Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTEC_04.17.2013The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday, April 17, 2{13. Board Members Present: Troy Hellmann - President, Tommy Gonzalez - Vice President, Bill Connor - Secretary, Johnny Anderson, Jesus Moulinet Board Members Absent: Dawn Martinez, Bill Sattler Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Ed Polasek, Jana Kern, Bill Dryden, Alex Polansky, Mark Miller, Laurie Brewer, Wesley Wright, Bridget Chapman, Others Present: Trae Sutton & Michael Newman - KPA Engineers, Ercel Brashear - Citizen/GISD Minutes Regular Meeting Mr. Troy Hellmann called the regular GTEC Board meeting to order on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 2:02 PM Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the President, a Board Member, the City Manager in his capacity as General Manager of the GTEC Corporation, the Assistant City Manager, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. I. STAFF BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: (This is a short informational time regarding items where specific actions are not requested or needed)A A. Introduction of Visitors B. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT/ Updates - No updates to report at this time C. Project Progress Reports D. Monthly Financial Report (This is for specific action items considered by the Board — greater than $50,000 in value) E. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GTEC Board meeting held on March 20, 2013 -- Paul E. Brandenburg Motion by Gonzalez, seconded by Moulinet to approve minutes as presented. Approved 5-0 (Martinez & Sattler absent) F. Consideration and possible direction to staff concerning the 2013/14 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).- Ed Polasek Polasek explained to the Board the projects on the 2013/14 TIP list. Motion by Gonzalez, seconded by Anderson to approve 2013/14 TIP as presented. Approved 5-0 (Martinez & Sattler absent) G. Consideration and possible action regarding Project Eligibility Findings for signalization, capacity, and access improvements on HWY 29 between IH 35 and Haven Lane and to set a public hearing date. - Ed Polasek Polasek reported to the Board the results of the Project Eligibility Findings. Motion by Gonzalez, seconded by Connor - The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Board, following guidelines provided by the City Attorney, finds Transportation Project 8A (SH 29 East - IH 35 to Haven Lane) eligible for 4B funding, because it (1) conforms to the ballot language establishing the sales tax; (2) constitutes one or more costs authorized by statute; and (3) is one or more of the types of project authorized by statute, documented by the GTEC Board Ranking of Eligibility: Ranking Summary completed in April 2013. Approved 4-2-1 (Martinez, Sattler absent, Anderson opposed) H. Discussion and possible recommendation on the Locally Preferred Alternate and Draft Final Report for the Rivery Boulevard Extension from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard. - Bill Dryden/Ed Polasek Dryden briefed the Board on the history of this project. Trae Sutton & Michael Newman from KPA Engineers gave a presentation on the Draft Final Report (see attached). There was lengthy discussion concerning the routes, how it would affect the school district, and the neighborhoods. Rivery Blvd2013-04-1 l.pdf Motion by Gonzalez, seconded by Connor to direct staff to come up with a hybrid from Exhibit A & B have this is two phases (one being Rivery, the other Clay Street) as discussed; and to bring back the hybrid exhibit to the next meeting GTEC Board meeting. Approved 5-0 (Martinez & Sattler absent) IV. ADJOURN Motion by Gonzalez, seconded by Connor to adjourn meeting. Approved 5-0 (Martinez & Sattler absent) Adjoumment The meeting was adjourned at 02:53 PM. Approved Attest: Tro)<H I eLma -I- President Bill Connor - Secretary pri Jana R. Kern - Board Liaison Lf M me, r r Rlliiii a / �e✓ e✓ oa ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓e✓✓rreeor ✓er✓e✓srasrs ✓ree ✓� i MICHAEL CA Y NEWMAN rM✓ .......... 64936 ; V CIS ► �PNAL s I�� !t. o •r ' a U*T*Wol "nougm- 10.0 Environmental Impacts - Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 11.0 Maintenance Considerations 12.0 Recommendations MBRIff.m# MVIOSOMP Table 1: Design.Criteria M?ble 2, UjjIJtj--L,?, ,-tjp�V 0=6 mm# # .= � x x It Contents of this report represent data collection, fleld review, engineering analysis and public involvemer f-I to define the proposed roadway extension alternatives. I The primary scope of the report includes preliminary roadway alignment with several alternative route'l preliminary engineering for drainage and utilities, and providing opinion of probable costs. This.report wi provide engineering support of decisions regarding moving this project through design and constructio phases. Rt) UQ 1110 A public meeting with neighboring property owners was held on March 6, 2013, 6:30pm at Georgetown Independent School District's Administrative Annex (Old McCoy Elementary School). Project related questions were captured during the public involvement process. A compilation of project questions and answers is provided in the Appendix E. Written comments were received for several days after the . \ ;. \»e public comments are captured i Appendix F. i M MM 1�114f: Fwn-= Wmirm "I, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) book entitled 'A Policy on Geometric Design ofIlighways and Street" provides the following definitions. Operating Speed: the highest overall speed at which a driver can travel on a given highway under favorable weather conditions and under prevailing traffic conditions without at any time exceeding the safe speed as determined by the design speed on a section-by-section basis. Design Speed: the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern. :-,tw srx ro sscg H-VA11 VM1V N'-O* ar-K TO PA:A, X�-O' 191-o- T ual r. 0' ma laws/ cv.!ve) Rf tvn, 4U$5 U Alep AlrsrLiC CA Ittv eogt tcy 1W Y.147 TYPICAL ROADWAY - CROSS SECTION. I/M ro r4,E Table 1: Design Criteria Design Speed 25-30 mph Posted Speed Lane Widths TravelLanes 4 (2 each way Median Width Cross Slope Curb & Gutter Standard Sidewalk (both sides) 10 ft. concrete '11 M ROW Width Horizontal Curve Circle Dia. gras—s)- 00 1701 1 I If s I I I 11111 13�11'1 1111 1 111111 1111111111 p��111 111111 111 1 ;Iqi�ii 1111 Fill 11 Maximum number of entering lanes per approach V �t • R V P I 1- I I � ! M M Raised (may have I Typical daily service volumes on 4-leg �roundabout* (detailed capacity analysisil veh/day for two-lane required for volumes above the level roundabou p t i sed fled) The number of required lanes for a given roundabout can be based on summing the traffic counts entering with conflicting traffic counts. Two-lane roundabouts are likely to be sufficient for 1,000 to 1,800 vehicles per hour according to the cited report. More detailed analysis based on empirical predictive models can be provided, but is currently beyond the scope of this preliminary engineering report It is anticipated that Id I qp lip I ��!piipiiqpqiii � I MEW The benefits for roundabouts include lowering vehicular speeds to consistent average operating speeds. Lower vehicular speeds using roundabouts allow safer pedestrian and bicycle crossings. This als'o allows merging traffic to enter conflicting traffic streams as they are generally more predictive speeds for judging traffic spacing. Speed vs. radius graph is provided (See Figure 5). Based on Figure 5 above, 150 foot diameter should be adequate for a 20-25 mph design speed through the roundabout Fig. 6 Crowned Circulatory Roadway Section (Source: FHWA Roundabouts Technical. Summary) Central island are =a Notmal Dope Ncanal slope Mountable curb 2% inward -2% outward Z or .1 I 11 2 circulatory 30r2circulatory roadway width roadway Width 111111111111q�!� qpip� ip�piq��; 11 ill! lip 11 R V111 Fill'I'llill Ili : !i i � I I I I I I I i 1 11 Boulevard Extension is from the west The drainage system is sized to accommodate higher intensities (commercial) assuming some non-residential developments will occur along Rivery Boulevard when it is completed. The total contributing areas for the proposed drainage collections system is- less than 100 acres. The Rational Method was selected as the hydrologic methodology for modeling peak design flow rates for storm water runoff. Times of concentration (Tc) were calculated by identifying and using overland and/or shallow concentrated flow travel times. Where combined times of concentration were less than 5-minutes, 5- minutes was used as the minimum. In lslq� I llpj�l� liggil III I ! 11;� HORNIMMI mmni Z=11111F'11 11111 � 1, 1 The flood zone for the project site is identified as Zone "X" per Federal Emergency Management Agen Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 4891CO29SE dated September 26, 2008. No flood plain letter of malls revision is required for this project. Documentation* is provided in the Appendi I Extended detention is proposed for this roadway work, however, each new development parcel in the trainage area should be evaluated for on-site detention on a case by case basis. Water quality is discussed in more detail (see Section 10 Environmental Impacts — Edwards Aquifer Zone). MUMMA Utility locations information was obtained from the City of Georgetown GIS database. During design pha on ground surveys are recommended to locate actual surface features such as manholes, valve covers, a release valves, etc. in order to more accurately locate and field verify existing public utilities. I 8.3.3 Existing wastewater lines are: 0 8"/12" WWL located parallel to Williams Drive located along southern rights-of-way. * 6"/8" WWL located along Shannon Lane (tees into Williams Drive 8,*'/12" WWL). 0 6" WWL located along Park Lane. 0 12"' WWL located along Northwest Boulevard. : lI liq1111111,1111111 IN 0 6 04 �i I 1�1 , ITM rR W", Location of electric, gas, telephone cable utilities identities and locations should be fully explored with respective utilities during the design phase. One call service should be used by the contractor prior to digging within applicable notification and marking timeframes. Affected existing water, sewer, gas, electric, tele7thone and cable service fine�L to or rights-of-wa , will need to be removed properties that are acluired f or relocated accordingly. 8.3.6 Utility Conflicts No utility conflicts are foreseen or noted at this time. More information will be available during the design phase and avoiding utility conflicts to the greatest extent possible should be expected. A soils and testing analysis should be performed by a competent geotechnical engineering firm during the design phase to explore soil types and substrate that can be encountered during construction and to recommend a 20-year pavement design. Undisturbed areas within the project site appear to be gently sloping grass land. No significant rock outcrops in the project area are noticeable from surrounding viewpoints along existing roadways. Z=S 9= M, 9 2-inch Type C, Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) Overlay 0 4-inch Type B, HMAC Overlay 41 16-inch Crushed Limestone Base Material 411 • The above pavement section was used for cost estimating purposes only. A complete geotechnical soi sampling, testing and analysis is required. A geotechnical report with recommended pavement desi should be conducted during the project design phase. I �1��M It is anticipated that street lights will be extended along the proposed roadway similar to existing Rive Boulevard. Street light poles should be 35-foot galvanized steel with polyester powder coating w/ 2- arms in order to match existing Rivery Boulevard (south of Williams Drive). Cobra head 20OW cut off ligh are recommended in order to reduce upward reflective lighting at night. Cost estimates include a typic 14 street light spacing of 300 feet per City of Georgetown's Unified Development Code, Section 13.07.02" Street Lights- General Standards. Center median cuts should be limited to encourage full use of the traffic roundabouts and maximize traffic flow efficiency. 1-0.0 Environmental Impacts - Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone For long term aquifer pollution protection, an extended detention water quality pond is included in the cos)i estimates and schematically shown to be located near Northwest Boulevard in the exhibits. For the purposes of this report, a portion of the offsite drainage area was included in the sizing of the anticipated extended detention water quality pond. This credit could be useful during rights-of-way negotiations for acquiring the pond site. Preliminary water volume sizing was estimated to be approximately 95,000 cubic feet and a preliminary sized pond volume of 97,000 cubic feet'used for cost estimating purposes. The extended detention pond volume was sized based on TCEQ Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal spreadsheet dated 04-20-2009 as available on-line. lllllp�lii Preparing and sending the Notice of Intent and Notice of Termination to TCEQ within required timeframe of commencing construction. • Receiving approval confirmation of Notice of Intent from TCEQ. • Implementation of the approved plan. • Maintaining, documenting and reporting as required by TCEQ. The appropriate TCEQ regional office location and contact information is: Austin Re 91 lonal Office 2800 S. IH35, Suite 101, Austin, Texas 78704 (512) 339-2929 nra. lion i� ppi� 1� ''I'll E1 llllll� 11111111111111111111111 Ill �iiiii�lill�ll If constructed, it is expected that the City of Georgetown will maintain this road. Based on City of Georgetown maintenance costs, the cost per lane mile of annual expense is approximately $ 4,603 (based on the FY 2012-13 budget). .3 TII Preliminary Opinof #bCost Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Georgetown, Texas I Oki XTA 01: # A I I 1 11 # I =- Moll "m III 1 1 1 "ll 111 OIIM�� i '-N 3 .6.0.a 00, ttr rri 4t„ ._; :" t t"iG�lt[G,S3G Silt IGIi2�R [,,1.IaiIIC;�r`iZelj!'t'iait :. ,.,, , �- .'•° ` ` : -' lUi#,`fa L L�. >. . ., . .. , °' 1S,vi}u {�{) . .:, , I�S�tl� �Q: S,Pi4vxcie P PrCiaeCt Reesrrd. �tfl1?iltlg5 .. _ :..' 1 1tI{1% , , LSptj0{ { {j. S S;t?fl0 tea Prepare,Tzench l hA c� ota 2 2+ 3,9 5 0 fex Rf:Ti1C?Y}1SoSB SdeWal%, �rtve4s & Flumes ,;Q., + +► , , .... ; .d..i. {{},... _ _ . . ....084;_ 9AAi Nie 31 ti (i4; 24;254 Utl lU.faat.w�de W4, k :5 cap-, #'�. S`. ':.._,. ..., :: :�.;. .:'. ,. ,.:. ... �.•.. :;: . 35 :, EAR; �, �,V1t,V 11U.. � :. .. ,.. -.♦ 1�,17,VV.V�,.: LXd � d.riX1Y11°•Tdt ,_ '., .. '':, ;. '..... ' -'. : �i: _ `:. �: .' ::�: a .._..�� -... �: :.-. 25 . ': $ Inch CIass zt .RC;i> ..: 4U0. LF',. St1(i{l. „ 2U,4�4.6-U ., .. _ ... 27 _ 6t?,inch Ciass. III RCP, . 2,it}U :: .LF :: F (fit? 8.. _, "It3'x3`:Curb iilet.w3th Ring Ccaver..: - _ .. , .. ,; :. , _ 27 " .EA' 4,i0tI.Ot} 9t;2444a' 29 I S`c3'Curb ;Inlet.wth Ring and Cover .;;; 7. EA 6,20{1.flQ 43;4(}4 44.: ;. L ARt,WW & r ;ITS "' ,Ylp . . 125 0 . , ...: Water 35 : A,bkWio 1,V _666 Line, 36...:. Pressure Reducinatve ton:-!-.. .. 3flt}ti{3{}: 37 . , 8 inch Gaie,Vaive" .: 9: EA` 1,425 U{�� i2,825.{I(} Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Georgetown, texas Prelindnary Opinion of Probable Project Costs ammsim I Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Georgetown, Texas Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs Zi EXHIBIT -A fEi dens i6h- se e ri p �-10000ty. Unit 0,; Animint 1 -7 Bonds and 13 Q0 p 'Rj& 50TA- `5 `7­6`66 J�-� F,: 101i /$ A 00,100, 4 Prepare O�, `5 Oo( gi: tOMA t 00 2. 00 '0 Oty 60/0 6 16 0y,- at 73 -S YO A p R' )D­..1 JAqrQ as _"ER6 0 " 0,; 2. EQ -5 2 H-6 416h yc f O�, `5 ,.foot i' Wk , V1 e`, S 4d" _pw lj5 Ramps : 4JO 235:490- p JAqrQ as 0 " A iM .0 6 _0 .9 0 -0 .Subtotal TER �tJ6 r Lane _3. 7_t J, J, 36 T" 3 P­ rov. ton Lane: 4 fd ti Installation Jolt .00 9.00 a"t_6­r, Service L05 - 0 P ressu t, T 6stifii S Subtotal S 215. '60 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Georgetown, Texas IN &IIJ W ��W- 1411 IWO Die "Ifut-l"WOW Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Georgetown, Texas Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs 77 ­'­ t Amoun ,p romu c 7­7 W&ot Wkly tflewalk,. �:, 2 42 m .. .. .. . . .... ass 20, 5 AO 3 ,4 C tng.a .7 43;444 4ti' 'S jp_ Ap,,. itdf :Abandon 466,610 AS 0 '5000 .00-40 ressum ve n E A 7,500A 00 r: O 3 00-0 h GAWN a ve� 1,425.44. 12,825r 3 877W� �, r Line Fittings' 1 1006/61 LS. 2ft.000 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP Georgetown, Texas Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs - S - MW- I ,S5 T i�; -VI e'ne-,, iimn A��4 ii i � Pr-e' Y OUT ide,,P. �WAW!tg, Pig are k9i �85-0 —P �5- Inp J ef J a "AnUICILAII y- 04 00� , app 4r IlaklqP S. e Fta -,jn q An jc� -7 Itibto DRAINA0B c 12, as 5040 -SOM 23 V -CI I x Y, Inlet ver 4", WOO - 'I S 1S &a6d M,,' ,PJQT ABLE. -� 000. 3 04 ' lk:,. Ine 3 Valve- %jt- q y AM 4 .1,171, ater,,.ervlqe,. : reT tf 4i0],00 '00' -,-4,000. Fund in is currently not avail able. The earliest anticipation for fu I project funding is more than a year away, but such funding would likely require a voter approved bond election. Property acquisition could begin when funding |s available and the project isapprovedtornovefonwardby City Council. Funding |s currently not available. Earliest anticipation would be about two years away, but would likely require a voter approved bond election and completing all rights-of-vvayacquisitions. =I IIIIII III l 111 11111 This information is being forwarded to Klotz 6kAssociates who are designing Northwest Blvd As|s true With all preliminary engineering exhibits they are tobe used for schematic purposes only. The location of property lines, rights-of-way, sidewalks, roadways, etc. will be based onafinal design using land surveys with known field conditions. The current location of Northwest Boulevard roundabout is based on a schematic representation of current Fontana Drive street rights-of-way, vvh|oh is the best available information. This is not recommended because the roundabout proposed at Park Lane isa more logical looadon and is more efficient location for traffic movernent with traffic calming benefits than at Clay Street. Nc\,th|s project }S funded h» local dollars and a noise abatement study |s not required or included in -the scope ofwork. expect that tm change when the Riveryextension and Northwest Blvd bridge have been Based on proposed street widths and lane configurations itis unlikely that there would besufficient space for on-street parking for either Rivery or Northwest Boulevards.