HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.27.1996OBJECTIVES OF PRESENTATION
► EXPLAIN COMPATIBILITY OF THIS
PROCESS AND GOVERNANCE
POLICY.
► GIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PROGRESS
OF THIS PROCESS.
► PRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE
LEADERSHIP PROCESS
► FOCUS ON THE MANAGERIAL
DE
VELOPMENT PROCESS
rogress ot the.. Process
HISTORY OF THE WORK BETWEEN TMC AND
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
► MC met with:
CI"ty manager
*council (twice, one
• Directors
• Department Manage
• Supervisors
•HR
• Redesign Team
Progress of the Process,
REASON OF MEETINGS
00.
TO EXPLAIN PROCESS
TO RECEIVE THEIR FF
No. TO HELP THEM UNDE
THEIR ROLE
VALUE STATEMENT FOR THE
CITY OF G ORG TOWN
SHARING THE DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT
► TRUST
EFFECTIVE Oto-"Ilk4lk4TTXTTI**"IA9rTi"'*I-XT
loo, TEAMWORK
lo. PROFESSION
oo. QUALITY OF
TRUST
Directors: Leadership actively seeks
Is
feedback to improve quality of results.
Staff Hi.gher levels ofaccountabilit Y
Wle1w
ID and responsibility ID in making the10 ir own
decisions.
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
Directors: Level of communication
has increasedfor the purpose of
implementing solutions,,
Staff Better understanding of their
roles. Gained insight of their impact
on other divisions.
TEAMWORK
DirectorsRelationshi:ps are proactive
in that they see other as resources.
Sta,ff:Working more effectively with
other divisions. Directors demonstrate
a priority to meet the needs of other
divisions.
PROFESSIONALISM
Directors: Higher accountability to
communicate effectively and deliver
quality results.
Sta ffe Maintaining a positive influence
through the sharing of new ideas.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Di"recto�s: Interpersonal relationships
have enhanced with each other and
their staff.
Staff: Staff are encouraged to resolve
conflicts with each other.
MANAGERIAL DEVELOPMENT
THE DIRECTORS WILL BE EXPECTED TO:
► LEARN THE COMPETENCIES OF A
FACILATATOR.
► INTERNALIZE THE MENTAL FRAME
WORK OF DEVELOPMENT.
► FACILITATE THE LEADERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MANAGERS.
ELEMENTS OF A LEADERSHIP PLAN
PERSONAL MISSI('
STATEMENT
► DESIRED RESULT
► RESOURCES AVA.
► GUIDELINES
► ACCOUNTABILIT'
► CONSEQUENCES
Ili
TMC'S COMMITMENT
► ONE ON ONE CONSULTATION
► ASSIST IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL
ACTION PLANS
► FOLLOW-UP FOR ONE YEAR
► ONGOING FEEDBACK OF
RESULTS
GEORGETOWN POLICE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Georgetown City Council
From: Chief Larry M. Hesser
Subject: City of Georgetown Organizational Development Plan
Date: August 21, 1996
Please accept my apology for not being able to attend your meeting of Tuesday, August 27th. I am
out of town and will not be returning until after 8:00 p.m. on August 27th.
I understand that one of the topics of discussion on the 27th will be the City of Georgetown's
Organizational Development Plan. Because this development plan is such a valuable training
process, I want to take this opportunity to communicate some of my thoughts to you in writing.
I have been a student of Stephen R. Covey's leadership concept for several years. I have read his
books Principle Centered Leadership and The Seven Habits of Effective People several times. I
have attended seminars taught by Mr. Covey and I attended a 40 hour AT&T Principle Centered
Leadership Course designed around Covey's material. I have struggled personally and
professionally for a long time in my efforts to apply Covey's principles in the work place. Thanks
to the meaningful application of Covey's principles in this "laboratory" setting, that has been created
with our Organizational Work Plan, I'm beginning to make progress in the practical application of
principle centered leadership.
Because of this hands on "laboratory" experience, I have witnessed group application of the same
knowledge base, over time, with peer accountability. Because of this development process, I have
been able to work more effecively with another Division Director in the development of a Police
Division employee; Community Oriented Policing is better understood by other Divisions and has
fostered better teamwork between the Police Division and other Divisions.
This development process has caused the Division Directors to see where we are as a group and
where we want to be. In a very short period of time, I have seen a commitment to the principles of
leadership as well as personal and group growth.
Page 2
August 21, 1996
I personally have never been involved in a team development process that so effectively holds one
accountable for personal leadership, which is so important to enabling one to lead others more
effectively. I attribute the effectiveness of the process to the outstanding knowledge, skills and
ability of Joe Gonzales and his staff.
My working relationship with other Directors has improved because of the time we have set aside,
in our whirl wind work environment, for this development process. At the same time, I believe that
the City's management team is more productive in terms of prioritization, scheduling, and improved
communications.
I am personally very proud of the fact that I work in an organization that has the foresight, courage,
and leadership to cause such a development process to occur in a team environment. I am very
thankful for this leaming/growth opportunity.
MEMO
To: Mayor and Cou cil
From: Elizabeth Gr y, irector of Information Resources
Subject: Organizational Development Process
Date: August 26, 1996
Because I may not be able to attend the Council workshop regarding the Organizational
Development Training Program for Division Directors, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on
this program with you.
Through participation in the training program facilitated by Joe Gonzalez of The Management
Connection, I believe I have increased my effectiveness. For example, I am leading a new division
which was created to move us from pure "get the project done" mode to "plan and manage for
the future" mode. Although we were already making significant progress in strategic planning for
information resources, this process pushed us much farther along the path. The growth has been
so fast —so inexorable —that it is easy not to take time for planning, being pro -active, really
listening to others. This training program has come at an exceptionally useful time for me; just
when I most needed support and encouragement to do not what was urgent, but what was
important. I "knew" these things already, but the process of training and organizational
development has increased my ability to apply them.
In addition, the intensive one-on-one and group work with other directors has markedly increased
the level of collaboration and teamwork among directors. I can think of several instances where
we have worked together in new and different ways, more able to take advantage of the specific
skills and talents each of us brings to the City. Even when you like and respect your co-workers,
in this extremely fast -paced environment it does take special effort to achieve maximum team
potential.
I have seen this training pay back, from two standpoints: increased personal effectiveness as a
manager, and improved teamwork of the Directors.
FIRE CHIEF'S OFFICE
Memorandum
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Chief Bill Shanklin
DATE: August 27, 1996
I take this opportunity to express my support for the development process conducted by
the Management Connection. I believe that the training has helped to create a stronger
bond between directors that continues to enhance working relationships, increase
productivity, and better aline our conduct and performance with City values.
There have been times during the development process that were not comfortable and I
even questioned the wisdom of continuing. Thankfully, the City Manager was
farsighted enough to make the training/development process a priority. As a direct
result of this experience, it is now easier for me to discuss any issues openly with any
other division director.
Professionally speaking, it is a comfort to realize I work for a City that understands and
values quality leadership. Considering the complex issues Georgetown faces the
better communicators, teamplayers, and leaders we become the better we can serve.
In conclusion, this development process has proven more beneficial to me than any I
have attended before. It is my hope that the process can continue and also be
extended to include mid managers of each division.
Admin 1 \Chief\Gornzales\Council
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE FORCE
MAIN SEWER AND IRRIGATION TRANSMISSION LINES TO SERVE
SUN CITY, GEORGETOWN, AS COMPLETE AND TO RELEASE FINAL
PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR, UPON TEXAS WATER
DEVELOPMENT BOARD CERTIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has contracted, with J.C. Evans Construction Co., Inc.,
the Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines project, to serve Sun City Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested funding by the Texas Water Development Board for
this project; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board requires five percent (5%) of the project
costs to be retained until such time as the Texas Water Development Board certifies that all
requirements of the project have been met and are complete; and
WHEREAS, one of the requirements of the project is a City Council resolution to accept the
project, and agree to release final payment (except for the required 5% retainage);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein
and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that
this resolution implements Utilities/Energy Policy 3 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan
Element, which states: "the City will establish and maintain a functional plan for utilities that
will create and maintain a posture that encourages and provides economic development in the
City of Georgetown"; 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 Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines, to serve Sun City,
Georgetown, have been completed and are approved and accepted by the City of Georgetown and,
upon concurrence of the Texas Water Development Board, the City authorizes the release of
retainage to J.C. Evans Construction Co., Inc., and the Contractor's Warranty start date shall begin
as of the date of this resolution.
Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines to Serve Sun City Georgetown Resolution No.
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE FORCE
MAIN SEWER AND IRRIGATION TRANSMISSION LINES TO SERVE
SUN CITY, GEORGETOWN, AS COMPLETE AND TO RELEASE FINAL
PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR, UPON TEXAS WATER
DEVELOPMENT BOARD CERTIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has contracted, with J.C. Evans Construction Co., Inc.,
the Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines project, to serve Sun City Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested funding by the Texas Water Development Board for
this project; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board requires five percent (5%) of the project
costs to be retained until such time as the Texas Water Development Board certifies that all
requirements of the project have been met and are complete; and
WHEREAS, one of the requirements of the project is a City Council resolution to accept the
project, and agree to release final payment (except for the required 5% retainage);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein
and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that
this resolution implements Utilities/Energy Policy 3 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan
Element, which states: "the City will establish and maintain a functional plan for utilities that
will create and maintain a posture that encourages and provides economic development in the
City of Georgetown"; 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 Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines, to serve Sun City,
Georgetown, have been completed and are approved and accepted by the City of Georgetown and,
upon concurrence of the Texas Water Development Board, the City authorizes the release of
retainage to J.C. Evans Construction Co., Inc., and the Contractor's Warranty start date shall begin
as of the date of this resolution.
Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines to Serve Sun City
Page 1 of 2
)N 3 • The City Council resolves to accept the project, and agree to release final
pt for the required 5% retainage) with retainage being paid upon receipt of Texas
ment Board certification;
RESOLVED this day of August , 1996.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra Lee By: Leo Wood
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines to Serve Sun City Georgetown Resolution No.
Page 2 of 2
P.O. BOX 1265
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627
Aug. 27, 1996
To the Mayor and City Council
Georgetown, Texas
The Officers and Board of Directors of the Georgetown Heritage Society, by unanimous vote,
call upon the City Council of Georgetown
1. To sustain the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission wherein they
rejected a proposal to rezone a portion of Wood Ranch Subdivision from Residential
to Commercial.
2. To consider cautiously the negative impact of all zoning done in our community
without benefit of the needed and required Urban Design and Historic Preservation
Elements of the Century Plan.
3. To act immediately to form working groups to develop proposals for those elements
of the Century Plan, assuring that broad community representation goes into their make-
up and that ample opportunity be afforded for public input and scrutiny.
This Board perceives that there is broad and increasing concern within the community
relative to the development and maintenance of Georgetown as it speaks to the viability of
those values and characteristics that have made this the community we love and in which we
have chosen to live. The pace of development has created urgency, and the populace looks to
this Council for the leadership you were elected to provide.
CALR
President -&D
Secr
I e
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 PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS
LOTS 9 AND 10, RIVER OAKS IH35 BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION, A
RESUBDIVISION OF RIVER OAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK,
AS RECORDED IN CABINET H. SLIDES 260-261 OF THE OFFICIAL
PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE C-
2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT - RESTRICTED DISTRICT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT -
RESTRICTED TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY USES 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") :
PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS LOTS 9 AND 10, RIVER OAKS IH35 BUSINESS
PARK, A RESUBDIVISION OF RIVEROAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK,
AS RECORDED IN CABINET H, SLIDES 260-261 OF- THE OFFICIAL PLAT
RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the
property";
WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its
recommendation or report; and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen
(15) days for the first day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set
for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within
two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
River Oaks Bus Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 3
I Of,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on August 6,
1996, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property
from the C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, district zoning classification to C-2A,
Commercial First Height - Restricted to permit multifamily uses 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 ig 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 C-2A,
COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT - RESTRICTED district to C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST
HEIGHT - RESTRICTED to permit multifamily use district, in accordance with Exhibit "A",
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City
Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
River Oaks Bus Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 3
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
immediately upon the recordation of the subdivision plat for River Oaks - IH35 Business Park,
provided that date is at least (10) ten days after publication in accordance with the provisions of
the Charter of the City of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 13th day of August, 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of . 1996.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
River Oaks Bus Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 3
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
4111f
Wood Ranch Homeowners' Response to Developers Issues
Subject property was platted and approved as commercial property, as depicted on the
attached plat.
* The subject property was platted, but not approved.
* The property was not brought in any differently than other properties annexed into the
city.
* "The City Council can rezone property upon request of the owner with a
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission." (As stated in the
REZONING document).
2. The deed restrictions do not restrict these lots to residential use as it restricts all other
lots.
* NOWHERE in the deed restrictions is commercial status/usage mentioned concerning
the subject lots. Potential property owners were told the exclusion of the 2 lots was for:
a) To act as a buffer zone between Highway 29 and residences;
b) Subdivision entrance to Wood Ranch Estates;
c) Greenbelt area;
d) Turn lanes into/out of subdivision.
3. The City annexed the property as RS as is its custom.
* It is the City Council's responsibility to evaluate all properties annexed into the city that
do not have structures or no stated intended use. This safeguard is in place to protect the
citizens. It is at that time, the city's prerogative to deem the appropriate usage of the
property.
4. The Century Plan designates these lots as intensity level S, which allows for the C-1
Classification.
* The Century Plan is a tool for planning and is not an absolute. The density level is much
lower than 5 as evidenced by having l+ acre lots with septic systems.
* If the Century Plan designated D.B. Wood Road as a major artery, then why was the
plat approved for RS along this road with residential driveways?
5. If lots at the corner of a major state highway (Highway 29) and the Inner Loop of
Georgetown (D. R Wood Road) are not suitable as commercial lots, then what property
is suitable for that use?
* According to Georgetown long-term development planner, Clyde Von Rosenberg and
Williamson County Engineer, Joe England, D.B. Wood Road/Inner Loop is NOT set in
stone. According to the Texas Department of Transportation, Highway 29 and D.B.
Wood Road does not meet the requirements of a major intersection because it does not
meet their design concept at this time. If and when D.B. Wood Road becomes the Inner
Loop, the subject lots will not be large enough to support a commercial establishment.
There is not sufficient land to meet the City's requirements for commercial properties and
have additional land to buffer the residences and future expanded roadways that are
adjacent to this use and intersection. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Lake Georgetown may no longer be accessible from D.B. Wood Road.
* As evidenced by the residences in Legend Oaks subdivision, these properties ARE
suitable for single-family dwellings. Plats show the 2 lots as being consistent in size and
configuration with other surrounding lots in Wood Ranch Estates.
* Other uses for these 2 lots could include:
a) To act as a buffer zone between Highway 29 and residences;
b) Subdivision entrance to Wood Ranch Estates;
c) Greenbelt area/hike-and-bike trails;
d) Turn lanes into/out of subdivision.
* Consideration must be given to the potential future development of D.B. Wood Road.
* Consideration also needs to be given to precedent -setting decisions of rewarding
developers for lack of planning and foresight.
6. The City Staff concurs in this rezoning request.
* Yes, we believe the City Planning Staff did not evaluate in the best interest of the
Georgetown Community but instead "rubber stamped" this issue.
7. The Pc&Z denied the rezoning request to C-1.
* Unanimously.
8. This is contrary to the action of the City on plats previously brought into the city.
* If this is contrary, then why do we have this process? Ideally, it is the city's right and
responsibility to review these rezoning requests on a case -by -case basis as a safeguard to
the community from commercial spot -zoning. This process serves as a check -and -balance
for the growth and development of the City of Georgetown.
9. This request is consistent with the Century Plan, prior city policy, good planning
policy, and moral obligations of the city in the zoning of subdivisions platted prior to
annexation.
* The Century Plan, initially written in 1986, was and is, to serve as a guideline and not an
absolute, for Georgetown to follow into the 1990's. For example, no provisions were
made for the growth that Sun City would bring with its development.
* What city policy is directly correlated to our situation?
The City Council does have a moral obligation to review every rezoning/variance request
with current facts at hand to benefit the community as a whole.
* The developers themselves did not exhibit a good planning policy.
Areas of Concern for Rezoning Request
■ Safety/Traffic
-Surrounding residential communities
• Wood Ranch Estates
• Legend Oaks
-Area Churches
• Church of Christ
• First Baptist Church
- 65 mph/55 mph on Highway 29
- School buses currently forced to take routes with counterflow of
Highway 29 traffic
- Existing high volume of tractor -trailer traffic
■ Currently no interested parties/proposed uses
-Alternative uses
• Single-family dwellings
• Community entrance
• Buffer
• Turn lanes
• Greenbelt
■ Necessity
-Ample food stores
• Good Luck General Store <1 mile from D. B. Wood Road
• HEB 1.2 miles from D.B. Wood Roads
- Gas Stations/Mini-Marts (distance from D.B. Wood Road)
• Chevron 1.0 mile
• Texaco 1.2 miles
• Chevron 1.6 miles
Exxon 2.0 miles
Mobile <2.1 miles
Texaco 2.1 miles
- Existing commercial establishments throughout Georgetown
• Not being utilized and becoming abandoned eyesores
■ Purpose of City Council Review
- Provide the necessary checks and balance for annexed properties
• Ensure property is not misused
- Take into consideration the recommendation of the P&Z Committee
- Realize the potential legal ramifications of inappropriate decision
• Potential lawsuits resulting from traffic injuries resulting from high- volume traffic
August 22, 1996
Georgetown, Texas
Georgetown City Council
101 E 7th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Re: Rezoning of 2 lots located at
Highway 29 & D. B. Wood Road
Council Members:
This is to advise you that I object to having the subject lots rezoned from residential
use to commercial use.
The reasons are many and you have heard them all, but primarily, it would ruin a very
nice residential neighborhood for many just to make big bucks for a few. We have all
the shopping and services needed for the residents in this area just a short distance
away in Georgetown proper.
I hope you will give my opinion consideration.
J. D. Wood
112 Legend Oaks
Georgetown, TX 78628
Planning and Zoning Committee
113 E. 8th St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
City Council
:LG1 East 7th Street
Georgetown, Texas
c-lease reject the commercial zoning proposal. for the. tt."'(D J.or.-
cornering D.B. Wood and Highway 29. We, as fel l ow members. of t.;'•,-::
U eor getown lifestyle, beseech you to allow the homeowners of
area to maintain the appearance and atmosphere of our community.
Georgetown has been the ,jewel of central. Texas becauseit i'�at nc�t.
iven in to the pressures of the quick buck proposals, and thin-, ,
.Lt has not changed from a place to raise a family into a c1,L.<y4-,k
stop shopping center with undesirable businesses. Families., are
people are what make a community worth living in and my
people love the Georgetown area -- "its a great place for o..Ir
children." Please for the children's sake do not, destroy the
setting we all have dreamed about and in which we located- our
have been a City Manager in Spencer, Oklahoma and have
hand knowledge of these get rich quick schemes that take place .in
small towns and cities. These people will soon end Georgetow-,,, E,Is
we know it, and when the decline begins, there is no stopping it..
our homes will without question suffer the loss of va.lu to , but?,
more- importantly, our children will lose the last best hops: CT
the wonderful, community that was Georgetown. You and � Live r
great community only YOU and I can save it for future families
wishing to live the "American Dream."
11�11c�a.se do not destroy the value that only a family setting can
provide our children. Remember, when you end the fam3,iy
community, it is like time; it can never be reclaimed, and it is
gone forever. Do not, yield to the current actions of a f:ew
powerful individuals, and represent us by becoming statesmen for
the future of Georgetown. Reject the .gone changes for t u
current and future families. l would attend the City Councii
meeting to express these concerns in person, but my work Torce '
me to be out of the state at the time of this very important
meeting. I will be happy to come to your location in person {
any future time to plead with you to make a ruling for the
community and for Georgetown.
Cn ncer e l y ,
wherr�YG . Davis
Homeowner, Legend Oaks
S7 -- 7 —tip 0._
-W-Cc,"
August 22, 1996
Georgetown, Texas
Georgetown City Council
101 E 7th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Re: Rezoning of 2 lots located at
Highway 29 & D. B. Wood Road
Council Members:
This is to advise you that I object to having the subject lots rezoned from residential
use to commercial use.
The reasons are many and you have heard them all, but primarily, it would ruin a very
nice residential neighborhood for many just to make big bucks for a few. We have all
the shopping and services needed for the residents in this area just a short distance
away in Georgetown proper.
I hope you will give my opinion consideration.
Thank you,
J. D. wood
112 Legend Oaks
Georgetown, TX 78628
cc: Planning and Zoning Committee
113 E. 8th St.
Georgetown, TX 78626
H[E 0WIE
AU 2 6 tq
NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Tuesday, August 27, 1996
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, August 27, 19961 at 5:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Street in
Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for any disability, please advise in advance.
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the
Mayor, Couticilmembers, and the Georgetown Public Library on the Thursday preceding council
meetings. The library's copy is available for public review.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 5:00 p.m.
A Receive status report on training program - Joe Gonzalez and Division Directors
B Answer questions on Statutory Consent Agenda Items listed specifically below under the.
Regular Session that will begin no sooner than 7:00 p.m. (for questions only, no action to be
taken until Regular Session)
Regular Session - to convene Executive Session
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular session that follows.
C Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
D Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property
E S ec. 5 51.075 conference with employee
Regular Session to begin no earlier than 7:00 p.m.
F Action on Executive Session Items
G Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports
H Citizens wishing to address the Council
Public-Hearin-2
Public Hearing on the draft Century Plan - Policy Plan Revision - Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed
Barry
J Public Hearing on the revised draft of the Facilities and Services Plan - Clyde von Rosenberg
and Ed Barry
City Council Agenda/August 27, 1996
Page 1 of 4 Pages
K Public Hearing on the 1996/97 Annual Operating Plan as proposed by the City Manager -- Susan
Morgan
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on
with one single vote. A Councilmember may pull any item from the consent agenda in order that the
Council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the regular agenda. Please note that the
following items may be discussed with no action taken during the Workshop at 5:00 p.m.
L Consideration of approval of meeting minutes for regular meeting of August 13, 1996, and the
special meeting of August 19, 1996 -- Sandra Lee
M Consideration of award of bid for emulsion HFRS 2P to Koch Materials Company in the
estimated amount of $37,124.00 -- Terry Jones and Jim Briggs
N Consideration of award of bid for janitorial services to BergRan Services d.b.a. ServiceMaster in
the amount of $73,884.00 -- Terry Jones and Susan Morgan
O Consideration of approval of an agreement with the Georgetown Independent School District
providing for the assessment and collection of property taxes for 1996/97 -- Susan Morgan
P Consideration of approval to reimburse the Del Webb Corporation in the amount of $24,1011.00
for upsizing and extension of the water main along R.M. 2338 -- Jim Briggs
Q Consideration of approval of a resolution to accept as complete the force main sewer and
irrigation transmission lines to serve the Sun City Georgetown Project, in accordance with the
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) requirements regarding projects funded by state
revolving funds (SRF) -- Jim Briggs
R Consideration of authorizing City staff to engage Arthur Anderson and Company to conduct an
economic benefit analysis with payment from the Council Contingency Fund in an amount not to
exceed $20,000 -- Bob Hart
S Consideration of authorizing City staff to engage Strasburger and Price for legal services with
payment from the Council Contingency Fund in an amount not to exceed $20,000 -- Bob Hart
T Consideration of authorizing City staff to engage Alexander Utility Engineering for
PCS/telecommunications evaluation with payment from Council Contingency Fund -- Murray
Blackman
U Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek Subdivision,
Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 29, located at 30411 La Quinta Drive -- Hildy Kingma
and Ed Barry
City Council Agenda/August 27, 1996
Page 2 of 4 Pages
V Consideration of a resolution to authorize an Abandonment of a portion of a drainage and access
easement located along the rear (south) property line of Lot 29, Block A, Phase Three, Section
Nine, Berry Creek Subdivision, located at 30411 La Quinta Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
W Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for the Resubdivision of Riverview
Estates, Block G, Lot 13, located at 301 Riverview Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
X Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted drainage
easement located along the west property line and a portion of the north and south property lines
of Lot 15, Block C, Section 1, Parkview Estates, located at 105 Pecan Vista Lane -- Hildy
Kingma and Ed Barry
Y Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the public utility easement
along the west side property line to within four (4) feet of the electrical equipment of Berry
Creek, Section One, Block E, Lot 8, located at 30104 Oakmont Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed
Barry
Z Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a 9.717 acre tract in the William Addison Survey to
be known as Sterling House Georgetown, located on State Highway 29 East; and variances to
the Subdivision Regulations -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
AA Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Sun City Georgetown, Phase
One, the Amended Plat of Neighborhood Two, Lot 14, located at 127 Crystal Springs Drive --
Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
BB Consideration of a Resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the water line easement
located on Tract A of Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Ten -A, located on Williams Drive,
south of Del Webb Boulevard -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
Legislative 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.)
CC First Reading of an ordinance rezoning Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and
Block 2, Lot 1, located at the intersection of Highway 29 West and D. B. Wood Road, from RS,
Residential Single Family, to C-1, Local Commercial, or any more restrictive district -- Hildy
Kingma and Ed Barry
DD Consideration of a Plat Addendum of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five; located at the
intersection of State Highway 29 and D. B. Wood Road -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
EE First Reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish standards for
manufactured home park development -- Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry
City Council Agenda/August 27, 1996
Page 3 of 4 Pages
FF First Reading of an ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations to establish standards for
manufactured home park development -- Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry
GG Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone property to be known as Lots 9 and 10, River Oaks
IH35 Business Park, a Resubdivision of River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park, located on the
east IH3 5 frontage road north of SH29, from C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, to C-
2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted to Permit Multifamily Uses, or any more restrictive
district -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
HH Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone the West University Professional Center, From RS,
Residential Single Family to C-1, Local Commercial, or any more restrictive district, located at
950 West University Avenue -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
II Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 10.12.090 of the Code of Ordinances
relating to the speed limit for Del Webb Boulevard -- Marianne Banks
JJ Consideration of approval of a resolution indicating intent to annex, setting of the public
hearings, and adoption of the service plans for the annexation of. (1) approximately 1,056 acres
in the William Roberts, John Berry, and David Wright Surveys, locally known as Berry Creek
Subdivision - Sections 1-11, golf course, and future develoment areas; the 68.93 acre J. W.
Bishop Estate tract, the 8 acre Sybert Subdivision, the 16.76 acre Braun tract, the 41.29 acre
Chamberlin tract, the 4 acre Mascus Subdivision, the 14.34 acre Carothers tract, the 1.255 acre
Catron tract, the 1 acre tract known as deed number 1969/115, the 59.06 acre Wood Road
Properties tract, the 11.5 acre Certified Federal Savings Association tract, the 2.56 acre Ray
Beneat tract, the 9.041 Buchhorn tract, the .58 acre Embree tract, the 1.37 acre 190-195 Joint
Venture tract, the 100.42 acre Vogler tract, the 42.74 acre Sybert tract, the 32.32 acre Bobby G.
Stanton tract, and the Creek Side Subdivision; and (2) approximately 95 acres in the David
Wright Survey, locally known as Crystal Knoll Terrace Planned Unit Development, Units 1-2
and future development area -- Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry
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 1996
at a.m./p.m. '
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
City Council Agenda/August 27, 1996
Page 4 of 4 Pages
Council meeting August
1996 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the draft Century Plan- - Policy Plan Revision.
ITEM SUMMARY: The Policy Plan element was adopted on March 8, 1988 and contains - the
Policy Areas which were directed by the City Charter amendment approved by the citizens of
Georgetown in April 1986. The Revision process, which is designed to occur five years
following the adoption of the Plan, primarily involves a reconsideration of the original 34 Policy
Statements. In this Revision to the Plan, a thorough review and update of the Policy Plan and
all other approved Century Plan Elements, along with the draft Facilities and Services Plan
element, were used to create a new set of Ends statements, which are referred to as Policy Ends
and Focus Ends. This Revision, which was discussed at a City Council workshop on August 13,
1996, reflects the City's governance model and brings the Policy Plan up to date with current
practice.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
COMMENTS: The first and second ordinance readings for the Policy PlanRevision is
scheduled for September 10 and 24, 1996.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Policy PlanRevision document
Submitted By:
war J. Barry, AI - Director
Divisio of Develop ent Services
Clyde #on Rosenberg, AICP
,
Chief Planner, Long Range Planning
CITE' OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
DRAFT REVISION OF THE
CENTURY PLAN
POLICY PLAN
Adopted by the
Georgetown City Council
March 8, 1988
Revised . . .
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL
PLANNING
AWARDS
1995 Outstanding Planning Award
for
Comprehensive Planning in a Small Jurisdiction
to
The Georgetown Century Plan
April 10, 1995.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
September 24, 1996 Revision
MAYOR
Leo Wood
CITY COUNCIL
Ferd Tonn - Mayor Pro Tem
George Arroyos
Lee Bain
Charles Burson
Shelly Davis
Susan Hoyt
Dick Vincent
CITY MANAGER
Bob Hart
CITY STAFF
Edward J. Barry, AICP - Director of Development Services
Clyde von Rosenberg, AICP - Chief of Long Range Planning
Susan Morgan, CPA - Director of Finance and Administration
Kenneth Bloom - Planning Intern
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
March 8, 1988 Adoption
MAYOR
Jim Colbert
CITY COUNCIL
Joan King - Mayor Pro Tem.
*Luther Laubach - From 1987
*Marvin Lackey
Barbara Pearce - From 1987
William H. Connor - To 1987
William C. Shell - To 1987
Eb C. Girvin - Mayor Pro Tem - To 1987
CITY MANAGER
Robert Gaylor
*Ex-officio members of all Century Plan Task Groups
CENTURY PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE
Jim Colbert, Chair* Tim Kennedy, Co -Chair
W.T. Johnston, Co -Chair** Jeanne Mosier, Co -Chair
Marvin Lackey* Pat Crowley Karen Gilbert** Luther Laubach*
Rex Titsworth Patty Eason** Phil Baker F.L. Tonn**
Wayne Meadows** Ron Gahagan Henry Vasquez** Armistead Davis**
CENTURY PLAN TASK GROUP MEMBERS
TASK GROUP ONE
Phil Baker, Chair W.T. Johnston** F.L. Tonn** Gene Bernd
Kay Cordi Mark Dixon Claude Hays Jack Hunnicutt
Ethel Moore Paula Oliver Glen Schmidt Dale Shanklin
Rae Wheeler Ben Whisler
Tim Kennedy, Chair
Bob Allen
Don Hennings
Daniel Vasquez
TASK GROUP TWO
Ron Gahagan, Chair
Larry Bingham
Jon Hittman
Red Youngman
Karen Dormois
Toby Lierman
HenryVasquez**
RobinHallett
Gwen Morrison
TASK GROUP THREE
Jeanne Mosier, Chair Karen Gilbert** Renee Carey Patsy Bracamontez
Art Carroll Kathy Corbett Eugenia Harrell Walt Herbert
Nancy Raper Cliff Saxon Fred Stevener Lois Vasquez
David Voelter
TASK GROUP FOUR
Pat Crowley, Chair Patty Eason** Jose Alejo Barbara Brightwell
Scherry Chapman Jim Donovan Tex Kassen Jeannine Fairburn
Joann Ford Jerry Graham Delia Gutierrez Rosemary Crossfield
Birdie Shanklin
TASK GROUP FIVE
Rex Titsworth, Chair Wayne Meadows** Larry Bullock Armistead Davis**
Ed Olson Vern Harris Paul Williams Norm Peterson
Gary Pickett Bill Smith Emma Thornton Ruth Thrash
Marty Tyree Linda Flory-McCalla
CITY STAFF
Edward J. Barry, AICP-Director of Development Services
Randall A. Gaither, Chief -Long Range Planning
Hildy L. Kingma, AICP-Senior Planner
Eric W. Winter, AICP-Senior Planner
Tammy Hughey, Secretary
*Council persons
**Planning and Zoning Commissioners
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 1
Scope of the Century Plan 2
How the Century Plan Works 3
II PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS 7
Principles 8
Assumptions 10
III POLICYAREAS
12
Economic Development
15
Education
16
Environmental and Resource Conservation
16
Facilities and Services
17
Finance
18
Governmental Affairs
19
Growth and Physical Development
19
Health and Human Services
20
Historic Preservation
20
Housing
20
Recreation and Cultural Affairs
21
Transportation
22
Urban Design
22
Utilities and Energy
23
IV ADMINISTRATION
24
Article I. General Administration
26
Article H. Implementation
28
Article III. Revision Process
34
Article IV. Amendment Process
36
Article V. Modifications to Chapter 4
40
Article VI. Definitions
40
V APPENDICES
43
1. Section 1.08 of City Charter
44
2. Resolution Number 870239.019
46
3. State Statutes
48
4. Overview of Process
49
5. Georgetown Century Plan Base Studies
56
6. References
58
7. Ordinance Number 96-**
59
8. Ordinance Number 880097
60
I. INTRODUCTION
Georgetown residents share a basic concern that the high quality of life
currently found in this community should be maintained and enhanced. There
is also a general understanding that in order to develop and maintain a
pleasant, attractive, dynamic, and healthy community it is important to plan
ahead. This comprehensive plan, officially j`icially entitled the Century Plan (Plan),
represents a first-time effort on the part of the City to document and formalize
the process by which Georgetown will strive to enhance its quality of life. In
April 1986, the residents of the City of Georgetown approved an Amendment
to the City Charter mandating the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive
planning process to become "a continuous and ongoing governmental function. "
It also requires that all future development, both public and private, conform
to the adopted comprehensive plan. The Century Plan provides the guidelines
and structure for maintaining the public welfare, ensuring the reasonable use
and protection of land and other natural resources, facilitating the provision of
facilities and services, and protecting natural resources. The City Council and
other local policy -makers, private developers, residents of the community, and
City staff' will use this document as the framework for assessing community
needs and desires and setting the course of action to implement its policy
recommendations.
1
SCOPE OF THE CENTURY PLAN
The process developed for preparation and adoption of the Century Plan
required that a Policy Plan be adopted by the City Council by April 1988. The
Policy Plan is the central element of the Century Plan in that it contains the
overriding policy recommendations and administrative structure of the Plan.
These have been adopted by ordinance and are legally binding. The City's
policies are implemented through the adoption and use of a governance model.
The governance model is an advanced approach to Council operations which
provides for Council to set policies through the use of Ends statements. These
Ends are expressed through the Council's Mission Statement and through
Policy Ends statements and Focus Ends statements. The Mission Statement
is considered the broadest of all Ends, an overall statement of purpose. Policy
Ends statements, which are shown in bold in Chapter Three, are expressions
of the desired results for the community and are written broadly enough to be
relatively permanent, express the community's values, and have the consensus
of the general public. Focus Ends statements are also included in the Policy
Plan in order to clarify and define the Policy Ends and to establish the
framework of the Functional Plans. These statements, which are shown in
regular print in Chapter Three, are more specific than Policy Ends and
provide clarification and further definition. Preparation and adoption of the
Policy Plan and the individual Functional Plans is the responsibility of the City
Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Century Plan Task
Groups, with staff support from the Planning Department and Director of each
City Division. Preparation and approval of the Functional Plans, which
address specific elements in greater detail, will occur subsequent to preparation
and adoption of the Policy Plan.
This introductory chapter of the Policy Plan provides a general
background for the Plan. The remaining chapters describe the principles and
assumptions; the Ends statements and the administrative structure which will
be used to guide Georgetown's growth and development to the year 2010.
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS, the second chapter, describes the
foundation of values and conditions on which the Policy Plan was based.
There are some beliefs which have come to be so fundamental in the history
and culture of the United States, that even without our open acknowledgment,
they influence our determination of needs and desires for the future of the
community. Similarly, there are certain socio-economic conditions and trends
that are widely accepted to be fact. These are assumptions that will have a
significant impact on the needs and aspirations of the Georgetown community
during the planning period. To the extent possible, these principles and
assumptions are described in Chapter Two.
2
Chapter Three, POLICY AREAS, lists the Policy Ends and Focus Ends
which will guide decisions about Georgetown's future. This chapter is
organized by fourteen categories, each of which can be directly related to one
or more of the City Charter mandated comprehensive plan elements while also
accommodating the interrelations among these elements. As an introduction to
each Policy Area, a description of its relationship to the City Charter and other
categories is provided.
The fourth chapter, ADMINISTRATION, describes the method by which
the Ends and the Functional Plans will be adopted, implemented, and modified.
Because the Century Plan is a dynamic document, it will have to be continually
adjusted to reflect changing conditions, resources, and desires. The process for
making these changes is included in Chapter Four and is printed in bold type
to indicate that it has the same legal stature as the policies in Chapter Three.
The final chapter of the Policy Plan, the APPENDIX, contains the
supporting documents to the Plan. A more detailed description of the Policy
Plan, including the background of comprehensive planning in Georgetown, the
need for this Plan, and the manner in which the Plan was initially prepared and
is to be continually maintained, is included. In addition, SECTION 1.08 of the
City Charter and the major City Council actions relating to the Century Plan
are included. Finally, the nine inventory reports upon which the Plan is based
are included by reference.
HOW THE CENTURY PLAN WORKS
City Council adoption of the Policy Plan provides the vision for. the
ongoing process of comprehensive planning in Georgetown. Exhibit 1 is a
schematic flow chart which illustrates the dynamic nature of the Century Plan
process. Subsequent to approval of the Policy Plan, the Century Plan Task
Groups will begin to develop the individual Functional Plan Elements. Fifteen
Functional Plans are proposed to describe in detail the manner in which the
Policy Plan will be fulfilled. The preparation and adoption of the Functional
Plans, including Land Use, Transportation, Utilities, Parks, Environmental,
Citizen Participation, Facilities and Services, Housing, Economic, Health and
Human Services, Historic Preservation, Airport, Annexation, Urban Design,
and Capital Improvements, are to be completed in subsequent years. The chart
on Exhibit 2 shows the sequence for completion of the major Century Plan
elements.
As a dynamic document the Plan must continue to reflect the conditions,
resources, needs, and desires of the community. Therefore, provisions have
C
been made in Chapter Four for amendments and revisions will be made to the
Plan. Similarly, based on the mandates of the Policy Plan and the individual
Functional Plans, revisions will be made to local regulations which affect land
development, including the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and many other
aspects of the City's decision -making process.
4
EXHIBIT 1
THE CENTURY PLAN PROCESS
CHARTER AMENDMENT
FORMULATE WORK -PROGRAM AND BUDGET
BASIC PREPARATION & DETAIL SCOPE OF WORK
BASE STUDY INVENTORY
DEVELOP POLICY PLAN
APPROVE POLICY PLAN
DEVELOP FUNCTIONAL PLANS
APPROVE FUNCTIONAL PLANS
IMPLEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLANS:
1. Create capital improvements program
2. Amend zoning/subdivision ordinances
3. Annual division work program
UPDATE BASE STUDIES
AMEND POLICY PLAN
AMEND FUNCTIONAL PLANS
EXHIBIT 2
CENTURY PLAN WORK PROGRAM
FY 1986-87
Base Mapping
Socio-Economic
Physical Features
Land Use
Transportation
Utilities
Facilities & Services
Housing
Historic Preservation
Urban Design
Fiscal Impact
COMPLETED ELEMENTS
Policy Plan
Development Plan
Element
Land Use Plan
Transportation Plan
Utilities Plan
Parks Plan
Economic Plan
Facilities and
Services Plan
on
TO BE COMPLETED
Historic Preservation
Plan
Airport Plan
Urban Design Plan
Annexation Plan
Environmental Plan
Citizen Participation
Plan
Housing Plan
Health & Human
Services Plan
Capital Improvements
Program
H. PRINCIPLES & ASSUMPTIONS
Future growth and development in Georgetown will be directed primarily by
the Ends prepared by the citizens of this community and included within the
Policies chapter of the Policy Plan. The determination of the original set of
Ends statements was based on the data compiled and analyzed in the nine Base
Study Reports, as well as the personal experiences and biases of the Century
Plan Task Group members. These original statements were changed through
a periodic revision to the Policy Plan approved on September 24, 1996. Even
more fundamental to the formation of Ends, however, are certain principles and
assumptions which injluence everyday life in Georgetown. These principles and
assumptions are descaed in this chapter because they will continue to form the
foundation of the Century Plan even as it is amended and revised throughout
the planning period.
7
PRINCIPLES
The Century Plan was based on several beliefs and values which are even
more fundamental than the policies developed for this Plan. These are
principles on which everyday life in Georgetown, the State of Texas, and, in
fact, the whole United States is based. It has been assumed that everyone
shares these basic principles and that they will continue to be widely held
throughout the planning period. In other words, there will be no major change
in the fundamental values of the community before the year 2010. If these
principles were not so universal and enduring, the ends contained within the
Century Plan could not have been written by a group as diverse as that which
made up the Century Plan Task Groups.
The list of principles which follows is not necessarily all inclusive, it
contains those which were most often expressed during the public discussions
which resulted in the Century Plan. Furthermore, because the principles are
all considered equally important and fundamental, they are not listed in order
of relative importance.
All people, within the boundaries of the law, are free to live as they
choose. This is one of the fundamental rights provided to residents of the
United States. The government is committed to allowing all persons the
freedom to conduct their private lives as they see fit. Certain laws are
necessary, however, to ensure that one person's right to live as they choose
does not interfere with another person's right.
The government of the City of Georgetown shall operate in a democratic
manner, being representative of the people, and all persons shall have equal
access to the democratic process. The United States was founded as a
democracy - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The government therefore, must be conducted in such a manner as to enable
all persons to have the opportunity to input their values, beliefs, needs, and
desires into the public process.
The opportunities and benefits of the Georgetown community shall be
available to all persons. The United States government is committed to
ensuring that opportunities for employment, housing, and all publicly funded
programs be determined on the basis of individual merit, rather than race,
creed, color, national origin, age, sex, or physical capabilities. The benefits
of the Century Plan will be distributed throughout the community independent
of the characteristics listed above.
The City recognizes the necessary interdependence between the built and
the natural environment. This acknowledges that in order to ensure that our
limited natural resources are available for future generations, it is necessary to
manage their use.
The fundamental purpose of government is to serve the community and to
provide basic services. It would not be possible to commit to many of the
principles already listed, or to the Ends contained in the Policy Plan, if the City
did not ensure the provision of certain basic services. Furthermore, without
the assistance of the government some people would not be able to meet some
of their most basic needs.
E
ASSUMPTIONS
The Century Plan is also based on certain assumptions about conditions
which will continue to exist throughout the planning period. There are certain
overriding conditions which either cannot or should not be controlled by the
City of Georgetown or its residents. Although most people take many of these
conditions for granted, they must be considered when planning for the future
of the City because they do affect the need for facilities and services,
infrastructure, housing, employment, and other elements considered by the
Century Plan. The following list of assumptions includes as many of those
overriding conditions which the members of the Century Plan Steering
Committee and Task Groups and the Planning Department could think of
during the process of developing the Century Plan. Again, they are not in
order of importance.
• Median age will continue to increase.
• The proportion of elderly (65 years and over) in the population will
continue to increase.
• Average family size will continue to decrease.
• Average family income will continue to increase.
• The number of women in the labor force will continue to increase.
a
• The number of two parent working households will continue to increase.
• Educational levels will continue to increase.
• Southwestern University will continue to be a major contributor to the
economy and cultural vitality of Georgetown.
• Georgetown's economy will continue to be dependent on the economy of
the Austin Metropolitan Area, as well as the economy of the State and
the Nation.
• The Georgetown economy will become increasingly more urbanized.
• The number of new jobs will continue to out pace the growth in
population in the Austin Metropolitan Area.
• The government sector (City, GISD, County, State, and U.S.) will
10
continue to play a major role in the Georgetown economy, and
Georgetown will continue to be the County seat.
• Single family homes will continue to be the preferred housing type.
• The automobile will continue to be the predominant form of
transportation.
• The Austin Metropolitan Area and the whole Sunbelt will continue to
grow.
• The majority of the population increase in Georgetown will come from
migration.
• The need to protect and conserve all natural resources, including water,
air, energy, and land, will continue to be an important issue in Texas.
• Georgetown's locational advantages will not decrease.
• Political conditions at the international, national, state, and local levels
will continue their post World War II evolutionary path and undergo no
drastic changes.
• Existing significant natural and man-made conditions and features will not
drastically change.
• Georgetown's historical and natural character will continue to be a major
asset in attracting new business, development, and population.
[a]
M. POLICY AREAS
The Century Plan Task Groups placed their primary emphasis on
consideration and development of Ends statements. In that sense, and
because the Policy Ends and Focus Ends statements will guide growth
and development in Georgetown throughout the planning period, this
chapter forms the heart of the Policy Plan. Taken as a whole, the Ends
establish the basic intent of the Plan and the manner in which the City
intends to approach business during the planning period. Policy Ends
are defined as expressions of community values and so were written to be
broad enough to have the consensus of the general public and to be
relatively permanent. If the Century Plan is to have meaning as a long
range planning document, the Policy Ends should not become outdated
or unacceptable during the short term, or when one or more of the
related Focus Ends cannot be met. The City Council action to adopt the
Policy Plan establishes the Policy Ends statements as legally binding
elements of the Plan. These statements are shown in bold in Chapter
Three.
12
In order to define how the Century Plan Task Groups and Steering
Committee intended for the Policy Ends to be fulfilled, Focus Ends were
written. Focus Ends are more specific than Policy Ends and provide
clarification and further definition of the Policy End. Focus Ends originate
with Century Plan Task Groups during the creation of a Functional Plan
Element, or with the City Council during the creation of an Annual Operating
Plan Element and are subject to an annual process of reevaluation and
redefinition, as described in the ADMINISTRATION chapter. This annual
amendment process will ensure that the Focus Ends are responsive to changing
priorities, revenues, conditions, and dependencies. The ends will be used by
future City Councils to measure the City's success at fulfilling individual
policies. Through the process of amendments, revisions and Annual Operating
Plan elements, future City Councils will be able to modify specific actions and
determine expenditures as new programs are identified and funding levels are
determined.
Means statements describe the specific activities that can be taken to achieve
Ends. They are specific and measurable actions that will yield a clearly
identifiable result. Means statements are developed by City staff during the
budget process and appear only in the Annual Operating Plan Element. Means
have their origin in the specific recommendations of a Functional Plan Element,
or from the knowledge and expertise of City staff. When adopted as a part of
the Annual Operating Plan Element, they become legally binding.
The Ends in this chapter are organized by fourteen major categories. These
categories were developed to be inclusive of one or more of the elements which
the City Charter mandates must be included in the comprehensive plan.
Although some of the Policy Plan categories are the same as the Charter
mandated elements, others are different. All of the categories, however, can
be directly related to one or more Charter elements. The organization of the
Policy Plan in this manner serves to illuminate interdependencies among the
Charter elements when determining Ends. The more specific manner in which
each individual category corresponds to the Charter elements is described in an
introduction to each category. All of the Charter elements have been included
at least once within the categories so that there are Ends written for all the
elements. The relationships among Charter -mandated elements, Policy Plan
categories, and Functional Plans are shown on Exhibit 3.
13
EXHIBIT 3
INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CENTURY PLAN COMPONENTS
SECTION 1.08 CITY CHARTER
POLICY PLAN
FUNCTIONAL PLAN
"ELEMENTS"
CATEGORIES (13)
ELEMENTS
An Economic Element for
Economic Development
Economic Development
Commercial and Industrial
Development and Redevelopment
Plan Element
A Public Services and Facilities
Facilities and Services
facilities and Services
Element (including CIP)
Plan Element
Education
Airport Plan Element
A Public Buildings and Related
fiscal Plan (CIP)
Facilities Element
Finance
Element
A Conservation and Environmental
Environmental and
Environmental Plan
Resources Element
Resource Conservation
Element
A Citizen Participation Element
Governmental Affairs
Citizen Participation
Plan
Element
A Future Land Use Element
Growth and Physical
Annexation Plan
Development
Element
Land Use Plan Element
A Health/Human Services Element
Health and Human
Health and Human
Services
Services Plan Element
A Historic Preservation Element
Historic Preservation
Historic Preservation
and
Plan Element
An Urban Design Element
Urban Design
Urban Design Plan
Element
A Housing Element
Housing
Housing Plan Element
A Recreation and Open Space Element
Recreation and
Parks Plan Element
Cultural Affairs
A Traffic Circulation and Public
Transportation
Transportation Plan
Transit Element
Element
A Wastewater, Electric, Solid Waste,
Utilities and Energy
Utilities Plan Element
Drainage and Potable Water Element
14
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The City Charter specifically mandates that the Century Plan should include "an
economic element for commercial and industrial development and redevelopment." The
Economic Development category includes this element, and is also related to "a future
land -use element" and "a citizen participation element." In addition to these specifically
mandated elements, Economic Development Ends are related to such topics as employment,
interaction with other public and private agencies, annexation, finance, governmental
affairs, and environmental concerns.
1.0 Georgetown's economy is self-sustaining through diversified growth, a broad tax
base with minimal impact from economic fluctuation, enhanced business
opportunity and job creation.
1.1 Existing undeveloped sites in Georgetown are put to beneficial use.
1.2 Georgetown recruits small to mid -sized commercial/industrial firms from all areas
of the production process (i.e., research and development, assembly, production,
distribution, warehousing, and retailing).
1.3 The City, the Georgetown Industrial Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce and
local business and industry work together to promote an aggressive
commercial/industrial retention and expansion program.
1.4 Georgetown attracts spinoff companies from major employers in the region.
1.5 Georgetown minimizes the number of employees it exports to surrounding labor
markets.
1.6 The City seeks funding resources to assist in training or retraining of the local labor
pool.
1.7 The City provides financial and nonfinancial incentives to promote economic
development.
1.8 The downtown is an economically viable component of the retail and business
community.
1.9 All citizens actively participate in local trade and commerce.
1.10 The City actively cooperates with merchants and business associations to promote
trade and commerce within the local community.
1.11 The tourism industry in Georgetown is developed and promoted, while preserving the
community's small-town charm.
15
EDUCATION
The category of Education is not specifically addressed by the City Charter; however,
it is derived from the "public buildings and related facilities element", and the "public
services and facilities element, which shall include but not be limited to a capital
improvement program. " Education Ends should define desirable relationships between the
City government and Georgetown Independent School District, Southwestern University,
and child/day care entities.
2.0 Diverse and comprehensive educational opportunities are available through
public and private cooperative efforts.
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE CONSERVATION
The Environmental and Resource Conservation category is specifically required by the
following Charter element: "a conservation and environmental resources element." It is
also related to the following Charter elements: "a future land -use element," "an urban
design element, " "historic preservation elements, " and "a wastewater, electric, solid waste,
drainage and potable water element." These Ends also deal with open space, physical
development, and urban form.
3.0 The physical qualities that make Georgetown attractive are protected.
3.1 Georgetown's water resources system provides a sufficient water supply of high
quality to meet future City needs, to meet economic development and recreational
requirements, and to conserve wildlife.
16
FACILITIES & SERVICES
The City Charter includes two required elements which are directly related to the
Facilities and Services category; these are "a public buildings and related facilities element:
and a public services and facilities element, which shall include but not be limited to a
capital improvement program." Facilities and Services also relates to the "recreation and
open space element" and the "health and human service element," as well as the related
topics of education, parks, City -owned property, Southwestern University, and the
Georgetown Independent School District.
4.0 The City provides for the safety of its citizens and supports the responsive
delivery of coordinated services by the City and other public agencies.
4.1 The City centralizes and co -locates services on existing City -owned property
whenever possible.
4.2 The City has a high level of employee satisfaction and retention.
4.3 Georgetown Public Library's information and collections are accessible to all
citizens.
4.4 The Georgetown Public Library has a collection development budget which equals
the national per capita for library expenditures in a comparable population category.
4.5 The Georgetown Public Library's resources are expanded through partnerships with
a variety of organizations, including non-profit, corporations, governments, schools
and community groups.
4.6 The City meets the needs of internal and external customers through innovative
w
acquisition and use of information resources.
4.7 There is trust and harmony between the City's public safety providers and all
segments of the community.
4.8 Georgetown is effective at resolving issues related to crime, disorder and fear of
crime.
4.9 Georgetown's fire protection is adequate and equitable throughout the City.
4.10 Georgetown is prepared to respond to large scale natural and technological
emergencies.
4.11 Public safety services are provided to adjacent areas outside of the City limits
through contractual agreements with other government organizations, ensuring
equitable and efficient coordination of services.
17
4.12 Public safety services have a high level of citizen and volunteer involvement.
4.13 The City is safe from animal threat, provides attractive and humane animal
accommodations, and encourages the adoption of animals.
FINANCE
While it can be said that all of the City Charter elements and all of the other categories
are dependent to some degree on the Finance category, some have a more direct and
obvious relation than others. The Charter element which is most directly related to Finance
is "a public services and facilities element, which shall include but not be limited to a
capital improvement program." This category is also related to "a wastewater, electric,
solid waste, drainage, and potable water element," and "an economic element for
commercial and industrial development and redevelopment. " In addition, the related topics
of taxes, interaction with other taxing entities, funding options, city administration, and
annexation are included within these policies.
5.0 All municipal operations are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and
sufficient financial resources for both short-term and long-term needs are
provided.
5.1 Each utility system is a self -supported operation that provides a desirable and
affordable level of service.
5.2 The City investigates the privatization of each City operation, as appropriate.
5.3 The City's utility rates are competitive with surrounding communities and with the
statewide and national averages for comparable utility systems.
t
5.4 The tax rate is reasonable and fair and does not hinder economic development.
5.5 The City has a method for funding street and streetscape improvements.
5.6 The City pursues all federal and state grant programs which would benefit the City.
4:1
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Governmental Affairs category is directly related to at least two of the City Charter
elements, including "a citizen participation element" and "a public buildings and related
facilities element." In addition, this category is related to the topics of intergovernmental
coordination, city administration, finance, and annexation.
6.0 A high level of cooperation and involvement exists among Georgetown's citizens
and governmental organizations.
6.1 All citizens actively participate in governmental functions.
6.2 The City develops and coordinates service delivery policies with Williamson County,
the Georgetown Independent School District and other organizations that provide
services to Georgetown.
6.3 The City is a strong and visible participant in developing comprehensive solutions to
issues of concern on a regional level.
GROWTH & PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
The Growth and Physical Development category is related to nearly all of the City
Charter mandated categories, the most direct tie being to "a future land -use element. "
However, it is also related to "a traffic circulation and public transit element," "an
economic element for commercial and industrial development and redevelopment," "a
wastewater, electric, solid waste, drainage and potable water element," "a public services
and facilities element, which shall include but not be limited to a capital improvement
program," "a housing element," and "a conservation and environmental resources
element. " Clearly the Growth and Physical Development category is dependent on many
of the other Policy Plan categories and Charter elements.
7.0 Georgetown's land uses support economic, cultural and social activities for all
residents, businesses and organizations; and the City's development process
encourages new and infill development.
7.1 The City's regulations implement the Policy Ends and provide the opportunity to seek
change with reasonable effort and expense.
7.2 Annexation procedures and standards benefit the community.
19
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
The City Charter specifically requires "a health and human service element," which is
addressed by the Health and Human Services category. Also addressed by this category
are the related topics of public and quasi -public facilities, interaction with public and
private agencies, and demographics.
8.0 Comprehensive, affordable health and human services are available through
public and private organizations.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The Historic Preservation category is specifically required by the City Charter through
mention of a "historic preservation element". It is related to the "urban design element,"
the "conservation and environmental resources element," and the "recreation and open
space element." The Ends under this category also address physical development,
economic development, and tourism.
9.0 Prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources are preserved, protected and
promoted.
HOUSING
The City Charter requires "a housing element" to be included in the Century Plan. In
addition to directly addressing this mandate, the Housing category is also related to "a
future land -use element," as well as the transportation system, public and quasi -public
facilities, and urban form.
10.0 The City cooperates with builders, developers and property owners to provide
safe and adequate housing opportunities for all citizens.
20
RECREATION & CULTURAL AFFAIRS
The Ends under the Recreation and Cultural Affairs category specifically address the
City Charter -mandated "recreation and open space element. " This category is also related
to "a public buildings and related facilities element," "a conservation and environmental
resources element," "a public services and facilities element, which shall include but not
be limited to a capital improvement program", and "a citizen participation element." This
category may also refer to historic preservation, Southwestern University, and the
Georgetown Independent School District.
11.0 All citizens actively participate in community -wide social, cultural, and
recreational activities.
11.1 The City maintains and upgrades existing parks and constructs new parks through a
diversified funding and acquisition program.
11.2 The City's park facilities and recreational programs meet the leisure needs of
citizens.
11.3 Georgetown has an attractive and coordinated system of hike and bike trails.
11.4 The City has recreational programs targeting those who are physically or otherwise
challenged.
11.5 The City has an ongoing process for recreational needs assessment and program
evaluation.
11.6 The City has in-house capability in horticulture.
11.7 The City encourages the U.S. Army Corps of"Engineers to continue to make Lake
Georgetown water and land resources available to the community and to be
responsive to the community's expanding and changing needs.
11.8 The City has greenbelts along the tributaries (e.g. Smith Branch, Pecan Branch, and
Berry Creek) that feed into the San Gabriel River.
11.9 The City has joint venture development and use agreements with other recreational
providers for existing facilities and/or for future development.
21
TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation category is most directly related to "a traffic circulation and public
transit element." It is also related to "a future land -use element," "a wastewater, electric,
solid waste, drainage and potable water element," and "a public services and facilities
element, which shall include but not be limited to a capital improvement program. "
Transportation Ends will also affect urban form and development.
12.0 Georgetown's transportation system provides for the safe and efficient movement
of traffic, promotes the economic interests of the community, and adequately
serves the needs of individuals.
12.1 The City maintains a Transportation Functional Plan that includes all modes of
transportation.
12.2 The City supports an area -wide transportation effort through coordination with other
public and private organizations.
12.3 The City has sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the City, especially around and
between schools and parks.
12.4 The City supports private transportation services in the community.
12.5 The City has continuous frontage roads along Interstate Highway 35 through
Georgetown.
12.6 The Georgetown Municipal Airport is an integral part of the transportation system
and business activity of the community.
12.7 There is direct public access to the area east and west of the Georgetown Municipal
Airport runways.
URBAN DESIGN
The Urban Design category is required by the inclusion of an "urban design element"
in the City Charter. It is directly related to the Historic Preservation element, as well as
the "future land -use element" and the "economic element for commercial and industrial
development and redevelopment."
13.0 Georgetown has a positive, identifiable image and an attractive appearance.
22
UTILITIES & ENERGY
The Utilities and Energy category is directly required by the City Charter by the
inclusion of "a wastewater, electric, solid waste, drainage and potable water element." It
is also related to the "future land -use element," and the "public services and facilities
element, which shall include but not be limited to a capital improvement program. " For
the purposes of these policies, utilities have been defined to include water, wastewater,
electric, stormwater drainage, gas distribution, solid waste management, and
telecommunications systems.
14.0 Georgetown's utility systems provide safe and reliable service which meets the
needs of all citizens and promotes the economic health of the community.
14.1 Customers of the City's electric utility have a range of choices with respect to rates,
service levels and power supply options.
14.2 Water and wastewater services exceed state and federal standards and are provided
to a all certified areas.
14.3 The stormwater drainage system efficiently and effectively protects the health and
safety of Georgetown's residents and minimizes the negative effects of standing water
and urban runoff.
14.4 The City uses available and emerging alternative energy sources when beneficial.
14.5 The City's utility policies and practices promote and encourage the protection and
conservation of Georgetown's environment and natural resources.
14.6 Franchised utilities provide adequate services for all citizens.
23
IN. ADMINISTRATION
This chapter of the Policy Plan establishes the rules and procedures
for day to day administration of the Century Plan (Plan). This section
describes how the Plan complies with specific Charter requirements,
prescribes specific implementation measures, including direct integration
with the budget process, and describes the manner in which the Plan may
be amended and revised. It also provides, in ordinance language, how
the elements of the Plan are to be adopted, and the procedures and
requirements (including time elements) for modifications to the Ends in
the Plan, and for changes to the Functional Plans. Additionally, the
procedure for modifying the administrative provisions of this chapter is
provided. The intent of this chapter is to provide direction for future
actions after the Policy Plan, the Functional Plans, and implementation
mechanisms have been adopted. The Articles of this Chapter are printed
in bold to indicate that they have the same legal status as the Policy End
statements in Chapter Three.
24
The Charter requirements set the stage for both the implementation measures
and the procedures for amendments and revisions to the Plan discussed later in
this chapter. The Charter Amendment of April 1986, which added Section
1.08 to the City Charter, established comprehensive planning
". . . as a continuous and ongoing governmental function... ," and spelled out
general requirements for preparation, implementation and revision of the Plan.
The methodology for preparation of the Plan has been described in the previous
sections. This section describes and extrapolates the Charter requirements for
implementation and amendment/revision.
The Charter includes within the scope of each Plan "element, " policy
recommendations for the Plan and its implementation. In part the Plan shall
be implemented by "... the adoption and enforcement of appropriate land
development regulations." The two major development regulations in the City
are the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations. The Charter
specifies that "... all land development regulations including zoning and map,
subdivision regulations, roadway plan, all city regulatory actions relating to
land use, subdivision and development approval should be consistent with the
adopted comprehensive plan.... " The Charter also requires that "... all
public and private development should be in conformity with such adopted
comprehensive plan. . . . " Besides containing recommendations for
implementation measures, the Plan must "... be coordinated and be internally
consistent. "
Another significant administrative concept found in Section 1.08 of the City
Charter concerns amendments and revisions. The Charter mandates that the
Plan "... be amended only once per year and revised not more than once
every five (5) years.. .. " The Charter does not describe in detail what
constitutes an amendment or revision of the Plan. (Provisions regarding
amendments and revisions are presented later in this chapter.) However, the
Charter does allow for more frequent amendment/revision, only if approved by
a majority plus one vote of the City Council members. However, potentially
significant reduction of the Plan's effectiveness could result if numerous
amendments/revisions occur without sufficient supporting information or impact
assessment.
25
ARTICLE I.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 1.01 AUTHORITY. This Comprehensive Plan, which shall be
known as the Century Plan, is adopted under the authority of the
Constitution and laws of the State of Texas and pursuant to the provisions
of Article I, Section 1.08 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of
Georgetown, Texas.
SECTION 1.02 PURPOSE AND INTENT. It is the purpose and intent
of this Ordinance to establish comprehensive planning as a continuous and
ongoing governmental function in the City of Georgetown so as to
promote, strengthen and improve the City's ability to guide, regulate and
manage the future development within the corporate limits, extraterritorial
jurisdiction and planning area of the City in order to assure the most
appropriate and beneficial use of land, water and other natural resources,
consistent with the public interest. Through the process of comprehensive
planning and the adoption and implementation of this Century Plan, the
City intends to preserve, promote, protect and improve the public health,
safety, order, appearance, convenience and general welfare; prevent the
overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration or diffusion of
population or land uses; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of
transportation, water, wastewater, schools, parks, recreational facilities,
housing and other facilities and services; conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources; and to maintain and enhance the quality of life
enjoyed by its citizens. _
Furthermore, it is intended that this Century Plan shall have the legal
status set forth herein and that all public and private development shall be
in conformity with this Century Plan and each element or portion thereof.
This Century Plan contains the City Council's policies for growth,
development and beautification of the land within the corporate limits,
extraterritorial jurisdiction and planning area of the City.
SECTION 1.03 JURISDICTION AND APPLICATION. The provisions
of this Century Plan shall apply to:
A) All land within the territorial jurisdiction of the City as permitted by
law in effect at the time of adoption of this Century Plan or as may
be amended or revised from time to time; and
B) All applicable programs, functions, projects, activities, efforts,
regulations, requirements, or expenditures of the City.
26
SECTION 1.04 PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES. The
Planning Department, through the Director of the Division of Development
Services or his/her designated representative, shall administer the
provisions of this Century Plan and in furtherance of such authority shall:
A) Maintain permanent and current records with respect to the
provisions of this Century Plan, including amendments, revisions,
changes and updates thereto; and
B) Receive and process all applications and requests for amending,
revising, changing and updating the Century Plan; and
C) Forward copies of all proposed amendments, revisions, changes or
updates of the Century Plan to other City Divisions or Departments,
other governmental agencies or other organizations for their report
and recommendation, when such report and recommendation is
appropriate, necessary or desirable; and
D) Review all:
1) applicable programs, functions, projects, activities, efforts,
regulations, requirements and expenditures of the City; and/or
2) public and private development proposals, in order that compliance
and consistency with the Century Plan is achieved; and
E) Prepare periodic and regular reports on how all the following comply
and are consistent with the Century Plan:
1) applicable programs, functions, projects, activities, efforts,
regulations, requirements and expenditures of the City; and/or
2) public and private development proposals; and
F) Make such other determinations, recommendations and decisions
relating to the administration and implementation of the Century
Plan as may be required of the Planning Department by:
1) the provisions of the Century Plan; or
2) the Planning and Zoning Commission; or
3) the City Manager; or
4) the City Council.
SECTION 1.05 CONSISTENCY. All elements or portions of this Century
Plan, including but not limited to ends, means, functional plans and
annual operating plans shall provide a logical, integrated and unified
system for establishing the nature and direction of future City actions. As
such, this Century Plan will be comprised of individual components all of
which shall be internally consistent and interdependent with each other.
No one element or portion of this Century Plan, or combination thereof,
shall be accorded greater importance or significance than any other
element or combination of elements of equal level or status in the structure
of the Century Plan. Therefore, the adopted elements or portions of the
Century Plan shall be designed and arranged to reinforce and complement
one another so that a coherent, rational and dynamic system for decision -
making is achieved.
27
7 ARTICLE II. IMPLEMENTATION 7
SECTION 2.01 CENTURY PLAN STRUCTURE AND ELEMENTS. The
organizational structure of the Century Plan shall consist of separate and
distinct but interconnected levels of detail. These levels of detail will span
a continuum ranging from the general to the specific, with each successive
level providing greater clarification and explanation on the higher,
previous more general level. The hierarchy of the Century Plan structure
shall be:
LEVEL OF DETAIL SPECIFICITY
MISSION STATEMENT GENERAL
POLICY END
FOCUS END CONTINUUM
FUNCTIONAL PLAN
ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN
MEANS "SPECIFIC
m
The structural framework of the Century Plan will be employed for
organizing and linking the major elements or components of the Plan.
Major Century Plan elements shall be:
A) POLICY PLAN ELEMENT
B) LAND -USE PLAN ELEMENT
C) UTILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
D) TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENT
E) ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN ELEMENT
F) PARKS PLAN ELEMENT
G) PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN ELEMENT
H) HOUSING PLAN ELEMENT
I) ECONOMIC PLAN ELEMENT
J) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PLAN ELEMENT
K) HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN ELEMENT
L) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN ELEMENT
M) AIRPORT PLAN ELEMENT
N) ANNEXATION PLAN ELEMENT
O) URBAN DESIGN PLAN ELEMENT
P) FISCAL PLAN ELEMENT (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM)
Q) ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN ELEMENT
R) OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 2.02 RELATIONSHIP OF CENTURY PLAN COMPONENTS.
The structure of the Century Plan provides the continuity of thought and
direction necessary for achieving clear and consistent interpretation and
implementation of the Plan. Century Plan Policy Ends establish the main
precepts from which the lower order components are derived. Policy Ends
are the foundation upon which all other Plan decisions and components are
constructed. They determine the scope and direction for the Focus Ends
which refine the general concepts and intent contained in the Policy Ends.
Focus Ends are the connection between Policy Ends and functional plan
elements. By linking Policy Ends and functional plan elements, Focus
Ends translate the general aims of the community into a realistic and
achievable set of action oriented programs and projects. A step by step
mechanism for carrying out the Century Plan is found in the individual
functional plan elements. The annual operating plan is to be a budget -
oriented functional plan element that states how the programs and projects
found in the functional plans will be implemented within the one, two, and
five year time horizons. It also includes the budgets and revenue
projections for the one and two year plans. Means statements are included
in the annual operating plan in order to define the specific activities to be
taken to achieve the Ends. A new annual operating plan is to be adopted
before the beginning of every fiscal year, at which time the previous
29
annual operating plan is automatically repealed.
All components of the Century Plan, levels of detail as well as the
individual functional plan and the annual operating plan elements, are
mutually interdependent and reinforcing. Together the components
present a cohesive and coordinated approach for City decision -making.
Separately, individual Century Plan components provide the City with the
ability to take concrete steps towards realization of the vision of the
community embodied in the Plan. Thus, all Ends serve to define the
details contained in the functional plan and annual operating plan elements
and conversely each of the functional plan and annual operating plan
elements reflect the direction set forth in the Ends. With such an
arrangement, no one particular component or set of components is
attributed more importance or carries greater force of law. All Century
Plan components are of equal significance and designed to operate both in
unison and independently to accomplish the aims of the Century Plan.
SECTION 2.03 RELATIONSHIP OF THE CENTURY PLAN TO THE
CITY'S ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN. The annual operating plan shall
be prepared and adopted as the City's short range guideline for revenue
projections, cost of service budgeting, and project planning. Identification,
selection, prioritization, approval and funding of City programs, projects
and work activities shall be based upon the adopted ends, means, and
functional plan elements which comprise the Century Plan, and shall result
in the annual operating plan that includes programs, projects and work
activities for the one, two, and five year time horizons. The City staff and
elected and appointed officials involved in the preparation of the annual
operating. plan shall rely upon the Century Plan to provide direction and
guidance for their recommendations for and authorization of the
expenditure of City controlled funds. In no instance shall City controlled
funds, equipment, staff or efforts be used in a manner which is
inconsistent or in conflict with, or contrary to the Century Plan.
The annual operating plan shall include one and two year budgets and
revenue projections, and one, two, and five year project plans. The use
of multiple time horizons shall ensure that the activities, programs and
projects required by the ends, means, and functional plan elements of the
Century Plan are included within both the short and long range work
programs of the appropriate City Division. The five year project plan
shall identify and prioritize the programs, projects, and work activities
which must be conducted within a five year time frame to fulfill the
requirements of the Century Plan. The two year project plan shall be
prepared to further detail and clarify the proper sequencing and scope of
activities in the five year plan. It shall also identify the costs and funding
estimates required to implement the City's second year project plan. The
one year project plan and budget will be prepared within the context of the
M
rive and two year budgets in order to ensure that annual progress is made
to accomplish the Century Plan programs, projects and work activities in
the proper sequence, to the appropriate extent, and commensurate with
available resources. It will identify specific projects and their costs and
funding sources to be carried out within the following year by the
appropriate City Division.
The City shall maintain and annually update the annual operating plan
and budget pursuant to this Chapter in order to program the various fiscal
requirements of the Century Plan.
SECTION 2.04 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES FOR INTEGRATING
THE COY PLAN INTO THE CITY' S ANNUAL OPERATING
PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS. Upon adoption by the City Council
of the Century Plan, or element or portion thereof, the City Manager shall
assign to the Director of the appropriate City Division the responsibility for
implementing the approved and authorized component of the Century
Plan.
The following schedule of activities shall be employed to integrate the
Century Plan into the City's annual operating plan preparation process:
31
FISCAL YEAR DATE I ACTIVITY
OCTOBER 1 I New Fiscal Year begins
NOVEMBER 15 Division Directors submit an Annual Evaluation
Report for the preceding fiscal year to the City
Manager
JANUARY 15 City Manager submits an Annual Evaluation
Report to the City Council
FEBRUARY 1 Division Directors submit to the City Manager
their recommended Century Plan revisions and
amendments and proposed one, two, and five
year project plans to be considered for
funding/approval in the annual operating plan
MARCH 1 City Manager submits to all City Council -
appointed boards and commissions the compiled
recommended Century Plan revisions and
amendments and proposed project plans
MAY 1 City Council -appointed boards and commissions
submit their comments on the recommended
Century Plan revisions and amendments and
proposed project plans
JUNE 15 City Council selects revisions and amendments to
the Century Plan and establishes a prioritized
one, two, and five year project plan to be
considered for inclusion in the City's annual
operating plan
JULY 15 Division Directors propose Mean Statements to
City Manager
JULY 30 City Manager finalizes budget proposal
AUGUST 15 City Manager submits to the City Council budget
costs for addressing the Council's prioritized
project plan
SEPTEMBER 30 City Council adopts Century Plan revisions and
amendments, establishes a new effective date for
the adopted Century Plan elements, and
32
SECTION 2.05 ANNUAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION. By January
15 of each year the City Manager shall submit to the City Council an
Annual Evaluation Report on the progress and status of implementation
of the Century Plan. The Annual Evaluation Report shall contain a
general review and analysis of the effectiveness and practicality of the
Century Plan as a tool for policy and administrative decision -making and
specifically shall address, but not be limited to, the following:
A) A description and status report of the work activities, programs and
projects undertaken during the previous fiscal year which are
designed to implement the Century Plan; and
B) Identification of opportunities and problems, both encountered and
anticipated, for implementing the Century Plan; and
C) General recommendations for improving the effectiveness,
administration and implementation of the Century Plan.
SECTION 2.06 ADOPTION OF CENTURY PLAN POLICY ENDS. In
accordance with the requirements of the City Charter of the City of
Georgetown, Texas, the Century Plan was officially adopted by the passage
of Ordinance #880097. On the effective date of this ordinance (March 8,
1988), thirty four Policy Statements were approved. Through the Policy
Plan Revision process adopted by the passage of Ordinance # ,
effective September 24, 1996, 14 Policy End statements became the Policy
Ends statements set forth in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, Articles I through
VI, inclusive, of this Century Plan, the official, legally adopted, binding
portion of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Georgetown as required
by Section 1.08 of the City Charter, and so carry the full force and effect
of law. Other chapters and provisions of this Century Plan shall be used
as set forth herein. Upon subsequent adoption by the City Council of
officially recognized ends, means, functional plans, annual operating plans,
or other such similar Century Plan elements, said elements shall become
a part of the officially approved and adopted Century Plan and shall have
the full force and effect of other such similar Century Plan provisions.
SECTION 2.07 ADOPTION OF OTHER CENTURY PLAN ELEMENTS.
Subsequent to the adoption of this Policy Plan element of the Century Plan
it is anticipated that additional elements will be adopted by the City. As
adoption of any such additional element will constitute the initial adoption
of such element, such adoption shall not be construed as a change,
revision, or amendment of any element or portion of the Century Plan
then in effect. The City Council is hereby authorized to approve and
adopt any such subsequent and additional element, after first holding a
public hearing on the proposed element, without regard to the provisions
set forth in Articles III and IV of this Chapter.
33
ARTICLE III. REVISION PROCESS
SECTION 3.01 APPLICATION. Any request for modification, change,
addition or deletion of the City Council -adopted Policy Ends Statements
shall be considered a proposed revision to the Century Plan. Revisions
may be initiated by a City Council person, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, or a petition signed by a minimum of 50 residents of the City
and/or the ETJ. Any application for revision shall be made upon forms
provided for such purposes by, and filed with, the office of the Director.
SECTION 3.02 PROCEDURE. Upon receipt of any application for
revision, the Director shall forward same to the Planning and Zoning
Commission along with a written report describing the nature of the
change being requested. In matters concerning the Century Plan, the
functions of the Commission shall include but not be limited to:
A) Advise and assist the City Council in adopting revisions;
B) File written comments on proposed revisions;
C) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Plan;
D) Report to the City Council any perceived problems in implementing
the Plan; and
E) Advise the City Council of the need to revise the Plan.
The Commission shall conduct a public hearing prior to making any
recommendations regarding a proposed revision to the Century Plan. The
public hearing shall provide members of the community the opportunity
to comment on the proposed Century Plan revision.
SECTION 3.03 NOTIFICATION. The applicant shall provide public
notice of the required hearing as follows:
A) At least 30 days before the hearing the applicant shall send a notice
of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written
notice by certified or registered mail to the City Secretary, or other
designated official, requesting notice of such hearing within two (2)
years preceding the consideration of the revision.
B) The applicant shall publish notice of the hearing a minimum of two
(2) times, the first notice to appear at least 15, but not more than 30
days before the date set for the hearing, in one (1) or more
newspapers with general circulation in the County. The notice shall
not be part of the legal notices and classified ads, and shall not be
smaller than one -quarter page. The headline must be in 18-point or
larger type. The notice shall briefly describe the revision to be
considered, the time and place of the hearing, and where additional
34
information regarding the revision can be obtained. A publisher's
affidavit submitted to the Director to document that such notice was
published shall be deemed substantial compliance with this
requirement.
Prior to the public hearing regarding the proposed revision to the Plan,
in accordance with the public notice requirements of the Texas Open
Meetings Act, the City shall make available to the public, at the City
offices and at the Library, a description of the intended changes and the
report to the Commission.
SECTION 3.04 APPROVAL. Within 30 calendar days after the required
public hearing the Commission shall prepare a written report to the City
Council containing the Commission's recommendations regarding the
application. If the Commission fails to act within the prescribed time
period, the proposed revision shall be automatically forwarded to the City
Council with a recommendation for denial. The City Council shall have
30 calendar days after receipt of the Commission's recommendation to
approve or disapprove any proposed revision. Approval by Council shall
be by ordinance on two (2) readings, approved in conformance with this
Article. The revision may not be adopted as an emergency measure.
Failure to act on the part of the City Council shall constitute an automatic
denial of the proposed revision. The time limits established for both
Commission and Council consideration of a proposed revision may be
extended with the consent of both the applicant and the City Council.
A written record shall be made of any required public hearing and shall
be maintained for public inspection for at least 10 years after the hearing
date. No revision to a Policy End Statement shall be adopted unless the
City Council shall have approved said revision by a majority plus one (1)
vote of all members of Council if said Policy End Statement has been in
effect for less than five (5) years, or by a simple majority vote of a quorum
of Council if said Policy End Statement is included as a Periodic Revision
pursuant to Section 3.05 below.
If the City Council fails to pass an ordinance approving a proposed
revision, a new application for the same revision to the Century Plan shall
not again be accepted by the Director until after the expiration of one (1)
year from the date the proposed revision was rejected. However, an
application may be reconsidered within the above mentioned one (1) year
period if it can be shown that the conditions under which a revision was
requested have undergone a substantial change. The determination of
substantial change shall be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at the request of an applicant for a revision to the Century Plan.
35
SECTION 3.05 PERIODIC REVISION. Pursuant to Article H, Section
2.06 of this Chapter, the effective date for Policy End Statements is
established as September 24, 1996. In the five (5) years following the
effective date, no revision shall be adopted, except by a majority plus one
(1) vote of all members of Council. At the time that the next annual
operating plan is approved following the fifth anniversary of the effective
date, the Council also shall review and reconsider all Ends Statements in
accordance with Article H of this Chapter. At this time all Ends
Statements shall be reapproved either in their original form, or approved
as revised. This action shall constitute the Periodic Revision of the Plan
and shall require a simple majority vote of all Council members. Adoption
of the Periodic Revision shall constitute a new effective date for all Policy
Ends Statements.
ARTICLE IV.
AMENDMENT PROCESS
SECTION 4.01 APPLICATION. Any request for modification, change,
addition or deletion of the City Council -adopted Focus End Statement or
Functional Plans shall be considered a proposed amendment to the Century
Plan. Amendments may be initiated by a City Council person, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, or a petition signed by a minimum of
50 residents of the City and/or the ETJ. If the proposed amendment
impacts a specific parcel of property, it may also be initiated by any
person, firm, or corporation that is a majority owner of the property.
Such an amendment that is initiated by petition must be signed by one-half
of the property owners within 500 feet of the property to be impacted.
Any application for amendment shall be made upon forms provided for
such purposes by, and filed with, the office of the Director.
SECTION 4.02 PROCEDURE. Upon receipt of any application for
amendment, the Director shall forward same to the Planning and Zoning
Commission along with a written report describing the nature of the
change being requested. In matters concerning the Century Plan, the
functions of the Commission shall include but not be limited to:
A) Advise and assist the City Council in adopting amendments;
B) File written comments on proposed amendments;
C) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Plan;
D) Report to the City Council any perceived problems in implementing
the Plan; and
m
E) Advise the City Council of the need to amend the Plan.
The Commission shall conduct a public hearing prior to making any
recommendations regarding a proposed amendment to the Century Plan.
The public hearing shall provide members of the community the
opportunity to comment on the proposed Century Plan amendment.
SECTION 4.03 NOTIFICATION. The applicant shall provide public
notice of the required hearing as follows:
A) At least 30 days before the hearing the applicant shall send a notice
of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written
notice by certified or registered mail to the City Secretary, or other
designated official, requesting notice of such hearing within two (2)
years preceding the consideration of the amendment.
B) The applicant shall publish notice of the hearing a minimum of two
(2) times, the first notice to appear at least 15, but not more than 30
days before the date set for the hearing, in one (1) or more
newspapers with general circulation in the County. The notice shall
not be part of the legal notices and classified ads, and shall not be
smaller than one -quarter page. The headline must be in 18-point or
larger type. The notice shall briefly describe the amendment to be
considered, the time and place of the hearing, and where additional
information regarding the amendment can be obtained. A
publisher's affidavit submitted to the Director to document that such
notice was published shall be deemed substantial compliance with this
requirement.
C) The applicant shall provide written notice of the hearing to each of
the owners of land, as determined from the most recent tax rolls of
the Williamson County Appraisal District, lying within 200 feet of the
property to be impacted by the proposed amendment. Such notice,
which shall be given not less than 15 days before the date set for the
hearing, shall include the time and place of the hearing, the address
and/or legal description of the property to be impacted, and a brief
description of the proposed amendment.
In addition to the required written notice, the applicant shall place on
the property to be impacted by the proposed amendment a City -
approved sign or signs further advertising the required hearing. Such
signs shall be placed on the impacted property not less than 15 days
before the date set for the hearing at intervals that do not exceed 300
feet along each property line paralleling all established or proposed City
streets.
The requirements of this Section "C" shall apply only to those proposed
amendments deemed appropriate for such notification by the Director.
37
Prior to the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the
Plan, in accordance with the public notice requirements of the Texas Open
Meetings Act, the City shall make available to the public, at the City
offices and at the Library, a description of the intended changes and the
report to the Commission.
SECTION 4.04 APPROVAL. Within 30 calendar days after the required
public hearing the Commission shall prepare its written report containing
its recommendations to the City Council regarding the application. If the
Commission fails to act within the prescribed time period, the proposed
amendment shall be automatically forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation for denial. The City Council shall have 30 calendar days
after receipt of the Commission's recommendation to approve or
disapprove any proposed amendment. Approval by Council shall be by
ordinance on two (2) readings, approved in conformance with this Article.
The amendment may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Failure
to act on the part of the City Council shall constitute an automatic denial
of the proposed amendment. The time limits established for both
Commission and Council consideration of a proposed amendment may be
extended with the consent of both the applicant and the City Council.
A written record must be made of any required public hearing and
maintained for public inspection for at least 10 years after the hearing
date. No amendment to a Focus End Statement or Functional Plan shall
be adopted unless the City Council shall have approved said amendment
by a majority plus one (1) vote of all members of Council if said Focus
End Statement or Functional Plan has been in effect for less than one (1)
year, or by a simple majority vote of a quorum of Council if said Means
Statement or Functional Plan is included as an Annual Amendment
pursuant to Section 4.05 below.
If the City Council fails to pass an ordinance approving a proposed
amendment, a new application for the same amendment to the Century
Plan shall not again be accepted by the Director until after the expiration
of six (6) months from the date the proposed amendment was rejected.
However, an application may be reconsidered within the above mentioned
six (6) month period if it can be shown that the conditions under which an
amendment was requested have undergone a substantial change. The
determination of substantial change shall be made by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at the request of an applicant for an amendment to
the Century Plan.
SECTION 4.05 ANNUAL AMENDMENT. The effective date for the
adopted Century Plan functional plan elements is established as follows:
• March 13, 1990: Development Plan,
• April 28, 1992: Parks and Recreation Plan,
• November 23, 1993: Economic Development Strategic Plan,
• September 24, 1996: Facilities and Services Plan
Pursuant to Article II, Sections 2.06 and 2.07 of this Chapter, the
effective date for additional Ends, Means, Functional Plans, annual
operating plans or other such elements is established. In the one (1) year
following the effective date, no amendment to these elements shall be
adopted, except by a majority plus one (1) vote of all members of Council.
At the time that the next annual operating plan is approved, the Council
also shall review and reconsider all Ends, Means, Functional Plans or
other such similar elements in accordance with Article II of this Chapter.
At this time all such Ends, Means, Functional Plans or other such similar
elements shall be reapproved either in their original form, or approved as
amended. This action shall constitute the Annual Amendment of the Plan
and shall require a simple majority vote of all Council members. Adoption
of the Annual Amendment shall constitute a new effective date for all
Ends, Means, Functional Plans or other such similar elements.
Q
ARTICLE V.
MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 4 -
ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY PLAN
SECTION 5.01 PROCEDURE. The City Council may, after adopting the
Policy Plan, revise, amend, change, modify or repeal any portion of
Chapter 4 ADMINISTRATION of said Plan after a duly notified public
hearing. The administrative processes and requirements in Chapter 4
ADMINISTRATION shall be evaluated by Council by January 15 every
year to allow for changes deemed necessary for proper Plan
administration. Modifications allowed by this Article shall not be classified
as either "Revisions" or "Amendments" to the Plan and may be adopted
by simple majority vote of a quorum of City Council.
7 ARTICLE VI. DEFINITIONS
SECTION 6.01 GENERAL. For the purpose of these regulations certain
terms and words used herein shall be used, interpreted, and defined as set
forth in this section unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary:
A) words used in the present tense include the future tense
B) words used in the plural number include the singular and words in
the singular include the plural
C) the word "shall" is always mandatory
D) the word "herein" means "in these regulations"
E) the word "regulations" mean "these regulations"
SECTION 6.02 DEFINED. For the purpose of these regulations, certain
words and terms herein are defined as follows:
Amendment - any change, modification, addition or deletion to the Council
adopted Focus End statements, Functional Plans, or any Plan -related
programs or Ordinances.
Amendment, Annual - a comprehensive approval, reapproval or ratification of all
Ends, Means, Functional Plans or other such similar elements with
modifications, if any, which occurs at one (1) year intervals during the
life of the Plan and which requires a majority vote for adoption.
Annual Evaluation Report - prepared by staff to inform the City Council of the
40
progress and status of Century Plan implementation.
Annual Operating Plan - the annual statement of how the Century Plan will be
implemented. It is to be prepared every fiscal year by each City
Division to describe the revenues and expenditures for programs,
projects, and work activities anticipated by the City. The annual
operating plan shall include one, two, and five year time horizons.
Century Plan - the Comprehensive Plan for the community.
Century Plan Steering Committee - the Council appointed 15 member group,
composed of the Mayor, two Council members, the seven Planning and
Zoning Commission members, and five citizens at large, responsible for
Policy Plan formulation.
City - the City of Georgetown, Texas.
City Council - the Georgetown City Council.
City Manager - the chief administrative officer of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
or his/her designated representative.
Commission - the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown as
established by Section 1.09 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of
Georgetown, Texas.
Components - all of the various parts that make up the Century Plan, including
Ends, Means, Functional Plans, Annual Operating Plans and the levels
of detail, from general to specific.
Comprehensive Plan - the overall development plan for the community which has
been officially adopted to provide long range development policies
including all specified individual elements thereof. This is the same as
the Century Plan.
Director - the Director of the Division of Development Services for the City of
Georgetown, Texas, or his/her designated representative.
End Statement - see Focus End Statement, Policy End Statement and Mission
Statement.
ETJ Limits - the limits of the City's extra -territorial jurisdiction as granted by
Chapter 42 of the Local Government Code.
Focus End Statement - a statement which expresses a desired result or condition;
more specific than a Policy End.
Functional Plan - an individual plan developed in accordance with the Council
adopted Ends, to address and provide future direction for each of the
following areas:
• Land Use
Utilities
• Transportation •
Environmental
• Parks •
Housing
• Health and Human Services •
Airport
• Historic Preservation •
Annexation
• Citizen Participation •
Urban Design
• Facilities and Services •
Economic
• Capital Improvements Program
Means - the specific activities which the City does
to reach its desired Ends;
contained in the Annual Operating Plan Element.
41
Mission Statement - a broad statement of the purpose of the City; considered the
broadest of all the Ends statements; more general than a Policy End.
Planning Area - the projected limits for the City's ETJ in the year 2010.
Planning and Zoning Commission - the City of Georgetown Planning and Zoning
Commission as established by Section 1.09 of the Home Rule Charter
of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
Policy End - a broad, relatively permanent expression of the desired result or
condition, based upon the community's values and the consensus of the
general public; more general than a Focus End.
Policy Plan - the City Charter -mandated element of the Century Plan consisting
of the legally binding, Council adopted, Ends and the Council accepted
Means which establish the framework for formulating the 15 individual
Functional Plans.
Project Plans - the City Division -level statement of programs, projects, and work
activities that will be accomplished within a one, two, and five year
framework. All project plans must be consistent with legally adopted
Ends, Means, and Functional Plans.
Revision - any change, modification, addition or deletion to the Council adopted
Policy End statements.
Revision, Periodic - a comprehensive approval, reapproval or ratification of all
Policy End Statements with modifications, if any, which occurs at five
(5) year intervals during the life of the Plan and which requires a
majority vote for adoption.
Task Group - one of the five Council appointed groups, chaired by a
citizen -at -large member of the Steering Committee, responsible for
recommending Ends for one (1) or more specific areas of concentration
for consideration by the Century Plan Steering Committee.
Territorial Jurisdiction - the Corporate Limits of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, and any additional area as
permitted by law and which has been approved by, the Council.
42
V. APPENDICES
The final chapter of the Policy Plan, the APPENDICES, contains the
supporting documents to the Plan. A more detailed description of the Policy
Plan, including the backgroundfor comprehensive planning in Georgetown, the
need for this Plan, and the manner in which the Plan was initially prepared
and is to be continually maintained, is included. In addition, SECTION 1.08
of the City Charter, the major City Council action relating to the Century Plan
is included. Finally, the nine inventory reports upon which the Plan is based
are included by reference as well as the State Statutes related to planning, and
the references used to develop this Policy Plan.
43
FM APPENDIX 1
EXCERPT FROM CODE OF ORDINANCES
City of Georgetown, Texas
ADOPTED, APRIL 30, 1979
ARTICLE I. SECTION 1.08.
Comprehensive plan.
SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 7.
(Ord. No. 86-12, Amend. No. 3, 2-25-86)
SECTION I.08. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(1) PURPOSE AND INTENT. It [is] the purpose and intent of this Article
that the City Council establish comprehensive planning as a continuous
and ongoing governmental function in order to promote and strengthen
the existing role, processes and powers of the City of Georgetown to
prepare, adopt and implement a comprehensive plan to guide, regulate,
and manage the future development within the corporate limits and
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City to assure the most appropriate and
beneficial use of land, water and other natural resources, consistent with
the public interest. Through the process of comprehensive planning and
the preparation, adoption and implementation of a comprehensive plan,
the City intends to preserve, promote, protect and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, convenience and general
welfare; prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration
or diffusion of population or land uses; facilitate the adequate and
efficient provision of transportation, water, wastewater, schools, parks,
recreational facilities, housing and other facilities and services; and
conserve, develop, utilize and protect natural resources. It is further the
intent of the Article that the adopted comprehensive plan shall have the
legal status set forth herein, and that all public and private development
should be in conformity with such adopted comprehensive plan or
element or portion thereof.
(2) THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The Council shall adopt by ordinance
a revised comprehensive plan within two (2) years from the date the
amended Charter is adopted, which shall constitute the master and
general plan. The comprehensive plan shall contain the Council's
policies for growth, development and beautification of the land within the
corporate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, or for
44
geographic portions thereof including neighborhood, community or area -
wide plans. The comprehensive plan should include but not be limited
to:
(a) A future land -use element;
(b) A traffic circulation and public transit element;
(c) A wastewater, electric, solid waste, drainage and potable water
element;
(d) A conservation and environmental resources element;
(e) A recreation and open space element;
(f) A housing element;
(g) A public services and facilities element, which shall include but
not be limited to a capital improvement program;
(h) A public buildings and related facilities element;
(i) An economic element for commercial and industrial development
and redevelopment;
(j) Health and human service element;
(k) Historic preservation element;
(1) Citizen participation element; and
(m) Urban design element.
The several elements of the comprehensive plan should be coordinated and
be internally consistent. Each element should include policy
recommendations for its implementation and should be implemented, in part,
by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate land development
regulations. The comprehensive plan shall be amended only once per year
and revised not more than once every five (5) years unless such amendment
or revision is adopted by all five (5) members of the City Council. An
amendment is defined as a substantial change to the plan.
(3) LEGAL EFFECT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Upon adoption of
a comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof by the City Council,
all land development regulations, including zoning and map, subdivision
regulations, roadway plan, all public improvements, public facilities,
public utilities projects and all city regulatory actions relating to land
use, subdivision and development approval, should be consistent with the
adopted comprehensive plan, element or portion thereof.
(4) LEGAL EFFECT OF PRIOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Any
comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof adopted pursuant to
law, but prior to the effective date of this Charter shall continue to have
such force and effect as it had at the date of its adoption, until further
action pursuant to this section is taken by the City Council. (ORD.
NO.86-12, AMEND. NO.3, 2-25-86)
45
APPENDIX 2
RESOLUTION NUMBER 870239.019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ESTABLISHING THE CENTURY PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE TO CREATE THE POLICY PLAN ELEMENT OF
THE CENTURY PLAN AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SAID PLAN
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 said amendment furthermore states that a revised comprehensive plan
containing the City Council's policies for growth, development, and beautification of
land within its jurisdiction shall be adopted by April 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on April 27, 1987 indicate general approval of a
strategy for the formulation of a Policy Plan which would upon adoption fulfill the
requirements of Section 1.08, subsection 2 of the City Charter said strategy utilizing
a steering committee and task groups of specified composition to formulate said Policy
Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE,.CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT;
(1) The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Georgetown pursuant to Section 1.08 of
the City Charter, which shall also be officially known as "The Century Plan: A New
Century for Georgetown," shall be created by a group of persons known hereafter and
referred to as the Century Plan Steering Committee and five (5) subgroups to be
known as the Century Plan Task Groups whose members shall be appointed on the
recommendation of the Mayor and approved by vote of a majority of the City Council
in regular open meeting.
(2) Said Century Plan Steering Committee shall be comprised of the seven (7)
Planning and Zoning Commission members, two (2) City Council persons, and five
(5) citizens -at -large whose terms of appointment shall run indefinitely except as
otherwise provided by City Code. However, in the event of a vacancy being
determined by Council, said vacancy shall be filled in the same manner of the original
appointment.
46
(3) Said Century Plan Task Groups shall be comprised of up to fifteen individuals one
of whom shall be a Steering Committee Citizen -at -large and shall also serve as
chairperson for the Task Group. Each Task Group shall also include up to two
additional Steering Committee Members. The Steering Committee shall be responsible
for assigning its members to the individual Task Groups.
(4) The aforementioned Century Plan Steering Committee is hereby authorized and
directed to create the Policy Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan for the City
pursuant to Section 1.08 of the City Charter utilizing the aforementioned Century Plan
Task Groups and such additional Resource Persons and entities as may be deemed
appropriate by each respective body.
(5) The funding of costs incidental to the creation of the Century Plan shall be
accomplished by using the adopted "Comprehensive Planning" budget. Minor
expenditures shall be made subject to the approval of the Director of Development and
Planning. Major expenditures shall be made subject to the specific authorization of
the Council. The Director shall determine "major" and "minor" expenditures.
(6) Said Policy Plan shall be completed, approved by consensus of the Steering
Committee, and forwarded to the City Council for action no later than October 26,
1987.
(7) Prior to submittal of the approved Policy Plan, the Steering Committee shall hold
no less than one (1) public hearing for discussion of the plan at which a quorum of its
membership is present.
(8) Subsequent to the submittal of the aforementioned Policy Plan and upon specific
authorization of the City Council said Steering Committee shall proceed with the
formulation of such Functional Plans as may be deemed necessary to effectively
implement the Policy Plan pursuant to Section 1.08 of the City Charter.
a
Adopted this 23rd day of June , 1987.
Jim Colbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pat Caballero, City Secretary
47
APPENDIX 3
STATE STATUTES
This Appendix lists those State statutes which are
relevant to local planning.
Municipal Zoning Authority. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Chapter 211.001,
211.003.
Impact Fees. Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. Article 1269j-4.11.
Municipal Annexation. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Chapters 42-43.
Municipal Regulation of Subdivision and Property Development. Vernon's Texas
Codes Annotated, Chapter 212, 230.
Authority of Municipalities to Establish Building Lines. Vernon's Texas Codes
Annotated, Chapter 213.
Municipal Regulation of Structures. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Chapter 214.
Improvement Districts in Municipalities. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Chapter
372.
N
Municipal Utilities. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Chapter 402.
Home -Rule Municipality. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Chapter 9.
Streets and Alleys, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, Article 1082, et. seq.
Community Development in Municipalities. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated,
Chapter 373.
Texas Water Code.
APPENDIX 4
OVERVIEW OF PROCESS
THE CENTURY PLAN PROCESS
This portion of the APPENDIX will provide an overview of comprehensive
planning in general, and of Georgetown's own experience. It is important to
know how and why comprehensive planning has developed over time in order
to understand the need for using the Century Plan as a dynamic document to
guide the decisions about Georgetown's future. The process being used by the
City to develop, adopt, and utilize the Century Plan has combined technical
knowledge and skills with grassroots community input. This process is
intended to ensure that the Plan includes all of the ideas necessary to guide
Georgetown's future in a comprehensive fashion and that it is accepted and
used on a community -wide basis throughout the 23 year planning period.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF
M
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Comprehensive plans, under a variety of different names, have grown in
importance and use throughout the past century. The present form of the
comprehensive plan is a result of many decades of political, legal, and social
evolution. The earliest comprehensive plans for cities in the United States
were those which determined the basic design and street layout of Washington,
D.C., Philadelphia, and Charleston. By the late nineteenth century those early,
physical plans were replaced by plans which were actually proposals for
general improvements emphasizing the aesthetic nature of the city. In 1925 the
City of Cincinnati prepared a comprehensive plan which set long-term goals for
the physical development of the City, and was based on data related to the
existing conditions and estimates of future needs. This plan resulted in the
adoption of zoning and subdivision controls and the expenditure of funds to
ensure that it would be realized. Although the Cincinnati plan set a high
standard early in the century, subsequent plans prepared by cities throughout
M
the country often fell short of this mark.
Beginning in the 1930's and continuing through the 1960's, a number of
cities prepared comprehensive plans as the federal government became
financially involved in local activities. New Deal public works projects, and
federal housing and redevelopment programs all spawned a large number of
comprehensive plans. Many of these plans, although written with great
promise for the way in which they were to influence local growth and
development, only ended up gathering dust on the planner's shelf. Primarily,
the problem lay in the fact that those comprehensive plans were not understood
and accepted by the citizens to be the official policy of the city, and so the
local decision -makers did not feel committed to the policies, goals, and
objectives laid out in such plans. The result was that these plans were used
more as background studies than as guidelines for future actions.
During the past 20 years the scope of comprehensive planning has come to
include social and economic factors, as well as the traditional physical factors.
In addition, land use regulations are more often tied to the comprehensive plan,
and therefore, it has become mandatory that cities prepare them. This change
has been mandated by the courts in some cases, and by local charter or
ordinance in others. Many cities today, Georgetown included, are preparing
comprehensive plans that will be adopted by ordinance and carry the force of
law. These plans will have to be used both in the day-to-day operation of city
government and in the determination of long range strategies and programs.
As it has in the past, the form, purpose, and constituency of the
comprehensive plan will continue to evolve as the demands placed upon it
continue to change. Therefore, it is not possible to prescribe the exact form
which a comprehensive plan should take;_ however, there are several
characteristics which are generally accepted as fundamental to a comprehensive
plan. Comprehensive plans contain the policies which will guide the physical
growth and development of a city over the long range future. As their name
implies, they should be comprehensive, including such functional areas as
transportation, housing, land use, utilities, and public facilities. Although the
comprehensive plan is primarily intended to direct physical development, it
should also contain socio-economic and social service elements because the
people, and the manner in which they live, have a significant impact on
physical form. The plan should also be geographically comprehensive,
describing the characteristics and needs of all areas of the future city. The
comprehensive nature of the plan implies that it will include all of these
functional and geographic areas, and that it will consider the interrelationships
among them. The policies included within the plan should provide a clear,
consistent indication of the community's desires and aspirations for the future
of the city. As such it becomes useful to local public officials and staff, as
well as private builders, developers, businesses, and citizens, as a decision -
making guide.
50
GEORGETOWN'S PAST PLANNING EFFORTS
The first comprehensive plan prepared for Georgetown was in 1964 by the
Austin consulting firm of Bryant-Curington, Inc. In addition to a description
of Georgetown's historical and demographic background, this comprehensive
plan described land use, circulation and the central business district, community
facilities, community appearance, utilities and drainage, and capital
improvements program. This plan was written with a minimal amount of detail
and few recommendations.
The 1976 Comprehensive Urban Plan was prepared by a different consultant,
Samuel L. Wyse Associates, and produced somewhat more detailed
descriptions and recommendations. This plan explored the topics of
population, land use, housing, community facilities, commercial development,
historic preservation, capital improvements, and environmental assessment.
Very little community input went into the preparation of this plan and there
was never any method adopted for implementing the recommendations.
In order to improve the responsiveness and the timeliness of the 1976 plan,
a community planning effort was undertaken by the City in 1979. Responding
to the significant changes which had occurred in Georgetown since completion
of the 1976 plan, a series of public hearings were held in each of eight sectors
of the City to obtain citizen input on needs, issues, and problems. The result
of this effort was a supplement to the 1976 plan entitled a Guide to Growth and
Development in Georgetown, Texas. This study focused on immediate
problems in each of the eight sectors and was not intended to be a long range
planning tool. In general, it was used for the purpose for which it was
developed, as a guide in the decision -making processes associated with
rezoning and subdivision actions.
The same consultants who prepared the 1976 comprehensive plan, wrote
comprehensive planning studies in 1983 (updated in 1985). These studies
included a Development Impact Analysis, a Thoroughfare Plan, and a Parks
and Recreation Plan. The Development Impact Analysis included a
Development Plan to guide land use decisions made by the City. The
Development Plan map is the only portion of the previous studies to be adopted
by the City Council. This was done in 1986 and was intended only as a
temporary measure until the Land Use element of the Century Plan is adopted.
The comprehensive plans prepared for Georgetown in the past have been
more useful as sources of historical information about the City than as guides
for decision -making. The fact that they did not receive the full support of the
community, including the City Council, made them less useful as statements
of ends and means for the future growth and development of Georgetown.
51
Furthermore, with no established guidelines for implementing the
recommendations of the plans, those recommendations were generally
overlooked or ignored as policies and programs were developed.
CENTURY PLAN PROCESS
Residents of the City of Georgetown approved by a wide margin the City
Charter amendment requiring a comprehensive plan. In doing so, they
committed the City to an ongoing planning process directed at coordinating all
governmental functions, and influencing many quasi -public and private actions,
towards the common goal of maintaining and enhancing a high quality of life.
Upon approval of the Charter amendment, the first task was to develop a work
program to prepare, adopt, and utilize the comprehensive plan. In June 1986
staff prepared and the City Council approved "A Program Proposal for the
Preparation and Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Georgetown, Texas. " This program defined the process, work tasks, and
schedule to be followed to meet the April 1988 deadline established in the
Charter amendment for adoption of the Plan. The Fiscal Year 1986-1987 and
1987-1988 budgets made significant commitments to the development of the
Century Plan. Two additional staff planners and a graphics technician were
hired, and an extensive base mapping program was undertaken in support of
the Plan.
Development of the Policy Plan proceeded through two major steps,
including data collection and analysis and plan formulation. The first step was
primarily the responsibility of City staff, who spent nearly ten months
researching, compiling, analyzing, and presenting information which describes
the demographic, social, economic, physical, and cultural characteristics of
Georgetown as they existed in 1986 and 1987 and as they are projected to
change throughout the 23 year planning period. Nine base study reports
resulted from this effort, including:
Socio-Economic Conditions Facilities and Services
Physical Features Land Use
Transportation Housing
Utilities Historic Preservation
Urban Design
As each of these studies was prepared they were reviewed by the City's six
Division Directors, the City Manager, and other City personnel for
comprehensiveness and accuracy. These studies were designed to provide the
various decision -making groups with a broad understanding of existing
conditions, past trends, and potential future needs of the community as they
relate to each of the base study subject areas. In addition, each of the base
52
study reports provided guidelines as to the issues considered most important by
City staff. The base studies, therefore, supplemented by the personal
experiences of each member of the Century Plan Task Groups, were used as
the basis for development of the policies, ends, and means originally included
in the Policy Plan. The base studies are included by reference in the plan to
provide a common base of knowledge about Georgetown. They will be
updated on a regular basis to account for changing conditions.
The second major step in developing the comprehensive plan was plan
formulation. In order to increase public awareness and involvement in the
Plan, a contest to select a name for the Plan was held. Contest entries were
limited to the fifth grade students of GISD. A jury consisting of one council
person, the chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Director of Development Services selected the entry of Rachael Schumacher
as the winner. Thus, "The Century Plan: A New Century Georgetown"
became the official name for the comprehensive plan. The Century Plan
Steering Committee was primarily responsible for this step, although the City
Council is responsible for final approval of the Policy Plan, the Functional
Plans, and all subsequent amendments. The fifteen member Steering
Committee was composed of two Council members, the Mayor, the seven
Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and five citizens at -large. The five
citizens at -large, who chaired the five Task Groups, were appointed by the
Mayor and approved by the City Council on May 26, 1987. Each Task Group
was composed of the Steering Committee members, as well as approximately
12 additional community residents with particular expertise or affiliations
related to the Task Group's area of concentration. These citizens were
appointed by the Mayor and approved by City Council on July 7, 1987. Many
of the Task Group members were drawn from the membership of other city
boards and commissions. This format, which is shown on Exhibit 1, was
developed in order to allow for both decision -making efficiency and sufficiently
broad based citizen representation to ensure public acceptance of the Century
Plan.
Each Task Group was responsible for specific subject areas designed to
cover the whole range of issues to be included in the Century Plan, these are
defined on Exhibit 1. During the month of August 1987, the five Task Groups
met individually to prepare policies, goals, and objectives related to their areas
of concern. The documents prepared by the Task Groups were submitted to
the Steering Committee on September 9, 1987. Steering Committee review,
with staff assistance, included reconciling conflicting statements, eliminating
redundancies, and compiling the statements by category. The Steering
Committee held a public hearing on November 16, 1987, to obtain input to the
Plan from the whole community, and the City Council began their review of
the Plan on December 8, 1987.
This process was designed to ensure a high level of familiarity with
53
community issues. The individual perspectives, biases, and values of the
people most closely involved promoted a thorough examination of issues and
yielded realistic recommendations. Additionally, due to the involvement of
Council members and Commissioners, final review and action on the Policy
Plan and Functional Plans was expedited. A sense of involvement in and
commitment to the Century Plan developed throughout the community due to
the expenditure of time and incorporation of values and interests on the part of
each of the Task Group members.
A third major step in the evolution of the Century Plan was the integration
of the Annual Operating Plan Element (AOP). The City's budget was
officially designated as the AOP beginning with the 1992-93 fiscal year. Fully
integrating the AOP with the remainder of the Century Plan has been a gradual
process. Beginning in the 1993-94 fiscal year, the AOP used the 34 Policy
Statements from the original Policy Plan Element as End statements. This
innovation, along with the community's involvement in the creation of the
Century Plan, were noted as significant by the American Planning Association
when it recognized the Century Plan as the most outstanding comprehensive
plan in a small jurisdiction in 1995. The 1996 revision to the Policy Plan has
continued to strengthen the connection between the AOP and the other elements
of the Century Plan.
HOW THE CENTURY PLAN WORKS
The work produced by each of the Task Groups, as refined by the Steering
Committee and revised by the City Council in September 1996, is included in
the POLICY AREAS chapter of the Policy Plan and is in the form of Ends
statements organized into fourteen categories. The categories are intended to
cover the spectrum of subject areas delineated in the Charter and at the same
time provide a framework in which policy statements can bridge the gaps
between Charter specified elements.
Policy Ends are statements of how the City intends to make decisions during
the planning period, and Council approval of the Policy Plan establishes them
as legally binding. Focus End statements are included in the Policy Plan in
order to clarify and define the Policy Ends and for use in establishing the
framework of the Functional Plans. Means Statements express the specific
actions that are necessary in order to achieve an End. They are derived from
the Functional Plans and are placed in an Annual Operating Plan Element.
Together the Ends and Means address the issues, needs, and values expressed
by the Century Plan Task Groups and refined by the Steering Committee.
Implementation of the Century Plan is an ongoing process. It will not end
as each of the Functional Plans are adopted by the City Council. Just as
54
conditions, resources, needs, and desires within the community will change, the
Century Plan will be amended and revised to reflect new circumstances. The
manner in which the Century Plan is amended and revised is described in more
detail in the ADMINISTRATION chapter of the Policy Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
CENTURY PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
CITY COUNCIL
CENTURY PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE
Membership - 15
Mayor/Council - 3
Planning & Zoning - 7
At Large* - 5
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
GROUP I
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
GROUP 5
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Land Use
Economic
Environment
Health &
CIP
Utilities
Development
Historic
Human Services
Transportation
Public
Preservation
Housing
Facilities
Urban Design
Citizen
Parks &
Participation
Recreation
Airport
Annexation
*Task Group Chair persons
55
APPENDIX 5
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN
BASE STUDIES
The following is a general overview of each of the Base Studies and
their role in the formulation of the Century Plan. The Base Studies are
included in the Policy Plan by reference.
1) BASE MAPPING - This effort involves the compilation and/or
purchase of accurate maps at several scales. These will be
produced to graphically depict inventory data for the Land Use,
Transportation, Utilities, and Physical Features Base Studies, as
well as many other uses.
2) SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS - This study compiles and
analyzes information on population characteristics, employment
data, and economic features of the City, County and statistical
region. This information was used to project future needs for the
Land Use, Transportation, Utilities, Facilities and Services, and
Housing Functional Plans.
3) PHYSICAL FEATURES - This study delineates the planning area
boundary of the Century Plan and inventories existing natural and
man-made features (generally at a. regional scale and more
specifically at the local scale) which constitute both constraints and
opportunities to the growth and development of Georgetown. The
major Functional Plans using this data are the Land Use Plan,
Utilities Plan, Transportation Plan, Environmental Plan, and Parks
Plan.
4) EXISTING LAND USES - This study provides the results of the
1987 land use survey. The products of this study are a land use
map and a narrative analysis of land use by quantity, location,
density, value, zoning relationship, and comparison to accepted
standards. This study is the foundation upon which the Land Use
Functional Plan will be developed.
5) TRANSPORTATION - This study inventories existing conditions,
assesses future needs, and makes general recommendations
regarding streets, parking, railroads, the airport, and specialized
modes of travel including public transit, taxis, bicycle and truck
operations. This information will be used directly in the formation
of the Transportation and Airport Functional Plans as well as
00
indirectly influence the Land Use, Utilities, Annexation, and
Environmental Functional Plans.
6) UTILITIES - This study is similar in nature to the Transportation
Study and covers the City's water, wastewater, stormwater
management, solid waste management and electrical services.
Local provision of gas, telephone and cable services is discussed
on a general level. This study forms the basis for development of
the Utility Functional Plan.
7) FACILITIES AND SERVICES - This study covers such elements
as parks, government buildings, airport operations, libraries,
schools, fire protection, police protection and health services. This
study directly impacts the Facilities/Services Plan, Airport Plan,
Health and Human Services Plan and Parks Plan.
8) HOUSING - This study is a corollary to the Land Use study
focusing on the residential component. The quality and quantity of
housing stock, fiscal characteristics and neighborhood setting is
described. An assessment of housing needs and recommendations
to meet the needs are included. This study is basic to the Housing
Functional Plan.
9) URBAN DESIGN - This study draws generally from all other base
studies and discusses such features as community image, impact of
development regulations, and relationships between previous studies
and reports. Urban design needs, opportunities and problems are
assessed. This study forms the basis of the Urban Design
Functional Plan.
10) HISTORIC PRESERVATION - This study is based upon the
draft Historic Resource and Conservation Plan presented to Council
in the fall of 1986. It includes an inventory of resources and
suggestions for types of programs _which may be created to
conserve and utilize these resources. It forms the basis of the
Historic Preservation Plan.
57
APPENDIX 6
REFERENCES
BRYANT-CURINGTON, INC.
Comprehensive Plan for Georgetown, Texas. 1964.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS.
Century Plan Base Study Reports. 1987.
Facilities and Services Historic Preservation
Housing Land Use
Physical Features Socio-Economic Conditions
Transportation Urban Design
Utilities
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS.
Guide to Growth and Development in Georgetown, Texas. 1976.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS.
Code of Ordinances, Home Rule Charter.
GOODMAN, WILLIAM I. AND EEC C. FREUND, EDS.
Principles and Practice of Urban Planning.
(Washington, D.C.: International City Managers' Association, 1968).
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES.
City of Georgetown, Texas, Comprehensive Plan 1976-2000. June 1976.
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES.
Comprehensive Planning Studies:
Development Impact Analysis (1983, updated 1985)
Thoroughfare Plan (1985)
Parks and Recreation Plan (1985).
58
APPENDIX 7
COPY OF PERIODIC REVISION ORDINANCE
(to be adopted)
WE
APPENDIX 8
ORDINANCE 880097
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING PORTIONS OF THE POLICY
PLAN ELEMENT OF THE CENTURY PLAN (POLICY PLAN)
AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN PURSUANT TOT SECTION 1.08 OF THE
CITY CHARTER; DEFINING THE FORCE AND EFFECT
THEREOF; ADDING CHAPTER 19 1/2 "COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN" TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN; ADDING APPENDIX C, "GEORGETOWN
CENTURY PLAN" TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN; AND SETTING 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, said City Charter now states that a revised comprehensive
plan containing the City Council's policies for growth, development, and
beautification of land within its jurisdiction shall be adopted by April
1988; and
w
WHEREAS, the City Council did on April 27, 1987, indicate general
approval of a strategy which will comply with the requirements of
Section 1.08, Subsection 2 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, said strategy designated the Policy Plan Element of the
Century Plan (Policy Plan) as being the mechanism by which compliance
with the Charter shall be achieved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on June 23, 1987, adopt a Resolution
creating the Century Plan Steering Committee and Task Groups to create
the Policy Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Century Plan Steering Committee and Task Groups did
meet from July through November 1987 and did create the Policy Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Century Plan Steering Committee did hold public
hearings on the Policy Plan on November 16, 1987, and December 2,
1987, to describe the Policy Plan to the citizens of Georgetown and
receive comments from the public on said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Georgetown City Council finds that "Century Plan"
(Policy Plan) shall be adopted as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Georgetown in compliance with Section 1.08, Subsection 2 of the
Georgetown City Charter;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The certain document entitled City of Georgetown Century Plan Policy
Plan, dated November 16, 1987 and revised February 23, 1988, which
is attached as Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance, shall from the
effective date of this ordinance be the Comprehensive Plan for the City
pursuant to Section 1.08, Subsection 2 of the City Charter.
SECTION II.
The Policy Statements in Chapter Three of the Policy Plan Element of
the Century Plan are hereby adopted as legally binding policies for
growth, development, and beautification of the City of Georgetown.
SECTION III.
The Administrative procedure in Chapter Four of the Policy Plan
Element of the Century Plan is hereby adopted as legally binding and
shall be the manner in which the Century Plan is implemented.
SECTION IV.
The Ends and Means statements in Chapter Three of the Policy Plan
Element of the Century Plan shall not be legally binding, but shall act as
guidelines for subsequent development of the Functional Plans.
SECTION V.
All future development, both public and private, shall be in conformity
with the adopted Century Plan.
SECTION VI.
The Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown is hereby amended
by adding Chapter 19 1/2, Comprehensive Plan "Century Plan" and
subsections thereto, as follows:
61
Chapter 19 1/2 Comprehensive Plan "Century Plan"
Article I.
General Provisions
Section 19 1/2-1 Adoption of Plan
In accordance with Chapter 1.08 of the Georgetown City Charter, the
City Council of the City of Georgetown has adopted that certain
document entitled the "Georgetown Century Plan" (Policy Plan) for the
purposes of directing the City Council, staff, and commissions in
rendering actions and resolutions relating to the planning and
development of the territorial limits of the City of Georgetown. This
document, dated November 16, 1987 and revised February 23, 1988, the
same which may be amended from time to time, is located in Appendix
C of the Georgetown City Code.
SECTION VII.
The Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown is hereby amended
by adding to the Appendix, Appendix C, "Georgetown Century Plan",
as follows:
Appendix C
"Georgetown Century Plan"
SECTION VIII.
The effective date of the Policy Plan shall be midnight of the date upon
which this ordinance is approved upon final reading.
READ AND APPROVED on the first reading, on this the 23rd day of
February , 1988.
READ AND APPROVED on the final reading, on this the 8th day of
March , 1988.
Jim Colbert, Mayor
APPROVED:
Diane Callander
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Leta Willoughby, City Secretary
62
hys - S 1 J Y
SAO
L
Council meeting = ust 27, .1996 Item No. ' x;
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the revised draft Facilities and Services Plan.
ITEM SUMMARY: The draft Facilities and Services Plan was created by the Working Group
appointed by the Council in February of 1996. A public hearing on the draft plan was held by
the Working Group on May 23, 1996 and it was presented to the City Council on May 28, 1996.
With the preparation of the Revised Policy Plan Element, the draft Facilities and Services Plan
has been revised to reflect the Policy Ends and Focus Ends terminology., The revised draft was
the subject of a City Council workshop discussion on August 13, 1996.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
COMMENTS: The first and second ordinance readings for the Facilities and Services Plan
element are scheduled for September 10 and 24, 1996.
ATTACHMENTS: Revised draft Facilities and Services Plan document
Submitted Bv:
Edward . Barry, AICP - ' ector Clyde on Rosenberg,. AICP
Divisio of Development ervices Chief Planner, Long Range Planning
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN
FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN ELEMENT
Revised Draft
Public Review
A draft Georgetown Century Plan Element prepared by:
The City of Georgetown Facilities and Services Plan Working Group
and the Development Services Division
with the assistance of
The Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
and the Community and Regional Planning Program,
The University of Texas at Austin
August 1996
FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN WORKING GROUP
Chairpersons
George Arroyos, City Council
Lee Bain, City Council
Members
Gordon Baker, Convention and Visitors Bureau
Bob Brent, Chamber of Commerce
Leon Douglas, Planning and Zoning Commission
Ross Duncum, G.I.V.E.
Al Fittipaldi, Airport Advisory Board
Jim Gross, Georgetown Industrial Foundation
Gwen Morrison, Police Advisory Board
Llorente Navarette, G . I . S . D . Board
Rebecca Pfiester, Library Advisory Board
Faye Pierre, Housing Authority
Kathryn Stallard, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Mary Faith Sterk, Williamson County Health District Board
Eric Van Darien, Southwestern University
Cal Wilkerson, Planning and Zoning Commission
Karen Wilson, Williamson County Health District
David Wolf, Historic Preservation Commission
City Staff - Development Services Division
Edward J. Barry, AICP, Director
Clyde von Rosenberg, AICP, Chief Planner, Long Range Planning
University of Texas at Austin
Bill Spelman, Ph.D., L.B.J. School of Public Affairs
Robert Patterson, Ph.D., School of Architecture
Scott Davis, Graduate Assistant
PREFACE
Explanation of "Ends"
Ends Statements
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Relationship to Other Century Plan Elements
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Coordinated Service Delivery
Library Services
Animal Control
PUBLIC SAFETY
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
Housing
Health and Human Services
Intergovernmental Communication
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Community -Owned Utilities
Georgetown Municipal Airport
Convention and Visitors Bureau
1
1
ii
1
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
14
14
15
16
18
18
20
21
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
ftEFACE,
Explanation of "Ends"
The Ends statements on the following five pages are from the Century Plan -
Policy Plan Element, which contains the City's Mission Statement and Ends statements
in each of fourteen Policy Areas. The Ends statements for the Facilities and Services
Policy Area reflect the contributions of the Facilities and Services Plan Working
Group. They are contained in the Facilities and Services Plan, along with appropriate
Ends statements from other Policy Areas. Each of the Ends statements is numbered
for reference, based on its location in the Policy Plan. The Ends statements are
divided into two categories,. Policy Ends and Focus Ends. Policy Ends are broad,
relatively permanent expressions of the ultimate desired result for each Policy Area, as
expressed by the community's values. Focus Ends are more specific descriptions of
the results desired and expressed by the Policy Ends. While there is only one Policy
End for each Policy Area, Focus Ends are not limited and can be added annually or
with the approval of additional functional plan elements.
Each year during the development of the City's Annual Operating Plan Element,
City staff will create Means statements, which describe specific activities to be carried
out during that fiscal .year which help achieve the Ends. The recommendations in this
Plan element, which are listed after each Ends statement, will be used to develop
Means statements in future Annual Operating Plan elements.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
i
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
ENDS STATEMENTS
(taken from the PolicyPlan Element of the Century Plan)
(Ends statements in bold type are "Policy Ends")
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1.0 Georgetown's economy is self-sustaining through diversified growth, a broad tax
base with minimal impact from economic fluctuation, enhanced business
opportunity and job creation.
1.1 Existing undeveloped sites in Georgetown are put to beneficial use.
1.2 Georgetown recruits small to mid -sized commercial/industrial firms from all areas of
the production process (i.e., research and development, assembly, production,
distribution, warehousing, and retailing).
1.3 The City, the Georgetown Industrial Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce and local
business and industry work together to promote an aggressive commercial/industrial
retention and expansion program.
1.4 Georgetown attracts spinoff companies from major employers in the region.
1.5 Georgetown minimizes the number of employees it exports to surrounding labor
markets.
1.6 The City seeks funding resources to assist in training or retraining of the local labor
pool.
1.7 The City provides financial and nonfinancial incentives to promote economic
development.
M
1.8 The downtown is an economically viable component of the retail and business
community.
1.9 All citizens actively participate in local trade and commerce.
1.10 The City actively cooperates with merchants and business associations to promote trade
and commerce within the local community.
1.11 The tourism industry in Georgetown is developed and promoted, while preserving the
community's small-town charm.
EDUCATION
2.0 Diverse and comprehensive educational opportunities are available through public
and private cooperative efforts.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ii
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
3.0 The physical qualities that make Georgetown attractive are protected.
3.1 Georgetown's water resources system provides a sufficient water supply of high quality
to meet future City needs, to meet economic development and recreational
requirements, and to conserve wildlife.
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
4.0 The City provides for the safety of its citizens and supports the responsive delivery
of coordinated services by the City and other public agencies.
4.1 The City centralizes and co -locates services on existing City -owned property whenever
possible.
4.2 The City has a high level of employee satisfaction and retention.
4.3 Georgetown Public Library's information and collections are accessible to all citizens.
4.4 The Georgetown Public Library has a collection development budget which equals the
national per capita for library expenditures in a comparable population category.
4.5 The Georgetown Public Library's resources are expanded through partnerships with a
variety of organizations, including non-profit, corporations, governments, schools and
community groups.
4.6 The City meets the needs of internal and external customers through innovative
acquisition and use of information resources.
4.7 There is trust and harmony between the City's public safety providers and all segments
of the community. "
4.8 Georgetown is effective at resolving issues related to crime, disorder and fear of crime.
4.9 Georgetown's fire protection is adequate and equitable throughout the City.
4.10 Georgetown is prepared to respond to large scale natural and technological
emergencies.
4.11 Public safety services are provided to adjacent areas outside of the City limits through
contractual agreements with other government organizations, ensuring equitable and
efficient coordination of services.
4.12 Public safety services have a high level of citizen and volunteer involvement.
4.13 The City is safe from animal threat, provides attractive and humane animal
accommodations, and encourages the adoption of animals.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
iii
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
FINANCE
5.0 All municipal operations are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and
sufficient financial resources for both short-term and long-term needs are
provided.
5.1 Each utility system is a self -supported operation that provides a desirable and affordable
level of service.
5.2 The City investigates the privatization of each City operation, as appropriate.
5.3 The City's utility rates are competitive with surrounding communities and with the
statewide and national averages for comparable utility systems.
5.4 The tax rate is reasonable and fair and does not hinder economic development.
5.5 The City has a method for funding street and streetscape improvements.
5.6 The City pursues all federal and state grant programs which would benefit the City.
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
6.0 A high level of cooperation and involvement exists among Georgetown's citizens
and governmental organizations.
6.1 All citizens actively participate in governmental functions.
6.2 The City develops and coordinates service delivery policies with Williamson County,
the Georgetown Independent School District and other organizations that provide
services to Georgetown.
6.3 The City is a strong and visible participant in developing comprehensive solutions to
issues of concern on a regional level.
GROWTH AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
7.0 Georgetown's land uses support economic, cultural and social activities for all
residents, businesses and organizations; and the City's development process
encourages new and infill development.
7.1 The City's regulations implement the Policy Ends and provide the opportunity to seek
change with reasonable effort and expense.
7.2 Annexation procedures and standards benefit the community.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
8.0 Comprehensive, affordable health and human services are available through public
and private organizations.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
iv
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
9.0 Prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources are preserved, protected and
promoted.
HOUSING
10.0 The City cooperates with builders, developers and property owners to provide safe
and adequate housing opportunities for all citizens.
RECREATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
11.0 All citizens actively participate in community -wide social, cultural, and
recreational activities.
11.1 The City maintains and upgrades existing parks and constructs new parks through a
diversified funding and acquisition program.
11.2 The City's park facilities and recreational programs meet the leisure needs of citizens.
11.3 Georgetown has an attractive and coordinated system of hike and bike trails.
11.4 The City has recreational programs targeting those who are physically or otherwise
challenged.
11.5 The City has an ongoing process for recreational needs assessment and program
evaluation.
11.6 The City has in-house capability in horticulture.
11.7 The City encourages the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue to make Lake
Georgetown water and land resources available to the community and to be responsive
to the community's expanding and changing needs.
11.8 The City has greenbelts along the tributaries (e.g. Smith Branch, Pecan Branch, and
Berry Creek) that feed into the San Gabriel River.
11.9 The City has joint venture development and use agreements with other recreational
providers for existing facilities and/or for future development.
TRANSPORTATION
12.0 Georgetown's transportation system provides for the safe and efficient movement
of traffic, promotes the economic interests of the community, and adequately
serves the needs of individuals.
12.1 The City maintains a Transportation Functional Plan that includes all modes of
transportation.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
►iA
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
12.2 The City supports an area -wide transportation effort through coordination with other
public and private organizations.
12.3 The City has sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the City, especially around and
between schools and parks.
12.4 The City supports private transportation services in the community.
12.5 The City has continuous frontage roads along Interstate Highway 35 through
Georgetown.
12.6 The Georgetown Municipal Airport is an integral part of the transportation system and
business activity of the community.
12.7 There is direct public access to the area east and west of the Georgetown Municipal
Airport runways.
URBAN DESIGN
13.0 Georgetown has a positive, identifiable image and an attractive appearance.
UTILITIES / ENERGY
14.0 Georgetown's utility systems provide safe and reliable service which meets the
needs of all citizens and promotes the economic health of the community.
14.1 Customers of the City's electric utility have a range of choices with respect to rates,
service levels and power supply options.
14.2 Water and wastewater services exceed state and federal standards and are provided to a
all certified areas.
14.3 The stormwater drainage system efficiently and effectively protects the health and
safety of Georgetown's residents and minimizes the negative effects of standing water
and urban runoff.
14.4 The City uses available and emerging alternative energy sources when beneficial.
14.5 The City's utility policies and practices promote and encourage the protection and
conservation of Georgetown's environment and natural resources.
14.6 Franchised utilities provide adequate services for all citizens.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Vl
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
10-7 ! =I- �
The purpose of this Century Plan element is to provide a policy direction for the
provision of facilities and services by the City of Georgetown. Having been
completed by a citizen working group appointed by the City Council to be
representative of the community at large, this plan element will ensure that the
decisions made to build or acquire new facilities and provide additional services to
Georgetown's citizens will be based upon the needs expressed by the community.
Decisions made by the City Council to implement the policy directions set forth in this
plan will be based upon the City's needs and financing capabilities and will be
reflected in subsequent Annual Operating Plan Elements for future fiscal years.
In August 1995, the City of Georgetown contracted with the LBJ School of Public
Affairs and the Community and Regional Planning Program at the University of Texas
at Austin to conduct a comprehensive survey of Georgetown's capital facilities and
services and assist a citizen working group in producing the Facilities and Services
Plan Element of the Georgetown Century Plan. In December 1995, the UT -Austin
project team completed the Georgetown Capital Facilities and Services Base Study.
The citizen working group was formed in February 1996 and met on a regular basis
until the draft plan was presented to the City Council on May 28, 1996.
The Facilities and Services Plan Element is one of the comprehensive plan
elements contained in the City Charter amendment approved by the citizens of
Georgetown in 1986. The City Council directed the completion of this plan element
in time for consideration during their budget retreat for the 1996-97 fiscal year. With
the rapid residential growth being experienced both within the City and in the
surrounding area served by the City, exemplified by the decision by the Del Webb
Corporation to locate a new Sun City active -adult retirement community in
Georgetown, the Council was provided with additional incentive to complete this plan
element. Located in Williamson County, one of the fastest growing areas of the state,
Georgetown can expect not only almost 20,000 new residents in Sun City, but
thousands of additional residents attracted by the economic growth the new
development will certainly fuel. By 2015, Georgetown can expect to have a
population of 51,000 to 58,000 within its city limits.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 1
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Relationship- to Other
Century Plan Elements
The text of this document is divided into four sections: CITY ADMINISTRATION,
PUBLIC SAFETY, OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES, and COMMUNITY SERVICES. CITY
ADMINISTRATION and PUBLIC SAFETY are the essential sections of the Facilities and
Services Plan. These deal with the basic City services that are not discussed in detail
in any other Century Plan element, including administration, human resources, the
library and other information resources, animal control, and police, fire, and
emergency management.
The other two sections of the Plan, OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES and COMMUNITY
SERVICES, provide direction on how the provision of service for different City
functions should be improved and coordinated. While the technical aspects of these
functions are covered by other policy areas in the Century Plan, the discussion in this
Plan centers on service delivery. Included are: housing, health and human services,
intergovernmental communication, utility services, the Georgetown Municipal Airport,
and the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 2
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
City Administration is defined as those daily operations of city government which
are necessary for the City to function as a cohesive unit. This includes primarily the
office functions of the City in a variety of areas, including human resources, legal,
library and information resources, animal control and management services. While
these divisions have a public responsibility, they also have a commitment to the
efficient operation of government duties which are not visible to many citizens. The
City of Georgetown is committed to customer service through its many interactions
with the public; nevertheless, customer service also requires commitment from
employees who work behind the scenes.
The ability of any city to serve the needs of its citizens depends upon the quality
of interaction between city officials, including municipal employees, and the general
public. The forums for interaction most often occur in public buildings where citizens
and city employees meet. As described in the 1996 Capital Facilities and Services
Base Study, Georgetown is beginning to experience a shortage of office and storage
space. A survey of different city divisions identified the lack of office space and
storage space as the biggest problem facing Georgetown's administrative complex.
To maintain its currently high level of customer service, the city must respond to
Georgetown's growing and changing population. With a higher population,
Georgetown will likely need more employees and more office space. Currently, the
City has seventy employees in City Administration, a ratio of 1 administration
employee for every 268 residents. In order to maintain this ratio with the City's
current growth rate, additional employees must be added. Furthermore, considering
the office space needs per employee, currently about 200 square feet each, any
increase in employees signifies a corresponding increase in office space.
The discussion of future needs only begins with new employees and new office
space. Each division connected to City Administration will have individual needs
related to their customer service functions. Such needs are addressed through the
recommendations contained in this Plan. A final point in considering the importance
of city administration in Georgetown is the role of the government complex for the
continued vitality of downtown Georgetown. Many city employees are located in a
number of buildings on or near the historic downtown square, which is the center of
activity for the entire city. All plans relating to future office construction must be
cognizant of this relationship.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 3
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Coordinated Service Delivery
Policy End 4.0
THE CITY PROVIDES FOR THE SAFETY OF ITS CITIZENS AND
SUPPORTS THE RESPONSIVE DELIVERY OF COORDINATED SERVICES
BY THE CITY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES.
The City must meet demands for facilities and services using projected growth
figures as a guide. The possibility of subcontracting for services in high demand areas
such as building inspection, should be investigated. Other areas where personnel are
most needed to meet current and projected demand are:
• A second shift to the Vehicle Service Center to reduce down time for
vehicles.
• One full-time mechanic to the Vehicle Service Center.
• One full-time position to the City Warehouse staff.
• One full-time position to the Employee and Organizational Services
division, with proficiency in computer automated systems.
• One full-time position in the Community Services department strictly
for GIS analysis.
• One full-time position in the Finance Department to handle development
fees in the Utility Services satellite center.
• Include one employee trained in historic preservation.
Focus End 4.1
THE CITY CENTRALIZES AND CO -LOCATES SERVICES ON EXISTING CITY -
OWNED PROPERTY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. ..
Centralized locations of City offices assist citizens in doing business with the City.
Provision of public parking with access to City facilities is a key issue in the delivery
of excellent customer service. Co -locating related functions assists not only the
external customers citizens and others who do business with the City, but the internal
customers as well, City employees who need to coordinate with other City employees
to get their jobs done.
Specific areas where centralized offices should be considered include the
downtown area, where the City owns several pieces of property. The City should
coordinate with other governmental organizations, such as the County, when
developing or acquiring land in the downtown area. Parking is a concern in the
downtown area and the City should work to assure that adequate parking is available
when City offices are established. Purchase of land in the downtown area, such as the
Heritage Baptist Church property, should be encouraged when it contributes to the
centralization of City offices and the improvement of the parking situation. The
existing City Hall facility should be considered for expansion to additional levels,
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 4
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
including an expanded City Council chambers. Exterior renovations must be
compatible with the historic downtown setting and be reviewed and approved by the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Co -location of City functions should be considered when any new City facilities
are being planned. One example is the need forfacilities facilities west of IH35. A new
vehicle service center in this area, among other functions, is strongly suggested, based
upon the increased development in that area and the distance from the existing vehicle
service center. Satellite customer service centers for a variety of City functions
should also be considered for the area west of IH35. Utility and development services
functions would be among the first services needed in this area, primarily for the
purpose of utility hook-up services.
Another important co -location issue is consideration of a "one -stop" development
processing location, where fees could be collected by representatives of the Finance
Division, questions on utilities could be answered by representatives of the
Community -Owned Utilities Division and general questions answered by
representatives of the Development Services Division. This type of co -location would
serve the customer more efficiently and may make better use of limited City expertise
during peak development activity in the community.
Other suggested co -located facilities include:
• Locate Management Services, Employee and Organizational Services and
the Legal department together, preferably within the renovated City Hall
facility.
• Co -locate the Finance, Records Management, Accounting, Purchasing and
Information Systems departments to realize greatest interdepartmental
efficiency.
• Locate Community Services and Community Owned Utilities near the
Vehicle Service Center and the Equipment Storage facility.
Focus End 4.2
THE CITY HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND
RETENTION.
The Employee and Organizational Services Division reports a higher than
desired level of worker turnover. One reason given by workers who have left
is what they consider overwhelming workloads and related stress. Measures
should be taken to address overall employee job satisfaction in order to
encourage retention of experienced employees. Suggested measures include:
• construction of a municipal parking lot on the existing Heritage
Baptist Church tract; with additional municipal and citizen
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 5
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
demands, the structure could be converted to a multi -level parking
garage, but only if consistent with downtown historic guidelines
• establish an adequate city-wide training facility, which may also be
used by the Police and Fire Services departments for certification
training.
• development of a city -owned child care facility, designed to reduce
employee absenteeism; the facility should be financially self-
supporting, in that fees would be levied for services.
Focus End 4.6
THE CITY MEETS THE NEEDS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS
THROUGH INNOVATIVE ACQUISITION AND USE OF INFORMATION
RESOURCES.
It is essential that the City take advantage of the latest information technology, in
order to encourage interdepartmental communication and information exchange with
citizens. The move toward an "on-line City Hall", replacing paper systems where
appropriate, should be encouraged. The provision of City information in new and
innovative ways, such as automated telephone systems, is one appropriate step in that
direction. In making technological changes, it is important that hardware and software
compatibility is addressed.
Library Services
Focus End 4.3
GEORGETOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY'S INFORMATION AND COLLECTIONS ARE
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL CITIZENS.
The Georgetown Public Library is a valuable resource for the entire community.
Access to the information and collections available at the library by every possible method
must be encouraged. Some of the ways in which access to the library can be increased
include:
• add hours on Sundays and weekdays
• provide a children's librarian in the children's area during all open hours
• increase outreach efforts to citizens with limited mobility and access to
transportation
• provide signs and directional aids for all public service areas
• replace the existing book security system
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 6
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• initiate an aggressive delinquent materials collection program
• implement procedures for pursuing and prosecuting patrons with delinquent
materials
• preserve and extend the useful life of the collection by implementing a
preservation program
• determine the feasibility and appropriateness of a central library expansion and the
potential for auxiliary site access
• develop a popular materials collection that satisfies customer demand
• decrease patron wait -time for materials
• streamline the acquisitions process by upgrading the automated ordering system
• decrease processing and cataloging turn around time
• develop an aggressive publicity program designed to increase the frequency with
which Georgetown citizens use the library
• provide access to the library's catalog, the Internet, and other appropriate on-line
electronic resources.
• increase the number of programs for preschool children and their care -givers
• address regional library needs
Focus End 4.4
THE GEORGETOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY HAS A COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET WHICH EQUALS THE NATIONAL PER CAPITA FOR LIBRARY
EXPENDITURES IN A COMPARABLE POPULATION CATEGORY.
Funding for library acquisitions is essential for the continued viability of the library
as a community resource. All potential sources of funding and other assistance in the
community should be pursued. Suggested methods of increasing the value of the library's
collections include:
• gradually and systematically increase the materials budget over a specified period
of time
• set up a materials acquisition plan to target spending in specific collection areas
• increase the percentage of multimedia materials in the library's collection
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 7
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• expand the funding base for support of library services by establishing user fees
for non-residents based on actual cost of service
• join other public libraries in Williamson County in seeking County government
support
Focus End 4.5
THE GEORGETOWN PUBLIC LIBRARY'S RESOURCES ARE EXPANDED
THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS WITH A VARIETY OF ORGANIZATIONS,
INCLUDING NON-PROFIT, CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENTS, SCHOOLS AND
COMMUNITY GROUPS.
In addition to pursuing increases in the collection development budget, the library
should also initiate new partnerships with nonprofit agencies, corporate entities,
governmental agencies, schools, community organizations and citizens. Suggested
methods include:
• create a non-profit library foundation
• establish contact with area businesses and industries as potential partners for
library programs
• improve communication with local schools to coordinate resources and collaborate
on projects
• expand the library volunteer program
Animal Control
Focus End 4.13
THE CITY IS SAFE FROM ANIMAL THREAT, PROVIDES ATTRACTIVE AND
HUMANE ANIMAL ACCOMMODATIONS, AND ENCOURAGES THE ADOPTION
OF ANIMALS.
Adequate shelter capacities are necessary to meet the current and future growth of the
animal population in the area. With a growing human population, Georgetown's animal
population is likely to increase accordingly, resulting in the need to upgrade and provide
for additional space. Suggestions for meeting the City's animal control needs include:
• provide specialized housing in adequate numbers for quarantine and disease
control, meeting standards set by the Texas Department of Health
• spay and neuter the animals as necessary for the purpose of animal population
control - The City currently relies on the voluntary efforts of local veterinarians
to spay and neuter stray animals
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 8
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• provide facilities adequate for the sheltering of adoptable animals, including
protection from inclement weather, such as extreme heat and cold
• initiate a placement program to locate new homes, foster care, etc. for adoptable
animals
• cooperate with other cities and organizations in Williamson County who provide
animal services
• establish an official vehicle for communications between animal services, the City
Council and the public at large
• investigate cross -training of police and fire officers for animal control
• consider co -locating animal control facilities - with fire stations
Specific needs in the area of animal control are identified as follows:
Immediate Needs (1-3 years)
- Bring shelter into compliance with new Texas Department of Health standards
on rabies quarantine and disease control;
- Upgrade existing kennels to better protect animals against extreme heat and
cold;
- Increase paid employee -hours from two part-time staff to two full-time staff,
allowing for more patrolling, conducting of public awareness programs and
better customer service in facilitating reclaims and adoptions;
- provide additional storage space for supplies and equipment
Moderate Needs Q-5 years):
- Rebuild shelter, in a more customer -accessible location, with the following
features:
40 plus dog kennels;
35 plus cat cages;
Fully enclosed against weather;
Safe environment for management and control of animals;
Ability to showcase adoptable animals;
Meet projected service needs of increasing population;
Additional staff to include another certified officer and support staff.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 9
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Public safety is a key element in the quality of life of a community. Citizens need
a safe environment to interact. Furthermore, public safety contributes to economic well-
being and can assist in the fulfillment of other elements such as education, development,
parks and recreation, and historic preservation. The Divisions of Police and Fire Services
are the primary providers of public safety. Emergency management is a specific aspect
of public safety services which requires City-wide coordination.
With the growth of a community and the development of new methods and ideas, the
roles of police and fire services change. Today, police responsibilities go beyond merely
arresting individuals and sending them to prison; firefighters do more than fight fires.
The City of Georgetown understands, recognizes, and values the importance of
community policing and multi -function fire services.
The City of Georgetown expects a rapid growth over the next twenty years. Public
safety must keep up with this growth in order to maintain and enhance the high quality
of life that its residents currently enjoy.
Policy End 4.0
THE CITY PROVIDES FOR THE SAFETY OF ITS CITIZENS AND SUPPORTS
THE RESPONSIVE DELIVERY OF COORDINATED SERVICES BY TIM CITY
AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES.
Focus End 4.8
GEORGETOWN IS EFFECTIVE AT RESOLVING ISSUES RELATED TO CRIME,
DISORDER AND FEAR OF CRIME.
Public perception is important in creating a high or low fear of crime in a
community. Suggested actions that should be followed in order to effective resolve
crime -related issues include:
• establish a public safety building for the purposes of housing the administrative
offices for the Police Services and/Fire Services Divisions, including such
components as Fire Station No. 1, the central police station, the
communications system, an emergency operations center, and meeting rooms;
this is considered the highest priority recommendation
• develop service quality measures in order to maintain and continue to improve
service quality
• evaluate the current level of service standards to ensure that all residents
receive police and fire services in a timely and equitable fashion
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 10
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• provide for cooperation between Police Services and Fire Services in their
delivery of public safety services
• maintain a comprehensive and cooperative communications system to be used
for dispatching, information sharing and communications for police, fire and
emergency management
• design public safety facilities to be multi -functional in use and purpose,
allowing for joint use and cooperative sharing of information and resource
• develop and maintain quality police and fire personnel by recruiting qualified
personnel who reflect the diversity of the community
• establish a comprehensive and regional training complex which meets the basic
requirements needed for all types of public safety training, including a driving
track, shooting range, fire tower and a burn lab; complex should be designed
to elevate the prominence of the City of Georgetown in public safety training
and should be multi -functional, available for use by all City employees and
other public and private organizations
Focus End 4.11
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO ADJACENT AREAS OUTSIDE
OF THE CITY LIMITS THROUGH CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER
GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, ENSURING EQUITABLE AND EFFICIENT
COORDINATION OF SERVICES.
Public safety service provision to areas outside of the city limits of Georgetown
is dependent upon agreements with other service. providers. While the City has an
agreement with Williamson County to provide fire services outside of the city limits, the
level of service provided under the terms of this contract is not the same as that provided
to areas- within the city limits. Other public safety services, such as policing, are
provided outside of the city limits only on the request of another jurisdiction. Suggested
methods of increasing the level of public safety service to areas outside of the city limits
include:
• explore alternative methods of service delivery for redressing funding
inadequacies in the city's delivery of fire services to county residents
• determine whether or not to provide supplemental police services to outlying
areas in Williamson County, including a method of financing these services
• honor all contractual obligations regarding the delivery of police, fire, and
emergency management services
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 11
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• construct a public safety facility in Sun City Georgetown which provides for
a third fire station, and includes police services facilities which are linked
electronically to the central police facility
• construct an additional fire station in the northern section of Sun City when
that development reaches the specified level outlined in the Del Webb
Development Agreement; also include police services facilities linked
electronically to the central police facility
Focus End 4.7
THERE IS TRUST AND HARMONY BETWEEN THE CITY' S PUBLIC SAFETY
PROVIDERS AND ALL SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
In order to continually improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the City's public
safety services, the divisions of police and fire services must continue to move beyond
the traditional roles of fire and police protection, so that Georgetown residents receive
progressive public safety services. Recommended of methods of providing this type of
service include:
• fire and police prevention programs are directed towards the effective and efficient
prevention of fires and crime, the reduction of hazard risks, the promotion of
safety, and the understanding of the causes of fires, crime, and other incidents
• promote community -based programs that offer Georgetown's citizens and public
safety personnel (fire and police) the opportunity to work together to solve
community problems, identify service needs; consistently strive to develop and
maintain positive relationships with the public
• suppress fires and crime in a comprehensive, timely, and evaluative manner, in
order to ensure that danger, injury, and loss of life and property are minimized
• ensure that fire personnel are sufficiently trained to provide a quick initial
response to medical emergencies of varied :levels; at a minimum, first responders
to emergencies should be trained at the EMT or paramedic level
• provide a comprehensive and coordinated Emergency Management System
designed to reduce the vulnerability of citizens in Georgetown to danger, injury,
and loss of life and property resulting from natural or man-made disasters, civil
unrest, or acts of terrorism
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 12
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Focus End 4.12
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF CITIZEN AND
VOLUNTEER INVOLVEMENT.
The City supports the concept of community -oriented public safety which forms a pro-
active partnership with the community. This cooperative community effort strives to
maximize the utility of all community resources. The City supports the Divisions of
Police and Fire Services' program of increasing opportunities for citizen and volunteer
involvement. The Divisions continuously provide positions for volunteers.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 13
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Housing
o
Housing is one of the fourteen Policy Areas listed in the Century Plan - Policy Plan
Element. A Housing Element, which will provide detailed recommendations on this
Policy Area in Georgetown, is one of the Century Plan Elements to be completed. The
purpose of the recommendations in this section of the Facilities and Services Plan is to
provide some initial information and direction on this issue, until the appropriate Plan
Element is completed.
The Georgetown Housing Authority provides low-income Georgetown residents with
federally assisted housing. The Authority was created in 1965 to address the city's
growing need for low-income and affordable housing. Currently, the Georgetown
Housing Authority provides affordable housing to approximately 310 Georgetown
households. It is estimated that Georgetown has a shortage of 247 units for the city's
lowest income residents. This number may, however, significantly underestimate the
future need for affordable housing in Georgetown. The rising cost of housing in the area
will affect many of the city's current and future residents.
Policy End 10.0
THE CITY COOPERATES WITH BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS TO PROVIDE SAFE AND ADEQUATE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR ALL CITIZENS.
A variety of methods are available for the provision of housing in Georgetown.
Initially, the community must define any affordability ranges that are lacking in the
community and establish a priority of addressing the deficiencies. The Housing Element
of the Century Plan is designed to accomplish this. Actions that can be anticipated as
necessary to address housing needs include:
• assure the livability and improve the quality of existing affordable and public
housing units in Georgetown
conduct a city-wide Comprehensive Housing Affordability Study based on the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's standards
• establish an advisory board to develop an affordable housing strategy for the City,
including, but not limited to, an evaluation of the Georgetown Housing Authority's
performance and an exploration of alternative funding options for the Housing
Authority
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 14
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• pursue public -private partnerships to expand the affordable housing stock in
Georgetown
• develop potential funding and grant sources to improve the housing supply in
Georgetown
Health And Human Serviva
Health and Human Services is one of the fourteen Policy Areas listed in the Century
Plan - Policy Plan Element. A Health and Human Services Element, which will provide
detailed recommendations on this Policy Area in Georgetown, is one of the Century Plan
Elements to be completed. The purpose of the recommendations in this section of the
Facilities and Services Plan is to provide some initial information and direction on this
issue, until the appropriate Plan Element is completed.
Medical, health and human services in Georgetown are provided by several public,
nonprofit, voluntary, and private agencies and a large number of individuals.
Georgetown Hospital is the only full -service hospital facility within the City limits and
it provides 98 beds. The hospital has plans to complete an expansion and renovation of
ambulatory and out -patient services within three years.
The Williamson County & Cities Health District (WCCHD) provides personal health,
environmental, and social services to the residents of Georgetown. Examples of services
include immunizations, prenatal care, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) nutrition
services, communicable disease control, health education and information, referral,
administration of the County Indigent Health Care Program and food service and septic
system inspections. Organized as a health district in 1989 through a cooperative
agreement among Williamson County and the cities of Georgetown, Round Rock, Taylor,
and Cedar Park, WCCHD is overseen by a Board of Health appointed by the member
governments. Georgetown contributed $22,500 in 1995 toward the operation of the
Health District.
The senior population has grown steadily in Georgetown, and by 1990, more than 21
percent of city residents were over 65. With the natural growth of the population of
Georgetown, general demographic trends toward an aging population, and the introduction
of many new Sun City residents, it is anticipated that needs for health care and human
services for an aging population will expand substantially.
Policy End 8.0
COMPREHENSIVE, AFFORDABLE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ARE
AVAILABLE THROUGH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS.
A variety of methods are available for the provision of health and human services
in Georgetown. Initially, the community must determine where deficiencies exist and
establish a priority of addressing them. The Health and Human Services Element of the
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAB
Page 15
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Century Plan is designed to accomplish this. Actions that can be anticipated as necessary
to address health and human services needs include:
• continue to cooperate with service providers to develop innovative and
cost-effective ways of providing health and human services
• cooperate with other organizations and groups (including, but not limited
to, the Georgetown Project and the Health Task Force) to assess the health
and social service needs of the community, including the following issues:
Williamson County & Cities Health District funding
Indigent health care
Homeless services
Mental health services
Chemical dependency treatment
Health education
Children and teen services
Affordable day care
Senior citizens
• designate a liaison position to coordinate the provision of services to senior
citizens
Intergovernmental Communication
Governmental Affairs is one of the fourteen Policy Areas listed in the Century
Plan - Policy Plan Element. A Citizen Participation Plan Element, which will provide
detailed recommendations on this Policy Area in Georgetown, is one of the Century Plan
Elements to be completed. The purpose of the recommendations in this section of the
Facilities and Services Plan is to provide some initial information and direction on this
issue, until the appropriate Plan Element is completed.
Policy End 6.0
A HIGH LEVEL OF COOPERATION AND INVOLVEMENT EXISTS AMONG
GEORGETOWN' CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.
Focus End 6.2
THE CITY DEVELOPS AND COORDINATES SERVICE DELIVERY POLICIES
WITH WILLIAMSON COUNTY, THE GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE SERVICES TO
GEORGETOWN.
Multiple issues are facing the city that require the coordination of a number of
agencies throughout the city, county, and region. Thus. far, there have been no formal
lines of communication established among the various governmental agencies. With the
expansion of Williamson County services and the Georgetown Independent School District
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 16
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
(GISD) 9 it is imperative to enhance communication efforts among the involved
governmental entities. When making purchases and expansion decisions, the cooperation
of the governmental entities can increase efficiency and improve service provision. An
advisory board made up of representatives from the City, Williamson County and GISD
and others could make recommendations concerning land purchases, expanded facilities,
and coordinated funding. A full-time liaison employed by the City could work with the
other government organizations, as well as nonprofit, voluntary, and private
organizations. This would help the City to coordinate government functions that serve
the entire community of Georgetown. Anticipated results of this coordination may
include reaching a solution to the downtown parking needs and the sharing of meeting
space, training and other facilities.
Focus End 6.3
THE CITY IS A STRONG AND VISIBLE PARTICIPANT IN DEVELOPING
COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS TO ISSUES, OF CONCERN ON A REGIONAL
LEVEL.
The City continues to foster relationships with area cities to facilitate the solving
of common problems and concerns. This is imperative to develop comprehensive
solutions to address a variety of intergovernmental issues such as: regional water,
wastewater and transportation problems, and for appropriate representation of the region
before the state legislature.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 17
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Utilities, Airport, and Economic Development are three of the fourteen Policy
Areas listed in the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element. The Utilities Element, detailing
the technical functions of the Community -Owned Utilities Division, is a component of the
Development Plan, completed in 1990. The Airport Plan Element is currently being
completed by a Century Plan Working Group. The Economic Development Strategic
Plan, containing policy direction for tourism, was originally completed in 1989 and
revised in 1993. The purpose of the recommendations on Community -Owned Utilities and
the Convention and Visitors Bureau in this section of the Facilities and Services Plan is
to provide some additional information and direction in the area of customer service and
facilities in these areas. The recommendations on the Georgetown Municipal Airport are
to provide the Council with recommendations to follow until the Airport Plan Element is
completed.
Community services cover the "customer -related" functions of city government.
These functions include Community -Owned Utilities, the Georgetown Municipal Airport,
and the Convention and Visitor's Bureau. The city's expected growth will place new
pressures on the provisions of these services.
Community Owned Utiliti%F
es
Policy End 14.0
GEORGETOWN' S UTILITY SYSTEMS PROVIDE SAFE AND RELIABLE
SERVICE WHICH MEETS THE NEEDS OF ,ALL CITIZENS AND PROMOTES
THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY.
With changing market conditions and emerging technologies, the City should
consider making changes in the way it does business in order to continue to meet the
needs of its citizens. One area where market conditions are changing rapidly is
telecommunications. With both the state of Texas and the federal government
deregulating the telecommunications market, there may be an opportunity to provide
these services to both businesses and residents at a lower cost than the current providers.
This would enable the City to attract business, provide superior telecommunications
services to its citizens, and produce revenue for the City.
Focus End 14.1
CUSTOMERS OF THE CITY' S ELECTRIC UTILITY HAVE A RANGE OF CHOICES
WITH RESPECT TO RATES, SERVICE LEVELS AND POWER SUPPLY OPTIONS.
The City should insure that it's electric utility remains competitive as electric utilities are
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 18
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
deregulated. As the City's utility service competes with other providers, the City must
insure that both customer satisfaction and efficiency remain high. In order to maintain
customer satisfaction and efficiency, the following recommendations should be
considered:
• provide effective and innovative administrative utility management
• relocate the administrative offices for Community Owned Utilities to a
building that is adequate to ensure effective and efficient utility services;
these offices must remain in close proximity to utility superintendents,
maintenance and operations in case of utility emergencies
• provide satellite staging areas for fuel, parts and equipment, co -locating
with utility -related or other city -owned land where possible
Policy End 3.0
THE PHYSICAL QUALITIES THAT MAKE GEORGETOWN ATTRACTIVE ARE
PROTECTED.
Focus End 3.1
GEORGETOWN'S WATER RESOURCES SYSTEM PROVIDES A SUFFICIENT
WATER SUPPLY OF HIGH QUALITY TO MEET FUTURE CITY NEEDS, TO
MEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
AND TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE.
One of Georgetown's most important and attractive natural resource is the San
Gabriel River. As a drinking water source for the community, as well as a habitat for
wildlife, the river's water quality must be protected. The City's wastewater treatment
plants should be built and operated so as to provide maximum protection for the San
Gabriel River and its tributaries. If shown to be necessary by studies conducted under
the auspices of the Brazos River Authority, these plants must be upgraded to reduce
nutrients and pollutants released.
Focus End 14.3
THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY
PROTECTS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF GEORGETOWN' S RESIDENTS AND
MINIMIZES THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF STANDING WATER AND URBAN
RUNOFF.
The City should do everything within its authority to assure that the planning and
construction of roads, parking lots, and other projects that create impervious cover, as
well as storm water drainage and other infrastructure projects, are completed in a manner
that provides maximum protection to the water quality of the San Gabriel River and its
tributaries.
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 19
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
Focus End 14.5
THE CITY' S UTILITY POLICIES AND PRACTICES PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE
THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF GEORGETOWN' S ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
The Community -Owned Utilities Division should consider the following
recommendations to achieve this End:
• initiate programs that conserve water and energy, thereby delaying the
need for costly new water treatment plants and new energy production
• promote the use of phosphate -free detergents and cleaning agents, if
studies identify them as a significant issue in the water quality of the San
Gabriel River downstream of the City's wastewater plants
• initiate programs to educate the community about the need to prevent non -
point source pollution from yard and street runoff, especially those
neighborhoods where storm water runoff drains into the San Gabriel River
and its tributaries
• provide for the protection of trees and significant geographical and
historical features in the completion of capital improvement projects
Georizetown Municipal, Airport
Policy End 12.0
GEORGETOWN'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROVIDES FOR THE SAFE
w
AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC, PROMOTES THE ECONOMIC
INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND ADEQUATELY SERVES THE NEEDS
OF INDIVIDUALS.
Focus End 12.6
THE GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT: IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
With the growth of the City's population, the City should maintain services at the
airport necessary to meet increasing demands. Enhanced services should be considered,
especially when they will generate revenue.
Focus End 12.7
THERE IS DIRECT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE AREA EAST AND WEST OF THE
GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAYS.
A large undeveloped portion of the airport property directly to the west of the
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 20
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
runways presently has no direct access to a public roadway. This property, which has
many potential public uses, would be greatly enhanced by the provision of access.
Convention and Visitors Bureau
The Convention and Visitors Bureau has been in existence since 1988 and is
entirely funded by the local hotel/motel occupancy tax. According to House Bill 123, the
Convention and Visitors Bureau must spend these funds only to directly enhance and
promote tourism, the convention and hotel industry, the arts and historic preservation.
In 1993, the hotel/motel occupancy tax generated $225,000 for this purpose. The
Texas Department of Commerce estimates that the economic impact of tourism in
Williamson County in 1993 to be $46 million in tourism expenditures and $8.9 million
in tourism -related payroll.
The Convention and Visitors Bureau serves two primary functions: First, to
promote Georgetown as a destination for tourists, leisure travelers, and the group
motorcoach industry; and second, to promote the city of Georgetown as a desirable
location for small and medium size conventions and meetings.
Policy End 1.0
GEORGETOWN'S ECONOMY IS SELF SUSTAINING THROUGH DIVERSIFIED
GROWTH, A BROAD TAX BASE WITH MINIMAL IMPACT FROM
ECONOMIC FLUCTUATION, ENHANCED BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND JOB
CREATION.
Focus End 1.11
THE TOURISM INDUSTRY IN GEORGETOWN IS DEVELOPED AND PROMOTED,
WHILE PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY'S SMALL-TOWN CHARM.
Georgetown is attractive to tourists largely due to it's unique and historic
downtown, historic neighborhoods, attractive park and recreational opportunities, and
cultural and social opportunities. The Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) serves to
promote tourism to Georgetown, in part by providing over 10,000 goodie bags, mailers,
and 50,000 pieces of information per year. In order to insure the continued success of
the CVB, the following recommendations should be considered:
• ensure that the convention and visitors bureau has sufficient expertise and
personnel to allow for proper administration and execution of convention
and tourism programming, and is responsive to community needs and
desires of the community
• with increasing hotel/motel tax revenues, consider adding a full-time
administrative assistant and a visitor center coordinator
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 21
GEORGETOWN CENTURY PLAN - FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN
• using funding provided by . the hotel/motel tax, provide the CVB with
adequate office space to provide for administrative functions as well as
small meetings; this space should ideally be located in the downtown area,
on or in close proximity to the downtown square, and co -located with the
Visitor Center, the Georgetown Heritage Society, the Georgetown
Industrial Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce
• create an auxiliary Visitor Center at an affordable and highly visible
highway location
• meet broad consumer needs by attracting additional hotels, motels and
other services designed to serve medium and small conventions and
meetings
REVISED PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Page 22
Council Meeting Date: Augur 27, 1996 Item No.
-4<---
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Public hearing on 1996/97 Annual Operating Plan as proposed by the City Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY
The proposed 1996/97 Annual Operating Plan document will be available for public review at the Public Library,
located at 808 Martin Luther King, City Hall located at 609 Main or Finance Director's Office located at 113
E. 8th Street.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FINANCIAL IMPACT
COMMENTS
ATTACHMENTS
Letter to Council
Submitted By:
Susan L. Morgan, Director of Finance and Administration
GCITY OF
an)rggtown
August 19, 1996
Dear Mayor and Council,
INTRODUCTION
The budget (Annual Operating Plan Element of the Georgetown Century Plan) is the most
important document which you guide and approve during the year. Your direction is the basis for
not only the allocation of the City's financial resources, but also of staff time and efforts. Your
priorities and discussions during the retreat this year were excellent, and this budget reflects the
ends that you established and fulfills the City of Georgetown's mission statement.
The Mission of the City of Georgetown is to initiate action which will preserve and
enhance the quality of life and Georgetown's unique character by preparing for the
future through the:
Preservation of Georgetown's rich heritage and natural
resources;
Promotion of well -planned development, cost-effective
professional management and competent, friendly services;
and
Protection of its citizens, the environment and all other
assets.
Immediately following the retreat, the results were tabulated and shared with each division during
a series of one-on-one meetings. Departments prepared their budgets based on the Council's
areas of emphasis. Divisional budget requests were then compiled, ranked and reduced to
present a balanced recommended Annual Operating Plan Element.
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The proposed 1996/97 Annual Operating Plan totals $65.9 million for all funds. Approximately
$49.7 million is for continued operations, debt service and interfund charges/transfers; and $16.2
million is for capital improvements. The General Fund, which accounts for basic tax supported
services, totals about $10.8 million, an increase of 10.4% over 1995/96. This increase mirrors the
10% growth in utility customers over the past year.
In response to your direction, only a slight tax rate increase is proposed. The proposed tax rate
of $0.3785 represents a tax rate increase of 2.9%. This proposed increase is very modest in light
of anticipated electric deregulation. Total taxable property for the City has risen 20.1 %, primarily
from new property and annexations. Even with a significant growth in the tax base, and a
proposed tax increase, the City will receive only slightly more tax revenue for general services and
CITY HALL • 609 MAIN STREET
POST OFFICE Box 409 0 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627-0409 0 51 2/930-3651 9 TDD 51 2/930-3549 • FAX: 51 2/930-3659
operations than it received in 1988/89, with no adjustments for inflation. The overall value of
existing property in Georgetown increased a modest 2.7%. The timing of street construction and
debt has been planned to give the citizens a more gradual rise in tax rates over the next few years
instead of one or two large tax hikes.
The debt issuances in this proposed budget are $1.6 million for the Sun City Fire Station
construction and purchase of public safety facility land, $2.9 million for street projects (both
1995/96 and 1996/97 projects), and $4.1 million for the Customer Choice & Control (CCC) system.
The CCC project is the only utility system revenue debt proposed in 1996/97. The general
obligation debt issuances proposed in 1996/97 will result in an estimated 7% tax increase, or 2.6
cents, in 1997/98.
The Water, Wastewater, and Electric Funds remain in good condition. Their financial stability will
enable us to meet service demands in changing regulatory environments without an increase in
base rates. There have been no water, wastewater or electric rate increases since 1991/92.
A significant accomplishment in the proposed budget is that the Sanitation Fund will be self
supporting for the first time. This will be accomplished through the elimination of the free 3-yard
per month disposal at the Collection Station. The monthly bulky waste pickup already provides a
similar service and will continue to be provided without additional charge. The Stormwater
Drainage Fund, however, continues to operate at a substantial deficit.
The General Fund will have a substantial, but diminished, deficit. In 1996/97, the General Fund
will require a "what it takes to balance" transfer of $1.8 million. The transfer is 16.3% of budgeted
expenditures, compared to 1995/96, where it was $2.3 million or 24.1 % of budgeted expenditures.
The 1997/98 opening of the Sun City Fire Station, and other additions required to keep up with
growth, will cause an increase in the transfer next year.
KEY ISSUES
At the annual retreat, you ranked the fourteen policy areas according to importance for the
upcoming year. The highest ranked areas were Transportation and Utilities/Energy. The proposed
operating budget is a direct reflection of your priorities. The following summarizes the means by
which staff intends to accomplish your visionary ends for the City of Georgetown.
Transportation
PolicyEnd: Georgetown's transportation system provides for the safe and efficient movement of
traffic, promotes the economic interests of the community, and adequately serves the needs of
individuals.
Means for Accomplishment
The Council chose transportation as the most important issue facing Georgetown in the, upcoming
year. The proposed budget provides significant funds for projects to meet transportation needs.
Traffic congestion clearly shows the impact of growth in any community. With the growth that is
occurring in Georgetown now, traffic volume and flow are of chief concern. This budget continues
the City's proactive approach to transportation planning. The budget proposes $2.7 million in new
street improvement projects for 1996/97 including:
1996197 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page ii of xii
• Construction of Northwest Boulevard to Serenada._ Drive,
• Widening of Lakeway Drive from Williams Drive to Lonesome Trail,
• Widening of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Vortac,
• Improvement of 22nd Street at Leander Road (Texas Capital Fund grant),
• Widening of San Jose Street at 22nd Street,
• Realignment of San Jose Street at Holly Street, and
• Rebuilding of 15th Street from Maple Street to Church Street.
Road improvements started during 1995/96 that will be completed in 1996/97 are the
• Construction of Northwest Boulevard to Lakeway Drive to be completed
October 1996,
• Construction of Quail Valley from F.M. 1460 to Maple Street to be
completed October 1996,
• Rebuilding of Country Club Road to the San Gabriel River to be completed
in Spring 1997,
• Rebuilding of 15th Street from Hutto Road to Maple Street, and
• Construction of Railroad Street to be completed in Spring 1997.
In addition to the above street improvements, numerous other proposals are included in this
proposed budget.
• A Rapid Response Team for the Street Department is proposed. This two -person crew will
respond immediately to emergency calls and minor service requests, including pot hole
repairs, graffiti cleaning, dead animal removals from roads, etc. Crews working on larger
projects will not be interrupted for these trouble calls. This response team will significantly
enhance the City's attention to the "customer" while allowing larger "ownership" projects
to progress with fewer interruptions or distractions.
• The extension of Leander Road from Austin Avenue to Farm to Market 1460 will begin in
1996/97. The City's cost for this project, $700,000 for right-of-way purchases, is also
included in the Annual Operating Plan. The "flipping" of Interstate Highway 35 ramps
around Williams Drive, the City's share of a bridge below the Lake Georgetown dam and
the Rivery bridge across the North San Gabriel River are included in the five year capital
improvement program (CIP) schedule.
• This is year three of the Council's five year plan to increase the property tax revenues
dedicated to streets. The proposed budget allocates four cents of property tax revenues
(up from 3.3 cents in fiscal year 1995/96), or $253,000, for ongoing street maintenance,
repair and construction.. The ultimate goal of five cents will be met in 1998/99.
• As part of our ongoing efforts to recognize the full cost of maintaining assets, a special
revenue fund (SRF) has been established to pay for the Street Department as well as
infrastructure improvements. All revenue from the dedicated property tax and the franchise
fees paid by utility providers will be spent exclusively on street operations, maintenance;
and improvements. Franchise fees relate to streets in that companies pay a franchise fee
for use of public rights -of -way. The SRF functions like the internal service funds in concept
and scope.
1996197 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page iii of A
Utilities/Energy
Policy End: Georgetown's utility systems provide safe and reliable service which meets the needs
of all citizens and promotes the economic health of the community.
Means for Accomplishment
You identified community utility services as another top priority for 1996/97. Issues include
infrastructure expansions and improvements, energy and resource conservation, and protection
of investments in the face of an approaching deregulated electric market. The proposed budget
includes numerous capital improvements and other projects which meet your priorities.
The major utility capital projects proposed are
Water, Sewer, & Electric Infrastructure Projects for 1996/97
ELECTRIC:
On -going system improvements .
$1,216,390
Sun City Georgetown improvements
854,000
Customer Choice & Control (CCC)
1,850,000
WASTEWATER:
Smith Branch Phase 1
250,000
Hart Street Phase 1
150,000
Oakcrest Rehabilitation
165,000
North 81 Wastewater Line
160,000
Wastewater Capital Projects
50,000
Customer Choice & Control (CCC)
375,000
Williams Drive Wastewater Line
400,000
River Study: TNRCC required
12,000
Edwards Aquifer I&I: TNRCC required
50,000
Pecan Branch WWTP Permitting
34000
Pecan Branch Interceptor Phase 2 (planning & easements)
150,000
WATER:
Austin Avenue (12th to 17th replace lines)
125,000
West Loop/Oakcrest Connect
584,000
Water Capital Projects
50,000
Customer Choice & Control (CCC)
1,485,000
Southside Tank painting
50000
'
Lake Water Plant Retrofit
1,350,000
4th Pump - Sun City Georgetown
161,000
1996/97 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page iv of xii
Customer Choice & Control (CCC). The CCC project is the City's fixed, wireless network and
is critical to the City's competitive electric strategy, the water conservation strategy and to
improving the quality of services provided to Georgetown. The first phase of CCC, to be
implemented during 1996/97, consists of the automated electric and water meter reading system,
and the electronic control and scanning system (System Control and Data Acquisition or SCADA)
for the City's electric and major water and wastewater infrastructure. The $4.1 million cost is
allocated among Electric, Water and Wastewater CIP and will be funded with utility system
revenue debt. The City will implement time of use rates by April 1, 1998. The new rates and
system provide tremendous ability to manage the efficiency of the electric system and reduce peak
electric and water demands. The next phases of the system will allow quality of life services such
as home security and fire alert systems.
Water. The proposed 1996/97 budget includes $3.8 million in water projects. Retrofitting for the
Lake Water Treatment Plant will expand rated capacity from 5.2 to 7.5 million gallons per day. The
City also proposes to replace a line on Austin Avenue from 12th to 17th Streets and will construct
the West Loop water line from DB Wood Road to Williams Drive. The latter project will tie
Oakcrest to the City's system and will eliminate that neighborhood's low water pressure.
The extensive water conservation education campaign, started this summer, will continue in
1996/97. The next phase of the campaign to reduce our peak water demands is to implement
conservation rates for residential customers with high usage. Our current in -city rate of
$1.95/1,000 gallons would be increased as consumption increases. A sample of proposed rates,
effective May - September only, is outlined below.
Less than 20,000 gallons - $1.95/1,000 (no change)
More than 20,000 gallons - 2.30/1,000
More than 40,000 gallons - 2.80/1,000
More than 60,000 gallons - 4.50/1,000
The rates will be adjusted proportionally for out of city residential customers. The higher rates
should discourage excessive water usage as well as shift the financial burden of expanding the
water treatment plants to customers with higher usage.
Another high Council priority is to secure adequate water supply for the future. The budget
includes $210,000 to purchase rights to an additional 10,000 acre feet of water from the Brazos
River Authority. This purchase will nearly double our current supply, bringing our total water supply
to 22,173 acre feet. This level will meet Georgetown's water supply needs through 2038.
Wastewater. The proposed 1996/97 budget includes $1.8 million in wastewater projects. Projects
include the extension of sewer lines out Williams Drive and the planning, permitting and
engineering work for Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant to be built in 1997/98. The
proposed budget also includes the reconstruction of wastewater collection lines along Hart Street
and in the Oakcrest area.
Electricity. Electrical deregulation has been discussed and debated for some time, but no specific
time frame was ever mentioned. This summer, however, U.S. Congressman Schaefer introduced
a bill calling for electric deregulation to take effect on December 15, 2000. Electric wheeling will
force power suppliers to compete for customers. Georgetown, having already anticipated such
1996/97 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page v of xii
a law, is well positioned to compete. Implementation of the CCC system, reduction of General
Fund transfers and other strategies should give the City of Georgetown a competitive edge. The
Texas Public Power Association's 1996 Annual Conference focused on strategic changes needed
for distribution systems. Some of these changes, intending to allow systems to not only survive
but to thrive, are
1. "Know your competitors and stay ahead of them." Georgetown closely monitors not
only Texas Utilities, but also other investor owned utilities.
2. "Stop protecting dividends." The City has greatly reduced its General Fund
transfers from the electric system.
3. "Act quickly, don't just react."
4. "Stop selling electricity, invest in technology and new products, and start selling
entertainment, comfort, security, safety, and reliability." Georgetown sells quality
of life. The new CCCnetwork will eventually give the City fire alarms, home
security systems and otheNservices.
5. "Announce a retail choice program so you can set the pace of change." This, like
the above two, is directly addressed by the City's CCC system.
6. "Get on with unbundling of rates." The City will have to calculate and monitor the
different components of its distribution system costs. The costs include distribution
operations and maintenance, retail wheeling and purchased power.
7. "Radicalize your marketing organization and put it in the center of your corporate
organization."
In addition to actively pursuing these strategies, the budget includes three additional electric
lineman/groundsman to keep up with the expansion of the City's electric system. By September
1996, the City will have 10,"000 electric customers. This is a 22% increase from two years ago.
The proposed budget truly satisfies the key issues you identified at the retreat. In terms of
transportation issues, the City is no longer reacting to problems but is strategically planning for
future traffic flow. In terms of utilities, the proposed budget includes numerous steps to secure
adequate water supply, treatment capacity, and load management. It further positions the City to
thrive in a deregulated electric market.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
While the top issues received a special focus, all Policy Ends have been addressed in varying
degrees, as directed at your June retreat. The community's rapid growth continues to dominate
the budget proposal. The following pages highlight the Means that staff recommends to
accomplish the Policy Ends during 1996/97.
1996/97 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page vi of xii
Facilities & Services
Policy End: The City provides for the safety of its citizens and supports the responsive delivery of
coordinated services by the City and other public agencies.
Means for Accomplishment
Fire Services. The proposed budget includes issuing debt for the construction of a fire/EMS
station in Sun City. SIP fees paid by Del Webb will be used to purchase the additional fire pumper
truck for the station. The station, while primarily functioning as a fire station, will provide a variety
of city services. Citizens will be able to pay utility bills, file police reports, volunteer for programs,
or talk with a city inspector at the same facility. The proposed budget includes four additional
firefighters to meet current service demands. Additional firefighters will be needed in 1997/98 to
staff the new station.
Police Services. Significant additional resources are included to maintain the City's commitment
to community oriented policing. The growth will soon require the creation of a fourth patrol district.
The addition of three new officers in 1996/97 is the first half of a plan to implement the new district
in 1997/98. The budget also includes a K-9 officer. Having this officer will greatly enhance
relations with the community and especially with the youth. Continuing the City's commitment to
a drug free community, the budget includes new equipment to increase the effectiveness of two
drug enforcement officers, transferred from Patrol Services and replaced with funds received
through the federal COPS Program. Two additional communications officers are needed to
maintain sufficient dispatch support and provide a minimum staffing level.
Public Safety. The 1996/97 budget includes a needs assessment for a new public safety facility
and the acquisition of land for the site. This facility, which is included in the new Facilities &
Services Functional Plan, is planned for 1998/99. Both Fire and Police will benefit significantly
from the purchase and initial implementation of a new public safety software system. The budget
includes $260,000 for the first phase of the public safety software.
Employee & Organizational Services. The commitment to the "pay for performance" system is
continued in the proposed budget with funds set aside for employee merit increases. The market
adjustments done in 1995/96 have greatly increased our ability to recruit and retain quality staff.
Maintaining high quality city employees and minimizing turnover are critical to our ability to keep
our customer service level adequate and meet the demands of rapid growth.
Public Library. Four additional part-time personnel and one part-time to full-time upgrade for the
Public Library are included. The new staff will improve library service by allowing day and evening
shifts, quicker turn around on books and more front line service to patrons. The budget has
approximately $48,000 for numerous improvements to the facility and software, including window
tinting, shelving, and equipment upgrades. Also, the budget for new library books has been
increased by 25% to $71,000. Similar increases over the next four years should bring the Library
up to the national standard for books per capita.
Information Resources. The City will continue to upgrade and expand its information resources
and systems. The City computer network that will link all city buildings is expected to be complete
by Fall 1996. This will enhance productivity and customer service. Significant funds and staff
resources will be placed on the City's planning and Geographic Information System (GIS)
1996/97 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page vii of xii
databases. These projects are key to the new redesigned development process included in this
budget. The public safety software system and replacement of parks and recreation software are
also planned.
Finance
Policy End: All municipal operations are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and
sufficient financial resources for both short-term and long-term needs are provided.
Means for Accomplishment
Staff will continue to plan for future growth and to time project construction and related debt
issuances to minimize tax and rate increases. The 1996/97 budget includes a 'What it takes to
balance" transfer out from the Electric Fund of less than,$1 million, compared to more than $2
million in 1993/94. The General Fund continues to require large subsidies from the utility funds,
but rising sales tax receipts and new property have helped to offset some of the needs. The
greatest challenges facing the City will be expanding and maintaining roadways without large tax
increases and delaying construction of both the next major water plant expansion and the raw
water supply line from Lake Stillhouse Hollow.
Education
Policy End: Diverse and comprehensive educational opportunities are available through public and
private cooperative efforts.
Means for Accomplishment
The joint automated phone information system shared between the County and the City will be
completed during the year. A grant proposal will be submitted to provide public Internet access
at the Library. Also, staff will support, where appropriate, the Austin Community College Extension
Program at Georgetown Independent School District and the Workforce Development and Smart
Jobs Programs for local businesses.
Environmental & Resource Conservation
Policy End: The physical qualities that make Georgetown attractive are protected.
Means for Accomplishment
An emerging issue that the City will face in the upcoming year deals with personal communication
system (PCS) towers. Responding to the growth in the number of pager, portable phone and car
phone users, and the need to reduce the federal deficit, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has begun auctioning off public airwaves to the highest bidder. By later this year, there
could be numerous companies establishing wireless networks in Texas. The increased
competition is resulting in the proliferation of PCS towers across the nation. Staff is currently
researching the implications for Georgetown and planning the City's approach for accommodating
the PCS providers, while also preserving the aesthetics of the community.
1996197 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page viii of xii
Health and Human Services
Policy End: Comprehensive, affordable health and human services are available through public
and private organizations.
Means for Accomplishment
An exciting and proactive undertaking planned for next year is the Georgetown Project. The
project will close many gaps in the availability of human and social services which help to meet the
needs of children, youth and families. In the past, a sense of community helped to fill those gaps
because, in a small town, people know their neighbor's needs, and individuals step in to help. As
Georgetown grows, that sense of community must be preserved. The Georgetown Project
attempts to coordinate efforts and resources around a common vision and set of community
values. No other community is addressing human services in such a comprehensive and proactive
way. Those involved in the project include the City, the Georgetown Independent School District,
Georgetown Ministerial Alliance, Georgetown Hospital, Southwestern University, the University of
Texas, and local businesses. The City of Georgetown intends to be an active partner in this
coalition and will be the largest single funding source with $70,000 included in the 1996/97 budget.
City divisions will coordinate projects to address issues or concerns highlighted by the efforts of
the Georgetown Project.
In addition to the Georgetown Project, the City will -continue funding other social service providers.
The social services contracts are listed below.
1995/96
A enc
Funded Level
Requested
Proposed
Williamson County & Cities Health District
$221500
$28,800
$22,500
GIVE Board
101000
10,000
10,000
Williamson County Literacy Council
2,500
2,500
2,500
WBCO Crisis Center
101000
10,000
101000
WBCO Nutrition
31000
5,000
5,000
Project Pride
500
500
500
Sertoma Fireworks
4,000
4,000
4,000
Stonehaven
12,000
12,000
121000
WBCO Head Start Utilities
61175
n/a
5,000
Madella Hilliard Utilities & Maintenance
51150
n/a
6,562
Georgetown Project
n/a
70,000
701000
Capital Area Rural Transportation System
5,000
6,000
61000
Growth and Physical Development
Policy End: Georgetown's land uses support economic, cultural and social activities for all
residents, businesses and organizations, and the City's development process encourages new and
infill development.
1996197 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page ix of xii
Means for Accomplishment
The City will issue approximately 1,400 new building permits this year compared to 602 last year.
(The 1995/96 budget was based on an estimated 900 permits.) Revenue estimates for 1996/97
are based on a projected 1,200 permits. To encourage continued development and prosperity
within our community, the proposed budget includes implementation of a redesigned development
process. The new development process will streamline procedures and enable one -stop
processing. After many months of research, planning, and discussions with local developers, staff
has designed an outstanding model for excellent customer service. The greatly increased
development activity dictates numerous additional employees be added to keep up. The
redesigned process will reduce the number of additional employees needed to six additional
positions. The positions will include , two development planners, a development engineer, an
electric system planner, a development accounts specialist and a telephone receptionist.
Significant improvements to the planning database and additional office space are included as part
of this'project. The redesigned process also adds a code enforcement officer to better enforce city
codes.
Economic Development
Policy End: Georgetown's economy is self-sustaining through diversified growth, a broad tax base
with minimal impact from economic fluctuation, enhanced business opportunity and job creation.
Means for Accomplishment
The City of Georgetown is committed to encouraging diversified growth and establishing a broad
tax base. The proposed 1996/97 budget continues funding for the Georgetown Industrial
Foundation at $140,000. Increased emphasis is needed on sales tax generating companies. An
economic development entity will be created to facilitate potential business creation, expansion,
and relocation. The Advanced Metal Systems, Inc. project is anticipated to move forward with
funding from the Texas Capital Fund for street improvements. The Reedholm Instruments building
will be completed during the year. Staff will work closely with Williamson County officials to
develop the exposition center/show barn.
Historic Preservation
Policy End: Prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources are preserved, protected and promoted.
Means for Accomplishment
To preserve and maintain the historic beauty of our city's downtown, the proposed budget
dedicates an additional park worker exclusively to the downtown. The worker will maintain the
square and Founder's Park by picking up trash, maintaining the- landscaping and park benches,
and cleaning the public restrooms behind Grace Church.
Furthermore, $20,000 has been allocated to renovate the "shotgun" house located behind the
Library. This project will require- extensive community involvement to determine its optimum use.
Also, the City has just purchased the Heritage Baptist Church site. Plans will be developed during
the year concerning the type and scope of the parking facility for that location. Finally, both funds
and staff time are allocated to develop the Historic Preservation Plan Element of the Century Plan.
1996197 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page x of xii
Urban Design
Policy End: Georgetown has a positive, identifiable image and an attractive appearance.
Means for Accomplishment
Late in 1996/97, staff will begin the process to update the Urban Design Plan Element of the
Century Plan. The working groups and plan drafting will occur in 1997/98.
Governmental Affairs
Policy End: A high level of cooperation and involvement exists among Georgetown's citizens and
governmental organizations.
Means for Accomplishment
Staff will devote some time, during the legislative session, as members of the Texas Municipal
League Fiscal Impact Analysis Team and the Congressional Budget Office Local Fiscal Impact
Team. The City will coordinate with Williamson County and the City of Round Rock on crime
scene investigations and will continue work on the 800 MHZ communications tower. During the
current year, the City participated in a joint fuel purchasing contract with a number of entities. The
joint savings were significant. The City will continue to be a part of this joint agreement and pursue
others. The proposed budget also includes $10,000 of seed money for Georgetown's 150th
birthday celebration committee.
Housing
Policy End: The City cooperates with builders, developers and property owners to provide safe
and adequate housing opportunities for all citizens.
Means for Accomplishment
In fiscal year 1996/97, the City will again apply for another Home Grant. Also, street improvements
will be made on 22nd and Leander Streets as part of the tax credit apartment complex, "The
Oaks."
Recreation and Cultural Affairs
Policy End: All citizens actively participate in community -wide social, cultural, and recreational
activities.
Means for Accomplishment
Significant parks and recreation projects include paving the parking lots at Blue Hole Park and the
new athletic complex portion of the Hike and Bike Trail. Paving the Blue Hole lot continues the
City's efforts to beautify and increase the use of the park by the community. In that same spirit,
$130,000 to build restrooms at Blue Hole Park and to renovate the restrooms in San Gabriel Park
is also included in this budget. The park near Walnut and 17th Streets will continue to be
improved. Initial planning will occur to determine potential use for a ten acre park in Reata Trails.
1996/97 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page xi of xii
We will also submit the ISTEA Grant for the River Corridor Hike and Bike Trail, Phase III, and
initiate the grant request from the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department for continuation of the River
Corridor project.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would like to express again my appreciation for the leadership and clear direction you
provided during the June retreat. Your guidance has produced a truly outstanding budget proposal
for meeting the needs of our community. Staff has taken the Policy and Focus Ends, which you
formulated, and applied their professional expertise to formulate the most efficient and effective
means to achieve those Ends. The genuine spirit of teamwork at the June retreat has proved
fruitful. The governance policies set at the retreat have empowered staff to produce a proposed
budget that is better than any with which I have been associated. As you review this document,
I am confident that you will concur. This budget accurately reflects the mission statement, the
vision, and the expectations that you set forth.
tfully sub itted,
H
City nager
1996197 Operating Plan Element - Letter to Council Page xii of xii
Council meeting date: 8-27-96
Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 13, 1996, and the
Special City Council Meeting on Monday, August 19, 1996.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, August 13, 1996
2. Minutes of Special City Council Meeting of Monday, August 19, 1996
SubWed By:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Tuesday, August 13, 1996
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with
Mayor Leo Wood presiding.
Council Present:
Leo Wood
George Arroyos
Susan Hoyt
Lee Bain
Dick Vincent
Charles "Hoss" Burson
Ferd Tonn
Shelley Davis
Staff Present:
Bob Hart, City Manager
Marianne Banks, City Attorney
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
Murray Blackman, Assistant to City Manager
Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Svcs.
Susan Morgan, Director of Finance & Admin.
Jim Briggs, Director of Community -Owned Utilities
Ed Barry, Director of Development Services
Bill Shanklin, Fire Chief
Randy Morrow, Director of Parks & Recreation
Larry Hesser, Police Chief
Council Absent:
None
Terry Jones, Purchasing Agent
Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner
Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner
Leon Henderson, Conservation & Load Manager
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Called to order at 5.20 p.m.
A Policy Development/Review Workshop discussion on the Century Plan - Policy Plan Revision
and the draft Facilities and Services Plan - Clyde von Rosenberg and Ed Barry
Hart explained that the "Ends" given by the Council at the Budget Retreat and the plan elements
were incorporated to make them consistent with the budget document. von Rosenberg noted that
it was envisioned when the plan was adopted in 1988 that an update of the Mission Statement,
14 policy areas, and 14 policy end statements would be made every five years. On August 27,
there will be a public hearing on the Revised Policy Plan and the Operating Plan for 1996/97.
Both documents will be available for review on Tuesday, August 20.
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 1 of 9 Pages
B Review of proposed agreement with Central and South West Communications for remote meter
reading system and SCADA -- Bob Hart
Hart was asked to give an overview of the contract and told Council that it was conceptually the
same as discussed in the beginning of the contract negotiations except that this contract is for the
installation only, saying that a maintenance agreement would be presented at a future meeting.
He explained that the City would own 100% of the operation (remote reading of water and
electric meters) with installation to be done by Central and South West (CSW) and a contractor
over a period of approximately 18 months at 50-70 meters per month. He further explained that
the meters would report to antennas on nearby utility poles, and that information would be
transmitted to a central data location, with extensive testing to be done once 50 meters have been
installed. Hart told Council that if the system were not working as expected, the City could
cancel the contract. He said the second scheduled test would be done after 1000 meters had
been installed. He further stated that the warranty for the first 999 meters will be held until the
date the 1000th meter is installed, and at that time, all 1000 meters would be given a warranty of
12 months, with the system being warranted separately for 12 months. Hart noted that this
system will mean less expensive electric cost to the customers by allowing time -of -use rates and
customer choice.
C Answer questions on Statutory Consent Agenda Items listed specifically below under the
Regular Session that will begin no sooner than 7:00 p.m. (for questions only, no action to be
taken until Regular Session)
Due to a time constraint, this item was not addressed.
Regular Session - to convene Executive Session
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular session that follows.
D Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
E Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property
F Sec.551.075 conference with employee
Regular Session called to order at 7:08 p.m.
G Action on Executive Session Items
Executive Session was deferred to the end of the meeting.
H Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports
TLI Representative for September 18 and 19
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 2 of 9 Pages
Hart asked for a councilmember to participate in the next Texas Leadership Institute
session on September 18 and 19. Lee Bain volunteered to participate.
GFOA Distinguished Budget Award
Hart announced the receipt of the 7th consecutive Distinguished Budget Award.
TPPA System Achievement Award
Hart displayed a plaque received for improvements to the electric system.
Davis noted that Susan Hoyt and George Arroyos had received certificates for continued
learning credits from the Texas Municipal League.
Arroyos noted a successful San Jose Health Fair. He commended Parks and Recreation Director
Randy Morrow and his staff for their assistance. He also told of the 2nd annual San Jose clean-
up and thanked Community Services Director Hartley Sappington and his staff for their support.
Arroyos acknowledged constituent, Charles Hernandez, with a Councilmember Companion
Award.
Bain asked Hart for a workshop at a future meeting on the current status of youth issues in the
community.
Hoyt commended Tonn and Briggs for their presentation on privatization at the AMCC
Conference.
Wood noted that Tonn had received a Leadership Award from "Wa1Mart" and would be
traveling to Washington, D.C. to receive the $1,000 prize.
Citizens wishing to address the Council
Wood inquired and was told that the registered citizens preferred to address the Council at the
time on the agenda that their item of interest would be considered.
Statutory Consent Agenda
J Consideration of approval of meeting minutes for regular meeting of July 23, 1996 -- Sandra
Lee
K Consideration of a resolution to accept the 1996 Tax Appraisal Roll for the City of Georgetown
as presented by Paula J. Cochrum, Tax Assessor -Collector -- Susan Morgan
L Consideration of acceptance of the City's Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 1996
-- Susan Morgan
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 3 of 9 Pages
Arroyos questioned the possible policy change required if the City entered a particular
investment pool. Morgan explained that the City was not at this time interested in that type of
investment pool.
M Consideration of approval of the payment of an unanticipated land purchase and improvements
for the River Corridors Hike and Bike Trail in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the
Council Contingency -- Susan Morgan and Randy Morrow
N Consideration of an award of bid to Compuscape in the amount of $29,350.00'for an irrigation
system on the new athletic fields -- Terry Jones and Randy Morrow
O Consideration of an award of bid to Borah, Inc. of Round Rock in the amount of $198,485.00 to
construct the North Highway 81 12-inch Water Line Project -- Jim Briggs
P Consideration of an award of bid to Techline, Inc. in the amount of $44,749.70 for electrical
distribution transformers for the Reata Trails #4 Subdivision -- Jim Briggs
Q Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the public utility easement
located along the east property line of Lot 3A, Block 5, Unit Two, Serenada East, located at 706
Bosque Trail -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
R Consideration of a Final Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey to be known as
Business Square, located on Williams Drive, south of Briarwood Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed
Barry
S Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the public utility easement
along the east side property line of Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 45,
located at 30410 La Quinta Drive -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
T Consideration of a Final Plat of a 51.01 acre tract in the John Sutherland and A. Williams
Surveys, to be known as Fountainwood Estates, Phase 6A, and a 44.31 acre tract in the John
Sutherland, A. Williams, Isaac Jones and Peter Novel Surveys, to be known as Fountainwood
Estates, Phase 6B, and variance to the Subdivision Regulations, located off Fountainwood Drive
-- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
U Consideration of a Final Plat of a 1.44 acre tract in the David Wright Survey, to be known as
The Physician's Center Tract, located on RM2338 south of Briarwood Drive -- Hildy Kingma
and Ed Barry
V Consideration of a Revised Detailed Development Plan for Shell Addition, Block 13, also
known as Texas Department of Public Safety Headquarters Office; and Variances to the
Subdivision Regulations, located at 515 Pine Street, and Request for Waiver of Development
Review Fees -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Vincent questioned and was told that the variances were necessitated by the existing building
and parking lot.
W Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into a portion of the 5th Street
right-of-way, located along the north property line, for Shell Addition, Block 13, also known as
the Texas Department of Public Safety Headquarters Office, located at 515 Pine Street -- Hildy
Kingma and Ed Barry
X Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to issue a quit claim deed to be filed
abandoning a portion of a public roadway and utilities easement located between FM971 and
MK&T Railroad -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
Bain asked if there were to be funds exchanged. Banks noted that this abandonment did not
involve right of way and did not involve a payment.
Motion by Arroyos, second by Davis to approve the Consent Agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0.
Legislative Re� lar At
Y Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone a Part of Dalrymple Addition, from RS, Residential
Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service Use or RP, Residential Planned, located at 406 West
University Avenue -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
Kingma read the caption of the ordinance. Motion by Tonn, second by Burson to approve
Ordinance 96-31 on second reading. Approved 7-0.
Z Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 10.12.090 of the Code of Ordinances
relating to school speed zone on Northwest Boulevard -- Marianne Banks
Banks read the caption of the ordinance. Motion by Vincent, second by Hoyt to approve
Ordinance 96-32 on second reading. Approved 7-0.
AA First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone the West University Professional Center, From RS,
Residential Single Family to C-1, Local Commercial, or Any More Restrictive District, located
at 950 West University Avenue -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
Kingma told Council this ordinance would make the zoning reflect the actual use, and read the
caption only on first reading after satisfying the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by
Hoyt, second by Bain to approve this ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0.
(At this time, Mayor Wood asked that Item CC be taken out of the scheduled order.)
CC First Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 10.12.090 of the Code of Ordinances relating
to speed limit for Del Webb Boulevard -- Marianne Banks
Wood asked Briggs, Barry, and Hesser to take the podium.
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 5 of 9 Pages
Briggs told Council that during the creation of the Del Webb Development Agreement, the
project overlapped FM3405. The City's long-term Transportation Plan projected FM3405 to
connect between Williams Drive and Highway 195. The development of Sun City eliminated
the projected connection, but the need to move traffic through that area still exists. He said that
a speed of 35 mph would not adequately handle the projected traffic load, noting that 9500 units
of Sun City at total build -out is comparable to the size of the current City of Georgetown.
Barry stated that the Transportation Plan had been amended due to the development of Sun City.
Barry suggested Council visualize Georgetown without major arterials such as Williams Drive
and Leander Road, and noted that the expedient movement of traffic is an important aspect of
the overall City Transportation Plan.
Chief Hesser spoke of observations made by the staff of Georgetown Police Services and said he
found no reason not to support the intent of the staff for expeditious movement of traffic.
In an effort to inform the audience, Wood stated that the construction speed limit was established
at 35 mph on Del Webb Boulevard and that the ordinance was being initiated to change the
speed limit to 45 mph.
Ms. Dorothy Dezelle told Council that she and her husband walk for exercise and that she "has
to run" to cross Del Webb Boulevard in between the traffic.
Jim Dezelle told Council that he thought the 3 5 mph speed limit is more appropriate for traffic in
an area frequented by pedestrians who are senior citizens.
Marian Butcher told Council that she works at the entry gate at Del Webb Boulevard. She said
she feels that the traffic now exceeds the posted 3 5 mph. She cautioned that the residents will be
driving their golf carts along Del Webb Boulevard to the Scott and White Clinic. She spoke of
being unaware that Del Webb Boulevard would be used as a connector between Highway 195
and Williams Drive.
Nathan Corbell told Council that he also works at the entry gate at Del Webb Boulevard, and has
seen traffic exceeding the posted speed limit. He said he felt it would be worse with an increased
posted speed and the increased use of golf carts.
Carroll Gregory spoke of walking every morning on Del Webb Boulevard and he said that
crossing the four lanes of traffic is hazardous. He noted that the speed limit on Williams Drive
from Sun City east gradually lowers to 35 mph upon entering a residential district. He asked
Council to consider leaving the speed limit on Del Webb Boulevard at 35 mph because it is a
residential district.
Mischelle Diaz, Public and Community Relations Assistant, said she feels the comparison of Del
Webb Boulevard to other streets in Georgetown is unfair because the Sun City Development
Agreement contains a statement about the City working with Del Webb concerning safety
involving the use of golf carts. She said that if Del Webb Boulevard is to be an arterial
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 6 of 9 Pages
connection, its should be direct --a turn is required at the intersection with Sun City Boulevard.
She told Council she felt that traffic concerns for the future should be addressed in the future.
She said she represents the employees of Sun City in adamantly opposing the 45 mph speed
limit.
Burson asked the length of Del Webb Boulevard, and was told that it is approximately 4 miles
long. He asked if there were plans for traffic lights or protected crossings. Hart noted that a
stop sign is proposed for the intersection at Del Webb and Sun City Boulevards. Barry
explained that until now, all traffic lights in the City have been on State-owned and maintained
roads.
An anonymous speaker in the audience noted that Sun City Boulevard is not at this time
connected to Highway 195.
Lee Bain acknowledged that the Sun City residents are in his council district. He said he
appreciates the work done by the staff, but it is a point well taken that the road does not yet
connect all the way through, and right now serves only Sun City. He said he feels the present
situation should be dealt with. He noted that last week he and Hart had spoken with a State
traffic engineer about a signal at the entrance to Sun City, and he asked for some turning lanes
on Williams Drive. He said the important factors to consider are: the speeding taking place
currently on Del Webb Boulevard, and the fact that the length of the boulevard is too short to
increase the posted speed. He suggested keeping the speed limit at 35 mph.
Arroyos suggested that the speed limit decision be considered as an "ownership" issue in
reference to the entire community. He said that from a "trustee" position, he feels this was
addressed in the Del Webb Development Agreement. He said he felt a stop sign at Sun City
Boulevard would keep the traffic slowed down.
Hoyt stated that she supports the 35 mph speed limit at this point, with the opportunity to revisit
the issue at a later date.
Arroyos asked that the motion include a proviso that the issue be automatically revisited when
the connection is made to Highway 195.
Wood asked that Banks read the ordinance as written. Motion by Bain, second by Arroyos that
35 mph be entered in the ordinance in place of 45 mph, and that an addition be made to the
ordinance that at the time the roadway is complete all the way to Highway 195, the issue would
be revisited. Approved 7-0.
Bain told the speakers that he appreciated them coming forward and participating in the process,
and invited them to attend future council meetings as well.
BB First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone property to be known as Lots 9 and 10, River Oaks
IH35 Business Park, a Resubdivision of River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park, from C-2A,
Commercial First Height - Restricted, to C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted to permit
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Multifamily Uses, or any more restrictive district, located on east IH3 5 frontage road north of
SH29 -- Hildy Kingma and Ed Barry
Kingma explained that the preliminary plats had been approved earlier this year, and that the
property was originally zoned C-2A, restricted, and is now being requested to be amended in
order to add multifamily use to develop the back two lots as apartments for the elderly.
Bain asked about building in the 100-year floodplain. Kingma noted that construction would be
permitted as long as the building is elevated or the property is floodproofed. Kingma noted they
would not be able to build over the wastewater easement except for a parking lot. Hoyt asked
about "greenbelt" area. Kingma stated that Lot 11 had been dedicated to the City as parkland,
and if the zoning stayed as commercial, the development would not be required to dedicate
parkland. She noted to Council that there are no DDP requirements for a rezoning request,
saying that design standards based on the intended use are established by ordinance. Barry noted
that the site is already zoned C-2A, which allows almost anything, and is only being changed to
add residential use, which will increase the restrictions as to what can be built there. Hoyt stated
concern that a buffer should be added to protect the river from the development.
8:32 p.m. recessed - resumed at 8:43 p.m.
Hoyt expressed the fact that she was now comfortable that there would be more restrictions with
the requested zoning change. Kingma made clear that this development is not a nursing facility,
explaining that it is expected to be more like congregate care, and read the caption only on first
reading after satisfying the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Vincent, second by
Davis to approve the ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0.
DD Consideration of authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with Central and South West
Communications for remote meter reading system and SCADA -- Bob Hart
Hart informed the audience that the contract had been reviewed during the workshop session at
the beginning of this meeting, adding that the maintenance agreement would be brought to
Council in the next 60 to 90 days. Bain asked Wood if he felt comfortable with the contract and
was told he thought it was in the best interest of the citizens over the long-term. Arroyos noted
that the technology would contribute to the vision of the community for the future, being an
excellent opportunity to reduce energy rates for the customers. Wood reiterated to CSW
officials that the council attempts to research the issue very carefully before investing the
taxpayer's money. Bain commended staff on their long hours and efforts. Motion by Tonn,
second by Hoyt to approve the contract. Approved 7-0.
EE Consideration of appointment of a certified public accounting firm to perform the independent
audit of City accounts for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996, with annual renewal for up
to four subsequent years -- Councilmembers Ferd Tonn, Susan Hoyt, and Shelley Davis
Wood noted that Hoyt had withdrawn from the Council subcommittee. Wood thanked Tonn and
Davis for their work on the committee, and asked for their recommendation. Tonn commended
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 8 of 9 Pages
the credentials of all three of the firms that were interviewed and stated that the Council
subcommittee recommended Davis -Kinard of Abilene. Bain asked if their recommendation had
been based on price. Tonn said price was not considered. Davis explained that their
qualifications to handle cities the size of Georgetown, their experience, and their expertise were
what governed the choice. Wood thanked Brown Graham Company for submitting a bid. Davis
also commended Brown Graham Company and stated that all three firms gave a very good
presentation. He thanked Susan Morgan for her assistance. Motion by Tonn, second by Davis
to give the City Manager the authority to appoint Davis -Kinard and Company to perform the
audit. Approved 6-1. (Bain opposed)
FF Consideration of establishing guidelines for providing wastewater service outside the City's
Wastewater Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) -- Bob Hart
Hart noted that he had been approached by a number of developers interested in acquiring
wastewater service in an area currently served by Chisholm Trail Special Utility District. He
noted that Council's previous decision was that the City's ability to enter the area was only by
way of contract with the provider of the water service in the area. Vincent asked how the City
wastewater rates would be based. Hart said it had to be a cooperative effort between both
providers. Tonn said he felt strongly that the precedent set with Jonah SUD should be the way
the City continues to operate. Vincent stated that he felt the Council should remain consistent.
GG Consideration of appointment to fill unexpired term on Georgetown Public Library Advisory
Board -- Leo Wood
Wood recommended Nell Dickson to fill the unexpired term. Motion by Hoyt, second by
Burson to approve the Mayor's recommendation. Approved 7-0.
9.00 p.m. - recessed to Executive Session
10.40 p.m. - resumed Open Session
G Action on Executive Session Items
Motion by Hoyt, second by Davis to hire Camp Dresser McKee and C142M Hill for engineering
services in an amount not to exceed $15,000 each. Approved 7-0.
Approved. -
Leo Wood, Mayor
City Council Agenda/August 13, 1996
Page 9 of 9 Pages
The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m.
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Tuesday, August 19, 1996
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date
with Mayor Pro-Tem Ferd Tonn presiding.
Council Present:
George Arroyos
Susan Hoyt
Lee Bain
Dick Vincent
Charles "Hoss" Burson
Ferd Tonn
Shelley Davis
Staff Present:
Hartley Sappington, Acting City Manager
Marianne Banks, City Attorney
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
Murray Blackman, Asst. to City Manager
Ed Barry, Dir. of Development Services
Council Absent:
Mayor Leo Wood
Hildy Kingma, Chief Planner
Regular Session - called to order at 12:02 p.m.
A Second Reading of an ordinance to extend the effective date of the Georgetown Sign
Ordinance, also known as Chapter 12.10 of the Georgetown Municipal Code, from the
current expiration date of August 24, 1996, to a revised expiration date of December 31,
1999 -- Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
Kingma read the caption and noted a change that was made to the wording of Section 5
of the Ordinance.
Burson said that he is not comfortable with the "grandfathering" of streamers and
pennants. He said he feels the City is interfering with the way merchants conduct their
business.
Tonn asked Kingma for the background regarding pennants. Kingma stated that
originally the advisory committee appointed to develop the sign ordinance had decided
there could be no banners or pennants allowed, but an exception was made for car
dealerships. Barry confirmed Kingma's statement, gave a chronological background for
the adoption of the ordinance in 1993, and added that the "grandfathering" was allowed
Council Minutes - August 19, 1996
Page 1 of 3 Pages
for all businesses that had the pennants and/or banners in place at the time that the
ordinance was adopted as well as being allowed for car dealerships.
Burson suggested making revisions to the ordinance. Tonn explained that the action
posted for this meeting was to extend the effect of the current ordinance, saying that
revisions could be made in the future.
Hoyt stated that she would like to see all banners and pennants removed.
Bain asked why the extension was being requested for three years. Tonn explained that
the timeframe was such so that the Historic Preservation and Urban Plans could be
adopted first. Kingma agreed and added that it wouldn't necessarily mean that it would
take the full three years before the revision would be complete.
Tonn called on Marvin Waley in the audience. Waley told Council that he had served on
the original committee that had been appointed to develop the sign ordinance. He said he
agrees with the ordinance, but would request that the extension be granted for only
twelve months rather than three years.
Tonn called on Mischelle Diaz in the audience. Diaz said she spoke on behalf of Sun
City Georgetown and requested time to look at the ordinance, but thought that could be
accomplished in twelve months.
Arroyos said he is in favor of a twelve-month extension in order to increase the priority
of dealing with the issue, but if the revision was not complete in twelve months, it could
be extended again.
Bain stated that he is not sure changing the timeframe is necessary. Tonn said he felt the
seated Council would expect action as soon as time permitted. Vincent said he felt the
Historic Preservation Plan and Urban Design Plan are far more important to be adopted,
and he felt it would be better for the staff to spend their time on those before worrying
about revising the sign ordinance. Hoyt agreed with Vincent.
Davis said he doesn't care for banners and pennants either, but agreed with Arroyos that
the timeframe should be shortened to twelve months.
Tonn stated that he didn't think time would permit the staff to deal with the sign
ordinance within twelve months.
Barry recalled the "challenging" process that was handled by the committee, and
reminded Council that the staff had to have the Council direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission in order to finalize the process. Barry said that it was important to have the
Council Minutes - August 19, 1996
Page 2of 3 Pages
Urban Design Plan in place prior to revising the sign ordinance.
Motion by Hoyt, second by Vincent to approve Ordinance 96-33 on second reading.
Approved 6-1. (Burson opposed)
The meeting was adjourned at 12:29 p.m.
Approved:
Leo Wood, Mayor
Council Minutes - August 19, 1996
Page 3of 3 Pages
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
Council Meeting Date: August 27, 1999 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Award of annual bid for emulsion HFRS 2P to Koch Materials Company in the estimated
amount of $37,124.00.
ITEM SUMMARY
Bids were received for the purchase of emulsion to be used in the construction and
maintenance of the City streets. The staff recommendation is to award this bid to the low bidder, Koch
Materials Company.
The unit price bid includes delivery and supplying tank for material at our facility.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
none
FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.)
Estimated total for this bid is $37,124.00. $90, 000.00 was budgeted in account 100-134-5205-
00 Maintenance -Streets for which this amount is included.
COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions)
none
ATTACHMENTS (list individually)
1. Bid Tabulation
Submitted By:
ies, Purchasing Director
, Director of Community Owned Utilities
EMULSION - BID NO. 96036
BID TAB SHEET
ITEM # DESCRIPTION KOCH BRIDGES
1 EMULSION HFRS 2P
UNIT PRICE PER GALLON 0.9281 0.9676
TOTAL FOR 40,000 GALLONS $37,124.00 $38,704.00
* Low Bid
No Bid: Asphalt Inc.
Pioneer Asphalt
Wheeler Coatings
Council Meeting Date: August 27, 1996
Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Award of bid for janitorial services to BergRan Services DBA ServiceMaster in the
amount of $73,884.00.
ITEM SUMMARY
Bids were received to provide the City with cleaning services for specified City owned buildings
for a period of one year with an option to renew for one additional one year period beginning
September 1, 1996. Staff is recommending award of this bid to the low bidder, BergRan
Services.
The City chose not to renew the contract with Jani-King because of unsatisfactory service. The
current low bidder is a locally owned franchise with over 15 years experience in the cleaning
industry. We have received good references from Seton Hospital and Round Rock Hospital on
the cleaning sevices provided by BergRan. In the event that the service ever becomes
unsatisfactory, the contract contains a thirty day cancellation clause.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
none
FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.)
Total estimated amount of this bid is $73,884.00. $93,000.00 was budgeted in the 1996/96
Facilities Maintenance Internal Service Fund for this expenditure. This bid was considerably
lower than the amount budgeted because we removed the carpet cleaning and the floor
stripping and waxing from the janitorial bid and are contracting separately for those services.
COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions)
none
ATTACHMENTS (list individually)
1. Bid Tabulation
Submitted By:
Terry Jones, Purchasing Director
Susan Morgan, Director of Finance & Administration
JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BID NO. 96035
BID TAB SHEET
Total yearly cost to provide janitorial services to the following buildings per bid specifications:
BERGRAN
IMMACULATE
LOCATION
SERVICE MASTER
HOUSECLEANING
(PRICE PER YEAR)
(PRICE PER YEAR)
City Hall/Council Chambers
5,040.00
17,448.00
City Office Building
7,488.00
20,940.00
Municipal Building
10,560.00
38,388.00
Community Owned Utilities
7,392.00
19,536.00
Police Department
8,064.00
19,536.00
Police Department Annex
2,400.00
8,724.00
Recreation Center
12,960.00
62,820.00
Fire Station No. 1
4,320.00
3,480.00
Library w/ alternate
13,500.00
61,968.00
Katy Lake Training Center
2,160.00
2,340.00
TOTAL
73, 884.00 *
255,180.00
* Low Bid
No Response:
Best Job Cleaning Service
Eagle's Pride Janitorial Service
Melvin Dixon
Council Meeting Dater 8/27/96 Item No. 40
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Agreement with Georgetown Independent School District providing for the assessment and collection
of property taxes for 1996/97.
ITEM SUMMARY
We are completing the seventh year of the GISD contract for collection of City property tax. The
present contract expires August 31, 1996.
The current contract provides for payment to GISD at the rate of $2.00 per parcel. The contract
renewal provides a rate of $2.00 a parcel. There are roughly 8,900 parcels.
The City Charter provides that the City Manager shall appoint the City's Tax Assessor -Collector. It
is anticipated that, should this contract be renewed, the GISD Tax Assessor -Collector shall be named
to that position. No additional payment will be made to the appointee.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Cost to the City for property tax collection will be approximately $17,800 and is included in the
proposed 1996/97 Annual Operating Plan.
COMMENTS
We have received no complaints from our citizens about GISD assessment, collection process or
procedures. Name, address and valuation changes from the Appraisal District have been efficiently
processed as received. Tax office staff have provided all reports and information to the City in an
accurate and timely manner.
ATTACHMENTS
Agreement between COG and GISD for assessment and collection of property taxes.
Submitted By:
Susan L. Morgan, Director of Finance and Administration
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND
GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
WHEREAS, the assessment and collection of taxes is a governmental service that is
performed by both the City of Georgetown and Georgetown Independent School District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown desires to enter into an agreement with Georgetown
Independent School District for duties relating to the assessment and collection of its taxes; and
WHEREAS, the Georgetown Independent School District agrees to perform functions related
to the efficient and accurate assessment and collection of taxes for the City of Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown agrees to enter into an agreement, pursuant to the
Interlocal Cooperation Act, Article 4413(32c) of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes, with Georgetown
Independent School District, to perform duties related to the assessment and collection of taxes for
the City of Georgetown;
NOW, THEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, for and in consideration of the mutual
promises contained herein, the following agreement is entered into by and between the City of
Georgetown, Texas, a Texas municipal corporation, (hereinafter "CITY"), and the Georgetown
Independent School District, an independent school district duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas, (hereinafter "SCHOOL DISTRICT") as follows:
SECTION I. TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract shall be effective from September 1, 1996, to August 31, 1997.
SECTION H. CITY TAX ASSESSOR -COLLECTOR
The City Manager shall appoint the CITY' S Tax Assessor -Collector in accordance with the
City Charter. If the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Tax Assessor -Collector serves as the CITY' S Tax
Assessor -Collector, her or she shall furnish an adequate and sufficient surety bond for the faithful
performance of duties on behalf of the CITY.
The CITY shall notify the SCHOOL DISTRICT in writing of any deficiencies in performance
by the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Tax Assessor -Collector. If these deficiencies are not corrected, the
CITY may terminate this agreement in accordance with Section IX.
COG/GISD Agreement for Assessment & Collection of Taxes Pagel of 4
F AAGENDA\96\GISD. AGR
SECTION M. TAX RATE
The CITY' S Tax Assessor -Collector shall calculate and publish the effective tax rate as
required by Chapter 26 of the Texas Tax Code. The CITY shall determine and fix the tax rate to be
applied to the property values for CITY taxes and shall notify the SCHOOL DISTRICT of the tax
rate adopted by the CITY no later than September 15 of each year.
SECTION IV. TAX COLLECTION
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall mail tax notices to property owners whose property has been
assessed for taxes and shall thereafter collect such taxes as may be paid. The SCHOOL DISTRICT
shall pay said taxes to the CITY within three (3) business days of collection, by cashier's check or
pre -authorized bank draft.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall perform such other duties as required by the CITY for the
effective performance of the tax collection and assessment contemplated by this agreement.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall furnish such tax certificates as may be required by law
covering taxes due to both the CITY and the SCHOOL DISTRICT as requested.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall refund the CITY taxes for tax years 1988 and later as funds
from current collections are available.
In the event it becomes necessary for the CITY or the SCHOOL DISTRICT to file suits for
the collection of delinquent taxes, each party shall be solely responsible for the collection of its own
taxes through the judicial system.
SECTION V. PAYMENTS
The CITY shall pay the SCHOOL DISTRICT a fee of $2.00 per parcel for the services to be
performed under this contract. One-half of this fee shall be due and payable on or before February
1, 1997, and the remaining one-half of the fee shall be due and payable on or before April 1, 1997.
The number of parcels shall be the number certified by the Williamson County Appraisal District o
the original tax roll, plus any parcels added to, and minus any parcels deleted, on or before April 1,
1997.
SECTION VI. TAX RECORDS
Should the contract not be renewed or upon termination as provided herein, the CITY shall
be entitled to all reproducible tax records of the SCHOOL DISTRICT's tax department as may be
desired by the CITY. Such tax records or reproductions thereof shall be furnished by the SCHOOL
DISTRICT to the CITY within thirty (30) days of the expiration or of notice of termination. The
CITY shall pay the actual costs of such reproduction to the SCHOOL DISTRICT.
COG/GISD Agreement for Assessment & Collection of Taxes Page 2 of 4
F:\AGENDA\96\GISD.AGR
During the term of this contract, the City Manager, or his authorized representative, shall have
access to the tax records of the SCHOOL DISTRICT for inspection and copying, at all reasonable
times during normal office hours.
SECTION VH. SUBCONTRACTING
The SCHOOL DISTRICT may subcontract with any person or entity for any of the services
to be provided by SCHOOL DISTRICT under this contract. However, the SCHOOL DISTRICT
shall notify the CITY immediately of any subcontract.
SECTION VIH. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The parties agree to the following additional terms and conditions of this Agreement:
a. A single tax statement for taxes of both entities shall be prepared by the SCHOOL
DISTRICT that itemizes taxes owed to each entity, except when a taxpayer requests
separate statements shown for each entity.
b. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall provide the CITY with a report listing month -end
reconciliations of deposits for each month with payments shown by tax year.
C. The SCHOOL DISTRICT agrees to fully and immediately indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the CITY for all damages, such as any and all cash shortages, including loss
of interest, and any damages resulting from taxes remitted to SCHOOL DISTRICT
that were not deposited in the CITY account pursuant to the terms of this agreement
or in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.
d. The SCHOOL DISTRICT, through its Tax Assessor -Collector, shall not allow partial
payments of the CITY' S taxes or other partial payment or tax collection practice,
except as allowed by law.
SECTION IX. TERMINATION
The parties agree and understand that the CITY has the sole option to terminate this
agreement when the SCHOOL DISTRICT fails to perform any of the terms and conditions of this
agreement to the satisfaction of the CITY. The CITY must give written notice of its intent to
terminate this agreement, and the termination shall be effective within ten (10) days thereof.
SECTION X. SEVERABILITY
If any obligation or covenant of either party or term of this agreement hereto shall ever be
held invalid or unenforceable by a final court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of
this contract shall continue to be binding and enforceable to the extent that is reasonably allowable
to fulfill the purposes of this agreement.
COG/GISD Agreement for Assessment & Collection of Taxes Page 3 of 4
F:\AGENDA\96\GISD.AGR
SECTION XI. NOTICE
Notice, as required by this Agreement shall be in writing to the following:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Bob Hart
City Manager
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627
SIGNED this
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
M
Leo Wood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Dr. Jim Gunn
Superintendent
603 Lakeway Drive
Georgetown, TX 78627
day of , 1996
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:
Dr. Jim Gunn, Superintendent
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the day of
Ti
1996 by Dr. m Gunn in his capacity as Superintendent of Georgetown Independent School District.
Notary Public, State of Texas
Printed name:
Commission Expires:
COG/GISD Agreement for Assessment & Collection of Taxes Page 4 of 4
F:\AGENDA\96\GISD.AGR
Council Meeting Date: August 27, 1996
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
I? .
SUBJECT:
Council approval to reimburse Del Webb Corporation $24,011.00
for upsizing and extension of the water main along R.M. 2338
I TEM SUMMARY:
Per an agreement, between the City of Georgetown and Del Webb -
Corporation, a portion of the water main along R.M. 2338 was
upsized and extended by Del Webb Corporation. The agreement
between the City and Del Webb, provided that the City of Georgetown
would reimburse Del Webb Corporation the amount of $24,011.00 for
the additional costs involved to perform this improvement.
Therefore, staff recommends Council approval of reimbursement to
Del Webb Corporation in the amount of $24,011.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT•
Fiends in the amount of $24,011.00 are to be paid from Account
Number 661-101-6301-00
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
,Letter of request from Del Webb Corporation
S
Jim Briggs, Director
Community Owned Utilities
4=%DelWebb's
k*80" Sun City- Georgetownm
June 17, 1996
Mr. Jim Briggs
Director of Community Owned Utilities
1101 1 V . College Ave.
Georgetown, TX 78628
Subject: Reimbursement for Water Main Upgrade
Dear Mr. Briggs:
As per the city's request, Del Webb agreed to upsize a portion of the proposed water main along
F.M. 2338 at our commercial tract to 16". In addition, Del Webb agreed to extend the 16" water
main to the westerly boundary line of the Del Webb frontage. In return, the City agreed to
reimburse Del Webb for the upsizing and additional main.
I have enclosed a worksheet depicting our contract costs for these improvements. As you can
see, Del Webb is seeking a reimbursement of $24,011 upon completion of the work.
Please review my numbers and call me at 512-931-6859 with any questions.
Sincerely,
41)
Rick Gitter, E.
Manager, Land Development
cc w/ enclosure:
Bob Eck
Rich Vandermeer
U:\RJCK,RGMF�vt6. t 7B
5350 R.M. 2338
Georgetown, Texas 78628
(512) 930-6700 Fax (512) 930-6770
City Reimbursement
Atem Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total
16" DIP
LF
$32.00
256
$8,192
Upgrade 12"DIP to 16"DIP
LF
$10.00
248
$2,480
Upgrade 6" DIP to 16" DIP
LF
$16.00
67
$1,072
Pretrench 16" line
LF
$11.07
256
$2,834
Upgrade Pretrench 12" to 16"
LF
$3.81
248
$945
Upgrade Pretrench 6" to 16"
LF
$3.55
67
$238
16" Gate Valve
EA
$3,650.00
1
$3,650
Upgrade 12" Valve to 16" Valve
EA 1$2,300.00
2
$4,600
M11.11 BURSEM
TOTAL CITYREI ENT
$24011
Council Meeting Date: August 27, 1996
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT:
Council approval of a Resolution to accept the Force Main
Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines to Serve the Sun City,
Georgetown project as complete, in accordance with Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB)requirements regarding projects funded by
State Revolving Funds (SRF) .
ITEM SUMMARY:
When finalizing projects funded with SRF funds, the TWDB
requires certain items to be submitted prior to release of the
retainage funds to the contractor. One of the items required is a
City Council resolution to accept the project and release retainage
upon certification by the Texas Water Development Board. - The
resolution is submitted along with the other items to the TWDB for
certification that the project is complete.
Therefore, staff recommends
accept the Force Main Sewer
serve Sun City, Georgetown
payment to the contractor.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
Council approval of a resolution to
and Irrigation Transmission Lines to
as complete, and to release final
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Total project budgeted is $2,118,575.00. Total paid to date
(excluding 5% retainage) is $1,854,461.70. Retainage, of
$243,954.30, to be paid upon TWDB certification.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS •
1. Council Resolution
S
c:ea-cy-.
•
Jim Briggs, Director
Community Owned Utilities
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE FORCE
MAIN SEWER AND IRRIGATION TRANSMISSION LINES TO SERVE
SUN CITY, GEORGETOWN, AS COMPLETE AND TO RELEASE FINAL
PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR, UPON TEXAS WATER
DEVELOPMENT BOARD CERTIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has contracted, with J.C. Evans Construction Co., Inc.,
the Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines project, to serve Sun City Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested funding by the Texas Water Development Board for
this project; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board requires five percent (5%) of the project
costs to be retained until such time as the Texas Water Development Board certifies that all
requirements of the project have been met and are complete; and
WHEREAS, one of the requirements of the project is a City Council resolution to accept the
project, and agree to release final payment (except for the required 5% retainage);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: The Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines,
to serve Sun City, Georgetown, have been completed and are approved and accepted by the City of
Georgetown and, upon concurrence of the Texas Water Development Board, the City authorizes the
release of retainage to J.C. Evans Construction Co., Inc., and the Contractor's Warranty start date
shall begin as of the date of this resolution.
RESOLVED this day of August .11996.
Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines to Serve Sun City Georgetown Resolution No.
Page 1 of 2
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
TIE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: Leo Wood
Mayor
Force Main Sewer and Irrigation Transmission Lines to Serve Sun City Georgetown Resolution No.
Page 2 of 2
Council meeting date: 8-27-96
Item No. ?!S�
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Consideration of authorizing City staff to engage Arthur Anderson and Company to conduct an economic
benefit analysis with payment from the Council Contingency Fund not to exceed $20,000
ITEM SUNEVIARY
In order to adequately address potential economic development projects, it may be necessary to conduct a
cost/benefit analysis. This is a request to do so with Council Contingency funds, not to exceed $20,000.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Nubmitted by:
-Q/._1 - Bob Hart, City Manager
Council meeting date: 8-27-96
Item No.
- -5
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Consideration of authorizing City staff to engage Strasburger and Price for legal services with payment from
the Council Contingency Fund not to exceed $20,000
ITEM SUNDJARY
In order to adequately address potential economic development projects, it may be necessary to conduct a
thorough legal review. This is a request to do so with Council Contingency funds, not to exceed $201000.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Submi
Bob Hart, City Manager
Council meeting date: __August 27, 1996
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT Consideration of authorizing city staff to engage Alexander Utility Engineering for a personal
communication system (PCS) telecommunications evaluation with payment from Council Contingency.
ITEM SUMMARY
Wireless data and voice transmissions through personal communication networks (PCN) are a rapidly
developing industry. Responding to the growth in the number of pager, portable phone and car phone
users, the Federal Communications System (FCC), in three different auctions, has recently sold licenses
for use of public airwaves. The auctions have awarded rights to a number of companies including:
AT&T Wireless, GTE Net, Primco, Sprint Spectrum and Next wave. The increased competition is
resulting in the proliferation of PCS towers across the nation. Two companies, AT&T Wireless and
Sprint Spectrum, have already requested permits to build monopole towers in the downtown area. The
City's Zoning Ordinance does not correctly allow for the installation of telecommunications tower: - The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local governments from banning the towers,vithin city limits
but the Act does allow for "reasonable" regulations.. Alexander Utility, .Engineering will provide
technical knowledge to aid iri developing an ordinance and procedures for dealing with these,
communication companies, their towers, and their overall networks. The firm will help establish
"reasonable" regulations so the City can guide the location, appearance and number of tower sites across
town. Council Contingency funds are needed and will not exceed $20,000.
ATTACHMENTS None
Submitted by:
Murra Blacken - Assistant to the City Manager
Divisi n of Management Services
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek
Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 29, located at 30411 La Quinta Drive
ITEM SLTAMARY: The requested variance concerns a reduction of the rear building setback
requirements outlined in Table 34020 of the Subdivision Regulations. According to Table
34020, single family dwellings must be set back at least 20 feet from the rear property line. The
applicant proposes to reduce the platted 40 foot rear setback line to follow contour line "93" to
within five (5) feet of the adjoining 0.29 acre easement lot. The applicant owns the adjoining
easement lot and the proposed location of the residence would not infringe upon an adjacent
property owner. The property deed confines the use of the easement lot to residential and / or
drainage purposes.
The applicant also proposes to abandon a portion of the drainage and access easement to
follow contour line "93," which coincides with the proposed reduction of the rear building line.
This application will be considered separately by the City Council. The Community Owned
Utilities Division supports the applicant's request to abandon this portion of the drainage
easement.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of August 6, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested variance to reduce the rear
building line of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 29, from
40 feet to follow contour line "93" to within five (5) feet of the rear lot line, provided the
abandonment of the drainage easement is approved by the City Council, after making the
required findings of fact.,
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 Exhibits.
Submitted By:-
e111111'
Edward J. arry, AIC - Director
Divisio of Development Services
(::� r et��
Hildy L. Idngma, AICP
Chief Planner
VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR
BERRY CREEK, SECTION NINE, PHASE THEE, BLOCK A. LOT 299
LOCATED AT 30411 LA QUINTA DRIVE
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Kevin Schlaht and Mrs. Patricia O'Leary
30308 Oak Tree Drive
Georgetown, Texas 78628
863-7824 FAX 869-4775
REQUEST: Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Berry Creek,
Section Nine, Phase Three, Block A, Lot 29 as recorded in
Cabinet K, Slides 316-317 of the Official Plat Records of
Williamson County, Texas.
FACTS:
Location: 30411 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:
South:
East:
West:
Single family residences
Berry Creek, Golf Course
Single family residences
Single family residences
Notification: The notification requirements have been completed.
HISTORY: The Final Plat of Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase Three 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 0.29 acre area
consisting of an irregular -shaped easement lot adjacent to the
rear of Lot 29. SEE EXHIBIT B Berry Creek Partners,
however, restricted the use of the easement to residential and/or
drainage purposes only. In August 1995, Westover Venture
Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 29 August 18, 1996
VR 96-08/ File:BC9-3-29.VAR Page 1
CM:WW
granted and conveyed Lot 29 together with the perpetual and
exclusive 0.29 acre easement lot to the applicant.
ANALYSIS: The subject property is undeveloped and situated on a fairly
heavily treed lot. The 0.29 acre easement lot granted and
conveyed to the applicant adjoins Lot 29 on the south and
remains undeveloped. A 40 foot wide drainage and access
easement and building line is established along the south
building line of Lot 29.
As shown in Exhibit B, the applicant proposes to reduce the
existing 40 foot rear building line along the southern portion of
the lot to follow contour line "93" to within five (5) feet of the
of the perpetual easement attached to the property by deed. The
applicant states this modified building line will provide more
flexibility within the buildable area of the lot and thereby
preserve several established Live Oak, Spanish Oak and Elm
trees fronting La Quinta Drive.
The requested variance concerns a reduction of the rear
building setback requirements outlined in Table 34020 of the
Subdivision Regulations. According to Table 34020, single
family dwellings must be set back at least 20 feet from the rear
property line. The applicant proposes to reduce the platted 40
foot rear setback line to follow contour line "93" to within five
(5) feet of the adjoining 0.29 easement lot. It may be
appropriate to consider, however, that since the applicant owns
the adjoining easement lot,. the proposed location of the
residence would not infringe upon an adjacent property owner.
The property deed confines the use of the easement lot to
residential and / or drainage purposes.
The applicant also proposes to abandon a portion of the drainage
and access easement to follow contour line "93, " which
coincides with the proposed reduction of the rear building line.
This application will be considered separately by the City
Council. The Community Owned Utilities Division supports the
applicant's request to abandon this portion of the drainage
easement.
Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 29
VR 96-08/ File:BC9-3-29.VAR
CM:WW
August 18, 1996
Page 2
In December 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of a similar variance request in Berry
Creek, Phase Three, Block A, to reduce the rear setback to five
(5) feet. This lot also included an easement lot adjacent to the
rear of the property. The Commission's basis for
recommending approval of this variance was that the applicant
owned the adjacent easement lot and the lot was restricted to
residential and /or drainage purposes only.
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
the Subdivision Regulations:
1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially
served; and
2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be
substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and
3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which
relief is sought; and
4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special
right or privilege not commonly shared or available to
the owners of similar and surrounding property; and
5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of
an economic nature. "
6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and
7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the
ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and
8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is done."
The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance
form is attached.
STAFF RECOM ENDATION:
Approval of the requested variance to reduce the rear building
line of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three,
Block A, Lot 29, from 40 feet to follow contour line 1193" to
within five (5) feet of the rear lot line, after making the required
findings of fact.
Variance - Berry Creek, Sec. Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 29
VR 96-08/ Filc:BC9-3-29.VAR
CM:WW
August 18, 1996
Page 3
P & Z ACTION: Approval of the requested variance to reduce the rear building
line of Berry Creek Subdivision, Section Nine, Phase Three,
Block A, Lot 29, from 40 feet to follow contour line "93" to
within five (5) feet of the rear lot line, provided the
abandonment of the drainage easement is approved by the City
Council, after making the required findings of fact.
Lot 29
August 18, 1996
Page 4
CAVE
V.ttE.
4 3ti!) 7 54 55
53
R RECORD
FILED FO
COURT
OCT 22 1991 TI:P.•{RE�R�
Br RR
l>•w tYA h R 5
••,r, N RAIlChl SC1'
CABi`J£T L' L=S "12 NIERL"A L£STER
92 ►2►y L
n3.ea' s� \
i;REDERICK n K.AITHL'fN LIST .N70'53"30 /N �� sus 48
81
•a
Ns3�1� T \
221.35 339.39 "eI'c•s \ ��• 46
_ M71.01•C N7N•Sd 30 E -•-. ,tom• �t�s✓ AAhA ri Is ► j1 y
45
loaoo' na.ss' T t:o.a: too a C f'- s •�\ tl t \ ► ��+(a
xlfLy �ee'•t -��j f __--t 0.-r1.�r'„�7/r' r�\'t+• �� �., 44 -\ \.i �
S5 43 �t .,ram' `tt��'«fit a
8' I �a •I 8•�. i g"• 42 }� V•` t `�' ►1 \dc •• I>
38 .1 ; 3 9 I i 40 o t I! f I i �L t t �_ no.ad It ►� .+; ,s
c•,et ..-•.eel t •rs•er•tl If� f t ,, rr.�•��,•p 20 120.00E j00. fytVE �•
,.n.tr M'•.l1 c.•.W •e.'• �I �. 7•r•" .I�t Q •�""O
I� ..�iPt "'cn�....•• ..•a c•�m, c', ieu OUtNtA •c'+n t, �• \\ • 29
' •000 loss SI A E %p CD 111.0If.�� �•Y.
v ® tro » E • Ia S.oi Is B \ +0+'20 • rLi
to. tto. 30
s
o o.
t^y I re na O nt0')�i 12 t00 E•IeS.on.f a'S �...� �4 • `� �«.
I.Ooot 1o901
,e',••••.'n'• c,n.• 1 i }A \�, {Y
Z I' .o ,w•,e•• tro•w c..toee�. .r•.t, ` N H • 31 \ •�1( t'1'�
ri►c. 4"rv:1,' l:1ii i I ::;.w 1+., It ltt ; »* .
32
37 1I �q I Nw
0 7R ��. 36 I s§ 35 I :0 34 1\ 33 \ 1✓`�tj ; �o, y�
i
A I t
loco
_ S70,2B w � `,. ,•off. �� L`_ �( /�•1� . ..
111o7-
l+9.07• Iv t
S�
C--I Ntrler:
1. hryto.M .ne: rn•ek I•m.1r .e,rdenr,al
t Tnul Ac11 12. N.
1. Number a Uru. !II
4 N.rmf<r .d 1t1.. \, I
3. Urm r u.n! • r I•r� •n
h Snr ,a ,mn1le..'an II IN A.',.' 1 t0f) Sy 1'.
/ hlu Ynurn M.1<nrne a..er nm h...feed 41%
A 10-F-tf NOTE: r., A 0-foa de puu ublic lln nsemem thn ebear--Id •IonF .II errt nFArl d .+,. II Arirm- F,umenl
i,,ere Ih.11 I. Yn •vrG...r .emem rw•e •uA1•.'rrnM .'hrrh'
.I (,•r•n11 IIM w ••d Mne(n rM .M p.rten' . •,M.rn rn .r • rrx .., •.1 r.rhr v1
n;,h1 (I. rh. p•. "Irl •ner•h M rM .r .INef nl,+•' rM trun+,• r< r Inr j r,vr
•'hKh rhh e:w'nn nl r ,.I..,rrn J, r..p •M'r .• .n. r.,;M...•.'.u.r rn .. J n, It-
•u'Y M.r,f e• R.n A rnl,rrY n. M.1, ,y KIY.•,n ru Y,., 1..1I. .•,r �. •-r ., hre:rlrfr
V.,d hY M• y'.r u u ,< r+ OrrM
II rr,.r � .•I. i... Ilw (�r ,',. w. r� Mu..., .1 ....\n I•
_ 1•I Mdl hm. rA kr1•hr �I.1 •rn .Ir uf1Y„ Irr M nr,. II..i 1, ♦yK r me
Au f.•r T,Y rRi••.:1 I..r-•.i .ru ^.'�11
�.
h Inr d.l.r: Ili-rtn .IK Fnwr,114 ••I. •. • ! 11. . fN.:�.•n •
N� � .'_ �� � 1 . ;TTn .u...r.n.rn w Irulw Rnr.rn rM t,......u. I n....r..• ..•- • � ..�,.••• u.o
e, ;%, r...... ...1. 1..,1..,4 . rr, r. i. I.•Irrl
1.. M.... ..N •r..r•,.r� wnnf .rlr'1< I•r., .l-.r n, ft.,. f'-A I�,! I..
It L.,u-.r r.,r .m n n✓..Ira h I'etk rn•k. 1':h•rlrw L'. „P
L..,,J -#- rM F.I1 M IM 0-1 -11 Cir ^Krlr r+n
I• T4... r,. ,� flr«1 \ 7,r ..- rnr Ihi...rl•d--l-'drl-o ITp<,. .kl
In.-m, Ad. ........ 4.n w,.1 F'kHntntd 13 ... M-, Mnp. Cnr nn, P-110 Nurr.ee.
;'/. •`• •.. ,y 1.11 COH!l. clle,.n, d•r< Seplemr<r ?,. I991. IS" kK--. -.p1
Sri y ' - I1, N.. 11r Ufrul.• rx bJ .M rhi, p.nu
ll ull hr.enl.rr Iw' •+:.u'd
.nnl.r. f.l i•r 1,: •r Irr eYe
,ir%���� �t.,,r• //��,7T -'� I flluny<d.un,.ur lrru.vl.nuuinrlC.......u1....... r.in.••\I„rh.nlwx.I wm M
4.rnr
�^ ^r^' �r r,•.< r.�� i�; //l\ N'.14.,nr..rn C....r.r, 1 J I'I.rr. .Wnn rr.•...
r. •r
I'f I •„�.�...!f• ! 1. No eons N Loft in the n,bdr.\,.en rru, bells unul the Iran w.Ier
`7 ; // Cemmlur•n tw .pp•o rd In --I the poft,.uon •b•temenl 0-
LOCATION MAP
S 59 r
23305
• 5ITF-
OCY19ED • DROOU
OWNER
wf muff vtwU"C
0-0. sox food -tea
GECACE70-ft.1 4 raan
26
25
too So 0 too 20o
SCALE IN FEET
C_'9TR\rE DATA
u 1• Ir
.-.I re.er Ilt•eo I:fe.ee
^•_ Irr 11' t!t rn
-ut.» In.ar tet»
C•r1.,t' I•l.1 N111'
It 1, to
II-rre.ro lefero !• tt•
Tm lab r,1
•Is•11' ror tr Ira:
C•1.1.rr m+rr IrT.
FINAL
REVIS1-0
BERRY CREEK
SECTION NINE
PHASE III
A 12.56 ACRE SUBDIVISION
SITUATED IN THE
WILLIAM ROBERTS SURVEY,ABSTRACT No.524
WILLIAMSON COUNTY,TEXAS
-4S Steger Bc Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
n Ce...uMr. [n Inrrn S.�r. nn
nAM-
o��..r..r rvr r.,� err.tv.m. n•nr,t•.•r
DATE SEPT.. toot e.rrr.. • -
EXHIBIT B
TOP OF FIRE HYD.
t4W OF LA OL"NTA
wE4T CORNER OF SC,
LOT 29 Q• E
ELEV.- 100-00S'��E� 1
('' 4yA y
- 0 f NE. a J0
toed •-.. �i 4°` • '\�(��
ss �0foofy, •
4)- 3el L
� 70
30
I � �
o
s3 �N
a
F^
LA . QUINTA DRIVE
'n,Q�L l �
It
Co 3 .
1645 110- ¢Salt
b 0�'
o �
CGS i4 i~! 39• ii � �a f•� �
Proposed area of encro\achmen�
0.2 9 AC.
EASEMENT
1.10 ACVENTURE
W EST6,4F
2352 / 267
V 4 y 7/7 iv, 54. 75'Q
949� 3oN� 5�75' �� �s 49�55
plo
�( f
t--
i ,9s
DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE
Date: May 31, 1996 Applicant: Kevin Schlaht & Patricia O'Leary
This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Sections(s)
of the Subdivision Regulations.
Give a brief description of the variance requested:
Reduce the existing "southern" setback from 40 feet to contour line "93" greater than 5 feet in
consideration of the perpetual easement attached to the property by deed subsequent to the original
platting of the lot.
You have requested a variance to the design standards of.the Subdivision regulations. In order to be able
to recommend and approve such a variance, Section 60070 B. of the regulations, requires that the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must be able to "ensure that the variance is not
contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship." The commission and Council are directed to meet these requirements by
making specific findings of fact. In order to assist the Commission and Council in conducting their
deliberations regarding your requested variance, please complete this form to document how this request
will impact the issues described below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that
must be cited by the Commission and Council when recommending approval of any variance. You may
attach an additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter.
1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially served?
The public welfare will be served by adhering to the established aesthetic continuity and integrity of
existing custom homes on La Quinta Drive. Granting this variance would allow the preservation of
established various Live Oak, Spanish Oak and Elm trees.
2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substatUially or permanently impaired or
diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable.
The surrounding property will not be substantially or permanently impaired or diminished by
granting this variance. Without this variance, the surrounding property would be permanently
impaired and aesthetically diminished due to the loss of established Live Oak, Spanish Oak and Elm
trees.
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.
A) The nature of this lot and surrounding environment is one of being heavily treed. Granting this
variance would allow the preservation of Live Oak, Spanish Oak and Elm trees. The hardship
would be the required removal and loss of these established trees. The public hardship would be the
loss of established aesthetic continuity and integrity of the surrounding home sites on La Quinta
Drive.
3. Hardships ... cont.
B) The 40 foot Drainage and Access Easement along the southern edge of the property and adjacent
to the .29 acre perpetual easement attached to the property was arbitrarily determined without the
benefit of a topographical survey. Subsequently, the original civil engineers (Steger & Bizzell) were
contracted to conduct further investigations regarding the topography of the property per the
enclosed site plan. The site plan clearly indicates the 40 foot Drainage and Access Easement was
established without the benefit of topography data. By revising the setback to the "93" foot contour
line greater than 5 feet, consistency with the drainage pattern is established without a negative
impact to the environment. The only other property faced with a similar constraint is Lot 30. No
other lots or the rest of the public are faced with similar hardships.
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. Granting this variance would maintain the continuity and integrity of the neighborhood. A
similar variance to reduce the setback requirements within 5' of the property line was recently
approved for Lot 31.
5. How is the public interest affected?
The public interest would be positively affected. Granting this variance would:
A) Preserve the aesthetic continuity of the neighborhood.
B) Preserve Live Oak, Spanish Oak and Elm trees.
Q Negative impact to the current Drainage and Access Easement.
6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance.
A) Without this variance many trees would have to be removed.
B) Maintain existing continuity and minimize negative impact to the neighborhood.
Q Negative impact to the current Drainage and Access, Easement.
7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted?
The spirit of the ordinance will ensure that La Quinta Drive is maintained as an environment of
spaciousness and wooded home sites.
A) The aesthetics of the neighborhood will be preserved.
B) Negative impact to the current drainage patterns.
Q Preservation of live Oak, Spanish Oak and Elm trees.
8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted?
Substantial justice wll be done by:
A) The variance will provide this lot with the same site plan opportunities as the existing
surrounding lots.
B) Neighborhood continuity will be preserved.
Q The lot value will be retained respective to existing neighboring lots on La Quinta Drive due to
the lot site plan opportunities.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTX;OWNERS� l�
OF A PUBLIC MEETING t3.1
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its', e*gular-_pub he
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th day of August 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for. Revised Berry Creek, Section Nine,
Phase 3, Block A, Lot 29, located at 30411 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: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: 30411 La Quinta Drive - Variance
w
Name of Respondent:
Richard Wieneke
Address of Respondent: 30 413 La Quinta Drive, Georgetown, TX 7 8 6 2 8
I am in favor: I object: XXX
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWI�RS
OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular -public -me -cling of the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th day of August , 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Variance to L-he Sul -)division R .gulations for Re-Ased Berru Creek, Section Nine,
Phase 3, Block A, Lot 29, located at 30411 • -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: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: 30411 La Quinta Drive - Variance
Name. of Respondent: �'� S Y ✓ ��•S
Address of Respondent: C) 't Cou
L� o
I bJf ect:
Iamint� -
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. N/
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to authorize an Abandonment of a portion of a
Drainage and Access Easement located along the rear (south) property line of Lot 29, Block A,
Phase Three, Section Nine, Berry Creek Subdivision, located at 30411 La Quinta Drive
ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of Community Owned Utilities has agreed to allow an
abandonment of a portion of the 40 foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) to follow contour
line "93" to within five (5) feet of the rear lot line of Lot 29, as illustrated in Exhibit A. This
request is being made to allow greater flexibility within the buildable area of the lot. As a
separate agenda item, a variance is also being requested to reduce the rear building line, which
coincides with the proposed abandonment of the drainage and access easement.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Unless otherwise stated, the City Council's action on this item
will approve the requested Abandonment of a Public Utility Easement in accordance with the
recommendation of the Director of Community Owned Utilities.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A
Resolution
Submitted By:
f Development Services
Hildy L. ngma, AICP
Chief Planner
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION OF A
DRAINAGE AND ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR
(SOUTH) PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 29, BLOCK A, BERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION, PHASE THREE, SECTION NINE, AS RECORDED IN
THE PLAT RECORDS CABINET K, SLIDES 316--317 OF WILLIAMSON
COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 30411 LA QUINTA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an Application for the Vacation of a
Portion of a Drainage and Access Easement located along the rear (south) property line of Lot
29, Block A, Berry Creek Subdivision, Phase Three, Section Nine as recorded in Cabinet K,
Slides 316-317 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, and located at 30411 La
Quinta Drive; and
WHEREAS, upon considering the Application and additional information pertaining to
the Application, the City Council now finds that there are no utilities existing in the easements
and that the utility companies serving the area including and surrounding the easements have
determined that there exists no present or foreseeable need for the easements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby
found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
The City Council finds that this action implements the following policies of the Century
Plan - Policy Plan:
1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states "The City will ensure
that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to
all residents, businesses and organizations; and
2. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states "The City will establish Utility policies
which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take
necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact on the environment. "
The City Council has found that this action is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
Berry Creek, Section Nine, Phase Three, Blk A, Lot 29 Resolution No.
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of
Georgetown, a Quit Claim Deed abandoning a Portion of a Drainage and Access Easement
located along the rear (south) property line of Lot 29, Block A, Berry Creek Subdivision, Phase
Three, Section Nine, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slides 316-317 of the Plat Records of
Williamson County, Texas, and located at 30411 La Quinta Drive, and the City Secretary to
attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this day of
ATTEST:
. 1996.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee By: Leo Wood
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
30
a
:iW*
FIRE HYD.
NW OF LA QkA"TA
CORNER OF
LOT 29 0.� t
ELEV., 100.00 '(, 1 1(7-
19 1.61
, \f
� C'133 ��3112
LA - QUINTA DRIVE 48 I3a p�'o '90
OF
WEST
kit L
st""29 40,
1)g "IE
S �(S RAF \ ?.
BL
0
vs
9
Proposed area of encro\achme-n
Nsv��O,
54r 75'
, -96
I
28
0
0.29 AC.
EASEMENT
110 ACVE,. NTURE
WEST6,4ER
,-35? /267
f
r--
S �(S RAF \ ?.
BL
0
vs
9
Proposed area of encro\achme-n
Nsv��O,
54r 75'
, -96
I
28
0
0.29 AC.
EASEMENT
110 ACVE,. NTURE
WEST6,4ER
,-35? /267
f
r--
Council meeting August 27 1996
Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SIIEET
SUB CT: Consideration of a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for th
Riverview Estates, Block G, Lot 13, located at 301 Riverview Drive a Resubdivision of
ITEM SUMMARY: When the resubdivision of Riverview Estates occurred the
developer donated Lot
1, which includes a strip of land along the western boundary of the subdivision
Purposes. The land contains a 60 foot easement and the Seminole Pipeline, and had or ginall ty for safety
Of each of the single family residential lots adjacent to it. g y been a part
A variance is requested to Table 34020, which limits the amount of impervious
family residential lots to 40 percent. Specifically, the applicant requests that the land which
for single
of the original lot and includes the Seminole Pipeline (approximately 4,800 square hich was a part
resubdivided lot for the purposes of calculating the impervious coverage. This an feet), 1 added to the
to park land and open space purposes and is not developable. The Parks and Recreation(D 1) t restricted
that no improvements will be made to Lot 1 that will add impervious cover, Director has said
increase in impervious cover over what was approved in the original lat. If ' so there will be no net
an additional 4,800 square feet of land would be used in the impervious coverage lance is approved,
particular lot. g calculations for this
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Lots 2 through 12 and Lot 14, Block G
Riverview Estates are similarly restricted in their impervious cover calculatio ' of the Resubdivision of
consider directing staff to initiate variance proceedings to include the easem The City Council should
Pipeline behind each of these lots in the impervious coverage calculations, ent area of the Seminole
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of August 6, 1996, the Planning and Z
6-0 to recommend approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 of theZoning Commission voted
thereby allowing an additional 4,800 square feet to be included in the impervious Subdivision Regulations,
for Lot 13, Block 13 of the Resubdivision of Riverview Estates after m ervious coverage calculations
fact. along the required findings of
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the CityCouncil
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and direct aff to , it will be consistent with
to include the. easement area of the Seminole Pipeline behind Lots 2 through tiate variance proceedings
the Resubdivision of Riverview Estates, in the impervious coverage calculi .12 and Lot 14, Block G of
g ations.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Exhibits.
Submitted By:
Edward J. rry, AIC - Director
Division Development Services
Hildy L. I ingma, AICP
Chief Planner
VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE
RESUBDIVISION OF RIVERVIEW ESTATES, BLOCK G, LOT 139
LOCATED AT 301 RIVERVIEW DRIVE
OWNER / APPLICANT:
Ms. Joanne Rambo
301 Riverview Drive
Georgetown, Texas 78628
863-2166 FAX: same
REQUEST: Variance from the impervious coverage requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations for the Resubdivision of Riverview
Estates, Block G, Lot 13, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 51-
53, of the Official Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas.
FACTS:
Location: 301 Riverview Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Single family residence
Existing Zoning: This property is zoned RS, Residential Single Family.
Proposed Use: No change in use is proposed.
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North: Single family residences (RS)
East: Single family residences (RS)
South: Single family residences (RS)
West: Seminole Pipeline and undeveloped land out of
City
Notification: The notification requirements have been completed.
History: The Resubdivision of Riverview Estates was recorded on
February 24, 1992.
Variance-B.L. - Riverview Estates
Project#-94-12/ File:RVRVW-F3.VAR
When the resubdivision of Riverview Estates occurred, the
developer donated Lot 1, which includes a strip of land along
the western boundary of the subdivision, to the City for safety
purposes. The land contains a 60 foot easement and the
August 18, 1996
Page 1
Seminole Pipeline, and had originally been a part of each of the
single family residential lots adjacent to it. The developer has
indicated that there was discussion with City staff at the time of
resubdivision that the impervious coverage allocated in the
original platted lots could be granted to the resubdivided lots.
No written documentation has been found to show that this
transfer of impervious cover was approved as part of the
resubdivision of Riverview Estates.
ANALYSIS: Table 34020 establishes the design standards for lots, including
a 40 percent impervious cover limit for single family residences.
As defined in Section 70000 of the Subdivision Regulations,
impervious cover includes parking areas, buildings, swimming
pools, rooftop landscapes, and other construction limiting the
absorption of water by covering the natural land surface.
Variance-B.L. - Riverview Estates
Project#-94-12/ File:RVRVW-E3.VAR
The existing lot is approximately 6,800 square feet, thereby
allowing 2,720 square feet of impervious coverage. The
applicant requests a variance from the 40 percent impervious
coverage limit. Specifically, the applicant requests that the land
which was a part of the original lot and includes the Seminole
Pipeline (approximately 4,800 square feet), be added to the
resubdivided lot for the purpose of calculating the impervious
coverage. SEE EXHIBIT B
The land area containing the Seminole Pipeline (Lot 1) was
originally included as part of the existing lots. Although use of
this land is restricted to park land and open space purposes and
is not developable, it may be appropriate to include this land
area in the impervious cover calculations for those garden lots
which are adjacent to the pipeline. The Parks and Recreation
Director has said that no improvements will be made to Lot 1
that will add impervious cover, so there will be no net increase
in impervious cover over what was approved in the original
plat.
If this variance request is approved, an additional 4,800 square
feet of land would be used in the impervious coverage
calculations for this particular lot. Adding this figure to the
existing lot area results in a total area of approximately 11,600
square feet. Applying the 40 percent impervious coverage limit
August 18, 1996
Page 2
to this revised lot area results in a total of 4,640 square feet of
impervious coverage.
Lots 2 through 12 and Lot 14, Block G, of the Resubdivision of
Riverview Estates are similarly restricted in their impervious
cover calculations. Therefore, it may also be appropriate for
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to
direct staff to initiate variance proceedings to include the
easement area of the Seminole Pipeline behind each of these lots
in the impervious coverage calculations.
VARIANCE: 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 finds of fact as required by the
Subdivision Regulations:
1. The public convenience and welfare will be substantially
served; and
2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be
substantially or permanently impaired or diminished; and
3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which
relief is sought; and
4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a special
right or privilege not commonly shared or available to
the owners of similar and surrounding property; and
5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely of
an economic nature."
6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and
7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the
ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and
8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is done."
The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance
form is attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Variance-B.L. - Riverview Estates
Project#-94-12/ File:RVRVW-E3.VAR
Approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 of the
Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing an additional 4,800
square feet to be included in the impervious coverage
August 18, 1996
Page 3
calculations for Lot 13, Block G, of the Resubdivision of
Riverview Estates, after making the required findings of fact.
P & Z ACTION: Approval of the requested variance to Table 34020 of the
Subdivision Regulations, thereby allowing an additional 4,800
square feet to be included in the impervious coverage
calculations for Lot 13, Block G, of the Resubdivision of
Riverview Estates, after making the required findings of fact.
Variance-B.L. - Riverview Estates
Project#-94-12/ File:RVRVW-E3.VAR
August 18, 1996
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
RIVERVIEW ESTATES, BLOCK G,LOT 13
EXHIBIT B
RNERVIEW ESTATES, BLOCK G,LOT 13
-�>- / RESUBDIVISION RIVERVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION
TV
roll
i
14J
--r7-
0-1
T—
�
_
O
X
O
l.L i
57.l
r,
4P
/ S03'J7'E
q � A••ai4?' �
q, l• W
14
V
&A f7,
I cpn
10
Q
8_
fUN
�4
Br
l<J
w
10 ' (///DE CGMA
/O'!/NLL-,Mca/ND U77C/lY 645I
GREENBELT AREA FOR r UTURF HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL ANU rug
SPADED A eE f} R e (Z U e5— �-p
g� ADDCp -To I/�lPE1Pll►OuS
CoV� rr�ca�- c n +-C v (--AT)OO S
m
4=
DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE
Date:
96 Applicant: JO ANN RAMBO
This request is for a variance from the literal enforcement of Sections)
of the Subdivision Regulations.
Table XXOOO 34020
Give a brief description of the variance requested: Increase in amount of
impervious cover allowed for my lot by including Greenbelt area
adjacent to rear of property in the determination.
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
� due to special conditions, a literal
the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, hardship." The Commission and
enforcement of the ordinance would result to unnec y
Council are directed to meet these requirements by making specific findings of fact. In orderr
td
to assist the Commission and Council in conducting their deliberations regarding your reques
variance, please complete this form to document how this request will impact the issues descrithe
bed
below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that must be cited by
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?
I will be able to better utilize my property while public
welfare continues to be substantially served by the
Greenbelt area at the rear of my prgperty.
w
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.
The appropriate use of the surrounding property will not be
substantially, nor permanently, impaired or diminished in_
any manner with the Greenbelt area supplementing the pervious
cover.
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 kvlth the enforce►llent of this
same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a variance for v,,Ilich the
hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. The hardship to me is twofold.
First, it is one of a physical nature. I suffer with degenerative
arthritis which required insertion of a metal plate in the cervical
spine last year to alleviate shoulder and arm pain. A regimented
exercise program --swimming is the exercise of choice --is essential
ltco4sedeli2j"ng and managing this progressive disease.
Secondly, the regulatory hardship was created by the size of lot that
I purchased in 1995 and the home I had built. I believed that adding
a swimming pool this year would be within standards due to *larger
lot size determinations. *see #6
f the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant sp ci right o
4. I g property?
privilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and Burro
Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable
No. Not everyone has a similiar ailment.
5. How is the public interest affected?
It isn't affected.
P 6.
List the special conditions .that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance_
Response is at bottom of page.
7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted?
Increasing the impervious cover allowance by the inclusion
of the adjacent Greenbelt area in the determination would
maintain the spirit of the ordinance.
8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted?
Granting this request based upon ratl onale presented will
result in substantial justice being done.
6. The Greenbelt area covers the Seminole Gas Pipelines and serves
as pervious cover. It is my understanding from Steve Richmond,
developer of Riverview Estates(Resub), that the impervious coverage
was to be determined by actual lot size plus the area directly
behind my lot. I understand this to have been a verbal agreement
at the time Richmond Enterprises Inc gave the area to the City of
Georgetown. See the attached for additional information.
The Greenbelt, or future bike & hike trail, area will not be
adversely affected by the proposed action.
Revised 12 /94
r
DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR RFQUESTED VARIANCE
-y,� ES
Applicant: � �-cZ ��
Date: Z ,.
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:
4tt�1a =M1.,oc :K:�m Impemi0j>
G C_ ��..
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
mil_
.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 Comm'
fis In order
Councnd
il are directed to meet these requirements by making specific findings
ssion and Council in conducting their deliberations regarding your requested
to assist the Comm,
variance, please complete this form to document how this request will impact the issues edbydescribed
below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that must be crt�tachan
t
Commission and Council when recommending approval of any variance. You may at
additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter.
In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially se�ed?
to E %, L. 'V� a A A L 1 TO T-L C� e
L \ C". rV 'P �'� 7 �fln- G p Yh L T jZ-t S� a G �► T1 �tr`..
UNx-?csItS.
w
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.
14 0. tAo r r� A �. k c r�-� o Tl - ,G- a P Tz-," c,1E,
3. What are the hardships involved'' How were those hardships, crc<itccl IAou: arcc these
hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced ��ith the is c efor nt of this
same provision? Note that the Commission and Council cannot approve a ��ariance for which the
hardship claimed is solely of an economic nature. T N F- G-P-A--- r-rAil �=-L--v /trur-s
l iv 0 0 C 14N W�°r S V RXE v % o = r-a c-e, R. o"c-e p �+iIQ� T & r-
l_ d -7 5. -T >4 e , 'Rs, 0%c, '? Cl to >E w S 0 TL% C,-%
l- t r1 c F T Gr1 3 Et,-.0 NTZ.X--,G-. TC,V-I=�-1
Revised 12/94 -11 A
`p h )A KTE-D Q 7 e tv rL tt-v cos E..S 'fib THE C_-\ T Y. A S"
I H E 1-1 ry e„ 4 % o o ro q-s \ E>p-J Va E� w V.Q. YA o T /:� v- A% �Lk 't V T6V
S-7 1�c La yn 1 dy AT % N % 'T" Vr l S y o L.v rhC V' (ti0 r^ ' j' it kE L o 'TS T I''ps
T t "1 S %-Nc"6-0 V-E !!;T7-1 LT T Via C=:- HiRS V SAt C:-t b j=3
6TLt 4.iN4i~ L-0T . 61 YAc-E -r\i15 hfL A 15. To fLkf ij A G-l�ADE.I.X
t-
If the requested variance if approved, will it confer upon the applicant a special
n 1� right or
4 . � g property?
P
rivilege not commonly shared or available to the owners of similar and surrounding
Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable.
fJD.
5. How is the public interest affected?
TT w"s,
P .6.
List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance.
'T pre
k w• O %-) r A T- O F C o v qn
7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted?
8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted?.
S T w ►�- Art.-�, o w �} �.L. o r � \i k '1'��
Revised 12/94 1
CITY OF GEORGETOWN '' i !
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTYlOV1'NERS i'
OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is herebygiven that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeeing-of-the
o
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th 'day of August , 1996,' at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Riverview Estates Resubdivision, Block
G, Lot 13, located at 301 Riverview 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: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: Riverview Estates Res. - Variance
Name of Respondent: /� ltv-f�vi1 iS� '���'•
Address of Respondent:
I am in favor:
I obj ect:
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th 'day of August 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Riverview Estates Resubdivision, mock
G, Lot 13, located at 301 Riverview 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: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: Riverview Estates Res. - Variance
Name of Respondent: J/
Address of Responden
t: 30 i
I am in favor
i',�
I obj ect:
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Jul 7 R loner ; J!
Council meeting August_ 27, 1996 Item No. yltc'
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the platted
drainage easement located along the west property line and a portion of the north and south
property lines of Lot 15, Block C, Section 1, Parkview Estates, located at 105 Pecan Vista Lane
ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of the Community Owned Utilities Division has agreed to
allow a License to Encroach into the platted drainage easement for the construction of a six (6)
foot tall privacy fence along the west property line and a portion of the north and south property
lines, as illustrated in Exhibit A.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: None.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A
Resolution
Submitted By:
Z� �
Edward J. , AICP - irector
Division of Developmeni Services
Hildy L. Kingma, AICP If
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 MICHAEL S. LUMMUS,
PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A PROPOSED FENCE
INTO THE PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE
WEST PROPERTY LINE AND A PORTION OF THE NORTH AND
SOUTH PROPERTY LINES OF LOT 15, BLOCK C, SECTION 1 OF
PARKVIEW ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN CABINET G, SLIDES 39-41
OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND
LOCATED AT 105 PECAN VISTA DRIVE; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach
into the drainage easement; 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 Michael S. Lummus to encroach into the
drainage easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds the following facts:
1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
3. That the construction will occur in such a manner that it would not be feasible to
locate the fence outside the drainage 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:
1. The fact that the proposed fence will be a temporary encroachment and that it is
not feasible to safely locate the fence outside the drainage easement does
constitute special circumstances and conditions affecting the property which, if
Lot 15, Block C, Section 1, Parkview Estates License Resolution No.
Page 1 of 3
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 safely locate the fence outside the drainage
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 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 Michael S. Lummus,
pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed fence located on Lot 15, Block C, Section 1,
Parkview Estates, commonly known as 105 Pecan Vista Drive into the platted drainage easement
along the west property line and a portion of the north and south property lines.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
Lot 15, Block C, Section 1, Parkview Estates License Resolution No.
Page 2 of 3
RESOLVED this day of , 1996.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
EXHIBIT
10
Proposed fence in drainage Easement g
i i -1 2 2 jO
'�-?'; a�i •,yH x,�. r j _� - �% _. �'��.�y ��.' i�i1 -��' �a'�%mil i `._.,s �
PECAN vISTA LANE
Council meeting August 27, 1996
Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the public
utility easement along the west side property line to within four (4) feet of the electrical
equipment of Berry Creek, Section One, Block E, Lot 8, located at 30104 Oakmont Drive
ITEM SUMMARY: All utility providers, including the Director of the Community Owned
Utilities Division have agreed to allow a License to Encroach into the public utility easement
along the west side property line to within four (4) feet of the electrical equipment for a
driveway that accesses a side entry garage as illustrated in Exhibit A. Although the driveway
also encroaches upon a building line, the Subdivision Regulations now permit such
encroachment.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: None.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A
Resolution
Submitted Bv:
Edward J. B , AICP - irector
Division of evelopmen Services
Hildy L. ngma, 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 LOUIS T.
GETTERMAN, III AND MUM H. GETTERMAN, PERTAINING TO THE
ENCROACHMENT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO
WITHIN OF FOUR (4) FEET OF THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT OF
LOT 8 OF BERRY CREEK, SECTION ONE, BLOCK E, AS RECORDED
IN CABINET E, SLIDES 350-354 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 30104 OAKMONT
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; 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 Louis T. Getterman, III and Mikki H.
Getterman to encroach into the public utility easement, the City Council of the City of
Georgetown, Texas, finds the following facts:
1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
3. That the driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to relocate it
outside the public utility easement.
4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which
this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and
is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts
as stated above now concludes and finds that:
1. The fact that the driveway is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to
relocate it outside the public utility easement constitutes special circumstances and
Lot 8, Berry Creek, Section One, Block E
License Resolution No.
Page 1 of 3
conditions affecting the property which if not taken into consideration would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property.
2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and
that it is not economically feasible to remove the part of the driveway that
encroaches into the public utility easement does provide a basis for granting the
license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property
rights of the applicant.
3. The fact that the use of the easement area by the property owner does not
interfere with the utilities or access to the utilities and is not detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to accept the terms of the license agreement as
presented to them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element:
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 Louis T. Getterman, III
and Mikki H. Getterman, pertaining to the encroachment of a driveway located on Lot 8 of
Berry Creek, Section One, commonly known as 30104 Oakmont Drive, into the public utility
easement on the west side property line to within four (4) feet of the electrical equipment.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this day of
ATTEST:
. 1996.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
EXHIRIT
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. - Z--�
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a 9.717 acre tract in the William
Addison Survey, to be known as Sterling House Georgetown, and variances to the Subdivision
Regulations, located on State Highway 29 East.
ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant indicates that the only proposed use of the property at this
time is an assisted living facility. The applicant has provided a copy of the proposed site design
with the plat application.
The plat proposes an area where a future road may be permitted when and if the lot is
resubdivided. The detailed development plan indicates the location of any proposed driveway
in this same area. When and if the street is provided, the driveway can be relocated to take
access from the new street.
The standard driveway separation on major arterial streets is 450 feet. Both the St. Helen
Church site and the Brady property that abut the subject property have driveways onto SH29.
Both of the existing driveways are located near the corners adjacent to the subject property.
Since the subject property has only 424 feet of frontage on SH29 it would be impossible to place
a driveway at a location that complies with the separation standard. One way to accommodate
the subject property and allow it access to SH29 without undermining the intent of the separation
standard is to provide the driveway in the location near the center of the lot and allow the street
to replace the driveway when and if the property is resubdivided.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend approval of a Short Form Final Plat of a 9.717 acre tract in the William
Addison Survey to be known as Sterling House Georgetown, provided the Technical Issues are
addressed prior to City Council consideration. Approval of a variance to Section 33043 to allow
a driveway closer than the standard separation to the existing driveways on adjacent properties,
after making the required findings of fact.
A revised plat addressing the Technical Issues have been submitted to the City.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and plat.
Submitted Bv:
Edward J Barry, MOP - Director
Divisio of Development Services
(�Uv(l -0., - r 0 V4,�- VbKA
Hildy L. 18ngma, AICP
Chief Planner
SHORT FORM FINAL PLAT OF A 9.717 ACRE TRACT IN THE WILLIAM
ADDISON SURVEY, TO BE KNOWN AS STERLING HOUSE GEORGETOWN,
LOCATED ON STATE HIGHWAY 29 EAST; AND VARIANCES TO THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
OWNER/APPLICANTS:
AGENT:
Mr. Joe McMaster
114 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
863-0531 FAX: 863-7312
Ms. Barbara Petrosky
150 Whispering Wind
Georgetown, Texas 78628
863-0156
Mr. Jim Gallegos
Bury and Pittman, Inc.
3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78746
328-0011 FAX:328-0325
REQUEST: Short Form Final Plat of a 9.72 acre tract in the William
Addison Survey, to be known as Sterling House Georgetown, as
recorded in Volume 960, Page 453 of the Official Deed Records
of Williamson County, Texas; and variances to the Subdivision
Regulations.
FACTS:
Locations: Located on State Highway 29 East. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Undeveloped land.
Existing Zoning: This parcel is currently zoned RS, Residential Single Family and
A, Agricultural. An ordinance rezoning this property to C-1,
Local Commercial was approved on first reading at the July 23,
1996) City Council meeting.
Short Form Final Plat - William Addison Survey, 9.717 acres August 21, 1996
FP-96-29 File: ADDISONI.FP Page 1
CM/CS
Proposed Use: An assisted living center is proposed for a portion of this
property.
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North: Undeveloped land (RS)
South: Undeveloped land (A)
East: St. Helen Catholic Church (A)
West: Undeveloped land (RS and A)
Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as
Intensity Level 3. SEE EXHIBIT B
Notification: . Notification has been completed as required.
History: The front portion of the subject property was annexed in 1986
and assigned an RS, Single Family Residential zoning
classification. The back portion of this property was annexed in
1995 and assigned an A, Agricultural zoning classification. Both
zoning assignments are a result of the automatic assignment upon
annexation.
ANALYSIS: The applicant indicates that the only proposed use of the
property at this time is an assisted living facility. The applicant
has provided a copy of the proposed site design with the plat
application. The plan indicates that the assisted living center
will be located at the most eastern corner of the property
fronting on SH29. The actual development area is
approximately 300 feet by 300 feet. The plat creates one (1) lot
out of the entire 9.717 acre property less the area to be
dedicated for State Highway 29 right-of-way. SEE EXHIBIT C
Given that the lot is nearly ten (10) acres and development is
proposed on only about two (2) acres, it is possible that the lot
may be further subdivided. For this reason, the staff suggests
that an area be indicated on the plat where the future road may
be permitted when the lot is resubdivided. SEE EXHIBIT D
The detailed development plan should then indicate the location
of the driveway in this area. When and if the street is provided,
Short Form Final Plat - William Addison Survey, 9.717 acres
FP-96-29 File: ADDISONI.FP
CM/CS
August 21, 1996
Page 2
the driveway can be relocated to take access from the new
street. In locating the permissible area for the street, the
minimum area needed on both sides of the future street to
accommodate standard lots on each side must be taken into
account. Ideally, the centerline of the street should be no closer
than 150 feet from the northwest property corner.
By providing for this street at this time it would prevent
problems in resubdividing the lot if lots not complying with size
and shape standards are proposed at the time of resubdivision.
If the further resubdivision of this lot is not accommodated now,
it is possible that further resubdivision could be denied. The
City is not obligated to permit resubdivision if the proposal does
not comply with established standards.
VARIANCE: Section 33043, Spacing Between Driveways
The standard driveway separation on major arterial streets is 450
feet. Both the St. Helen Church site and the Brady property that
abut the subject property have driveways onto SH29. Both of
the existing driveways are located near the corners adjacent to
the subject property. Since the subject property has only 424
feet of frontage on SH29 it would be impossible to place a
driveway at a location that complies with the separation
standard.
One way to accommodate the subject property and allow it
access to SH29 without uddermining the intent of the separation
standard is to provide the driveway in the location near the
center of the lot as described previously and allow the street to
replace the driveway when and if the property is resubdivided.
A variance to the standard is necessary to permit the driveway at
that location, but the driveway may only be temporary since if it
is replaced by the street.
A street at the subject location will not comply with the standard
for separation from the existing driveways; however, it presents
a much better situation than having one (1) or more driveways to
business or residential sites in the same area of SH29. A street
Short Form Final Plat - William Addison Survey, 9.717 acres
FP-96-29 File: ADDISONI.FP
CM/CS
August 21, 1996
Page 3
intersection will be controlled by signage and possibly
signalization. The future street would be located approximately
one -quarter mile from Georgetown Inner Loop to the east and
one -quarter mile from the proposed collector street in the future
First Charter Subdivision to the west. One -quarter mile is the
ideal separation of collector streets along a major arterial street.
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 economic nature; and
6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and
7. Due to special cofiditions, 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."
TECIINICAL 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 August 16,
1996, or the application will be forwarded to the Council with a
Short Form Final Plat - William Addison Survey, 9.717 acres August 21, 1996
FP-96-29 File: ADDISONI.FP Page 4
CM/CS
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. Revise General Note #4 to indicate that electrical service will
be provided by the City of Georgetown.
2. A fire hydrant shall be installed on the existing 12 inch water
line near the northeast corner of the proposed lot.
3. A 20 foot public utility easement shall be provided along all
lot lines.
4. The engineer's certification states that the property is located
in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone. The property is located
in the transition zone and not the recharge zone. Therefore, the
note shall be changed to reflect this.
5. A note shall be added to the plat which states that all
driveways intersecting with SH29 shall be placed no closer than
120 feet to either the northwest or northeast property corners.
In the event that the lot is resubdivided and a street is required,
the new street will replace the driveway. The driveway to SH29
must then be abandoned and it shall intersect with the new
street. The area where a driveway is permitted shall be
indicated on the plat with a reference to the note.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of a Short Form Final Plat of a 9.717 acre tract in the
William Addison Survey to be known as Sterling House
Georgetown provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to
City Council consideration. Approval of a variance to Section
33043 to allow a driveway closer than the standard separation to
the existing driveways on adjacent properties, after making the
required findings of fact.
P & Z ACTION: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a Short Form
Final Plat of a 9.717 acre tract in the William Addison Survey to
be known as Sterling House Georgetown, provided the Technical
Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration.
Approval of a variance to Section 33043 to allow a driveway
Short Form Final Plat - William Addison Survey, 9.717 acres August 21, 1996
FP-96-29 File: ADDISONI.FP Page S
CM/CS
closer than the standard separation to the existing driveways on
adjacent properties, after making the required findings of fact.
Short Form Final Plat - William Addison Survey, 9.717 acres
FP-96-29 File: ADDISONLFP
CM/CS
August 21, 1996
Page 6
EXHIBIT A
STERLING HOUSE
Uffiff C
HWY. MON. FND.
A PI, HWY. STA
53+22.3 --)
STATE H G WAY NO. 29 ( 80' R 0 W)
N= 363227.01
'
°1
(N77'22'E 424.85)
E=2844468.14
j
6 0
m� ;o
P.O.B.
• Y
S74-56'53"W 336.94'
N74'56'53"E 423.94'
Z d P.U.E. - -
N74 56'53"E 617,90'
CS7"22',v 333.•0-)
�25' B.L.
(N77'22'E
624.05')
`N W CORNER
I
20' P.U.E.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
a1h6,h
U
02 97 AC k
VOL 1263. PC. 589
t6 00 AC. TRACTS
1rn
611/665 & 630/201
i
t
INGHWAY NO. 29 I
Sryy PROPEAi
75 �S.0
SE CORNER `
102.97 AC.
I
i
1
I
1 p
WARE
FENCE
I
I
611/665-
I
1i
I
N
m COMMERCIAL
1
N
O
O] I
5AM H. BRADY
and wife
LOT 1
I
ROMAN
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF A
PATRICIA T. BRADY
rZl
(ST.
HELENS CATHOLIC CHURC
VOL. 630, PG. 201
? ni
9.717 AC.
VOL, 697, PG, 1 10
16.00 AC.
N N
I N
15.60 AC.
I
to
Er+
Co N
U! O�
N
I
tf1
I
O i
V
I
Lp
U!
I
I
1
1
` 20' B.L
L 0 -1
I
I
1i
S68'30'06" N 2.52.00'
LOCATION MAP
N. T. S.
(S70'55 4 252.00) I
Z w
N
Q m I
0.6'
WARE f I
FENCE 0, 8'
0.6' WARE car
v
FENCE aooEntt N
1.2' UK o
awopf;z r
NAC'SB•E
�.i U 1 20• B.L.
$68.4040--58"`N 169.26'
(S71'03' N 169.12')
N
N
SAM H. BRADY 0.3 I,o
U n d wife WARE r"avun
> m
PATRICIA T. BRADY FENCE u"E AO
VOL. 630, PG. 201 00
16.00 AC. N
S.E. CORNER
16.00 AC. --�)
S.E. CORNER
15.60 AC.
(s71'03 w 620 10')
S68'40'58 w 620.10'
GERALD ECKLEY
VOL. 87 1 , PG. 85
10.33 AC.
STERLING HOUSE GEORGETOWN
A 9.717 ACRE SUBDIVISION
SITUATED IN THE
WILLIAM ADDISON SURVEY, A-21
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
STERLING
GEORGETOWN
SITUATED IN THE
WILLIAM ADDISON SURVEY, A-21
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. _AA
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a' Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for Sun City
Georgetown, Phase One, the Amended Plat of Neighborhood Two, Lot 14, located at 127 Crystal
Springs Drive.
ITEM SUN MARY: The applicant proposes the addition of a hot tub and deck in the rear of
the existing residence. The hot tub and deck encroach approximately seven (7) feet into the rear
building setback area on the lot. Section 34020 G.2. of the Subdivision Regulations permits the
encroachment of pools (including hot tubs) into the rear building setback area as an exception.
The staff interprets decking or concrete walkways on the perimeter of a pool associated with a
pool as that which is necessary to navigate around the pool. The portion of the subject decking
that does not conform to the interpretation is the subject of this variance request.
The intent of the prohibition on structures in the rear building setbacks is to separate
structures and activity areas on lots from other lots. The rear lot line of the subject lot is
adjacent to an open space tract that encompasses Berry Creek. Except for the ones on either side
of the subject lot, the nearest residences are across Berry Creek, approximately 500 feet away.
It appears that the allowance of an encroachment into the rear building setback area on this lot
will not be contrary to the intent of the rear building setback. The proposed hot tub and deck
will not encroach into the side building setbacks.
In a recent case, the Council approved an encroachment into a rear building setback on
a lot with the condition that the setback be increased on the lot adjacent to the subject
encroachment. Another request was approved recently to allow an encroachment into a rear
building setback where the owner of the subject lot also owned a small tract of land adjacent to
the encroachment. A golf course is on the other side of the small tract of land. A similar
request is on this meeting agenda.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 G.2. to permit a pool
deck to encroach into the rear building setback line of the Planned Unit Development of Sun City
Georgetown, Phase 1, the Amended plat of Neighborhood Two, Lot 14, after making the
required findings of fact.
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 I. arry, AICP Director Hildy L. ngma, AICP
Divis� of Develop nt Services Chief Planner
VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR SUN CITY
GEORGETOWN, PHASE 1, AMENDED PLAT OF NEIGHBORHOOD TWO, LOT 149
LOCATED AT 127 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DRIVE.
OWNERS/APPLICANT: Mr. Billie F. and Ms. Ernestine Wilder
127 Crystal Springs Drive
Georgetown, TX 78626
931-0911
REQUEST: Variance to the.Subdivision Regulations for Sun City
Georgetown, Phase 1, Amended Plat of Neighborhood Two, Lot
14, as recorded in Cabinet M, Pages 117-123 of the Official Plat
Records of Williamson County, Texas.
FACTS:
Location: 127 Crystal Springs Drive. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Single family residence
Existing Zoning: RP, Residential Planned
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North:
South:
East:
West:
Single family residences (RP)
Single family residences (RP)
Single family residences (RP)
Open space tract (RP)
Proposed Use: Single family residence
ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes the addition of a hot tub and deck in the
rear of the existing residence. The hot tub and deck encroach
approximately seven (7) feet into the rear building setback area
on the lot. Section 34020 G.2. of the Subdivision Regulations
permits the encroachment of pools (including hot tubs) into the
rear building setback area as an exception. The staff interprets
decking or concrete walkways associated with a pool when it is
Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Two, August 20, 1996
Lot 14
#VR-96-16/Fi1e:N2_LT14.VAR Page 1
CM/CS
necessary to navigate around the pool. (See interpretation
included as a separate agenda item.) The staff, when making the
interpretation, decided to avoid specifying the amount of decking
or concrete area that should be considered directly associated
with the pool. Instead, the staff decided to leave it up to the
staff's interpretation on each case.
The applicant was notified that a portion of the hot tub and
decking complied with the staff's interpretation as being
permitted to encroach into the rear building setback. He was
also informed that a portion of it does not. SEE EXHIBIT B
The portion that does not conform to the interpretation is the
subject of this variance request.
The intent of the prohibition on structures in the rear building
setbacks is to separate structures and activity areas on lots from
other lots. The rear lot line of the subject lot is adjacent to an
open space tract that encompasses Berry Creek. Except for the
ones on either side of the subject lot, the nearest residences are
across Berry Creek, approximately 500 feet away. It appears
that the allowance of an encroachment into the rear building
setback area on this lot will not be contrary to the intent of the
rear building setback. The proposed hot tub and deck will not
encroach into the side building setbacks.
In a recent case, the Commission recommended and the Council
approved an encroachment into a rear building setback on a lot
in Berry Creek, Section Eleven on the condition that the setback
be increased on the lot adjacent to the subject encroachment.
Another request in Berry Creek, Section Nine was approved
recently to allow an encroachment into a rear building setback
where the owner of the subject lot also owned a small tract of
land adjacent to the encroachment. The golf course is on the
other side of the small tract of land. A similar request is on this
Commission meeting agenda. Both of these latter two (2) cases
are similar to the subject request in that there is a wide
separation between the lot where the encroachment is proposed
and the nearest residence.
Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Two,
Lot 14
#VR-96-16/File:N2_LT 14.VAR
CM/CS
August 20, 1996
Page 2
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
the Subdivision Regulations:
1. The public convenience and welfare will be
substantially served; and
2. The appropriate use of surrounding property will not be
substantially or permanently impaired or diminished;
and
3. The applicant has not created the hardship from which
relief is sought; and
4. The variance will not confer upon the applicant a
special right or privilege not commonly shared or
available to the owners of similar and surrounding
property; and
5. The hardship from which relief is sought is not solely
of an economic nature."
6. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; and
7. Due to special conditions, the literal enforcement of the
ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; and
8. In granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is done."
The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance
form is attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the requested variance to Section 34020 G.2. to
permit a deck to encroach into the rear building setback line of
Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, the Amended Plat of
Neighborhood Two, Lot 14, after making the required findings
of fact.
P&Z ACTION: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested
variance to Section 34020 G.2. to permit a pool deck to
Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Two, August 20, 1996
Lot 14
#VR-96-16/Fi1e:N2_LT14.VAR Page 3
CM/CS
encroach into the rear building setback line of the Planned Unit
Development of Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, the Amended
plat of Neighborhood Two, Lot 14, after making the required
findings of fact.
Variance - Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Two,
Lot 14
# VR-96-16/File: N2_LT 14. VAR
CM/CS
August 20, 1996
Page 4
Commercial
f Club
House
a7
Park
Pavilion
� L
�Aacility
SITE
EXHIBIT A
127 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DRIVE
ire
do
Community /
Center / h�
V 1.
EXHIBIT B
IM4
IIIAT
121 GRY5TAL 5PRIN65 DR.
.,.-.'.... ,•r,}�.: :n':.7h�:.C':�:. - '1' .1...+}. ..-• - Y. � :<.. .,..w:..•y•• :.,+�:• �,..:.a:; .N:S�.'J:1'ty .�
�I�;;i^aCT�.,. �!. - /• .i •Jt•a �s �•i • ..,t ::sw•- •[,Cisi�+w•rti'.tiVi*' .,x ,��Jq �.:-4.Y :r �•.. '* Y• r .;_ ,S..h.:.
rN�etiFk'` :u'.i Lxdi�ty+lft1- ii'nfaar ,jW.-. k.{s m�1t:.:w.J►i.11 .::1L. �'......_, .;c .R �t in.v _riic.-<,1'<t*6�1�3 .. :,r.,. ..V+ Sc 4xtL.• �ncr� israss• ...Y
''f'ir►�„!'+M. ,1�f4., .. :•'.�•:-?�"' ',�'--•^�'^?. r;.•:r.i"'•t'-. ,t. ,;�3,.1. - ..>, � ..I- q,...
- +1' :I�. •� '4• w.,N• ,���.]•fif. :�.,:t.- J:..� \ , `.vt. •+' •? _ r f ��4 �.r�1 •:`I�,•�::
����`wi✓r•MM��••!�'�y'.t�i 4.1..M4 �.._��•����' •..'i�1Mls'1.1►.141t'l1MI, �: i. `J• •t' .(' i 4��:�:� •yJ.: .�. 'h, •�.��1 �,•P�.( 1f.'ilit �aY'1.•�l''?'�R(�S.a �.f.i...♦ -�
IL
i �..-�s' . R �K*•., . :ew'r'It'!1!wHPt� ,...i:, ' ..,c. . ... •i �.,. � . i,� ^ .�+.tM 2 �.•-... - r :}
%/p1Yii a"i._t+'(M �'f�� a+t�•���171 3fSJ�.•r.a.y,rl ••'a�'.�. t� Yt..� ry 1�.1 .,� - _yry . 3.�.i.':iJ.r.l...._...-�.«n'f'riTe.»rw:.,.'Y?•` ,3s.-e7/!•t •.r :. a.• �� ... a:,.
..�_ ••a... � } . ,�+' .� ......� '� s. 1. ' ,. .i ., 1.• 'fr : .:J"'r ::4 •: ` .sLaapLr. -. �' ,.y �
-+--. •-rar'. '+k•+..•... :1�.- �-.a•✓'�C �'� •.�� .i .r i,.• �.:ri .�-. : .ire ;rlGti �Ir1 1 __ :+.5::'{ _i � 7,� 1
.. YtiO•!MJ",'�i.,.-jlkii•'.,i ra.t;,;t^��My��7a y.. �+.p17!r:apll''1.'•�'"��L. i11Y•:l••1.Inr�.�,w��.j+�q-"is..�..R:.:k;�wuw.-.i►..i-,�,HRH.+•1.+n.,!•rr•'-a+.�.!�+�•iw.eplte'M+'Alr+h*M!*Zpa•..+:'i.�.:{:a��'
.r• ... .. el'I". I:"•• •. .:t•:•:.l�a i�]. ,Yr4•_.s:�. ., �K:' :1'++-: •.t C^ '!t•'":' :�� .,
j.•C v,qy .� 'a a. tS..r .. ,. �' ..�:' ;e`.t:.YPJtivs k •('.•,. -'ri �rl.l\jq tY`�:..�•..: �\� rJ.-+ia rZ�.i-..•;�:�;i:.F-.L�.-; �•.n•i.'�r r!': t,�r:•^.:rw�1T..,..w,:<'►':.:........,.a.,:.?1_y. �.. ;t..t.. _. _ .�Y. .. •�C.,... •Jw Ar y� a .. '•i }'• .i '
�� ;-•R :,crwl4rr'!'..;�.y'.`.Ay-S.s'l'r'*IFi4'`r/.`,'t��'rf11•-'ia. Afr.;• rl%'a w:1 ..0 .,^.hi....+i L....w r •.'i .. 'r ,. ' r
�4ti.•r+..-�... _.�..fw-'.t: �.. .�..... 'r.. ,Ir .`>, •iy,..�...,E: :. �1, ^;':.:{�!i.: i E .� .. ..,... . �j' •.-•' 11 ;5.. 1 ,•� .1.• _ ..j.:� '*':7�. �`
�.�w.�...f.y�1-Ta•�•�'r�"� � t 4•�+�:?*nw}t!r��a•t�++l�c'•+....+.Q!W'��.+1•r.r �. i<!^r e...� - `tc.l..sw....y,r __ :�:.
��_��,,�-+^�. --.rrir•r►.!•:. .�.....-•-•.•---...,.t. � 4 t.. �f-.rF�.i�:•�..:....�1�...,. i,,....,�.... i t� '.:�.. - .ra •l. .�..� ..!.r,"' :a:� '.�.. ;+.•, '-.•r •�.'_.. .1 ,.-�. .�,�_�, � •r ;�._ 1 j
„t�'tlil�lFlM . -1!.. rr!'n!''h.•r's�•kYl�, ,'S�7�i r.� 1 J'}" '!,�!'�'� fiw•r�1.,•r'YKr•MV,P,s. ..L. ' , -• t- I �: i .•
I. "it'R+iYf!r.��•.. 'I� .:s•_�..yIh•,J:. r:,'S`•' .^,a.' '� 11.:, ,5�:., le•.ir �:... :.i . •-�.. .1,,.-.:...+t•wYe�Mr•M•aMev: r. !1
P�+�f�'"•NfrYVw+rl'►!»$•���yft!Kphtrr.,e r'
t44"A'
..++►.!•�14,(,•,..,y,:y.1..w./4fas. t AS•Nl:FiJWa.�.r1L•*4,•r�tl'• '�•, r.;•'tl'''.Sd 4;f, `• 1�:{..,vt�.i N.+u.:cllnr-x4'nt:::: Rom, 1 . .. �..C..r..
+:may �,(,,�t ,+pww.�..J. S. urli�. 'F:�i !�i:its'�J4'-+'R�,�,..,�I .'e'•:�"5��...4.x�».'i�t°-'37 .i� ��. 1'iswwT.�%AN.a. ? t 1 >t•.,.:.1i` .� ' ' ... ,111 � i11•. l.. '+•,. .,.~;r r».. i. ,..I. � y , ry' i 1,' ,r••?".ti; •�.;r; S.»i• .'.t t.� ,, !, •,.i/, •:,.`a h,t+ 1 ( ,
A.
i - .. fr i .1 �. '' , .. , j l • •r 1 I, ��, 1i� L
:
000/
.64
1 JJJ Ij, I •�� �' I• I ... �• � A ,. ,1.•.;.j, ,t1 .:1'.1'S •1' + •. , •', 1 1 , t`f = I '•
• �t �, `f ,{�. ' . R 1. 7+1 I • I •" 4: r k + n. 1 �,lin p.el�� 1 � y 1 f t .. ,. � 1 , .I'
!i'� y :' .+h t t. r a t... I I I ♦ •'�
r �1• 1, q �Ir . .• w+�'", r'l 'i . '' )'.f ...
.p l_ .., i. _ I r'����'i �„/.•( .. +. r. i,a .. � .• +.. J •� �?vf-Ni'iC���'0•.1r.
.\ \ 1 _ ; ... '/; }; , r `, f I r •. 1 �wrr+P:i f ! .�.r-}>t +. �'� �.d `` � 3
r .c , Y. /� � � !r1•' '•` a +f
-�,,: r , c % Syr.. r "� I � ..'••-s�/..�� �e• �/ � �/i
• � \ 1 • � ,��� "tip '• '� ,�w,,;.'i,h-•�� .' .p:' �
Loll
pA
J� , n ; • � .; : , . '! lam"' � rIt 10
y Area of Encroachment
Area allowed by interpretation of deck around pool
DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE
_YL
� LL � L � lJ,
Date: J d i- k . (fig 6.1 Applicant:
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: ? U 13 L L S 19
1 -t r-4 S PP Piz i i A/e-- D /2 L)cTe-' 2-Z T, A== � � c >° C2 a4c �
You have requested a variance to the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. In order
to be able to recommend and approve such a variance, Section 60070 B. of the Regulations,
requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must be able to "ensure that
the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship." The Commission and
Council are directed to meet these requirements by making specific findings of fact. In order
to assist the Commission and Council in conducting their deliberations regarding your requested
variance, please complete this form to document how this request will impact the issues described
below. These issues relate directly to the eight (8) findings of fact that must be cited by the
Commission and Council when recommending approval of any variance. You may attach an
additional sheet, or submit this information in the form of a letter.
1. In what manner will the public convenience- and welfare be substantially served?
S--E� 1`7 1 i pq-c ff & -Z) - 0- /
2. Will the appropriate use of surrounding property be substantially or permanently impaired or
diminished in any manner? Provide reasons why you believe your answer to be supportable.
3. What are the hardships involved' How �,vere those hardships created'' liow are those
hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public faced ',Vith 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.
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.
5. How is the public interest affected?
6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the variance.
7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted?
8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted?
Revised 12 /94
DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE Jul 1, 1996
The variance requested is to encroach into the rear set -back
of my property by 6 feet, 3 inches, for the purpose of
installing a SPA and supporting structure.
1. The public convenience and welfare will not be served or
affected by this variance. Only the health of my wife will
be served by approval of the variance.
2. The appropriate use of all surrounding property (single
family housing and a green belt along Berry Creek) will not
be adversely affected by this variance. The variance will
not impair the view of surrounding property. The structure
will be of the highest quality and will complement my home
and Sun City Georgetown.
3. The major hardship involved is the health of my wife
who suffers from chronic arthritis. This disease limits her
mobility. The SPA and the use thereof has been prescribed
by appropriate medical authority for several years. The
installation and use of this SPA was planned from the very
beginning of our decision to relocate to Sun City and a
220 volt electrical junction box was installed on the rear of
our home for this purpose.
4. The approval of this variance will not confer any
special right or privilege on me or my wife. Favorable
consideration should be considered for anyone with similar
circumstances.
5. The public interest is only affected by the fact that
the needs of a person with a disabling disease is understood
and action taken to alleviate, to a small degree, that
disability.
6. Special conditions that affect this property are that
Sun City Georgetown is a retirement community and the
residents might be expected to require special health needs.
7. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed by ensuring
that the area involved will be landscaped and beautified in
a way that will enhance the neighborhood.
8. Substantial justice will be done if this variance is
approved in that the health of my wife will be benefitted.
I,e-ect-fu11
Bill Wilder
127 Crystal Springs Drive
Georgetown, TX 78628
Tel: 931-0911
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
I \ JUL 3 0 1996
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 6th day of August , 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City
Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Tw.q, Lot 14, located at 127 Crystal Springs
Drive.(CS)
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 decaii.
Date: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: 127 Crystal Springs Drive - Variance
Name of Respondent:
Address of Respondent:
I am in favo
ect:
/11
If you wish to submit written KonVment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
r
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th day of August , 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Variance to the Subdivision Regulations for a Planned Unit Development of Sun City
Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood T.wQ, Lot 14, located at 127 Crystal Springs
Drive.(CS)
As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at such meeting if you
i.. r ,_ • i
uesirt to discuss the proposed plan. Sec aaached Ex1filuit rn ffoi ono e dtiali.
Date: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: 127 Crystal Springs Drive - Variance
Name of Respondent: �/�'!� S JQ
P —
J
Address of Respondent: % 2-'
I am in favor: I object:
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
JUL 2 5 1996
f�
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: 127 Crystal Springs Drive - Variance
Name of Respondent:R.S
Address of Respondent:_1)- 3 O-K4
i am in favor: i object:
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
H, D W H
JUL 3 I f
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. as
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a License to Encroach into the water line
easement located on Tract A of Sun City Georgetown, Neighborhood Ten -A, located on Williams
Drive, south of Del Webb Boulevard.
ITEM SUMMARY: The Director of the Community Owned Utilities Division has agreed to
allow a License to Encroach to allow the proposed driveway and parking area to encroach into
the subject water line easement, as illustrated in Exhibit A. The water line will serve the
proposed Scott and White clinic and will connect with the water facilities in the adjacent Sun City
Neighborhood forming a looped system. For the latter reason, the water line must be a public
line.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: None.
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: Resolution
Exhibit A
Submitted Bv.
Edward . Barry,
Divisio of Devel
- Director Hildy L. 'ngma, AIC
t Services 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 SCOTT AND WHITE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF
A METAL BUILDING INTO THE WATER LINE EASEMENT LOCATED
ON TRACT A OF SUN CITY GEORGETOWN,- PHASE 1,
NEIGHBORHOOD TEN -A , AS RECORDED IN CABINET M, SLIDES 225-
227 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND
LOCATED EAST OF DEL WEBB BOULEVARD; AND ESTABLISHING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach
into the water line easement; 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 Scott and White Memorial Hospital to
encroach into the public utility easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
finds the following facts:
1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
3. That the proposed structure is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to
relocate it outside the public utility easement.
4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which
this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and
is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts
as stated above now concludes and finds that:
Tract A, Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A
License Resolution No.
Page 1 of 3
1. The fact that the proposed structure is in such a manner that it would not be
feasible to relocate it outside the public utility easement constitutes special
circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into
consideration would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property.
2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and
that it is not economically feasible to remove the part of the existing structure 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 Scott and White
Memorial Hospital, pertaining to the encroachment of a driveway located on Tract A of Sun City
Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A, into the water line easement.
Tract A, Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A
License Resolution No.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this day of
ATTEST:
1996.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Tract A, Sun City Georgetown, Phase 1, Neighborhood Ten -A
License Resolution No.
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A-3
�c
F�
q�
N
J
15' W.G. WILKINSON
WATERL INC ---_, SURVEY, A-671
ESMT.
TRACT "A"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SUN CITY GEORGETOWN
PHASE 2, NEIGHBORHOOD 10A
CABINET M. SLIDES 225-227
W.C.P.R
10.490 ACRE TRACT
DOCUMENT NO. 9600002
O.R.W.C.T.
w
i�
O
y
�P
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. cqc
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: First reading of an ordinance rezoning Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block
1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1, from RS-; Residential Single Family to C-1, Local Commercial, or
any more restrictive district, located at the intersection of State Highway 29 West and D.B.
Wood Road.
ITEM SUMMARY: The subject rezoning area was annexed into the City of Georgetown in
December 1986. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance at the time, it was automatically assigned
an RS, Single Family Residential zoning .district.
The plat of Wood Ranch, Section Five was originally recorded when it was outside of the
City's jurisdiction for reviewing plats. The City's ordinance regarding plats in which the public
improvements have not been provided invalidated this plat. Another Final Plat, conforming to
the original plat, was approved by the City in March 1993 and recorded in July 1993.
Although the plat states that Lot 6 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2 are commercial, the
Zoning Ordinance takes precedence. Therefore, the lots may only be developed for any use
permitted in the RS district. Generally, this is limited to single family residential use.
The requested C-1, Local Commercial district is consistent with City policy and planning
principles regarding zoning of major intersections. The district permits all general retail
commercial uses without permitting warehousing or industrial uses.
Both D. B. Wood Road and SH29 are classified as major arterial streets. The two (2)
subject lots are located at the corner of the two (2) arterial streets. The lots are not suitable for
residential use and were proposed for commercial use when the plat was approved. The only
reason why they are zoned RS today is the automatic zoning. assignment at the time of
annexation.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Since the August 6 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, one of the commissioners has provided a statement regarding her reasons for voting to
recommend denial of the requested rezoning. In the statement she expresses her belief that she
should have voted to recommend approval. A copy of the statement is attached to the staff
report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend denial of the requested rezoning of Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot
6 and Block 2, Lot 1 from RS, Single Family Residential to C-1, Local Commercial.
In accordance with Section 14.205 of the Zoning Ordinance, a favorable vote of three -
fourths (3/4) of the City Council is required to approve a rezoning for which the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends denial.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and ordinance
Submitted B
LiM
Edward harry, AIC - Director Hildy L. 'ngma, AI
Division of Develop nt Services Chief Planner
REZONING OF AMENDED WOOD RANCH, SECTION FIVE, BLOCK 1, LOT 6
AND BLOCK 2, LOT 1 FROM RS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-19
LOCAL COMMERCIAL, OR ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF D. B. WOOD ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 29.
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Mr. Jimmy Coffman
Wood Road Properties, Inc.
221 Stearman Drive
Georgetown, Texas 78628
863-5537
AGENT: Mr. John Warden, AICP
SITUS Planning and Design
3541-D North Hills Drive
Austin, Texas 78731
345-6592 FAX: 346-5526
REQUEST: Rezoning of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot
6 and Block 2, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single Family to C-
1, Local Commercial, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 269-270
of the Official Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas.
FACTS:
Location: Located at the intersection of State Highway 29 West and D.B.
Wood Road. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Lots 1 and 6 are vacant and are platted for commercial use.
Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family
Proposed Use: Commercial -Retail
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North: Wood Ranch residential lots (out of City)
South: Georgetown Church of Christ and First Baptist Church
(RS)
Rezoning - Amended Wood Ranch, Sec. 5, Elk 1, August 21, 1996
Lot 6, Block 2, Lot 1
RZ96-17/File: WOOD RNCH.REZ Page 1
CM:CS
East: Unplatted land (RS)
West: Wood Ranch residential lots (RS)
Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan has designated these lots as
Intensity Level 5. SEE EXHIBIT B
Notification: The notification process has been completed.
HISTORY: The subject rezoning area was annexed into the City of
Georgetown in December 1986. Consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance at the time, it was automatically assigned an RS,
Single Family Residential zoning district.
The plat of Wood Ranch, Section Five was originally recorded
when it was outside of the City's jurisdiction for reviewing plats.
The public improvements were never constructed and the area
subsequently came within the City's jurisdiction. The City's
ordinance regarding plats in which the public improvements have
not been provided invalidated this plat. Another Final Plat,
conforming to the original plat, was approved by the City in
March 1993 and recorded in July 1993.
ANALYSIS: Although the plat states that Lot 6 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block
2 are commercial, the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence.
Therefore, the lots may only be developed for any use permitted
in the RS district. Generally, this is limited to single family
residential use.
As stated in the History section above, the lots were
automatically assigned the RS zoning classification upon
annexation, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance at the time.
When land is annexed into the City it is assigned a classification
automatically which remains usually until the property owner
requests a rezoning and that rezoning is approved. Although the
City has the ability to initiate a rezoning at any time, it typically
does not.
Rezoning - Amended Wood Ranch, Sec. 5, Bik 1,
Lot 6, Block 2, Lot 1
RZ96-17/File: WOOD RNCH.REZ
CM:CS
August 21, 1996
Page 2
The requested C-1, Local Commercial district is consistent with
City policy and planning principles regarding zoning of major
intersections. The district permits all general retail commercial
uses without permitting warehousing or industrial uses.
Both D. B. Wood Road and SH29 are classified as major arterial
streets. The design standards prohibit single family residential
uses from taking access from major arterial streets. A variance
was granted to Section Five which allows residential lots to take
access from D. B. Wood Road provided they use shared
accesses on common lot lines. This will reduce the overall
number of access points. The two (2) subject lots are located at
the corner of the two (2) arterial streets. SEE EXHIBIT C The
lots are not suitable for residential use and were proposed for
commercial use when the plat was approved. The only reason
why they are zoned RS today is the automatic zoning assignment
at the time of annexation.
Planning principles call for the stepping -down of districts from
more intense uses to less intense uses. Ideally, commercial lots
located at the intersection of major arterial streets are large
enough to accommodate the need for commercial uses and
services in the area. A zoning district that would permit a
transitional use such as multifamily residential, but prohibit
commercial uses should then be located adjacent to the
commercial district. Finally, single family residential use should
be located beyond the multifamily or other buffering use.
In this case the two (2) subject lots are probably not large
enough to serve the needs of the ultimate development of the
area, although they may be adequate to serve the limited needs
of the existing population in the area. Therefore, there will
probably be the need for more commercial zoning in the vicinity
that is not located at a major intersection.
The staff does not suggest that the adjacent lots be zoned to
allow multifamily use, basically because the subdivision design is
not conducive to it. The staff recognizes that the subdivision
Rezoning - Amended Wood Ranch, Sec. S, Blk 1,
Lot 6, Block 2, Lot 1
RZ96-17/File: WOOD RNCH.REZ
CM:CS
August 21, 1996
Page 3
design does not accommodate the amount of commercial area
needed at this location; however, the subject lots are not suitable
for single family residential use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the requested rezoning of Wood Ranch, Section
Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1 from RS, Single Family
Residential to C-1, Local Commercial.
P & Z ACTION: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the requested
rezoning of Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and
Block 2, Lot 1 from RS, Single Family Residential to C-1,
Local Commercial.
Rezoning - Amended Wood Ranch, Sec. 5, Blk 1,
Lot 6, Block 2, Lot 1
RZ96-17/File: WOOD RNCH.REZ
CM:CS
August 21, 1996
Page 4
July 29, 1996
Mr. Charles Simon, AICP
The City of Georgetown
Development Serw-Ces Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Ref: Revised Bequest for
Plat Amen*ments, Wood Ranch
Section 3 and Section 5
Dear Charles:
This is to confirm the applicant's withdrawal of portions of the
referenced request The applicant withdraws: all requests involving
Section 3; all amendments involving Section 5, Block 2, Lots 2 &3;
and the amendment involving access to Section 5, Block 1, Lot 6.
Accordingly, the only plat amendment to be presented to,the P& Z
Commission is for_
Section 5, Plat N& 7 amended to read:
Maximum impervious Cover not to exceed 40% on any lot,
except Block 11, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1 shall not exceed the
imperviouscover allowed by the City of Georgetown's Design
Standards for Lots,
This requested plat note amendment is consistent with the pending
request for rezoning from RS to C1 for these two corners of D.B.
Wood Road at Hwy 29.
Yours truly,
JOHN WARDEN, AICP
SITUS
Planning &Design
512-345-6592
3541-D North Hills Drive
Austin, Texas 78731
EXHIBIT A
WOOD RANCH, SECTION FIVE BLOCK 1, LOT 6 AND BLOCK 2, LOT 1
Proposed Rezoning from RS, Residential Single Family to C-1, Local Commercial I
EXHIBIT B
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
"DATE" 08/01 /96
*PROJECT NAME*: Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 2, Lot 1
2. *GIVEN* 0.00 acres of Intensity Level 1
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 2
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 3
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 4
1.36 acres of Intensity Level 5
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 6
1.36 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 14,906 4,352 238
6 0 0 0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 14,906
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 4,352
Maximum Trip Ends: 238
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
LAND USES WATER WASTEWATERTRANSPORTATIOI
I
Detached SF
Large Lot
13
15
397
Average Lot
15
17
269
Zero Lot Line
15
17
269
Attached SF
23
25
219
Multifamily
28
28
105
Mobile Home
23
23
281
Lodging
78
71
-172
Institutional
43,457
47,304
282,996
Church
-with day care
48,395
52,434
15,296
-w/o day care
80,138
87,040
330,556
Medical Office
35,831
38,857
73,753
General Office
40,949
47,824
93,333
Retail, Mixed
22,932
26,699
14,409
Retail, Restaurant
9,555
9,067
20,932
Retail, Store
45,863
49,455
49,563
Employment Centers
40,949
47,824
52,010
Warehouse
261,502
310,857
396,667
Mini -Warehouse
3,726,400
4,352,000
915,385
(b)
MAXIMUM
UNITS
131
151
151
23
28
23
71'
43,457
15,296
80,138
35,831
40,949
14,409
9,067
45,863
40,949
261,502
915.385
(c)
PER DEV
REGS I
31
101
131
1
351
1
(d)
DEVELOPMENT
ALLOWED/UNIT
3 housing units
10 housing units
13 housing units
23 housing units
28 housing units
23 housing units
71 rooms
43,457 square feet
15,296 square feet
80,138 square feet
35,831 square feet
40,949 square feet
14,409 square feet
9,067 square feet
45,863 square feet
40,949 square feet
261,502 square feet
915,385 square feet
EXHIBIT 6
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
"DATE" 08/01 /96
*PROJECT NAME*: Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6
2. *GIVEN* 0.00 acres of Intensity Level 1
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 2
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 3
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 4
1.11 acres of Intensity Level 5
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 6
1.11 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 12,166 3,552 194
6 0 0 0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 12,166
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 3,552
Maximum Trip Ends: 194
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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
MAXIMUM
PER DEV
DEVELOPMENT
WATER
WASTEWATERTRANSPORTATIOI
UNITS I
REGS I
ALLOWED/UNIT
11
12
I
3241
I
11 1
I
21
2 housing units
12
14
2191
12 1
8 1
8 housing units
12
14
2191
121
11 1
11 housing units
19
20
1791
191
1
19 housing units
23
23
861
231
281
23 housing units
19
18
2291
181
1
18 housing units
63
58
1401
581
1
58 rooms
35,468
38,609
230,975 1
35,4681
1
35,468 square feet
39,499
42,795
12,4841
12,4841
1
12,484 square feet
65,406
71,040
269,7921
65,4061
1
65,406 square feet
29,244
31,714
60,195 1
29,2441
1
29,244 square feet
33,422
39,033
76,1761
33,4221
1
33,422 square feet
18,716
21,791
11,7601
11,7601
1
11,760 square feet
7,798
7,400
17,0841
7,4001
1
7,400 square feet
37,433
40,364
40,4521
37,4331
1
37,433 square feet
33,422
39,033
42,4501
33,4221
1
33,422 square feet
213,432
253,714
323,7501
213,4321
1
213,432 square feet
3,041,400
--
3,552,000
-- ------
747,1151
- ---- I
747,1151
--------------I
1
-------- ------ I-------
747,115 square feet
----------_
EXHIBIT C
v-
10
10
E. C.r�
o = � 1 1 QJnB
�. �:; fir. .. • �:
Z
•
•
v� •
o •y
'to�S�D .
l� O
00
Q1 J' A"I /
O
MEMO TO: Ma r L o Wood and City Council
ROM: Cai w lke onn, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, August 9, 1996
kE: Recommendation from P&Z meeting of August 6, 1996 concerning Agenda Item 6a,
styled, "Rezoning of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1
from R; i ; S ingle Family Residential to C-1, Local Commercial, or Any !Vlore Restrictive
District, Located at the Intersection of D. B. Wood Road and State Highway 29."
The purpose of this memo is to give you my "take" on the above recommendation.
At the regularly scheduled August meeting, P&Z met in Council Chambers, along with at least
a hundred members from the Wood Ranch residential area. The homeowners were present to
urge P&Z to deny the rezoning request which was being presented by Wood Road Properties,
Inc. P&Z eventually voted 6-0 to recommend to Council to deny rezoning. This went against
the staff recommendation to approve the rezoning.
P&Z Chairman Douglas conducted the meeting with grace and decorum. First, we heard the
staff s presentation, then the applicant's presentation through the agent Mr. John Warden. Then
we heard from eight people out of the audience, all of whom were gracious, polite and well -
organized. The speakers, Denise Valenta, Larry Morgan, Sissy Boyle, Kathleen Davidson, Bill
-arney and Leeland McKeeman are homeowners in the immediate area, and all are against
ezonmg. Two others who are not residents of the immediate area also spoke, as representatives
of their congregations, Keith Cain, minister of the Church of Christ and Jim Haskell, minister of
the Baptist Church. The two ministers provided us with several moments of levity, causing us
all to laugh and relax. They spoke against rezoning as well.
A number of issues were covered in the time it took to dispatch the issue. The first, of course,
was the homeowners' desire to have no commercial in the area adjacent to their homes. One
issue was that perhaps this is not the time for an increase in traffic to this particular intersection.
The issue of the danger of Highway 29 was presented, with information from the Texas Dept. of
Transportation responding to the area residents' concerns. Another issue was time length
between platting and use of the property. To this question, Mr. Warden told us that although
platting had occurred some time ago, the land owner was only now being approached by end
use buyers. Another issue was alcohol sales, and yet another was the number of kids who may
be out and about in the residential development area.
The evening, at this point, was lively, organized, enjoyable and highly emotional. We
discovered that the developer had talked with some of the neighborhood and the two groups had
avoided rancorous confrontations. Also, we did not learn what commercial use was interested
i the property.
P&Z voted unanimously to deny rezoning. My vote was with the commission, to deny. I felt at
the time of the vote that I was making the wrong vote, but in my own words, I was a wet
noodle, and voted the easiest vote available. I recall one commissioner paying heed to the
✓t.o�1L Speaking, Speaking, and one commissioner commenting that we don't have to automatically give
approval for rezoning. Both points are well made.
However, I was disturbed over the logistics of the process and the intent of the rezoning. Here
is a recap of the history of the subject property:
Prior to 1986, the original owners, today called the Wood Road Properties, Inc., filed a plat on
at least these two lots for commercial use. It was not built out.
In 1986, the property was part of an annexation of land by the City, and as such came in as RS,
Residential Single Family.
In 1986, the Century Plan got it's start, designating the area at intensity levels suitable for
commercial use.
In 1988, new subdivision regulations were adopted, incorporating the decision to invalidate
plats that were not built out. Thus the old plat was no longer any good.
:n March, 1993, the owners filed a new plat, according to the advice given by the City. The plat
vas accepted, and subsequently recorded in July, 1993. This plat was for commercial use.
Question: Why, in 1993, did the City approve a commercial plat on property that was in a zone
designated residential? h
Answer: Because in 1993, the City did not have the requirement that plats show the zoning.
That requirement by the City became law at a later date.
So the 1993 plat stood, having met all requirements of the law. The City told the owners to
request a rezoning to return the land to commercial status, as it had been intended all along.
This has been the procedure for all commercial and commercial -use -intended land that gets
annexed. This situation has been before P&Z many times.
It is my position that when I voted to deny the request for rezoning, from an annexation -
produced RS to the originally intended C-1 commercial, I voted incorrectly. I should have
voted against the motion to deny. I believe I did the wrong thing, and if I could, I would take
my vote back. Therefore, I write this memo to each of you to explain why I voted to deny and
=why I should have moved to approve.
This Memo is addressed to the Mayor and to City Council. I understand it will also become
public record.
August 7, 1996
Commissioners: Mr. Robert Brannon
Mr. Leon Douglas
Mr. Charles Parker
Mr. Claude Proctor
Ms. Cynthia B. Smith
Ms. Cal Wilkerson
Georgetown Planning & Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
RE: Variance Hearing Concerning Wood Ranch 8-6-96
Dear Commissioners:
I personally wanted to say "thank you" for your objectivity in evaluating referenced variance
request. Since your position on this board is voluntary, I would imagine you have to rely heavily
on staff recommendations. In this case, it took extra dedication to weigh the merits of both sides,
and from staff, in order to be responsive to perceived precedent, area neighborhoods, and to the
community at large. I am convinced you represent the citizens of the Georgetown community with
a quality vision for Georgetown's future. Please call on me or my neighbors if you need our
assistance in the future.
Respectfully,
Larry G. Morgan
mem
308 Rio Bravo
Georgetown, Texas 78628
512-869-4365
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 WOOD RANCH, SECTION FIVE,
BLOCK 1, LOT 6 AND BLOCK 2, LOT 19 FROM THE RS, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO C-19
LOCAL COMMERCIAL; 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") :
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block, 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1, 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
a
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set
for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within
two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on August 6,
1996, recommended denial of the requested rezoning of the above described property from the
RS, Residential Single Family district zoning classification to C-1, Local Commercial district
zoning classification, in accordance with Exhibit "A".
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1
Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element:
1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that
future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents,
businesses and organizations"; and
2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory
actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the
opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and
3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 4, which states: "The City will encourage
new development and infill redevelopment in the community"; and
4. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The City will take
the steps necessary to protect the physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive";
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning
District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the RS, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY district to 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.
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.
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1
Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City
Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10)
ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the _th day of , 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of . 1996.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot 1
Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 3
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
Responses for Items #6a and 6b
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6
and Block 2, Lot 1
MCKEEIIAN&TUTTLE/BLOUNT TEL:512-343-0038 Jul 31'96 14 54 No.004 P.04
McKEEMAN & TUTTLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
6850 AUSTIN CENTER BLVD, SUITE 205
AUSTIN, TFxAs 78731-3129
(512) 343-7999
Fax (512) 343-0038
LELAND P. MCKEEMAN FRANKLIN L. TUTTLE, JR.
Board Certified - Commercial Real £stote Lew Board Certified - Tex Low
Board Certified - Residential Reel Esmte Low Texas Boafd of Level Spocis nation
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
STEVEN E. HEIN, of Counsel
July 31, 1996
City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Dear Sirs:
HAND DELIVERED
FAX: 930-5892
Re: Proposed Rezoning of Amended
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block
1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lots 1 and
2 from RS to Cl; and Amendment
to Plat for Amended Wood Ranch,
Section Three, Block A, Lot 1;
Block E, Lots 30, 31, and 32 and
Section Five,Block 2,Lots 2 & 3
I represent ABS Investments, Inc., doing business as Benchmark
Homes, which owns property in Wood Ranch that would be adversely
affected by the above -referenced proposed Rezoning and Amendments
to Plat. On behalf of my client ABS Investments, Inc, hereby
objects to the proposed Rezoning and Amendment to Plat.
ABS Investments, Inc. owns the following developed properties
within the Wood Ranch Subdivision, some of which are within 200
feet of the properties covered by the requested Rezoning and
Amendment to Plat:
103 Rio Bravo
202 Rio Bravo
215 Rio Bravo
302 Rio Bravo
306 Rio Bravo
210 Cassidy
308 Cassidy
101 Cedar'Branch
105 Cedar Branch
208 Sage Brush
ABS Investments, Inc., doing business as Benchmark Homes has
built houses on all of the above lots and all are currently on the
market. In addition to the properties listed above, ABS recently
closed the sale of 105 Rio Bravo, but was forced to substantially
t,1CKEEMAN&TUTTLE/BLOUNT TEL:512-343-0038 Jul 31'96 14:55 No.004 P.05
reduce the sales price on the house because the Buyers were advised
by their agent that a proposed Rezoning and Amendment to Plat was
seeking commercial usage for properties on Rio Bravo and in the
neighborhood. The posted notice of the proposed Rezoning together
with communication with agents to prospective buyers have dampened
sales activity within the neighborhood and have forced further
price reductions for existing inventory. If the proposed Rezoning
and Amendment to Plat were granted, the changes would further
reduce residential property values within the neighborhood.
ABS Investments, Inc. has made a substantial investment in
purchasing the above -referenced lots and building houses on the
property in reliance upon the current existing zoning and plat
which establish the residential character of the neighborhood.
Prices for homes in the neighborhood run from approximately
$180,000.00 to more than $300,000.00. The potential loss in market
value to the properties currently owned by ABS Investments, Inc.
and other owners of homes within the neighborhood if the requested
Rezoning and Amendment to plat are granted is substantial.
Applicant has failed to establish that the requested Rezoning
and Amendment to plat are necessitated by a justifiable change in
conditions that would support treating his lots differently from
similar surrounding property. Any alleged benefit to be derived
from the proposed Rezoning and Amendment to plat would be for the
special benefit of the applicant while causing substantial
detriment to surrounding property and serving no substantial public
purpose. Such proposed changes are contrary to the public interest,
and applicant has not shown that the current existing zoning
results in any unnecessary hardship to applicant.
For all the reasons stated above, ABS Investments, doing
business as Benchmark Homes objects to the requested Rezoning and
Amendment to plat and urges its denial.
Very truly yours,
IA40 Aell �
Leland P. McKeeman,
Attorney for ABS Investments,
Inc., d/b/a Benchmark Homes
MCKEEMAN&TUTTLE/BLOUNT TEL:512-343-0038 Jul 31'96
McKEEMAN & TUTTLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
6850 AUSTIN CENTER 6LVD, SUITE 205
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731-3129
(612) 343-7999
FAx (512) 343-0038
LELAND P. McKEEMAN
Board Certified - Commercie/ Real Estate Law
Board Certified - Residential Rea/ Estate Lew
Texas Board of Legal Special/zetion
July 31, 1996
City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Dear Sirs:
1-4 : 52 No .004 P . 02
FRANKUN L. TUTTLE, JR.
Board Certified - Tex Law
Taxes Board of Legal $oeciakaatlon
STEVEN E. HEIN, of Counsel
HAND DELIVERED
FAX: 930-5892
Re: Proposed Rezoning of Amended
Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block
1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lots 1 and
2 from RS to Cl; and Amendment
to Plat for Amended Wood Ranch,
Section Three, Block A. Lot 1;
Block E, Lots 30, 31, and 32 and
Section Five, Block 2, Lots 2 & 3
I represent Keith Barker who owns property in Wood Ranch that
would be adversely affected by the above -referenced proposed
Rezoning and Amendments -to Plat. On. behalf of my client Keith
Barker hereby objects to the proposed Rezoning and Amendment to
Plat.
Keith Barker owns the following properties within the Wood
Ranch Subdivision, at least one of which is within 200 feet of the
properties covered by the requested Rezoning and Amendment to Plat:
102 Wood Court
103 Cedar Branch
The property at 103 Cedar Branch is currently for sale. Keith
Barker is president of ABS Investments, Inc., doing business as
Benchmark Homes and is aware of the negative affect on property
values that the proposed Rezoning and Amendment to plat have on the
residential housing market in the subdivision. If the proposed
Rezoning and Amendment to Plat were granted, the changes would
further reduce residential property values within the neighborhood.
Applicant has failed to establish that the requested Rezoning
and Amendment to plat are necessitated by a justifiable change in
conditions that would support treating his lots differently from
similar surrounding property. Any alleged benefit to be derived
from the proposed Rezoning and Amendment to plat would be for the
MCKEEMRN&TUTTLE/BLOUNT TEL:512-343-0038 Jul 31'96 14:53 No.004 P.03
special benefit of the applicant while causing substantial
detriment to surrounding property and serving no substantial public
purpose. Such proposed changes are contrary to the public interest,
and applicant has not shown that the current existing zoning
results in any unnecessary hardship to applicant.
For all the reasons stated above, Keith Barker objects to the
requested Rezoning and Amendment to plat and urges its denial.
Very truly yours,
Leland P. McKeeman,
Attorney for Keith Barker
Pat & Susan Garoutte
207 Rio Bravo Road
Georgetown, TX 78628
(512) 869-8486
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
RE: Zoning Changes Pertaining to Wood Ranch
Dear Sirs and Madams:
This letter is in response to the pending zoning changes requested by Jimmy Coffman
representing Wood Road Properties, Inc. affecting the Wood Ranch area.
When we first started looking at land, in the summer of 1995, we found Wood Ranch. We both
loved the area, the location, the quietness, the easy flow of the streets through the
subdivision, and the country atmosphere. Yes, this is where we would build our home, raise
our family and retire. The builder assured us this was a strictly residential area with a limited
number of lots available. We moved into our new house in the spring of 1996. Life has quietly
returned to normal and we are completly happy with our choice.
It has now come to our attention that all this is in jeopardy! We are greatly concerned about
the upcoming zoning proposals and wish to express our discontent. Highway 29 is an
extremely busy road. Adding commercial businesses at -the intersections of Rio Bravo Road &
D.B. Wood and H. 29 will only add to this congestion. It is hard enough to cross H. 29 without
the increase of business traffic. This zoning change will drastically increase the traffic and
safety hazards of this area. Not to mention that the surrounding property values will be
adversely affected. As the property values decline, our homeowner community will be in
danger, affecting re -sell and our future.
This land was represented to us as a residential area and we would like it to stay that way.
Georgetown's explosive growth will increase the tax base without compromising existing
residential neighborhood zoning agreements. We strongly oppose the zoning changes and
implore the City Council to disapprove of the plat ammendment requests.
Please ... listen to our concerns and that of our neighbors. We are the ones that live here and
we need your support to keep our community alive. Thank you!
Sincere)
Pat & Susan Garoutte
Mood Ranch Hone Ownere iAoeoclo ion
C/0 Kathleen Davidson
106 D. B. Wood Road
Georgeto��fn,, Texas 78628
(r,512) 863-7693
City of Georgetown City Council,
Planning and Zoning Commission,
Development Services Division
P. 0. Box 409
GeorgP.ITArn, TX 78627
July 30, 1096
City of GeorgetOWII,
i am writing as primary representative of the Vlood Ranch Home cD,:�rners
Association. As concerned voters ,nee object to the Wood Ranch Rezoning and
.Amendment to Platt. We've met' ith PvIr. Jimmy Coffman, the requester, and he has
decided to 1.0thdraw the request for rezoning on all lots except Section Five, Block 1, Lot
6 and Block 2, Lot 1, the corner lots.
We are requesting that a FINAL decision be made at this time to assure that
rezoning v1ill not be requested at a later date and that all lots be included in the Wood
Ranch Deed Restrictions. Specifically we unanimously request that a!r lots NOT be
considered ! oned commercial for future use. Additionaff , tive request to be notified
immediately by Planning and Zoning should this request arise again.
VVe thank you for your consideration and your honorable set ice.
Sincere;y.
Kathleen Davidson
Representative, Wood Ra►ich Home J"""hers
2
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY O
OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th day of August 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Rezoning of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2,
Lots 1 and .;, ��i J.�i� aauGl: ;,.��g,� . c"i;iiiir « U-i, Local uoilliTlerclai or more
restrictive classification,and an Amendment to the plat for Amended Wood Ranch,
Section Three, Block A, Lot 1, and Block E, Lots 30, 31 and 32, and Section Five,
Block 2, Lots 2 and 3; with variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at D.B. Wood
Road and State Highway 29 West.
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: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the Division of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Friday prior to
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Development Services
Division at 930-3575.
--------------------------------- ----------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: Wood Ranch - Rezoning and Amendment to Plan
Name of R zspon'dcnt: r4q-AIG&--S L 1AL4-&0
Address of Respondent: / 0 /C/ 0` fAfIH0
I am in favor:
I object: l�
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Dr. Frances L. Palacio
Mr. Joaquin C. Palacio, ,
106 Rio Bravo Road '4 !''
Georgetown, TX 78628
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
113 E. 18th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Commission Members:
We would like to more fully clarify the reasons for, our objection to the proposed rezoning of
eight lots in our community by the developer of Wood Ranch Estates.
We believe the current request to rezone several lots is a disservice and threat to both current
homeowners and lot owners who purchased their lots with the intention of building homes on
them. The disservice is the sham it makes of any assurances developers provide prospective
buyers. They would be free, as in this case, to misrepresent their intentions and then later act
to the detriment of the community's well-being with a sense of impunity. This behavior should
be deemed unethical at best.
The threat is to the safety and security of what should be a private, residential area from the
disturbance of commercial activities. Any business venture would result in putting non -local
traffic on Rio Bravo, a neighborhood cul-de-sac street, as well as on other side streets not
designed for through traffic. The added risk to residents and their property is unnecessary and
unacceptable.
The final insult to all this injury is the predictable negative impact on property values, resulting
from the proximity of businesses to private property. Most disturbing is that nearly a dozen
homes would share a property line with commercial property - property that could become a
paved parking lot or the exit of a car wash. This is unthinkable in a beautiful new upscale
community of custom-built homes on one acre or larger wooded lots. And, worse than
unthinkable, never anticipated by home purchasers since the possibility of this was never
disclosed.
In closing, we would like to say that as newcomers to the area, we had many locations to
choose from in and around Austin. We settled in Georgetown because it appeared to us to
have a strong sense of community and pride in the quality of life it offers its residents. Please
do not prove us wrong and tarnish the reputation of the city. Please act to protect the rights of
homeowners to be treated fairly and to preserve both their piece -of -mind and investment. We
urge the Board to deny the request of Wood Road Properties, Inc_.
Respectfully,
Frances L. Palacio, Ed. D. oa uin C. Palacio
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: Wood Ranch - Rezoning and Amendment to Plan
Name of Respondert
--f cc / A- /-� -t
Address of Respondent: 4-
I am in favor:
(ti
If you wish to submit written comment, ple` �pond by 7/31 /96 ) it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Project Name: Wood Ranch - Rezoning,and Amendment to Plan
Name of Respondent:
'' �6LLffL %yr LcJ�
Address of Respondent:
s�1 �c��w�� r�
I am in favor:
I object: Y
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to
City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
dM 26�3�F Illijj
v
-�sj-cvEm G _ WAKUD 1
I oZ . RJE�MD (oLk r-T
6EMaT,::To-Vq A) -FXA,S
-78(,c2ZS
'o . tax 409
6�1ET,vN,-VU�k5 78 6z7
t0llc ; JUC1' :?Iq / Iqqlo
�PA��lto-Ko�b5U) F-CM)N1a6j CF AMUI�AMGDP \NbOQ i;�A �AG-� l
7SLCRO� vlj u,7 13Loc j-i l LOT U Ao D
WTI l A K� P Z Frco a Resi PEkk-T &L, �3 14 (A L� )
FAM 1 t�f To LOCH l_ (,vM M Ug-c4 L� .
o PC�oPoS�D Amcf4vMcmT i�o �#`E 'PL/��T Fort
A+4�-VEDP WoOP RA"
I�LcX-I� A � l,Cif' ( ¢�kib �l€x� � � I�iS 3.0L�31
&�4t2 3Z � At�r� v �z-Tto�.l �iV�E j f�1.oc..K 2� -�� Z
Xis owN'Q� eF'i'KoVqZi-'r AD�AcE�,AT T� �E
wlA�" tt> �5(Av;bAv,�7 -To -Mu -ABovu:
REZoti1�F.L� /kND TI-A-T AMEIS9 1ytEh--j `FlzoFbSA(.`D
To -SuU4 rAu: `rc)U
T� ��t`( ,�t�c-( C�ntstr��Tto►•\ OF -!SA"T�ZoFcf�&t-S ,
I�NO
AM 6 4 Fi � T 744T YoIA w► L L, FIB n jRi��7
'(zoP�vA L� To W V Y MA --Poo EOF �
Yz cC�^Ci�o�LS -t' 1� -IMA7 woaP r<--QAt) FF.5
ITS Qt3 U E-q AT o N ks i V M A WTI'VILIE;
� T S
MW VAgAKvCEs Ir- / w i.LA--- No T V:51E: ► Kc..o► xt>l i Fg i Vv I is
74E: 6�o�AL- C�4E�Z4U PU-,�H VbK, MU: -V"UclPnAlE�W O-F
`ITA97 3t�i�l ��1oN
MATTEiL-
-�� ��¢� �►,6� �►�I�11 ��fo�S � 1�4� � � Ems.
z 4l� ?4
2 IS
74
v
CSC
le- -
Z-, -
o,7
SL��
5,4
l
y
Eric M. Vazquez &
C. Denise Valenta
213 Rio Bravo
Georgetown, TX 78627
July 28, 1996
City of Georgetown
Planning & Zoning Departments
113 E. 8th. Street
Georgetown, TX 78627
Dear-Sir/Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to express our unanimous
objection and concern with regards to the proposed amendment
to the official plat and rezoning of the property located in
Wood Ranch Estates. Specifically our objections are:
*SAFETY - Wood Ranch is a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood with
our children, and pets at play, in what is now a safe
environment. The introduction of a commercial environment
would inevitably result in accidents and potential loss of
lives to our loved ones. Additionally, the occurrence of
accidents on Highway 29 has been increasing at a steady
rate. Hence, the approval of this application would in fact
be a significant contribution to the increase of accidents
along the Wood Ranch/Highway 29 intersections.
•MISREPRESENTATION - The residents of Wood Ranch
Estates built and/or purchased their homes with expressed
reassurances from the developer and the builders that the
subdivision would always remain a residential community.
The fact that the developer has submitted the proposed plans
is an affirmation of this misrepresentation.
•QUALITY OF LIFE - The Austin American Statesman
printed an article over the weekend. The focus of this
article was how Georgetown is "determined to preserve its
character" and Georgetown's "managed growth philosophy." We
trust that this managed growth philosophy and small town
image is consistent throughout all of the City of Georgetown
and not just within the town square area. We moved to
Georgetown for just this type of environment. One that was
in close proximity to a large metropolitan area, but offered
a small town and safe, beautiful environment.
PROPERTY VALUES - Williamson County is currently
experiencing a major economic and population boom. Hence,
this explosive growth may result in higher property values
and a higher tax base for the City of Georgetown. We say
"may result" because the outcome of your decision with
regards to Wood Ranch Estates will have a direct impact on
the decisions that are made by future residents and
developers with regards to relocating to the City of
Georgetown. The impact of a commercial rezoning in a
residential environment will result in a decrease in
property values and a lower tax base for the City of
Georgetown. Additionally, we submit that potential home
developers and buyers will not want to invest in a City that
does not protect the interests of its citizens.
Anything that you may be able to do to facilitate the
denial of this application would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to review all
of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Eric M. Vazquez
C. Denise Valenta
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
Name Addrea Signature
2 �nr✓14��1- <�at� S�<� &-5— Woad CT /, ra-.,-?,0
3 6..,1qX,4 'lYcLmc
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
w
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page — of _
July 26, 1996
GEORGETOWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/
GEORGETOWN CITY COUNCIL
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: Plats Amendments Requests
Design Standards Variances Requests
RIO BRAVO @ HWY 29 and D.B. Wood Road @ HWY 29
HONORABLE MEMBERS:
This letter is to voice our respectful but vehement objection to
the requests by Wood Road Properties, Inc., et al, referenced
above, to be heard at the PLANNING AND ZONING meeting on August 6,
1996 at 6 P.M. at Georgetown City Council Hall.
We don't yet actually live at Wood Ranch Subdivision but we will
after our our closing date the end of August. We purchased a home
being built by Benchmark Homes and it's almost finished.
The already limited ingress/egress into and out of Wood Ranch
Subdivision would be significantly impeded if you approve these
requests for re -zoning to commercial development. Rio Bravo, for
heaven's sake, is a cul-de-sac and was platted as residential lots.
D.B. Wood Road is populated with residences whose owners did not
build there with the knowledge they would, within two years, have
to contend with contiguous commercial development styfling their
property values and threatening their health and safety.
Our objections to the developers' requests include the following:
* Commercial development on the lots as requested would
drastically compromise the safety of the residents of Wood Ranch
Subdivision as well as the surrounding areas (including two
churches). Zoning regulations in Georgetown are designed to
PROMOTE SAFETY --not destroy it. These lots were "platted" as
residential lots (with the exception of the ""neither"" designation
which we understand was because of existing caves on a couple of
them). WHY AT THIS ""POST -PLATTING DATE"" SHOULD THAT COMMITTMENT
TO SAFETY BE COMPROMISED? We respectfully say it shouldn't.
* Commercial development as requested IS NOT NEEDED --the
requesters simply prefer to enhance their own financial situation
see page 2
Page 2.
without regard to and to the detriment of the property owners who
bought and built in Wood Ranch Subdivision under the guise that
there would be only residential development there. Obviously
commercial development, as requested, would plummet the value of
our investment while making money for the developers. Why didn't
they "plat" the lots as "commercial" when the overall plan was
submitted to the Honorable Council originally? The answer must be
obvious.
* Re -zoning the lots as requested would NOT be consistent
with your CENTURY PLAN which of course --among other things ---
addresses the issues of health, safety, morals, and the character
of the area as it relates to the overall general welfare of the
City. The requesters probably know that Parmer Lane is one day
expected to intersect HWY 29 a few miles west of this area and
commercial zoning of this nice Wood Ranch Subdivision area would
fold favorably (for the requesters) into such a scenario. We say
with negative impacts on Georgetown.
You have a commendable process for consideration of such requests
and you have an awesome responsibility to make the right decision --
for the good of the City and its Citizenry ---we trust you to do
that. Our plea is: Be sensitive to our needs as aforementioned,
as well as our "vested predicament" and deny these requests for re-
zoning. In doing so you will have taken a giant step forward in
enhancing the general welfare of Georgetown.
Thank you all, and with best wishes and our kindest personal
regards, we remain,
Ve tru. ,y urs ,
J and Shirl Ha an
SOON TO BE
309 Cassidy Drive
Wood Ranch
Georgetown, Texas
Kathleen & Craig Davidson
106 D. B. Wood Road
Georgetown, Texas 78628
(512) 863-7693
City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627
July 23, 1996
City of Georgetown,
We object to the Wood Ranch Rezoning and Amendment to Plan. More specifically, I object to the
rezoning of Section Five Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 and Section Three Block E, Lots 31 and 32 from RS,
Residential Single Family to C-1, Loca! Commercial. There are several valid reasons for objecting.
1- SAFETY: In the past two years there have been several injury accidents on Hwy 29 in the one mile
stretch from Rio Bravo road to the First Baptist Church . This stretch of road has an initial speed limit of
65 MPH then 55 MPH with no traffic or warning signs. On Sunday mornings alone there are 500 autos
entering onto 29 at this intersection in an hours time. A change from residential to commercial zoning at
the intersections of Hwy 29 and D.B. Wood Road and Rio Bravo Road, would unnecessarily increase risk
to life.
Additionally, if a Convenient Store is built in this area you have to consider the effect of hazardous
waste on the residents. Gas and oil runoff from pumps and/or vehicles will be a health hazard to the
children and families that play and live near the property. Furthermore, liter produced by the store and its
patrons will unnecessarily attract rodents and increase risk of disease.
2- TRAFFIC: Wood Ranch is a growing residential community as is Legend Oaks just across Hwy 29.
Residents stroll with their children, walk their dogs, walk to the mail boxes, and try to walk to Church.
Walking to the mail boxes on D. B. Wood Road and walking with your family has become increasing
dangerous due to the dips in the roads, high speed limit (45 MPH), and lack of side walks. A variance to
the standard 150 feet of street frontage required for commercial lots would further hazard and congestion
this residential two lane road.
Furthermore, walking to daily Church functions has become impossible with the recent raise in the
speed limit on Hwy 29 and the semi -truck traffic. To date, no provisions have been made for the increase
speeds and traffic. A change from residential to commercial zoning on the corners of Hwy 29 and D.B.
Wood Road and Rio Bravo Road, would unnecessarily increase traffic at an already busy intersection.
3- GOOD FAITH DESIGN: Wood Ranch was designed to be a residential community. Residents
purchased lots and homes because they wanted to be away from commercial area. We were told only the
two lots right on Hwy 29 were commercial and the remainder were all residential. We feel we have been
betrayed and misled by the developers.
Finally, we question the necessity. Wood Ranch residents are loyal to Georgetown. This is our city. We
want to see it grow. However, we should have managed growth making sure we've studied that the roads
and residents can handle what we plan. Already there is a Good Luck General Store planned for 1/2 mile
East of D.B. Wood Road. And a new Texaco, HEB, and soon, Albertson's just one mile from Wood
Ranch. Competition is good, but are we setting ourselves up for failure? Can we justify the need for
another "Convenient Store/ Minimart" in this one mile radius? Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely4Kath"IeenDavlidson
Crai and
25 July 1996
Georgetown Mannino and Zoning Commi55ion/
Georgetown City Council
115 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 75626
fie: Wood Ranch Eotatco 5ubdivioion Zoning Change Kcq,ueot
Dear Zoning Commi55ion Members and City Council Members:
A5 homeowners in the Wood Ranch Eotatco 5ubdivioion, we would like to expre55
our objections to the rezoning of 6 residential lots to commercial usage in our
neighborhood. Two of the lots mentioned are on D.B. Wood load and the remaining
4 lots are located on Rio Bravo Road.
The traffic and Safety i55ue i5 of utmost importance and a top priority in con-
sidering this zoning change. A5 it i5 right now, attempting to turn right onto Rio
Bravo Load from Highway 29 i5 trusting that the cars/trucks/gravel haulers
following in back will plow down enough to allow the turn to occur. Kio Bravo Road
was planned a5 a neighborhood Street which ends in a cul-de-sac. It was never
planned a5 a commercial Street and certainly not one in which commercial
buildings/offices would be built over halfway down the first block of homes. Natu-
rally, the thought of having commercial property on the 4 lots on Kio Bravo Road i5
beyond comprehension and common 5en5e. The traffic would be entering and exit-
ing on Kio Bravo Road, near the community mailboxes where re5ident5 must Stop
their cars, Oct out and retrieve their mail, and then enter their cars to leave. Aloo,
there are re5ident5 who walk with Small children or alone to check their mail, but
that would be an impo55ibility with the traffic Situation commercial zoning would
bring.
The traffic on D.B. Wood Road i5 already incredible, especially on weekends with
folks coming out to enjoy Lake Georgetown. Trucks and cars with trailered boats
are a common Sight. The idea of adding an additional 2 commercial lots next to a
residence i5 both dangerous and again, lacks common 5en5e. A5 we are aware,
D.B. Wood load will be 4 laneo, and hopefully a traffic light will Soon appear at
Highway 29 and D.B. Wood Load. Can you imagine trailered boato, gravel haulers,
and everyday traffic trying to pull out of a convenience Store/gas Station on the
east Side of D.B. Wood and then attempting to cross 5 lanes of traffic to get
back onto Highway 29? This is not what the Georgetown Century Plan was think-
ing when eotabliohed "to maintain the public welfare, ensure the reasonable use
and protection of land, facilitate the provision of facilities and services, and pro-
tect natural resou rcoo'
A Second objection to this rezoning request is the fact that these 6 lot5 were
presented to u5 a5 either residential lots or unbuildable. We bought our lot
directly from 5C13/Wood Properties, and very Specifically asked the developers what
if any, lots would be zoned commercial property. Two lots at the corners of D.B.
Wood Road and Highway 29 were the only commercial lots for the entire Wood
Ranch EStateo Subdivision. There was a 5 acre lot on the west corner of Rio
Bravo Road and Highway 29 which would be a "buffer" lot; never to be either
residential or commercial because of the 2 caves on this lot. All other lots were
zoned residential, as:
1. Stated verbally by Wood Properties/Jay Gantt/
Brett Lester
2. written in the deed restrictions
5. detailed in the Amended Final plat filed in Williamoon
County (courthouse -deed records)
It is difficult to believe that ao citizens of Georgetown, we cannot believe or trust
local developers who assure buyers they are purchasing land in a reoidential neigh-
borhood, and then these Same developers turn around and request a rezoning
after the majority of the land is built on/cold.
This is not what living in Georgetown is about - as residents Since 1980 and as a
committee member on the Georgetown Century Man (Vernon Harris), we find this
rezoning request to be outrageous. The traffic and Safety problems would be
prohibitive in what is supposed to be a reoidential neighborhood. Wood Ranch was
promoted and built as a neighborhood, not a subdivision with commercial buildings
lining both sides of reoidential streets.
We ask both the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commiooion and the Georgetown
City Council to please deny the requeoted amendments and variances to Wood
Ranch EStateo.
Sincerely,
l
Joan Woodruff Harris
516 Rio Bravo Road
Georgetown, Texas 78628
L. Vernon Harris, Jr.
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Ref:: Zoning Change from Residential to Commercial - Rio Bravo &
Highway 29
Dear Commission Members,
We are homeowner's in the Wood Ranch Development. When we built
our home we were under the presumption that the lots fronting
Highway 29 and.Rio Bravo would remain residential lots. We would
not have built our home on Rio Bravo if those respective frontage
lots were zoned commercial.
Listed below are reasons why the variance should be denied:
1. Maintain residential continuity from Hwy 29 throughout
the Wood Ranch community.
2. Enhance Hwy 29 beauty into Georgetown by having like
subdivisions on each side. (Wood Ranch & Legend Oaks)
3. Establish arterial traffic flow to prevent traffic flow
congestion created by commercial development.
4. Keep the Hwy 29 "small town charm" alive as you enter
Georgetown from the West.
S. Wood Ranch was built upon a rural neighborhood concept
because of the large
acreage lots. It would be a disservice to our
neighborhood community if commercial lots were allowed
This is an infringement on our residential neighborhood
concept we so carefully purchased.
6. We think the developers of Wood Ranch are making a
grave mistake by not realizing the millions of dollars
invested collectively by the homeowners to
build such a quality neighborhood.
We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission will review our
concerns and respond by denying the variance request initiated by
the individuals responsible for this action.
Respectfully,
Dr. Frances L. Palacio
Mr. Joaquin C. Palacio
106 Rio Bravo Road
Georgetown, TX 78628
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
113 E. 18th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Dear Commission Members:
We would like to more fully clarify the reasons for our objection to the proposed rezoning of
eight lots in our community by the developer of Wood Ranch Estates.
We believe the current request to rezone several lots is a disservice and threat to both current
homeowners and lot owners who purchased their lots with the intention of building homes on
them. The disservice is the sham it makes of any assurances developers provide prospective
buyers. They would be free, as in this case, to misrepresent their intentions and then later act
to the detriment of the community's well-being with a sense of impunity. This behavior should
be deemed unethical at best.
The threat is to the safety and security of what should be a private, residential area from the
disturbance of commercial activities. Any business venture would result in putting non -local
traffic on Rio Bravo, a neighborhood cul-de-sac street, as well as on other side streets not
designed for through traffic. The added risk to residents and their property is unnecessary and
unacceptable.
The final insult to all this injury is the predictable negative impact on property values, resulting
from the proximity of businesses to private property. Most disturbing is that nearly a dozen
homes would share a property line with commercial property - property that could become a
paved parking lot or the exit of a car wash. This is unthinkable in a beautiful new upscale
community of custom-built homes on one acre or larger wooded lots. And, worse than
unthinkable, never anticipated by home purchasers since the possibility of this was never
disclosed.
In closing, we would like to say that as newcomers to the area, we had many locations to
choose from in and around Austin. We settled in Georgetown because it appeared to us to
have a strong sense of community and pride in the quality of life it offers its residents. Please
do not prove us wrong and tarnish the reputation of the city. Please act to protect the rights of
homeowners to be treated fairly and to preserve both their piece -of -mind and investment. We
urge the Board to deny the request of Wood Road Properties, Inc..
Respectfully,
Frances L. Palacio, Ed. D. Oaqufn C. Palacio
July 25, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: Zoning Changes In Wood Ranch Subdivision
Commission & Council Members
I would like to take a moment of your time to address some concerns I have with regards to the above.
referenced zoning changes in Wood Ranch Subdivision.
When you purchase a home it is one of the single biggest investment decision you will ever make. Myself
and many other people in Wood Ranch, made these investment decisions based on Written and Oral
information provided by the developer. Now after the developer has sold the majority of lots he wants to
change the rules without regards to prior written agreements. At one point in time the Planning and
Zoning Commission also made an informed decision on the zoning of this subdivision based on plans and
information provided by the developer. Now, less than 3 years later the developer wants to make new
promises. What's to keep them from changing the rules again in another couple of years.
Aside, from the issues of misrepresentation and decreased property values, I have a concern for the safety
of my family. Having commercial property with their entrances hundreds of feet into the interior of the
subdivision does not promote a safe environment for children (traffic and children do not mix), The safety
matter is compounded with the additional traffic hazards to be encountered at these commercial
intersections.
I know it is not the responsibility of the Commission and/or Council to monitor Real Estate Developers
trade practices, but you can monitor the concerns and safety of your constituents. This proposal will have
no benefit to the majority only personal and financial losses. At what point to do you say NO to a few
developers, whose only concern is for their personal gain, at the cost of many others.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the August 6th meeting.
Minac
105 Oak Bend Court
Georgetown, Texas 78628
TO: Whom it may concern July 22, 1996
SUBJECT: Rezoning in Wood Ranch Subdivision
I would like to voice my concern and disapproval about the
effort to rezone a portion of the Wood Ranch Subdivision from
residential to commercial. The real question each of you will have
to answer on this issue is ... "Who will this benefit and who will it
hurt?" It should not be a money or profit issue!
The only benefit in rezoning will be the financial gain of the
people who own the land... land they had originally planned to
develop as residential. But, it will harm every single one us who
bought homes in the Wood Ranch Subdivision. I can't speak for
everyone, but this is the first home that my wife and I have been
able to buy since 1979 and after 22-years in the Air Force. Our
dream was to return to Texas and buy a home on a large, secluded
lot and enjoy the peace and quiet. We paid quite a bit of money
for our home and did a lot of research before buying and moving to
Georgetown... one primary concern was ensuring development such as
this was not planned. Now, after homes have been bought this
rezoning effort is surfaced...a little back door.
Here are some thoughts on the issue:
- I understand access to the businesses cannot be from Hwy
29, requiring patrons to enter off of Rio Bravo. This will
significantly increase traffic on our residential street and making
it difficult to know who belongs in the area and who does not.
- Why have a business on streets that dead end into a
residential area? Wouldn't it be better on the northeast side of
D.B. Woods leading to Lake Georgetown and away from the bulk of the
subdivision?
- While the sellers of the land will profit, the owners of
the homes will be faced with decreasing property values, increased
exposure to traffic that does not live in the neighborhood and for
those closest to the businesses, increased trash and debris.
- What benefit will the business bring to the neighborhood?
Will they have street lights installed? Will they build visually
pleasant entry gates to the subdivision and their business? What
requirements or restrictions will the businesses have on type and
style of building they can build? If our homes are devalued
because of their businesses, will they make up the differences (why
should we as homeowners loose while they gain)? What obligation
will the sellers have to us home owners (their original customers)
Has there been a study on the potential of increased crime
and what efforts will the city/county make to curb this increase in
our neighborhood?
In closing, I am not against development and expansion . I
only ask that it be smart and tho ht out. Do not let the desire
to expand and profit hurt others!
O&Z,�,
TOMMV
nd qEA HODGES
301 Rio Bravo Rd
Georgetown, Texas 78628
T. A. Panto
211 La Mesa Ln.
Georgetown, TX 78628
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Gentlemen,
This letter is to protest the proposal to increase the number of lots to be taken from the
Wood Ranch Estates and converted to commercial use.
Besides the obvious safety concern of adding more traffic to increasingly busy sections of
our roads, we object to the proposed reneging of the conditions under which the plat for
this area was filed. We bought our land in good faith, expecting to live in a quiet
residential area. We expect the developers to honor their written and oral commitments.
This proposal is especially unfair to those homeowners who bought homes a few lots away
from the provisioned commercial lots. They expected to have a buffer between
themselves and the noise and traffic that a business brings. They will have been grossly
wronged if this proposal is adopted. Thank You.
Sincerely,
? 0 a� far---
gj.e � /�I�
6, waxAet,�
I o 2 OaL Bktac-+,
6AA 7�r� I'D 6 t GN-,
C�� � �Tecas -t�sb2O
I 1 T). P- W'nod Read
Juhr '2 5. 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown Cite Council
113 East 8th Street
CTeorgeto,wn, TX 78626
Ladies and Gentlemen.:
We are writing to express our concern about the rezoning firom residential to
commercial status of the logs on D. B. Wood and Rio Bravo Roads. Before we
purchased our home in this area, we checked the status of the lots in the area to
assure ourselves that it would be a yuic4 residential neighborhood. It secmis
unconscientionable to rezone as commercial lots that were designated residential
after homes have been built in the area.
As homeowners in this neighborhood, we are concerned with traffic, safet}i, and
increased commercial activity that rezoning these lots would incur.
We are proud of our new home and neighborhood and are working to make it be a
source of pride for the cite of GeorgetoxN Please help us by keeping the lots on
1). B. Wood and 16o Bravo Roads their original residential status.
Thank you.
cerely yours,
Richard and Dee Starr
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council
113 W . 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Subject: Wood Ranch - Rezoning and Amendment to Plat
Dear Committee/Council Persons:
The intent of this letter is to express my opposition to the changes requested by
the aformentioned subject.
First, by even having to address this issue I feel that we, the residents of Wood
Ranch, have been betrayed by the developers in that they misrepresented the
land usage when purchasing the property on which we planned to create a
residential community.
Second, the recommended changes could create serious traffic and sefety
problems affecting the entire neighborhood .
Third, the approval of the proposed rezoning and amendment, created by certain
developers who apparently are willing to destroy an entire neighborhood just to
satisfy their own greed, will undoubtedly destroy the original idea of Wood Ranch
and will seriously damage the values of the nearby properties.
The approval of this rezoning and plat amentdment would create unsightly
structures and unwanted noise, unwanted lights, blowing trash, and potential
crime.
therefore respectfully request that you deny these proposed changes.
Sincerely,
44�� 0/11-4-7
James O'Mary
103 D. B. Wood Rd.
Ph. 930-5604
Frank & Karen Halay
303 Rio Bravo Road
Georgetown, TX 78628
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning & Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 869-8411
RE: Variance to property on Hwy 29 and D.B. Wood Road and Rio Bravo Road
Dear Sir or Madam:
It is with great concern that I write this letter regarding the proposed variance to
properties located on Hwy 29 and the residential roads, Rio Bravo and D.B. Wood.
I don't think I need to tell you what a significant investment a home can be. For many,
it is the largest investment they will make. When a home is custombuilt, the
investments go beyond the dollars -- there is time, sometimes labor and quite a bit of
emotion. When we built our home on Rio Bravo Road, it was our dream home, in
which all of those investments were made, and then some.
To see the request for a variance to make the properties adjacent to Hwy 29 on Rio
Bravo Road and D.B. Wood Road commercial concerns me about the area we have
chosen to live and raise our family. When we chose Rio Bravo Road to build our
house, we were not made aware of any intentions to make the remaining lots
commercial. There was even talk of the developer making an entrance to the
community. The "entrances" that are being proposed now are beyond comprehension.
I commute into North Austin each day. I have decided to find alternate routes to 135 to
do this. I think many commuters have done the same. Therefore, the highways and
farm roads off of 135 have seen increased traffic. An example of this is the recent fatal
accident on FM1431, in which a life was lost due to an attempt to swerve out of the way
of a person making a left turn into a subdivision. Four lanes of traffic, going 65 mph in
and around residential areas is yet another issue; however, when you factor in potential
businesses that will further increase traffic around these areas, the welfare of those
who live in the area is put at risk. The safety concerns that surround commercial use of
the property in the referenced locations far outweigh the benefits. Following are the
safety concerns we have:
1. Currently, the traffic in this area is 65 mph. Making any kind of turn in and out of
Rio Bravo Road/D. B. Wood Road off of or onto Hwy 29 already requires great
caution. Having traffic making turns on either side of the road poses great danger.
The churches on the south side of Hwy 29 have their fair share of traffic in addition
to the trucks travelling on Hwy 29 to and from the quarry. Imagine the impact of
adding any type of business to this area.
The mailboxes are right next to the property included in the variance. Stopping to
get the mail on the side of the road now, poses some safety hazards in that there is
no area to pull off. With the increased traffic a commercial business would bring, it
would increase the danger significantly. In addition, I enjoy taking bike rides with
my children to the mailbox. I see that we would no longer be able to do that should
this property be developed commercially.
Rio Bravo Road is currently a quiet residential road with a good number of young
children. Speaking for my 2 young boys, they enjoy riding their bikes, etc. It is our
concern that increasing traffic would find their way down to the cul de sac, either out
of curiosity or assuming it could be a road leading to the lake, therefore, posing
concernfVor my children's safety.
I invite each of you to take a ride down through the Wood Ranch Subdivision, take a
look at the quality of homes, imagine the families that live there. We have taken many
rides through the communities of Georgetown before deciding on Wood Ranch. Many
of those other communities have lovely entrances; entrances that make the
homeowners proud to live where they do. We have chosen Wood Ranch, without a
fancy entrance and, yes, even above -ground utilities for things those other communities
did not offer. However, we did not count on a mini -mart or any other commercial
business to be at the end of our road.
This letter is not laden with facts or "legalese". It is just simply the feelings of one family
whose dream home is down the street from a potential nightmare. We ask that you
look past the dollars and see the human side of what all this means.
Sincer lye----- -
.a enTy
MELODY WEBB AND ROBERT M. UTLEY
211 Cassidy Drive
Georgetown, TX 78627
(512) 819-9690
July 25, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Dear People:
We have recently learned of a proposed change in zoning requested by
the developers of Wood Ranch Subdivision. As homeowners in the
subdivision, we oppose the developers' request to change the zoning
status of several sites from residential to commercial.
We are concerned about several issues. State Highway 29 is already a
busy four -lane highway with significant safety considerations. More
commercial uses than initially planned will increase vehicular traffic and
create additional safety hazards. In promoting the subdivision, the
developers assured homeowners that only -two sites had been zoned for
commercial use. To violate this commitment is certainly a lack of good
faith and may even be a breach of contract. Finally, since Wood Ranch
is a small subdivision, impacting the residential community with
commerical uses will lower the property values of all residential sites in
the subdivision and subsequently lower the appraised value for tax
purposes.
As potentially future residents of Georgetown, we urge you to deny the
request to increase the commercial zoning of Wood Ranch Subdivision.
Sincerely,
Melody Webb
r-,
July 21, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: Proposed Platting changes for Wood Ranch Estates
Dear Administrators,
We moved into our new home at 304 Cassidy Drive, in the Wood Ranch Estates, on June
1 st . Now we hear that there is a proposal before you to change the zoning at the entrance
of our subdivision from residential to commercial. This is a neighborhood! People with
children live here. People who take walks. People, who like us, bought our new home
with the understanding that it would remain a nice residential area.
Nobody said a word about anything other than homes that are highly restricted. We had
called SCB Development to ask about any plans to change the area and were told that
DBWood road was slated to be widened in the future. That's it. We spoke to Mary Ellen
Kirsch at Coldwell Banker Realtors. Nothing was mentioned about commercial zoning.
We went to Don Bizzell of Steger & Bizzell Engineers. He provided us with the plat and
did not mention any plans to change it.
State Highway 29 is a busy, busy road. We would love to see a traffic light put at the
intersection of DBWood road and Hwy. 29 (especially since there is no turn lane). There
are plans to put a Good Luck convenience store between IH35 and DBWood road. OK.
It won't be near any homes.
We certainly don't need the traffic, noise, pollution, etc. that commercial business would
bring to a beautiful neighborhood. Please deny the request to change the zoning. Please
stand by the original plans. There is plenty of room for commercial development which
will not impact families.
Sincerely,
Grady K. Denton
Loretta F. Denton
304 Cassidy Dr.
Georgetown, Texas 78628
(512) 869-7668
ALAN L. & BRENDA G. HERMANSON
310 CASSIDY DRIVE
GEORGETO WN, TEXAS 78628
July 24, 1996
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
RE: Wood Ranch Estates
Zoning Variation
Dear Commission and Council Members:
We are extremely concerned with the proposed request to change the zoning for several
lots in Wood Ranch Estates. This request has come as a complete surprise. At no time
during our decision making process to purchase our home in this area were we informed
that this was even a remote possibility. Neither the lot layout plan nor the deed
restrictions indicate any type of commerical enterprise and we are strongly opposed to
any change in the zoning of these lots.
We chose this area because of the natural beauty and commercial free environment - an
area where we could raise our three children in safe surroundings with limited traffic.
Finally, our significant investment in our home would be jeopardized if a zoning change
was permitted which would result in decreasing property values.
If you have any questions, please call us at 863-6792.
Sincerely,
Ck 4��f)�L to
,��J
Alan L. Hermanson, CPA a G_ Hermanson
wxzcx
114 D.B. Wood Road
Georgetown, Tx. 78628
Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council
113 East 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Dear Sirs'
My husband and I were distressed to hear about the possibility of the rezoning of some of
the lots in our residential neighborhood. My family moved to this area approximately one
year ago, drawn here by Georgetown's wonderful reputation as a community -minded city.
We chose to purchase a home in Wood Ranch estates based upon representations made by
developers concerning size, quality, and construction of homes to be built around us. We
felt this would be a wonderful area to invest our money in, being the growing, vibrant area
it was represented to be. You can well imagine our concern now about the possibility of
having a convience store or dental office as our neighbor instead of the like -structure
homes we were led to believe would be here. In addition to this concern about our daily
quality of He which will be impacted tremendously by this decision to rezone, I am also
concerned about the inevitable decline in our property value.
I request you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, to not approve this rezoning. Please
do not change the rules of the game in the middle of play. We were basing our most
significant financial investment on those rules remaining constant.
Thank you for your consideration in this very important manner.
Sincerely yours.
udy P. Johnson
July 25, 1996
To: Members of Georgetown's Planning and Zoning Commission
Re: Variance Amendments for Wood Ranch
Dear Commission Members:
As a homeowner in Wood Ranch we would like to address some concerns
about the proposed amendments filed by the developers of the subdivision. These are
listed below in no particular order of importance, but we believe that they are all very
veid concerns.
--*-The only lots excluded from the deed restrictions (which we received copies of
whe-We purchased our homes) were Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 in section Five
and bt 32, Clock E and Lot 1, Block A, Section Three. Therefore, the homeowners
V*e aware that these 4 lots were not intended as residential lots and could be
rezoned for commercial usage.
----Stated in Restriction #1 is the fact that except for the excluded lots all other
lots are to be used only for single family residential purposes.
----As stated in Restriction # 29, the Architectural Control Committee (Bobby Stanton,
Brett Lester and Jay Gantt) are entitled to amend or grant variances to these
restrictions only if these amendments or variances are consistent with the overall plan
A
for the development of the subdivision. As .previously stated in our first concern, the
lots addressed in the amendment of the variance does not include these four lots -
they are designated as residential lots. The above committee is to represent the
owners in the best interests of the subdivision - since almost all other home owners in
the subdivision have signed the petition against the proposed amendments, we feel
strong in stating that we do not see that these changes are in our best interest.
----The changes to the additional lots from residential to commercial will lower property
values in the subdivision. Homes in our subdivision range from $200,000 - $300,000+
in appraised values. The county and school district tax rolls would see a substantial
decrease in collected taxes if all these homes dropped in value because of the close
proximity of additional commercial property.
----The traffic hazards of having numerous commercial customers turning into / out of
the subdivision from a very busy Hwy 29 would be a serious safety problem. We
already watch our rear view mirrors as we turn into the subdivision from Hwy 29 to
make sure the gravel trucks are not going to rear -end our vehicles. You also have
many times of the day where you must wait quite a while to pull out onto Hwy 29.
----We understand that these four lots in this amendment may prove to be difficult to
sell because of their proximity to Hwy 29. (We feel an amendment for Lots 8,9,10 in
Section II which face Hwy 29 will be next for the developers to ask for a variance.) We
have a suggestion to the developers to donate these properties to the county or the
city as green belts, nature reserves, or park land that could later have tennis courts,
basketball courts, and a swimming constructed at a later date. This would have a
positive effect on the property value of the subdivision, plus give the land owners a
substantial tax write-off.
Please consider the above points as you prepare to vote on the variance amendment.
Thank you for your time.
Doug and Annette Coe
102 Cedar Branch Dr.
Georgetown, Tx 78628
v�l •
00? CldA-!bl c'I--f) l
SUS P IQ ks(aL
t4-c VI l A46 G; i 4'p y C-ciYVn`� (Azc/u (
R-t
At-So
46L�Cy.-7 F S,-
ovo nl�-) 0 P-)
1
ljor-)OS N&D
ado `�"L c `C�� c.--�r 6 S c T—s Uju v co
A- c, A CO v Ln A+-.Sc� 9 ,<-
f.U() v c_.0 pF)�,�At-kIE- T-17�
PatT" RA-0 ou' k) T"UAn- vc-0
b� L-EJ'I- 1. o TK CS
PETITION
t-a�er-dcbk's- k, &Qfcc4Cnfi'st
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of s in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
Name AAA-- _ ,. _ 7
5g L JC k'C" A -2 (y 16 c e»1j l_.i
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page -7 of 7
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
Name ^ Address "" Signature
2 rj o
i 1
t-lN �,. cL�=•a 3v3 eAssr�Y ,�r2rd�z
3 k) O'Is1 drV
4 0(fW-liS /3690c2-/6- 307 GAgSiDY D4cc>-;�-
In ,
5 /.f/.�f i" Y I . ���/Y?� _ � �o % ��c,s.si � y.Al/11
11
12
14 kkO�rc'o►) GoK) rA-c-L---s
15 �tt Laves
1621.,e� Z.
17 AA e— o
18 6 L
19 �Y t d y3) e h+o'1
20 D �j
21
22 LAN f�Cf2/�Ifl�UsO�
23_M A-d /
24 L FF(L CH A4 G /iv
25 L741L 4I/51111
Page I of -7
z oq L o 0 A 0
-301-f
Slo (fA-Z / py l
d8(--� '. '--� ,tea U a
'A oR f
;-0-D
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
Name Address signatur
21 onar,>q(Urri
3 aA-W-ES L Ffl-LAC4 0
4 1 c� (0 VIIJ &
5 �e c��re� A rJn�c�Y
r
7 C, U� /u
S. ; z5"1C
9L ) e�
10
12 x S l-4
13__�kiL c�
14�..0
16 I.pJA y�� sNiP1"11 J
17 I/ �'� t C'Rko— wWcm"
18 M�' I U one
19 �N�r��
-�tSz
20
21�(1.�dQ�
22
. 1.5— —
�SS'JL 0'-
0
/ O N L GDP B"e.d ./c/y
z. t ,o (—� AU D Ct � Q1Z
Flo ( r �&(
n
M NO
J
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
Name Address Lure
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
0
13
14 `�
R 1 G... ..�n1Z17
carte �t
15
a b v\
1 ,`B �a
'
16 grrc
rC�
20I Q�es i-4ne
zoTP�
2l A
!A '�,ES/l
24
25
Page �3 of —7
'L
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
t2t
18 1 ,.CI. u8�,ei •�li<,Ec
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page A of 7
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission/
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached)..
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
I Name �j Address Signature
1 �/7 o -1 J-4 I cA r n r vJr �l /,i r ✓e i
2 1,0
3 � 2
4 Q> 3 5 s Y —
5 0 aC
6
10 v���
11 e 0 -O e C 7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5 of 7
PETITION
We, the undersigned homeowners and landowners of Wood Ranch Estates in Georgetown,
Williamson County, Texas, do hereby petition the Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission
Georgetown City Council to decline and dismiss all requests for changes and or amendments to the
original deed restrictions (see attached), specifically those requests relating to the change of
residential status to commercial status in Sections 3 and 5 of Wood Ranch Estates (see attached).
By signing below, we further register our objection to commercial status being granted to any lot
which was represented to us as residential lot when we purchased our property. We are concerned
with safety, traffic and property values being negatively affected by such a usage change.
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page (. of ?
APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Date:JuW 2 t 9-y/,c, Legal Description of Property: \NC421:)
r
Deed Reference, Volume IQD Page !!5tO Address of Property:
Select appropriate type:
Rezoning From: To:
Detailed Development Plan_
Variance (Sign Ordinance)_
Variance (Zoning Ordinance)
Variance (Sub. Regs.)
Subdivision Plat (Proposed Name of Subdivision)
Special Permit:
Abandon (R.O.W., Easement, P.U.E.)
License to Encroach (P.U.E., D.E., R.O.W.)
Annexation (Voluntary)
Century Plan Amendment
Type of Plat: Concept Plan Preliminary Plat Final Plat --
Short Form Final Plat Amended Plat Sketch Plan
Planned Unit Development Conveyance Plat Vacation
- I r ;ems►
Provide the following information for all person's with an otivnership interest in the subject property.
OWNER: R.EPRESENTING:��n?-+
ADDRESS: 78Co28 TELEPHONE:g043-s'537 FAX:
Authorization: Being the owner (or authorized representative of the owner) of the above described property, I
hereby authorize the agent named below to act on Cmlf in all dealings with the City with regards to this
application:( Powner or authorized resentative) SIGNATURE re
FIRM:
� �'t'l3 S
AGENT: Ar—t / IRM: PC.�►.I,�.�trs1
ADDRESS: -:SS4 L-'%D �,i oat-n-t C
TELEPHONE: 345 65-t3Z FAX: Si45 • (5cT2
Office Use Only
Received By: Application Fee Paid Plats/Exhibit Received
Case Manager
P.O. BOX 409, GEORGErOWN, TEXAS 78627, PHONE: 512/930.3575 FAX: 512/930-3681 Re%iocd 1/31.55
SITUS
UUL I li Planning & Design
1 1 -_-�J ►
l
512.345.6592
July 1, 1996 3541 North Hills Dr. Suite D
Austin, Texas 78731
The City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Ref: Plat Amendments, Wood Ranch
Section 3 and Section 5
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The amendments to the referenced final plats of Wood Ranch which are
requested on the enclosed application are to allow commercial use of the
lots clustered at the intersections of Rio Bravo Road and D. B. Wood Road
with Highway 29. The following specific amendments (shown in italics' are
proposed:
1. Section 5, Plat Note 7 to read:
Maximum Impervious Cover not to exceed 40% on any lot, except
Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lots 1, 2 & 3 shall not exceed the
impervious cover allowed by the City of Georgetown `s Design
Standards for Lots.
2. Section 5: Block 2, Lots 2 & 3 to be "Commercial."
3. Section 5, Plat Note 14 to read:
Access to lots fronting Highway 29 and D.B. Wood Road will be
limited to common driveway access easements as shown, except
Block 1, Lot 6 may have driveway access to Highway 29 not less
than 200 feet from D.B. Wood Road.
4. Section 3: Block A, Lot 1 and Block E, Lots 30, 31 and 32 to be
"Commercial, " and
Plat Note 1 to read
Proposed use: Single family residential and Commercial.
WOOD RANW Plat Amendments
Page 2
5. Section 3, Plat Note 7 to read:
Maximum Impervious Cover not to exceed 40%. on. anylot,.. except._.._--,!
Block A, Lot 1 and Block E, Lots 30, 31 & 32 shall not exceed the
impervious cover allowed by the City of Georgetown's Design
Standards for Lots.
6. Section 3, Plat Note 13 to read:
Access to Lot 10, Block D and Lot 1, Block E shall be off Cedar
Ridge Drive. Access off Highway 29 to Lot 11 Block A shall be not
less than 200 feet from Rio Bravo Drive. Access off Highway 29 to
Lot 32, Block E shall be not less than 90 feet from Rio Bravo Drive.
Please note also that a request to rezone the two corners of D.B. Wood
Road to C-1 has been submitted for action concurrent with these plat
amendments.
The reference to the Design Standards in items 1 and 5 is in lieu of stating
a percentage fmit for impervious cover, in order to avoid a conflict in the
event the City amends the Design Standards.
Thanks for your assistance with these plat amendments. Should you need
k
further information, please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
1
JOHN WARDEN, AICP
YUL. 4 00 V PAGE 3 O A
DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
WOOD RANCH, SECTIONS ONE, TWO AND FIVE
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
WOOD ROAD PROPERTIES, INC., a Texas corporation, ("Declarant") as
the owner of all lots in:
WOOD RANCH, SECTION ONE, a subdivision of record in Williamson
County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in Cabinet'K,
Slides 265-266, Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas,
WOOD RANCH, SECTION TWO, a subdivision of record in Williamson
County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in Cabinet K,
Slides 267-268, Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas,
WOOD RANCH, SECTION FIVE, a subdivision of record in Williamson
County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in Cabinet K,
Slides 269-270, Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, `
collectively referred to herein as the "Property", desiring to impose
upon the Property certain protective covenants, conditions,
restrictions, liens, and charges for the purpose of creating and
carrying out a uniform plan for the improvement, development, and sale
of the Property for the benefit of the present and future owners of the
Property, hereby declares: (i) that all of the Property, with the
exception of Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Section Five, which are
specifically excluded from the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions,
shall be held, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the following
easements, restrictions, covenants, and conditions which are for the
purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and which shall run
with the Property and shall be binding on all parties having any right,
title, or interest in or to the Property or any part thereof, their
heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each
owner thereof; and (ii) that, with the exception of Lot 6, Block 1 and
Lot 1, Block 2, Section Five, each contract or deed which may hereafter
be executed with regard to the Property or any portion thereof shall
conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted
subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions
regardless of whether or not the same are set out or referred to in said
contract or deed.
1. Use. All lots shall be used only for single family residential
purposes and no part of any lot shall ever be used for any business or
commercial purpose or for carrying on a trade or profession.
2. Resubdivision. Without the prior written approval of the
Architectural Control Committee, no lot shall be divided or resubdivided
or cut into smaller parcels or tracts for the purpose of creating
additional lots. Only one single family residence shall be erected on
WOOD RANCH - RES'i'R MONS
S13CIlONS ONP, TWO & DIVE
Page I
OFFICIAL RECORDS
V11LL1Ar.1�0N COUNTY, TEXAS
voL.235UPAGE 585
any lot and any minor adjustments in the location of boundary lines
between lots by owners thereof must be approved in writing by the
Architectural Control Committee hereinafter named.
3. Dwelling Size and Construction. Each residence shall have a living
area of not less than one thousand eight hundred square feet (1,800 sq.
ft.) exclusive of garages and porches, and all first floor front and
side construction facing streets shall be primarily of brick, stone or
masonry. All dwellings shall be recognized standard construction with
the exterior first floor walls of at least seventy-five (75%) percent
stone, masonry or its equivalent. In computing such percentage all
gables, window and door openings shall be excluded from the total area
of exterior walls. Each residence shall have an enclosed two car
(minimum) garage. No structure shall exceed two (2) stories in -height.
No garage shall be modified for use as living area unless a variance is
obtained from the Architectural Control Committee.
A variance in the amount of living area up to 200 square feet and/or a
variance of the percentage of masonry may be granted by the
Architectural Control Committee upon a written request of the property
owner accompanied with an explanation for the request for the variance
and a copy of the plans and specifications of the structure to be built.
The variance must be in writing and approved by a majority of the
Architectural Control Committee.
4. Foundations. Not more than three (31) feet of vertical surface of
concrete slab of any unit shall be exposed to view from any public
street or adjacent lots. Any slab in excess of ( 3 ' ) feet in height
above finished grade shall have at least that excess in height covered
with siding or masonry used in constructing the unit. Any unit with a
pier and beam foundation shall have all mechanical, electrical, plumbin
lines and fixtures located thereunder screened from view from any public
street and from adjacent units. The Architectural Control Committee, in
its sole discretion, will determine the adequacy of any screening
technique employed.
5. Additions and Detached Buildings. Any detached building, garage,
shed or structure or addition to the first residence must be of all new
materials and must -be of equal construction and architectural design as
the residence. Any variation from this restriction must have prior -
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
6. Building Location. No buildings or structure of any nature shall
be located closer to any property line' than the building set back lines
shown on the recorded plat.
7. Completion. Any dwelling or other structure commenced on the
subject property shall be completed with reasonable diligence and in all
events shall be completed as to its exterior within six ( 6 ) months from
the commencement of construction. No building material of any kind
shall be placed or stored on the subject property until the owner is
ready to commence construction.
woon RANCz [ - RM-RlCTIONS
SECTIONS ONE,1wo & rgvE
Page 2
YUI. 400 UPAH 00tj
8. Driveways. All residences shall be constructed with a driveway of
concrete at least ten feet 10 ft.)
the improvements. Each driveway connection width
a public running from the street to
culvert or drain approved by the Architectural Co ntrol Committee.
have a
9. Air Conditioners. No window, roof or wall type air condition,
that is visible from any public street shall be used r
maintained on or in any unit. placed or
10. No Other Dwellings. No trucks, trailer, trailer house, mobile
home, camper, prefabricated house, basement, tent, shack, gara e ara apartment or servants quarters shall ever be used as a dwelling, temporary or permanent, nor shall any of such vehicles (with the
exception of parking of trucks smaller than one ton) be stored or parked
on the property without first having the prior Architectural Control Committee. The restrictionwshall not prohibiritten consent the
prohit the
use of temporary buildings or structures for construction offices while
construction is actually in progress.
11. Repair and Maintenance. The residence and other buildings must be
kept in good state of repair and must be painted when necessary t
preserve the attractiveness thereof. y °
12. No Storage or Dumping. No part of the property shall ever be used
for outside, unenclosed storage of any nature or be used or maintained
as dumping ground for rubbish or debris or junk. Trash
garbage and
other waste shall not be permitted except in sanitary containers. All
incinerators or cans or other equipment for storage or disposal of such
materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and behind
tract improvements so that they are not readily visible from the street.
The property shall be kept free and clear of weeds and tall grass such
a's will be in keeping with the other property in development at a
particular time. Cars or other vehicles may not be stored on the
subject property nor shall any cars or vehicles that are not in running
condition and readily used be allowed to remain on the subject property
for more than one (1) week. No repairing of motor vehicles shall be
permitted on the subject property.
13. Cleanliness. No trash, ashes or any other refuse may be thrown or
dumped on any vacant -lot, park or drainage area in the subdivision, and
no inoperableautomobiles, appliances, discarded furniture, or similar
types of articles shall be stored or kept on any lot unless such
articles are enclosed and shielded from the public view by an adequate
fence.
14. Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall -be
raised or kept on the premises except those that can be classified as
household pets and none can be kept, bred, or maintained for commercial
purposes.
15. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or
upon any lot, nor shall anything be done there on which may be or become
an annoyance to the neighborhood or which is opposed to the purposes of
these restrictions.
'WOOD RANCH - RCSI' MONS
SECTIONS ONE, 'J VO & MVE
Page 3
VOL. 235UPAGE 587
16. Walls and Fences. No fence or wall of any kind may be constructed
unless the Architectural Control Committee, in its discretion, approves
such fence or wall in writing prior to its erection.
17. Alterations and Modifications. Each owner shall have the right to
modify, alter, repair, decorate, redecorate or improve such owner's unit
or the exterior area of such owner's lot, provided that all such action
is preformed in a good and workmanlike manner and in a manner that
causes minimum inconvenience to other owners and does not constitute a
nuisance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Architectural Control
Committee may require any owner to remove or eliminate any object
situated on such owner's unit or lot that is visible from any common
areas or 'from any other lot, if, in the Architectural Control
Committee's sole judgment, such object detracts from the- visual
attractiveness of the subdivision.
18. Easements. Each lot shall be subject to easements, rights -of -ways
and building set back requirements as reflected upon the recorded plats.
19. Plumbing. All buildings shall be equipped with approved sanitary
plumbing fixtures and plumbing installation meeting the requirements of
the National Plumbing Code and shall be connected to the public sewage
system.
20. Plan Approval. No building shall be erected, placed or altered on
any lot until the construction plan and specifications and a plan
showing the location of the structure have been approved by the
Architectural Control Committee as to quality of workmanship and
materials, harmony of external; design with existing structures, and as
to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation.
J1. 'Drainage. No building shall be constructed on the property until
provisions have been made for drainage of surface water to off site
without draining across adjacent property. Drainage shall be into the
street or road area or into natural drainage area.
22. Additional Easements and -Roadways. No roads or easements shall be
granted to the outside perimeter of the subdivision without prior
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
23. Obligation to Maintain. The owner of each lot in said subdivision,
by the acceptance of conveyance of said lot, assumes the obligation to
maintain any portion of the lot situated in an area designated on the
recorded plat, in these covenants or recorded in Williamson County Deed
Records as greenbelt, common areas, park, drainage, recreation or
similar areas.
24. Architectural Control Committee. The Architectural Control
Committee is composed of Bobby Stanton, Brett Lester and Jay Gantt. A
majority of the committee may designate a representative of the
committee to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any
member of the committee, the remaining members shall have full authority
to designate a successor. Neither the members of the committee, nor its
WOOD RANCII - RESITUCHONS
SECIiONS ONLY, TWO & MVE
Page 4
VOL. ;� 6 0 O PAGE 066
designated representative, shall be entitled to any compensation fo
services performed pursuant to this covenant. r
25. Water Pollution Abatement Plan. The property is subject to a Water
Pollution Abatement Plan that is
Williamson County, Texas. referenced in the Official Records of
26. Cave Preserve. Lots 7, 8 and 91 Section Two, and Lots 2, 3 9 and
10, Block 1, Section Five, have portions of a "cave preserve" as denoted
on the recorded plats. The purpose of the preserve is to protect certain
cave invertebrates that inhabit two caves located within the boundary of
this preserve. The area of the cave preserve should be left in -its
natural state and fenced off from construction activities to prevent
heavy equipment from crossing the preserve and the storage. of any
materials thereon. Any cave located on the preserve should be gated and
no herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, or hazardous materials may be
used or stored on the preserve.
27. Written Approval. The Architectural Control Committee's approval
or disapproval, as required in these covenants, shall be in writing. In
the event the committee, or its designated representative, fails to
approve or disapprove .within thirty (30) days after plans and
specifications have been' submitted to it, or in any event, if no suit to
enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the completion
thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall
be deemed to have been fully complied with.
28. Enforcement. If the owners of any lot, or their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, assigns or tenants shall violate or attempt
to violate any of the restrictions and/or covenants set forth in this
declaration, it shall be lawful for the developer, or any owner, to
prosecute andy proceedings against theperson or persons violating or
attempting to violate any such restriction and/or covenant. The failure
of the owner or tenant to perform his obligation hereunder would result
in irreparable damage to developer and other owners of lots in the
subdivision, thus the breach of any provision of this declaration amy
not only give rise to an actin for damages, but also may be enjoined by
an action for specific performance in equity in any court of competent
jurisdiction. In eh event enforcement actions are instituted and the
enforcing party recovers, then in addition to the remedies specified
above, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees shall be assessed
against the violator.
29. Amendments and Variances. Anything to the contrary contained in
these restrictions notwithstanding , the Architectural Control Committee
shall have and hereby reserves the right at any time, without -the
joinder or consent of any other party or entity, to amend or grant
variances to these restrictions by an instrument in writing duly signed,
acknowledged and filed for record in the Office of the County Clerk of
Williamson County, Texas so long as such amendment or variance, in the
sole discretion of the Architectural Control Committee, will not be
inconsistent with the general overall plan for the development of the
subdivision. Each owner hereby appoint; the Architectural Control
Committee as its attorney -in -fact for the purpose of effecting the
WOOD RANCH - RPSMCI'IONS
SEMONS ONU7 TWO & RVE Page 5
235UPAGE 589
provisions of this paragraph, such appointment shall be deemed a power
i
coupled with an interest and s irrevocable.
30. Severability. The provisions of the Restrictions shall be deemed
independent and severable, and the invalidity or partial invalidity of
any provision or portion thereof shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of any other provisions or portion thereof. Unless the
context requires a contrary construction, the singular shall include the
-plural and the plural the singular; and the masculine, feminine or
neuter gender shall each include the masculine, feminine and neuter. All
captions and titles used in this Declaration are intended solely for
convenience of reference and shall not enlarge, limit or otheriWise
affect that which is set forth in any of the paragraphs, sections 'or
articles hereof.
31. Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Section Five are specifically
excluded from the terms and conditions of this instrument.
Executed this the. Jr day of
DECLARANT:
WOOD ROAD PROPERTIES, INC., _
a Texas corporation
JOHNN B. GANTT, President
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
1993 by JOHNNY B. GANTT, President of WOOD ROAD
Texas corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Y PV KAREN HAVINS
2 !�1 NOTARY PUBLIC
!�1 STATE OF TEXAS
wood. rst ' Commission Expires 7-22-97
r
PROPERTIES, INC., a
Notary Public, State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
hereby Certify that this instrument was FILED
on the date and at the time stamped hereon -
by me, and was duly RECORDED in the Volume -
and Page of the named RECORDS of Williamson
County. Texas. as stamped hereon by me. on
--� A U G 0 6 1993
�`,101rCr 4
COUNTY (;l..f-
cot,`.:�' WILLIAMsl,)�i COUNTY, TEXAS
WOOD RANCH - REStRICnONS
SECTIONS ONE, TWO & FIVE
Page 6
vai.2641PAGE 0570
DOC" 9456934
DECLAARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
AMENDED WOOD RANCH, SECTIONS TFIREE AND FOUIZ
STATE OF TEXAS
-COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
WOOD ROAD PROPERTIES, INC., a Texas corporation, ("Declarant") as
the owner of all lots in:
AMENDED WOOD RANCH, SECTION THREE, a subdivision of record in
Williamson County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in
Cabinet _�Slides - Plat Records of Williamson County
,
Y.
AMENDED WOOD RANCH, SECTION FOUR, a subdivision of record in
Williamson County, Texas, according to the map or plat of record in
Cabinet_, Slides plat Plat Records of Williamson County,
Texas,
collectively referred to herein as the "Property", desiring to impose
upon the Property certain protective covenants, conditions,
restrictions, liens, and charges for the purpose of creating and
carrying out a uniform plan for the improvement, development, and sale
of the Property for the benefit of the present and future owners of the
Property, hereby declares: (i) that all of the Property, with the
exception of Lot 32, Block E and Lot 1, Block A, Section Three, which
are specifically excluded from all Covenants,_ Conditions, and
Restrictions except Paragraph 16 hereof, shall be held, sold, conveyed,
and occupied subject to the following easements, restrictions,
covenants, and conditions, which are for the purpose of
protecting the
value and desirability of, and which shall run with the Propertand
shall be binding on all parties having any right, title, or interest in
or to the Property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and
assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof; and (ii)
that each contract or deed which may hereafter be (executed with regard
to the Property or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to
have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the following
covenants, conditions, and restrictions regardless of whether or not the
same are set out or referred to in said contract or deed.
1. Use. All lots shall be used only for single family residential
Purposes and no part of any lot shall -ever be used for any business or
commercial purpose or for carrying on a trade or profession.
2. Resubdivision. Without the
Architectural Control Committee, no lot rshall be divided ior lapproval dof
i the
or cut into smaller or resubdivided
parcels or tracts for the purpose of creating
additional lots. Only.one single family residence shall be erected on
any lot and any minor adjustments in the location of boundary lines
WOOD RANG.'! i - R[!,1 t'R[C110NS ��f 1l.�.�l�is! r01�� CU U I�((Y, 1 EX �iS
J!CIIUNS 11IRIM & VOUR
Page I
VOL. 21! 41 PAGE O 5 1 �
between lots by owners thereof must be approved in writing by the
Architectural Control- Committee hereinafter named.
3. Dwelling Size and Construction. Each residence shall have a living
area of not less than one thousand eight hundred square feet (1,800 sq.
ft. ) exclusive of garages and porches, and all first floor .front and
side construction facing streets shall be primarily of brick, stone or
masonry. All dwellings shall be recognized standard construction with
the exterior first floor walls of at least seventy-five (75%) percent
stone, masonry or its equivalent. In computing such percentage all
gables, window and door openings shall be excluded from the total area
of exterior walls. Each residence shall have an enclosed two "car
(minimum) garage. No structure shall exceed two (2) stories in height.
No garage shall be modified for use as living area unless a variance is
obtained from the Architectural Control Committee.
A variance in the amount of living area up to 200 square feet and/or a
variance of the percentage of masonry may be granted by the
Architectural Control Committee upon a written request of the property
owner accompanied with an explanation for the request for the variance
and a copy of the plans and specifications of the structure to be built.
The variance must be in writing and approved by a majority of the
Architectural Control Committee.
4. Foundations . Not more than three ( 3' ) feet of vertical surface of
concrete slab of any unit shall be exposed to view from any public
street or adjacent lots. Any slab in excess of (3') feet in height
above finished grade shall have at least that excess in height covered
with siding or masonry used in constructing the unit. Any unit with a
pier and beam foundation shall have all mechanical, electrical, plumbing
lines and fixtures located thereunder screened from view from any public
street and from adjacent units. The Architectural Control Committee, in
its sole discretion, will determine the adequacy of any screening
technique employed.
5. Additions and Detached Buildings. Any detached building, garage,
shed or structure or addition to the -first residence must be of all new
materials and must be of equal construction and architectural design as
the residence. Any variation from this restriction must have prior
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
6. Building Location. No buildings or structure of any nature shall
be located closer to any property line than the building set back lines
shown on the recorded plat.
7. Comi�leti.on. Any dwelling or other structure commenced on the
subject property shall be completed with reasonable diligence and in all
events shall be completed as to its exterior within six (6) months from
the commencement of construction. No building material of any kind
shall be placed or stored on the subject property until the owner is
ready to commence construction.
8. Driveways. All residences shall be constructed with a driveway of
concrete, at least ten feet (10 ft.) in width running from the street to
WOOD RANC:II - RI;NSI'RICIIONS
SUMIONS 11IREB & FOUR
Page 2
voi. 2 6 41 PAGE U 5
the improvements. Each driveway connection to a public road must have a
culvert or drain approved by the Architectural Control Committee.
9. Air Conditioners. No window, roof or wall type air conditioner
that is visible from any public street shall be used, placed or
maintained on or in any unit.
10. No Other Dwellings. No trucks, trailer, trailer house, mobile
home, camper, prefabricated house, basement, tent, shack, garage, garage
apartment or servants quarters shall ever be used as a dwelling,
temporary or permanent, nor shall any of such vehicles (with the
exception of parking of trucks smaller than one ton) be stored or parked
on the property without first having the prior written consent of the
Architectural Control Committee. The restriction shall not prohibit the
use of temporary buildings or structures for construction offices while
construction is actually in progress.
11. Repair and Maintenance. The residence and other buildings must be
kept in good state of repair and must be painted when necessary to
preserve the attractiveness thereof.
12. No Storage or Dumping. No part of the property shall ever be used
for outside, unenclosed storage of any nature or be used or maint-ained
as dumping ground for rubbish or debris or junk. Trash, garbage and
other waste shall not be permitted except in sanitary containers. All
incinerators or cans or other equipment for storage or disposal of such
materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and behind
tract improvements so that they are not readily visible from the street.
The property shall be kept free and clear of weeds and tall grass such
.The
will be in keeping with the other property in development at a
Particular time. Cars or other vehicles may not be stored on the
subject property nor shall any cars or vehicles that are not in running
condition and readily used be allowed to remain on the subject property
for more than one (1) week. No repair"ing of motor vehicles shall be
permitted on the subject property.
13. Cleanliness. No trash, ashes or any other refuse may be thrown or
dumped on any vacant lot, park or drainage area in the subdivision, and
no inoperable automobiles, appliances, discarded furniture, or similar
types of articles shall be stored or kept on any lot unless such
articles are enclosed and shielded from the public view by an adequate
fence.
14. Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be
raised or kept on the premises except those that can be classified as
household pets and none can be kept, bred, or maintained for commercial
purposes.
15. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or
upon any lot, nor shall anything be done there on which may be or become
an annoyance to the neighborhood or which is opposed to the purposes of
these restrictions.
WOOL) RANCH - RUSIRIC11ONS
SIX.71IONS IURIM & FOUR
Page 3
VOL. 2 G 41 PAGE U 5'd 3
16. Walls and Fences. No fence or wall of any kind may be constructed
unless the Architectural Control Committee, in its discretion, a
such fence or wall in writingapproves
prior to its erection.
17. Alterations and Modifications. Each owner shall have the right to
modify, alter, repair, decorate, redecorate or improve such owner's unit
or the exterior area of such owner's lot, provided that all such action
is preformed in a good and workmanlike manner and in a manner that
causes minimum inconvenience to other owners and does not constitute a
nuisance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Architectural Control
Committee may require any owner to remove or eliminate any object
situated on such owner's unit or lot that is visible from any common
areas or from any other lot, if, in the Architectural Control
Committee's sole judgment, such object detracts from the visual
attractiveness of the subdivision. '
18. Easements. Each lot shall be subject to easements, rights -of -ways
and building set back requirements as reflected upon the recorded plats.
19. Plumbing. All buildings shall be equipped with approved
ry
Plumbing fixtures and plumbing installation meeting the requiaementsaof
the National Plumbing Code and shall be connected to the public sewage
system.
20. Plan Approval. No building shall be erected, placed or altered on
any lot until the construction plan and specifications and a
showing the location of the structure have been a Plan
Architectural Control Committee as to approved by the
materials, harmony of external; design with existing urereo structsaworkmans, and
to location with respect to topography and finish and as
grade elevation.
21. Drainage. No building shall be constructed on the property until
provisions have been made for drainage- of surface water to off site
without draining across adjacent property. Drainage shall be into the
street or road area or into natural drainage area.
22. Additional Easements and Roadways. No roads or easements shall be
granted to the outside perimeter of the subdivision without written approval of the Architectural Control Committee. Prior
23. Obligation to Maintain. The owner of each lot in said subdivision,
by the acceptance of conveyance of said lot, assumes ttie obligation
to
maintain any portion of the lot situated in an area designated onthe
recorded plat, in these covenants or recorded in Williamson County Deed
Records as greenbelt, common areas, park, drainage, recreation or
similar areas.
24. Architectural Control Committee. The Architectural Control
Committee is composed of Bobby Stanton, Brett Lester and Jay Gantt. A
majority of the committee may designate a representative of the
committee to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any
member of the committee, the remaining members shall have full author
ity
to designate a successor. Neither the members of the committee, nor its
WOOD RAN(31 - RI'.SI' UMONS
SC?C11UNS 1111U?1! & VOUR
Page 4
yp�. 264IPAGE05 a 4
designated representative, shall be entitled to any coinpensation for
services performed pursuant to this covenant.
25. Water Pollution Abatement Plan. The property is subject to a Water
Pollution Abatement Plan that is referenced in the Official Records of
Williamson County, Texas.
26. Cave Preserve. Lot 1, Block A, Section Three, has portions of a
"cave preserve" which may be denoted on the recorded plat or other
documents furnished the purchaser. The purpose of the preserve is to
protect certain cave invertebrates that inhabit two caves located within
the boundary of this preserve. The area of the cave preserve should be
left in its natural state and fenced off from construction activities to
prevent heavy equipment from crossing the preserve and the storage of
any materials thereon. Any cave located on the preserve should be gated
and no herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, or hazardous materials may be
used or stored on the preserve.
27. Written Approval. The Architectural Control Committee's approval
or disapproval, as required in these covenants, shall be in writing. In
the event the committee, or its designated representative, 'fails to
approve or disapprove within thirty (30) days after plans~ and
specifications have been submitted to it, or in any event, if no suit to
enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the completion
thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall
be deemed to have been fully complied with.
28. Enforcement. If the owners of ary lot, or their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, assigns o� teriants shall violate or attempt
to violate any of the restrictions and/or covenants set forth in this
declaration, it shall be lawful for the developer, or any owner, to
prosecute andy proceedings against toe person or persons violating or
attempting to violate any such restriction and/or covenant. The failure
of the owner or tenant to perform his *obligation hereunder would result
in irreparable damage to developer and other owners of lots in the
subdivision, thus the breach of any provision of this declaration amy
not only give rise to an actin for damages, but also may be enjoined by
an action for specific performance in:.equity in any court of competent
jurisdiction. In eh event enforcement actions are instituted and the
enforcing party recovers, then in addition to the remedies specified
above, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees shall be assessed
against the violator.
29. Amendments and Variances. Anything to the contrary contained in
these restrictions notwithstanding , the Architectural Control Committee
shall have and hereby reserves the right at any time, without the
joinder or consent of any other party or entity, to amend or grant -
variances to these restrictions by an instrument in writing duly signed,
acknowledged and filed for record in the Office of the County Clerk of
Williamson County, Texas so long as such amendment or variance, in the
sole -discretion of the Architectural Control Committee, will not be
inconsistent with the general overall plan for the development of the
subdivision. Each owner hereby appoints the Architectural Control
Committee as its attorney - in - fact for ttie purpose Of effecting the
WOOL) RANCI1 - R1',';11U(: DUNS
SI MIONS'111RM & VOUR
Page 5
VOI. 2641PAGEOS"15
provisions of this paragraph, such appointment shall be deemed a coupled -with an interest and is irrevocable. Power
30. Severability. The provisions of the Restrictions shall be deemed
independent and severable, and the invalidity or partial invalidity of
any provision or portion thereof shall not affect the validity or
.enforceability of any other provisions or portion thereof. Unless the
context requires a contrary construction,
'plural and the the singular shall include the
plural the singular; and the masculine, feminine or
neuter gender shall each include the masculine, feminine and neuter. All
captions and titles used in this Declaration are intended solely for
convenience of reference and shall not enlarge, limit or otherwise
affect that which is set forth in any of the paragraphs, sections or
articles hereof.
31. With the exception of Paragraph 16, Lot 32, Block E and Lot 1
Block A, Section Three are specifically excluded from the terms any
conditions of this instrument. d
Executed this the _2�,z day of /�c L•'. 1994.
DECLARANT:
WOOD ROAD PROPERTIES, INC.,
a Texas.c rpor Dion
Y �• - G-G�
MERLIN LESTER"
Yts Attorney -in -Fact
STATE OF TEXAS
I
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
This instrument was acknowledged before me on •%1.'(/'%%.•r•1
1994 by MERLIN LESTER, Attorney -in -Fact UL?c.CQ
Y act for and on "behalf PROPERTIES, INC., a Texas corporation. of WOOD ROAD
�,�►'�,�� ANGELA HUDSON
* * NOTARY PUBLIC
\wr\wood. rs2 ;j +� State Of Texas
as �E COMM ExP 10-05-96
WOOD RANC:I1 - RU VIRIC11ONS
SUCIIONS *11[RUE & DOUR
161'r�
Notary Pub ic, State of Texas
Doca : 9456934
Rec. s 19.00
Date : 11-23-1994
Time : 04:09:07 P.M.
Filed & Recorded in
Official Records
Of WILLIAMSON County, TX.
ELAINE BIZZELL
COUNTY CLERK
Page 6
DOCUMENTATION OF BASIS FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE
July 15, 1996 Applicant: Wood Road Properties, Inc.
This request is to allow commercial use of the lots clustered at the intersections
of Rio Bravo Road and D.B. Wood Road with Highway 29. Also requested are
rezoning to C-1 for the D.B. Wood Road corners and amendments to several
plat notes. Those amendments are to specify commercial use of the subject
lots, to allow commercial levels of impervious cover, and to allow access to
commercial lots at specified points.
Specifically, variances are requested from the literal enforcement of the
following sections of the Subdivision Regulations:
1. Section 340201.2 to allow the northwest corner of Wood Road at Hwy 29 to
access both streets. The driveway shall be not less than 200 feet from Wood
Road.
2. Section 34020. F.3 to allow the corner lots at Rio Bravo and Hwy 29 to
access both streets. The driveways shall be not less than 90 feet from Rio
Bravo on the northeast corner (service vehicles only; no access to parking),
and not less than 200 feet from Rio Bravo on the northwest corner.
3. Table 34020 to allow these existing lots to be designated commercial while
having less than the prescribed 150-foot width for commercial lots:
-- the two lots adjoining the northeast corner of Wood Road at Hwy 29, and
-- the third lot north of Hwy 29 on the east of Rio Bravo.
Justification
1. In what manner will the public convenience and welfare be substantially
served?
The requested variances, with the proposed rezoning and plat amendments, will
allow proper site planning and building design for limited commercial and office
uses. If residences are established, they would be likely candidates for
conversion to non-residential use as traffic volumes increase on Wood Road and
Hwy 29.
1
DYE
. . FLI..
Justification for Variances
Wood Ranch Highway 29 Lots
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.
DDFs for all lots will be required to meet the City's design standards. Limited
commercial and office structures of residential scale will provide a buffer from Hwy
29 for the adjoining residences.
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 hardships involved generally relate to establishing viable commercial use on
lots whose size and configuration are similar to others in Wood Ranch, but whose
proximity to Hwy 29 limits their long-term desirability for residences. The lots
were created in subdividing the land into similar lots to accommodate residences
using septic systems. Specific hardships relate to each lot.
The northeast corner lot on Rio Bravo is divided by a drainage way. While a
feasible site plan could place an office building on the south portion with parking
on the north, a serviced vehicle entrance from Hwy 29 would be needed.
Office traffic entering the northwest corner of Rio Bravo from Rio Bravo will require
turning movement across traffic exiting the neighborhood.
Turning left from Wood Road to the northwest corner lot at Wood Road will likely
be restricted by a future median and left turn lane barrier.
Regarding minimum lot width, replatting offers a procedural remedy but does not
resolve the design issues involved in the other variances.
4. If the requested variance is 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.
Surrounding property is residential, and changing it to commercial designation
would not be consistent with the residential character of the interior of the
VA
Justification for Variances
Wood Ranch Highway 29 Lots
neighborhood. The access variances are specific to the proposed commercial lots
with frontage on Hwy 29.
5. How is the public interest affected?
By providing for viable long-term uses, with site planning and building design
suited to that use rather than by conversion of residences as their desirability as
homes diminishes. Access restrictions as specified above will minimize conflicts
with turning movements at intersections.
6. List the special conditions that affect this property and justify the approval of the
variance.
Special conditions of the respective properties are cited above. Justification for
the respective variances is the establishment of reasonable conditions for office
and limited commercial site planning and design.
7. How will the spirit of the ordinance be observed if this request is granted?
The conditions to be imposed in granting access variances are to avoid creating
additional traffic hazards. The substandard lot frontages reflect topographic
conditions and will be consistent with the limited scale and intensity of commercial
and offices uses.
8. How will substantial justice be done if this request is granted?
Viable uses of the respective lots will be facilitated with safeguards for the public
welfare.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
NOTICE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
OF A PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City of Georgetown will hold its regular public meeting of the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
This meeting will be held on the 6th day of August 1996. at 6:00 p.m. at its regular
meeting place in the Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas to consider
the proposed:
Rezoning of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2,
Lots 1 and 2, from RS, Residential Single Family to C-1, Local Commercial or more
restrictive classification,and an Amendment to the plat for Amended Wood Ranch,
Section Three, Block A, Lot 1, and Block E, Lots 30, 31 and 32, and Section Five,
Block 2, Lots 2 and 3; with variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located at D.B. Wood
Road and State Highway 29 West.
As one of the owners of adjacent property you are invited to be present at El
desire to discuss the proposed plan. See attached Exhibit A for more detai
Date: 7/22/96 City of Georgetown rj
A copy of the planning report related to this item will be available at the n of
Development Services and the Georgetown Public Library no later than th
the meeting described above. For further information phone the Develop m
Division at 930-3575.
PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name: Wood Ranch - Rezoning and Amendment to Plan
Name of Respondent
Address of Respondent:
I am in favor:
I object: ev,
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 7/31 /96 , it will be provided to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Council meeting August_ 27, 1996 Item No. ,
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Plat Addendum of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, located
at the intersection of State Highway 29 West and D.B. Wood Road.
ITEM SUMMARY: Generally, this request is for an addendum to the recorded plat of Wood
Ranch, Section Five to make the impervious coverage limitations for the two (2) subject lots
consistent with the current design standards.
The rezoning of the two (2) subject lots is being considered by another agenda item.
Although the lots were originally proposed for commercial use, the automatic zoning assignment
upon annexation restricts them to uses permitted in the RS district. The staff supports the
requested rezoning to C-1, Local Commercial.
Currently, the plat limits all lots to 40 percent impervious coverage. This is consistent
with the design standards for residential lots; however, commercial lots are permitted 70 percent
impervious coverage by the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. There does not
appear to be any reason why the impervious coverage was limited to 40 percent on the two (2)
lots designated for commercial use when platted. Therefore, the City supports this request.
The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance form is attached.
Originally, this request included several other amendments to the plat and several
variances. Since the time that the notices were sent to the neighboring property owners, the
applicant has withdrawn most parts of the request. Although the neighboring property owners
have been advised of the withdrawal, many of the attached comments were sent before it and
refer to the previous request. The City has also received some comments that address the request
after the withdrawal.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Since the August 6 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, one of the commissioners has provided a statement regarding her reasons for voting to
recommend denial of the requested addendum. In the statement she expresses her belief that she
should have voted to recommend approval. A copy Of the statement is attached to the staff
report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend denial of an addendum to allow the impervious coverage for commercial lots
on Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6, and Block 2, Lot 1, in light of the fact that the rezoning was
denied.
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 .Barry, AIC - Director Hildy L. Kingma, AIC
Divisi of Development Services Chief Planner
PLAT ADDENDUM OF AMENDED WOOD RANCH, SECTION FIVE, LOCATED
NORTHWEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 29 AND D. B. WOOD ROAD.
O WNER/APPLICANT:
Mr. Jimmy Coffman
Wood Road Properties, Inc.
221 Stearman Drive
Georgetown, Texas 78628
863-5537
AGENT: Mr. John Warden, AICP
SITUS Planning and Design
3541-D North Hills Drive
Austin, Texas 78731
345-6592 FAX: 346-5526
REQUEST: Plat Addendum of Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five, as
recorded in Cabinet K, Slide 269-270 of the Official Plat
Records of Williamson County, Texas.
FACTS:
Location: Located northwest of the intersection of State Highway 29 West
and D.B. Wood Road. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Use: Vacant lots.
Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single Family.
Proposed Use: Commercial -Retail for lots that are the subject of this request.
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North: Wood Ranch residential lots (out of City)
South: Georgetown Church of Christ and First Baptist Church
(RS)
East: Unplatted land (RS)
West: Unplatted land (out of City)
Plat Addendum- Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five August 21, 1996
FP-96-30/File: WOOD RNCH.FP Page 1
CM:CS
Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan has designated these lots as
Intensity Level 5. SEE EXHIBIT B
Notification: The notification process has been completed.
HISTORY: The subject lots were annexed into the City of Georgetown in
December 1986. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance at the
time, they were automatically assigned an RS, Single Family
Residential zoning district.
The plat of Wood Ranch, Section Five was originally recorded
when it was outside of the City's jurisdiction for reviewing plats.
The public improvements were never constructed and the area
subsequently came within the City's jurisdiction. The City's
ordinance regarding plats in which the public improvements have
not been provided invalidated this plat. Another Final Plat,
conforming to the original plat, was approved by the City in
March 1993 and recorded in July 1993.
ANALYSIS: Generally, this request is for an addendum to the recorded plats
of Wood Ranch, Section Five to make the impervious coverage
limitations for the two (2) subject lots consistent with the current
design standards.
The rezoning of the two (2) subject lots is being considered by
another agenda item. Although the lots were originally proposed
for commercial use, the automatic zoning assignment upon
annexation restricts them to uses permitted in the RS district.
The staff supports the requested rezoning to C-1, Local
Commercial.
Currently, the plat limits all lots to 40 percent impervious
coverage. This is consistent with the design standards for
residential lots; however, commercial lots are permitted 70
percent impervious coverage by the design standards of the
Subdivision Regulations. There does not appear to be any
reason why the impervious coverage was limited to 40 percent
on the two (2) lots designated for commercial use when platted.
Therefore, the City supports this request.
Plat Addendum- Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five
FP-96-30/File: WOOD RNCH.FP
CM:CS
August 21, 1996
Page 2
The applicant's Documentation for Basis of Requested Variance
form is attached.
Originally, this request included several other amendments to the
plat and several variances. Since the time that the notices were
sent to the neighboring property owners, the applicant has
withdrawn most parts of the request. Although the neighboring
property owners have been advised of the withdrawal, many of
the attached comments were sent before it and refer to the
previous request. The City has also received some comments
that address the request after the withdrawal and several citizens
have indicated that they will address the Commission at the
meeting regarding the new request.
FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
1. If the City Council takes action regarding any changes to the
plat, an addendum to the plat shall be recorded in the
Williamson County Plat Records that accurately reflects the
decision of the City Council regarding the issues of this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of an addendum to allow the impervious coverage for
commercial lots on Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6, Block 2, Lot
1.
P&Z ACTION: At its August 6, 1996, meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to Tecommend denial of an addendum to
allow the impervious coverage for commercial lots on Section
Five, Block 1, Lot 6, and Block 2, Lot 1, in light of the fact that
the rezoning was denied.
Plat Addendum- Amended Wood Ranch, Section Five
FP-96-30/File: WOOD RNCH.FP
CM:CS
August 21, 1996
Page 3
I�Fff, (9 ROW H
FUL 2 9 1996
July 29, 1996
Mr. Charles Simon, AICP
The City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Ref: Revised Request for
Plat Amendments, Wood Ranch
Section 3 and Section 5
Dear Charles:
This is to confirm the applicant's withdrawal of portions of the
referenced request. The applicant withdraws: all requests involving
Section 3; all amendments involving Section 5, Block 2, Lots 2 &3;
and the amendment involving access to Section 5, Block 1, Lot 6.
Accordingly, the only plat amendment to be presented to the P& Z
Commission is for:
Section 5, Plat Note 7 amended to read:
Maximum Impervious Cover not to exceed 400k on any lot,
except Block 1, Lot 6 and Block 2, Lot I shall not exceed the
impervious cover allowed by the City of Georgetown's Design
Standards for Lots.
This requested plat note amendment is consistent with the pending
request for rezoning from RS to C1 for these two corners of D.B.
Wood Road at Hwy 29.
Yours truly,
JOHN WARDEN, AICP
SITUS
Planning & Desian
512-345-5592
3541-D North Hills Drive
Austin, Texas 78731
D(HIBRA
RE
JOHN
JO AN
w000
AVANT
1667/ 793
IT-9Ac
/
\ JOHN TANKERSLEY ESTATE
54.0 Ac
NT
JwwES R AVANT C JOwN w000 AVANT AVA
16Fj���
`
1667/ 793
6G.OZ AC
\♦ A. 3C
\ \ \ . IRENE MASON
/2.6Ar- 1.0Ae. 6
si
I ♦
---- �;' '\ \ •\ \ -sue'.,'' �/
6. \
.__ _\f !\
-
1971/lSe
(33 40 AC.)
25.24 &C_ 9.16 AC_ 1.00 AC.
i% `• N
,A' I,
I' .636/ 331 — — �+ G-�ORG
(IOA06 AC) I
EXHIBIT B
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
"DATE" 08/01 /96
'PROJECT NAME`: Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 2, Lot 1
2. 'GIVEN' 0.00 acres of Intensity Level 1
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 2
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 3
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 4
1.36 acres of Intensity Level 5
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 6
1.36 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 14,906 4,352 238
6 0 0 0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 14,906
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 4,352
Maximum Trip Ends: 238
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
LAND USES WATER WASTEWATERTRANSPORTATIO1
-1
Detached SF
Large Lot
13
15
39,
Average Lot
15
17
26�
Zero Lot Line
15
17
26�
Attached SF
23
25
21 �
Multifamily
28
28
10`.
Mobile Home
23
23
28'
Lodging
78
71
17:
Institutional
43,457
47,304
282,99E
Church
-with day care
48,395
52,434
15,29E
-w/o day care
80,138
87,040
330,55
Medical Office
35,831
38,857
73,75:
General Office
40,949
47,824
93,33:
Retail, Mixed
22,932
26,699
14,40'
Retail, Restaurant
9,555
9,067
20,93:
Retail, Store
45,863
49,455
49,56:
Employment Centers
40,949
47,824
52,011
Warehouse
261,502
310,857
396,66
Mini -Warehouse
3,726,400
4,352,000
915,38'
(b) (c)
MAXIMUM PER DEV
UNITS I REGS 1
I I
131 31
151 101
151 131
231
28
231
71
43,457
15,296
80,138
35,831
40,949
14,409
9,067
45,863
40,949
261,502
915,385
35
(d)
DEVELOPMENT
ALLOWED/UNIT
3 housing units
10 housing units
13 housing units
23 housing units
28 housing units
23 housing units
71 rooms
43,457 square feet
15,296 square feet
80,138 square feet
35,831 square feet
40,949 square feet
14,409 square feet
9,067 square feet
45,863 square feet
40,949 square feet
261,502 square feet
915,385 square feet
EXHIBIT B
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
"DATE" 08/01 /96
•PROJECT NAME': Wood Ranch, Section Five, Block 1, Lot 6
2. `GIVEN' 0.00 acres of Intensity Level 1
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 2
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 3
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 4
1.11 acres of Intensity Level 5
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 6
1.11 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 12,166 3,552 194
6 0 0 0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 12,166
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 3,552
Maximum Trip Ends: 194
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT:
(a)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
LAND USES
WATER
WASTEWATERTRANSPORTATIOI
I
Detached SF
I
Large Lot
11
12
3241
Average Lot
12
14
2191
Zero Lot Line
12
14
2191
Attached SF
19
20
1791
Multifamily
23
23
861
Mobile Home
19
18
2291
Lodging
63
58
1401
Institutional
35,468
38,609
230,9751
Church
I
-with day care
39,499
42,795
12,4841
-w/o day care
65,406
71,040
269,7921
Medical Office
29,244
31,714
60,1951
General Office
33,422
39,033
76,1761
Retail, Mixed
18,716
21,791
11,7601
Retail, Restaurant
7,798
7,400
17,0841
Retail, Store
37,433
40,364
40,4521
Employment Centers
33,422
39,033
42,4501
Warehouse
213,432
253,714
323,7501
Mini -Warehouse
3.041,400
3,552,000
747,1151
(b) (c) (d)
MAXIMUM PER DEV DEVELOPMENT
UNITS I REGS 1 ALLOWED/UNIT
I
11 1
I
2 1
2 housing units
12 1
8 1
8 housing units
121
11 1
11 housing units
191
1
19 housing units
23 1
28 1
23 housing units
18 1
1
18 housing units
581
1
58 rooms
35,468 1
1
35,468 square feet
I
12,484 1
I
1
12,484 square feet
65,406 1
65,406 square feet
29,244 1
1
29,244 square feet
33,422 1
1
33,422 square feet
11,760 1
1
11,760 square feet
7,400
7,400 square feet
37,433 1
1
37,433 square feet
33,422 1
1
33,422 square feet
213,432
1
213,432 square feet
747,115 1
---------1---------------
1
---
747,115 square feet
------ --------------
WOODRANCH V }
a.t7
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration and First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
to establish standards for manufactured home park development.
ITEM SUMMARY: Following the council's direction given at their July 11, 19962 workshop,
staff drafted development standards regarding manufactured home parks that could be
implemented through revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. The attached Exhibit A contains a brief
description of the standards, which are described in detail in the attached ordinance.
Some of the more critical development standards recommended for adoption are that the
development parcel size be a minimum of 5 acres that is located at least 500 feet from the'l H..35
right-of-way, with a maximum of 50 % impervious and 35 % building coverage allowed, and with
20 % of the land area landscaped and the proper buffering provided; that each lease space within
the park'have a 25' front setback, a 20' rear setback and a .15' side building separation setback
with the side zero -lot line siting of units permitted; that two (2 '
)parking spaces be provided for
each unit; that foundations meet the manufacturers recommendation or State standards and that
the foundation be skirted with an all-weather, complimentary material; that each unit be
individually metered for utility usage; and that streets and sidewalks be built to public standards
with a minimum of 28' of pavement whether classified as public or private, with limited gating
permitted.
In drafting these recommended regulations, staff utilized the City's current standards for
both single-family and multi -family developments while taking into account adopted standards of
other municipalities located. within Texas and nationally. _
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Adoption of these regulations will require compliance.with
the., design standards for
g the placement of a manufactured home unit within the City limits_ or
within the ETJ if City utilities will be used.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None..
CO S: At their August 6, 1996, meeting the planning and ZoningCommission voted
6-0 to recommend adoption of the changes contained in the attached Ordinance. Minor techni
caj
revisions have been made to the text since that meeting.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council it '
approve , Y will be to
the attached Ordinance revising the Zoning Ordinance, unless stated otherwise.
ATTACHMENTS; Exhibit A Ordinance
Submitted Bv:
It
Edward MA910AIP - irector Clyd von Rosenberg, AICP
Divisi of pme Services Chief Planner
Exhibit A
Atached are the changes to the Zoning Ordinance that will be made with the approval of this
Ordinance:
Underlined text is new and will be added.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTONE:Districts................................................................................
PART TWO:District Regulations .............................................................
o
2.02 R-S Single Family...........`................................................
6
Family:.:....
8
2.03 R-M Multiple , .�.:........................................
2.04 C-1 Local Commercial.... ....... `....................................
12
2.05 C-2A Commercial, First Height ..........................................
15
2.06 C-2B Commercial, Second' Height........................................17
2.07 I Industrial....................................................................
17
2.08 R-P Residential Planned ....................................................
18
2.09 Transitional Use.............................................................
27
2.10 Planned Development.......................................................
27
2.11 R-O Residential Office......................................................28
2.12 A Agricultural............................................................... 33
2.13 R-E Residential Estate.. .................................................
36
2.14 R-MHP Residential Manufactured Home Park .
38-1
PART THREE: Special Permits and Restricted Uses ..................................... 39
PART FOUR: Non -Conforming Uses.......................................................43
PART FIVE: Maximum Height Limits May he Varied..................................45
PART SIX: General Rules For Yards......................................................46
PART SEVEN: Off -Street Parking........................................................... 52-5
PART EIGHT: Accessory Uses & Buildings Are Regulated ............................. 52-16
PART NINE: Condominiums.................................................................53
PART TEN: Adoption of Maps............................................................. 54
PART ELEVEN: Board of Adjustment....................................................... 54
PART TWELVE: Boundaries of Districts....................................................60
PART THIRTEEN: Enforcement................................................................ 60
PART FOURTEEN: Amendments...............................................................61
PART FIFTEEN: Violations and Penalties....................................................64
PART SIXTEEN: Interpretation, Purpose and Conflict.....................................64
PART SEVENTEEN: Savings Clause........................................................... 64
PART EIGHTEEN: Definitions..................................................................65
APPENDIX........................................................................................... 71
1
PART ONE: DISTRICTS
Section 1.1: The zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in
accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting health,
safety, morals and the general welfare of the City. They have been designed to
lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of
land, to avoid undue concentration of population, to facilitate the adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public
requirements. They have been made with reasonable consideration, among
other things, for the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for
particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and
encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.
Section 1.2: Districts Are Established
1.201 Zoning districts and regulations as herein set forth are established. The City is
hereby divided into three types of districts:
R Districts - Residential
C Districts - Commercial
I District - Industrial
1.202 The three types of districts are further divided into the following districts:
A - Agricultural District
R-E - Residential Estate District
R-S - Single Family District
RM-1 - Multi -Family District
RM-2 - Dense Multi -Family District
RM-3 - Office and Service Use District
R-P - Residential Planned District
R-O - Residential Office District
R-MHP - Residential Manufactured Home Park District
C-1 - Local Commercial District
C-2A - Commercial, First Height District
C-2B - Commercial, Second Height District
I - Industrial District
1.203 The boundaries of the districts are as shown on the "District Map" attached to
and made part of this Ordinance.
1.204 Whenever a street or alley is vacated, adjacent districts shall extend to the
center line of the vacated street or alley.
3
PART TWO: DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Section 2.01 Land or premises in each of the following classified districts in the City
shall be used for the following purposes only. Any other use of land or
premises in such district shall be unlawful and in violation of this
Ordinance. All uses of land or premises shall comply with the conditions,
limitations, and requirements as to yards, open spaces, lot coverage,
spacing, height, off-street parking, and as may otherwise be set forth in this
Ordinance.
Section 2.02: R-S Single Family District Regulations
2.0201 Use Regulations. A building or premises shall be used only for the following
purposes:
1. Single family dwellings. Residential use of temporary structures,
trailers, manufactured homes and mobile homes is prohibited.
2. Public parks, public libraries, public elementary and high schools,
and public buildings.
3. Private schools with a curriculum similar to public elementary and
secondary schools.
4. Churches.
5. Golf courses, but not miniature golf courses or driving tees.
6. Such telephone facilities as ark' provided for in the Acts of the
Fortieth Legislature, 1927, Chapter 283, Section 8a.
7. Fire station, police station, artesian well, pumping station, lake, boat
docks, boat house, water supply, reservoir, filter bed, water tank,
tower, or stand pipe.
8. Railroad r. o. w. , railroad tracks, bridges, water tanks, signals and
other railroad appurtenances, but not including railroad yards,
classification tracks, storage tracks, passenger station, freight station,
coaling facilities, fuel oil tanks or roundhouses.
9. Electrical facilities and electrical energy facilities, transformers, relay
and substations, poles, wires, and electrical transmission and/or
distribution lines and distribution appurtenances, but not including
office buildings or storage facilities.
Section 2.14 Residential Manufactured Home Park (R-MHP)
2.1401 Purpose and Intent This district provides for the use of single family
manufactured housing. as defined in this ordinance, on leased space within a
Manufactured Home Park. Manufactured homes are only permitted to be
located within an approved Manufactured Home Park .
2.1402 Use regulations. A building or premises shall be used only for the following
purposes:
A. Permitted Uses.
1. Manufactured Home Park, with all attendant services and
facilities.
2. Single Family residences, both site built and manufactured.
3. All other uses permitted in the R-S district.
B. Conditional Uses
1. Mobile homes. as defined in Section 18 of this ordinance. are
prohibited from being located within a Manufactured Home Park
unless the City Council agrees to the relocation of a unit that
was legally located within the City limits prior to the adoption of
this ordinance.
C. Accessory B^ uildings and Uses. General accessory structures and uses
shall be permitted in accordance with Section 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2.1403 Development Regulations
A. The following are minimum development standards:
1) Manufactured Home_ Park parcel requirements:
a.) Minimum size: 5 acres
b) Minimum width: 100 feet
c) Minimum depth: 120 feet
d Building setbacks: Front - 25 feet
Side - 15 feet
Rear - 20 feet
el Coverage: Up to 50 % impervious coverage
Up to 35 % building coverage
38-1
2) Individual lease space requirements:
a) Minimum size: No minimum however all setbacks and
other development requirements must be met.
b_) Minimum width: No minimum
c) Minimum depth: No minimum
d) Building setbacks: Front - 25 feet
Side - 15 feet. total building separations
zero -lot line arrangement permitted.
Rear - 20 feet
4 Parkin paces per dwelling unit. Must meet all requirement of
Section 7 of this Ordinance.
5 Landscaping: 20 % of parcel area must be landscaped and applicable
bufferyard must be installed. Must meet the requirements of Section
6.3 of this Ordinance.
6) Building height:: Shall not exceed 40 feet or three (3) stories.
B. A Detailed Development Plan, as defined by the Subdivision
Regulations and meeting all of the development criteria of that
ordinance, must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and approved by the City Council.
C. Installation of a manufactured home must meet the manufacturers
recommended installation requirements and must be performed by a
State licensed installer. If those requirements cannot be obtained
installation must meet the State standards. Every effort shall be made
to minimize the distance between: the home and the ground, providing
for only the minimum crawl space necessary to access the undercarriage
of the unit. State inspection of the installation must be made. In
addition, the property owner shall cause an inspection of the
installation in accordance with the City Building Code to be made by
the City Building Official prior to habitation of the housing unit.
D. Skirting or underpinning of the manufactured home unit is required and
must consist of properly ventilated, all-weather, masonry or natural
stone type construction that is complementary to the manufactured home
unit. The property owner must ensure that any screening device is kept
in good repair and condition for the life of the use.
E. Manufactured homes must be individually metered for usage of an
approved water, wastewater, electric and, if applicable natural gas
service provider.
38-2
F. All streets within the Dark must be constructed to public standards. If
classified as private streets, they must meet those standards with the
exception that a minimum pavement area of 28 feet is acceptable. In
addition, maintenance of the streets will become the property owner's
responsibility. In the event that a park developer wishes to Rate a
private street, the gate must meet emergency service personnel approval
as part of the Construction Plan review for improvements of the
Detailed Development Plan for the project. If a gate is approved, it
can only be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6 a.m. If a
gate is proposed to be used at any time, the street cannot be classified
as a public street.
G. The location of any park must be a minimum of 500 feet from the IH-
35 right-of-way. The City Council may choose to waive this
requirement if they approve a Detailed Development Plan of an
expansion of an existing park that is located within this area.
H. Any expansion of an existing mobile home park or manufactured home
park must meet the standards for a new manufactured home parks
however any existing park not meeting these design criteria may
continue operation provided the criteria of Chapter 4 of this ordinance
continues to be met.
[Section 2.14 as shown amended by Ordinance 96- 1
38-3
Table B - Bufferyard Requirements
Zoning of Proposed
Development
Adjacent Existing Zoning
A
R-E
R-S
RM-1
RM-2
R-M1rn
RM-3
R-P
R-O
C-1
CZ -A
C2B
I
A
*
E
E
D
C
C
B
D
B
A
A
A
A
R-E'
*
*
*
R-S-
*
*
*
RM-1
C
E
E
A
B
B
C
A
C
D
D
D
D
RM-2
B
E
E
D
A
A
B
D
B
C
C
C
C
R-MHP
B
E
E
D
A
A
B
D
B
C
C
C
C
RM-3
A
E
E
D
C
C
A
D
A
B
B
B
B
R-P
C
E
E
A
B
B
C
A
C
D
D
D
D
R-O
A
E
E
D
C
C
A
D
A
B
B
B
B
C-1
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
C-2A
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
C-2B
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
I
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
* No bufferyaid requirement
Bufferyard required as per Section 6.304
Table C - Land use Classifications
Land Use Class Land Use
Single Family Residences
II Two & Three Family Residences
Planned Unit Developments
Non -Commercial Recreational
III Religious Institutions
Educational Institutions
Public Buildings
Multifamily Residences
Manufactured Home Park or Mobile Home Park
IV Offices
Service Establishments
Agricultural
52-2
these regulations or prescribed pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit or
a Variance. Where parking spaces in excess of such requirements are
provided, the spaces may be considered as meeting the requirements for
another use pursuant to Section 7.104.
I. Head -to -toe parking is prohibited except in one (1), two (2) or three (3)
family dwellings, or manufactured homes.
7.102 Schedule of Off -Street Parking Requirements
A. Parking facilities for each use shall be provided in accord with the
minimum requirements prescribed in Table 7A.
TABLE 7A - PARKING REQUIREMENTS*
USE
PARKING
RESIDENTIAL
Long Term Housing
2 spaces/unit***
Quasi Residential
1 space/250 sq.ft.
CHURCHES AND PUBLIC USES
1 space/3 seats**
HOTEL AND MOTEL USES
1 space/guest room +
1 space/3 persons to the maximum
capacity of each public meeting and /or
banquet room +
1 space/3 employees +
50 % restaurant standard +
100 % office standard
COMMERCIAL
Restaurant
less than 2,500 sq.ft.
1 space/100 sq.ft.
greater than 2,500 sq.ft.
1 space/75 sq.ft.
take out restaurants
3 spaces/100 sq.ft. of seating area
General Retail and Office
less than 25,000 sq.ft.
1 space/200 sq.ft.
25,000-399,999 sq.ft.
1 space/250 sq.ft.
400,000-599,999 sq.ft.
1 space/225 sq.ft.
more than 600,000 sq.ft.
1 space/200 sq. ft.
INDUSTRIAL
1 space/employee
+ 1/400 sq.ft. of office space
WAREHOUSE
1 space/1,000 sq.ft.
T i ne required numuer or parking spaces for uses not listed in the above table will be determined
by the Director.
***Including manufactured homes within a Manufactured Home Park
52-6
A. Swimming pools located at least three (3) feet from the property line
and screened by a six (6) foot tall privacy fence;
B. Playscapes not taller than nine (9) feet above mean grade, located at
least three (3) feet from the property line and screened by a six (6) foot
tall privacy fence; and/or
C. Satellite dishes or telecommunications devices not taller than nine (9)
feet above mean grade, located at least three (3) feet from the property
line and screened by a six (6) foot tall privacy fence.
D. Driveways to side entry garages.
Section 8.3 Requirements for Fences
8.301 Fences may be constructed in accordance with the following provisions:
8.302 No fence along a common property boundary shall be greater than six (6) feet
in height, excepting:
A. Fences not greater than eight (8) feet, as required to impede access to
hazardous facilities including, but not limited to, electrical substations,
swimming pools and chemical or equipment storage yards.
B. Fences not greater than eight (8) feet, where the slope of a line drawn
perpendicular to the fence line averages twenty percent (20 %) or more
on either side of the fence over a distance no less than fifteen (15) feet.
C. Fences not greater than eight (8) feet, where the fence forms a
continuous perimeter around a subdivision and the design of said
perimeter fence is approved by the Commission.
8.303 Fences less than or equal to three (3) feet high shall be allowed in front yards.
8.304 No fence or other structure more than thirty percent (30 %) solid or more than
three (3) feet high shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the
intersection of any rights -of -way.
8.305 All fences shall be constructed to maintain structural integrity against natural
forces such as wind, rain and temperature variations.
8.306 The finished side of all fences built to comply with these regulations shall face
the protected use.
[Sections 8.2 and 8.3 shown as amended by Ordinance 96-08]
52-17
V General Retail Establishments
Other Commercial Uses
Research and Development Uses
Wholesale and Warehousing
Other Industrial Uses
Parking Lots
Arterial Streets
Bufferyard requirements for properties adjacent to those located outside the City Limits are based on
the following equivalencies between Zoning Classifications and Land Use Classes.
Zoning Land Use Classes
A
IV
R-E
I
RS
I
RM-1
H
RM-2
III
R-MHP
III
RM-3
IV
R-P
II
R-O
IV
C-1
V
C-2A
V
C-2B
V
I
V
53-2
18.129 Large Trees - Any tree having a seventy-two (72) inch circumference or
larger, measured four and one-half (4 1/2 feet above the natural grade, or
if branched below 4 1/2 feet measured at the narrowest trunk segment
between the lowest branch and the natural grade, is considered in this
Ordinance as a "Large Tree".
18.130 Living Unit - The room or rooms occupied by a family. The living unit
must include a kitchen.
18.131 Lodging House - A dwelling consisting of not more than one living unit
occupied by not more than 20 persons not related by blood, marriage, or
adoption. This term includes rooming house, boarding house, tourist
home, and nursing home.
18.132 Lot - A parcel of land adequate for occupancy by a use herein permitted,
providing the yards, area, and off-street parking herein required and
fronting directly upon a street.
18.132a Manufactured Home - a structure constructed on or after June 15, 1976
in compliance with the rules and definitions of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban development, that is transportable in
one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and designed
to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air-
conditioning, and electrical systems.
18.132b Manufactured Home Park - a parcel of land under single entity ownership
which has been planned and improved for the placement of one (1) or
more manufactured homes and their accessory uses and service facilities.
18.132c. Manufactured Home Park Lease Space - an area designated within a
Manufactured Home Park for placement of a housing unit. See also Lot
with the exception that off-street Parking for each housing unit does not
have to be located on the individual lease space, but rather within the park
parcel.
18.132d. Manufactured Home Park Parcel - area of land that will accommodate a
Manufactured Home Park.
18.133 Mature Trees - Trees with a thirty-six (36) inch circumference or larger,
measured four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the natural grade or, if
branched below 4 1/2 feet, measured at the narrowest trunk segment
between the lowest branch and the natural grade. All species of woody
plants attaining a mature height over fifteen (15) feet and meeting the 36"
circumference or greater requirement are "Mature Trees" for the purposes
of this Ordinance, except that the members of the following genera or
species are not protected:
1) Juniperus spp., ex. Ashe juniper
2) Populus spp., ex. Cottonwood
3) Platanus spp., ex. Sycamore
4) Celtis spp., ex. Hackberry
5) Morus spp., ex. Mulberry
6) Melia azedarach L. , Chinaberry
7) Acernegundo L. , Boxelder
8) Sapium sebiferum L. , Chinese Tallow
18.134 Mobile Home - a structure that was constructed before June 15. 1976,
that is transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent
chassis designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent
foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the
plumbing. heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems.
18.134a Mobile Home Park - a site with required improvements and utilities for
longterm erm parking or placement of mobile homes and manufactured
houses which are not permanently anchored to a permanent
foundation.
18.135 Model Home - a single family or duplex housing unit typical of the style
available for sale in a particular subdivision, but used for display or sales
of new residences.
18.136 Motel - An inn or group of cabins designed for occupancy by paying
guests.
18.137 Office Building - A building designed for or used as the offices of
professional, commercial, religious, public or semi-public persons or
organizations provided that no goods, wares, or merchandise shall be
prepared or sold on the premises.
18.138 Parking Space - An area on a lot sufficient in size to store one automobile
(not less than nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long) connected to a
public street or alley by a driveway not less than ten (10) feet wide and so
arranged as to permit ingress and egress of the automobile at all times
without moving any other automobile parked adjacent to the parking space.
The parking space and connecting driveways shall be a hard, level surface
on which vegetation cannot grow.
18.152 Trailer -
See Recreational Vehicle.
18.144a Recreational Vehicle - a vehicle or trailer equiped for use as a temporary
dwelling and designed to be driven or hauled.
70
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 19689 TO
INCLUDE THE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK USE TO SECTION 2.14
OF PART TWO, DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND AMEND OTHER
SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE AS NEEDED TO COMPLETELY
DEFINE AND RESTRICT THIS USE ; REPEALING CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds that portions of
its current Zoning Ordinance governing uses does not fully address the manufactured home park
use; and
WHEREAS, the Century Plan - Policy Plan states that, "The City will work with
builders, developers, and property owners to provide safe and adequate housing opportunities
for all household types" ; and
WHEREAS, this revision provides a means of allowing the manufactured home park use
to be established higher density residential areas of the City while protecting the integrity of the
surrounding neighborhoods through design and operational criteria;
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 Growth and Physical Development Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy
Plan Element, which states: "The City will ensure that future land use patterns provide
economic, cultural and social activities to all residents, businesses and organizations", 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 attached Exhibit "A" relating to the revision of Parts 1, 2, 6, 7 and
18 of the Zoning Ordinance 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.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Manufactured Home Parks
Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 2
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 , 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of ,1996.
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Manufactured Home Parks
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 2
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
ITEM SUMMARY: Following the Council's direction given at their July 11, 1996, workshop,
staff drafted development standards regarding manufactured home parks that could be
implemented through revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. The attached Exhibit A contains
a brief description of the standards, which are described in detail in the attached ordinance.
Some of the more critical development standards recommended for adoption are that the
I ; IH-35
id with
within
Aback,
led for
nd that
unit be
lndards
L Minimum Development Parcel 2. Lease. 5. Sidewalks and accessory gang
Size, Dimension. Maximum ►ing/Open storage
Impervious Coverage, Building tee
Coverage
5 acres
''*�' width, 120' depth
/u impervious cover
35% building cover
These standards, except for parcel size, are the
same as our current Multifamily standards and will
be applied on a parcel wide basis, not lease space
by lease space basis.
The parcel size is larger than that required for
Multifamily because the manufactured home park
use requires greater land area to accommodate
even a small number of units to make it a viable
commercial develonment
6. Skirting
Masonry type skirting that
is complementary to
building exterior
25' front l area +
20' rear (orfferyard.
15' side(builjs currently
No minimudultifamily
These standa
* However, cation will be
maximize usturrently the
single familydential
No minimum
the setback �
home, which
7. Foundation/Tie do4ual meters
No additional requirement for sidewalks
unless street standards are not met.
Current public street standards only require
sidewalks w/in 1,000 feet of schools or park
property for local streets. There is not a
separate, on -site sidewalk requirement for
Multifamily developments.
No additional/lessened requirement for
accessory structures.
Accessory structures on permanent foundations
must meet the lease space setback requirements
that are currentty in place for other residential
uses.
All first time installations must #dually metered.
all installations must meet Statetifamily units have
The State inspects all licensed instrs and customers are
other than those for plumbing andlity usage individually.
However, because the Building Cdard should apply to this
installation, for those installations encourages individual
and inspection, in addition to the $d ensures proper billing
The State standards and manufactters.
installation be utilized. If a low pt
special grading would have to be 4
the underside of the manufactured
10. Public or Private
Streets/ Integrated or not
with other public streets
Open to the public and built to
public standards (minimum of 28' of
pavement curb to curb) with at least
two entrances and exits. If the
developer chooses to gate the
streets, they cannot be classified as
public and the gates can only be
closed between the hours of 10 p.m.
and 6 a.m. Any gate must meet
emergency services personnel
approval prior to installation.
irds for
lards of
ce with
nits or
in voted
xhnical
11beto
erwise.
AIC 1
Exhibit A
Recommended Manufactured Home Park Development Standards
1. Minimum Development Parcel
Size, Dimension. Maximum
Impervious Coverage, Building
Coverage
2. Lease Space Setbacks/Minimum Dimensions
3. Parking
4
Landscaping/Open
Space
5. Sidewalks and accessory
storage
5 acres
25' front
2 spaces per unit.
20% of parcel area +
No additional requirement for sidewalks
,'width, 120' depth
20' rear (or 10' next to commercial or industrial)
This standards is currently required for all residential uses.
applicable bufferyard.
unless street standards are not met.
-•% impervious cover
15' side(building seperation, no minimum setback per lease space side)*
As with all other uses, parking must be located behind the
This standard is currently
Current public street standards only require
.sn/o building cover
No minimum lease space size provided setbacks are met
front building line of each lot/lease space.
required for Multifamily
sidewalks w/in 1,000 feet of schools or park
These standards, except for parcel size, are the
These standards are primarily the same as the current Multifamily standards.
Additional common parking areas built to accommodate
development.
property for local streets. There is not a
same as our current Multifamily standards and will
* However, a provision allowing zero side lot/space line siting in order to
guest parking, recreational vehicle parking, etc. are not
Park land dedilcation will be
separate, on -site sidewalk requirement for
be applied on a parcel wide basis, not lease space
maximize usable open space on what will probably be smaller lots than other
currently required for other residential development, so it is
required as is currently the
Multifamily developments.
by lease space basis.
single family detached uses are required to have.
not recommend for this use.
case for all residential
No additional/lessened requirement for
The parcel size is larger than that required for
No minimum individual lease space size, width or depth standards are necessary if
However, if street width standards are not required to be met
development.
accessory structures.
Multifamily because the manufactured home park
the setback standards are met due to the standardized width of the manufactured
and no on -street parking will be allowed, then a common use
Accessory structures on permanent foundations
use requires greater land area to accommodate
home, which is limited to 18' due to transport concerns.
parking area of 1 space per 4 units should be required.
must meet the lease space setback requirements
even a small number of units to make it a viable
that are currenity in place for other residential
commercial development.
uses.
6. Skirting
7. Foundation/Tie down
8. Meet HUD Code Construction Standards,
height standards
9. Individual meters
10. Public or Private
Streets/ Integrated or not
with other public streets
Masonry type skirting that
All first time installations must meet the manufacturers instructions for installation and
Any manufactured home installed within a manufactured home
Must be individually metered.
Open to the public and built to
is complementary to
all installations must meet State standards and be performed by a licensed installer.
park developed under the Subdivision Regulations must meet the
Currently, Multifamily units have
public standards (minimum of 28' of
building exterior
The State inspects all licensed installations, so the City does not have to make an inspection
HUD construction code standards.
individual met rs and customers are
pavement curb to curb) with at least
other than those for plumbing and mechanical hook-ups to the manufactured home units.
Height limit of 40'.
charged for utility usage individually.
two entrances and exits. If the
However, because the Building Code does have requirements regarding manufactured home
The RM-2 District zoning restricts building height to 401. The
The same standard should apply to this
developer chooses to gate the
installation, for those installations that are made within the City limits, the City will make
Subdivision Regulations, which will effect any development outside the
use because it Encourages individual
streets, they cannot be classified as
and inspection, in addition to the State's inspection.
City limits, regulates height by requiring an increased side and rear
conservation aid ensures proper billing
public and the gates can only be
The State standards and manufacturers standards do not require that the lowest profile
setback if the structure is above 35' when located adjacent to
to individual u�ers.
closed between the hours of 10 p.m.
installation be utilized. If a low profile method were to be by the City it would mean that
commercial and above 20' when located next to residential.
and 6 a.m. Any gate must meet
special grading would have to be down at each lease space in order to accomodate access to
emergency services personnel
the underside of the manufactured home unit. The additional cost would be significant.
approval prior to installation.
SUBJECT: Consideration and First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Subdivision
Regulations to establish standards for manufactured home park development.
ITEM SUMMARY: Following the Council's direction given at their July 11, 1996, workshop,
staff drafted development standards regarding manufactured home parks that . could be
implemented through revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. The attached Exhibit A contains
a brief description of the standards, which are described in detail in the attached ordinance.
Some of the more critical development standards recommended for adoption are that the
development parcel size be a minimum of 5 acres that.is located at least 500 feet from the IH-35
right-of-way, with a maximum of 50 %impervious and 35 % building coverage allowed, and with
20 % of the land area landscaped and the proper buffering provided; that each lease space within
the park have a 25' front setback, a 20' rear setback and a 15' side building separation setback,
with the side zero -lot line siting of units permitted; that two (2) parking spaces be provided for
each unit; that foundations meet the manufacturers recommendation or State standards and that
the foundation be skirted with an all-weather, complimentary material; that each unit be
individually metered for utility usage; and that streets and sidewalks be built to public standards
with a minimum of 28' of pavement whether classified as public or private, with limited gating
permitted.
In drafting these recommended regulations, staff utilized the City's current standards for
both single-family and multi -family developments while taking into account adopted standards of
other municipalities located within Texas and nationally.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: 'Adoption of these regulations will require compliance with
the design standards for the placement of a manufactured home unit. within the City limits or
within the ETJ if City utilities will be used.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their August 6, 1996, meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend adoption of the changes contained in the attached Ordinance. Minor technical
revisions have been . made to the text since that meeting.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be to
approve the attached Ordinance revising the Subdivision Regulations, unless stated otherwise.
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A, Ordinance
Submitted By:
Edward JV iarry, AICP Director 4VCn Rosenberg, AIC J `
Divisionlof Development Services Chief Planner
Exhibit A
Atached are the changes to the Subdivision Regulations that will be made with the approval of
this Ordinance:
Underlined text is new and will be added.
8. Any:
a. Planned commercial shopping center;
b. Research °and development park;
C. Industrial park development; or
d. Mobile ate, Manufactured Home Park
for which a building permit, or plumbing permit, or electrical
permit, or flood plain permit, or utility tap, or certificate of
acceptance for required public improvements is required by the City;
or
9. The platting of any existing legal deed -divided unplatted lot,
parcel, site or tract; or
10. The platting of land into lots, parcels, sites or tracts
each of which contains forty (40) acres or more; or
11. Any plat having received approval from the Council for
which said approval has expired.
B. The provisions of these Subdivision Regulations as detailed in
Section 29040, shall apply to the following forms of land subdivision and
development activity:
1. The dedication, vacation or reservation of any public or
private easement through any tract of land regardless of the area
involved, including those for use by public and private utility
companies; or
2. The dedication or vacation of any street or alley through any
tract of land, regardless of the area involved.
C. There may be occasions when the City Council deems it appropriate
to allow a delay in the implementation of certain elements of these
regulations. On those occasions a development agreement shall be used in
accordance with the City's policy (see Appendix A).
16020 Exemptions
The provisions of Sections 23000 through 26000 of these Subdivision Regulations shall
not apply to:
A. Land legally subdivided prior to February 14, 1988, except as
otherwise provided for herein; or
B. Land constituting a single tract, lot, site or parcel for which a legal
deed of record describing the boundary of said tract, lot, site or parcel was
filed of record in the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, on or
before May 10, 1977, except as provided by Sections 16010 A.6., A.7. and
A.8.; or
10000-7
Revised 1/28/95
27000
20000-36
Revised 1/28/95
DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
27010 Definition
A detailed development plan shall be defined as a scaled drawing representing an area of
land to be improved/developed and indicating the legal boundary of said property and the
nature and extent of all existing and proposed improvements to said property. A detailed
development plan shall include any and all support documents, reports, specifications, or
data required to evaluate the proposal relative to City codes and ordinances, policies, and
standards of the Century Plan, and/or conditions of approval previously attached to the
development through the public hearing process.
27020 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of requiring detailed development plan approval is to encourage good site
planning by ensuring that plans which are otherwise in conformance with this
ordinance also include the compatible arrangement of buildings, off-street parking,
lighting, signage, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, site drainage, and open
spaces. Plan review shall consider the siting of proposed construction and its impact
upon the existing topography and natural vegetation, and the relationship of proposed
construction to existing public and private improvements in the immediate area and its
conformance to the policies and standards of the Century Plan. The design shall
encourage the elimination of unnecessary grading, and endeavor to retain the natural
character of the site including the preservation of trees, springs and aquifer recharge
features.
A detailed development plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit or utility connection permit for any development within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City. The Commission and/or Council shall have the authority to
require, as a condition of final plat or preliminary plat approval, the public approval of
a detailed development plan in accordance with these regulations. However, the normal
process is to allow administrative reviews and approval of any detailed development plan
that fully complies with the requirements of these regulations, with the exception of a
plan for the Manufactured Home Park use which must be reviewed by the Commission
and approved by the City Council.
27030 Format
The detailed development plan shall be drawn on paper not exceeding twenty-four inches
by thirty-six inches (24" X 36"), at an engineering scale sufficient to thoroughly meet
the informational requirements herein. When more than one (1) sheet is necessary to
accommodate the entire site, each sheet shall identify match lines for adjacent sheets.
The detailed development plan shall be submitted in the number of copies indicated on
the application form with:
A. Application form.
B. Payment of fee as determined in the City's fee schedule.
C. Copy of plat or deed showing legal status of property.
27040 Content
The detailed development plan shall include:
A. For two-family, three-family and four -family residential buildings where
only one (1) building is proposed on a lot:
1. Names and addresses of record owner,
architect/engineer/surveyor, and contractor.
2. Date, scale and north point.
3. Indication of the direction of existing drainage.
4. Indication of proposed modifications to existing site drainage
and direction of proposed drainage.
5. Areas subject to flooding, centerlines of drainage courses, and
finished floor elevations.
6. Property lines and lot dimensions.
7. Adjacent street(s) and alley(s).
8. Easements.
9. Existing structures.
10. The location, dimensions including height, and intended use of
existing and proposed buildings on the site.
11. Lot dimensions, square footage, and percent impervious
coverage by proposed structures, pavement and other improvements.
12. Location, number and dimensions of existing and proposed
parking spaces.
13. Setback of all existing and proposed structures from property
lines and platted building lines.
B. For all proposed development not included in Part A above, including
Manufactured Home Park
1. Name and address of the record owner, applicant, and
architect/engineer/surveyor.
2. Address and legal description of the property.
3. If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a
notarized statement, signed by the property owner, that the applicant is
the authorized agent of the owner.
4. The property address and existing land use of both the site
and adjacent properties.
20000-37
Revised 1/28/95
of all dead plant material if that material was used to meet the
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
20. Screening shall be provided for all proposed dumpsters.
21. Required signature blocks (see Appendix C).
22. A copy of the water pollution abatement plan approved by the
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission if such plan is
required by the State.
23. The following notes must be added to those plans designed for
the Manufactured Home Park use:
a.) Skirting or underpinning of the manufactured home unit is required
and must consist of properly ventilated, all-weather, masonry or natural
stone type construction that is complementary to the manufactured
home unit. The property owner must ensure that any skirting device is
kept in good repair and condition for the life of the use.
b.) Installation of a manufactured home must meet the
manufacturers recommended installation requirements and be performed
by a State licensed installer. If those cannot be obtained, installation
must meet the State standards. Every effort shall be made to minimize
the distance between the home and the ground, providing only the
minimum crawl space necessary to access the undercarriage of the unit.
State inspection of the installation must be made. (If the unit will be
installed in a park within the City limits, the following must be added
to the note: In addition, the property owner shall cause an inspection
of the installation in accordance with the City Building Code to be
made by the City Building Official prior to habitation of the housing
unit.
27050 Procedure
A. A detailed development plan may be submitted to the Director at any
time prior to the issuance of a building permit, subject to the provisions of these
regulations.
B. The Commission and/or Council may reserve detailed development plan
review and approval authority, as set forth in Section 27020.
C. Final detailed development plan review and approval shall be
administered by the Director when a final plat has been approved and the land
use designation is consistent with the Century Plan and the City's Official
Zoning Map.
D. A copy of a detailed development plan submitted for review and
approval by the Director pursuant to Part C above shall be returned to the
applicant not more than fifteen (15) days from the date of submittal with:
1. An authorized signature indicating approval of the detailed
development plan; or
2. A list of modifications required in order to receive approval;
or
20000-39
Revised 1/28/95
Table 33030-A Design Standards for Streets
MAJOR STREETS
MINOR STREETS
Freeway
Major
Major
Minor
Collector
Local
Arterial
Arterial
Arterial
Divided
Undivided
Length
(miles)
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
1 +
1 /2
I / 10
Median
Varies
20' 40'
Now
Now
Now
None
Width
Speed
55
40-45
35-45
35-45
30-35
20-30
Right -of -Way
Varies
100'-140'
80'-120'
80'-100'
60'-80'
60'/rural
50'/urban
Traffic
12' Law
11' Law
I Law
40' 44'
36-40'
30'
Lanes/Width
Driveway
Access
Separation -
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
125'
No Limit
Residential
Driveway
Access
Controlled
450'
450'
300'
125'
Minimum one
Separation -
per lot/150'
Other
Parking
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Controlled
Allowed
Maxiamm
4%
6%
6%
8%
10%
10%
Grade
Horizontal
-
2000'
2000'
800'
600'
250'
Curve Radii
Sidewalk
Now
Both sides
Both sides
Both sides
One side
Now*
* Except those reyuird by Section 33030 X.
O. Street Intersections
1. Angle of intersection. Except where existing conditions will
not permit, all streets, major and minor, shall intersect at a ninety (90)
degree angle. Variations of more than ten (10) degrees on minor
streets and more than five (5) degrees on major streets must first be
approved by the Commission.
2. Radius at corners. All local and collector street corners shall
have fifteen (15) foot radii except acute comers which shall have a radii
of twenty-five (25) feet. Arterial streets shall have minimum comer
radii of twenty-five (25) feet. No buildings, signs or parking shall be
allowed in the area between the comer curves and the chord connecting
the ends of the curves except as approved by the Commission.
3. Center line tie with existing streets. Each new street
intersecting with or extending to meet an existing street shall be tied to
the existing street on center line with dimensions and bearings to show
30000-68
Revised 9/27/95
relationship.
4. Table 33030-B shall be used to determine the minimum
spacing of intersections between roadways of the same functional
classification and roadways of different functional classifications.
These standards shall apply to intersections between existing and
proposed new roadways and between two new roadways.
Table 33030-B Minimum Spacing of Roadway Intersections (in miles)
Proposed
Roadway
Existing Roadway
Freeway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
Freeway
2
1
5
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Major Arterial
1
1
1/2
1/2
Not Allowed
Minor Arterial
5
1/2
112
1/2
Not Allowed
Collector
Not Allowed
1/4
1/2
1/4
As Needed
Local
Not Allowed
Not Allowed
Not Needed
As Needed
As Needed
P. Reserve Strips. Reserve strips at the end of streets shall not be
allowed.
Q. Street Names. New streets shall be named so as to provide continuity
of name with existing streets and so as to prevent conflict with identical or
similar names in other parts of the City.
R. Private Streets. Private streets are prohibited except as specifically
approved in Planned Unit Developments or Manufactured Home Parks. All
private streets shall be constructed to City standards for public streets, except
that those within Manufactured Home Parks can be a minimum width of 28 feet
curb face to curb face. Common access easements may be required. If a gate
is proposed to limit access to the private street, its construction, operation,
maintenance, and provisions for emergency access shall be reviewed and
approved as a part of construction plan approval. If a gate is used within a
Manufactured Home Park, it cannot be closed between the hours of 6 a.m. and
10 p.m. and a note on the Detailed Development Plan of the park should be
added to reflect the property owner's understanding of this requirement.
S. Unpaved Street rights -of -way. The portion of the street right-of-way
between a private lot line and the curb or pavement edge shall be designed and
constructed to meet the requirements of the City's Construction Standards and
Specifications for Roads, Streets, Structures and Utilities.
T. Access to Public Streets from Private Property. Developers or builders
will not cut a curb or gutter section nor pave a street right-of-way without first
obtaining a permit from the City, and complying with Chapter 12.08, Street
Excavations, of the Georgetown Municipal Code. Where no curb and gutter
street construction is permitted, no developer or builder will construct or pave
the bar ditch street section without first obtaining a permit from the City and
complying with Chapter 12.08 of the Georgetown Municipal Code. No
temporary utility service will be provided to the building lot or site until a curb
30000-69
Revised 9/27/95
of the need for such alleys. However, at the discretion of the
Commission, and subject to the approval of the Council, alleys may be
required for high density residential developments.
3. Alley rights -of -way serving commercial and industrial areas
shall not be less than thirty (30) feet in width. When alleys are
provided in residential areas, rights -of -way shall not be less than
twenty-two (22) feet in width.
4. Alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be
avoided.
5. Dead-end alleys shall be avoided, but if unavoidable, shall be
provided with adequate turn around facilities at the dead-end as
determined by the Commission.
X. Pedestrian Circulation. Sidewalks shall be provided along one (1) side
of all collectors and along both sides of major and minor arterials. Crosswalks
shall be provided to connect parallel streets when blocks exceed one thousand
(1,000) feet or when blocks exceed five hundred (500) feet and the path would
provide a connection to a school, park or other community service facility. A
minimum of ten (10) feet of right-of-way is required for all crosswalks.
Sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of all streets, whether public or
np 'vate within one thousand (1,000) feet of public school or park property_
Sidewalks shall be constructed as shown on the approved construction plans.
33040 Access/Driveways
33041 Purpose and Applicability
Proper access design and location are essential to the maintenance of safe, efficient traffic
flow. In order to prevent the proliferation of poorly spaced driveways that can result in
the reduced safety and carrying capacity of public thoroughfares, the following
regulations shall apply to all properties for which a land use or property boundary change
is proposed.
33042 Driveway Width
No undivided driveway wider than thirty (30) feet from curb face to curb face shall be
permitted. No divided driveway shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in width at the property
line. Each drive access in a divided driveway must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet
wide to provide adequate fire access. It is the developer's responsibility to carefully plan
the driveway access and median design to ensure safe vehicular access.
33043 Spacing Between Driveways
Excluding single family residential uses, the minimum distances between driveways shall
correspond with Table 33030-A.
33044 Spacing Between Driveways and Intersections
On local streets, no driveway shall be permitted closer to a comer than sixty (60) feet
unless lot dimensions prohibit such spacing.
30000-71
Revised 9/27/95
G. All required parking facilities shall be located on the same site as the
use for which such facilities are required, except as authorized pursuant to
Section 33053.
H. No use shall be required to provide more spaces than prescribed by
these regulations or prescribed pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit or a
Variance. Where parking spaces in excess of such requirements are provided,
the spaces may be considered as meeting the requirements for another use
pursuant to Section 33054.
I. Head -to -toe parking is prohibited except in one (1), two (2) or three (3)
family dwellings, or manufactured homes.
33052 Schedule of Off -Street Parking Requirements
A. Parking facilities for each use shall be provided in accord with the
minimum requirements prescribed in Table 33052.
TABLE 33052 PARKING REQUIREMENTS*
USE
PARKING
RESIDENTIAL
Long Term Housing
2 spaces/unit***
Quasi Residential
1 space/250 sq.ft.
CHURCHES AND PUBLIC USES
1 space/3 seats**
HOTEL AND MOTEL USES
1 space/guest room +
1 space/3 persons to the maximum capacity of
each public meeting and /or banquet room +
1 space/3 employees +
50% restaurant standard +
100% office standard
COMMERCIAL
Restaurant
less than 2,500 sq.ft.
1 space/100 sq.ft.
greater than 2,500 sq.ft.
1 space/75 sq.ft.
take out restaurants
3 spaces/100 sq.ft. of seating area
General Retail and Office
less than 25,000 sq.ft.
1 space/200 sq.ft.
25,000-399,999 sq.ft.
1 space/250 sq.ft.
400,000-599,999 sq.ft.
1 space/225 sq.ft.
more than 600,000 sq.ft.
1 space/200 sq.ft.
INDUSTRIAL
1 space/employee
+ 1/400 sq.ft. of office space
WAREHOUSE
1 space/1,000 sq.ft.
*The required number of parking spaces for uses not listed in the above table will be determined by the
Director.
**This standard applies to all new church -related construction, on both existing and new sites, and supersedes
the Zoning Ordinance requirements for church and public assembly uses.
***Including manufactured homes within a Manufactured Home Park.
1. Where the application of Table 33052 results in a fractional
30000-75
Revised 9/27/95
D. The width of blocks shall be sufficient to accommodate two (2) tiers of
lots with minimum depth as required by Section 34020 D. herein. Exceptions
to this width shall be permitted in blocks adjacent to major streets, railroads,
waterways, or other topographical features prohibiting a second lot tier.
E. The Commission may, at the preliminary plat phase, require the
dedication of an easement or right-of-way not less than ten (10) feet wide
bisecting the center of any block in excess of eight hundred (800) feet in length
to accommodate utilities, drainage facilities, and/or pedestrian access, upon
recordation of the plat.
F. Blocks shall be identified on each plat by consecutive adjacent numbers
within each subdivision and portion thereof. Blocks forming a continuation of
a previous subdivision block, shall continue the block number.
34020 Lots
All land area within the boundaries of the subdivision or resubdivision except that area
specifically dedicated as public right-of-way for any purpose shall be designated as a lot.
Each lot shown on a plat shall be clearly designated by a number located within the
boundaries of the lot. The boundaries of each lot shall be shown by bearing and distance
in relation to the monuments found or established on the ground in conformance with
these regulations.
A. Use. The proposed use for each lot shall be indicated on the plat as one
of the following:
R-SFD
Residential single family detached
R-SFA
Residential single family attached
R-2F
Residential two (2) family
R-3F
Residential three (3) family
R-MF
Residential multifamily
R-MHP
Residential manufactured home park
C-O
Commercial office
C-RS
Commercial retail & service
C-HI
Commercial high impact
I
Industrial
P
Public use
Other as specified by the Commission
B. Lot Shape. All lots shall be rectangular except when the street
alignment is curved in order to conform with other provisions of this ordinance
or configuration of the parent tract does not permit. No lot shall have a comer
intersection of less than forty-five (45) degrees. The ratio of average depth to
average width shall not exceed two and one-half to one (2.5:1) nor be less than
one and one-half (1.5) to one (1.5:1) unless the lot is at least one and one-half
times the required lot size, both the depth and width of the lot exceed the
minimums required in these regulations, and the Director finds that the proposed
lot dimensions are consistent with surrounding development and the Century
Plan.
30000-85
Revised 9/27/95
TABLE 34020 Design Standards for Lots
USE
AREA
WIDTH
(FI)
DEPTH
(M)
%MAX
BLDG
IMPVS
CVRG
SETBACKS (FI)
FRT REAR SIDE
R-SFA
3,000 sq ft
20
85
30
40
25
20
10
R-SFD
6,000 sq ft
35b
100
30
40
25
20
e
R-213
8,000 sq ft
80
100
30
40
25
25
e
R-317
10,000 sq ft
80
120
35
40
25
25
e
R-MT
12,000 sq ft
100
120
35
50
25
20od
15cdf
R-MHPi
5 acres
100
120
35
50
25
20cd
15cd
20cd
C-O
0.5 acres
150
120
20
70
25
20cd
C-RS
0.5 acres
150
120
20
70
25
20cd
20od
C-1-11
1.0 acres
150
120
20
70
25
20cd
20cd
C-HI h
0.25 acres
100
125
70
90
25
IN
IN
I
0.5 acres
150
120
50
85
25g
i0c
15c
I h
0.25 acres
100
125
70
90
25
l0i
IN
P
0.5 acres
150
120
20
70
25
20cd
20od
Other
a
a
a
a
a
s
a
a
a As approved by the Commission.
b Fifty (50) foot minimum width is required at the front and rear building setback lines.
c Side and rear setbacks shall be increased by two (2) horizontal feet for each vertical foot of building
height in excess of these horizontal dimensions for parcels abutting property platted or used for
residential purposes. For lots abutting property used for non-residential purposes, side and rear
setbacks shall be increased by one (1) horizontal foot for each vertical foot of building height in
excess of thirty-five (35) feet. The effect may be that side and rear setbacks established by the plat
will be increased by the detailed development plan.
d Side and rear setbacks may be reduced by fifty percent (50%) along lot lines abutting property used
and/or platted and/or zoned for commercial or industrial purposes.
e A total distance of fifteen (15) feet is required between buildings with a five (5) foot minimum side
setback being required on one (1) side of each lot line. Note that many lots will still have side PUEs
that cannot be encroached upon, and this option creates the potential for some lots to have more than
a fifteen (15) foot separation.
f For multi -dwelling units, this applies to the exterior side of end units and for manufactured homes
within parks this applies to the exterior sides of each unit with zero -lot line layout encouraged on
individual lease spaces.
g No parking shall be allowed in the front yard of industrial uses.
h These standards are reduced for existing commercial high impact or industrial subdivisions with the
following characteristics: located on major arterials; at least twenty (20) acres in size; at least forty
(40) lots, and at least ninety percent (90%) occupied as of the date of adoption of this ordinance.
i Side and/or rear setbacks may be reduced to no less than five (5) feet if the proposed development
is an addition to an existing structure that already encroaches into the ten (10) foot setback.
i Area, width, depth, building coverage and impervious coverage standards apply to the Manufactured
Home Park parcel. Setbacks apply to both the entire park parcel and each individual lease space,
with the exception that there is no minimum lease space size. Any new Manufactured Home Park
must be located a minimum of 500 feet from the IH-35 right-of-way.
F. Comer Lots
1. Lots having frontage on two (2) or more intersecting streets shall
be classified as comer lots.
2. Comer lots adjacent to streets of equal classification shall have only
one (1) access driveway on either of the intersecting streets, except as
otherwise approved by the Commission.
3. Comer 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.
4. The building setback line for all comer lots shall conform to the
minimum requirements for the land use designated but shall never be
less than twenty-five (25) feet from an existing or proposed street
right-of-way.
30000-87
Revised 9/27/95
5. Corner residential lots shall be ten (10) feet wider than the
average interior lot on the same block.
G. Building Lines. Each property line of each lot shall have a building
setback line which runs parallel to the property line. The front and rear building
setback lines shall run between the side lot lines. The side building setback lines
shall extend from the front building setback line to the rear building setback line.
The minimum distance from the lot line to its corresponding building setback line
for each designated land use shall conform to Table 34020.
1. All building ;setback lines shall be indicated on the subdivision
plat. The area between the' property line and the building line shall be
the required yard area. No structure or impervious construction shall be
allowed in the front yard area except for the following:
a. Fences and screens in accordance with Sections
37000-37999 of these regulations;
b. Driveways and sidewalks as allowed herein;
C. Utility distribution lines and appurtenances within
dedicated easements and rights -of -way; and/or
d. Drainage structures.
2. No structures or impervious construction shall be allowed in
required side or rear building setback areas except for the
following accessory structures on one (1), two (2) or three (3)
family residential lots:
a. Swimming pools located at least three (3) feet from the
property line and screened by a six (6) foot tall privacy fence;
b. Playscapes not taller than nine (9) feet above mean
grade, located at least three (3) feet from the property line and
screened by a six (6) foot tall privacy fence; and/or
C. Satellite dishes or telecommunications devices not taller
than nine (9) feet above mean grade, located at least three (3)
feet from the property line and screened by a six (6) foot tall
privacy fence.
d. Driveways to side entry garages.
H. All of the design requirements for lots listed in Section 34020 apply to
a Manufactured Home Park lease space that serves as a "lot" area for an
individual manufactured home unit within a park development.
34021 Access Requirements
A. A minimum of one (1) all-weather access area (either individually, or
common to more than one lot) or driveway shall be provided for each buildable
lot connecting the buildable area of the lot to an existing or proposed dedicated
public street. An exception may be made for lots within a PUD which may have
similar access to a private street.
30000-88
Revised 9/27/95
36000
extension of public sanitary sewer systems adopted by the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission. Under extraordinary circumstances, these provisions may be
varied with the approval of the Council and Commission.
35022 General Sanitary Sewer System Design
All new public sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and constructed to operate on a
gravity flow basis by taking advantage of natural topographic conditions and thereby
reducing the need for lift stations and force mains.
35023 Manufactured Home Parks
All utilities must be constructed such that individual lease spaces within parks are metered
individuallv for usage.
RURAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS
36010 Purpose
The provisions of this section of these Subdivision Regulations are designed and intended
to permit development of undeveloped agricultural land while preserving the rural character
of the area until such time as development of a more intensive urban nature is appropriate
and can be supported by the necessary public facilities and services. These design
standards modify, and/or reinforce other requirements found in these regulations. By
qualifying other particular requirements of these regulations, these rural subdivision design
standards insure minimum yet requisite conditions for establishing a low density rural living
environment while at the same time providing the necessary foundation upon which more
intensive urban development can occur in the future.
36020 Applicability
The requirements contained in this section of these Subdivision Regulations shall apply to
all land within the jurisdictional limits of the regulations and which is outside the utility
service area for water and/or wastewater services and for which the provision of these
services will be accommodated through the use of individual, privately owned systems.
36030 Streets
All streets within rural subdivisions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the requirements for rural streets set forth in the City's Construction Standards and
Specifications for Roads, Streets, Structures, and Utilities.
36040 Blocks
Blocks in rural subdivisions shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) feet in length and shall
adequately accommodate two (2) tiers of lots arranged back to back.
36050 Lots
All lots in rural subdivisions shall:
A. Be a minimum of one (1) acre in area; and
B. Have a minimum width at the front property line of one hundred and
30000-91
Revised 9/27/95
6. Other: Any approved decorative aggregate or pervious brick
pavers shall qualify for landscaping credit if contained in planting areas,
but no credit shall be given for concrete or other impervious surfaces.
D. Landscape Plan Requirements. Prior to preliminary plat approval, or
detailed development plan approval if deferral of the plan is permitted, the
subdivider shall submit and receive approval of a landscape plan demonstrating
compliance with the landscape requirements contained herein. Plans shall show
all dimensions, types of materials, width of bufferyards, size and spacing of
vegetative materials, and plans for providing water to plants. The plans shall
demonstrate that landscaping and buffering materials will:
1. Abate objectionable noise, light, glare, visual clutter, dust, or
loss of privacy.
2. Adequately accomplish the purpose for which they were
intended.
37030 Required Landscape Installation
A. A minimum percentage of the total lot area of property on which
development, construction or reconstruction occurs after the effective date of this
article shall be devoted to landscape development in accordance with the following
schedule. These requirements shall not apply to the development, construction or
reconstruction of single-family detached or two (2) family residential structures
except when such structures abut an arterial street.
Required Landscaping Schedule
Land Use
Landscaping Required
% of lot area
Three (3) family structures
20
Multifamily structures
20
Manufactured Home Park
20
Office and professional uses
15
Commercial
10
Industrial or manufacturing
10
Exceptions to this chapter ' may be granted to require a lesser amount of
landscaping, by the Commission, if the aesthetic, buffering and environmental
intent of this chapter is met, and the reduction of the landscape area results in the
preservation of a natural feature having comparable value to the reduced landscape
requirements.
B. The landscaping shall be placed upon that portion of a tract or lot that is
being developed. Fifty percent (50 %) of the required landscaped area and
required plantings shall be installed between the front property lines and the
building being constructed. Undeveloped portions of a tract or lot shall not be
considered landscaped, except as specifically approved by the Commission.
30000-95
Revised 9/27/95
TABLE 37030 Bufferyard Requirements
Table 37030-A Bufferyard Requirements Within City Limits
Zoning of
Proposed
Development
Adjacent Existing Zoning
A
R-E
R-S
RM-1
RM-2
R-NI"
RM-3
R-P
R-O
C-1
C2-
C2
I
A
B
A
"
E
E
D
C
C
B
D
B
A
A
A
A
R-E-
R-S'
*
s
*
RM-1
C
E
E
A
B
B
C
A
C
D
D
D
D
RM-2
B
E
E
D
A
A
B
D
B
C
C
C
C
R-MHP
B
E
E
D
A
A
B
D
B
C
C
C
C
RM-3
A
E
E
D
C
C
A
D
A
B
B
B
B
R-P
C
E
E
A
B
B
C
A
C
D
D
D
D
R-O
A
E
E
D
C
C
A
D
A
B
B
B
B
C-1
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
C-2A
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
C-2B
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
I
B
E
E
D
C
C
C
D
B
A
A
A
A
* No bufferyard requirement
Bufferyard required as per Section 37030 A.
Bufferyard requirements within the City limits are based on the following equivalencies
between Zoning Classifications and Land Use Classes.
Zoning Land Use Classes
A
IV
R-E
I
RS
I
RM-1
II
RM-2
III
R-MHP
III
RM-3
IV
R-P
II
R-O
IV
C-1 V
C-2A V
C-2B V
I V
30000-98
Revised 9/27/95
Table 37030-B Bufferyard Requirements Outside the City Limits
Land Use Class Land Use
Single Family Residences
II Two & Three Family Residences
Planned Unit Developments
Non -Commercial Recreational
III Religious Institutions
Educational Institutions
Public Buildings
Multifamily Residences
Manufactured Home Park or Mobile Home Park
IV Offices
Service Establishments
Agricultural
V General Retail Establishments
Other Commercial Uses
Research and Development Uses
Wholesale and Warehousing
Other Industrial Uses
Parking Lots
Arterial Streets
Land Use Class
Adjacent Existing Land Use Class
I -
II
III
IV
V
I
*
*
*
*
E"
H
E
A
B
C
D
III
E
D
A
B
C
IV
E
D
C
A
B
V
E
D
C
B
A""
*No bufferyard required
"Bufferyard required as per Section 37030 A.
"" Except as required by 37030 F.
**Note: Any fence constructed to satisfy bufferyard requirements shall be opaque and shall
be six (6) feet in height, except as otherwise provided in Section 37040 or as otherwise
approved by the Commission.
30000-99
Revised 9/27/95
Individual On -Site
Wastewater System
Private Sewage Facility - All systems and methods used for the disposal of sewage, other
than organized sewage disposal systems. Private sewage facilities are usually composed
of three (3) units: the generating unit (the residence, institution, etc.), treatment unit, and
the disposal unit (the drainfield that may be an absorption trench or bed, or an
evapotranspiration bed). Including a septic tank, seepage tile sewage disposal system or
any other on -lot sewage treatment device approved and installed in accordance with all
local, state and federal laws and regulations.
Industrial
Non-residential use of any site involved in manufacturing and/or external storage of
goods; any site generating significant negative externalities, such as noise, dust, glare,
etc.; and/or any site where hazardous materials are stored and/or generated.
Interior Lot
A lot other than a comer lot and bounded by a street on only one (1) side.
Landscape Development
Trees, shrubs, ground cover, vines or grass installed in planting areas.
Legal Lot
Either a lot recorded in the Williamson County Plat Records under the applicable
subdivision regulations at the time of its creation, or a tract of land having existed in its
present configuration prior to May 1, 1977.
Legally Platted Lot
A lot which is part of a subdivision approved by the City and recorded in the Plat
Records of Williamson County, Texas.
Letter of Credit
A letter from a bank or other reputable creditor that guarantees to the City that upon
failure of the subdivider to fulfill any improvement requirements that at the City's
request, funds will be provided to the City to complete the specified improvements.
Local Health District
The Williamson County Health District.
Local Street
A minor street designed for the sole purpose of providing access.
Lot
w
A subdivision of a block or other parcel intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or
for development.
Major Street
Arterial street which is designated on the major street plan or expressway plan.
Major Arterial Street
A major street designed to provide connections between municipalities or major
highways.
Major Waterway
A waterway having a watershed greater than or equal to nine hundred sixty (960) acres.
Manufactured Home
A residential structure constructed on or after June 15, 1976, in compliance with the rules
and definitions of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, that
is transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and
desif ned to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning,
and electrical systems.
Manufactured Home Park
A parcel of land under single entity ownership which has been planned and improved for
theplacement of one (1) or more manufactured homes and their accessory uses and
service facilities.
70000-133
Revised 1/28/95
Minor Arterial Street
Minor Street
Mobile Home
Mobile Home Park
Multifamily Development
Multifamily Residence
Natural Channel
Natural Drainage
Natural State
Neighborhood
Net Site Area
Off -Site Improvements
One (1) Family Residence
70000-134
Revised 1/28/95
A major street designed to provide a connection between major arterials.
Any street not classified as a major street on the major street plan or expressway plan.
A residential structure that was constructed before June 15, 1976, transportable in one
or more sections which is built on a permanent chassis designed to be used as a dwelling
with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and
includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems.
A site with required improvements and utilities for long term parking or placement of
mobile homes and manufactured houses.
perniftnent foundation—.
Any development having four (4) or more attached residential units in a single building.
A single structure designed to accommodate four (4) or more households.
The topography of a waterway prior to construction, installation of improvements or any
regrading.
A stormwater runoff conveyance system not altered by development.
Substantially the same conditions of the land which existed prior to its development,
including but not limited to, the same type, quality, quantity and distribution of soils,
ground cover, vegetation and topographic features.
Area of the City characterized by residential land uses which is bounded by physical
(such as river, major street, back of access) and/or political features (such as voting
districts, subdivision boundaries).
That area in the Uplands Zone, excluding land designated for wastewater irrigation, and
then calculated to include all acreage on zero to fifteen percent (0-15 %) slopes; added to
forty percent (40 %) of the acreage on fifteen to twenty-five percent (15-25 %) slopes;
added to twenty percent (20 %) of the acreage on twenty-five to thirty-five percent
(25-35 %) slopes.
Any required improvement which lies outside of the area being platted.
A free standing structure designed to accommodate one (1) household.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, TO ADD
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME
PARKS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; INCLUDING
A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, including
particularly the Local Government Code, Chapter 212, Municipal Regulation of Subdivisions and
Property Development; and in accordance with the Charter of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
hereinafter referred to as "City", the City is authorized to develop regulations for the subdivision
and development of land in the territorial jurisdiction of the City, including the corporate limits,
extraterritorial jurisdiction and other areas as permitted by law; and
WHEREAS, the "Subdivision Regulations of the City of Georgetown", hereinafter
referred to as "Regulations", were initially adopted by the City Council of the City of
Georgetown on February 14, 1988, and have been periodically revised since that date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed revisions and recommended that a
public hearing be held to consider adding the manufactured home parks standards to the City's
development regulations for development in the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown,
including the corporate limits, extraterritorial jurisdiction and other areas as permitted by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
ordinance implements:
1. Housing Policy 1 which states "The City will work with builders, developers, and
property owners to provide safe and adequate housing opportunities for all household
types"; 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 further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
1996 SubRegs Revision Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 2
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The attached Exhibit A, relating to the addition of regulations regarding
manufactured home parks 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. Any person(s) or firm or corporation who shall violate any provision of
this ordinance, or shall fail to comply therewith, shall be deemed guilty of a Class C
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable. Each day a violation shall
continue shall be deemed to be a separate offense to the maximum fine allowed by State law for
Class C misdemeanors.
SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City
Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10)
ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of , 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1996.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
1996 SubRegs Revision Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 2
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. 46 is
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Second Reading of an ordinance to rezone property known as Lots 9 and 10, River Oaks
IH35 Business Park, a Resubdivision of River Oaks of Georgetown Office Park, located on the east
IH35 frontage road north of SH29, from C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, to C-2A,
Commercial First Height - Restricted to permit Multifamily Uses, or any more restrictive district
ITEM SUMMARY: A Final Plat has been approved for the River Oaks IH35 Business Park
subdivision. This subdivision includes ten (10) developable, commercial lots and one (1) park land lot.
The subject property was rezoned in 1994 to C-2A - Restricted to allow it to be developed as anything
except a use that would be permitted in any of the "R" districts. Some of the prohibited uses are single
family and multifamily residences, churches, schools, hospitals, small offices, and personal service
shops. The reason that these uses were restricted from this property is that an Intensity Level Five has
been assigned to the property and utility improvements have occurred to allow the high level of
intensity.
This rezoning is requested to permit the construction of a multifamily residential complex for
senior citizens on Lots 9 and 10. The request will not completely remove the restriction on the C-2A
zoning currently assigned to the property. Instead, it is a request to adjust the zoning to add
multifamily residential uses to those already permitted on the property. All other uses that are
permitted in the "R" districts would still be prohibited if the rezoning is approved as requested.
The proposed rezoning area is at the east end of River Oaks Cove, farthest from the IH35
frontage road. While this area may not be suitable for single family residential use, it is suitable for
multifamily use. Typically, multifamily uses seek highly accessible areas. The subject site is very
accessible, without being directly located on the frontage road. If approved, the rezoning will also still
allow for the commercial uses that are permitted on the site currently.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of August 6, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of River Oaks IH35 Business Park, Lots
9 and 10, from C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, to C-2A, Commercial First Height -
Restricted to add Multifamily uses to those permitted. All other uses permitted in the "R" zoning
districts will be prohibited.
The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on August 13, 1996.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be consistent with
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Ordinance.
Submitted By:
, , I Z� /"��
Edward . Barry, AI - Director
Divisio of Develo ent Services
Hildy L. Kingma, AICP
Chief Planner
REZONING OF RIVER OAKS IH35 BUSINESS PARK, LOTS 9 AND 10, A
RESUBDIVISION OF RIVER OAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK, LOCATED
ON THE EAST M35 FRONTAGE ROAD NORTH OF SH29, FROM C-2A,
COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT - RESTRICTED, TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST
HEIGHT - RESTRICTED TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY USES, OR ANY MORE
RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT
OWNER: Mr. Steven C. Stiles
1994 Land Fund II - Dallas 1, L.P.
2714 Bee Caves Road
Austin, Texas 78746
328-3966 FAX: 328-3972
AGENT: Mr. Robert Gaylor
3105 Indian Mound
Georgetown, Texas 78628
863-7042 FAX: 863-7042
REQUEST: Rezoning of River Oaks IR35 Business Park, Lots 9 and 10,
a resubdivision of Riveroaks of Georgetown Office Park, as
recorded in Cabinet H, Slides 260-261 of the Official Plat
Records of Williamson County, Texas. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Zoning: C-2A, Commercial First Height, Restricted, to prohibit any of
the "R" district uses.
Proposed Use: Multifamily.
HISTORY: The Preliminary Plat with a requested variance to allow the
River Oaks Cove cul-de-sac to be 750 feet long, was approved
by City Council in January 1996. The Final Plat was approved
by the City Council in April 1996. The plat has not been
recorded pending the completion of public improvements.
ANALYSIS: The approved Final Plat is for ten (10) developable, commercial
lots and one (1) park land lot. This subdivision will use City of
Georgetown water, wastewater and electric services.
The subject property was rezoned in 1994 to C-2A - Restricted
to allow it to be developed as anything except a use that would
River Oaks IH35 Business Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning August 21, 1996
REZ-96-03/Fi1e:RVOK35BP.REZ Page 1
CM:HK
be permitted in any of the "R" districts. Some of the prohibited uses
are single family and multifamily residences, churches, schools,
hospitals, small offices, and personal service shops. The reason that
these uses were restricted from this property is that an Intensity Level
Five has been assigned to the property and utility improvements have
occurred to allow the high level of intensity.
More than one million dollars in utility improvements have been
invested to accommodate a high intensity user, and the City also
contributed one million dollars for the construction of the frontage road.
The investment in the utility system may only be recouped through the
sale of water and electricity to the site. The debt incurred as a result of
the contribution to the frontage road is being paid off by assessing those
properties having access to it, based on the increased value of the
property being derived from the frontage road. Most of the uses
permitted in the "R" zoning districts would not be able to generate
significant utility revenues and would severely limit the increase in
value of the land due to the frontage road. Therefore, such low density
development would be a fiscal liability to the City since the money to
pay for the utility and transportation improvements would have to come
from other sources within the City budget.
The current proposal is to construct a multifamily residential complex
for senior citizens on Lots 9 and 10. The request is not to completely
remove the restriction on the C2-A zoning currently assigned to the
property. Instead, it is a request to adjust it to add multifamily
residential uses to those already permitted on the property. All other
uses that are permitted in the "R" districts would still be prohibited if
the rezoning is approved as requested.
The proposed rezoning area is at the east end of River Oaks Cove,
farthest from the IH35 frontage road. While this area may not be
suitable for single family residential use, it is suitable for multifamily
use. Typically, multifamily uses seek highly accessible areas. The
subject site is very accessible, without being directly located on the
frontage road. If approved, the rezoning will also still allow for the
commercial uses that are permitted on the site currently.
STAFF RECO ATION:
Approval of the requested rezoning of River Oaks IH35 Business Park,
Lots 9 and 10, from C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, to C-
River Oaks IH35 Business Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning
REZ-96-03/File:RVOK35BP.REZ
CM:HK
August 21, 1996
Page 2
2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted to add Multifamily uses to
those permitted. All other uses permitted in the "R" zoning districts
will be prohibited.
P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of August 6, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested
rezoning of River Oaks IH35 Business Park, Lots 9 and 10, from C-
2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, to C-2A, Commercial First
Height - Restricted to add Multifamily uses to those permitted. All
other uses permitted in the "R" zoning districts will be prohibited.
River Oaks IH35 Business Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning
REZ-96-03/File:RVOK35BP.REZ
CM:HK
August 21, 1996
Page 3
A
-.UMt7
Sy
t r .:
Final Plat
for
River Oaks — I.H. 35
RON Business Park
N •r .d' ,In � �y '��` may. �' _, _ � ,,,
ON
ag
.. y 00
fee
Zn
/ �O!�J / ' ``J \ tr •. �c \ �. �� a .gyp e 1 ! - N
= C)
In
.i tr) I-• cI• � r s::-
)Ad y CD g m u
a~o(71
en
m ., r � j o I: I- 3
Eli
-01
oo
cz
47
Not , sl q �� �,- F co _ 3
J Z
Q, off— - \•:.�- -..
.I IVI
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 PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS
LOTS 9 AND 10, RIVER OAKS I1135 BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION, A
RESUBDIVISION OF RIVER OAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK,
AS RECORDED IN CABINET H, SLIDES 260-261 OF THE OFFICIAL
PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE C-
2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT - RESTRICTED DISTRICT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION TO C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT -
RESTRICTED TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY USES 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"):
PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS LOTS 9 AND 10, RIVER OAKS IH35 BUSINESS
PARK, A RESUBDIVISION OF RIVEROAKS OF GEORGETOWN OFFICE PARK,
AS RECORDED IN CABINET H, SLIDES 260-261 OF THE OFFICIAL PLAT
RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the
property";
WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its
recommendation or report; and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen
(15) days for the first day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set
for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within
two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
River Oaks Bus Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on August 6,
1996, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property
from the C-2A, Commercial First Height - Restricted, district zoning classification to C-2A,
Commercial First Height - Restricted to permit multifamily uses 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";
a
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 C-2A,
COMMERCIAL FIRST HEIGHT - RESTRICTED district to C-2A, COMMERCIAL FIRST
HEIGHT - RESTRICTED to permit multifamily use district, in accordance with Exhibit "A",
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City
Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
SECTION 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
River Oaks Bus Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 3
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 13th day of August, 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of . 1996.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
River Oaks Bus Park, Lots 9 & 10, Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 3
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
EXT R
22-WE .
tKAMMAMON
•
Final Plat
f o r
mg
River Oaks — I.H. 35
y -
Business Park
Nye- �' � • ./� / r/ f `� d�°1��� ��' � � ' _ 1 ' M j
\ \A
H / '
fee
co is op 1-4
00 r 0
col
S2Ci r 3
1,
cl�
c0 V)
� TB � _ _ — _ ,�.��0 - - " J�iI.i1(Ai-'L" • c, � .. �� _ I •,°,,• - 1' ,� i � � � O t�
inj
\ ir.�' / / �' Y i;J.'- C?vj4 ! > o �' -�-%- - cep f� co c�
to
00
I CO
m
1 ` \ \_ Y. V % !�' ` f`-Q.►}� ff j• 1 11113
m
��co
O' / l
!� ! 01 - - ''��o, 1, . / SI .b� J ' 4 ,' !\ '`` 06 O
Council meeting August 27, 1996 Item No. A Al
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone the West University Professional Center,
From RS, Residential Single Family to C-1, Local Commercial, or Any More Restrictive
District, located at 950 West University Avenue
ITEM SUMMARY: The subject parcel of land was annexed in 1987 and is presently zoned
RS, Residential Single Family, which restricts its use to single family residential purposes (see
Exhibit A). This property is currently developed with an office building and is thus a legal non-
conforming use because it existed before the property was annexed.
The proposed rezoning of this property is compatible with the surrounding commercial
uses. Given the location of this property adjacent to a major arterial roadway, its proximity to
IH35, and existing development with medical offices, it is not appropriate for future residential
development. The subject parcel will need to be rezoned from Residential Single Family to C-1,
Local Commercial in order to accurately reflect the nature of the existing development.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of August 6, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning from RS, Residential
Single Family District to C-1, Local Commercial, for the West University Professional Center.
At its August 13, 1996, meeting the City Council approved this ordinance for first
reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report, Exhibits and Ordinance.
Submitted By:
Edward J. , AICP irector
Division f Developmeg- Services
Hildy L. ngma, AICP
Chief Planner
REZONING OF WEST UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL CENTER, FROM RS,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO C-1, LOCAL COMMERCIAL, OR ANY MORE
RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 950 WEST UNIVERSITY AVENUE
OWNER/APPLICANT: Good Guys Joint Venture
'950 West University Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
863-7567 FAX: 869-2077
AGENT: Mr. Ercel Brashear
624 South Austin Avenue #230
Georgetown, Texas 78626
863-0593 FAX: 869-0353
REQUEST: Rezoning of West University Professional Center, as recorded
in Cabinet E, Slides 234-235 of the Official Plat Records of
Williamson County, 'Texas.
FACTS:
Location: Located at 950 West University Avenue.
Existing Site: Medical office building
Existing Zoning: This parcel was zoned RS, Residential Single Family upon
annexation in 1987. SEE EXHIBIT A
Proposed Use: No change in use is proposed.
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North: Riveroaks Subdivision, commercial center (C-1)
South: Undeveloped land (RS)
East: Undeveloped land and LCRA Substation (RS)
West: Texaco convenience center (RS), undeveloped land and
IH35 (RS)
Century Plan: The Century Plan -Development Plan designates this location as
Intensity Level 6. The existing use is within the allowable
limits for this acreage. SEE EXHIBIT B
Notification: The notification process has been completed.
Rezoning - West University Professional Center August 7, 1996
RZ96-19/File: W-U-P-C.REZ Page 1
CM:WW
ANALYSIS: The subject parcel of land was annexed in 1987 and zoned RS,
Residential Single Family, which restricts its use to single
family residential uses (Exhibit A). This property is currently
developed with an office building and is thus a legal non-
conforming use because it existed before the property was
annexed.
The proposed rezoning of this property is compatible with the
surrounding commercial uses. Given the location of this
property adjacent to a major arterial roadway, its proximity to
IH35, and existing development with medical offices, it is not
appropriate for future residential development. The subject
parcel will need to be rezoned to from RS, Residential Single
Family to C-1, Local Commercial in order to accurately reflect
the nature of the existing development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the requested rezoning from RS, Residential Single
Family District to C-1, Local Commercial, for the West
University Professional Center.
P & Z ACTION: Approval of the requested rezoning from RS, Residential Single
Family District to C-1, Local Commercial, for the West
University Professional Center.
Rezoning - West University Professional Center
RZ96-19/File: W-U-P-C.REZ
CM:WW
August 7, 1996
Page 2
ti
. ....... . .....
EXWB(T B
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
1. 'DATE': JW 16, 19%
'PROJECT NAME*: West University Professional Center
2. 'GIVEN'
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 1
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 2
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 3
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 4
0.00 acres of Intensity Level 5
3.99 acres of Intensity Level 6
3.99 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE
DEMAND:
INTENSITY
WATER WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL
Peak GPD Average GPO
Peak Trip Ends
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
84.189
23.940
1.596
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPO Water Capacity
84.189
Maximum GPO Wastewater Capacity.
23.940
Maximum Trip Ends:
1.596
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
MAXIMUM
PER DEV
DEVELOPMENT
LAND USES
WATER
WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION I
UNITS I
REGS (
ALLOWED/UNIT
Detached SF
I
I
I
I
I
I
Large Lot
73
83
2.664 I
72-7649092 I
7.98 I
8 housing units
Average Lot
84
96
1,801 I
84.357-7154 I
28.9674 I
29 housing units
Zero Lot Line
84
96
1.801 I
84.3577154 I
38.6232 I
39 housing units
Attached SF
130
137
1.468 I
129.521535 I
57.9348 I
130 housing urns
Muttifamiy
159
153
703 I
153.461538 I
114.2029 I
114 housing units
Mobile Home
130
124
1.884 I
124.041451 (
I
124 housing units
Lodging
438
392
1,152 I
392.459016 (
i
392 rooms
Institutional
245,449
260.217
1.897.741 I
245448M (
I
245,449 square feet
Church
I
I
I
-with day care
273,341
288.434
102,571 (
102570-694 (
I
102.571 square feet
-w/o day care
452,629
478.800
2.216.667 I
452629-032 I
I
452.629 square feet
Medical Office
202,377
213.750
494.577 I
202377.404 I
I
202.377 square feet
General Office
231.288
263.077
625.882 I
231288.462)
I
231.288 square feet
Retail, Mixed
129,522
146.871
96,622 I
96621.8671 I
(
96,622 square feet
Retail, Restaurant
53.967
49.875
140.369 I
4905 i
I
49.875 square feet
Retail. Store
259.043
272 045
332,362 I
259043.077 (
I
259,043 square feet
Employment Centers
231,288
263.077
348,776 I
231288.452 I
I
231.288 square feet
Warehouse
1.477,000
1.710.000
2.660.000 I
147700D (
)
1.477.000 square feet
Ming -Warehouse
21.047.250
23,940,000
6,138.462 I
I
613846154 1
i
I
I
6,138,462 square feet
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 THE WEST UNIVERSITY
PROFESSIONAL CENTER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN CABINET
E, SLIDES 234 -235 OF THE OFFICIAL PLAT RECORDS OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE RS, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO C-19
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") :
THE WEST UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL CENTER SUBDIVISION, AS
RECORDED IN CABINET E. SLIDES 234-235 OF THE OFFICIAL PLAT RECORDS
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the property";
4
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
w
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen
(15) days for the first day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set
for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within
two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on August 6,
1996, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property
West University Professional Center Rezoning Ordmance No.
Page 1 of 3
I
from the RS, Residential Single Family district; zoning classification to 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 RS,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY district to 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.
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
West University Professional Center Rezoning Ordinance No. _
Page 2 of 3
fi
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 ithe provisions of the Charter of the City
of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on. the day of , 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1996.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
West University Professional Center
i
s-o
C•1
STATE H(WRY 29 '
I
Council meeting date: August 27, 1996
Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Ordinance amending Section 10.12.090 of the Code of Ordinances relating to speed limt
for Del Webb Boulevard/Second Reading
ITEM SUMMARY
This ordinance will establish a speed limit of 35 miles per hour along Del Webb Boulevard
as directed by the City Council at the last meeting. A provision was also added, as Section 3,
to require the 45 mph zone to be brought back to the City Council when the section connecting
Sun City Boulevard to State Highway 195 is completed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City will post speed limit signs, and begin traffic enforcement once the ordinance is
effective.
COMMENTS
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Ordinance
Submitted By:
��-A'XIO Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 10.12.090 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
RELATING TO SPEED LIMITS ON DEL WEBB BOULEVARD;
REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the construction of Del Webb Boulevard has been completed and the
the maintenance of the street has been accepted by the City;
WHEREAS, the Century Plan was amended to move the major arterial roadway
from a direct connection with F.M. 3405 to Del Webb Boulevard and the eastern portion
of Sun City Boulevard, which major arterial roadway was intended to provide more
efficient east/west movement of traffic within the Georgetown community between R.M.
2338 and State Highway 195;
WHEREAS, Del Webb Boulevard was constructed in accordance with traffic and
engineering design standards for a prima facie maximum speed of 45 miles per hour;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, hereby finds that
a necessity exists for designation of a prima facie maximum speed for Del Webb
Boulevard
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 Transportation Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy
Plan Element, which states: "The City will encourage a transportation system that
provides for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, promotes the economic interests
of the community, and adequately serves the personal needs of individuals", and further
finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other
Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. Section 10.12.090 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Georgetown, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows:
Del Webb Boulevard Speed Limit Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 2 Pages
1110.12.090 City Streets.
C. 35 Mile Per Hour Zones:
1. Del Webb Boulevard: Beginning 2200 feet from the centerline of
R.M. 2338 at its intersection with Del Webb Boulevard and continuing east and
northeast along Del Webb Boulevard to its intersection with Sun City Boulevard a
prima facie maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour."
SECTION 3. Since the arterial roadway segment is a complete connection between
R.M. 2338 and State Highway 195 at this time, the City Council hereby directs the City
staff to bring the 45 mph speed zone issue back to the City Council for reconsideration
when the Sun City Boulevard section of the arterial roadway is constructed from its
intersection at Del Webb Boulevard to its intersection at State Highway 195.
SECTION 4. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and
resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any
force and effect.
SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application of it to any person
or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of the ordinance which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application shall be applied as valid and is hereby
declared to be severable from the invalid portion.
SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City
Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect
in (10) ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter
of the City of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 13th day of August, 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of ,
1996.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
A
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Del Webb Boulevard Speed Limit Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 2 Pages
LEO WOOD, Mayor
Y
tw
y*` 3 T 4s4
Council meeting ` Au usg t 27, 1996 Item No. ZI A
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUB CT: Adoption of a resolution indicating intent, to annex, setting of the public hearings,
and adoption of the service plans for the annexation of: (1) approximately 1,056 acres in the
William Roberts, John Berry and David Wright Surveys, locally known as Berry, Creek
subdivision - Sections 1-11, golf course, and future development areas; the 68.93 acre.
J.W. Bishop Estate tract, the 8 acre Sybert Subdivision, the 16.76 acre Braun tract, the 41.29
acre Chamberlin tract, the 4 acre Mascus Subdivision, the 14.34 acre Carothers tract, the 1.255
acre Catron tract, the 1 acre tract known as deed number 1969/115, the 59.06 acre Wood Road
Properties tract, the 11.5 acre Certified Federal Savings Association tract, the 2.56 acre Ray
Beneat tract, the 9.041, Buchhorn tract, the .58 acre Embree tract, the 1.37 acre 190-195 Joint
Venture tract, the ' 100.42 acre Vogler' tract, the 42.74 acre Sybert tract, the 32.32 acre Bobby
G. Stanton tract, and the Creek Side Subdivision; and (2) approximately 95 acres in the David
Wright Survey, locally known as Crystal Knoll Terrace Planned Unit Development, Units 1-2
and future development area.
ITEM SUMMARY: The 1,056 acre area proposed for annexation is contiguous with the
existing City limits along Berry Creek. The 95 acres known as Crystal Knoll is contiguous to
the City limits along the Industrial Park North subdivision.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Full City services, including police and fire protection, emergency
medical services, solid waste collection and disposal, maintenance of water and wastewater
facilities, maintenance of road, streets and drainage, street lighting, maintenance of City park and
recreation facilities must be provided to the annexed area within sixty (60) days after the effective
date of the, annexation. Necessary extension of capital improvements, such as water and
wastewater systems, must be initiated within two years of annexation and be substantially
completed within 4 1/2 years, in accordance with the adopted service, plan, except- when the
annexed area is within the service area of another water or wastewater utility.
COMMENTS: The resolution sets the- public hearings for Tuesday October 81 1996 and
Tuesday October 22, 1996.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution requesting annexation, setting the public hearings, and adopting
the service plans.
Submitted By:
r f)
Edward J. arry, AICP Director Clyde on Rosenberg, AICP
`'q
Division f Developm t Services Chief P",.nner, Long Range Planning
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETO WN, TEXAS, INDICATING INTENT TO INITIATE THE
ANNEXATION PROCESS, ADOPTING PROPOSED SERVICE PLANS
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR THE EXTENSION OF
THE CITY BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 1) APPROXIMATELY 1,056
ACRES IN THE WILLIAM ROBERTS, JOHN BERRY AND DAVID
WRIGHT SURVEYS, LOCALLY KNOWN AS BERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION - SECTIONS 1-11, GOLF COURSE, AND FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AREAS; THE 68.93 ACRE J.W. BISHOP ESTATE
TRACT, THE 8 ACRE SYBERT SUBDIVISION, THE 16.76 ACRE BRAUN
TRACT, THE 41.29 ACRE CHAMBERLIN TRACT, THE 4 ACRE
MASCUS SUBDIVISION, THE 14.34 ACRE CAROTHERS TRACT, THE
1.255 ACRE CATRON TRACT, THE 1 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS DEED
NUMBER 19691115, THE 59.06 ACRE WOOD ROAD PROPERTIES
TRACT, THE 11.5 ACRE CERTIFIED FEDERAL SAVINGS
ASSOCIATION TRACT, THE 2.56 ACRE RAY BENEAT TRACT, THE
9.041 BUCHHORN TRACT, THE .58 ACRE EMBREE TRACT, THE 1.37
ACRE 190-195 JOINT VENTURE TRACT, THE 100.42 ACRE VOGLER
TRACT, THE 42.74 ACRE SYBERT TRACT, THE 32.32 ACRE BOBBY G.
STANTON TRACT, AND THE CREEK SIDE SUBDIVISION; AND (2)
APPROXIMATELY 95 ACRES IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY,
LOCALLY KNOWN AS CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, UNITS 1-2 AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA, AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITS A AND B OF THIS RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, as a Home -Rule Municipality, according to Chapter 43 of the Texas Local
Government Code, the City of Georgetown has the authority to fix and extend its municipal
boundaries and annex area adjacent to its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, a municipality may annex only in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, unless the
municipality owns the area; and
WHEREAS, a municipality may not annex a publicly or privately owned area, including
a strip of area following the course of a road, highway, river, stream, or creek, unless the width
of the area at its narrowest point is at least 1,000 feet, unless the annexation is initiated on the
written petition of the owners or of a majority of the qualified voters of the area or unless the
property to be annexed meets specific configuration requirements; and
WHEREAS, in a calendar year, a municipality may not annex a total area greater than
10 percent of the incorporated area of the municipality as of January 1 of that year, plus any
Berry Creek area and Crystal Knoll
Intent to Initiate Annexation
Resolution No.
Page 1 of 3
amount carried over as unused from previous years up to a total of 30 percent, unless the area
annexed is volunteered or is owned by the municipality, a county, the state, or the federal
government and is used for a public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the total area to be annexed is within the amount allowed by State law and
lies within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of, and is adjacent and contiguous to the City of
Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the annexation is in the best interests
of the City of Georgetown;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element:
1. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The Physical
attributes that make Georgetown attractive are protected"; and
2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "Land use patterns within
the City provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents, businesses and
organizations"; and
3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulations
implement the policy statements and provide the opportunity to seek change with
reasonable effort and expense"; and
4. Growth and Physical Development Policy 3, which states: "Annexations procedures
and standards benefit the community";
and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby indicates its intent to
initiate the annexation process for 1) approximately 1,056 acres in the William Roberts, John
Berry and David Wright Surveys, locally known as Berry Creek subdivision - Sections 1-11, golf
course, and future development areas; the 68.93 acre J.W. Bishop Estate tract, the 8 acre Sybert
Subdivision, the 16.76 acre Braun tract, the 41.29 acre Chamberlin tract, the 4 acre Mascus
Berry Creek area and Crystal Knoll
Intent to Initiate Annexation
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 3
Subdivision, the 14.34 acre Carothers tract, the 1.255 acre Catron tract, the 1 acre tract known
as deed number 1969/ 115, the 59.06 acre Wood Road Properties tract, the 11.5 acre Certified
Federal Savings Association tract, the 2.56 acre Ray Beneat tract, the 9.041 Buchhorn tract, the
.58 acre Embree tract, the 1.37 acre 190-195 Joint Venture tract, the 100.42 acre Vogler tract,
the 42.74 acre Sybert tract, the 32.32 acre Bobby G. Stanton tract, and the Creek Side
Subdivision; and (2) approximately 95 acres in the David Wright Survey, locally known as
Crystal Knoll Terrace Planned Unit Development, Units 1-2 and future development area, as
described in Exhibits A and B.
SECTION 3. The proposed service plans for the properties, contained in Exhibits A and
B of this resolution, are hereby adopted.
SECTION 4. The required public hearings to describe the service plans and receive
comments shall be held on October 10, 1996 and on October 24, 1996.
SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City Council of
the City of Georgetown.
SECTION 6. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this 27th day of August 1996.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Berry Creek area and Crystal Knoll
Intent to Initiate Annexation
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 3
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
_�
EXHIBIT A
W
Q
I-72
lL.Lj
a V Z �It ,— 1 r J`'- I t\ `� t •�; ,�, Qp I., `� ,' � •it �:
,
Ell
w w Lia 7t-,-�Q
Oi�
OWN
1 try .F�'{Ti ,•tll� '�-`U`• �
J�•
C�
M,i 1 .!
- l .1
�ti
i;` `� `tom• 1 i � - -.�
�.:� c • . I
�r`�—
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN
APPROXIMATELY 1,056 ACRES IN THE WILLIAM ROBERTS, JOHN BERRY AND
DAVID WRIGHT SURVEYS, LOCALLY KNOWN AS BERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION -
SECTIONS 1-11, GOLF COURSE, AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREAS; THE 68.93
ACRE J.W. BISHOP ESTATE TRACT, THE 8 ACRE SYBERT SUBDIVISION, THE 16.76
ACRE BRAUN TRACT, THE 41.29 ACRE CHAMBERLIN TRACT, THE 4 ACRE MASCUS
SUBDIVISION, THE 14.34 ACRE CAROTHERS TRACT, THE 1.255 ACRE CATRON
TRACT, THE 1 ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS DEED NUMBER 1969/ 115, THE 59.06 ACRE
WOOD ROAD PROPERTIES TRACT, THE 11.5 ACRE CERTIFIED FEDERAL SAVINGS
ASSOCIATION TRACT, THE 2.56 ACRE RAY BENEAT TRACT, THE 9.041 BUCHHORN
TRACT, THE .58 ACRE EMBREE TRACT, THE 1.37 ACRE 190-195 JOINT VENTURE
TRACT, THE 100.42 ACRE VOGLER TRACT, THE 42.74 ACRE SYBERT TRACT, THE
32.32 ACRE BOBBY G. STANTON TRACT, AND THE CREEK SIDE SUBDIVISION
Introduction
This service plan has been prepared in accordance with Texas Local Government Code,
Chapter 43 - Municipal Annexation. This requires that the service plan provide for the extension
of full municipal services to the area to be annexed by any of the methods by which it extends
services to any other area of the municipality.
Police Protection
Regular and routine patrolling of streets, responses to calls, and other police services will be
provided upon the effective date of the annexation.
Fire Protection and Code Enforcement
Fire protection and prevention services are currently being provided to the area through an
agreement with Williamson County. These services will continue to be provided to the area upon
the effective date of the annexation. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the City Code
Enforcement Officer will periodically patrol streets in the area to ensure that all properties are
in conformance with City Code.
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection and disposal services will be provided upon the effective date of the
annexation, in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code.
Water Service
Water lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility Expansion
and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan.
Annexation Service Plan, Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Sewer Service
Wastewater lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility
Expansion and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan.
Maintenance of Roads, Streets, and Drainage
Roads, streets and drainage facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City
Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation.
Street Li kiting
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.
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 City will initiate a rezoning process, to be coordinated with the
annexation, for properties currently platted for residential uses. The appropriate residential
zoning districts will apply to these properties. The remaining areas will be zoned A
(Agricultural), unless otherwise approved through regular procedures.
Inspection Services
All inspection services, including building, electrical, plumbing, etc., provided by the City will
be extended to the area upon the effective date of the annexation.
Library Services
Library services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms, and
conditions contained in the City Code upon the effective date of the annexation.
Other Services
Other services provided by the City, such as animal control, court, and general administration,
will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the City
Code and policies.
Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy
City Ordinance Number 900404, a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, guides the
planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all utility system improvements,
including water, wastewater and electrical service.
Annexation Service Plan, Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN
APPROXIMATELY 95 ACRES IN THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, LOCALLY KNOWN
AS CRYSTAL KNOLL TERRACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UNITS 1-2 AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA
Introduction
This service plan has been prepared in accordance with Texas Local Government Code,
Chapter 43 - Municipal Annexation. This requires that the service plan provide for the extension
of full municipal services to the area to be annexed by any of the methods by which it extends
services to any other area of the municipality.
Police Protection
Regular and routine patrolling of streets, responses to calls, and other police services will be
provided upon the effective date of the annexation.
Fire Protection and Code Enforcement
Fire protection and prevention services are currently being provided to the area through an
agreement with Williamson County. These services will continue to be provided to the area upon
the effective date of the annexation. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the City Code
Enforcement Officer will periodically patrol streets in the area to ensure that all properties are
in conformance with City Code.
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection and disposal services will be provided upon the effective date of the
annexation, in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code.
Water Service
Water lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility Expansion
and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan.
Sewer Service
Wastewater lines will be extended in accordance with City policy. The City has a Utility
Expansion and Improvement Policy, which is described in this service plan.
Maintenance of Roads Streets and Drainaize
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.
Annexation Service Plan, Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B
Street Li kiting
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.
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 City will initiate a rezoning process, to be coordinated with the
annexation, for properties currently platted for residential uses. The appropriate residential
zoning districts will apply to these properties. The remaining areas will be zoned A
(Agricultural), unless otherwise approved through regular procedures.
Inspection Services
All inspection services, including building, electrical, plumbing, etc., provided by the City will
be extended to the area upon the effective date of the annexation.
Library Services
Library services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms, and
conditions contained in the City Code upon the effective date of the annexation.
Other Services
Other services provided by the City, such as animal control, court, and general administration,
will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the City
Code and policies.
Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy
City Ordinance Number 900404, a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, guides the
planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all utility system improvements,
including water, wastewater and electrical service.
Annexation Service Plan, Page 2 of 2