The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About_Mobility_Georgetown_Citizen_Advisory_Committee_Agenda_12_14_2020_3649Notice of Meeting for the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee of the City of Georgetown December 14, 2020 at 5:30 P M at Virtual T he City of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease contact the C ity S ecretary's O ffice, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled 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 Relay Texas at 711. Consistent with Governor Greg Abbott’s suspension of various provisions of the O pen M eetings Act, effective August 1, 2020 and until further notice, to reduce the chance of C O V I D-19 transmission, all City of Georgetown Advisory Board meetings will be held virtually. P ublic comment will be allowed via teleconference; no one will be allowed to appear in person. To participate, please copy and paste the weblink below into your browser: Citizen comments are accepted in three different formats: 1 . Submit written comments to shirley.rinn@georgetown.org by 1:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting and the R ecording Secretary will read your comments into the recording during the item that is being discussed. 2. Log onto the meeting at the link above and “raise your hand” during the item 3. Use your home/mobile phone to call the toll-free number To join a Zoom meeting, clic k on the link provided and join as an attendee. You will be asked to enter your name and email address (this is so we can identify you when you are called upon). To speak on an item, click on the “Raise your H and” option at the bottom of the Zoom meeting webpage once that item has opened. When you are called upon by the R ecording Secretary, your device will be remote ly un-muted by the Administrator and you may speak for three minutes. P lease state your name clearly, and when your time is over, your device will be muted again. Use of profanity, threatening language, slanderous remarks or threats of harm are not allowed and will result in you being immediately removed from the meeting. Join Zoom M eeting https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F %2F georgetowntx.zoom.us%2 F j%2F 93415333815%3F pwd%3D S XY5TG1nZ3hF NCtxcjhH Y V VRY WxjU T09&data=04%7C01%7Cshirley.rinn%40georgetown.org%7C0d188ee414004eedf90e08d89d487224%7Ca14298699c6647a79f6c115d9a1c90d9%7C0%7 C0%7C637432281756207379%7 C Unknown%7CTWF pbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoi M C4wL jAwM D A iL C J Q IjoiV2luM zIi L C J B TiI6Ik1ha Wwi L C J XV CI6M n0%3D %7C 1000&sdata=7S7V6uH %2 F 3UdE %2B wAomD K B %2 F 6d3LdGRjGP jE VxYbyVtWwg%3 D&reserved=0 M eeting ID: 934 1533 3815 P asscode: 818850 O ne tap mobile +13462487799,,93415333815#,,,,,,0#,,818850# U S (H ouston) +16699006833,,93415333815#,,,,,,0#,,818850# U S (San Jose) Dial by your location +1 346 248 7799 US (H ouston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (C hicago) +1 929 205 6099 US (N ew York) 833 548 0282 U S Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free M eeting ID: 934 1533 3815 P asscode: 818850 F ind your local number: https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F %2F georgetowntx.zoom.us%2 F u%2F abtvM a5cwQ &data=04%7C01%7Cshirley.rinn%40georgetown.org%7C0d188ee414004eedf90e08d89d487224%7Ca14298699c6647a79f6c115d9a1c90d9%7C0%7 C0%7C637432281756207379%7C Unknown%7CTWF pbGZsb3d8eyJ WIjoiM C4wL jAwM D AiL C J Q IjoiV2luM zIi L C J B Ti I6Ik1ha Wwi L CJ XVCI6M n0%3D%7C 1000&sdata=pqgfVSLgci ZfO q%2F R J C Y R C Yz2qztU3V P E DxjVkoU N 6jY%3D&reserved=0 Legislativ e Regular Agenda Page 1 of 47 A R oll C all - C here Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, C ommittee C o-C hairs B C all to Order - C here Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, Committee Co-Chairs C Discussion on how the Mobility G eorgetown C itizen Advisory C ommittee virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the C ommittee– Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the C ity Manager D C onsideration and approval of the minutes for the Mobility G eorgetown C itizen Advisory Committee for the Meeting held on Monday, November 9, 2020 — C here Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, C ommittee C o-C hairs E P resentation and discussion regarding the Williams Drive G ateway P lan – Nathaniel Waggoner, Long R ange P lanning Manager F P resentation and discussion regarding the feedback and input received through the public engagement and citizen survey – Jake Gutekunst, Kimley-Horn G C onsideration and possible action to approve the projects in a bond package for the proposed bond targeting May 2021 – Jake G utekunst, Kimley-Horn H P ublic C omment - Chere Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, C ommittee C o-Chairs Adjournment Adjourn Certificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, Georgetown, T X 78626, a place readily accessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary Page 2 of 47 City of Georgetown, Texas Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee December 14, 2020 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and approval of the minutes for the Mobility G eorgetown C itizen Advisory C ommittee for the Meeting held on Monday, November 9, 2020 — C here Heintzmann and Erc el Bras hear, C ommittee C o-C hairs IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: S hirley R inn on behalf of Bridget Hinze Weber, As s is tant to the C ity Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type DRAFT Minutes Backup Material Page 3 of 47 Minutes of the Meeting of the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee of the City of Georgetown, Texas November 9, 2020 5:30pm The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members Present: Ercel Brashear, Chere Heintzmann, Keith Brainard, Bill Dryden, Kathy Sutphin, Steve Ricks, Steve Bohnenkamp, Kimberly Bronner, Glenn Holzer, Regina Watson, Chris Leon, Jesse Saunders, Alison McKee, Walter Bradley Board Members Absent: Bob Smith, Rich Barbee Staff Present: David Morgan, Laurie Brewer, Bridget Weber, Wes Wright, Wayne Reed, Nathan Parras, Aly Van Dyke Others Present: Jake Gutekunst – Kimley-Horn Consultants Legislative Regular Agenda A Roll Call - Chere Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, Committee Co-Chairs Roll was called. Bob Smith and Rich Barbee were marked absent. B Call to Order - Chere Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, Committee Co-Chairs Ercel Brashear called the meeting to order. C Discussion on how the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Committee– Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager Weber went over the meeting procedures which are including in the presentation in the agenda. D Consideration and approval of the minutes for the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee for the Meeting held on Monday, October 26, 2020 — Chere Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, Committee Co-Chairs Motion by Sutphin, second by Bohnenkamp. Roll call vote Ercel Brashear - yes Chere Heintzmann - yes Alison McKee - yes Keith Brainard - yes Bill Dryden - yes Page 4 of 47 Kathy Sutphin - yes Steve Ricks - yes Steve Bohnenkamp - yes Kimberly Bronner - yes Glenn Holzer - yes Regina Watson - yes Chris Leon – yes Jesse Saunders – yes Walter Bradley - yes Approved 14-0 (Barbee and Smith - absent) E Consideration and possible action to approve the projects in a bond package for public input for the proposed bond targeting May 2021 – Jake Gutekunst, Kimley-Horn. Gutekunst gave presentation on new rankings which is included in the packet. Ricks stated that he had problems with going with either Williams Dr projects because they don’t add any lanes of traffic only medians. Watson commented on FM971 and said she feels strongly about an East-West corridor that runs efficiently and smoothly and that 130 is important and will continue to be important for Georgetown. Bohnenkamp added that he agreed with Ricks that all the projects are certainly worthwhile and to keep in mind that they have to narrow it down for this particular bond project. Sutphin asked and Gutekunst replied that the medians on Williams Dr will improve traffic flow and that the general percentage they usually see with these kinds of improvements is a 10% improvement in traffic flow. Gutekunst also pointed out that there is a possibility some of the money could be used to add turn lanes and make intersection improvements. Sutphin asked and Gutekunst replied that money for sidewalks was included – specifically to fill in gaps and repair failing sidewalks. Sutphin added that her priority in looking at Williams Dr was that it improved safety. McKee added that she agreed with Ricks sentiment that she would rather spend money on adding lanes instead of just medians, but acknowledged that she found Gutekunst’s input helpful. McKee also wondered how it would affect the businesses along Williams Dr. Bradley stated he was skeptical that sidewalks along Williams Dr would significantly decrease traffic. Bronner added that she agreed with Ricks that she had ranked Williams Dr lower on her list because it did not add lanes and, now that she knew the traffic improvements would only about 10%, she would have rated it lower on her list. Bronner asked if they could send the top ten to get feedback from the community. Brashear replied that that is the task the committee is focused on now, trying to decide what list they bring to the town hall. Dryden agreed with the sentiments that he doesn’t like that Williams Dr isn’t adding lanes. Holzer stated that he was in favor of the Williams Dr project because it significantly increases safety. Sutphin asked if the barriers on Williams Dr will stop pedestrians from crossing or will it just prevent cars from turning. Gutekunst replied that the intention with Williams Dr is for there to be a curb with some sort of landscaping in the middle so it will not pedestrian crossings. Sutphin asked if Costco would contribute to the road construction and Brashear answered that it was part of their development agreement. Morgan added that Costco was required to do a TIA, but there won’t be anymore significant dollars from Costco for more road expansion because they already expanded the Lakeway intersection. Morgan added that he believes it’s important for the public to weigh in on the debates the committee is Page 5 of 47 having over these projects and that public feedback will help the committee decide on a final list to present to Council. Morgan also said that it would be good for a future meeting to go into the Williams Drive Corridor Study which might be helpful to understanding the context of the proposed improvements for Williams Dr. Ricks made a motion that the committee present the top 15 projects to the public with costs listed, but no priority ranking. Sutphin seconded the motion. Bohnenkamp commented that he would oppose that motion because the length of the town hall would not allow citizens to get enough detail on the projects without the rankings presented. Bronner also opposed because 15 projects are too many for the citizens to digest during the town hall. Holzer agreed with Ricks’ motion and said that it is good not to have a priority list to see what kind of feedback they get without it. Brainard stated that he also agrees that 15 projects are too many to present and should focus on 10. Bradley added that he thinks it will not be beneficial to present so many projects to citizens because they will not return meaningful feedback. Roll Call Vote Ercel Brashear - no Chere Heintzmann - yes Alison McKee - no Keith Brainard - no Bill Dryden - no Kathy Sutphin - yes Steve Ricks - yes Steve Bohnenkamp - no Kimberly Bronner - no Glenn Holzer - yes Regina Watson - yes Chris Leon – no Walter Bradley – no Jesse Saunders – no Motion fails. 8 – no, 6 – yes. Dryden made a motion that the top 10 projects be presented to the public with costs, but not with ranking. Second by Brainard. Heintzmann asked if the presentation will include all the background information on the items. Brashear confirmed that it would. Bronner suggested that the committee not present Council’s $50 million budget to the public and allow the public to have input on the projects without that number. Brashear added that the Council has already publicly stated their decision. Ricks asked if the Austin Ave Bridges could be presented as a pedestrian bridge only. Gutekunst replied that just that would be about $3.7 million and would not include any rehabilitation to the existing bridge. Roll Call Vote Page 6 of 47 Ercel Brashear - yes Chere Heintzmann - yes Alison McKee - yes Keith Brainard - yes Bill Dryden - yes Kathy Sutphin - yes Steve Ricks - yes Steve Bohnenkamp - no Kimberly Bronner - yes Glenn Holzer - yes Regina Watson - yes Chris Leon – yes Walter Bradley – yes Jesse Saunders – yes Approved 13-1 (Bohnenkamp – voted no, Barbee and Smith - absent) F Public Comment - Ercel Brashear, Committee Co-Chair There were no public comments. Adjournment Adjourn Motion by Heintzmann, second by Dryden. Roll Call Vote Ercel Brashear - yes Chere Heintzmann - yes Alison McKee - yes Keith Brainard - yes Bill Dryden - yes Kathy Sutphin - yes Steve Ricks - yes Steve Bohnenkamp - yes Kimberly Bronner - yes Glenn Holzer - yes Regina Watson - yes Chris Leon – yes Walter Bradley – yes Jesse Saunders – yes Approved 14-0 (Barbee and Smith - absent) Adjourned at 6:33 pm Page 7 of 47 Page 8 of 47 City of Georgetown, Texas Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee December 14, 2020 S UB J E C T: P res entation and disc ussion regarding the Williams Drive G ateway P lan – Nathaniel Waggoner, Long R ange P lanning Manager IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: S hirley R inn on behalf of Bridget Hinze Weber, As s is tant to the C ity Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Pres entation and dis cussion regarding the Williams Drive Gateway Plan Backup Material Page 9 of 47 Williams Drive StudyProcess Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 Study Process and Tasks Study Kickoff Existing Conditions Recommendations Final Plan City Council & CAMPO Board Adoption Concept Plan Project List Implementation- City & Partners July 2016 June 2017 NOW Page 10 of 47 Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 Williams DriveExisting Conditions Overview The Williams Drive study incorporates an area over 6 miles in length with a number of different characteristics along its route. These include: - Varying daily vehicle volumes - Differing road widths - Land use densities - Sidewalk coverage - Walkscore* Austin Ave I - 35 Lakeway Dr Shell Rd Serenada Dr Del Webb Blvd N Lake Rd 76’60’86’ 11,000 14,000 25,000 28,000 29,000 33,000 22,000 90’ROAD WIDTH SIDEWALKS ADT LAND USES WALK SCORE LANE CONFIGURATION Low Density Residential Low Density Commercial Low Density Commercial Commercial CommercialLow Density CommercialLow Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial CommercialOpen Space Open Space Open Space Walk Score56Walk Score54Walk Score32Walk Score22Walk Score41 Walk Score42Walk Score9Walk Score0 Sun City Development Georgetown Village Walk Score14Walk Score2 * Walkscore measures the walkability of an area based on access to amenities and pedestrian friendliness. A score of 100 is a walkers paradise. Overview Page 11 of 47 Williams DriveLand Use Change Susceptibility to Change Legend Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 Land uses tend to evolve and change as an area grows and redevelops. The land uses in the Williams Drive study area were evaluated to estimate potential for change in the future, and when that change might occur. Susceptibility to Change N / A High - within 10 years Medium - within 10 - 20 years Low - 20 + years Page 12 of 47 Williams Drive Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 Street Network Although Georgetown has a fairly extensive street network, only a limited portion of this network provides a true connecting function. When the dead-ends, cul-de-sacs, and other disconnected streets are removed from the map (as seen on the effective street network map) fewer travel options exist. This is particularly true for longer distance trips, and increases travel on corridors such as Williams Drive. Full Street Network Effective Street Network “Because of the poor connectivity of these collectors, the city is facing increasing congestion problems in certain areas. Improving connectivity of the roadway network should be a priority…” -- 2030 Comprehensive Plan Network Options Page 13 of 47 Williams Drive StudyWhat We Heard Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 November Charrette Events •86 Attendees •Over 50 Comments 1,300 member email list 8,100 views 5,500 views 33,000 printed media copies 400+ phone calls Outreach to Date: March Open House •72 Attendees •21 Comments “Lighting would help increase pedestrian and bike traffic” “Light timing is a cheap and easy fix” “Traffic increases closer to I-35” “Interconnect parking lots to keep cars off the street” “Costs will be high but so will the cost of doing nothing” “Would like landscaped median with designated left-turns” “The entire 6-mile strip should have a sidewalk on both sides” “Plan/encourage more and better development beyond Jim Hogg to prevent future problems” Land Use 14% Aesthetic 10%Pedestrian 23% 12%Bicycle Automobile* 39% 2% Transit Public Comments by Category *Congestion accounted for 14% of comments October Open House •105 Attendees •71 Comments Page 14 of 47 Williams Drive StudyCharacter Areas Character Areas • Williams Drive transverses six areas with distinctly different character • Each area differs in width of pavement, posted traffic speed, and in the use and form of adjacent development • These characteristics contribute to each area’s identity and the experience of visiting, or traveling through it • Each area was used to designate the different conditions and approach to transportation infrastructure and the way development would interface with Williams Drive Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 I-35 Page 15 of 47 v Williams Drive Study - Challenges & RecommendationsTraffic Congestion/Circulation Coordinate Traffic Signal Timing Add Network Connections Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 SOLUTIONS CAUSES • 29,000 vehicles use Williams Drive on a daily basis • 7,000 area residents commute outside of study area • 95% of area residents own at least 1 vehicle; 80% drive alone to work • Lack of alternative routes to I-35 and major destinations • Improve traffic flow with redesigned intersections • Re-time traffic signals for efficiency • Create alternative routes and improve street network connectivity Improve Intersection Design Proposed Street Connections • Flashing yellow arrow left-turn signals • Coordinated signal timing can reduce travel times by as much as 27.5% • Reduce travel and walking distances and times • Improve routing for transit • Better connect developments to road network • Create safer turns for drivers • Increase pedestrian safety Corridor Travel Time Factors Corridor Travel Time (Minutes) - Jim Hogg to Austin Ave Morning Evening Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Existing Timing 11.1 13.7 12.5 14.7 With Concept Improvements 10.3 (-7.7%)9.8 (-39.8%)10.4 (-20.2%)10.0 (-47.0%) Page 16 of 47 Williams Drive Study - Challenges & RecommendationsTraffic Operations & Safety Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 SOLUTIONS CAUSES • 150+ curb cuts (and increasing) along the corridor • Lack of alternative streets and network connectivity • Unsynchronized traffic signals • Heavy traffic volumes at intersections • Continuous two-way center left turn lane throughout the corridor • Develop an access management plan for the corridor • Set block standards for street/ driveway connection • Establish a unified signal management plan • Establish new street design criteria Center Median Minimized Curb Cuts and Sidewalk Cycle Track Landscaped Buffer E C Existing curb cuts consolidated and reduced. Adjacent parking and circulation areas are linked away from Williams Drive. Shared parking lot serves multiple destinations. Destinations either share patrons, so that people park once and visit multiple destinations, or have different periods when parking demand is highest. Side path at grade, materials carried across driveway to reinforce visual cues that pedestrians and cyclists have right-of-way. To maintain traffic flow, new medians include left turn lanes at major intersections and key driveways. A B Parking located at the rear of buildings where appropriate contributes to increased aesthetic appeal of the corridor. E A B C E E D D Stormwater management features incorporated into center medians. Access Management Driveway Consolidation • Build left-hand turn spaces using center medians • Shared parking between developments • Reduce conflicts between drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists • Build roads that connect development parcels Page 17 of 47 Williams Drive Study - Challenges & RecommendtionsPedestrian/Bicycle Improvements Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 SOLUTIONS CAUSES •Sidewalks are neither continuous nor desirable •Lack of dedicated bicycle paths and lanes •Existing and new driveways, speeds, and site design are not conducive to non-vehicular modes of transport •Focus attention through Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning •Provide incentives/grants •Consider on- and off-street bicycle facility improvements where appropriate Bicycle Connections Pedestrian Crossings and Gaps Shared Use Path River Trail Connecting Streets Study Area Boundary Cycle Track On-Street Bicycle Lane Sidepath Parallel Bicycle Existing Facilities Proposed Facilities Americans with Disabilities Ramp Page 18 of 47 Williams Drive Study - Challenges & RecommendationsAesthetic Enhancements Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 SOLUTIONS CAUSES • Older developments built without zoning codes or through iterations of codes • Landscaping, signage, parking lots, front yard/gateway treatments – nonconforming to today’s standards • Consider new Gateway design standards • Consider zoning solutions for older properties to offer flexibility for redevelopment • Adjust non-conforming site requirements to ensure incremental improvements and upgrades EXISTING CONDITIONS Right-of-Way 100’ to 135’ Shoulder Width (2)10’ Travel Lane Width (4)11.5’ Center Turn Lane Width (1)12’ Total Pavement Width 80’Frontage »30’ wide landscape buffer planted with native vegetation. »Buildings pulled up to internal sidewalk or set behind a double row and aisle of parking. »Curb cuts consolidated, backage road provides inter-parcel connectivity. Pedestrians/Cyclists »12’ wide multi-use path on south-side of Williams Drive. »12’ wide tree lawn with formalized street tree planting. Automobiles »11’ wide travel lanes. »12’ wide median planted with native vegetation. Pedestrians »8’ min sidewalk on north- side of Williams Drive. »12’ wide tree lawn with formalized street tree planting. CEDAR LAKE TO SERENADA - RECOMMENDATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Right-of-Way 70’ to 120’ Shoulder Width -- Travel Lane Width (4)11.5’ Center Turn Lane Width 12’ Total Pavement Width 60’ Frontage »Scenic corridor and mature tree canopy preserved. »40’ wide frontage. »Where practical, no parking between building and street. »Where possible, driveways consolidated and shared. Pedestrians/Cyclists »8’ wide sidewalk on both sides of street. »6’ wide tree lawn, supplement preserved front yard trees. »Primary bike route off of Williams Drive (Dawn Drive). Automobiles »11’ wide outside travel lane. »10.5’ wide inside travel lane. »14’ wide center turn lane (too many small lots with individual driveways to loose center turn lane). Buildings »Small scale structures with building length restrictions. »Limited transparency and entrance spacing. GOLDEN OAKS TO RIVERY - RECOMMENDATIONS Page 19 of 47 Williams Drive Study - Challenges & RecommendationsRedevelopment/Reinvestment Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 SOLUTIONS CAUSES • Redevelopment of older parcels challenging due to new development requirements • Fragmented ownership and smaller, disjointed parcels • Zoning districts & land uses not customized to corridor • Create development strategy that is not “one-size-fits-all” • Land Use • Development Standards • Utilities/Public Improvements • Partner with landowners of catalytic sites • Recruit retailers Catalytic Sites Build-out with Expansion Rivery Blvd W i l l i a m s D r Morri s D r Park L n • Strategic redevelopment of these sites into a walkable activity center with housing and commercial properties Future Zoning and Land Use A AA D E F F F BB B B C C G A New townhouses B Four new 2- or 3-story apartment buildings C New townhouses D Larger multi-story medical office facility E Single-story retail building Three new 2-story medical office buildings G Approximately 350 parking spaces W Ce n t r a l D r . Aus t i n A v e . Au s t i n A v e . Gold e n O a k s D r Lake w a y D r . Bootys Crossing Rd. River B e n d D r . I-35 I-3 5 Urban Mixed Use Suburban Mixed Use Office/High Density Housing Small Office/Medium Density Housing Highway Commercial High Density Mixed Housing Medium Density Mixed Housing Single-Family Civic Park Georgetown ISD Building Georgetown Health Foundation Georgetown Health Foundation Page 20 of 47 Williams Drive Study Short-Term Implementation Plan (0-4 yrs) Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 Page 21 of 47 Williams Drive StudyImplementation Logo Usage Guideline City of Georgetown Created September 2005 Revised September 2009 Short Term 0-4 Years Mid Term 5-10 Years Long Term 11+ Years Signal Timing Sidewalk ImprovementsLand Use Code Changes Landscaping Engineering Studies Redevelopment Enhanced Transit Service Rebuilt Williams Drive Bike Facilities Parallel Intersection Improvements Page 22 of 47 City of Georgetown, Texas Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee December 14, 2020 S UB J E C T: P res entation and disc ussion regarding the feedback and input rec eived through the public engagement and citizen s urvey – Jake G utekunst, Kimley-Horn IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: S hirley R inn on behalf of Bridget Hinze Weber, As s is tant to the C ity Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Pres entation Input and Feedback Backup Material Phase II Engagement Report Backup Material Page 23 of 47 ITEM F –PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT RESULTS 1Page 24 of 47 Engagement Metrics •4,500 Visits to Project Website (1,500 Unique visitors) •231 total responses (via both Interactive Map & Alternative Survey) •181 Project-related Comments •50 “Other” Comments not related to projects •Estimated reach through social media, advertising, website –165,000 2Page 25 of 47 Projects Considered in Phase 2 Engagement 3Page 26 of 47 Project Support Summary 4Page 27 of 47 •Committee Composite Rank (Nov 9) 1.Williams Drive Central 2.SE Inner Loop 3.Shell Rd 4.Leander Rd 5.DB Wood Rd 6.Williams Drive West 7.NE Inner Loop 8.Austin Avenue Bridges 9.Southwestern Blvd 10.SH 29 East •Ranking by % Support Public Input 1.DB Wood Rd (78% For) 2.Shell Rd (74% For) 3.Austin Ave Bridges (73% For) 4.SE Inner Loop (68% For) 5.SH 29 East (65% For) 6.Leander Rd (64% For) 7.NE Inner Loop (58% For) 8.Williams Dr Central (56% For) 9.Williams Dr West (50% For) 10.Southwestern Blvd (25%) 5 Committee Ranking vs. % Support Page 28 of 47 •Williams Central (56% Favor) •Positive •Heavily trafficked corridor that needs improvement for safety and mobility •This street has become increasingly dangerous •Negative / Neutral •Getting rid of the turn lane will only worsen traffic •More auto lanes are required to improve mobility, not medians and bike lanes •Williams West (50% Favor) •Positive •Any improvements to Williams Drive are welcome •Medians, while still having left turn lanes, will help with traffic safety •Negative / Neutral •Need to expand to 6 lanes •A divided median will kill many of our existing businesses 6 Specific Project Feedback Williams Drive (Central and West) Page 29 of 47 •Austin Avenue Bridges (73% Favor) •Positive •Bridge repair is needed •Project is past due •Negative / Neutral •Too expensive for the product •Wider lanes = faster cars and less safety •DB Wood Rd (78% Favor) •Positive •Overall Support for Need of this project •Complete western loop •Negative / Neutral •No pedestrians •Extend project to SH 29 7 Specific Project Feedback Austin Avenue Bridges & DB Wood Page 30 of 47 •Leander Rd (64% Favor) •Positive •Mixed use path on north side would be beneficial •Negative / Neutral •Why do this when Leander Rd becomes 2-lane west of SW Bypass? •Sound abatement wall and traffic light requested by nearby residents •NE Inner Loop (58% Favor) •Positive •Good plan with Costco being built here •Good project due to congestion here •Negative / Neutral •Not enough traffic to justify project 8 Specific Project Feedback Leander Rd & NE Inner Loop Page 31 of 47 •SE Inner Loop (68% Favor) •Positive •Support this project for increased safety •General support for expansion •Negative / Neutral •Careful not to encroach on resident’s backyards with this new town center bypass •Consider separated bike/ped path instead of bike lanes •SH 29 East (65% Favor) •Positive •Good plan with Costco being built here •Good project due to congestion here •Negative / Neutral •Current congestion / traffic does not justify project •Consider extending project to SH130 9 Specific Project Feedback SE Inner Loop & SH 29 East Page 32 of 47 •Shell Rd (74% Favor) •Positive •Support this project for increased safety •General support for expansion •Negative / Neutral •Careful not to encroach on resident’s backyards with this new town center bypass •Consider separated bike/ped path instead of bike lanes •Southwestern Blvd (25% Favor) •Positive •None •Negative / Neutral •Project not necessary, too expensive for the product •Consider improving intersection at SE Inner Loop before this project 10 Specific Project Feedback Shell Rd & Southwestern Blvd Page 33 of 47 The first phase of public engagement focused on soliciting residents' priorities and sentiment for a potential bond, in order to help inform the citizen committee's deliberations. This survey was open from July 15 to August 15, 2020. City staff then worked with the committee to identify potential projects to consider based on residents' transportation priorities expressed in the first phase. The City of Georgetown launched Phase Two of their Public Engagement efforts on Nov. 16, 2020, seeking to receive input on which potential projects should be included on the Georgetown Mobility 2021 Bond. City staff held a Virtual Town Hall on Nov. 16 to present the 10 potential projects, provide instructions on how to provide input on the projects, and address any question attendees had in a live Q&A session. To provide feedback on the projects, participants had two options: An Interactive Map Survey or an Alternative Survey. Both options were available on the bond website from Nov. 16 to Dec. 7. Project Profile Sheets were also posted to the website for participants to learn about each project and make an informed decision. The Citizen Advisory Committee will use the feedback received from the public to inform a formal recommendation to City Council in January 2021. 1 6 5 ,0 0 0 T O T A L E S T I M A T E D R E A C H I ntera cti v e S ur vey M a p E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y M O B I L I T Y G E O R G E T O W N B O N D 2 0 2 1 P H A S E T W O E N G A G E M E N T H I G H L I G H T S 2 3 1 T O T A L R E S P O N S E S Figure includes impressions on social media, videoviews, newspaper subscribers, radio impressions,and utility customers. Most people who took thesurvey indicated they heard about it either throughemail or social media. P H A S E T W O Page 34 of 47 S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E S P R O J E C T C O M P A R I S O N B O N D S .G E O R G E T O W N .O R G Austin Ave Bridges D.B. Wood Rd Leander Rd NE Inner Loop SE Inner Loop Hwy. 29 East Shell Rd Southwestern Blvd Williams Dr Central Williams Dr West 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 7 3 %7 8 % 64% 5 8 % 6 8 %6 5 % 7 4% 2 5 % *56 % *5 0% P r o j e c t S u p p o r t *For the Williams Drive projects, the project descriptions failed to explain that, although the center turn lanes would be replaced with a median, there would still be left turn access at some locations along the corridor. Lack of support often coincided with confusion of median project eliminating all left turns, which is not anticipated. Page 35 of 47 Do you support including the Austin Ave Bridges project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? B O N D S .G E O R G E T O W N .O R G S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E S A U S T I N A V E B R I D G E S & D .B . W O O D R O A D 7 3 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - B I K E /P E D S A F E T Y - H I G H N E E D P R O J E C T - C O S T C O N C E R N S Do you support including the D.B. Wood Road project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? 7 8 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - E X T E N D T O S H 2 9 - S E P A R A T E B I K E /P E D P A T H - S A F E T Y A N D M O B I L I T Y Page 36 of 47 Do you support including the Leander Road project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? B O N D S .G E O R G E T O W N .O R G S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E S L E A N D E R R O A D & N E I N N E R L O O P 6 4 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - N O I S E M I T I G A T I O N N E E D S - M E D I A N M A I N T E N A N C E - B I K E /P E D S A F E T Y Do you support including the NE Inner Loop project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? 5 8 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - M I X E D F E E L I N G S O N B I K E L A N E S - M I X E D F E E L I N G S O N P R O J E C T N E E D - A N T I C I P A T E S N E W D E V E L O P M E N T Page 37 of 47 Do you support including the SE Inner Loop project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? B O N D S .G E O R G E T O W N .O R G S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E S S E I N N E R L O O P & H I G H W A Y 2 9 E A S T 6 8 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - S A F E T Y N E E D S - E X T E N D T O A U S T I N A V E /S W B Y P A S S - A V O I D H A R M I N G N E I G H B O R H O O D S Do you support including the Highway 29 East project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? 6 5 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - S A F E T Y A N D N O I S E M I T I G A T I O N - E X T E N D T O 1 3 0 - S E P A R A T E B I K E /P E D P A T H Page 38 of 47 Do you support including the Shell Road project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? B O N D S .G E O R G E T O W N .O R G S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E S S H E L L R O A D & S O U T H W E S T E R N B L V D 7 4 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - A N T I C I P A T E S G R O W T H - S A F E T Y A N D M O B I L I T Y - E X T E N D T O 1 9 5 Do you support including the Southwestern Blvd project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? 2 5 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - L O W P R I O R I T Y P R O J E C T - S A F E R C O N N E C T I O N T O I N N E R L O O P - B I K E /P E D F A C I L I T I E S N E E D E D Page 39 of 47 Do you support including the Williams Drive Central project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? Do you support including the Williams Drive West project in the May 2021 Mobility Bond election? B O N D S .G E O R G E T O W N .O R G S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E S W I L L I A M S D R I V E C E N T R A L & W I L L I A M S D R I V E W E S T *5 6 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - C O N G E S T I O N M I T I G A T I O N - B I K E /P E D S A F E T Y *5 0 % S U P P O R T T H I S P R O J E C T C O M M E N T S O U N D B I T E S : - C O N G E S T I O N M I T I G A T I O N - S A F E T Y A N D M O B I L I T Y *Lack of support often coincided with confusion of median project eliminating all left turns, which is not anticipated. Page 40 of 47 No change (34.42%) C O M M U N I C A T I O N S S A M P L E S Social Media + Community Ads 153,000 reach Virtual Town Hall 1,600 views Project Website + Instructional Video 4,500 total visits 3,900 views Page 41 of 47 City of Georgetown, Texas Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee December 14, 2020 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the projects in a bond package for the propos ed bond targeting May 2021 – Jake G utekunst, Kimley-Horn IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: S hirley R inn on behalf of Bridget Hinze Weber, As s is tant to the C ity Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Pres entation - Approval of Bond Projects Backup Material Page 42 of 47 ITEM G – PROJECTS FOR BOND DISCUSSION 1Page 43 of 47 Framework for Discussion 1.Format of the recommendation to Council •List of how many projects? •Separate tiers / levels based on $ amount thresholds in ranking? •Other? 2.Order of Projects in Ranking 2Page 44 of 47 •Committee Composite Rank (Nov 9) 1.Williams Drive Central 2.SE Inner Loop 3.Shell Rd 4.Leander Rd 5.DB Wood Rd 6.Williams Drive West 7.NE Inner Loop 8.Austin Avenue Bridges 9.Southwestern Blvd 10.SH 29 East •Ranking by % Support Public Input 1.DB Wood Rd (78% For) 2.Shell Rd (74% For) 3.Austin Ave Bridges (73% For) 4.SE Inner Loop (68% For) 5.SH 29 East (65% For) 6.Leander Rd (64% For) 7.NE Inner Loop (58% For) 8.Williams Dr Central (56% For) 9.Williams Dr West (50% For) 10.Southwestern Blvd (25%) 3 Committee Ranking vs. % Support Page 45 of 47 4 November 9th Meeting Ranking Summary Page 46 of 47 City of Georgetown, Texas Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee December 14, 2020 S UB J E C T: P ublic C omment - C here Heintzmann and Ercel Brashear, C ommittee C o-C hairs IT E M S UMMARY: P ublic C omments are allowed in ac cordance with the proc edures outlined in the Agenda Notice for this meeting. O n a subject not posted on the agenda: P ers ons may add an item to a future R egularly s cheduled Advisory C ommittee agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Advisory Committee meeting. T he request mus t inc lude the speaker’s name and the s pecific topic to be addressed with s uffic ient information to inform the Advis ory C ommittee and the public . Only those persons who have submitted a timely request will be allowed to speak. P leas e contac t the Board Liaison to sign up to s peak at: Bridget.Weber@georgetown.org. At the time of pos ting, no one had signed up to s peak. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: P ublic C omment S UB MIT T E D B Y: S hirley R inn on behalf of Bridget Hinze Weber, As s is tant to the C ity Manager Page 47 of 47