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter; provided, however, that any fee paid shall be expended within a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed ten years from the date the fee is deposited into the account. (d) The City's Division of Finance and Administration shall maintain and keep adequate financial records for each such account, which shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, which shall account for all monies received, the number of service units for which the monies are received, and which shall ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account shall be used solely and exclusively for the provision of projects specified in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan as system -related capital projects. The City's Division of Finance and Administration shall also maintain such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are appropriately made in accordance with this chapter. 12 13.32.140 USE OF PROCEEDS OF IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS. (a) The impact fee collected pursuant to this chapter may be used to finance or to recoup capital construction costs for water and wastewater facilities identified in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan. Impact fees may also be used to pay the principal sum and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the city to finance such capital improvements or facilities expansions. (b) Impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall not be used to pay for any of the following expenses: (1) Construction, acquisition, or expansion of capital improvements or assets other than those identified for the Water and Wastewater Utility in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan: (2) Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facilities expansions; (3) Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; (4) Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development; provided, however, that impact fees may be used to pay the costs - of upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements in order to meet the need for new capital improvements generated by new development; or (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City. 13.32.150 REFUNDS. (a) Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this chapter which has not been expended within ten years from the date of payment, shall be refunded, upon application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid, or, if the impact fee was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity, together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 5069-1.03, or any successor statute. (b) If a refund is due pursuant to subsection (a), the refund of unexpended fee payments, including interest from the date of payment, shall be made to the current record owner or governmental entity. (c) Upon completion of all the capital improvements or facilities expansions identified in the capital improvements or facilities expansions identified in the capital improvements plan 13 upon which the fee was based, the city shall recalculate the maximum impact fee per service unit using the actual costs for the improvements or expansions. If the maximum impact fee per service unit based on actual cost is less than the impact fee per service unit paid, the city shall refund the difference if such difference exceeds the impact fee paid by more than 10 % . The refund to the record owner or governmental entity shall be calculated by multiplying such difference by the number of service units for the development for which the fee was paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount. (d) Upon the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the city shall refund such fees if: (1) Existing service is available and service is denied; or, (2) Service was not available when the fee was collected and the city has failed to commence construction of facilities to provide service within two years of fee payment; or, (3) Service was not available when the fee was collected and has not subsequently been made available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in any event no later than five years from the date of the payment. (4) A refund pursuant to this subsection (d) shall also result in cancellation of the tap permit and the refund of all building permit fees and/or connection fees previously collected. (5) If the holder of a building permit for property for which a building permit has been obtained relinquishes the building permit for a refund, a canceled building permit must be presented before the refund can be made. (e) The city shall refund an appropriate proportion of impact fee payments in the event that a previously purchased but uninstalled water meter for which the impact fee has been paid is replaced with a smaller meter, based on the per service unit differential of the two meter sizes and the fee per service unit at the time of the original fee payment. (f) A petition for refund under this Section shall be submitted to the Director on a form provided by the City for such purpose. Within one month of the date of receipt of a petition for refund, the Director must provide the petitioner, in writing, with a decision on the refund request, including the reasons for the decision. If a refund is due to the petitioner, the Director shall notify the City Division of Finance and Administration and request that a refund payment be made to the petitioner. 14 13.32.160 UPDATES TO PLAN AND REVISIONS OF FEES. The City shall review the Land Use Assumptions and Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for water and wastewater facilities at least every three years, with the first three year period to commence from the date of adoption of the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan referenced herein. The City Council shall accordingly make a determination of whether changes to the land use assumptions, Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan or impact fees are needed and shall, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Texas Impact Fee Act, or any successor statute, either update the fees or make a determination that no update is necessary. 13.32.170 USE OF OTHER FINANCING MECHANISMS (a) In addition to the use of impact fees, the city may finance water and wastewater capital improvements or facilities expansions designated in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan through the issuance of bonds, through the formation of public improvements districts or other assessment districts, or through any other authorized mechanism, in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (b) Except as otherwise provided herein, the assessment and collection of a impact fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or assessment which is lawfully imposed on and due against the property. 13.32.180 IMPACT FEES AS ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATION. (a) Impact fees established by this chapter are additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other requirements imposed by the City on the development of land or the issuance of building permits or the sale of water or wastewater taps or the issuance of certificates of occupancy. Such fees are intended to be consistent with and to further the policies of the City's Century Plan, Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other city policies, ordinances and resolutions by which the city seeks to ensure the provision of adequate public facilities in conjunction with the development of land. (b) This chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density of development, design, and improvement standards and requirements, or any other aspect of the development of land or provision of public improvements subject to the zoning and subdivision regulations or other regulations of the city, which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all such development. 15 13.32.190 RELIEF PROCEDURES. (a) Any person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land upon which an impact fee has been paid may petition the Council to determine whether any duty required by this chapter has not been performed within the time so prescribed. The petition shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the unperformed duty and the request that the act be performed within 60 days of the request. If the Council determines that the duty is required pursuant to this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days of the date of the request and to continue until completion. (b) Any person who has been assessed an impact fee under this ordinance may appeal that assessment by written application to the Director. The City Council may enforce, reduce or modify the assessment, after providing a public hearing with due notice and opportunity to be heard. if it determines that the assessment is unwarranted or in error. (c) The Council may by ordinance grant a variance or waiver from any requirement of this chapter, upon written request by a developer or owner of property subject to this chapter, following a public hearing, and only upon finding that a strict application of such requirement would, when regarded as a whole, result in extreme hardship to the applicant and that the grant of the waiver or variance is, in the best interest of the City. (d) If the Council grants a variance or waiver to the amount of the impact fees due for new development under this section, it shall cause to be appropriated from other City funds the amount of the reduction in the impact fees to the amount in which the fees would have been deposited. 16 EXHIBIT A rim. -PACT FEE SERVICE AREA MAP FM 6 k sec SH - 2 9- RM BY CITY OF GEORGETOWN Development Services 11/22/94 9-7 2 0 7000 14000 EXHIBIT B WATER AND WASTEWATER MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE UNIT BY CATEGORY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT UTILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FACILITY MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE UNIT* WATER Supply $149 Treatment $756 Pumping $42 Ground Storage $120 Elevated Storage $188 Major Transmission $560 Study Costs $5 TOTAL WATER CAPITAL COSTS $19820 WASTEWATER Treatment $623 Pumping $54 Major Collection $566 Study Costs $4 TOTAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS $19247 TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS $39067 *A service unit is equal to use by an average 3/4" water meter. EXHIBIT C TABLE C-1 City of Georgetown Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY METER SIZE METER TYPE WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 5/8" x 3/4" Simple $ 884 $ 732 3/4" Simple 11325 1,098 1" Simple 2,209 13830 1-1/2" Simple 4,416 3,660 2" Simple 7,066 5, 856 2" Compound 7,066 5,856 2" Turbine 8,834 7,320 3" Compound 14,134 11,712 3" Turbine 213200 177568 4" Compound 22,084 18,300 4" Turbine 37,100 30, 744 6" Compound 44,166 361600 6" Turbine 817266 673344 8" Compound 70,666 58,560 8" Turbine 141,334 1177120 10" Compound 101,584 84,180 10" Turbine 2207834 1831000 12" Turbine 2911500 2415560 EXHIBIT C TABLE C-2 City of Georgetown Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY METER SIZE METER TYPE WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 5/8" x 3/4" Simple $ 550 $ 400 3/4" Simple 825 600 1" Simple 1,375 1,000 1-1/2" Simple 21750 21000 2" Simple 49400 31200 2" Compound 41400 3,200 2" Turbine 5,500 41000 3" Compound 81800 6,400 3" Turbine 13,200 9,575 4" Compound 131750 97975 4" Turbine 231100 16,750 6" Compound 27,500 191950 6" Turbine 5000 36,700 8" Compound 441000 31,900 8" Turbine 8800 637800 10" Compound 63,250 451850 10" Turbine 137,500 99,700 12" Turbine 181,500 131,600 Council Meeting Date: 12/12/95 Item No. 4 y " AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Reappointment of Darlene Lacy to a three-year term as the City of Georgetown's member on the Williamson County & Cities Health District Board. ITEM SUMMARY The City of Georgetown has, by agreement with the Health District Board, one appointment. Other cities appointment members include Round Rock, Taylor, and Cedar Park. Williamson County Commissioners Court also appoints members. Ms. Lacey has indicated her desire to continue serving on this Board, and according to a letter from the Health District Director, is considered an effective Board Member. The appointment, according to the signed agreement with the Board, is for a three-year term, beginning January 1, 1996. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS None FINANCIAL IMPACT None COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Health District Director 2. Mayor's Recommendation Submitted By: Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Services MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 1995 TO: Councilmembers FROM: Mayor Wood :. _ _ SUBJECT: Reappointment of Darlene Lacy With this memo, I am advising that I would like to re -appoint Ms. Darlene Lacy as the Georgetown City Council's representative to the Williamson County Board of Health. Her term expires at the end of December. I have been contacted by Health District Director Karen Wilson. A copy of her letter is attached. We will make the appointment on the December 12 Council Agenda. sl attachment dt ,' Williamson County and Cities HealthDistrict Karen Wilson, MN, MPH, Director "Promoting and Protecting the Health of the People in Williamson County" November 28, 1995 Mayor Leo Wood P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409 Dear Mayor Wood: RECEIVED N 0 V ` 1995 'The term for Darlene Lacy, the Georgetown City Council's representative to the Williamson County Board of Health, expires at the end of December. Ms. Lacy has expressed an interest and willingness to serve another term if the Council would like to re- appoint her. She has represented Georgetown well and has been a valuable member. Her professional background as a registered nurse and her experience working in public health have been very helpful as the Board guides the activities of the Health District. Because of the changes taking place in health care and the probable decrease in state and federal funds for health care programs, the next couple years require a very knowledgeable and committed Board of Health to set policy for the Health District. Ms. Lacy has demonstrated her effectiveness in this regard. Please notify me of your selection of a representative. The first quarterly Board meeting of 1996 is on Thursday, January 18 at 7:00 p.m.. If you select a new representative, I would like to provide - them with a brief orientation prior to this meeting. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Karen Wilson, MN, MPH Director 303 Main Street - P.O. Box 570 - Georgetown, Texas 78627 - 512-9304387 - Fax (512) 930-3110 Council Meeting Date: 12/12/95 Item No. -:vr AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Appointment of Jack Frost for the vacant position on the Planning & Zoning Commission. ITEM SUMMARY The City of Georgetown's Planning & Zoning Commission currently has a vacant position. Mr. Frost has expressed an interest in serving on this Commission and has made application. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS None FINANCIAL IMPACT None COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for Boards and Commissions 2. Mayor's Recommendation Submitted By: Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Services J MEMORANDUM DATE: November 30, 1995 TO: City Council cc: Hartley Sappington FROM: Mayor Wood SUBJECT: Recommendation for Planning and Zoning Appointment Pursuant to the Governance Policies, this memo is to inform you that I intend to recommend Jack Frost for the vacant position on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attached is his application. LW/sl attachment Application for Boards and Commissions Mayor and City Council City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 ne 14'e's RID S3 is Do you live inside Georgetown City limits? Yes (Some boards have residency requirements) Board or Commission for which you are applying: ��/ Z� .7 V-4 17 Lj-� ❑ Airport Advisory Board ❑ Hospital Authority ❑ Board of Adjustment ❑ Housing Authority ❑ Building Standards Commission ❑ Library Advisory Board ❑ Convention and Visitor's Bureau ❑ Parks and Recreation Board ❑ Electric Examiner's Board Planning and Zoning Commission ❑ Historic Preservation Commission ❑ Williamson County and Cities Health District Please attach a cover letter or resume which tells the Mayor and City Council about your background, interest, and experiences. 9 PERSONAL INFORMATION VITA JACK A. FROST P. 0. Box 3000-185 Georgetown, Texas 78667 Home Phone: 512/863-8282 Work Phone: 512/244-1735 or 512/452-7846 Date of Birth: August 31, 1926 Social Security Number: 465-34-7952 Physical Information: Height 51110; Weight - 175 lbs. EDUCATION P- 7Wd.- Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 1949 - B.S. - Texas Wesleyan College, Fort Worth, Texas 1948 - A.A. - Weatherford Junior College, Weatherford, Texas 1944 - Diploma - Rotan High School, Rotan, Texas CERTIFICATES (Texas) Life - Professional Superintendent Life - Provisional Driver Education Life - Professional Administrator ..Life - Professional High School Life - Professional Principal • Life - Professional Elementary PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE June 5, 1988 - Austin Driving School Aug. 3, 1969 - Superintendent of Schools, Georgetown May 31, 1988 Independent School District, Georgetown, Texas March, 1968 - Commanding Officer Navy and Marine Reserve, Aug. 2, 1969 Abilene, Texas 1964 - 1968 Superintendent of Schools, Weslaco Independent School District, Weslaco, Texas 1961 - 1964 Superintendent of Schools, Alpine Independent School District, Alpine, Texas 1958 - 1961 Principal and Curriculum Director of Brooks County Schools, Falfurrias, Texas 1954 - 1958 High School Principal, Falfurrias High School, Falfurrias, Texas (Brooks County ' Schools) 1953 - 1954 Principal of Weatherford High School, Weatherford, Texas1951 1953 _ - - Principal and Coach (football, basketball, and track) , Weatherford Junior -High School, - Weatherford, Texas ..�� �.;,,....:-:•- _::vim:- :,. .-_ .. . - ... . ° -1950 - 1951 Principal of David Crockett Elementary School : .(Grades 1-6) , Weatherford , Texas�- zz -19419 - 1950 -Teacher and coach in Weatherford Independent - School District OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE Ivey Gulf Service Station, Rotan, Texas - in high school Red and White Grocery, Rotan, Texas, stocker and clerk - in high school W. H. Bowden and Sons, Weatherford, Texas, shoe salesman in college - Pharo and James Grocery, Weatherford, Texas, clerk and stock a boy - in college Weatherford municipal swimming pool, manager - summers of 1949 - 1953 - Montgomery Ward Company, Abilene, Texas, clerk - part-time, 1968-1969 LaSalle Extension University, Chicago, Illinois, Counselor - part-time ACHING Successfully taught the following: Driver Education General Math Social Studies - Fifth, Sixth grade and high school Fifth and sixth grade math Fifth and sixth grade reading Fifth and sixth grade science High school newspaper sponsor Editor of college newspaper and college annual 2 ��� •.,mow ••� :::r: �• 4. . • 'M� = .:M r:_{.� L — ����f• '. • r. I ,• � + :..��j'� :.i r���'w` -. •= - •�_ .� �r — �S . � ., yG'K'i� 1 • ... . .i-y. �� _t i2 �--fir '�Gi '.3:���s..�•+►._.� �� �7�v_• PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Texas Association of School Administrators National Association of School Administrators Association of Texas Professional Educators Past -President of Brooks County Texas State Teachers Association Member of Texas State Teachers Association Executive Committee 1982 - 1984 Member of TEPAC, 1978-1982 - '� Chairman, Ten County Co-op for Adult Education _ Chairman, District XVIII Music Executive Committee Past Chairman Williamson County Political Action Committee - Texas Delegate to National Education Association in 1978 in Detroit and 19 7 9 ' _ - _ ._ _. _.�. .. • in Los Angeles - .. . _Life member Parent Teachers Association (presented by _-:-_ Weatherford PTA)- = Y . - CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS --- Served as member of City of Weatherford Recreation Department Served as Chairman Falf urrias Citizen's Traffic Commission, Falf urrias, Texas Past member and Vice -President of Alpine Chamber of Commerce ". - Director of Alpine Rotary Club Past President of Weslaco Rotary Club - Member of Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Member of Masonic Lodge, Georgetown Member of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Ben Snowden Post No. _8587, Georgetown, Texas Second Vice -President, Georgetown Lion's Club - 1986-1987 First Vice -President, Georgetown Lion's Club - 1987-1988 Member of Georgetown Optimist Club Deacon in Baptist Church for 27 years in Weatherford, Falf urrias , Alpine, Weslaco, and Georgetown Elected and reelected as member of the University = Interscholastic League Executive Committee - 1978-1981 Superintendent of Sunday Schools in Baptist Churches of -Weatherford, Falfurrias, and Weslaco Training Union Director of First Baptist Church in Weatherford and Falf urr ias Presently member of Georgetown Church of Christ Chairman District XIV AAAA.A Executive Committee Regional baseball chairman President, Georgetown Lion's Club - 1988-1989 President, Georgetown Optimist Club - 1988-1989 3 • � ''.t' � _ - .- � _ �'a+�lV�j* •. _ - .._. 'R!N"`-ems sr �� PROFESSIONAL SPEECHES Member of statewide television services, "Let's Teach" Statewide speaker in schools and churches on drug problems Keynote speaker for Rotary and Lion's Club and Texas Alcohol Narcotics - Education and presented educational topics over the state - Presenter on numerous occasions for Texas Association of School Board and Administrators Guest speaker at the following universities: = }; University of Texas at Austin _ Southwestern University of Georgetown A&I University of Kingsville ' -HONORARY AWARDS Who's Who in American Education (eight different occasions) - - - =: Who's Who in the South and Southwest (repeated years) - -s.. - -- Who' s Who in Texas _ Selected to Community Leaders and Noteworthy Americans - Selected "Man of the Year, January, 1985" by Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Honored by naming elementary school "Jack Frost Elementary School" by Georgetown Board of Education STUDENT RELATED HONORS 1959 - Falfurrias High School Annual dedicated to me 1962 - Selected state honorary Future Farmers of America nominated by the Alpine Future Farmers of America 1964 - Half-time of Falf urrias-Weslaco football game dedicated to me 1967 and 1968 - Presented Mr. Great and Mr. Wonderful award by Weslaco High School girls' basketball team 1968 - Weslaco High School annual dedicated to me 1977 - 1984 - Honorary Beau of Georgetown High School drill team 1979 - Honorary Beau of Georgetown High School girls' basketball team 1980 - Honorary Beau of Georgetown High School volleyball team 1980 - Honorary Beau of Georgetown High School pep squad 1980 - Selected as honorary member of Future Homemakers of America for Texas and nominated by Georgetown High School 1981 - Honored by football team with #1 jersey 1983 - Honored at football half-time by Georgetown High School 1988 - Honorary Future Farmer, special award from band boosters, athletic boosters, and Region XVIII Public Schools for Music 4 + � PM �• ter. _ _ -. _ .t - � ^ - _.'�.t- X�� tea.- � a -. � '�.� �ry!��_ ly+G111�`tr K..J ;'� MILITARY SERVICE Commander, United States Naval Reserve, Retired . Active duty World War II, July, 1944 to July, 1946 Vietnam conflict, March, 1968 to August, 1969 HEALTH Excellent - complete physical each year HOBBIES Tennis Daily jogger - 3.6 miles each day Softball Basketball _ Other involvements o ALA Iq O- q Q �l s �'•� e 7' e ter' A k-c aA) ,8 e s o -7-X o m 4,e.A 7-:e -X s el� q.� 7"-o ^1,� .sz s; �.� A-2 7- o N o N s 4 �9 sue- Z � 9� 9 0 1^. 4.P L&-) A.,u tp )0 S e- w7 -f-, •,l Gipm s L 4 e iU 5 �} Its _ . U _ s . _ T ti � �.� fi-o GCS C %c, i'o z g- 01, e3 S 715 P A-ZL .� - R'. '-fir. _. •; �.,e.- . _-.. .s.:S":��•~;/ •-J:�'.: ...-- _ �'I - - a•-- •p�. s.'.. 1a .�'_.�•s._ _ .; Council meeting date: 12-12-95 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consideration of scheduling a third workshop during the month. ITEM SLTNEYLkRY At various times during the past several months there have been indications that additional workshop time is needed to stay abreast of the issues which you must consider. There are a number of policy issues which I need detailed discussion/guidance and there is a need to outline the various projects currently underway. Therefore, this has been placed on the agenda for your discussion and to provide guidance to me in how you want to utilize the existing one hour workshops prior to the meeting (i.e., if the workshop needs a re -focus or continue in the current format) and whether or not you would be interested in pursuing a two to three hour workshop one day per month. It might also be useful at this point to discuss whether or not you want to proceed with the mid -year planning session/retreat. FINANCIAL IlVIPACT None COMMENTS None ATTACHMENTS None Submitted by: Bob Hart, City Manager K,( Council meeting date: 12-12-95 Item No. _a_ AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT Consideration cancellation of second regular Council Meeting in December. ITEM SLTNEVLkRY The second regular scheduled Council Meeting in December falls on December 26th. I need direction on whether or not you want to conduct that particular meeting or if you want to have the second meeting as a special called meeting on another date. If you choose the later please keep in mind that the second reading of the impact fee ordinance cannot occur until 10 days after the first reading. Hence, December 22nd would be the earliest you could have the second meeting. The first meeting in January will fall on January 9th. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 7, 1995 Chair, Paul Weyrauch called the December 7, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were: Cynthia B. Smith, John Kuhn, Charles Parker, and Cal Wilkerson. Commissioner Leon Douglas arrived late. One Commission position remains vacant. Staff Members present were: Ed Barry, Director, Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner, Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner, Charles Simon, Senior Planner, Wendy Walsh, Senior Planner, Sheree Rabe, Assistant City Attorney and Janis Russell, Recording Secretary. Consideration of approval of the Consent Agenda which included the following: 1. Consideration and possible action on the minutes of the November 7, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 2. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Final Plat of an 18.48 acre tract in the Daniel Monroe Survey, to be known as the Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Eight, located southwest of Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard. 3. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Final Plat of a 31.732 acre tract in the Antonio Flores Survey, to be known as a Planned Unit Development of Katy Crossing, Section One, located on FM971. 4. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Resubdivision of a portion of Block 9 of the Snyder Addition, to be known as University Place, Lot 3, located at 13th and Laurel Streets. Cal Wilkerson made a motion to approve the consent agenda as written. John Kuhn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5-0. Regular A enda 5. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Variance from the Building Setback requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 31, located at 30407 La Quinta Drive. Wendy Walsh gave the staff report and recommendation. Don Bizzell addressed the Commission. Richard Weineke, the applicant responded to the Commission's questions. After the discussion, Cynthia Smith made a motion that after making the required findings of fact, to approve the requested variance to reduce the rear building line from 25 feet to five (5) feet and to reduce the eastern side building line from 35 feet to a minimum of ten (10) feet, or anything greater if it is required by Community Owned Utilities, provided the applicant submits construction plans that show an abandonment of the existing storm water pipe, its relocation to the eastern lot line, and a five (5) foot easement beyond the outside edge of the pipe. These approvals are contingent upon City Council approval of the abandonment of a portion of the drainage easement. John Kuhn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 6. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Variance to the platted building setback requirements for Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Four, Block B, Lot 22, located at 30107 Briarcrest Drive. Wendy Walsh gave the staff report and recommendation. The applicant, Clifford Friesen, addressed the Commission and showed an exhibit to the Commission of his property and views of his lot at different angles. Tom Brazier, Dolores Lemay and Susan Gramentine, all surrounding property owners, spoke in opposition to the variance. After extensive discussion, John Kuhn made a motion to approve the requested variances to Sections 34020 E. and 34030 thereby allowing a five (5) foot fence to encroach into the public utility easement, and to Section 34020 G.1. of the Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing the fence to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback line, after making the required findings of fact. Denial of the variances to Section 34020 G.1. to allow a swimming pool, pool equipment pad and deck to encroach into the 15 foot front yard setback line. Leon Douglas seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 7. Consideration and possible action on a request for a Final Plat of a 20.006 acre tract in the William Roberts Survey, to be known as Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two, with Variances to the Subdivision Regulations. Charles Simon gave the staff report and recommendation. Charles Wirtanen, agent for the applicant was present and concurred with the staff recommendation. Leon Douglas made a motion to approve a Final Plat of Berry Creek, Section Eleven, Phase Two, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of a variance to Section 34020 C.2.a. to allow double frontage lots provided the plat indicates that there is no access to Merion Drive from the three (3) subject lots, after making the required findings of fact. Cynthia Smith seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. Consideration and possible action on a memo to the Commission regarding the process for Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Clyde von Rosenberg gave the staff report and the Commission discussed the proposed steps in revising the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing will be held at the January 2nd meeting. 9. Public Hearing, consideration and possible action on a revision to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Proposed Model Home Standards. Clyde von Rosenberg gave the staff report. Jim Stendebach, representing Gavurnik Homes, gave the Commission a letter with his recommendations on the proposed Model Home Standards. The Commission decided to defer action on this item to the January meeting in order to study and comment on the Gavurnik letter. 10. Consideration and possible action on Road Segment Priority #1 - Inner Loop Road from IH35 to CR110 (& SH29 East). Clyde von Rosenberg gave the staff report. After extensive discussion, Leon Douglas made a motion to recommend Alternative 2 for the Inner Loop Road. John Kuhn seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. 11. Commissioners' comments and reports. a. Council action update. Hildy Kingma updated the Commission. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. /j mr P&Z Meeting December 7, 1995 Page 2