The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_2030SC_10.03.2019Notice of Meeting for the 2030 Comprehensiv e P lan Update Committee of the City of Georgetown October 3, 2019 at 6:00 P M at City Hall, 808 Martin Luther K ing Jr Street, Georgetown, T X 78626 T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. P olicy Dev elopment/Rev iew Workshop A P ublic C omment L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible approval of the minutes of the S teering C ommittee meeting of S eptember 19, 2019. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t C Disc ussion and possible recommendations for G ateway polic ies for the 2030 Land Us e Element update - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director D Next Meeting Date/Time/Agenda. - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 1 of 21 City of Georgetown, Texas 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee October 3, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible approval of the minutes of the S teering C ommittee meeting of S eptember 19, 2019. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Attachment 1 - Meeting minutes Cover Memo Page 2 of 21 Page 1 of 2 Minutes of Meeting of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee City Hall, Community Room 808 Martin Luther King, Jr. St. Georgetown, Texas 78626 Thursday, September 19, 2019 6:00 pm In attendance: Mayor Dale Ross; Ercel Brashear; Lou Snead; Linda McCalla; Danelle Houck; Suzy Pukys; Hugh Brown; Josh Schroeder; Tommy Gonzalez; PJ Stevens; Wendy Cash Linda McCalla joined the meeting at approximately 6:45pm. Lou Snead left the meeting at approximately 7pm. Staff present: Sofia Nelson; Nat Waggoner; Susan Watkins; Andreina Davila; Wayne Reed; David Morgan; Michael Patroski; Ethan Harwell; Chelsea Irby; Wayne Reed Regular Session – Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 6 pm. A. Consideration and possible approval of the minutes from the September 5, 2019 meeting of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion by Brashear to approve the minutes, second by Schroeder. B. Discussion and mapping exercise to solidify mapping direction/principles, key development areas, evaluation of residential (Neighborhoods category) and non-residential development areas (community and regional centers). – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Item Summary: The Steering Committee was divided into working groups. The Steering Committee evaluated the remaining whitespaces of the growth scenario (undeveloped areas) map, evaluated the residential and nonresidential land use patterns emerging from the scenario created at the 9/5 meeting and discussed how neighborhoods can support a range of housing types and supporting commercial land uses. During the exercise, staff sought the following feedback from the Committee: - Have you achieved a balance of land uses on the SE quadrant of Georgetown? - What do you want to do with the remaining undeveloped areas on the map? - Are you ok with having undeveloped areas along SH130 given your intentional infrastructure discussions? - How should high density residential be incorporated into community and regional centers? - How should neighborhood serving commercial be oriented in residential areas? The exercise also gathered feedback from the Steering Committee on the draft land use policies. - 1A: Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at varying densities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to suburban to rural development. Page 3 of 21 Page 2 of 2 - 1B: Promote more compact, higher density, well-connected development within appropriate infill locations. - 2B: Identify potential opportunities and selectively target, plan, and promote development/reuse initiatives. - 6A: Encourage innovative forms of compact, pedestrian friendly development and a wider array of affordable housing choices through provisions and incentives. - New: Proactively support existing and recruit new employers and incentivize development that is consistent with Georgetown’s target. - New: Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown. Summary: Committee members identified the following: - Table 1: Future Land Use map is a tool for conversation; Intentional infrastructure can be limiting; CC and RC designations are good. Are commercial lots meant to serve neighborhoods or community? - Table 2: The Village is an example of ‘proximity’ to commercial. Is there a scale to model a complete neighborhood? Setting percentages is a challenge because we can’t guarantee products and also due to increasing/decreasing costs. Complete neighborhood depends on willingness of residents. Complete neighborhoods should be able to get people where they need to be. - Table 3: Mixed Use is based on area and should strive for a percentage of residential and commercial equals balance; limit rezones until percentage is met? Integrate and incentivize mix of uses and diversity. C. Next Meeting Date/Time/Agenda – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director D. Public Comment Adjournment – Motion for adjournment by Brashear second by Schroeder. Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm. _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Approved, Mayor Dale Ross Attest, Page 4 of 21 City of Georgetown, Texas 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee October 3, 2019 S UB J E C T: Dis cus s ion and pos s ible rec ommendations for G ateway policies for the 2030 Land Use Element update - S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor IT E M S UMMARY: T he S teering C ommittee will be divided into working groups and will inc lude s everal interactive exerc is es . T he purpos e (outc ome) of the meeting is to: ·(Inform) S hare summary res ults of public input related to c orridors and gateways inc luding C ouncil direction · (Ac tion) Develop rec ommendations for c orridors and gateways inc luding vision, location and s upporting policies. Efforts to develop rec ommendations for the Williams Drive C orridor will not be made this work s es s ion. Key polic y recommendations for the C orridor were adopted by C ouncil in 2017. T hes e recommendations will be folded into the overall G ateway s ection of the Land Us e Element during this Update. T hose key rec ommendations can be reviewed here: https://transportation.georgetown.org/files/2019/02/C onc ept-P lan-C orridor-reduc ed.pdf A s ummary of the public input received on gateways is found in the G ateways P ublic Input R eport (Attachment 2). T he C ounc il direc tion/disc ussion on G ateways can be found at the link below: https://georgetowntx.swagit.c om/play/08272019-1254 F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, Long R ange P lanning Manager, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Attachment 1 - Pres entation Pres entation Attachment 2 - Gateways Public Input Report Cover Memo Page 5 of 21 2030 PLAN UPDATE Gateways and Corridors Steering Committee| 2030 Plan Update | October 3, 2019 Page 6 of 21 August 20192018/2019November 2017 April 20162016/2017 CITY COUNCIL GATEWAY DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION Zoning cases raise need for Gateway goals –Williams Drive gas station Direction to staff to include Gateways in 2030 Plan Council establishes vision – “Create & Maintain Outstanding Aesthetics & a Welcoming Spirit ” Adopts Williams Drive Plan Council direction on 2030 Update Ongoing community engagement re: Gateways and land uses Page 7 of 21 8.27.2019 COUNCIL WORKSHOP RECAP •Clarify/distinguish between a gateway vs. corridor. •Focus where people are entering Georgetown; north and south entrances of I -35. •Leverage the river •Clearly and boldly mark entrance to Downtown and Historic Districts, signage (monuments and commercial) has an impact •Consider a master plan (Corridor Plan) for University •Review segment types for Far South Austin Ave and Spur 158, Williams Drive, University west of I 35 Page 8 of 21 GATEWAYS AND CORRIDORS Gateways •A landmark, streetscape, or other feature entering the city, a neighborhood, a cultural district, destinations. •Gateways can include single landmarks or corridors Corridors •A continuous system along a highway, street, or greenway. •Certain corridors also act as primary gateways into Georgetown (Williams Dr.) •Often developed to signify a high-profile corridor or district. Major Gateway Examples Page 9 of 21 GATEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICTS •14 designated corridors •Currently require additional landscaping and design standards •You asked for goals and policies for: •Location •Character •Design •Streetscape •Signage Page 10 of 21 Corridor Corridor Segment % Ranked as “Important” 1 SH 29 Univ. Ave. Central 94% 2 Williams Drive 92% 3 SH 29 Univ. Ave. West 87% 4 North Austin Ave.86% 5 South Austin Ave.71% 6 I-35 62% 7 Far South Austin Ave.59% 8 Spur 158 North Austin Ave.58% 9 SH 29 Univ. Ave. East 49% 10 FM 2243 Leander Road 49% 11 FM 1460 Leander Road 43% 12 SH 130 36% 13 FM 971 Weir Road 28% 14 SH 195 24% Downtown Overlay Highway Overlay Scenic/Natural Overlay MOST IMPORTANT SEGMENTS INDENTIFIED BY PUBLIC Page 11 of 21 …is to enhance and unify the appearance of the major roadways adjacent to, and directly leading into downtown Georgetown. ..shall reflect a relatively formal, urban extension of the downtown and visually enhance its aesthetic appearance… DOWNTOWN Corridor Corridor Segment 1 SH 29 Univ. Ave. Central 4 North Austin Ave. 5 South Austin Ave. Page 12 of 21 …to reflect the natural characteristics of the land. The purpose of the design standards for the Scenic/Natural Gateway corridors is to maintain the existing informal character as they develop. SCENIC NATURAL Corridor #Corridor Segment 2 Williams Drive 3 SH 29 Univ. Ave. West 7 Far South Austin Ave. 9 SH 29 Univ. Ave. East 10 FM 2243 Leander Road 11 FM 1460 Leander Road 13 FM 971 Weir Road Page 13 of 21 “…to positively reflect the image of the City by enhancing development with well designed Site Plans and landscaping while maintaining a safe and effective interstate highway.“ HIGHWAY Corridor Corridor Segment 6 I-35 8 Spur 158 North Austin Ave. 12 SH 130 14 SH 195 Page 14 of 21 1 METROQUEST GATEWAYS SURVEY PARTICIPATION INFORMATION • 337 people participated in the survey between April 24 – May 15, 2019 • The largest group of respondents (38%) have lived in Georgetown for five years or less • The next largest group (21%) have lived in Georgetown for more than 20 years CORRIDOR ELEMENTS How important are each of the following elements for each corridor type? Highway Corridors and Scenic Corridors received similar responses, with only Building Scale/Design and Streetscape reversed. Downtown Corridors placed the strongest emphasis on walkability, which rated lowest for the other two corridor types. Rank of Importance Highway Corridors Scenic Corridors Downtown Corridors 1 Land Use Land Use Walkability 2 Building Scale/Design Streetscape Streetscape 3 Streetscape Building Scale/Design Land Use 4 Signs Signs Building Scale/Design 5 Walkability Walkability Signs Page 15 of 21 2 FAVORITE GATEWAYS The survey asked participants to note their favorite and least favorite corridors in the City. It is interesting to note that both the favorite and least favorite lists included the same five most frequently mentioned corridors. Which gateway is your favorite? The Austin Avenue corridor received the most mentions in the “favorite” category; however, it is important to note that this count also includes references to “Downtown”, which could include SH 29 or other corridors. Participants enjoy this corridor due to its unique and historic character, views of the river and trees, and land uses. Williams Drive received the second-most mentions, with most of the positive comments relating to accessibility. Which gateways is your least favorite? Williams Drive was by far the most frequently mentioned “least favorite” corridor. Participants noted that the corridor is congested and unattractive. The next frequently mentioned corridor was SH 29, including the western, central, and eastern portions of the corridor. Participants dislike the corridor’s traffic, limited landscaping, and land uses. Corridor Favorite Least Favorite Downtown/ Austin Ave 40 mentions: Historic appearance Square San Gabriel River view Beautiful Courthouse Thoughtful and planned Scenic, low-level buildings Represents Georgetown Trees Urban context Charming Unique Shops and restaurants Good traffic flow Adorable homes Activity Main entrance into city Preserves the city’s character Clean and lively Good mix 10 mentions: Ugly oil change Bad sidewalks Could look much better Page 16 of 21 3 Williams Drive 20 mentions: Most convenient Access to Downtown Access to businesses 59 mentions: Looks old and run down Ugly Horrible design Looks dirty Need to clean up No landscaping No restrictions Buildings Random buildings with no flow or plan Buildings too close to road All commercial Heavy traffic Congested Slow Too many stop lights Badly developed Too many driveways Dangerous SH 29 18 mentions: Scenic west side and east side East side still feels rural Nice mix of landscape and buildings Beautiful through Downtown Southwestern Central represents the Downtown feel Clean and well-kept Little bit of everything 22 mentions: Just storage and gas stations Traffic Bridge blocks river view Few plantings I-35 11 mentions: Good visibility of entryway sign Businesses Open space Beautiful Good view of the city Plantings 19 mentions: No distinction from Round Rock Williams Drive exit is too far away Too busy Not much character Dangerous trucks at quarry Leander Road 7 mentions: Not over developed Limited lights Convenient Wide roadway 8 mentions: Land use is already set Looks old and dated Can’t pass slow trucks Seems desolate Not much there Ugly and dirty Not a hometown feel Page 17 of 21 4 CORRIDOR SEGMENT PRIORITIZATION Participants were asked to select all corridors that they consider “important”; up to all 14 corridor segments could be selected. As shown, more than ¾ of respondents selected SH 29 (Central), Williams Drive, SH 29 (West), and North Austin Ave. as “important”. Fewer than ½ of respondents selected SH 29 (East), Leander Road, SH 130, Weir Road, or 195 as “important”. CHARACTER & DESIGN Participants were asked to identify at least three good or bad examples of design elements along Georgetown’s gateway corridors. By dragging an icon onto a location on an interactive map, participants were able to specify whether their identification was a good or bad example and had the option to include a comment relating to that identification. Corridor Segment % Ranked as “Important” SH 29 Univ. Ave. Central 94% Williams Drive 92% SH 29 Univ. Ave. West 87% North Austin Ave. 86% South Austin Ave. 71% I-35 62% Far South Austin Ave. 59% Spur 158 North Austin Ave. 58% SH 29 Univ. Ave. East 49% FM 2243 Leander Road 49% FM 1460 Leander Road 43% SH 130 36% FM 971 Weir Road 28% SH 195 24% Page 18 of 21 5 Corridor Segment Identification Count Land Use Buildin g Design Landsc- aping Walka- bility Signs Lighting Total SH 29 Univ. Ave. Central 16 12 8 10 3 4 53 Williams Drive 37 29 16 26 8 11 127 SH 29 Univ. Ave. West 11 4 2 2 6 2 27 North Austin Ave. 10 36 12 35 6 9 108 South Austin Ave. 3 9 4 7 0 1 24 I-35 9 5 7 7 17 6 51 Far South Austin Ave. 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 Spur 158 North Austin Ave. 2 2 4 4 0 1 13 SH 29 Univ. Ave. East 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FM 2243 Leander Road 5 0 4 9 1 1 20 FM 1460 Leander Road 2 2 2 2 0 3 11 SH 130 2 1 3 2 2 1 11 FM 971 Weir Road 3 4 3 2 0 2 14 SH 195 2 2 1 0 1 5 11 SH 29 (University Avenue Central) Within the University Avenue Central corridor segment, there were a total of 53 identifications. The largest portion of identifications concerned land use, with many noting that there is a significant amount of development in the area and that there is a concern that the corridor is getting too crowded. The second largest portion of identifications related to building design, with most comments approving of the existing character of development in the area. Williams Drive Within the Williams Drive corridor segment, there were a total of 127 identifications. The largest portion of identifications concerned land use. Like the University Avenue Central corridor segment, many expressed concerns over allowing for more development. Additionally, many felt that there are too many auto-related businesses within the corridor. Other prominent Page 19 of 21 6 identifications include building design and walkability. Comments noted that building standards should be enhanced and that sidewalks should be continuous. SH 29 (University Avenue West) There were 27 identifications within the University Avenue West corridor segment, the largest of which was regarding land use. Many comments noted that better development standards should be implemented to ensure that quality buildings are built as the corridor grows. Other notable identifications include signage, with many comments that existing conditions are good and should be maintained. North Austin Avenue Within the North Austin Avenue corridor segment, there were a total of 108 identifications. Of these, more than half concerned building design and walkability. Most comments relating to building design were positive, expressing that the character of the buildings in the downtown area are good. As it relates to walkability, most comments were positive and expressed how easy it is to walk around the downtown area. South Austin Avenue A total of 24 identifications occurred within the South Austin Avenue corridor segment, with building design being the most prevalent. A mix of positive and negative comments made up the identifications, with some reiterating how much participants liked the character of the downtown core, while others complained about recent development occurring right outside the square. I-35 Within the I-35 corridor segment, there were a total of 51 identifications. Of these, signage was identified the most. Most signage identifications were negative in nature, either expressing the need for a uniform, coordinated look along the highway or the elimination of existing signage such as billboards. Far South Austin Avenue Only four identifications occurred within the Far South Austin Avenue corridor segment, with three of them concerning land use. Most were negative in nature and expressed how the corridor segment can be best characterized as having an industrial feel. Spur 158 (North Austin Avenue) A total of 13 identifications were made in the North Austin Avenue corridor segment, with over half relating to landscaping and walkability. Mixed responses made up the landscaping identifications, while most walkability identifications were typically negative. In general, negative comments explained the need to enhance the area as it relates to landscaping and sidewalks. Page 20 of 21 7 SH 29 (University Avenue East) Only two identifications were made in the University Avenue East corridor segment, both relating to land use. One was negative in nature while the other was not identified as being good or bad. No comments were attached to either identification. FM 2243 (Leander Road) Within the FM 2243 portion of the Leander Road corridor, a total of 20 identifications were made. Most identifications dealt with walkability, citing the need for more sidewalks and crosswalks along the corridor. Other notable identifications include land use, in which some participants commented that there should be more amenities. FM 1460 (Leander Road) Only 11 identifications were made in the FM 1460 portion of the Leander Road corridor, with the most prevalent concerning lighting. Most identifications concerning lighting were negative in nature. Notable identifications include one relating to land use in which a comment explained that more commercial development should be incorporated into the corridor segment. SH 130 Within the SH 130 corridor segment, 11 identifications were made. Of these, the most prevalent related to landscaping, with all being positive. Other notable identifications include signage in which a comment expressed that existing signs are appropriately set back from the road. FM 971 (Weir Road) A total of 14 identifications were made in the Weir Road corridor segment, with the most prevalent relating to building design. All building design identifications were negative in nature, with many containing comments relating to the existing manufactured home parks. Other notable comments include the desire for a soundproof wall in areas where homes abut the roadway. SH 195 Within the SH 195 corridor segment, there were a total of 11 identifications. Most of these identifications dealt with lighting, with many comments noting that the lack of streetlights makes this road dangerous to drive on at night. Page 21 of 21