HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 06.08.2016Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
June 8, 2016 at 3:00 PM
at Historic Light and Water Works Building, 406 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas
78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City at leas t
fo ur (4) d ays prior to the sc heduled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for
ad d itional informatio n; TTY users ro ute thro ugh Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A Call to Ord er
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a sub ject that is pos ted on this agend a: Pleas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Bo ard meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which yo u wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
Staff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
On a sub ject not pos ted on the agend a: Pers ons may add an item to a future Bo ard agenda b y filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . For Board Liais on c o ntact info rmatio n, pleas e lo gon to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
B As of the d ead line, no persons were signed up to s peak on items other than what was posted on the
agenda.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
C Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes fro m the May 11, 2016 Unified Develo p ment
Co d e Advis ory C o mmittee meeting.
D Review and d is cus s io n regarding p ro p os ed language in the UDC regard ing s ub d ivision design and s treets .
Jo rd an Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Nat Waggo ner, PMP, Trans portation Analyst
E Dis cus s ion regard ing potential July meeting and p o s s ib le disc ussion items fo r that meeting.
Adjournment
Page 1 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 20
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Minutes / May 11, 2016 Page 1 of 1
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM
Historic Light and Water Works Building,
406 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Committee: P.J. Stevens, Chair; Philip Wanke, Vice-chair; Tim Bargainer, Secretary; Bruce Barton and
John Philpott.
Committee Member(s) Absent: Henry C. Boecker, Gray Taylor
Staff Present: Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Sofia Nelson,
Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, David Munk, Utility Engineer and Tammy
Glanville; Recording Secretary.
A Call to Order at 3:04 p.m.
B As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the
agenda
Legislative Regular Agenda
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2016 Unified
Development Code Advisory Committee meeting.
Motion by Committee Member Barton to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2016 Unified
Development Code Advisory Committee meeting. Second by Committee Member Bargainer.
Approved (5-0).
D Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice-chair for 2016-2017 Unified Development Code
Advisory Committee.
Motion by Committee member Bargainer to nominate Committee member Wanke to serve as
Vice-chair of the 2016-2017 Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. Second by Chair
Stevens. Approved (5-0)
E Consideration and possible action to elect a Secretary for 2016-2017 Unified Development Code
Advisory Committee.
Motion by Chair Stevens to nominate Committee member Bargainer to serve as Secretary for the
2016-2017 Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. Second by Committee member
Barton. Approved. (5-0)
Page 3 of 20
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Minutes / May 11, 2016 Page 2 of 1
F Review and discussion of proposed amendments to UDC Chapter 3 related to platting. Valerie
Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner
Kreger, Principal Planner, briefly reviewed over items discussed from the March and May
meetings.
Discussion among committee members and staff regarding access easements, frontage on public
streets and plat waiver process.
Staff and committee also discussed simplifying and clarifying the language under Section
3.08.080 applicability and exceptions. Staff informed committee their consulting with legal
regarding the Development Plat process.
G Review and discussion of proposed amendments to UDC Chapter 13. Jordan J. Maddox, AICP,
Principal Planner and Wesley Wright, PE, Engineering Director
Discussion among staff and committee members regarding Public Improvement Exemptions –
the Eighty (80) Percent Rule. Staff stated they are changing contiguous properties back to
adjacent properties.
Committee members would like an exception built into the Fire Code regarding fire flow.
Maddox stated to the committee members he understands their concerns and expectations
however, explained the Development Code does not enforce the Fire Code and perhaps
developers maybe be asking to make amendments to the Fire Code the city has adopted and
committee agreed. Committee members would like this to apply to the pavement width as well.
Staff briefly discussed when Utility Easements are required and mentioned there’s still ongoing
conversations on how to handle shade trees, utilities and right of way conflict.
Staff briefly reviewed Electric Standards and maintenance of street lights.
Staff and committee members discussed Subdivision Improvements Guarantee. Staff stated after
further discussion with utilities and engineering staff has decided not to pursue the 50% rule
requirement on construction for fiscal.
H Review and discussion regarding proposed language in UDC Chapter 12. Jordan Maddox, AICP,
Principal Planner and Nat Waggoner, PMP, Transportation Analyst
Maddox mentioned there were several provisions discussed and some public comments from
the March and May meetings that have been addressed. In addition to what triggers the
classification of higher level roadway primarily on collector level streets.
Discussion between committee members and staff regarding wider pavement width, right-of-
way, driveway spacing, parking, sidewalks, curb design, one sided loaded streets and
residential collectors.
Committee members are still concerned with pavement width per the Fire Code. Staff
mentioned their continuing ongoing conversations with Fire Chief Sullivan. Nelson, stated to
Page 4 of 20
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Minutes / May 11, 2016 Page 3 of 1
committee members the Planning Department needs to have a clear understanding of
committee members concerns and recommending they identify the pros and cons. Nelson also
mentioned the Planning Department will be holding public outreach sessions to gather
additional feedback in order to come to a final recommendation.
Gary Newman, would like the language to be clarified on driveway spacing and separation
along with addressing spacing for two corner lots.
Chris Brown, has concerns with connectivity issues and cul-de-sacs. Mr. Brown requested
adding additional language to the UDC to clarify when trees are involved. Mr. Brown
distributed a handout and map regarding the Hillwood Development to help explain the
situation.
Joe Owen, has concerns with collectors connecting to other collector’s connection points and cut-
through.
Adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
P.J. Stevens, Chair Tim Bargainer, Secretary
Page 5 of 20
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
June 8, 2016
SUBJECT:
Review and dis c us s ion regard ing proposed language in the UDC regard ing s ubdivis io n d es ign and streets.
Jordan Maddo x, AIC P, P rinc ip al P lanner and Nat Waggoner, P MP, Transpo rtatio n Analys t
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item fo cus es p rimarily o n s ubdivis io n des ign and the general s treet network. T he Future Land Use
Plan and Overall Trans p o rtatio n Plan c all for a b alanc ed netwo rk o f street func tionality and c o nnectivity.
Staff is p ro pos ing c hanges that seek to us e s treets as they were intended, to q uic kly move people when
needed, to red uc e s peeds and fo cus on pedes trians when need ed . The revis ed S treet Des ign sec tion
fo cus es on pro viding an ad eq uate sys tem of c onnec ted lo cal s treets to even dis trib ute trip s and no t create
p rimary ro utes exc ep t as c o llecto rs . It is a multi-layered approac h that allows for flexibility, ad ministrative
d is cretio n, and a pub lic variance p ro cess. The s taff p ro p o s al ac kno wledges that interconnec tivity doesn’t
always wo rk bec aus e o f exis ting features suc h as develo p ed land , natural terrain, etc. but the go al is to
create smarter c onnec tions to exis ting and propos ed s treets when possible.
High points of all new language for June:
Private s treet allo wances have been remo ved fro m May language. This means that lo ts cannot be
created o n p rivate streets when und er 5 ac res
Inters ec tion S p acing has rep laced Bloc k Length as a term in the c o de. C ul-de-s ac s c anno t b e us ed
to b reak the b lo ck.
Driveway s p acing o f 70 feet o n Residential C o llecto rs has flex language added and a provis io n fo r a
waiver if only 25% of the street contains fro nt-lo ad ed ho uses. Staff s till s tudying possibility o f
s ingle-loaded collec tors
Adminis trative Exc ep tion c reated to allow a collec tor to end without c o nnecting ano ther loc al.
New external s treet c o nnectio ns fo rmula c reated to es tablish minimum c o nnectio ns p er lot or
multifamily unit.
As p art of this requirement, actual connec tio ns to existing streets s hall be mad e depend ing on lot/unit
numb er (not jus t s tub -o uts ).
Exis ting platted lo ts cannot be used to c reate acc es s for p urposes of meeting s treet c o nnectio n
req uirements
Cul-d e-s ac s longer than 200 feet req uire pedes trian connec tivity to other s treets o r sidewalks
The link/node connec tivity ratio increas es from 1.20 to 1.40 to b etter rep res ent the graphics d ep icted
in the exis ting c o d e.
Exceptions c reated fo r adminis trative ac tion when streets cannot c onnec ted to o ther sub d ivisions ,
meet inters ec tion spac ing, o r other o bs tac les meeting this S ectio n 12.04
Credits c an be given to o ffs et lo cal s treet c onnec tions where they canno t b e made.
Sub d ivis io n Variance created for s ituatio ns s uc h as incompatib ility of us es and all o ther reques ts
Replac ement o f 20% b o nd req uirement to defer s id ewalks to build ing p ermit with a 10% cash
p ayment. T his p ro vision seeks to off-s et inc o mp lete p ublic infras truc ture and gap s in the network.
Small c lean-up edits to TIA s ectio n. Staff ho p es to review entire TIA proc es s in the coming year and
return with rec o mmendatio ns at a later d ate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time.
Page 6 of 20
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddo x
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Chapter 12 Amendment Language Exhibit
Page 7 of 20
Page 1 of 12
Chapter 12 Pedestrian and Vehicle Circulation
Section 12.03 Local and Neighborhood Streets
The neighborhood street network shall form an organized, connected pattern that defines the
community both functionally and visibly. Streets should be planned so that future urban expansion
will not require the conversion of minor streets to major streets. Streets shall take the form of two‐way
streets, two one‐way streets separated by a landscaped median or a residential lane and shall be
designed to respect and follow the existing terrain and natural contours. Streets should, when possible,
parallel existing tree lines, minimize construction and grading costs, promote pedestrian movement
and minimize crossing of open space areas. In addition, streets should be designed to be short in
length with cross‐street access and traffic calming measures, when appropriate, to promote safety and
discourage speeding.
Private streets may be considered within the ETJ in accordance with the Williamson County
Subdivision Regulations, or within the city limits through a Planned Unit Development or Mixed‐Use
Regulating Plan. Private streets shall meet all requirements of this Chapter.
12.03.010 Neighborhood Street Classifications
Table 12.03.020 Neighborhood Street Classification Standards
Alley Residential
Lane Local Street Residential
Collector
Neighbor-
hood
Collector
Average Daily Trip
(ADT) Projected --- 1-800 1-800 801-1200 801-2500
Design Speed (mph) --- 30 30 30 35
Right-of-way
(min. feet)
20
(private) 40 50 50 65 50
Paved Width (min.
feet) 15 20 31 35 25
Parking Prohibited Cut-out
parking only 2 Sides 2 Sides Prohibited
Sidewalks (feet) None 5 5 5 5
Sidewalk/Trail Clear
Zone (feet) - Optional Optional 5 6
Driveways Permitted Yes No Yes Yes No
Intersection Spacing
(feet) 1,500 1,320 1,320 1,320 2000
Table Notes
Page 8 of 20
Page 2 of 12
1) All streets, with the exception of Alleys, are two‐way streets. A Residential Lane may be signed for
one‐way with parking allowed on one side of the street. A one‐way Lane cannot exceed 300 feet in
length.
2) Driveway access to Single‐family or Two‐family dwelling units on Loaded Residential Collectors is
permitted when spaced 70 feet apart measured from center to center of driveway with administrative
discretion provided for flexibility on exact spacing distance. This requirement may be waived if less
than 25% of the linear ROW frontage contains front‐loaded lots. Shared driveways are not permitted
on Residential Collectors.
Section 12.04 Subdivision and Street Design (New to Commission)
To provide an interconnected network of neighborhoods, new subdivisions shall be designed to
integrate into the existing and proposed street network, account for primary and secondary entry
points into a subdivision, connect to existing streets stubbed from adjacent areas, and design a
neighborhood street layout focused on the safety of vehicles, bikes and pedestrians.
12.04.010 General Street Layout
A. All existing streets in adjoining areas shall be connected and continued and shall be at least as
wide as such existing streets and in alignment therewith. Practical downsizing or upsizing of
streets will be reviewed and permitted by the Development Engineer.
B. Whenever street connections are required by this Section, the right‐of‐way shall be extended and
the street improvements constructed to the edge of the boundary property line at the point where
the connection to the anticipated or proposed street is expected.
C. Collector streets should take precedent over local streets when intersecting with arterial‐level
roadways.
D. Long street lengths, particularly for collector‐level streets, shall contain features that break up the
street, including medians, roundabouts, defined pedestrian crossings, 4‐way street intersections,
etc.
E. All Major collector‐designated streets and higher classifications shall connect on both ends to an
existing or planned collector or higher‐level street. All other collectors should generally connect
to another collector although exceptions can be made through an Administrative Exception.
Examples may include an uncertain destination for the roadway, whether such collector is a
better access point to an arterial roadway than a local street, etc. It may be acceptable in certain
circumstances for a collector to end at an intersection of a local street, roundabout, or other road
division, but in most circumstances should not taper down into or continue as a front‐loaded
local street. Collectors shall not turn in a perpendicular manner after a stop or 90 degree bend,
nor shall a collector end in a cul‐de‐sac or other turn‐around.
12.04.020 Street Network Connections
In order to further the Overall Transportation Plan goals of an interconnected street network,
subdivisions shall be designed to provide for rational locations of street openings to existing or planned
public roadways and adjacent properties. Street connections shall be made based on the number of
proposed residential lots/units, the size and configuration of the land, and the type of roadways
constructed. Connection locations shall be depicted on the Preliminary Plat, Concept Plan and any
applicable phasing plans associated with the plat or Concept Plan shall conform to the following
standards.
Page 9 of 20
Page 3 of 12
A. Section Definitions
1. Existing Street Connection – A public street connection to an existing public street which
ultimately connects in two or more locations to a Major Street.
2. Future Street Connection – A street stub to an adjacent property that does not immediately
connect to a public street, with ultimate connection to the street stub reliant upon the
development of an adjacent property.
3. Lots and units are interchangeable for the purposes of this Section. A subdivision and a Site
Development Plan for multifamily are interchangeable for the purposes of this Section.
B. Street Connections Required
Each subdivision requires a minimum number of street connections to the public street network,
depending on the number of lots/units. In addition to these minimum connections, block length and
connectivity provisions may increase the number of connections required.
1. Minimum Street Connections
a. A subdivision with 5 lots or greater shall contain a minimum of two (2) street connections.
b. 100 lots or greater shall contain a minimum of three (3) street connections.
b. 150 lots or greater shall contain a minimum of four (4) street connections.
c. 200 lots or greater shall contain a minimum of five (5) street connections.
d. 300 lots or greater shall contain a minimum of six (6) street connections.
e. 500 lots to 999 lots shall contain a minimum of seven (7) street connections and every
additional 500 lots thereafter shall require one (1) additional street connection.
2. Existing Street Connections
Of the required Street Connections described above:
a) A subdivision with 80 lots or greater shall contain two (2) Existing Street Connections. A
Major Collector containing a divided median and four lanes that directly connects to an
existing Major Street may suffice as both connections provided that two routes are
accessible to all lots within the subdivision.
b) A subdivision with 500 lots or greater shall contain three (3) Existing Street Connections.
C. Additional Requirements
1. Streets within a Residential Rural/Estate Subdivision that connect beyond the subdivision
shall be constructed to the width and standards of the connecting roadway.
2. For each Future Street Connection, the developer shall submit with the plat a graphical
depiction of how the street stub can eventually connect to the street network, in order to
ensure that the location of the stub is adequate. The Director may require topographical,
hydrological, tree cover and photographical information to determine adequacy.
3. The Director has the authority to require that a proposed Future Street Connection be shifted
to another location in order to minimize block length, discourage cut‐through traffic find a
more suitable location, and/or preserve trees or other natural features.
Page 10 of 20
Page 4 of 12
4. The developer shall place signage at the end of a Future Street Connection and on the street
sign at the nearest intersection indicating the future street extension, in accordance with the
Construction and Specification Manual.
5. An existing platted residential lot or portion thereof may not be utilized as a means to connect
a proposed street to an existing public street or cul‐de‐sac in order to meet the requirements
of this Section.
12.04.030 Streets and Blocks
A. Intersection Spacing
Intersection spacing for Neighborhood Streets shall not exceed the lengths specified in Table
12.03.020. Intersection spacing shall be measured from the center line of three‐way or four‐way
intersections of through‐streets. Cul‐de‐sac and other non through‐streets do not apply to
intersection spacing measurement. Intersection spacing shall apply beyond each individual
subdivision and partial spacing widths shall be continued into the adjacent subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan roadways shall not have intersection spacing requirements.
B. Cul-de-sacs
1. A Cul‐de‐sac shall contain no more than 20 total lots.
2. A Cul‐de‐sac longer than 200 feet shall contain a pedestrian or trail access from the cul‐de‐sac
to the nearest public street or regional trail system within the same subdivision.
3. A Cul‐de‐sac shall not exceed 800 feet in length.
C. Street Connectivity
The street network for any subdivision with internal roads or access to any public road shall achieve
a connectivity ratio of not less than 1.40. A Connectivity Ratio is achieved by taking the number of
street links divided by the number of nodes or end links, including cul‐de‐sac heads. A link is any
portion of a street defined by a node at each end or at one end. A node is the terminus of a street or
the intersection of two or more streets.
1. Stubs to adjacent property are considered links, but alleys are not.
2. Any location where a street T‐intersects with another street of any classification are
considered a node.
3. Any curve or bend of a street 75 degrees or greater are considered a node. Less than 75
degrees is not considered a node.
4. Streets intersecting to an external collector or arterial street are not considered nodes, but are
considered links.
Page 11 of 20
Page 5 of 12
Table 12.04.030 Street Connectivity Sample Computation
The following sample calculation shows how the street connectivity ratio for a subdivision shall be
calculated.
Example 1: Example 2:
Does not meet required 1.201.40 ratio Same project modified to meet required 1.201.40 ratio
(13 links/11 nodes = 1.18 ratio) (16 links/11 nodes = 1.45 ratio)
Numbers indicate counted Links = Nodes
12.04.040 Exceptions
1. Exceptions to the requirements in Section 12.04 may be considered by the Director if a natural
or manmade barrier, such as a highway, railroad, floodplain, severe topography, existing
development or similar obstacles, prevents its implementation. All other exceptions such as
undesired connections, questions regarding land use compatibility, number of connections,
type of street or location shall follow the Subdivision Variance procedures in Section 3.XXX.
2. When Street Connections cannot otherwise be made, each Existing Street Connection
classified as a collector‐level or higher roadway counts as an additional future street
connection. A future street connection classified as a collector‐level or higher roadway counts
as two (2) local streets. A future street connection classified as a Major collector or higher
roadway counts as three (3) local streets.
3. A Subdivision Variance, per Section 3.XX can be considered for proposed and required Street
Connections if such street would connect a commercial/industrial development and a
residential development. In such instance, the subdivider who proposes or is required to
make such a connection may apply for the variance and must ensure that removal of such a
connection does not cause detrimental effects to the street network of the adjacent
Page 12 of 20
Page 6 of 12
subdivision. The subdivider shall demonstrate that all other administrative options have been
exhausted.
3. A Subdivision Variance may be considered for all other requirements of this Section. The
subdivider shall demonstrate that all other administrative options have been exhausted.
4. If otherwise not eligible for a Subdivision Variance or exception provided for in this Section, a
public street or street stub that is desired by any party to be closed, disconnected or never
connected to another public street shall be submitted to the City Council for abandonment.
Street Abandonment shall follow the procedures in the City’s Municipal Code.
Section 12.08 Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility (New to Commission)
12.08.010 General
A. Comprehensive Plan Requirements
Any sidewalk, pedestrian path /trail /greenbelt or bicycle trail identified within the City Sidewalk
Master Plan, Overall Transportation Plan or the Parks Recreation and Open Space Master Plan shall
be required of the developer at the time of development.
B. Sidewalk Requirements
3. Sidewalks within a single‐ or two‐family subdivision shall be constructed within the right‐of‐
way, unless otherwise approved by the Development Engineer. Sidewalks located in common
areas or along Neighborhood Collectors shall be constructed and accepted along with the
street improvements. Sidewalks on single‐family and two‐family lots may be eligible for a
deferment of such construction in accordance with Subsection (F),
E. Sidewalk Fund
A separate fund to be deposited at the highest interest rate permitted by law to be entitled
“Sidewalk Fund” is established and shall hold any financial contributions paid by owners,
developers, etc., as applicable to this Chapter. Monies shall be held in said fund in trust to be used
solely and exclusively for the purpose of purchasing and/or equipping public streets for sidewalks
and associated pedestrian mobility infrastructure.
F. Alternative Pedestrian Improvements
1. An alternative location or design variation(s) of sidewalks, pedestrian access facilities, or hike
and bike trails to a standard that deviates from the Construction Specifications and Standard
Manual can be requested. If approved by the Development Engineer, ownership and
maintenance may be transferred to the property owner or property owner association and
recorded by separate instrument. In such instance, a public access agreement shall be
approved and the alternative design shall be AASHTO and ADA compliant.
2. A delay in construction of a sidewalk may be granted for a period not to exceed 36 months if
the City, County, or State have adopted an engineered road section for the adjacent public
street that would widen, reconstruct, or otherwise reconfigure the road and the alignment for
such design has not yet been determined. Once an acceptable location for the sidewalk has
been determined that would not require replacement of the sidewalk during construction of
the roadway; the property owner has six months to complete the sidewalk construction.
Page 13 of 20
Page 7 of 12
3. When an administrative alternative cannot be achieved, s Subdivision Variance, pursuant to
Section 3.xxx, may be requested for either fees‐in‐lieu of construction or waiver of a sidewalk,
pedestrian access way or trail at such time the improvement is required. Justification for fees‐
in‐lieu include, but are not limited to, the location of the facility in relation to the existing or
planned pedestrian network, the immediate need for the facility, difficult topographical or
other natural features on site, etc. Prior to approval of the plat, Site Development Plan, or
other applicable process, payment shall be provided for deposit into the Sidewalk Fund
equivalent to the cost of construction as estimated from the construction plans approved by
the Development Engineer. A request may be made to City Council for City participation in
any pedestrian improvements required by this Chapter.
4. Sidewalks in a single‐ and two‐family subdivision located along the front or side lot lines may
be deferred from time of subdivision plat to the time of building permit in exchange for
payment to the City of 10% of the total cost of the uninstalled sidewalk improvements for
each phase of development. Such funds shall be allocated to the Sidewalk Fund that may be
utilized by City, at its sole discretion, for needed pedestrian improvements across the City.
Section 12.09 Road Adequacy StandardsTraffic Impact Analysis
12.09.010 Purpose
To ensure that development impacts are mitigated through specified constructed public improvements
and/or financial contributions thereto and that such requirements are proportional to the traffic
demands created by a new development. There must be a rough proportionality between the traffic
impacts created by a new development and the associated impact requirements placed on the property
owner.
12.059.0120 Applicability
The road adequacy regulations in this Section apply to specified land development activities within the
City limits and within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Any development permit or subdivision
approval in accordance with this Unified Development Code must comply with these road adequacy
standards.
12.095.030 Traffic Impact Analysis
A. When Required
1. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be required with any application for a subdivision, Site
Plan approval, PUD, or other procedure application type for which the proposed development
generates traffic in excess of 2,000 average daily trips, , based upon the latest edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. In the event that specific
land uses for the development are not specified at the time of subdivision or plat application, the
daily trip generation rate for the most intensive land use from the ITE Manual for the land use
classification of the application shall be used to compute the estimated average daily trips.
2. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared by a licensed professional in
accordance with standard transportation engineering practices for purposes of determining the
adequacy of the road network to serve the proposed development, and whether off‐site road
dedication and improvements should be made to mitigate the effects of the development
proposed in the application.
Form
Page 14 of 20
Page 8 of 12
3. An initial Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the first application for the
development that triggers the requirement. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis shall be
submitted with each Final Plat submitted for approval and shall be generally consistent with the
initial Traffic Impact Analysis. The initial Traffic Impact Analysis shall be updated whenever a
subdivision plat or Site Plan is modified to authorize more intensive development.
B. Study Scope
When a Traffic Impact Analysis is required, the scope of the analysis shall be determined during
a scoping meeting with the Development Engineer. The scoping meeting may occur during any
required pre‐application meeting, but may also be scheduled after an initial pre‐application
meeting. No application requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis may be made until the scope of the
required analysis has been determined. The Development Engineer may involve representatives
of or request assessments from other agencies and departments. The elements to be determined
during the scoping session shall include the following.
1. Definition of Impact Area
The points of access and key streets and intersections that may be affected by development
of the subject tract constitute the impact area. Traffic recorder and turning movement
assessment locations shall be determined.
2. Period of Analysis
Periods of analysis shall include: average daily traffic, peak AM and PM, or weekend peak
hour.
3. Analysis Scenarios
Scenarios for analysis include: existing conditions, opening year conditions with and without
development, and 10 years after opening with and without development.
4. Process
Process for determining trip generation and distribution including: trip generation category,
diversion assumptions, distribution assumptions, and capacity analysis.
5. Growth Rate Assumption
The rate of growth assumed in background traffic assumptions.
6. Future Development
Planned developments in the area that have been approved or are under review.
C. Submission Requirements
1. Every application for a subdivision or plat approval, Site Plan approval, PUD or other
procedure for which the proposed development generates traffic in excess of 2,000 average
daily trips, shall be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Analysis shall be based on the ITE
Manual, prepared in accordance with standard transportation engineering practices for
purposes of determining the adequacy of the road network to serve the proposed
development, and whether off‐site road dedication and improvements should be made to
mitigate the effects of the development proposed in the application. (MOVED)
2. An initial Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the first subdivision application
for the development. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted with each Final
Page 15 of 20
Page 9 of 12
Plat submitted for approval and shall be generally consistent with the initial Traffic Impact
Analysis. The initial Traffic Impact Analysis shall be updated whenever a subdivision plat or
Site Plan is modified to authorize more intensive development. (MOVED)
D. Traffic Study Elements
A letter report or special report shall only include those elements agreed upon in the scoping
meeting. A full Traffic Impact Study shall include the following elements.
1. Existing Condition Survey
a. Street System Description
The street system shall be described including geometric features, lane usage, traffic
control, signage, sight distances, and adjacent uses and curb cuts.
b. Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes shall be provided for the impact area including both ADT
(Average Daily Traffic) and “Design” peak hour volumes. ADT shall be derived from the
latest available counts taken by the City or Texas Department of Transportation. Peak
hour volumes shall be obtained from field counts. Data shall be adjusted for daily and
seasonal variations. Turning movement counts for the peak hour shall be provided for
critical intersections. Peak hour periods shall be as determined at the scoping meeting.
c. Capacity Analysis
Existing capacity of signalized and unsignalized intersections.
d. Other
Other items may be required at the discretion of the Director depending upon the type
and scale of the project. These may include but are not limited to: queue length analysis,
pedestrian counts, accident data, traffic speeds (both 50th and 85th percentile), and
stopping sight distances.
2. Future Without Development
Capacity analysis is to be provided for opening year and plus 10‐year for key intersections
(and roadway segments where appropriate) without the development but including any
planned developments. The analysis shall be based upon the Highway Capacity Manual or
other methodologies approved in advance by the Director.
3. Future with Development
a. Projections of the daily and peak hour traffic generation of the project shall be made
using the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual unless the Director determines
that locally derived data will provide more accurate forecasts. Data from similar facilities
may be used where the information is not available from ITE.
b. The projected trips shall be distributed onto the road network as agreed in the scoping
meeting.
c. Capacity analysis for opening year and plus 10‐year for key intersections (and roadway
segments where appropriate).
Page 16 of 20
Page 10 of 12
d. Special analysis as may be required to determine warrants for signalization, minimum
safe sight distances, gap analysis, turning radius requirements, queue length analysis,
turning lane length analysis, curb cut locations, or similar requirements.
4. Mitigation Plan
Where the analysis indicates that the project will create deficiencies in the impact area,
improvements shall be recommended which shall include projected cost estimates. The
design of improvements shall be in accordance with specifications of the Development
Engineer and, where appropriate, the Texas Department of Transportation. The mitigation
plan shall also include any dedications necessary to comply with the Minimum Road
Standards described below. Where the final approval authority for any procedure
determines that a mitigation plan is not adequate to address the traffic impacts of the project,
it may serve as a basis for denial of the permit or subdivision plat.
E. Consultants
The City may require that an independent licensed professional traffic engineer be hired by the
applicant to perform the required Traffic Impact Analysis or to review all or part of a study
prepared by the applicant’s consultants.
F. City Evaluation and Action
The City shall evaluate the adequacy of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the applicant.
Based upon such evaluation, the City shall determine (1) whether the application may be
approved in the absence of dedication of rights‐of‐way or construction of improvements to each
affected thoroughfare and (2) the extent of the applicant’s obligations to make such dedications or
improvements. The City shall condition the approval of the subdivision application on one or
more of the following performances by the applicant:
1. Delay or phasing of development until thoroughfares with adequate capacity or intersection
improvements are constructed;
2. A reduction in the density or intensity of the proposed development sufficient to assure that
the road network has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic to be
generated by the development;
3. The dedication or construction of thoroughfares or traffic control improvements needed to
mitigate the traffic impacts generated by the proposed development.
G. Deferral of Obligation
Upon request of the applicant or property owner, the obligation to dedicate or improve
thoroughfare rights‐of‐way or to make intersection improvements imposed on an application
may be deferred to a later stage of the development process.
As a condition of deferring the obligation to dedicate rights‐of‐way for or to improve
thoroughfares, which deferral shall be in the sole discretion of the City, the City shall require the
developer to execute a subdivision improvement agreement specifying the amount and timing of
the rights‐of‐way dedication or improvements to thoroughfares.
H. Cash Contributions
In lieu of the obligation to dedicate or improve thoroughfares or make traffic control
improvements to achieve road adequacy, the applicant may propose to make equivalent cash
Page 17 of 20
Page 11 of 12
contributions based upon the development project’s proportionate share of the costs of
improvements, which the City in its sole discretion may accept in satisfaction of road adequacy
standards in this Section. Any funds accepted by the City shall be earmarked for construction of
the improvements for which the contribution was made.
I. Options
Whenever the proposed development’s share of the costs of a thoroughfare or traffic control
improvement needed to mitigate traffic generated by the development is less than 100 percent,
the City in its sole discretion may do the following:
1. Participate in the excess costs; or
2. Aggregate the costs of improving multiple thoroughfares or intersections identified in the
Traffic Impact Analysis, and require improvements to only some of the thoroughfares or
intersections affected by the development.
J. Appeal of Traffic Impact Analysis Conditions
Any appeal of a disapproved or denied final action resulting, in full or in part, from a
determination that the Mitigation Plan was insufficient shall include the following.
1. The appeal shall allege that recommended conditions requiring dedication or construction of
thoroughfares or traffic control improvements are not roughly proportional to the nature
and extent of the traffic impacts on the road network created by the development being
proposed.
2. The appeal may also allege that the imposition of the conditions deprives the owner of the
economically viable use of the land or of a vested property right.
3. The applicant shall provide a study in support of the appeal including the following
information:
a. Total vehicle miles of road capacity utilized by the proposed development, employing
average trip length and equivalency Tables provided by the City.
b. Total vehicle miles of road capacity supplied by proposed dedications of rights‐of‐ way
or improvements to thoroughfares.
4. The City Council, shall consider the appeal and determine whether the street or traffic
control dedication and construction requirements are roughly proportional to the nature and
extent of the impacts on the road network created by the development proposed. If the
petition also alleges that the proposed dedication or construction requirements constitute a
deprivation of economically viable use or of a vested property right, the Hearing body also
shall consider such issues. Following such determinations, the appeal Hearing body may
take any of the following actions regarding the road adequacy portion of the appeal only:
a. Deny the appeal, upon determining that the required dedications of rights‐of‐way for or
improvements to thoroughfares or traffic control improvements are roughly proportional
to the nature and extent of the impacts created by the development, and order that such
dedication or improvements be made as a condition of approval of the subdivision
application.
b. Deny the appeal, finding that the dedication or improvement requirements are
inadequate to achieve road adequacy, and either deny the subdivision application or
Page 18 of 20
Page 12 of 12
require that additional dedications of rights‐of‐way dedication for or improvements to
thoroughfares or traffic control improvements, be made as a condition of approval of the
application.
c. Grant the appeal and waive in whole or in part any dedication or construction
requirement that is not roughly proportional; or
d. Grant the appeal and direct that the City participate in the costs of acquiring rights‐of‐
way or constructing improvements sufficient to achieve proportionality.
Page 19 of 20
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
June 8, 2016
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion regarding p o tential July meeting and pos s ible d is cus s io n items for that meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will bring forward standards fo r streets that allow for s treet trees , d ownto wn s treets, and alternative
s treets such as c o ns ervation sub d ivision. Als o will have other d o wntown s tandards p er the revised
Downto wn Mas ter Plan. Changes to c o mp rehens ive plan boundary street requirements will also b e
d is cus s ed . The remaining language will comp lete Chap ter 12 for Commissio n review. S taff will als o bring
p ro p o s ed c hanges to Chapter 6 and 7 regarding general lot requirements and s o me modified s etbac ks and
acc es s standard s . Chap ter 3 changes to various proc es s sec tions related to infras truc ture will also b e
d is cus s ed . Chapter 13 Parkland req uirements will als o b e on the agend a.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddo x
Page 20 of 20