The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_2030SC_07.10.2019Notice of Meeting for the 2030 Comprehensiv e P lan Update Committee of the City of Georgetown July 10, 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. L egislativ e Regular Agenda A C ons ideration and possible approval of the minutes of the S teering C ommittee meeting of June 17, 2019. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst B P resentation and dis cus s ion of the Update to the Land Use Element - S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor and Nat Waggoner, Long R ange P lanning Manager C C ons ensus Building Exerc is e D P ublic C omment E 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 26 City of Georgetown, Texas 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee July 10, 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 June 17, 2019. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t 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 Meeting Minutes Exhibit Page 2 of 26 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 Monday, June 17, 2019 6:00 pm In attendance: Tommy Gonzales; Ercel Brashear; Josh Schroeder; Lou Snead; Linda McCalla; Danelle Houck; Wendy Cash; Suzy Pukys; Paul Secord; Anna Eby; Doug Noble Staff present: Sofia Nelson; Nat Waggoner; Susan Watkins; Wayne Reed; Mirna Garcia Regular Session – To begin no earlier than 6:00 pm Anna Eby called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm. A. Consideration and possible approval of the minutes of the Steering Committee meetings of April 4, 2019 and May 16, 2019. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst Motion by Brashear to approve the minutes, second by Gonzales. Approved (10-0). B. Consideration and possible action on the Housing Element policies. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director and Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator Item Summary: In January, the Steering Committee was provided an overview of the 2008 Land Use Goals and made recommendations for the revision and creation of new land use goals. Those recommendations were later evaluated by a joint session of the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission on January 10, 2019 and new Land Use Goals were confirmed by City Council on February 26, 2019. At their March and April meetings, the Steering Committee evaluated draft housing policies on the council directed themes of preservation, diversity and affordability. The recommendations of the Steering Committee were forwarded to a Joint Session of the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on April 10, 2019. The recommendations of the Joint Session were then presented to City Council at the April 23, 2019 workshop. City Council directed staff to give the Steering Committee an opportunity to vote on the proposed housing policies. The Steering Committee was provided additional information on the draft policies at their May 16, 2019 meeting and an opportunity to request any additional information. Summary of Discussion: Steering Committee members voted on individual policies as presented. The outcome is to provide the City Council a recommendation for each of the draft housing policies for their review at their 6/25/2019 workshop. The discussion on this topic generally included comments and questions relating to further clarification of the policies, purpose of the policies, and questions about decision making and presenting the final product to City Council. Nelson provided clarification for Committee members on the process and implementation. Nelson also sought feedback from Committee members regarding their voting decisions and asked members to provide comments for recommended modifications to the policies. Page 3 of 26 Page 2 of 2 C. Presentation and discussion of Land Use and Gateway policies. - Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Item Summary: Waggoner provided a brief overview of the analysis completed to date, and asked the Committee members the following; 1)What development trends should be addressed in the Land Use Element update? 2)Are there current policies that do not support or conflict with the land use goals? 3)Is there additional data/information you seek? Waggoner reviewed the stakeholder outreach plan and sought feedback from the Committee members to determine goals and priorities for outreach in advance of providing recommendations on policies. Summary of Discussion: Staff provided background information on the process to update the 2030 Land Use Element, including Gateway policies and strategies. There was also discussion of the Future Land Use map, and guidance sought from Committee members regarding future uses and recognizing limitations. Staff also provided further clarification for Committee members related to zoning, and development patterns. Committee members expressed interest in additional information regarding policies 4C, 4D, 2B. Waggoner explained the additional material that was discussed during the meeting will be provided to Committee members for their review at the end of the meeting. D. Public Comment - Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager No public speakers signed up for public comment. E. Next Meeting Date/Time/Agenda – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Next meeting July 10, 2019 Adjournment – Motion for adjournment (Anna Eby) Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Approved, Mayor Dale Ross Attest, Page 4 of 26 City of Georgetown, Texas 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee July 10, 2019 S UB J E C T: P res entation and disc ussion of the Update to the Land Us e Element - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director and Nat Waggoner, Long R ange P lanning Manager IT E M S UMMARY: S taff will provide the S teering C ommittee a summary of the 7/5 s urvey res ults , s hare recent feedback from the P lanning and Zoning C ommis s ion and lead a general disc ussion of land use is s ues and development trends since 2008. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nathaniel Waggoner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 1 - 2030 Goals Exhibit Exhibit 2- 2008 Land Use Policy Guide Exhibit Exhibit 3- Current Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Framework Exhibit Exhibit 4- Current Land Use Goals and Policies Exhibit Page 5 of 26 2030 PLAN GOALS Promote development patterns with balanced land uses that provide a variety of well-integrated housing and retail choices, transportation, public facilities, and recreational options in all parts of Georgetown. Reinvest in Georgetown’s existing neighborhoods and commercial areas to build on previous City efforts. Provide a development framework that guides fiscally responsible growth, protects historic community character, demonstrates stewardship of the environment, and provides for effective provision of public services and facilities. Guide, promote, and assist the preservation and rehabilitation of the City’s historic resources. Page 6 of 26 Ensure effective communication, outreach, and opportunities for public participation and community partnerships to foster a strong sense of community. Ensure access to diverse housing options and preserve existing neighborhoods, for residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels. Maintain high quality infrastructure, public safety services, and community facilities. Actively partner with GISD, Williamson County, other governmental agencies, and local organizations to leverage resources and promote innovation. Maintain and add to the existing quality parks and recreation. Improve and diversify the transportation network. 2030 PLAN GOALS Page 7 of 26 Policy #Existing 2008 Policies with Proposed Mark-Up What is the City's tool?What are we currently doing?Public Input Intent/Outcome 1.A. 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. Future Land Use Plan Zoning Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) - criteria of approval requirement includes : " A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community" Development Agreements - balance of uses Overlays, transition zones (Downtown Master Plan) Corridor Plans (Williams Drive) MUD and PUD negotiation to include a mixture of housing types and reservation of land for supporting retail and commercial services. OTT - "Set zoning guidelines to prevent urban sprawl" Survey #1 - "Would love to see continued growth and density of downtown. More restaurants and shops. More downtown living or hotel options." Survey #1 - "there's still a country/wildlife feel, yet modern where it matters (i.e. infrastructure)" Survey #1 - "There should be growth limits" Survey #1 - "A balance of living space, plentiful green spaces" Survey #1 - "Well thought development with a diverse population of different ages, income levels, and backgrounds. As the city grows I would like the government to plan ahead of development instead of being reactive." Survey #1 - "Do not turn it into a sprawling town like Round Rock or Austin." Survey #1 - "less sprawl more density, bigger downtown" Minimize land use and impacts of growth, provide variety of uses 1.B. Promote more compact, higher density, well-connected development (e.g., traditional neighborhoods, Transit- Oriented Development, mixed-use, and walkable neighborhoods) within appropriate infill locations. Land Use Categories; Zoning Districts- Mixed Use Downtown and Mixed Use District; Workforce Housing Standards and Housing Diversity Program Action from 2008 Comp Plan: 1.B.1.Establish guidelines and incentives for infill locations, including: Mixed residential uses and mixed-use where appropriate. Connected, pedestrian-oriented streets. Conditions for edge treatment (buffers, connectivity, compatibility). Flexible requirements such as dimensional criteria, impervious coverage, and parking to address local contexts. OTT - "We do not like how clustered apartment developments are. Spread them out throughout the City." OTT - "We suggest that housing types be interspersed around town to combat segregation within the community." Survey #1 - "attract younger talent to the area, unique Domain like work/living/shopping area. Make Georgetown a destination, put us on the map and make it count for years to come." Survey #1 - "Old Town Georgetown is somewhat a model of what the city should look like on a larger scale--mixed housing stock, recreation, schools, churches, retail and grocery stores, businesses, healthcare, etc" Survey #1 - "More connected neighborhoods with sidewalks on major roads, additional library location west of I35, mixed use developments like Mueller." Create connected developments Reduce vehicle-miles traveled Allow for greater use of existing land 1.C. Establish standards appropriate for new residential development pertaining to lot sizes, open space, buffers, road connectivity, etc. UDC Development Standards UDC Standards for the following: Minimum lot size based on lot size ; parkland requirements; buffer requirements between residential and non-residential uses; road connection requirements based on number of units; intersection spacing and maximum block length and cul-de-sac length standards. Survey #1 - "Open green spaces, single family homes, add "Dark Skies" (http://darksky.org/) to new houses and building being built." Survey #1 - "Lots of green space, open areas for families and wildlife" Survey #1 - "No east/west divide. Mixed used housing and neighborhoods throughout the community. Better traffic management and public transportation options, including rail service south and north." Use remaining vacant land for quality development 1.D.Establish improved standards for commercial development.UDC Development Standards UDC Standards for the following: Floor to area ratio requirement in C-1 zoning district; Inter-parcel connectivity (Cross access for neighboring commercial properties); non-residential building standards; landscaping standards; downtown overlay district design guidelines; OTT - Urban Design #1 highest rated positive Improve the appearance of commercial areas Use high residential growth rates to attract high quality commercial development 1.E.* Expand regulatory provisions and incentives to encourage innovative forms of compact, pedestrian friendly development (mixed-use, traditional neighborhood design), and a wider array of affordable housing choices. PUD, Special Area Plan Overlay District, Workforce Housing Standards, Housing policies and toolkit Action statement - move to implementation Development agreements Developers/Builders - "Due to the dominance of Sun City, Georgetown has a perception of being an old community. Need a cool factor going." OTT - Housing/Affordability #3 highest rated negative Survey #1 - "I hope it will be a compassionate community where people of all racial, ethnic, socio-economic and religious backgrounds can live and work and thrive." Encourage good residential design that increase choice *Action statement, move to Implementation. DRAFT 06.17.19 Page 8 of 26 Policy #Existing 2008 Policies with Proposed Mark-Up What is the City's tool?What are we currently doing?Public Input Intent/Outcome 2.A.* Target capital investments to leverage private investment in designated areas. Lead investments in transportation and infrastructure to leverage partnerships with the business community and interested neighborhood organizations.A10:I10 Zoning standards- Impervious cover, parking, height Fee exemptions Action statement - move to implementation Financial Institutions - "Construction/infill in Downtown Overlay is difficult. Georgetown has Austin construction costs but Austin yields $93/ sq. ft." Developers/Builders - "Infill land in Georgetown is scarce, utilities downtown are a train wreck" Developers/Builders - "Entitlements process is widely erratic, Planning and fire codes an issue" Realtors - "Old Town and Downtown Overlay development restrictions – make rehabs complicated" Survey #1 - "Historic downtown should be expanded to include other historic structures with high redevelopment standards" Make sure our regulatory process is not standing in the way of redevelopment as long as we can achieve the vision for these target areas 2.B. Target capital investments to leverage private investment in designated areas. Lead investments in transportation and infrastructure to leverage partnerships with the business community and interested neighborhood organizations. Economic development partnerships and incentives Action from 2030 Plan (2008) 2.B.1. Conduct community wide- public facility assessments to identify and prioritize corrections to deficiencies in infrastructure, including local streets and sidewalks, and other public facilities, including parks and recreation facilities. (Coordinate this action with preparation of other Plan elements, including Infrastructure, Transportation, and Open Space and Recreation). OTT - Traffic Circulation & Public Transit #2 highest rated negative OTT - Infrastructure #6 highest rated negative Survey #1 - "With the expected growth in Georgetown there needs to be related expansion of the transportation infrastructure" Leverage public infrastructure to encourage private investments 2.C.Identify potential opportunities and selectively target, plan, and promote development/reuse initiatives. Small area plans- two examples include Downtown Master Plan and Williams Drive Study Action from 2008 Comp Plan: 2.C.2. Based on the city-wide inventory, as well as on neighborhood, corridor, and downtown planning initiatives, identify site-specific development target areas and sites. 2.C.6. In coordination with other local governments, pursue state legislation to make additional financial tools available for redevelopment (e.g., tax increment financing, tax abatements, etc.) Survey #1 - "More vibrant downtown area with more unique shops, restaurants, and brew pubs/bars. More diversity in housing downtown. More employment centers or "tech" centers to relieve pressure to work/commute to Austin and bring/keep young professionals here." Encourage redevelopment/infill 2.D.Continue to promote diversification and strengthening of downtown Georgetown and its in-town historic neighborhoods. Master plans Downtown Master Plan Design Guidelines - Certificate of Appropriateness Process OTT - Historic Preservation #4 highest rated positive Protect existing charm/identity and vibrancy of downtown 3.A.Initiate a fringe area growth management framework comprising the following elements.A growth framework needs to be updated. OTT - "Set zoning guidelines to prevent urban sprawl" Survey #1 - "Would love to see continued growth and density of downtown. More restaurants and shops. More downtown living or hotel options." Survey #1 - "there's still a country/wildlife feel, yet modern where it matters (i.e. infrastructure)" Survey #1 - "There should be growth limits" Survey #1 - "A balance of living space, plentiful green spaces" Survey #1 - "Well thought development with a diverse population of different ages, income levels, and backgrounds. As the city grows I would like the government to plan ahead of development instead of being reactive." Survey #1 - "Do not turn it into a sprawling town like Round Rock or Austin." Survey #1 - "less sprawl more density, bigger downtown" Promote compact development and reduce sprawl 3.B.Establish criteria, targets and timetables for the annexation of unincorporated “pockets” into the city. Involuntary annexation has been preempted by state legislation.N/A Intentional and planned city expansion 4.A. Minimize impacts and encroachments of incompatible land uses (e.g., commercial intrusions into healthy residential neighborhoods). UDC Standards- Small area plans buffer requirements between residential and non-residential uses Survey #1 - "The historic properties should be maintained. Infill and expansion construction should be compatible with neighboring properties." Minimize land use conflicts and protect property values 4.B.Revise the UDC to ensure development that is compatible in character with the surrounding context.Zoning district standards CN and C-1 districts have limitations on building size Survey #1 - "Try to preserve the downtown look and feel and logically address the need to “modernize” and adapt to the future" Minimize land use conflicts and protect property values 4.C. Develop and apply neighborhood conservation strategies, such as code enforcement, housing rehabilitation, and support for urban homesteading for first time buyers. Housing policies 4.D Revise the UDC to ensure proper transitions and buffering between established neighborhoods and adjacent commercial and manufacturing areas. UDC Development Standards; Rezoning Criteria- " The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood" Housing Policies UDC Standards for the following: buffering requirements for non- residential development when adjacent to residential development.Survey #1 - "keep the feeling of small community with local flavor" Minimize land use conflicts Protect property values *Action statement, move to Implementation. DRAFT 06.17.19 Page 9 of 26 GROWTH MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK: TOOLS TO ACHIEVE THE VISION Background With the 1988 adoption of the Century Plan came the introduction of a new approach to managing growth and allocating land uses and their associated intensities. Unlike conventional comprehensive plan land use elements, which proactively establish policies for community structure, form, development scale, and intensity, the Century Plan’s Intensity Plan left such determinations subject to the measurement of impacts of a development on infrastructure and road capacities. Although the Intensity Plan was considered highly innovative for its time, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan requires a new approach to the management of growth. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan takes a proactive stance regarding where certain land uses and intensities are needed in order to realize the vision of balanced, compact development at levels of quality, which will meet citizens’ expectations for quality of life and community character. This approach is in contrast to the intensity model structure, which makes development intensity determinations subject to, or reactive to, the infrastructure capacities that happen to be available at certain locations. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan creates a new approach, one that depicts appropriate future land uses on a Future Land Use Map, which will be used as a guide to future rezonings and development applications. Consistent with the vision of sustainable growth, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element calls for higher density infill development in and around downtown and other urban centers and also calls for proactively reserving land for higher intensity employment uses to avoid its development as less economically useful subdivisions. In the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, land use policies drive priorities for infrastructure capacity adjustments rather than the method of the former structure. For these reasons, the effective implementation of the Land Use Goals and Policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan require the creation of a new, more purposeful, predictable and efficient framework of tools for the management of growth, land use, and development intensity determina- tions. This growth management framework consists of the following elements. The Future Land Use Map The Future Land Use Map depicts an array of land use types allocated geographically throughout the city and its ETJ, based on the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. These land use categories do not necessarily reflect the present use of land or existing zoning district designations. Rather, the Future Land Use Map depicts the array and distribution of land uses as they are expected to exist in 2030. Therefore, the Future Land Use Map has two essential functions in the Growth Management Framework. First, the Future Land Use Map graphically portrays public policy for the locations of future land uses and development types. In the case of residential uses, density ranges are assigned to each of several residential types. Non-residential development types will have weighted utility capacities in the Capital Improvement Plan. Second, the Future Land Use Map will be used by staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council as a guide for the consideration of rezoning requests. Except in very limited and unique circumstances, rezoning requests that are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the Future Land Use Map should not be approved until and unless amendments to the Future Land Use Map and/or associated Land Use Goals and Policies are adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.47Page 10 of 26 New Zoning Districts / Predetermined Densities and Intensities In contrast to the former policy of applying the Intensity Model regardless of zoning designa- tion, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan calls for the development and application of zoning districts that specify the density as part of the development standards in the UDC. Two basic types of zoning and development standards should be considered. Conventional or Euclidian zoning will regulate development based on quantitative measures, typically numbers of dwellings permitted per acre for residential use and Floor Area Ratios (ratio of building square feet to site footprint) for non-residential use. Additionally, “form-based” standards may be developed in areas such as down- town, historic districts and special areas like the TOD, where the factors of over-riding importance are scale, architectural and urban design, and consistency with the surrounding character. GROWTH TIERS In order to stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth of the city over the next two decades, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes a tiered growth framework (Policy 3A.1 and Map 3-12). The Growth Tier Map is intended to guide long-term City policy regarding the deliv- ery of municipal services and will evolve only with a continuted long-term outlook. The growth tier classifications will be changed only with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the map will be amended only during the Annual Update cycle. Properties that are voluntarily or involuntarily annexed into the city limits will not be automatically classified as Tier 1A or Tier 1B properties. Only properties located within Tier 1A and Tier 1B will be eligible for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plans. Zoning and development review requirements will vary by tier, as follows: Tier 1 (Short Term Growth Area – 10 Years) Tier 1A is that portion of the city where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s growth should be guided over the near term. Within Tier 1A, the city is called on to conduct assessments of public facility conditions and capacities (Policy 2B.1) and to prioritize short and long term capital investments (Policy 2B.2) so as to ensure that infrastructure capacity is sufficient to serve development intensities as indicated on the Future Land Use Map and in the zoning districts. Impact studies may be required for development approvals in two circumstances. Applica- tions for rezoning to higher density of use than is depicted on the Future Land Use Map will place the burden on the applicant to demonstrate sufficient infrastructure and road capacity and/or to mitigate any public facility impacts. However, approvals of any development that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map are entirely discretionary and can only be approved through an amendment to the comprehensive plan. While anticipated densities are portrayed generally on the Future Land Use Map, the full extent of such densities may be limited to coincide with the timing of public improvements necessary to serve the planned development. As noted above, Policies 2B.1 and 2B.2 call for the City to plan for the development of the full array of public facilities with capacities adequate to serve the development intensities as indicated on the Future Land Use Map and in zoning districts. The Capital Improvement Program will carry out these facility improvements and likely be staged over time. Therefore, in some cases the City may need to delay development approvals until the necessary infrastructure capacity is in place. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.48 Page 11 of 26 S SA N G A B RIEL R MID D LE SAN GA B R I E L R N SAN GA B RI EL R LA K E GEO R G ET O W N S A N G A B RIE L R BERRY CREEK SM I T H B R UN IV E RS ITY A V E WO L F RA NCH N A U STIN AVE MAIN ST L E A N DE R R D S AUSTIN AVE FM 146 0 17 T H S T M A PL E ST HU TTO R D SO U T H W E S T ERN BLVD S E I N N E R L O O P W S H 2 9 E S H 2 9 SH 130 N E I N NER LOOP FM 971 IH 35 IH 3 5 IH 35 SW 3 C R Y S T A L F A L L S P K W Y AI R P O R T R D C R 1 5 1 S M I T H C R E E K R D F U T U R E C O L L E C T O R CR 1 03 CR 1 4 0 C R 1 5 0 FUTURE C OL L ECTOR C R 1 9 4 WC ARTE RIAL 2 F M 9 7 2 CR 14 1 F U T URE C O L L E C T O R SH 19 5 S H 19 5 S U N C ITY BLVD D E L WE B B B LVD WHI S P ERI N G WIND DR S HEL L RD S H E LL RD SE RE NAD A DR SAN ALOMA DR SHELL S PU R LAKEW AY BLV D NOR T HWES T B LVD WILLI A MS DR S U N C I T Y B L V D RIVE R Y S E 1 S E 1 SE 1 F U T U R E CO LLECTOR C R 1 4 3 C R 1 4 7 R ONALD W REAGAN BLVD NW 1 R O N A L D W R E A G AN BLVD F M 340 5 R R 2 33 8 R R 2 3 38 CR 2 45 CR 24 8 I N D I A N S P R I N G S R D JIM HOG G R D C R 2 6 2 CR 2 61 SW 1 D B W OOD RD S O U T H W E S T B Y P A S S D B WOOD RD SW 1 R O NALD W REA G AN BLVD R O N A L D W R E A G A N B L V D CR 174 S W 2 S W 2 S W 3 SW 4 R R A R T E R I A L H S A M BASS RD I N N E R L O OP S P U R CR 116 W E S T I N G H O U S E R D HI D D EN VALLEY DT ER A V I S T A P K W Y OA K M O NT DR R R A R T E R I A L A R R U N I V E R S I TY A VE FM 1460 W C CR 119 I M P CR 1 0 4 W C A R T E R I A L 1 WC ARTERI A L 2 F U TURE CO L L E C T O R SH 130 C R 1 5 2 GR O W T H TI E R M A P Ca r t o g r a p h i c D a t a F o r Ge n e r a l P l a n n i n g P u r p o s e s O n l y ¯01.5 Mil e s 1 i n c h = 1 . 5 m i l e s MA Y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 Ch r i s B r y c e Th e G r o w t h T i e r M a p is a s y s t e m o f t i e r s i n t h e Ci t y a n d E T J t h a t p l a n fo r a f u l l - r a n g e o f C i t y s e r v i c e s an d i n v e s t e m e n t i n s t a g e d ti m e f r a m e s . T h e t i e r s y s t e m is s e t u p a t 1 0 - y e a r i n t e r v a l s th a t c o m m i t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e to T i e r 1 f o r t h e s h o r t - t e r m , Ti e r 2 f o r t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e t e r m , an d T i e r 3 f o r t h e l o n g t e r m . In T i e r 3 , t h e C i t y h a s d i s c r e t i o n to d e n y p r o j e c t s u n l e s s a ma j o r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d se r v i c e c o m m i t t m e n t i s m a d e by a p r o p e r t y ' s d e v e l o p e r . Le g e n d Ri v e r / S t r e a m Bo d y o f W a t e r Ci t y L i m i t s Ex t r a t e r r i t o r i a l Ju r i s d i c t i o n ( E . T . J . ) Ex i s t i n g C o l l e c t o r Ex i s t i n g A r t e r i a l Ex i s t i n g F r e e w a y Pr o p o s e d C o l l e c t o r Pr o p o s e d A r t e r i a l Pr o p o s e d F r e e w a y Pr o p o s e d Pa s s e n g e r R a i l Ex i s t i n g R a i l Ma p 3 - 1 2 Ul t i m a t e B o u n d a r y Ti e r 2 - I n t e r m e d i a t e Gr o w t h A r e a Pr o t e c t e d L a n d Ti e r 3 - L o n g - T e r m Gr o w t h A r e a Ti e r 1 B (D e v e l o p i n g ) Ti e r 1 A (D e v e l o p e d / Re d e v e l o p i n g ) Ti e r 1 - C u r r e n t G r o w t h A r e a Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.49Page 12 of 26 City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.50 Page 13 of 26 Through the possible application of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (Policy 3A.4), the City may require an impact analysis of a development project of a certain threshold size. If the impacts are found to exceed level of service standards for public services, institutional, safety road or infrastructure capacities, the City may delay project approval until planned capacity expansions are in place. Alternatively, the developer may choose to make a contribution to accelerate the planned capacity expansion, or otherwise mitigate the development impacts. Tier 1B Tier 1B is the area within the present city limits, or subject to a development agreement, surrounding Tier 1A that is generally under-served by infrastructure and where such service and facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of the city once Tier 1A approaches build- out over the next ten years. This includes areas subject to development agreements or annexation service plans which mandate the provision of public facilities at varying levels of service. Other than these existing commitments, the City’s priorities for capital improvement should focus on the development of a full array of services and facilities with adequate capacities in Tier 1A, prior to initiating additional major investments in Tier 1B. While the City is obligated to provide infrastructure to serve future development in some of these areas, it may be fiscally and practically infeasible to do so simply on demand. For this reason, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan calls for a proactive strategy to provide infrastructure in a staged manner (Policy 3A.3), along with criteria for making decisions concerning utility extensions (Policy 3A.2). Therefore, within Tier 1B, requests for rezonings, additional infrastructure exten- sions, and development approvals should be accompanied by comprehensive assessments of impacts to include both capital and operating costs associated with water, wastewater, road capacity, police, fire, EMS, and schools. Developments that cannot adequately mitigate these impacts through a capital recovery fee (Policy 3A.2) which may be determined at the potential adoption of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, or other means should not be approved. Tier 2 (Intermediate Growth Area – 10-20 Years) Tier 2 lies outside the city limits, but within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). This area likely will be needed to serve the city’s growth needs over the next 10-20 years. Until annexation occurs, City land use and development controls are limited to subdivision review and signage, and in some cases building permits where City utilities are connected to new construc- tion. However, the City may consider requests for annexation, extension of City services, and rezonings in this area. The City should first examine such requests based on objective criteria, such as contiguity (Policy 3A.2) and then require applicants to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment demonstrating that impacts can be adequately mitigated. Tier 3 (Long-Term Growth Area – Beyond 20 Years) Tier 3 consists of the most remote portions of the city’s ETJ, an area of land that will likely not be needed to meet the city’s growth needs for the next twenty years, during which Tiers 1 and 2 will approach build-out. The broad policy of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for this area is to reserve it to meet the city’s long range expansion needs. However, requests for annexation and development can likely be anticipated in the foreseeable future. The process to be followed in considering such development requests will follow that described for Tier 2. However, because premature development in Tier 3 would likely not meet basic review criteria such as contiguity Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.51Page 14 of 26 (Policy 3A.2), development requests in Tier 3 should receive even greater scrutiny than those in Tier 2. However, the City should remain receptive to major developments in Tier 3 that can be clearly demonstrated to be in the public interest, such as the potential relocation to Georgetown of a major corporate headquarters or other major employer or contributor to the local economy. Protected Lands This category includes land that is not subject to development due to public ownership, environmental restrictions or public park designations, including but not limited to the land immediately surrounding Lake Georgetown. As the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Element and Environmental Resources Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan are completed, the area designated as Protected Lands on the map will likely be expanded. Ultimate City Boundary Line The Ultimate City Boundary Line represents the possible expansion of the future city limits. By virtue of agreements with, and actions taken by, adjacent communities, utility providers, or special districts regarding their intentions to expand to accommodate growth this line may change over time. It is the intent of the City of Georgetown to plan for ultimate City services and programs to serve that area. This will aide the City in long-term capital planning for community resource needs. Focused Application of Impact Analyses/Adequate Public Facilities Requirements The former Intensity Plan approach used assessments of impacts on public facility capacities as a basis for determining development intensities. Where undesired impacts were expected, the response was to reduce development intensity. As noted above, impact assessments will continue to be required where the impacts of a proposed development may trip level of service standards. Where such impacts are determined, the response will generally shift from reducing development intensity to delaying the timing of development to coincide with planned capacity expansions. This can best be done with the creation and application of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordi- nance (Policy 3A.4). City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.52 Page 15 of 26 GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policies and Actions 1.A. Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at varying den- sities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to suburban to rural devel- opment. Adjust zoning provisions to provide greater flexibility for mixed-uses, multiple housing 1. types, compact development, and redevelopment. Reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long-term commercial and employment uses 2. and prevent its use for residential subdivisions. 1.B. Promote more compact, higher density development (e.g., traditional neighborhoods, Transit-Oriented Development, mixed-use, and walkable neighborhoods) within appropri- ate infill locations. Establish guidelines and incentives for infill locations, including:1. Mixed residential uses and mixed-use where appropriate.  Connected, pedestrian-oriented streets.  Conditions for edge treatment (buffers, connectivity, compatibility).  Flexible requirements such as dimensional criteria, impervious coverage, and  parking to address local contexts. Provide density and intensity bonuses for the provision of housing and commercial 2. components of mixed-use developments with specific reference to dwelling types (student housing, elderly, etc.), and additional bonus provisions for affordable housing (as defined by the City of Georgetown). Coordinate infrastructure investment policies to ensure that they are consistent with 3. land uses that encourage compact development. 1.C. Establish standards appropriate for new residential development pertaining to lot sizes, open space, buffers, road connectivity, etc. Adjust development standards to address minimum requirements for open space and 1. protection of natural features; park, school, and transit hub site reservations; landscap- ing and street design; and subdivision connectivity and accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, while providing greater flexibility for the provision and integration of multiple housing types and densities. Continue to promote and apply conservation development principles to the design of 2. residential subdivisions in specifically designated areas. Goal 1 Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices and well-integrated trans- portation, public facilities, and open space amenities. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.57Page 16 of 26 1.D. Establish improved standards for commercial development. Prepare land use and zoning provisions to 1. discourage standard commercial “strip” development and encourage compact commercial and mixed-use centers at appro- priate locations. Prepare guidelines and design standards to improve the character of commercial 2. development. Identify highway corridors for the preparation and application of corridor design and 3. access management standards. Develop and apply standards for the location and design of “mid-box” and “big box” 4. retail centers to improve their aesthetics, maintain appropriate commercial scale and provide for their future adaptive re-use. 1.E. Expand regulatory provisions and incentives to encourage innovative forms of compact, pedestrian friendly development (mixed-use, traditional neighborhood design), and a wider array of affordable housing choices. Establish standards for and actively promote new forms of compact development to 1. include Transit-Oriented Development, as well as traditional neighborhood develop- ment (TND), mixed-use, and pedestrian-scale development. Provide2. density and intensity bonuses for the provision of housing and commercial components of mixed-use developments with specific reference to dwelling types (student housing, elderly, etc.), and additional bonus provisions for affordable housing, as defined by the City of Georgetown. Promote mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly 3. land use patterns, including community activity centers, neighborhood activity centers, conservation subdivisions, and walk- able neighborhoods: Promote development of community activity centers with complementary  mixed uses (e.g., neighborhood-oriented retail, higher density residential, schools, and other community facilities). Encourage neighborhood centers and walkable neighborhoods with devel-  opment patterns that replicate the scale and character of Georgetown’s traditional neighborhoods (compact development, interconnected streets, sidewalks, etc.). Encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street  network, safe pedestrian routes, and healthy, active living. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.58 Page 17 of 26 Narrative: While the city’s predominant single-family neighborhoods are a valuable resource that should be protected, the City should take every opportunity to encourage the introduction of new, more compact forms of development. Such opportunities include the introduction of higher density housing at appropriate locations, and smaller-unit housing types to meet the needs of a diversifying population, as well as for housing affordability. National demographic trends indicate that, at present, only 33% of all households include two parents and one or more children, a ﬁ gure that will decline further to 27% by 2030. Conversely, the number of single adult households will increase from 26% at present to 29% by 2030. At the same time, U.S. Census data indicates that between 1990 and 2000, certain sectors of the City of Georgetown—in particular those south and east of I-35—experienced signiﬁ cant growth in the number of younger families with children, with corresponding implications for housing types, sizes, and densities. The identiﬁ ed policies and actions will create new incentives for a more diverse array of housing choices, and will expand opportunities for inﬁ ll development beyond what is possible under conventional zoning, which tends to separate uses and limit ﬂ exibility in development siting. In addition, the “bonus” provisions proposed by Policy 1B.2 provide a tangible economic motivation to introduce mixed-use, affordable housing, and other needed development types. While these guidelines and provisions for ﬂ exibility are necessary, they are not sufﬁ cient to fulﬁ ll the promise of greater inﬁ ll investment and the introduction of higher densities. Many existing neighborhoods will tend to fear or resist the introduction of such new uses and may perceive them as threats to neighborhood stability. While some of these concerns may be misplaced, they must be addressed by carefully examining how and where such uses can be introduced in a compatible manner within neighborhoods and transitional areas, areas of blight, and along roadway corridors. Because compatibility must be evaluated based on site speciﬁ c investigation, more detailed neighborhood, corridor and sector plans will be needed to identify speciﬁ c inﬁ ll opportunities and create design criteria such as buffers that will ensure compatibility in particular circumstances. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.59Page 18 of 26 Policies/Actions 2.A. Remove present inadvertent impediments to infill and re-investment in older, developed areas. Establish criteria that define the characteristics of desirable infill development (e.g., 1. compatibility with adjoining uses). Revise zoning/development codes, the permitting process, and other applicable City 2. policies by identifying and removing impediments to infill, adaptive re-use, historic preservation and redevelopment, including: Application of creative code provisions to remove impediments in building/  zoning codes to reuse older buildings while retaining their historic character. Overlay districts (where specific requirements could be modified to allow  established character to be maintained; e.g., buildings pulled up to the street, credit for on-street/shared parking, etc.). Coordinated City departmental policies regarding infill (e.g., adjusting  requirements for stormwater, water/wastewater, and other policies/regula- tions when they affect the ability to develop infill sites). Adjust the City’s schedule of development fees (e.g., development review fees and costs 3. to upgrade infrastructure) to lessen financial burdens on investments in designated areas and more accurately reflect the different costs of providing services in developed areas (where infrastructure is available), suburban areas, and fringe areas (where costly infrastructure extensions are necessary). Narrative: The City’s code requirements were established and applied well after much of the older portions of Georgetown were originally developed. Due to constrained site and building conditions, some potential inﬁ ll sites may not meet current regulatory requirements (e.g., parking, setbacks, impervious coverage, and stormwater standards), which are suited to more ﬂ exible suburban conditions. Policies 2A.1 to 2A.3 seek to minimize or eliminate present unintended disincentives for re-investment in inﬁ ll and redevelopment throughout Georgetown’s urban areas. This necessitates ﬁ rst identifying speciﬁ c types of inﬁ ll development that are compatible and desired. Once this is accomplished, the UDC must then be revised to remove unnecessary or inadvertent impediments, or to waive such requirements in designated urban areas. Goal 2 Promote sound investment in Georgetown’s older developed areas, includ- ing downtown, aging commercial and industrial areas, in-town neighbor- hoods, and other areas expected to experience land use change or obsolescence. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.60 Page 19 of 26 2.B. Target capital investments to leverage private investment in designated areas. Conduct 1. community-wide public facility assessments to identify and prioritize corrections to deficiencies in infrastructure, including local streets and sidewalks, and other public facilities, including parks and recreation facilities. Through the City’s Capital Improvement Program,2. prioritize short and long-range capital investments in designated urban areas, including, but not limited to utility replacements, capacity improvements, area-wide stormwater systems, street improve- ments, etc. Identify 3. revitalization corridors for capital improvements (e.g., streetscape/landscap- ing, utility upgrades, etc.). 2.C. Identify potential opportunities and selectively target, plan, and promote development/re- use initiatives. Conduct a city-wide inventory of potential infill/reuse sites, including historic sites/1. buildings suitable for adaptive reuse. Based upon the city-wide inventory, as well as on neighborhood, corridor, and down-2. town planning initiatives, identify site-specific development target areas and sites. Take direct action to initiate and support 3. private investment , including land assembly (via voluntary sale and purchase) and clearance, developer solicitation and selection, and construction of capital improvements. Encourage use of financial incentives for reinvestment in 4. historic and/or abandoned properties. Provide incentives for the reintroduction of 5. neighborhood businesses and services into older neighborhoods (e.g., assistance with market studies, site assembly, environ- mental clearances, business capital investment, employee training, etc.). In coordination with other local governments, pursue 6. state legislative initiatives to make additional financial tools available for redevelopment (e.g., tax increment financ- ing, tax abatements, differential development fee schedules, etc.). Narrative: Although the removal of regulatory and other constraints are necessary to promote inﬁ ll and redevelopment, it may be insufﬁ cient to achieve the desired levels of re-investment. Policies 2B.1 to 2B.3 move the City’s posture beyond a “regulatory” mode and into a proactive position by targeting direct investments in capital improvements as catalysts for private investment. These policies call for a comprehensive assessment of the City’s facilities and infrastructure and a targeted assignment of priorities for capital improvements based, in part, on opportunities to leverage private investment. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.61Page 20 of 26 2.D. Continue to promote diversification and strengthening of downtown Georgetown and its in-town historic neighborhoods. Maintain a proactive program of City initiatives to promote downtown development 1. through: Capital investments to streets, streetscapes, infrastructure, and parking.  Establishment of site-specific downtown redevelopment and reinvestment  areas. Use of existing City powers (eminent domain, land assembly, bonding, etc.)  to execute designated redevelopment projects. Additional cultural, civic, and entertainment initiatives.  Actively support private initiatives consistent with the City’s policies to promote 2. downtown investment by: Creating density bonuses and other incentives for mixed-use, downtown  housing, and the creation of new centers of activity in downtown (employ- ment, specialty retail, entertainment, dining, etc.). Adjusting capital improvement programs to target streets, infrastructure,  and parking as necessary to promote and support desired private investment. Ensure that public and private initiatives preserve and enhance historic downtown 3. resources. Narrative: While preceding policies address removing impediments and creating incentives for private inﬁ ll initiatives, Policies 2C. 1 to 2C.6 place the City in a proactive position in actually targeting and carrying out redevelopment and inﬁ ll projects through partnerships with the private sector. Opportunities for such direct City action in targeted redevelopment areas fall into three broad categories. One category includes sizeable areas of the city where obsolescence—coupled with fragmented property ownership and potential brownﬁ eld contamination—may present too many obstacles for the private sector to address without City assistance. Such areas will include older industrial areas, as well as obsolete commercial “strips.” A second type may include a major civic facility (for example, a ballpark, arena, or performing arts center) for which no suitable site exists. This would necessitate action by the City in assembling and preparing such a site in partnership with a private or non-proﬁ t development entity. A third category pertains to the emergence of new patterns of obsolescence, which may surface in suburban locations. Of particular concern is the long term viability of “big box” commercial centers that could succumb to ever-changing consumer patterns and preferences. In these circumstances, the City should be prepared to intervene by preparing small area or “focal” plans and various implementing actions to rebuild and reuse these sites for higher value uses. Similarly, the City should apply development standards to properly locate such developments and to inﬂ uence their design to improve their aesthetics and provide for their adaptation to other uses. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.62 Page 21 of 26 Policies/Actions 3.A. Initiate a fringe area growth management framework comprising the following elements. Establish a tiered growth framework, as follows:1. TIER 1 (Short Term Growth Area – 10 Years): Tier 1A : Area within the current city limits where infrastructure systems are in place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where consolida- tion of the city’s development pattern is encouraged over the next 10 years. Tier 1B:  Area within the present city limits that were recently annexed or subject to development agreements, which are presently underserved by infrastructure. Tier 1B will require the provision of public facilities to meet the city’s growth needs as Tier 1A approaches build-out, over the next 10 years. TIER 2 (Intermediate Growth Area - 10-20 Years): Tier 2:  Area within the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are anticipated beyond the next 10 years and where premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inef- ficient development is discouraged by the City. TIER 3 (Long-Term Growth Area – Beyond 20 Years): Tier 3: Area within the ETJ where growth, annexation, and the extension of public facilities are anticipated beyond 20 years, and premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inef- ficient development is discouraged by the City. Goal 3 Provide a development framework for the fringe that guides sound, sustainable patterns of land use, limits sprawl, protects community character, demonstrates sound stewardship of the environment, and provides for effi- cient provision of public services and facilities as the city expands. Narrative: Comparable to Policies 2C.1 to 2C.6, these policies situate the City in a more proactive stance to promote its vision of downtown—one in which new development and re-investment are actively pursued to strengthen and diversify the land use and activity mix of downtown. The City will continue to be supportive of, and responsive to private initiatives through incentives, public parking, and capital improvements. In addition, these policies call for the City to develop its own “action agenda” for downtown, including the identiﬁ cation of redevelopment areas and plans for area-wide improvements to streets, parking, and urban design amenities. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.63Page 22 of 26 Define specific criteria for water and wastewater extensions and annexations, to 2. include: Contiguity with development patterns and present city limits.  Location within appropriate growth area.  Availability of infrastructure capacity.  Consistency with City development standards.  Fiscal impact assessment and mechanisms for the allocation of public facility  costs through a capital recovery fee. Future annexations shall avoid the creation of additional unincorporated  pockets. Narrative: Georgetown is expected to grow by an estimated 100,000 people during the next 20 years. Under current policies, a signiﬁ cant share of this growth would likely occur in areas—both within and outside the present city boundary—that are not currently (or only partially) served by infrastructure and community facilities. Growth tiers are the areas where development, annexation, and extension of public facilities will be staged over the 20+ year horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the tiered growth concept area is threefold: * To promote contiguous, compact and incremental expansion of the city’s edge. * To avoid excessive public expenditure on new facilities and services associated with fragmented, leapfrog development patterns. * To protect land that the city will need to sustain its long-term growth from premature development. Although growth areas located outside the present city limits remain largely outside of City regulatory authority until annexation occurs, their designation as a growth area for the city helps communicate Georgetown’s intent and policies governing the locations, patterns, and types of uses for which requests for water and wastewater extensions and annexations are likely to be approved. The tiered growth system does not stop growth or prohibit development in the outer tiers during the initial 10-year timeframe. Instead, the strategy endeavors to inﬂ uence the timing, location, and pattern of growth, slowing it when necessary to prevent overload of public facilities and services, or shifting it to locations where the City is best able to serve it in a manner that is ﬁ scally sustainable. It also transfers some of the cost burden to serve new growth from existing taxpayers, making new development “pay for itself” to a greater extent than it does at present. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.64 Page 23 of 26 Establish a proactive plan to provide infrastructure (water, wastewater, roads, etc.) in 3. advance of development (to provide City infrastructure where development is desired, with the developer bearing the responsibility of providing adequate infrastructure outside of transitional growth areas). Consider development of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to provide for the 4. timing of development concurrent with the availability of adequate road and public facility capacity. 3.B. Establish criteria, targets and timetables for the annexation of unincorporated “pockets” into the city. Criteria may include: Location within appropriate growth area.  Availability of infrastructure capacity.  Annexation timing so that infrastructure availability is concurrent with need.  Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit.  Compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies.  Facilities brought up to City standard prior to or concurrent with annexation.  Mechanism in place to relieve fiscal burdens on the City and its taxpayers through (self-  pay) tools such as special taxing districts. Narrative: Although the Tiered Growth concept provides a rational framework for staging fringe area development and annexations, the City is under no obligation to accept any or all development in Tiers 2 and 3. This policy encourages the City to carefully examine each development application, based on consistency with land use policies and careful assessment of impacts, public costs to be incurred, and the revenues that will accrue to offset those costs. As noted previously, public costs incurred to support fringe area “green-ﬁ eld” development are often of an order of magnitude greater than that for comparable inﬁ ll development, where all or most public facilities and services are already in place. Policy options to address this issue include the creation of a “capital recovery fee” to more equitably assign costs, as well as an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, which would only permit development that can be accommodated at a given time, without imposing unacceptable impacts on road or public facility capacity. These policies are not intended to suggest that ﬁ scal assessment and a capital recovery fee should be applied so as to allow only those developments that fully “pay their own way.” However, such tools will allow both citizens and elected ofﬁ cials to make decisions based on a thorough knowledge of their ﬁ scal consequences. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.65Page 24 of 26 Policies / Actions 4.A. Minimize impacts and encroachments of incompatible land uses (e.g., commercial intru- sions into healthy residential neighborhoods). 4.B. Revise the UDC to ensure development that is compatible in character with the surround- ing context. 4.C. Develop and apply neighborhood conservation strategies, such as code enforcement, hous- ing rehabilitation, and support for urban homesteading for first time buyers. 4.D. Revise the UDC to ensure proper transitions and buffering between established neighbor- hoods and adjacent commercial and manufacturing areas. Goal 4 Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g., stable neighborhoods, economically sound commercial and employment areas, etc.). Narrative: Within the present city limits are signiﬁ cant “pockets” of unincorporated land, some in the heart of the city. Rationalizing the city map is not however, the reason for annexing these “islands.” Land development and building standards in effect in these areas are different than those applied within the city limits. Unincorporated areas also pose special service delivery and governance problems. In most cases, the County is not able to keep up with the service demands of these areas, whose residents often have urban expectations. As unincorporated communities continue to develop, the standard of living may decline, leading to deteriorating housing, limited public services, and crime. On the other hand, with annexation the City becomes responsible for providing public services to these residents. While it is likely that many City services already are being used by nonresidents who live in unincorporated pockets of land within the city boundaries, the ﬁ scal implications of assuming this responsibility must be fully understood. Narrative: While much of the city is developed with stable neighborhoods and commercial areas, the emergence of obsolescence in some older industrial uses and shopping centers will lead to market- driven redevelopment. This set of policies/actions will ensure that as such redevelopment occurs in a manner that minimizes any adverse impacts on nearby stable neighborhoods and commercial uses. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.66 Page 25 of 26 City of Georgetown, Texas 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee July 10, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsens us Building Exercise IT E M S UMMARY: T he S teering C ommittee will complete a three (3) step interac tive proc es s to develop solutions to address land use is s ues identified for the updated 2030 goals . Activity (step) 1 will be a review of the goal and is s ue clus tering completed as part of the s urvey is s ued to the S teering C ommittee on 7/5. T he intent of this exercise is to identify any is s ues that will impact our ability to ac hieve the C ouncil es tablished 2030 goals. During this exerc is e, the C ommittee will be asked: Do you agree with the goal/issue c luster? Are there any issues missing? If s o, with what goal does this is s ue belong? Activity (step) 2 will include a brainstorming session to identify solutions for identified issues . T he intent of this activity is to establis h agreement between C ommittee members of what is needed to acc omplis h the 2030 G oals . During this exercise, the C ommittee will be as ked: W hat do you need to s ee to in order for this to not be an is s ue? W hat does succ es s look like? Activity 3 will include the clus tering of broad s olutions. T he intent of this exercise is to group s imilar ideas and es tablish themes. F ollowing this meeting and s uc cessful grouping of solutions , s taff will then evaluate 2008 land us e polic ies to determine if any of the themes establis hed on 7/10 are addres s ed by exis ting policies, if new polic ies are required or if modifications are needed for existing polic ies .During this exerc is e, the C ommittee will be asked: W hat would you call this c luster of s olutions? F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P Page 26 of 26