HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 06.26.2012Cover Memo
Item # A
Cover Memo
Item # B
Cover Memo
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Sattler, Tommy
Gonzalez, Jerry Hammerlun, Rachael Jonrowe,
Troy Hellmann
Council Absent:
All Council Present.
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City
Secretary; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager; Micki Rundell,
Chief Financial Officer; Rachel Osgood, Environmental Services Coordinator, Kathy Ragsdale,
Environmental and Conservation Services Director
Minutes
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 03:00 PM
A Overview of proposed 2012/13 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager and
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
With a Powerpoint Presentation, Briggs provided a summary of the Capital Improvement Projects included in the
plan for 2012/2013. He provided a brief outline of the presentation. He said they will review the capital
improvement program process and review the funding summary for the capital improvement program. He said
staff posts all of this is available on the City's website and added staff will make it available for citizen comment.
He spoke about the improvement program and noted the process starts in January and includes meetings with
departments and the division level meetings to formulate project lists. He noted the final plan will be adopted in
September along with the budget. He said, this year, the program funding comes from a variety of sources and
he described those sources for the Council. He spoke about water services improvements and noted it
addresses the need for superior water, wastewater and irrigation service. He said this is determined by a number
of many factors. He described the water line upgrades and said they total $305,000. He said a number of those
upgrades will fall in the older, more established neighborhoods. He said the pumping and storage upgrades and
improvements total about $3,115,000. He listed the wastewater CIP projects, including Edwards Aquifer projects
and some improvements at the San Gabriel wastewater treatment plant . He described the transportation
services capital improvement projects. He spoke about street maintenance sales tax and how the transportation
project funding mainly comes from that sales tax. He said the budget was reduced for the first time because of
lower sales tax revenue. He said the streets and pavement condition index are 87.7 and will be retested in 2014.
He said the benchmark is 85 and noted the City is above the threshold but below where the CIty has been in the
past. He described the factors that caused the index number to go down. He described the budget for the street
maintenance for 2013. He said because of the growth of the City, there are more major arterials that are requiring
improvements. He spoke about storm water services and the capital improvements planned for the coming year.
He said the funding for that program comes from the utility. He described the CIP for energy services and spoke
about the continued growth over the past 25 years and how it has been steady. He spoke about how the energy
load continues to grow. He said there is a little over $3 million in system expansion. He said the program also
supports $513,000 worth of substations and communication. He spoke about what is next in this process and
noted staff plans to adopt this as part of the 2012/13 budget.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 3 Pages
Gonzalez asked about the road projects and savings in staffing. Briggs said, as a part of the budget process, any
savings available are always applicable to be reassigned or re-appropriated. Gonzalez spoke about utilizing any
additional funds to address the needs of the streets Hammerlun said it seems the City is improving the section of
195 into Berry Creek. He noted he assumes that is in this budget. He asked about the long term plan for when
the 2008 bond projects will begin. Briggs said the particular project he mentioned is moving forward. He spoke
about that section of road and how the condition is deteriorating. He described the efforts being made to improve
that area. Hellmann said he appreciates the work being done to improve that area. Sattler asked if Briggs thinks
the infrastructure can accommodate growth to the south of the City. Briggs said he believes the City has
processes in place to rapidly respond to improvements if needed when economic development opportunities
arise. He noted there is not availability for immediate connection but added the City has the ability to respond
quickly. There was much discussion about this. Meigs said he is struck by the number of road miles the City has
taken over or is scheduled to take over and how that will impact the city and its maintenance of those roads.
Briggs described how the City is handling that situation. He spoke about how Williams Drive is going to be a
major drain because it carries a tremendous amount of traffic. Hellmann asked about setting a portion of bonds
aside for maintenance. Briggs said they are working on asset management to improve those kind of things and
added the City has to make the dollar go as far as possible. Hellmann asked about regional storm water ponds
and Briggs spoke about some of the discussions being held regarding this issue. He said the City has identified
several locations that would work. Eason asked about the $450,000 for the Smith Branch buy out. She said she
wants some clarification on that process because she knows a lot of people are waiting on the plan. Briggs said
part of that amount is to provide funding so the City can create a plan. He said Council selected a three year buy
out option and he described the plan for the buy out that was approved. He noted this funding is making a
commitment to start the process of a three year plan. Eason said it is important to let the residents know where
the city is along this process of this plan. She asked that the city schedule an initial meeting with those folks to
let them know about the plan. Briggs agreed and said they will be working on that. Mayor asked and Briggs said
he is not sure of who owns the bridge at the entrance of Berry Creek.
B Discussion related to the procurement process for municipal solid waste collection and recycling services
provider -- Rachel Osgood, Environmental Services Coordinator and Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental and
Conservation Services Director
With a Powerpoint Presentation, Ragsdale provided a brief history of the current contract with Texas Disposal
Systems (TDS) for solid waste collection and recycling services. She noted TDS offered a package for an
extension of the contract but noted Council voted to put the contract out for RFP. She briefly described the RFP
process for the solid waste contract. She said they put together an RFP team from several departments and
contracted with SAIC for consulting services. She said they also set up a calendar to schedule the process
through the RFP. She spoke about why the calendar for the RFP process changed. She said the proposal itself
has four packages made up of residential/carts, commercial/dumpsters and the services at the collection station
at 250 WL Walden. She noted they can bid on all of those packages separately or can choose to bid on the
entire bundle. She noted there were several that sent in proposals on the bundle and several that bid on each of
the packages. She reviewed the primary changes proposed to the current services and said it includes dual
stream to single stream recycling, green waste pick up, no bags at the curb and commercial construction roll offs
will not be exclusive to the City contractor. She said they asked the bidders to suggest other options and methods
available in addition to the requirements in the bid. She said the City wanted to see the other alternatives
available. She described some of these additional options for the Council. She spoke about how three of the
proposers offered rewards programs. She said the City received six proposers and added there was a two step
review process. She described this process for the Council. She outlined the evaluation criteria for the Council
and said it was established using criteria recommended by the Council as well as the consultants.She said this
was predominately to ensure that all evaluators are given the same outline. She described the group of
evaluators for the Council. She said there were only three people who actually scored the applications and noted
the other group members were just advisory members. She described the different pricing and costs as
submitted by each of the bidders. She described how they evaluated services and approach for each of the
bidders. She noted the next thing is they looked at the activity at the collection station. She described the
difference between the collection station and the transfer station. She said they also listed a requirement for the
landfill that is used as well as the fleet location of each of the companies. She showed Council the final
recommendations and the ranking of each of the proposers in each criteria category. She said the number one
proposer was Texas Disposal Systems with 265 points, CTR was second with 221 points and Allied Waste was
third with 193 points. Meigs asked and Ragsdale said it cost about $40,000 to put this out to bid. Briggs said
each proposer submitted a $5,000 nonrefundable check. He said there was $40,000 allocated for the bids but
noted $25,000 was submit from the bidders. Sattler asked and Ragsdale said there will be an opportunity for
questions and answers on the regular agenda. Briggs said Council will discuss contract related issues in
Executive Session.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071 and 551.086 -- 4:15 PM
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:03 PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 06:03 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________ ________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 8 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Sattler, Tommy
Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann, Jerry
Hammerlun
Council Absent:
All Council Present.
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City
Secretary; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager; Micki Rundell,
Chief Financial Officer; Rachel Osgood, Environmental Services Coordinator, Kathy Ragsdale,
Environmental and Conservation Services Director; Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager; David Munk,
Utility Engineer; Glenn Dishong, Utility Director; Cari Miller, Tourism Manager; Shelly Hargrove, Main
Street Manager; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Leticia Zavala, Utility Office Manager; Susan
Morgan, Finance Director;
Minutes
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM
(Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of
the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
A Call to Order -- Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
City Council Regional Board Reports
- CAMPO
- Lone Star Rail District
Passenger Rail/Project Strategy –
· Work in Travis and Hays Counties to secure agreement for local operations and maintenance
funding continues. The LSRD request to begin TIF district negotiations with county staff has been entered
on the 6/12 Commissioners Court agenda, following a successful work session with the Commissioners on
5/17. Requests have been made of the City of Austin and Austin Community College District to conduct
council/trustee work sessions in anticipation of entering into TIF district negotiations with those entities as
well. In Hays County, the working group made up of city, county, and LSRD staff and consultants will be
making a report to Judge Cobb on 6/11, and setting up a meeting of the policy group that the Judge
convened to present the findings of the rail TIF workgroup shortly after the meeting with the Judge.
· A comprehensive business plan is currently being prepared by District staff and consultants; the
plan is now substantially complete at draft level. The plan encompasses the regional need for LSTAR
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 8 Pages
passenger rail and the urban freight rail bypass, benefits of LSTAR and the urban freight rail bypass,
financial strategy, implementation strategy, operations and policy, service plans, costs, and risks &
mitigation.
Union Pacific / Freight Relocation –
· The joint LSRD/Union Pacific inspection trip took place on 6/6 and 6/7. The trip operated over the
proposed LSTAR line, plus related UP territory and the general area of the proposed urban freight rail
relocation line. The trip was conducted with LSRD staff, consultants, and UP staff. The purpose of the trip
was to help inform and finalize the joint service planning effort currently going on between LSTAR and UP,
and was very successful. Follow-up meetings will be scheduled with UP at their headquarters in Omaha in
July.
· Union Pacific General Manager of Network Infrastructure Jerry Wilmoth provided a letter expressing
UP’s participation in, and support of, the Lone Star Rail District and the LSTAR and freight rail bypass
projects, which was addressed to Travis County Judge Biscoe and presented at the 5/17 Commissioners
work session on LSTAR.
· The Alternatives Analysis is complete, and a draft report has been submitted by Jacobs
Engineering to the District’s Counsel. Three alternatives for a freight bypass line will be taken forward into
an environmental analysis process (most likely an EIS), including a robust public involvement effort, to be
submitted to the federal government to obtain a Record of Decision.
Freight Bypass Stakeholder Engagement –
· The team, consisting of LSRD staff and consultants and representatives of Union Pacific, continues
to meet bi-weekly to coordinate messaging and report on ongoing outreach efforts. Meetings are currently
scheduled with, or being set up with: Williamson County Judge Gattis (pending), San Antonio
Councilmember Lopez (pending), Williamson County Commissioner Morrison (6/8), Hays County
Commissioner and LSRD Board Member Conley (6/11), the City of Manor (6/14), Manville WSC (6/14), the
City of Bastrop (6/18), and Bluebonnet Electric (6/21).
· Meetings were held since the last report with Coupland Civic Organization (5/23), the City of
Lockhart (5/24), and the Greater San Marcos Partnership (5/30).
· A Freight Bypass / Relocation web page, as well as a redesign of the Texas Rail Relocation and
Improvement Fund web page are complete and deployed on the Lone Star Rail District web site –
www.lonestarrail.com. The new pages include a project description, study documents as they become
available, and a map of the study corridor, among other information.
Public Engagement –
· Lone Star Rail staff made a project update presentation to the VIA Metropolitan Transit Board of
Directors on 5/22, and the San Marcos Comprehensive Plan Committee on 5/24.
Other –
· Lone Star Rail District continues to participate actively in the CAMPO Transit Working Group and
Project Connect initiatives to define the future Central Texas high capacity transit system.
City Manager Comments
As a reminder, with the Fourth of July coming up, citizens are reminded that fireworks of any kind are not allowed
in the City Limits of Georgetown or within 5,000 feet of the City Limits, unless they are used in a permitted display
authorized by the Georgetown Fire Department.
Neither the possession nor the discharge of fireworks is legal in the City Limits or within the 5,000-foot buffer
beyond City Limits. Violations can lead to fines of up to $500.
All water customers are reminded to follow the three day per week irrigation schedule. Customers are also
encouraged to start their automatic irrigation systems at the recommended times to curb the peak demand on the
system. As a reminder, City water customers whose address ends in an odd number are permitted to irrigate
only on Tuesdays, Thursday, or Saturdays. Those whose address ends in an even number may irrigate only on
Wednesdays, Fridays, or Sundays. No landscape irrigation is permitted on Mondays. No landscape irrigation is
permitted during the heat of the day between the hours of 10am and 7pm. Landscape watering with a hand-held
hose or bucket is permitted at any time or day. The City is enforcing the irrigation schedule which will result in
fines to those customers who irrigate outside the limits imposed by the schedule.
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to authorize staff to prepare and submit to LCRA communications related
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 8 Pages
to the current wholesale power purchase agreement with LCRA as discussed in Executive Session and engage
the discussed legal expertise to assist in the preparation of that communication and any subsequent actions
required to effectively clarify the City's position on this competitive matter. Approved 7-0
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table
at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak
and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward
to speak when the Council considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the
City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the
topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651.
B - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda.
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.
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting held on
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of various computers as surplus, to be disposed
of using online auctioneering services of Gaston and Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. of Pflugerville, Texas -- Trina
Bickford, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
E Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution appointing the members of the Board of Directors
of the Williams Drive Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), the Downtown Georgetown TIRZ, and the
Rivery Park TIRZ and establishing an effective date -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
F Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing the vacation and abandonment of a
0.051-acre portion of an existing 20’ Public Utility Easement out of Lot 1, Serenada Country Estates, Unit
One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet B, Slide 339-345, Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; said
0.051-acre parcel being more fully described by metes and bounds and sketch in Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
authorizing the Mayor to execute a quitclaim deed and any other documentation necessary to effectuate such
vacation and abandonment; and establishing an effective date -- David Munk, P.E., Utility Engineer and Terri
Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator
G Forwarded from the Convention and Visitors Bureau Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve an allocation of $1,500.00 in Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) funds
to the Georgetown High School Basketball Booster Club , for help in the cost of promoting and facilitating the
Fury Basketball Tournaments -- Cari Miller, Tourism Manager
H Consideration and possible action to appoint Lyle Warden, DVM, to the Animal Shelter Advisory Board to fill
a vacancy -- Mayor George Garver
I Consideration and possible action to appoint Jim Wilson to the Main Street Advisory Board to fill a vacancy--
Mayor George Garver
Motion by Hellmann, second by Meigs to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
J Consideration and possible action related to the October 2012 – September 2017 municipal solid waste and
recycling services -- Rachel Osgood, Environmental Services Coordinator and Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental
and Conservation Services Director
Mayor described the item and laid out the parameters of the discussion. Briggs said, in October, Council
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 8 Pages
discussed the possibility of extending the contract with TDS that will end September 30, 2012. He said Council
directed staff to go through a RFP process in selecting proposals for these services. He noted staff engaged the
consulting services of SAIC to assist in that effort and begin the process. He said, in January, they were working
toward finalizing the RFP, but the schedule provided is the one they finally settled on due to the timing of
releases the particulars of the proposals. He said they met at a pre-proposal meeting that was held on March 15
with groups that were interested in proposing. He noted they ended up with five proposals and, of those five, two
were disqualified. He said the other three were interviewed. He said interviews were conducted on June 1 and
noted they were three very qualified firms with excellent presentations, each with their own values and approach
to providing services. He said, from that, staff and the consultant worked together to come up with a final level of
recommendation moving forward. He noted because the City has had such a good response, it made this
process difficult. He named the members of the committee and said all members were key to the process on the
staff level. He said each one of those individuals work well as a team with SAIC, who helped staff through the
process. He highlighted the proposed changes to the services including a move to single stream recycling. He
said they are moving to wanting to pick up more of the plastics, cardboard, initiate a green waste program and
regulating bags at the curb. Mayor asked and Briggs provided a definition of single stream recycling versus dual
stream recycling. He said the current predominate level of service is for garbage. He said they are wanting to
shift to more available recyclables. He said the proposers that submitted are Allied Waste, CTR, Clawson
Disposal, IESI, TDS and Waste Management. He said, out of those firms, there was an evaluation criteria used
where 40% was pricing, 20% experience, 30% method of approach and 10% to the financial capacity to carry out
the contract. He noted, based on cost, the lowest was Allied Waste. He said they interviewed Allied Waste, CTR
and TDS. He spoke about how the three firms rated under the services and approach category. He said they had
collection station activity in there and noted they talked about how they wanted to manage the collection station.
He said they have a lot of flexibility there but want to maintain service. He said the final recommendation is for
TDS and added they ranked at 265 points when taking into account all aspects of the evaluation. He spoke about
interview process. He concluded and said TDS is the most qualified in meeting the proposal based on the
evaluation and noted the recommendation is to start negotiations to bring back to council a contract that could be
considered for execution. He spoke about the second option if the negotiations with TDS fail. He said the first
recommendation is to proceed forward with negotiations with TDS. He said this information was discussed and
shared with the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board who recommends to Council that the process be
followed. He spoke it would cost about $20,000 to be able to go forward with negotiations and utilize SAIC to
assist in that effort. Mayor said a considerable amount of time has been dedicated to this important topic. He
noted the Council has received many emails from members of the public on this issue as well.
The following citizens spoke to Council in support of the recommendation from staff to move forward with
negotiations with Texas Disposal Systems:
Walt Doering, Wally Brown, Neil Cochran, Richard Pearce, Ron Garland, Bill Mateja, Rick Fraumann, Gary
Hertel, J. David Martin and Rick Williamson
For complete video and audio of the comments from the public,please visit the City of Georgetown's GTV
website at http://government.georgetown.org/gtv/
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Texas Disposal
Systems for solid waste, recycling collection and disposal services beginning October 1, 2012 and ending
September 30, 2017. Should negotiations fall short of Council direction, authorization is granted to begin
negotiations with Central Texas Refuse, the second highest ranking proposer and, lastly, authorization to
negotiate with both Allied Waste and Central Texas Refuse if other negotiations fail to provide an acceptable
contract as desired by Council. Also, to authorize execution of a task order to SAIC for not greater than $20,000
for contract negotiation assistance.
Gonzalez asked and Briggs said the information provided through the RFP process was beneficial and healthy in
that the information reaffirms staff's original thoughts. He said one thing he gained from the process is that it is
good to know there are other quality firms as well. He said the process reaffirmed where staff was originally and
noted there is value in that. Jonrowe said it feels like the Council has come into one big circle and noted it has
been another big expensive learning curve. He said putting things out for bid in general is good but noted it is not
always the right thing to do. She said this was not the case where that process was necessary. She said she
loved getting happy emails and noted she has received nothing but happy emails and 90% of it is because of the
TDS guys that are on the ground. She said people have certain image about trash collectors and noted
collectors provide an invaluable service to the community. She said the City should be proud to be partners with
TDS. She said her constituents are looking forward to single stream recycling but noted the CIty needs to keep
its eye on the long term goal of reducing how much waste people in this City produce. She continued to speak
about reducing the trash footprint as a City. Hammerlun said he would like to echo what Jonrowe just said. He
said he absolutely understands where the positive emails come from and noted he wholeheartedly supports the
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 5 of 8 Pages
staff's work and recommendation. He added, if you have not been to Creedmoor to see what the company is all
about, he hopes everyone gets the opportunity to go there because TDS is outstanding. Sattler thanked the men
in the audience that do to the work to get things done and to make TDS what it is. He said they are very
professional and do a great job. He thanked the staff that worked on the committee and noted they did a great
job. He noted he is confused about the cost of this process. Briggs clarified the cost for Sattler. Sattler said he is
pleased that TDS is the recommendation and noted he would certainly support that. Meigs said TDS is a great
corporate partner with the City. He asked and Briggs spoke about how many staff hours have been spent on this
process. Briggs said this has been going on since he started at the City and added many staff hours have been
dedicated to this effort. Hellmann said every time the city does this, the CIty gets a better and better product. He
noted this whole industry is very competitive and noted it allows the City to get a better product every time not
just on price but on service. He said he likes TDS a lot and noted he is happy to see them provide a competitive
bid and ensure the best price for the rate payers. Eason said she would only like to reinforce everything that
Jonrowe and Meigs said in that one of the benefits of going through this process is that it has reinforced the
support for this company. She said she is glad the City discovered some of the information but noted she is not
sure this was the best time to do an RFP.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
K Discussion and possible action to amend the Wayfinding and Signage Master Plan and provide funding to
update lettering on the east Monument sign -- Shelly Hargrove, Main Street Manager
Hargrove said Main Street is requesting an amendment to the wayfinding signage master plan to updated the
lettering on the east Monument sign as shown in the graphic presented to Council. She said the sign is located
on Southwestern property and noted the request is to add "Home of Southwestern University" to the sign. She
said the funding would be not more than $1,400 out of Council contingency.
Motion by Hellmann, second by Jonrowe to approve.
Jonrowe asked about the design of the signage and why the establishment date is off center. Hargrove said the
original design was done that way and added she does not have a solid answer for her. Jonrowe spoke about
why she supports this decision and noted she thinks it is a fantastic idea.
Speaker, Cindy Locke, noted what is good for Georgetown is what is good for Southwestern and added what is
good for Southwestern is good for Georgetown. She spoke to the strong partnership the two organizations
share. She noted Southwestern helps to bring over 16,000 guests to Georgetown annually. She said it is critical
that the City exemplify the downtown relationship. She notes especially for those visitors approaching the City
from Toll Road 130. She spoke about the economic impact of Southwestern on the community. She said she
hopes Council will support this signage idea.
Speaker, Jim Wilson, said he can think of nothing better than to see a sign coming into Georgetown saying
"Home of Southwestern University." He urged the Council to support this request.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
L Consideration and possible action to direct the City Manager to award 1-time bonuses to all eligible City
employees who received an “Exceeds or Outstanding” on the September 30, 2011 performance evaluations, to
be funded with current year budgetary savings -- Danny Meigs, Councilmember District 3
Mayor described the item and noted this is in lieu of no salary changes over the past three years.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve item L and recognize employees with outstanding or exceeds
on their 2011 performance evaluations.
Meigs said the City has excellent employees and they need to be recognized and rewarded. He said, since the
original budget discussions in March, the economic has taken a positive turn and noted these funds will be
coming out of this year's budget as opposed to last year's access funds as originally discussed. Hellmann asked
and Brandenburg explained where all of this money is coming from. Rundell said these are funds coming from
savings or refunds. Hellmann asked and Rundell confirmed the last time a related item was brought up was
dealing with funds from excess funds from last year. Rundell noted these are funds from this year. He said he
likes the idea of using last year's money instead of this year's money in the middle of the fiscal year since Council
does not know what shortfalls may come. He said he still likes the idea of waiting to see where the City is during
the budget cycle. He said he highly prioritizes this issue but he is not sure of the timing. Jonrowe said she is
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 6 of 8 Pages
going to support this just as she did this last time. She noted it is easy to underestimate what their decision last
time had on the morale of the employees. She said she sees this as an opportunity for Council to redeem
themselves with the employees. Gonzalez asked and Rundell said the planned budget meeting will be at the end
of next month. He said he agreed with Hellmann about the timing of this. He noted he has no issues with
rewarding staff but noted it is best to wait until the budget process unfolds. He noted this is being sped up by a
month. Hammerlun said he thinks now is the time for this to happen. He said, when he looks at this, the money
being shown is from salaries. He noted, in his mind, it is time to recognize the people who last year were judged
to be doing an exceptional job. He said he will be supporting this item. Sattler asked and Rundell spoke about
how much it will cost the city to do this. Sattler asked and Rundell confirmed this money can be rolled over.
There were many questions regarding the budget and where the money is coming from to fund this item.
Vote on the motion: Approved 5-2 (Gonzalez, Hellmann opposed)
M First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.16 of the Code of Ordinances relating to Compensation
and Expense Reimbursement for the Mayor and Councilmembers -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
(action required)
Chapman described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the
requirements of the City Charter.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0
N First Reading of an Ordinance amending City of Georgetown, Code of Ordinances Section 2.08.010
Administrative Divisions and Departments -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required)
With a Powerpoint Presentaton, Rundell described the amendment and briefly described the reorganization of the
City. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the
City Charter. Brandenburg reviewed the reorganization for the City and noted the reorganization happens each
year. Brandenburg explained why the reorganization is happening. He said the City can not remain static and
noted this is in response to internal forces such as ways to improve efficiencies and changing technologies. He
spoke about the consolidation of positions as well as vacancies.He said change is required as a response to
external forces as well, including expectations put on the City by citizens, developers and Council. He said the
purpose is to create an open problem solving climate throughout the organization and create efficiency and build
trust among departments. He outlined the major changes in this reorganization. He said the City Manager will
oversee the Planning Department. He noted they are going to hire a Planning Director who will then supervise
the Planning Staff and do away with the Divison Director position. He said a couple of individuals will be moved
out of planning and into other departments and he described those for the Council. He spoke about the
departments that will report to the Assistant City Manager, including Library, Parks and Rec, Main Street and the
Convention and Visitors Bureau. He said this will address the issue of no one being in charge of downtown. He
said Inspections will be moved over to GUS but noted it allows the City to have cross training and collaboration.
He showed the Council the GUS organizational chart. He noted Code Enforcement will also be moving into the
Police Department. He said there are a lot more eyes and ears in the Police Department of what they see. He
reviewed once more the entire organizational chart for the City. He noted there will now be five executive
divisions that will report to him and he described those for the Council. Brandenburg said he is accountable for
the success or the failure of this plan. He spoke about how he is very focused on customer service. He said the
things that are already in order are the advertising and hiring of a planning director as well as a project
coordinator. He spoke other efforts being made including the My Permit Progam, a planning department mission
statement, building showcase and parade of homes, certified building program, a developer and builder class, a
live here website and developing more applicant and customer surveys.
Eason said she is glad to finally see something like this in the works. He spoke about splitting up the planning
department and added she needs to understand the thought behind that because it seems to her that efficiency
can be managed with everyone under one person. She said she is confused about what that division is all about.
Eason said she wants to hear more from Brandenburg regarding why he is doing these things. Brandenburg said
this essentially dissolved the Development Services Division. He noted this will allow the planning department to
concentrate on planning. He said with Code Enforcement and Inspections moving, it helps with that. He said he
has carved out the downtown, main street and the square because it is unique. Eason asked and Brandenburg
said people will call the planning director if they have planning related questions. There were many questions
regarding who people would call in certain situations after this change is made. Brandenburg briefly described the
project coordinator position and which duties that position will fill. Hellmann asked why Robbie Wyler would be in
that department and not in planning. Brandenburg said he thinks he can grow more in his current position by
being in the new department. He also spoke about the Housing Coordinator position and how this reorganization
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 7 of 8 Pages
will help to grow that position. Meigs asked and Brandenburg said you have to be bold and make these changes
and, if they do not work out, he can go back and change it again. Sattler said he has complete confidence in what
Brandenburg is doing. Hammerlun asked about the planning department and if this is a permanent move.
Hammerlun asked and Brandenburg said the hardest part of this has been done and now it is just following
through with the plan. Hammerlun asked and Brandenburg said the Project Coordinator will report to the City
Manager under the new plan. Jonrowe asked and Brandenburg described the Project Coordinator and what they
will do in the position. Jonrowe asked and Brandenburg described the difference between a division and a
department. There were many questions.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Meigs to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0
O First Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 93.77 acres, more or less,
Mary Ann Lewis, Leroy Lord, and William Roberts Surveys, for a future section of Georgetown Village,
located on Shell Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required)
Maddox described the item read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the
requirements of the City Charter.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Meigs to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0
P Second Reading of an Ordinance adopting an updated Official Zoning Map -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP,
Principal Planner (action required)
Maddox described the item and said the City is updating its official zoning map. He read only the caption of the
Ordinance on first reading.
Motion by Hellmann, second by Gonzalez to approve Ordinance 2012-38. Approved 7-0
Q Second Reading of an Ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing
the 2012/13 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action
required)
Rundell said this is the second reading of the Ordinance that adopts the fiscal and budgetary policy. She said
staff and Council went through a detailed review of the policy at the Workshop. She reviewed the major changes
to the policy and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve Ordinance 2012-39. Approved 7-0
R Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Article VII, entitled “Miscellaneous” of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions;
including a severability clause, and establishing an effective date to provide a more consistent application of
service to all rate payers, encourage timely payment of bills, and aligning charges with industry standard -- Leticia
Zavala, Utility Office Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required)
Zavala described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve Ordinance 2012-40.
Sattler thanked Zavala for her work on this and noted she has put some great humanity into this. Vote on the
motion: Approved 7-0
S Second Reading of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.08 Entitled "Authority of City Manager and City Staff
to Contract" of the Code of Ordinances to remove out of date and duplicative language already included by
ordinance in the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, CFO (action
required)
Rundell described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Gonzalez to approve Ordinance 2012-41. Approved 7-0
T Consideration and possible action to finalize the appointments of City Council Members to City Boards and
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 8
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 8 of 8 Pages
Commissions -- Mayor George Garver
Brettle showed the Council the list of appointments has selected at the last meeting. She mentioned a conflict
with the appointments to the transportation boards and said that a representative from GTEC is required on
GTAB. She provide the Council with two options on how to solve this issue. Eason asked and Brettle said that
requirement is dictated by the GTAB bylaws. Eason said it would be worth it to look and see if that is necessary.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Eason to apply the exception allowed by Section 2.36.060 of the Code and
excuse the requirement for one term. Approved 7-0
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Meigs to approve the appointments. Approved 7-0
Meeting adjourned -- 8:30 PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 08:30 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________ ________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 8
Item # C
Cover Memo
Item # D
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # D
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # D
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # D
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # D
It
e
m
#
D
Cover Memo
Item # E
Cover Memo
Item # F
It
e
m
#
F
It
e
m
#
F
It
e
m
#
F
Cover Memo
Item # G
Cover Memo
Item # G
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Hat Creek Drive-Through SUP 2012-005 Page 1 of 6
Report Date: March 29, 2012 (updated June 19, 2012)
File #: SUP-2012-005
Project Planner: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Hat Creek Burger Company Special Use Permit
Project Address: 405 S. Austin Avenue
Location: East 400 Block of S. Austin Avenue
Total Acreage: 0.74 acres
Legal Description: City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat)
Applicant: Hat Creek Burger Company
Property Owner: Jay Hailey, Manager, 405 Austin Avenue LLC
Contact: John Kiltz, Stonelake Capital Partners
Existing Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: MU-DT, Mixed-Use Downtown
Overview
The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant drive-through as
part of a proposed infill project for the currently vacant west half of Block 24. The vacant
of the Main Street Townhomes directly to the east.
Per Table 5.04.010 of the UDC, a Restaurant with Drive-Through is permitted in the Mixed-
Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning district subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. Per
Table 9.04.010, Minimum Off-Street Stacking Spaces, the eating establishment must provide
at least six (6) queuing spaces from the entrance to the order box and four (4) from the
order box to the pick-up window. Shown on the conceptual site layout, the applicant has
met that number by providing the required ten (10) queuing spaces in the drive-through
area of the site. The drive-through area is located at the east end of the proposed project
and is screened from the Townhomes to the east by a landscaped fence.
The applicant, which currently operates two other restaurants in the Austin area, states the
drive-through window accounts for around 1/3 of the overall transactions and customers.
Hours of operation for the current restaurants in Austin are Mondays through Saturdays,
11 a.m. to 9/9:30 p.m. and Sundays 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. In the conceptual site plan, they have
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6
Item # G
Planning & Development Staff Report
Hat Creek Drive-Through SUP 2012-005 Page 2 of 6
screened all sides of the project with landscaping, fencing, and new trees and have paid
particular attention to the drive-through area, ensuring as little impact as possible on the
townhome neighbors to the east.
This conceptual site layout was recently taken to the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission (HARC) for conceptual review and feedback prior to being formally
submitted for Certificate of Design Compliance approval on the site layout and building
elevations. Although no action was taken at that meeting, the Commissioners provided
feedback and particularly wanted the applicant to ensure the site design respected not only
the view from the streets but also that the townhome neighbors were affected as little as
possible by this development, especially from traffic generated by the drive-through.
Updated information for June 26, 2012 Second Reading:
Since the May 22, 2012 First Reading, the applicant has worked with City staff
(Planning, Utility Engineering, Environmental Services, and Fire) and an updated site
layout has been drafted. This updated site layout is attached as Exhibit 11. The only
change since the First Reading is the addition of an entrance and exit directly onto 4th
and 5th Streets, disconnecting the alley from restaurant traffic. The screening wall has
been extended along the entire stretch of the property, excluding a small portion
around the protected tree for safety reasons. Also, the applicant has more clearly
shown where the ten (10) queuing spaces/drive-through lane will be placed and how
traffic in the parking lot will flow.
The applicant went to the May 24, 2012 Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(HARC) meeting for Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) review. At that meeting,
the Commissioners voiced some questions, mainly on aesthetic details. HARC
postponed CDC action on the item and asked that the applicant address those questions
and return for final action at a later time. The applicant will again present to HARC at
their June 28, 2012 regularly scheduled meeting. The updated site layout in Exhibit 11 is
the same site layout that will be presented to HARC at that meeting.
Location & Site Layout
The subject property is located on the east side of S. Austin Avenue between 4 th and 5th
Streets. Sharing the block are the Main Street Townhomes directly to the east. As part of
the overall development plan for Block 24, the townhomes have access to their rear-entry
garages via a shared two-way private alley that can be accessed from both 4th and 5th
Streets. From the beginning of the block redevelopment plan, the alley was to be shared
between Phases 1 and 2. According to a development agreement dated August 2004, the
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6
Item # G
Planning & Development Staff Report
Hat Creek Drive-Through SUP 2012-005 Page 3 of 6
entire block was to be a mixed development project with the townhomes (Phase 1) on the
east side of the alley and a multi-story commercial building and parking lot (Phase 2) on
the west side. Although the Phase 2 portion of the development agreement eventually
expired due to lack of construction, the shared alley due to development of the townhomes
was constructed. Phase 1 went to HARC for design review and was subsequently built.
The alley is an element of a private access easement put in place by the development
agreement to ensure the townhomes will always have access to their garages via the shared
alley, but the alley is, in fact, located entirely on the 405 S. Austin Avenue property (Phase
2) and is to service both residential and non-residential development on the block.
The applicant will construct an eating establishment with both indoor and outdoor seating
at the site. A mix of uses including parking, government offices, commercial, and
residential can be found adjacent to this property. Mentioned above, the only other uses
currently found on the block are the residences to the east. See Exhibit 3 for the zoning
districts in this vicinity, and Exhibit 4 for the aerial view.
The surrounding zoning and existing uses include:
Location Zoning Existing Use
North MU-DT, Mixed-Use
Downtown
Williamson County
Health District
South MU-DT, Mixed-Use
Downtown Tamiro Plaza
East MU-DT, Mixed-Use
Downtown
Main Street
Townhomes
West MU-DT, Mixed-Use
Downtown Public Parking
Utilities
Water, wastewater, and electric are currently served by the City of Georgetown.
Future Application(s)
Upon approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a drive-through at the eating
establishment, the applicant will be required to receive Certificate of Design Compliance
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6
Item # G
Planning & Development Staff Report
Hat Creek Drive-Through SUP 2012-005 Page 4 of 6
approval from HARC for site and elevation approval to ensure consistency with the
Downtown Design Guidelines. An administratively approved site plan will also be
required prior to construction to ensure compliance with all current site, building, and
utility codes as well as compliance
To ensure compliance with Planning, Fire, and Building/Permitting Services, Hat Creek will
also be required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to opening for business. Once
again, any future changes to the site, including new signage and construction, will require
approval from HARC.
Staff Analysis
As noted above in the Location & Site Layout portion of this report, there have always been
plans for a Phase 2 development and the alley was constructed to serve both the Main
Street townhomes and any future development. Even though this is the only feasible
means of access to any development on this site, the applicant has stated and shown on the
conceptual site layout that they do not anticipate using much of the alley and will even
place a landscaped wall between the back side of the site and the alley/townhomes. They
also stated the drive-through accounts for around 1/3 of their total restaurant transactions
so not having such a use could drastically affect the business plan and development of the
restaurant.
Also, the Downtown Design Guidelines state that a business should be placed near the
front, street-facing side of a lot and that parking should be placed at the rear. Typically, an
is to allow a structure to be placed closer to the street while providing
loading and unloading space, as well as parking, at or near the rear of the lot, away from
the streets. Alleys are also typically shared between multiple businesses and residences
and serve as a shared route for through traffic. This can be seen throughout much of
Downtown Georgetown.
Shown on the provided conceptual site layout, the only two entrances to the site will be at
the far north end of the alley and another at the far south end of the site. Due to
topography of the site and driveway separation regulations, these locations are the only
feasible access points for Phase 2 development. The applicant continues to work with staff
to determine the most appropriate design for the access driveway.
One consideration closely looked at by staff with this type of particular use was the affect it
has on surrounding properties, primarily the Main Street townhomes. Although there is
always a small risk that customer traffic could result in an overflow of cars onto either the
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6
Item # G
Planning & Development Staff Report
Hat Creek Drive-Through SUP 2012-005 Page 5 of 6
alley or 5th Street, a majority of the alley should not be affected considering traffic will enter
off 5th Street and exit onto 4th Street. Hours of operation are also a consideration. Whether
a restaurant or office building, any development would bring additional traffic and noise
throughout different times of the day considering the site is currently vacant. The purpose
of the alley is to serve both phases of the overall block redevelopment and the applicant has
designed the parking and drive-through to respect the townhomes as much as possible
while still feasibly serving the restaurant needs and remaining compliant with both the
Downtown Master Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines.
The Future Land Use designation of Specialty Mixed-Use calls for a mix of both residential
and non-residential within one area that supports both daytime and nighttime activity.
Both the subject lot and the townhomes are zoned Mixed-Use Downtown, a zoning district
that encourages a mix of residential and non-residential on one site within a block. Given
the conceptual site layout, the intended purpose of the shared private alley, the
zoning/future land use designation, the Downtown Design Guidelines, and the site
topography, staff considers the proposed restaurant with drive-through appropriate for
this site.
Staff Recommendation and Basis:
Staff supports the request and recommends approval based on the request meeting the
applicable criteria (below) listed in Section 3.07.030(C.) of the UDC:
C. In addition to the criteria for zoning changes in Section 3.06.020, the City Council
may approve an application for a Special Use Permit where it reasonably determines
that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding
property or upon the general public. The City Council may consider the following
criteria in its review:
1. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the
surrounding neighborhood or its occupants.
2. The proposed conceptual site layout, circulation plan, and design are
harmonious with the character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed use does not negatively impact existing uses in the area and in the
City through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities
and water and sewer systems, and on public services such as police and fire
protection and solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure
and services to adequately provide services.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6
Item # G
Planning & Development Staff Report
Hat Creek Drive-Through SUP 2012-005 Page 6 of 6
4. The proposed use does not negatively impact existing uses in the area and in the
City through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire
hazard, or other injurious or noxious impact.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 15 notices were sent out to the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject
property. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on March 20, 2012. As of the day
of this report, Staff has received several public comments. Those comments have been
attached to this report as Exhibit 6.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 Location Map
Exhibit 2 Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 and Supporting Documents Replaced (See Ex. 11)
Exhibit 6 Public Comments
Exhibit 11 Updated Site Layout for SUP Request
Meetings Schedule
April 3, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission
May 22, 2012 City Council / First Reading
June 26, 2012 City Council / Second Reading
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6
Item # G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
Item # G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
It
e
m
#
G
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP-2012-005)
LOCATION: 405 S. Austin Avenue
PROPERTY OWNER: Jay Hailey, Manager, 405 Austin Avenue LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat)
REQUEST:Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant drive-
through on a Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoned
property.
Planning Commission Recommendation Date: April 3, 2012
_____Approved.
x Denied.
_____Other.
City Council Action (2
nd Reading) Date: June 26, 2012
Approved, based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions (if applicable) below.
_____Denied.
_____Other.
Effective Date: June 26, 2012
Expiration Date1: June 26, 2013
1 The Permit will expire unless a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the
identified date. See UDC Section 3.07.050.
Attachment number 11 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # G
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
Section 3.07.030 (Special Use Permit Approval Criteria):
C. In addition to the criteria for zoning changes in Unified Development Code
(UDC) Section 3.06.030, the City Council may approve an application for a
Special Use Permit where it reasonably determines that there will be no
significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon
the general public. The City Council may consider the following criteria in its
review:
1. The proposed Restaurant with Drive-Through is not detrimental to the
health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its
occupants.
2. The proposed Restaurant with Drive-Through is harmonious with the
character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed Restaurant with Drive-Through does not negatively
impact the existing uses in the area and in the City through impacts on
public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer
systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and
solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure and services
to adequately provide services.
4. The proposed Restaurant with Drive-Through does not negatively
impact existing uses in the area and in the City through the creation of
noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other injurious
or noxious impact.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. No additional conditions were affixed to this Special Use Permit.
Attachment number 11 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # G
CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By:
George G. Garver, Mayor
APPLICANTS:
By:
Printed Name:
ATTEST:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
By:
Printed Name:
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________, 2012, by
_____________________________________________, an individual known to me.
[S E A L]
Notary Public, State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________, 2012, by
_____________________________________________, an individual known to me.
[S E A L]
Notary Public, State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
Attachment number 11 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # G
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this ____ day of
_____________, 2012 by George G. Garver, a person known to me, in his
capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a Texas home-rule
municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipality.
[S E A L] Notary Public, State of Texas
(If Applicable)
After Recording Return To:
City of Georgetown
Planning Department
Attn: Robbie Wyler
300-1 Industrial Blvd.
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Attachment number 11 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # G
Exhibit 8 April 3, 2012 P&Z Minutes (approved)
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, Sally Pell,
John Horne, Roland Peña and Robert Massad
Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin
Commissioner(s) Absent:
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Jordan Maddox, Long Range Planner; Carla
Benton, Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; David Munk,
City Engineer; Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker
form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker
will be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3)
minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
9. Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for an on-site drive-through on a
Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoned property, at City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), to
be known as Hat Creek Burgers, located at 405 S. Austin Avenue. SUP-2012-005 (Robbie
Wyler)
Staff report by Robbie Wyler. Staff reviewed over the history of the property. The applicant
has requested a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant drive-through as part of a proposed
infill project for the currently vacant west half of Block 24. The vacant lot is Phase 2 of the
Townhomes directly to the east.
Attachment number 12 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # G
Exhibit 8 April 3, 2012 P&Z Minutes (approved)
Restaurant with Drive-Through is permitted in the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoning
district subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. Both the subject lot and the townhomes
are zoned Mixed-Use Downtown, a zoning district that encourages a mix of residential and
non-residential on one site within a block. Given the conceptual site layout, the intended
purpose of the shared private alley, the zoning/future land use designation, the Downtown
Design Guidelines, and the site topography, staff considers the proposed restaurant with
drive-through appropriate for this site.
The drive-through area is located at the east end of the proposed project and is screened
from the Townhomes to the east by a landscaped fence.
The applicant, Hat Creek Burger Company, which currently operates two other restaurants
in the Austin area, states the drive-through window accounts for around 1/3 of the overall
transactions and customers. In the conceptual site plan, they have screened all sides of the
project with landscaping, fencing and new trees and have paid particular attention to the
drive-through area, ensuring as little impact as possible on the townhome neighbors to the
east.
Staff stated to prevent a development to block the entrance to the garages of the townhomes a
25 foot access easement which includes the alley. This is a private/commercial driveway which
as part of the original plan is to serve both the townhomes (Phase One) and the future
development (Phase Two). This development plans to use part of the existing alley. Staff stated
no matter what is developed on this property, the existing alley will be used.
Staff stated the applicant has included a conceptual site plat and conditions can be added but
reminded the Commissioners the Site Plan will need to be approved by the Historical and
Architectural Committee.
Staff stated the applicant made a presentation to the Historical and Architectural Committee;
no Certificate of Design Compliance was approved.
Staff addressed questions asked by Commissioners regarding the 25 foot easement.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to address the Commissioners.
John Kiltz, Stonelake Capital Partners is a resident of Georgetown and wants this development
to be very family oriented. He owns the alley and the projected project is a very low density
building that will include park benches, playground for the kids. Mr. Kiltz stated only 1/3 of
their business is drive-thru.
Attachment number 12 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # G
Exhibit 8 April 3, 2012 P&Z Minutes (approved)
Andrew Solin, 406 S. Main Street gave a presentation regarding the negative impact of the
bright lights, noise, smell of burger and fries. Mr. Solin stated the Hat Creek restaurant located
in Westlake is a good location. He also stated he is concerned with the neighborhood property
values, quality of life and the ability to walk safely around their homes.
PJ Stevens, 1978 S. Austin Ave, stated he was asked to be here to represent the home owners.
He is concerned with the conceptual plans and safety issues.
Larkin Tom, 502 S. Walnut stated concerns with traffic in the neighborhood. She does not feel
this is the best place for a drive-through.
Sarah Milburn, 132 River Rd stated she purchased a home in downtown and enjoys being able
to walk to the square. She is concerned with a line of idling cars and a speaker requesting
orders. Drive thru is not appropriate for the downtown area.
David Romine, 426 S. Main Street, is concerned about the exhaust fans and stated this project is
a nightmare. She asked the Commissioners to protect their neighborhood.
Heather Britt, 418 S. Main stated area homeowners are against the application. She approves
the mixed use, but this application is not appropriate for downtown.
Hiram Pulido, 422 S. Main Street, is concerned with traffic safety. The alley is only 25 feet and is
not designed for two-way traffic. It will be unsafe.
Claire Easley, Georgetown Realtor, stated an office is more appropriate than a drive-through in
downtown Georgetown.
Bob Mullins, 402 S. Main stated he is concerned with safety in the alley. Hat Creek Burger is
literally taking what they thought was their own. The alley was not designed for high impact
traffic.
Joe Likes, 414 S. Main Street stated he is only concerned with the drive-through and the
alleyway. Hat Creek would be a positive move for Georgetown, but he is a citizen of
Georgetown, and is opposed to the drive-through and ask for a different driveway entrance.
Mr. Likes, asked for a sound proof fence.
Elizabeth Neuhalfen, 215 Mustang Island fell in love with Georgetown, where you can walk
and look and shop. Feels the alley will become a parking lot and is not a place for a drive
through.
Chair Brashear closed the Public Hearing.
Attachment number 12 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # G
Exhibit 8 April 3, 2012 P&Z Minutes (approved)
Mr. Kiltz stated the zoning has not changed and their application is a conforming use. Staff
suggested using the alley which he owns.
Commissioners discussed with staff regarding the parking issues. Staff stated this project meets
all guidelines.
Commissioners discussed the business with a drive-thru going downtown.
Motion by Montgomery to recommend to the City Council denial of the Special Use Permit
for Hat Creek Burger Company to allow a restaurant drive-through at 405 S. Austin Avenue
as shown on the conceptual site layout, subject to HARC approval of the final site layout.
Second by Commissioner Pena. Approved. (7-0)
Attachment number 12 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # G
305 ROCK ST
100 W 3RD ST
215 W 3RD ST
104 W 4TH ST
214 W 3RD ST
300 S MAIN ST
414 S MAIN ST
406 S MAIN ST
402 S MAIN ST
422 S MAIN ST
410 S MAIN ST
426 S MAIN ST
418 S MAIN ST
430 S MAIN ST
312 S MAIN ST
402 S MAIN ST
210 S MAIN ST 207 S MAIN ST
500 S AUSTIN AVE
414 S AUSTIN AVE
405 S AUSTIN AVE
405 S AUSTIN AVE
208 S AUSTIN AVE
206 S AUSTIN AVE
302 S AUSTIN AVE
310 S AUSTIN AVE
102 W 3RD ST #1002
307 ROCK ST BLDG 1
209 S AUSTIN AVE A
307 ROCK ST BLDG 2
209 S AUSTIN AVE 101
501 S AUSTIN AVE 1110
501 S AUSTIN AVE 1115
501 S AUSTIN AVE #201
501 S AUSTIN AVE #202
501 S AUSTIN AVE 1420501 S AUSTIN AVE 1410
501 S AUSTIN AVE BLDG 2
500 S AUSTIN AVE BLDG 1
SUP-2012-005
Hat Creek
Special Use Permit Protest
1 inch = 100 feet
¯
0 10050
Feet
200 Ft. Buffer
Proposed Site
Property Outside Buffer
Owner NOT Protesting
Owner IS Protesting
Proposed
Site
200 Foot Buffer
NO OWNER SQFT ACRES PROTESTING?
1 500 S AUSTIN AVENUE LP 8,171.15 0.19 Y
2 TAMIRO VENTURES LTD 32,464.38 0.75 N
3 WARE, ROBERT L & KIMBERLY BITTING 2,339.38 0.05 Y
4 PULIDO, HIRAM & CONSTANCE L 2,337.16 0.05 Y
5 BRITT, HEATHER 2,327.93 0.05 Y
6 KOLBER, JERIANNE WHITCOMB 3,729.75 0.09 Y
7
SOLIN DANIEL R TRUSTEE OF DANIEL R
SOLIN REVOC TR & ANDREW M SOLIN
IRREVOC TR 3,735.29 0.09 Y
8 CITY OF GEORGETOWN 29,749.79 0.68 N
9 STONE, KATHERINE LEE 2,174.43 0.05 Y
10 WILLIAMSON, COUNTY 26.88 0.00 N
11 GEORGETOWN, LAW LTD 9,572.34 0.22 N
12 NEAL, CHRISTA L 2,945.32 0.07 Y
13 LYKES, JOE L & LISA N 3,713.74 0.09 Y
14 MULLINS, ROBERT G 4,532.97 0.10 Y
15 WILLIAMSON COUNTY 35,343.69 0.81 N
16 RIGHT-OF-WAY 132,722.63 3.05 N
Total property in buffer:275,886.83 6.33 100%
Total property protesting:36,007.12 0.83 13%
Attachment number 13 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # G
Exhibit 10 May 22, 2012 City Council/First Reading Minutes
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
J. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to approve a Special Use Permit for an
on-site drive-through on a Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) zoned property, at City of
Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), to be known as Hat Creek Burgers, located at 405 S. Austin
Avenue -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community
Development Director (action required)
Wyler provided Council with a brief summary of this item. He showed Council a map of
the property. He said per Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 5.04.010 restaurant
with a drive thru is permitted on a mixed use property with approval of a special use
permit. He defined a restaurant drive thru use as described in the Code. He said this is
just one step of a few steps in order to move forward with this development. He noted
staff has analyzed this item and recommends approval based on the review criteria on
page 5 of the staff report. He said that was the same staff report taken to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. He said there was a 7-0 vote at Planning and Zoning meeting
to recommend denial of this permit. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first
reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter.
John Kiltz, the applicant, described his proposed Hat Creek Burger development for the
Council. He spoke about the history of the company and the two current locations. He
noted Hat Creek is no longer a startup business and is now a place for people to visit
with their kids to enjoy a burger, fries and a milkshake. He said parents can also enjoy a
glass of wine or beer with their menu choices. He said their menu prices are very
attractive and he showed those to the Council. He said their hours are expected to be
11am to 9pm. 7 days a week. He said they expect to serve about 25,000 per month. He
said they estimate they will have 10 to 20 cars per hour in the drive thru at the peak
serving times of lunch and dinner. He spoke about it being complimentary to the
surrounding area. He showed the Council the rendering of the proposed development.
He said is excited to bring this concept to Austin Avenue. He noted they have received
unanimous support from the Board of the Chamber of Commerce. He showed the
Council a map of the site. He spoke about some of the other uses that could go on the
Attachment number 14 \nPage 1 of 5
Item # G
Exhibit 10 May 22, 2012 City Council/First Reading Minutes
site without requiring any other type of permit. He said Hat Creek is proposing a 3,200
square foot building. He said the drive thru can not be seen from either Austin Area or
Tamiro Plaza. He said you can not see it from the town homes because of the eight foot
fence. He spoke about how this plan does not violate the original Master Plan approved
by the City Council. He spoke about the Westlake location and showed the economic
impact of Hat Creek on the community in that area. Kiltz spoke about the current
situation and the objections of the homeowners. He addressed the objections of the
homeowners and why he does not think many of the comments are correct. He said the
drive thru is necessary because it contributes to about a third of their business. He said
he contacted three different real estate professionals asking about the possibility of home
price depreciation with the development of this property. He responded with their
comments. He addressed the traffic concerns being brought up by local residents. Kiltz
played a video for the Council demonstrating the noise produced by their drive thru
speakers. He said they met with the homeowners last month about their concerns. He
said he is sure many people would agree that there will never be any other development
that will satisfy the homeowners. He said if the project fails, the same group would be
back to Council when other developments want to build on that property. He said his
project is a low impact use compared to other uses and it will not lower property values.
He said his project will not create noise and noted it will be a fun, family friendly place.
He said he requests the Council's vote of approval.
The following citizens spoke to Council in opposition of the Special Use Permit:
Andrew Solin, Daniel Solin, Ross Hunter, Carolyn Britt for Heather Britt, Rene Hanson,
Sarah Milburn, PJ Stevens, Rebecca Pfiester, Mary Dody, Larkin Tom, Clare Easley, Bob
Mullins, John Reeder, Virginia Stubbs, Karen Lee Davis, Clark Lyda, Sherry Dana, Peter
Dana, Mandy Solin, Rick "Ranger" Williamson
The following citizens spoke to Council in favor of the Special Use Permit:
David Hays
For complete video and audio of the comments from the public, please visit the City of
Georgetown's GTV website at http://government.georgetown.org/gtv/
Mayor opened up the discussion for the City Council.
Eason said she is opposed to this because she does not agree with the drive thru but
noted she is in favor of the restaurant. She said her first responsibility is to the citizens
and especially to people who have investment in property that will be effected by the
drive thru. She noted she has received many comments from people who are opposed to
this drive thru. She noted there is no way to adequately protect property from a drive
thru. She said she feels she has a strong commitment to the pioneers in this community
who have invested millions of dollars and have lived their whole lives here. She noted
her and her husband have been in Georgetown since the 1970s and saw the Square when
Attachment number 14 \nPage 2 of 5
Item # G
Exhibit 10 May 22, 2012 City Council/First Reading Minutes
it was boarded up. She wanted to say that she was especially impressed by the new
information from Mr Stevens, who was hired by the townhomes owners to look at the
traffic impacts and safety in the area. She said she can quote everything that has been
said tonight and she stressed her commitment to the 2030 plan. She said the only reason
she is opposing this project is because of the drive thru. Hellmann said he would like to
express his appreciation for the fact that we could hold this meeting without having to
duck behind the dais. He said he appreciates that and thinks it is a testimony to
character of Georgetown. He said he has been dreading this meeting all week. He said
he thinks a lot of important points were made on both sides and added he thinks this is a
permitted use and is not an illegal use. He said drive thrus require special permission.
He said staff does not give a free pass to businesses and noted those businesses need to
meet very specific requirements. He said there are developers also saying we are too
strict. He said the staff does an excellent job of trying to sift through the different
proposals. He said traffic is an excellent point but noted he does not buy the argument
that increased traffic means the land is not walkable anymore. He noted there are more
turning movements and traffic on the square than on this proposal and noted it is still
walkable. He said, in the next 100 years, they will be preserving all of the developments
happening along Austin Avenue. He said Hat Creek is the coolest burger joint he has
ever seen and noted, if this is fast food in Georgetown, he is all for it. He said he can
understand the community's concerns but noted the developer has done what he can to
mitigate and alleviate their concerns. Meigs said his concern is with the fact that the
report that staff approved was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Wyler
said, even though staff is recommending this for approval, the Commission did not
agree with staff. He said there are two recommendations, one for approval and one for
denial. and it is up to Council to decide if this use is appropriate. Meigs said he is
conflicted on this issue. Meigs asked and Wyler said one of the pleasures of working
downtown is the developments need to go through extra steps. He said this has not
gone to HARC yet because the special use needs to be approved first. He noted HARC
will be reviewing the site design and noted Council is just reviewing the actual use.
Meigs said he places a high value on the citizens that serve on the Boards and
Commissions and he is struggling with this because P&Z denied it. Sattler thanked
everyone for coming out. He said he went downtown and added he thinks there are
about drive thrus in existence in the downtown overlay at this particular time. He said
his constituents are in favor of this restaurant because it is a destination to go to
downtown.He said his residents will probably not use the drive thru since they pass
many drive thrus on the way downtown anyway. He said there are a lot of people who
want to come visit and to take the kids downtown. Hammerlun said he has some
questions to ask. He thanked everyone for coming to his first council meeting.
Hammerlun asked and Wyler said the UDC is very specific about lighting and
illumination of the parking lots through the site plan process. Hammerlun asked and
Wyler said the financial institution is allowed on this site without the special use permit
for a drive thru.Hammerlun asked and Kiltz said HARC has specific requirements for
signage and he intends to meet them. Hammerlun said his final comment is that he was
Attachment number 14 \nPage 3 of 5
Item # G
Exhibit 10 May 22, 2012 City Council/First Reading Minutes
sworn in last Wednesday and started to review the Master Plan with respect to
downtown development that evening. He said he will be supporting this project this
evening. Jonrowe said she went to the Planning and Zoning meeting where this was
discussed. Jonrowe asked if she is able to make an amendment or add a condition to the
special use permit. Wyler confirmed that could be done. Jonrowe asked about what the
addition of a sidewalk in the area. Polasek said knowing the terrain, a sidewalk could
improve the visibility around the corner on Austin Avenue. He said this would not
affect the property to the north where there is a bigger slope. Jonrowe asked about the
speed limit and noted Polasek said the 40 mile per hour posted speed limit is still
appropriate. Jonrowe asked and Polasek said the City can not lower or raise a speed
limit without a traffic study. There was much discussion regarding the traffic in the area.
Jonrowe asked and Kiltz explained why they chose this particular site. Jonrowe spoke
about the lot across from El Monumento, which is across the street from the Two Rivers
development. Kiltz said he was never shown that site. Jonrowe said she is 50/50 on this
issue. She noted she will ultimately vote to against this permit. She spoke about the
"slippery slope" concept in that the permit would apply to the site and not just the
development. She said one idea is to cap the amount of business being generated by the
drive thru. Gonzalez said he has put a lot of hours into this issue, talking to people and
looking into what the development will do to downtown. He spoke about the
importance of historic preservation in the downtown area. He said it is tough when you
affect people's lives. He said no one on the dais takes these decisions lightly. He spoke
about the beauty of the downtown area and how there are many drive thrus in the
downtown area that have not affected its beauty. He said every business that opens
downtown will affect the parking and noted it does not matter what type of business
develops. He said they have made many exceptions to the master plan over the past
years in order to allow for positive things to come downtown. He said he thinks many
more worse situations and developments could go on that property. He said he is
looking at if this would damage the historic downtown.
Motion by Hellmann, second by Hammerlun to approve the Special Use Permit and
Ordinance on first reading.
Jonrowe made an amendment to restrict the special use permit to allow for only 35% of
the business be generated by the drive thru. Amendment failed for lack of second.
Meigs asked and Wyler said, if something were to happen to the development, it will be
tied to the land. Jonrowe said it is not actually a state law or Ordinance and it is just
historical and that the City could attach it to the business. Chapman said her research is
that this is a permit related to zoning and so it runs with the land. Jonrowe asked the
Council if they are okay with another restaurant that wants to have another drive thru
being in that spot as well. Gonzalez asked if Jonrowe would agreed to a 50% limit.
Gonzalez made an amendment, second by Jonrowe to limit the traffic to 50% of the
revenue. There was some discussion about how to regulate that type of requirement.
Attachment number 14 \nPage 4 of 5
Item # G
Exhibit 10 May 22, 2012 City Council/First Reading Minutes
Gonzalez withdrew his amendment.
Vote on the motion: 4-3 (Meigs, Eason, Jonrowe opposed)
Attachment number 14 \nPage 5 of 5
Item # G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
G
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant with drive-through
Date Approved: June 26, 2012
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, Granting a Special Use
Permit allowing a Restaurant with a Drive-Through on a Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT)
zoned property, at City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), to be known as Hat Creek Burger
Company, located at 405 S. Austin Avenue; 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 allowing a
special use on the following described real property ("The Property"):
0.7434 acres in City of Georgetown, Block 24 (replat), as recorded in Document Number
2004039040 of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as
"The Property";
Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed special use request to allow a drive-
through restaurant in a MU-DT District to the Planning & 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
after the first day of such publication; and
Whereas, written notice of such hearing 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 April 3, 2012,
recommended denial of the requested special use for the above described property to allow a drive-
through in a MU-DT, Mixed-Use Downtown, zoned property subject to the following Conditions:
No special conditions were addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attachment number 16 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # G
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant with drive-through
Date Approved: June 26, 2012
Page 2 of 2
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 overall vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and
further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is consistent with the policies of the Georgetown
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The Zoning District for the Property shall remain MU-DT, Mixed-Use Downtown
and the Ordinance allowing a special use of a drive-through restaurant on the property is hereby
adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict
with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to
attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of final
adoption by City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 22nd Day of May, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 26th Day of June, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
______________________ _________________________
Jessica Brettle By: George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 16 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # G
Cover Memo
Item # H
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # H
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # H
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # H
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # H
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # H
Page 1 of 3
CHAPTER 9.13. - JUVENILE CURFEW
Sec. 9.13.010. - Definitions.
"Curfew hours" means:
(1) 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday;
(2) 12:00 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Friday or Saturday.
"Emergency" means an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for
immediate action. The term includes, but is not limited to, a fire, natural disaster, an automobile
accident, or any situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily or loss of life.
"Establishment" means any privately owned place of business operated for profit which the public is
invited, including but not limited to any place of amusement or entertainment.
"Guardian" means:
(1) A person who, under court order, is the guardian of the person or minor; or
(2) A public or private agency with whom a minor has been placed by a court.
"Minor" means a person under 17 years of age.
"Operator" means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation operating, managing, or
conducting any establishment. The term includes the members or partners of an associate or
partnership and the officers of a corporation.
"Parent" means a person who is:
(1) A natural parent, adoptive parent, or step-parent of another person; or
(2) At least 18 years of age and authorized by a parent or guardian to have the care and custody
of a minor.
"Public place" means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and
includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals,
apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.
"Remain" means to:
(1) Linger or stay; or
(2) Fail to leave the premises when requested to do so by a police officer or the owner, operator,
or any other person in control of the premises.
"School activity" means a field trip or other educational activity organized and chaperoned by the
minor's school, or by the minor's parent if the minor is home-schooled.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # H
Page 2 of 3
"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death,
serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss of impairment of the function of any bodily member
or organ.
Sec. 9.13.020. - Offenses.
A. A minor commits an offense if he remains, walks, runs, stands, drives or rides about in or upon
any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the City during curfew hours. A
culpable mental state is not required for a commission of an offense under this Section.
B. A parent or guardian of a minor commits an offense if he knowingly or intentionally permits, or by
insufficient control allows, the minor to remain in any public place or on the premises of any
establishment within the City during curfew hours.
C. The owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment commits an offense if he knowingly or
intentionally allows a minor to remain, walk, run, stand, drive or ride about in or upon the premises of
the establishment during curfew hours.
Sec. 9.13.030. - Defenses.
A. It is a defense under Section 9.13.020 that the minor was:
(1) Accompanied by the minor's parent or guardian, or by his or her spouse who is 18 years of
age or older;
(2) On an errand at the direction of the minor's parent or guardian, without any detour or stop;
(3) In a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel;
(4) Engaged in an employment activity, or going or returning home from an employment activity,
without any detour or stop;
(5) Involved in an emergency;
(6) Attending an official school activity, or a religious, or other recreational activity sponsored by
the City of Georgetown, a civic organization, or a similar entity that takes the responsibility for the
minor going to or from the event, without any detour or stop;
(7) Exercising First Amendment rights protected by the Unites States Constitution, such as free
exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and right of assembly; or
(8) Married or had been married or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with
V.T.C.A.,Texas Family Code chCh.. 31.
B. It is a defense to prosecution under Section 9.13.020 C. that the owner, operator, or employee of
an establishment promptly notified the police department that a minor was present on the premises
during the curfew hours and refused to leave.
Sec. 9.13.040. - Enforcement.
A. Before taking any enforcement action under this Chapter, a police officer shall ask the apparent
offender's age and reason for being in a public place. The officer shall not issue a citation or make an
arrest under this Chapter unless the officer reasonably believes that an offense has occurred and that,
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # H
Page 3 of 3
based on any response and the totality of the circumstances, no defense under Section 9.13.030 is
present.
B. The police department shall adopt procedures in compliance with V.T.C.A., Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure artArticle. 45.059 (pertaining to children taken into custody for violation of juvenile
curfew) and V.T.C.A.,Texas Family Code ch.Ch. 52 (pertaining to proceedings before and including
referral to juvenile court), as the same may be amended from time to time.
Sec. 9.13.050. - Penalties.
A. A person who violates a provision of this Chapter is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, and shall be
punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500.00.
B. When required by V.T.C.A., the Texas Family Code § 51.08, as amended, the municipal court
shall waive original jurisdiction over a minor who violates Section 9.13.020 A. of this Chapter and refer
the minor to juvenile court.
Sec. 9.13.060. -Review.
A.City council review. Before the third anniversary of the date of the adoption of this section, and
every third year thereafter, the city council shall:
(1) Review the section's effects on the community and on the problems the section was
intended to remedy;
(2) Conduct public hearings on the need to continue the section; and
(3) Abolish, continue or modify the section.
B.Sunset provision. Failure by the City Council to act in accordance with Section 9.13.060 (A) shall
cause this section to expire at 12:01 a.m. ______________________.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # H
Cover Memo
Item # I
Cover Memo
Item # I
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
It
e
m
#
I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 14 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 15 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 16 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 17 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 18 of 18
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 7 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 8 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 9 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 10 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 11 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 12 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 13 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 14 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 15 of 16
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 16 of 16
Item # I
It
e
m
#
I
It
e
m
#
I
It
e
m
#
I
It
e
m
#
I
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
Cover Memo
Item # J
Cover Memo
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # J
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # J
REZ-2012-004
0 310 620
Feet
Coordinate System:
Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet
Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJExhibit #1
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # J
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
Georgetown ETJ
REZ-2012-004
0 470 940
Feet
Coordinate System:
Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet
Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
EC
EF
EMA
EMIA
ERF
PC
PF
PFR
PMA
PMIA
PR
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Ag / Rural Residential
Employment Center
HIgh Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # J
REZ-2012-004
0 470 940
Feet
Coordinate System:
Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet
Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
REZ-2012-004
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # J
0 400 800
Feet
Coordinate System:
Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet
Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJExhibit #4
REZ-2012-004
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 5 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 6 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 7 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 8 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 9 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 10 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 11 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 12 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 13 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 14 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 15 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 16 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 17 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 18 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 19 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 20 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 21 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 22 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 23 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 24 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 25 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 26 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 27 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 28 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 29 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 30 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 31 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 32 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 33 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 34 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 35 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 36 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 37 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 38 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 39 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 40 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 41 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 42 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 43 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 44 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 45 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 46 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 47 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 48 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 49 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 50 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 51 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 52 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 53 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 54 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 55 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 56 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 57 of 58
Item # J
Attachment number 6 \nPage 58 of 58
Item # J
It
e
m
#
J
It
e
m
#
J
It
e
m
#
J
It
e
m
#
J
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # J
Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # J
Attachment number 9 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # J
Attachment number 9 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # J
0 340 680
Feet
Coordinate System:
Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet
Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJExhibit A
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 10 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # J
It
e
m
#
J
It
e
m
#
J
It
e
m
#
J
Cover Memo
Item # K
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # K
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # K
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # K
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # K
¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
REZ-2012-005
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # K
¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
EC
EF
EMA
EMIA
ERF
PC
PF
PFR
PMA
PMIA
PR
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Ag / Rural Residential
Employment Center
HIgh Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
REZ-2012-005
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # K
¯
REZ-2012-005
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # K
¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
REZ-2012-005
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # K
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # K
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # K
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # K
¯
Legend
Site
Parcels
City Limits
Georgetown ETJ
REZ-2012-005
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # K
It
e
m
#
K
Cover Memo
Item # L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
8
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
8
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
8
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
It
e
m
#
L
Cover Memo
Item # M
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # M
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # M
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # M
¯0 1,000
Feet
Existing Georgetown Village PID
Area To Be Added
Georgetown Village, Sec. 6
Existing
Georgetown Village PID
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Sun City
Heritage Oaks
Serenada West
SITE
Georgetown
Village, Sec. 6
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # M
Cover Memo
Item # N
It
e
m
#
N
It
e
m
#
N
Cover Memo
Item # O
It
e
m
#
O
It
e
m
#
O
It
e
m
#
O
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # O
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # O
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # O
Cover Memo
Item # P
It
e
m
#
P
It
e
m
#
P
It
e
m
#
P
It
e
m
#
P
Cover Memo
Item # Q
It
e
m
#
Q
It
e
m
#
Q
It
e
m
#
Q
It
e
m
#
Q
Cover Memo
Item # R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
It
e
m
#
R
Cover Memo
Item # S
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # S
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # S
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # S
It
e
m
#
S
15
HOME RULE CITY
CITIZENS OF
GEORGETOWN
CITY COUNCIL
CITY
ATTORNEY
CITY
SECRETARY
CITY
MANAGER
MUNICIPAL COURT
JUDGE
Economic Dev
and Main Street
Human Resources
COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSISTANT
CITY MANAGER
FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION
Parks
Recreation
Library
Accounting
Utility Billing
Municipal Court
Support Services
Purchasing
Information
Technology
Vehicle Service
Center
Mayor
Seven Councilmembers
AirportGovernmental
Contracts
Geographic
Information Systems
Convention and
Visitor’s Bureau
Administration
GEORGETOWN
UTILITY SYSTEMS
TRANSPORTATION
Energy Services Streets
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Planning
FIRE
Administration Operations
POLICE
Administration Field Operations /
Support Services
Animal Services
Inspection Services
Administration
BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
Administration
Water Services
Systems
Engineering
Administration
Stormwater
Drainage
Administration
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # S
Cover Memo
Item # T
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO COMPENSATION OR EXPENSE
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS; MAKING
SUCH OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 2.15 of the City Charter provides for the appointment of a committee to review at
least every two years the salaries of the Mayor and Council members and to make recommendations
regarding those salaries; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2012, pursuant to Section 2.15 of the City Charter, the Mayor appointed a
compensation committee to review the current compensation ordinance and make recommendations
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Compensation Committee met on April 4, 2012 and April 18, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Compensation Committee presented its report to the City Council on May 8,
2012, attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012,
recommendations; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT
Section 1. The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in
compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
Section 2. Chapter 2.16 of the Code of Ordinances is amended as follows:
Chapter 2.16 Compensation of Officers
Sec. 2.16.010 Compensation
(A) The Mayor shall receive compensation of $550 per month.
(B) The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive compensation of $400 per month.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # T
(C) The Council members shall receive compensation of $400 per month.
Sec. 2.16.020 Reserved
Section 3. 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 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest.
This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING on the ______ day of__________, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING on the ______ day of ________, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
________________________________ _____________________________________
Jessica Brettle , George G. Garver,
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # T
Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances
Page 1 of 1
CHAPTER 2.16. - SALARIES COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS
Sec. 2.16.010. - Base salary.Compensation
A. The Mayor shall receive a base salary compensation of $450.00550.00 per month.
B. The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive compensation a base salary of $300.00400.00 per month.
C. The Council members shall receive compensation pa base salary of $300.00400.00 per month.
Sec. 2.16.020. - Supplemental compensationReserved.
The Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and each Council member may at their discretion also receive
supplemental compensation up to $100.00 per month for reimbursement of expenses or for
reimbursement of lost income during one's normal working hours as a result of preparation for or for
attendance at committees, Council meetings or for other City business.
A. An itemized statement of expenses or lost income ("Exhibit D" to Ord. No. 2010-15) shall be
required to be filed monthly with the City Finance Department. The statement will include a listing
of monthly expenses and lost income related to the Council member's service to the City. The
signed statement from the Council member will be sufficient authorization for such payment up to
$100.00 per month. This payment is considered taxable income, and the council member shall be
responsible for keeping the backup documentation.
B. In the event the Council member has reimbursable receipts, for items such as phone
expenses or meal expense, as well as, for documented mileage per IRS guidelines, those
expenses will be reimbursed by the City as non-taxable expense reimbursement to the Council
member and will not be included in the reimbursement in subsection A. The City will retain copies
of all non-taxable expense reimbursements and the supporting documentation.
C. The total about of monthly reimbursement from subsections A. and B. cannot exceed
$100.00 per month.
D. In addition to those sums, the City will also pay the actual expenses for Council members to
attend training sessions, conferences or seminars sponsored or affiliated with the Texas Municipal
League, as well as other opportunities that are directly approved by the City Council.
Reimbursements will be made in accordance with the City's Travel Policy.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # T
It
e
m
#
T
It
e
m
#
T
It
e
m
#
T
It
e
m
#
T
Cover Memo
Item # U
Cover Memo
Item # V
Cover Memo
Item # W