Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_P&Z_06.20.2017Notice of Meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Georgetown June 20, 2017 at 6:00 PM at Council Chambers, 101 East 7th Street, Georgetown, TX 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 Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on the agenda. Consent Agenda The Statutory Cons ent Agenda inc ludes non-c o ntro versial and ro utine items that may be acted up o n with one s ingle vo te. An item may b e pulled from the Cons ent Agenda in o rd er that it b e dis c us sed and acted up o n individ ually as part of the Regular Agenda. A Co nsideration of the Minutes from the June 6, 2017 P&Z meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording Sec retary B Consideration and possible action on a P reliminary P lat fo r Wolf Ranc h Wes t Sec tion 2, lo cated on Wolf Road (P P-2017-001) Chelsea Irb y, P lanner and S o fia Nels o n, Planning Direc tor C Consideration and possible action on a P reliminary P lat amendment for 830 s ingle-family res id ential lo ts and 3 multi-family lo ts o n 353.08 ac res kno wn as Saddlec reek (PP-2017-007). Chels ea Irby, Planner and So fia Nels on, Planning Direc tor D Co nsideration and possible actio n o n a Preliminary/Final Plat fo r Teravis ta Commerc ial 3, Phas e 1, loc ated at the s o uthwes t corner of Wes tinghous e Rd & F M 1460. (PFP-2016-012) Nathan Jones -Meyer, Planner Legislativ e Regular Agenda E Public Hearing and possible action on a req ues t to rezone 5.605 ac res in the A. F lo res S urvey, lo cated east of Inters tate 35 and approximately 500 feet s o uth o f the inters ection of Lakeway Drive and Inters tate 35, from the Res idential Single-Family (R S) Dis trict to a Planned Unit Development with a General Co mmerc ial (C -3) b as e zoning, to b e kno wn as Ewald Kubota. (REZ-2017-005) Chels ea Irby, Planner and So fia Nels on, Planning Direc tor F Public Hearing and possible actio n o n a req ues t to Rezone ap p ro ximately 12.228 acres in the J. Powell Survey, loc ated at the intersec tion of Kelley Drive and Gateway Drive, alo ng No rth Interstate 35 from the Agric ulture (AG) Dis tric t to the Regional Commerc ial (C-3) District. (R EZ-2017-007, Echo Park) Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner G Pres entatio n, dis c us sion and possible rec o mmendatio n to City Counc il fo r ac ceptanc e of the CAMPO/City o f Georgetown Williams Drive Study F inal Plan – Nathaniel Waggo ner, AICP, PMP, Transportatio n Analys t, and And reina Dávila-Quintero , Projec t Coordinato r. Page 1 of 113 H Dis cus s ion Items : Update on the Unified Development C o d e Advis o ry Committee (UDC AC ) meetings . (Commis s ioner Bargainer) Update on the Geo rgeto wn Transp o rtatio n Ad visory Board (GTAB) meetings . (Commissioner Marler) Remind er of the next P lanning and Zoning Co mmis s io n meeting on July 18, 2017 at Counc il Chamb ers loc ated at 101 East 7th Street, s tarting at 6:00 p m. There will no t b e a meeting o n July 4th. Adjournment 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 __________________, 2017, 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 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the June 6, 2017 P &Z meeting. Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Minutes _Pand Z_06.06.2017 Backup Material Page 3 of 113 P&Z Minutes Page 1 of 2 June 6, 2017 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Council and Courts Building 101 E 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 Commissioners present: Josh Schroeder, Chair; Kevin Pitts, Vice-Chair; Tim Bargainer, Secretary; Alex Fuller, Jerry Hammerlun, John Marler; Andy Webb; Aaron Albright, Alternate; and Travis Perthuis, Alternate. Absent: none Staff Present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Juan Enriquez, Planner; Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary. A. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Webb led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Schroeder stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker is permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins. • As of the deadline for this agenda, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda. Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. Chair Schroeder and Commissioner Bargainer recused themselves for the Consent Agenda items, for conflict of interests. Alternates Albright and Perthuis took their chairs at this point. Vice-Chair Pitts ran this portion of the meeting. B. Consideration of the Minutes from the May 16, 2017 P&Z meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary C. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary/Final Plat for Hernandez Estates, located at 83 Woodcrest Road. (PFP-2016-011) Juan Enriquez, Planner D. Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat Amendment for Summit at Rivery Park Ph. 10, 11, and 12, located on Adams Street (PP-2017-005) Chelsea Irby, Planner and Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Motion by Marler, second by Fuller to approve the consent agenda items. Approved 7 – 0. Alternates Albright and Perthuis went back to the audience, and Chair Schroeder and Commissioner Bargainer took their seats back. Legislative Regular Agenda Page 4 of 113 P&Z Minutes Page 2 of 2 June 6, 2017 E. Public hearing and possible action on a request to Rezone 0.791 acres of vacated right of way from no zoning to C-1 (Local Commercial), to be known as Williamsburg Village. (REZ-2017-003) Juan Enriquez, Planner Enriquez presented the staff report. Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed it. Motion by Pitts, second by Bargainer to recommend to City Council approval of the rezoning as presented. Approved 7 – 0. F. Public Hearing and possible action on a Replat of a Final Plat for 9.997 acres of Lots 7&8, Block Two, Whisper Wood I. (FP-2016-042, Lots 7&8, Block Two, Whisper Wood I) S. Nathan Jones- Meyer, Planner Jones-Meyer presented the staff report. Chair Schroeder opened the Public Hearing and with no one coming forth, closed it. Motion by Marler, second by Fuller to approve the replat as presented. Approved 7 – 0. G. Discussion Items: • Update on the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) meetings. (Commissioner Bargainer) No report • Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) meetings. No report. • Reminder of the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 20, 2017 at Council Chambers located at 101 East 7th Street, starting at 6:00 pm. Sofia Nelson reported that the Planning Department had hired Chris Yanez as the Assistant Director, starting with the city on June 26. Nat Waggoner, current Transportation Analyst would be transitioning over to be the Principal Planner – Long Range Planning. And Andreina Davila, current Project Coordinator for the City Manager’s office would be transitioning over to be the Principal Planner for Current Planning. Motion to adjourn by Marler, second by Fuller at 6:08 p.m. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Josh Schroeder, Chair Tim Bargainer, Secretary Page 5 of 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action o n a Preliminary Plat for Wo lf Ranc h Wes t S ectio n 2, loc ated o n Wolf Road (PP-2017-001) Chelsea Irb y, Planner and S o fia Nels o n, P lanning Direc tor ITEM SUMMARY: Background: A develo p ment agreement b etween Wo lf Legac y, LP and the City o f Georgeto wn was approved on Augus t 12, 2014 and exec uted on Augus t 26, 2014. The property was rezo ned from Agric ulture (AG) District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) o n Dec ember 9, 2014 (Ord inance 2014-102). Public Comment: To d ate, no written pub lic comments have been received . Staff Recommendation: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the Preliminary Plat. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Chels ea Irby, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Directo r ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Attachment 1 - Location Map Exhibit Attachment 2 - Preliminary Plat Exhibit Page 6 of 113 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Wolf Ranch West Section 2 – Preliminary Plat Page 1 of 2 Report Date: June 5, 2017 File No: PP-2017-001 Project Planner: Chelsea Irby, Planner Item Details Project Name: Wolf Ranch West Section 2 Project Address: Wolf Road Applicant: Daniel Hart, Pape-Dawson Owner: H4 WR, LP Total Acreage: 59.61 acres Legal Description: 59.61 acres in the Pulsifer Survey Plat Summary Proposed Lots: 174 lots Site Information The property is 59.61 acres to the west of Wolf Ranch Parkway, which is west of IH-35 and north of Highway 29. Background A development agreement between the Wolf Legacy, LP and the City of Georgetown was approved on August 12, 2014 and executed on August 26, 2014. The property was rezoned from Agriculture (AG) District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on December 9, 2014 (Ordinance 2014-102). Utilities Water/wastewater service and electric service are provided by the City of Georgetown. The City will construct off-site water/sewer infrastructure and the owner will construct on-site water/sewer infrastructure that is required to serve the full development of the property. Transportation The property has access from Wolf Ranch Parkway, a collector roadway. The owner will construct turn lanes and other intersection related improvements on Wolf Ranch Parkway, as recommended by the TIA and identified on final plat portions of the property adjacent to Wolf Ranch Parkway north of Highway 29. Page 7 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Saddlecreek – Preliminary Plat Amendment Page 2 of 2 Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication requirements are being met by the development agreement. The owner will dedicate approximately 20 acres of parkland to the City. The owner will design and construct an eight-foot wide concrete trail (San Gabriel River Trail) within the parkland and between the parkland the the lift station at Wolf Ranch Town Center. The owner will also construct and maintain an eight-foot wide concrete trail (Wolf Ranch Parkway Trail) adjacent to the property along Wolf Ranch Parkway. Staff Analysis The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the UDC and the Planned Unit Development and is presented for approval. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Preliminary Plat Amendment Page 8 of 113 N IH 3 5 R I V E RY BL V D M A P L E S T D B W O O D R D N AU S T I N A V E FM 1460 S IH 3 5 W UNIVERSITY AVE S M A I N S T S A U S T I N A V E §¨¦35 §¨¦35 D B W O O D R D W I L L I A M S D R D B W O O D R D PP-2017-001Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 9 of 113 SECTION 1A A U S T I N I S A N A N T O N I O I H O U S T O N I F O R T W O R T H I D A L L A S T B P E F I R M RE GI S T R A TI O N #470 I TB P L S F IR M R EG I S TR A TI ON #10028801 %18'45*''6 5*''6+0&': 5JGGV0Q5JGGV&GUETKRVKQP 18'4#...#;176 24'.+/+0#4;2.#6 5'%6+10 24'.+/+0#4;2.#6 22ÄÄ 91.(4#0%*9'56 )'14)'61906':#5 /#; SECTION 2 91 . (  4 # 0 % *  9 ' 5 6   5 ' % 6 + 1 0   2&  , 1 $  0 1        Ä   1( 22ÄÄ BENCHMARKS: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD88 (GEOID03) COORDINATE SYSTEM IS TEXAS CENTRAL COMBINED SCALE FACTOR OF 0.999960001599936. BENCHMARK #2: SQUARE CUT ON CURB INLET AT WEST SIDE OF WOLF RANCH PARKWAY. INLET IS +/-2500 FEET NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF WOLF RANCH PARKWAY AND MEMORIAL DRIVE (CR 265). *5,'&225'61( ELEV. 795.24 BENCHMARK #3: SQUARE CUT ON CURB INLET AT WEST SIDE OF WOLF RANCH PARKWAY. INLET IS +/-3500 FEET NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF WOLF RANCH PARKWAY AND MEMORIAL DRIVE (CR 265). *5,'&225'61( ELEV. 807.60 Page 10 of 113 22 3 2 2 1 3 4 BLOCK J OPEN SPACE 1 GA S GA S GA S 13 12 21$ 91 . (  4 # 0 % *  9 ' 5 6   5 ' % 6 + 1 0   %+ 6 ;  1 (  ) ' 1 4 ) ' 6 1 9 0   6 ' : # 5 24 ' . + / + 0 # 4 ;  2 . # 6 1( A U S T I N I S A N A N T O N I O I H O U S T O N I F O R T W O R T H I D A L L A S T B P E F I RM R EG I S T RA TI O N #470 I TBP L S FI R M R E G IS TR AT I ON #10028 8 0 1 .')'0& Page 11 of 113 GA S GA S .+0'6#$.'.+0'6#$.'CURVE TABLE CURVE #RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH CURVE TABLE CURVE #RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH 91 . (  4 # 0 % *  9 ' 5 6   5 ' % 6 + 1 0   %+ 6 ;  1 (  ) ' 1 4 ) ' 6 1 9 0   6 ' : # 5 1( A U S T I N I S A N A N T O N I O I H O U S T O N I F O R T W O R T H I D A L L A S T B P E F I RM R EG I S T RA TI O N #470 I TBP L S FI R M R E G IS TR AT I ON #10028 8 0 1 ¦§ 18 ' 4 # . .  2 . # 0 24 ' . + / + 0 # 4 ;  2 . # 6 .')'0& Page 12 of 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action o n a Preliminary Plat amend ment for 830 s ingle-family residential lots and 3 multi-family lots on 353.08 acres known as S ad d lecreek (P P-2017-007). C hels ea Irb y, Planner and Sofia Nelson, P lanning Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: Background: On Ap ril 18, 2017 the Preliminary Plat was amended to inc reas e the numb er o f s ingle-family residential lots b y 10, and change the phas e numbers within the original p lat b o und ary. This s ec o nd Preliminary Plat amendment will inc reas e the number o f single-family lo ts b y 13, and change the phas e numbers within the o riginal plat b o und ary. Public Comment: To d ate, no written pub lic comments have been received . Staff Reco mmendatio n: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the Preliminary Plat amend ment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Chels ea Irby, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Attachment 1 - Location Map Exhibit Attachment 2 - Preliminary Plat Amendment Exhibit Page 13 of 113 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Saddlecreek – Preliminary Plat Amendment Page 1 of 2 Report Date: June 5, 2017 File No: PP-2017-007 Project Planner: Chelsea Irby, Planner Item Details Project Name: Saddlecreek Project Address: Sam Houston Avenue Applicant: Pape-Dawson Engineers Owner: Woodhull Ventures 2015, L.P. Total Acreage: 353.08 acres Legal Description: 353.08 acres in the Addison and Stubblefield Surveys Plat Summary Proposed Lots: 830 residential lots, 1 amenity center lot Heritage Trees: 10 Heritage trees Site Information This property is located between Rockride Land, Sam Houston Avenue, and Highway 130. The site has a natural drainage feature bisecting the center, which will be enhanced with ponds and trails. Background The City annexed this property in 2006. In 2014, City Council approved an in -city Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the property. Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning on the property was approved by the City Council in 2015. The Planned Unit Develop guidelines for this area contain a mix of uses, including residential, multi-family and commercial. In March, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a Preliminary Plat for this site. The largest development type is single family residential lots, including a mix of lot sizes and design. The multi-family lots are towards the edges of the development, with access off the major arterial roads included in this plat. The commercial node is located at the intersection of two arterials. On April 18, 2017 the Preliminary Plat was amended to increase the number of single-family residential lots by 10, and change the phase numbers within the original plat boundary. This second Preliminary Plat amendment will increase the number of single -family lots by 13, and change the phase numbers within the original plat boundary. Page 14 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Saddlecreek – Preliminary Plat Amendment Page 2 of 2 Utilities Wastewater will be provided by Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). Electric service is Oncor. Water is provided by Jonah Special Utility District. Wastewater improvements are detailed in the Consent Agreement for the MUD. The developer's responsibilities include a significant portion of a gravity sewer line, a portion of the lift station and wet well near the Dove Springs Plant, and a force main from the lift station. Transportation This development will be accessed from Rockride Lane, Bell Gin Road, Sam Houston Avenue, and a future connection to Texas Highway 130. Right-of-way dedication is being provided in accordance with the City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan and the Development Agreement for the property Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication requirements are being met per agreement, and will have approximately 31 acres of parkland and a private amenity center. Staff Analysis The proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the UDC and the Planned Unit Development and is presented for approval. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Preliminary Plat Amendment Page 15 of 113 SE INNER LO O P N IH 3 5 S O UTHW E S T E R N B L V D R I V ERY BL V D BLU E S P R IN GSBLVD M A P L E S T E UNIVER S I T Y A V E N AU S T I N A V E FM 1460 S IH 3 5 NE I N N E R L O O P S A U S T I N A V E S M A I N S T H U T T O R D S A U S T I N A V E SO U T H W E S T E R N B L V D ¬«29 ¬«130 ¬«130 §¨¦35 R O C K R I D E L N M A P L E S T R E E T SE I N N E R L O O P §¨¦35 E UNIVERSITY A V E WI L L I A M S D R WESTINGH O U S E R D ")1460 E UNIVERSITY AVE SAM HOUST O N A V E SAM HOUS T O N A V E PP-2017-007Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.75 1.5Mi Page 16 of 113 Page 17 of 113 Page 18 of 113 Page 19 of 113 Page 20 of 113 Page 21 of 113 Page 22 of 113 Page 23 of 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion on a Preliminary/Final Plat for Teravis ta C o mmercial 3, P hase 1, lo cated at the s outhwes t c o rner o f Westingho us e Rd & FM 1460. (PFP-2016-012) Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: This p reliminary final p lat creates one c o mmerc ial lot. Acc es s to the s ite is o ff of Wes tingho use Road and o ff of FM 1460. P arkland fees d o no t ap p ly to this p ro ject. Public Comments: Pub lic notice is not required for a Preliminary Final P lat ap p licatio n. There have been no inq uiries ab o ut the p lat. Recommended motion: Approval of the Preliminary Final Plat fo r Teravis ta Commerc ial 3, Phas e 1 FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner, and Sofia Nels o n, C NU-A, P lanning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type PFP-2016-012 - Staff Report Cover Memo Attachment 1 – Location Map Backup Material Attachment 2 – Preliminary Final Plat Backup Material Page 24 of 113 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Teravista Commercial 3, Phase 1 – Preliminary Final Plat Page 1 of 2 Report Date: June 16, 2017 File No: PFP-2017-012 Project Planner: Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner Item Details Project Name: Teravista Commercial 3, Phase 1 Project Address: Southwest corner of Westinghouse Rd & FM 1460 Total Acreage: 1.5 acres Legal Description: 1.5 Acres of Barney Low Survey, Abstract No. 385 Applicant: John Pickens Property Owner: NNP-Teravista, LLC Contact: John Pickens Plat Summary Proposed Lots: One (1) lot Proposed Streets: None Heritage Trees: None Site Information Location: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Westinghouse Road and FM 1460. Physical Characteristics: The property is 1.5 acres in size, undeveloped and is generally rectangular. Being at located at the intersection of Westinghouse and FM 1460, the property has frontage on two major thoroughfares. Background The 1.5 acre property was annexed into the City on December 13, 2011 by Ordinance No. 2011-56. At the time of annexation into the City, the defa ult AG District was assigned. The property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The property was rezoned to C-3 (General Commercial) with Ordinance No. 2015-52. Utilities Water/wastewater and electricity will be provided by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Page 25 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Teravista Commercial 3, Phase 1 – Preliminary Final Plat Page 2 of 2 Transportation The site has public street access from Westinghouse Road. Trip generation was reviewed and the City’s Traffic Engineer determined that this subdivision application will trigger the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication requirements or fee in lieu are not required commercial/office development. Staff Analysis The proposed Preliminary Final Plat meets all of the requirements of the UDC and is presented for approval. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Preliminary Final Plat Page 26 of 113 W E S T I N G H O U S E R D ")1460 PFP-2016-012Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map 0 0.25Mi Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Page 27 of 113 Page 28 of 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on a reques t to rezo ne 5.605 acres in the A. Flores Survey, loc ated eas t o f Interstate 35 and ap p ro ximately 500 feet s outh of the intersec tion of Lakeway Drive and Interstate 35, fro m the R es id ential S ingle-Family (RS) Dis tric t to a P lanned Unit Develo p ment with a General Commerc ial (C-3) bas e zo ning, to be kno wn as Ewald Kub o ta. (REZ-2017-005) C helsea Irb y, Planner and Sofia Nelson, P lanning Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The ap p licant has reques ted to rezo ne the und eveloped 5.605 acre trac t from Res idential Single-Family (RS ) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a C-3 base zo ning d is tric t to allow for future commerc ial d evelopment of the property. The p ro p erty was annexed in 1987. Public Comment: To d ate, no written pub lic comments have been received . Staff Recommendation: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t to rezone the 5.605 acre trac t to a Planned Unit Develo p ment with a C-3 Dis tric t b as e zoning. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Chels ea Irby, Planner, and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Directo r ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report - Ewald Kubota Backup Material Attachment 1 - Location Map Exhibit Attachment 2 - Future Land Us e Map Exhibit Attachment 3 - Zoning Map Exhibit Attachment 4 - Aerial Map Exhibit Attachment 5 - Ewald Kubota PUD Exhibit Page 29 of 113 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota Page 1 of 11  Report Date:  June 16, 2017  File No:   REZ‐2017‐005  Project Planner: Chelsea Irby, Planner   Item Details  Project Name: Ewald Kubota   Project Address: 2650 N IH‐35  Owner:  Mark Griffin (Georgetown Griffin)  Applicant:  Shelly Mitchell (Pape‐Dawson)       Total Acreage:  5.605 acres  Legal Description: AW0235 AW0235 ‐ Flores, A. Sur., ACRES 5.605  Existing Zoning: Residential Single‐Family (RS)  Proposed Zoning:  PUD with a base zoning of General Commercial (C‐3)  Overview of Applicant’s Request  The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Residential Single‐Family (RS) to a PUD  with a base zoning of General Commercial (C‐3). The owner intends to develop a new Ewald  Kubota equipment dealership on the property. The project will include approximately 10,500  square feet of office, showroom, warehouse, and service shop to support the dealership.  Equipment sales generally include retail sales, leasing, and repair of heavy or commercial  vehicles or equipment such as those used in construction, farming, or manufacturing.  Site Information  Location:   The property is located between NB IH‐35 and N. Austin Ave. approximately 500’ south of  Lakeway Drive.    Physical Characteristics:   The property is undeveloped with trees and is relativley flat. The property is a rectangle and is  located between two roads, IH‐35 NB and Austin Ave. It is also located in the Edwards Aquifer  Zone. A small portion of land in the southern part of the property is within the FEMA AE flood  zone.      Page 30 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 2 of 11  Surrounding Properties:    Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use  North N/A Community Commercial Vacant  South RS Open Space Vacant  East AG/C‐1 Employment Center Pet resort and church  West AG Employment Center Agriculture, with some  residential  Property History  The property was annexed in September of 1987 and is currently zoning Residential Single‐ Family (RS).  2030 Comprehensive Plan  Future Land Use:  The property is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as mostly Employment Center, with a small  amount of Community Commercial on the northern portion:   Employment Center: This designation is intended for tracts of undeveloped land located  at strategic locations, which are designated for well planned, larger scale employment and  business activities, as well as supporting uses such as retail, services, hotels, and high  density residential development (stand‐alone or in mixed‐use buildings) as a conditional  use.   Community Commercial: This category applies to areas that accommodate retail,  professional office, and service‐oriented business activities that serve more than one  residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying  scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors.  Community commercial areas typically will include some neighborhood‐serving  commercial uses as well as larger retail uses including restaurants, specialty retail, mid‐ box stores, and smaller shopping centers. They may also include churches, governmental  branch offices, schools, parks, and other civic facilities.     Growth Tier:  The property is located in Growth Tier 1A (High Priority):  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.    Transportation  The property will have primary access to Austin Avenue, which is a major arterial.   Page 31 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 3 of 11  Utilities  Water will be provided by City of Georgetown and electric service is provided by City of  Georgetown and PEC. Water service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown  8” waterline that runs east of the property along the east side of N. Austin Avenue. Wastewater  service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 30” wastewater line that runs  east to west 650 feet south of the property. Wastewater will be extended to the southern edge of  the property at the owner’s expense.  Proposed Zoning District  PUD with a base zoning of General Commercial (C‐3):   General Commercial (C‐3) – The General Commercial District (C‐3) is intended to provide  a location for general commercial and retail activities that serve the entire community and  its visitors. Uses may be large in scale and generate substantial traffic, making the C‐3  District only appropriate along freeways and major arterials.      UDC‐PUD Comparison Chart  UDC Reference  UDC Requirement  PUD Variation  Chapter 5.09.30 C ‐ Outdoor  Display, General  The display shall not extend to a  height above 10 feet.  The display shall not exceed 15ʹ  feet.  The display should be located  adjacent to wall of principal  building, in a front yard or  street yard.  Located in front, street, side,  and rear yards, permitted in  locations on Conceptual Land  Plan, and will not be paved.  Chapter 7.04.040 A ‐ Building  Materials  80% of collective walls shall  have the listed building  materials.  80% of collective walls of the  office and showroom, not to  include overhead doors or  windows.  Stucco or plaster  Stucco or tile* is an alternative  material requested via this  PUD.  Chapter 7.04.040 C ‐ Roof  Styles  Roofs less than or equal to a 2:12  pitch, unless parapet coverage is  utilized, are prohibited.  Service shop and track shop  building proposal 1:12 slope  roof.  Page 32 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 4 of 11  Chapter 7.04.040 E ‐ Entryways  and Entrance Treatments  Front entry shall be set back a  minimum of 15ʹ from the drive  aisle, buildings over 60,000 sq.  ft. shall provide clearly defined  customer entrances that include  an outdoor patio area, and  pedestrian routes shall be  provided between the parking  and building(s).   Entryway and entrance  treatments not required.  Chapter 7.04.050 C ‐ Building  Articulation  Horizontal articulation ‐ No  building wall shall extend  laterally for a distance greater  than three times the buildingʹs  average height without a  perpendicular offset of at least  25% of such height.  Service shop and track shop  building will not step in or out.  Vertical articulation ‐ No  building wall shall extend  laterally for a distance greater  than three times the buildingʹs  average height without a  change in vertical elevation of at  least 25% of such height.  Service shop and track shop  building will lack vertical  articulation.  Chapter 7.04.050 D ‐  Architectural Features  All building walls shall  incorporate at least three of the  architectural features listed.  Building walls greater than 100  feet in length or buildings  greater than 30 feet in height  shall incorporate an additional  two items.   Limited architectural features  for utilitarian functions of  service shop and track shop  building.  Chapter 8.04.040 ‐ Parking Lot  Landscaping  All non‐residential surface  parking areas or lots shall  contain areas constructed,  planted, and maintained as  landscaped islands, peninsulas,  or medians and shall contain  shade trees to reduce the  thermal impact of parking lots.  Enclosed parking structures and  vehicle display and sales areas  are exempt from the Parking  Lot Landscaping requirements  set forth herein.  Parking lot landscaping  requirements shall not apply to  equipment storage and display  areas.   Page 33 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 5 of 11  Chapter 8.04.060 ‐ Bufferyards  No light fixtures, parking,  dumpsters, storage, recreation  facilities, accessory buildings, or  alleys shall be permitted within  a required buffer yard.  Light poles shall be allowed in a  bufferyard, setbacks, and  easements.  Chapter 9.02 ‐ Parking  Requirements  All commercial sales and  service: 1 per 300 ft2 GFA of  office/showroom area + 1  additional per 2,500 ft2 indoor  and outdoor storage or staging  area.  No additional parking required  for indoor/outdoor storage or  staging area.  Chapter 10.06.010 ‐ Sign  Dimensional Standards  1 per linear feet of primary  façade not to exceed a max of 48  sq. ft. per sign face with a max  height of 6ʹ.  Signage along N. Austin Ave.  shall be limited to 6’ masonry  monument sign with a sign face  max of 150 sq. ft. per sign. The  sign along IH‐35 NB frontage  road will comply with UDC  standards.  Chapter 12 ‐ Sidewalks Sidewalks required all on road  frontage.  Owner will build sidewalk on  east side of property and will  pay 20% into sidewalk fund for  south and west side.  Wastewater Extension  Due to legal lot status the waste  water extension would not  normally be required.   The developer is committing to  the extension of utilities  through the PUD.   Staff Analysis  Purpose of PUD: The project will include approximately 10,500 square feet of office, showroom,  warehouse, and service shop to support the dealership location. Additional improvements include  equipment display and storage areas, fencing, parking, paving improvements for site circulation,  and utility infrastructure. Kubota Corporation dealerships are a unique development project due to  the size of equipment and associated building structure required to repair and service the  equipment. Large expansive areas are required for display, storage, and circulation of the  equipment. Per the UDC, Heavy Equipment Sales are only located in the Industrial District (IN). An  example of this would be the uses located along Industrial Park Circle, just northwest of the subject  property.     Page 34 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 6 of 11  Comply Neutra l  Do Not  Compl y  Approval Criteria for Planned Unit Developments (Section 3.06.040)  Rezoning to and development under the PUD District will be permitted only in accordance with the  following specific objectives:  X      A variety of housing types,  employment opportunities,  or commercial services to  achieve a balanced  community  A new commercial service opportunities will be  created.   X      An orderly and creative  arrangement of all land uses  with respect to each other  and to the entire community The subject property is located along IH‐35 NB  and Austin Ave. in an area that largely remains  undeveloped. The surrounding development  does include a church to the west and various  industrial uses to the northwest. The proposed  use is consistent with the surrounding use and  overall desire to have regional commercial type  uses located along IH‐35 and in the  Employment Center future land use  designation.   X   A planned and integrated  comprehensive  transportation system  providing for a separation of  pedestrian and vehicular  traffic, to include facilities  such as roadways, bicycle  ways, and pedestrian  walkways  Located between two major roadways. No new  roads are proposed. A sidewalk will be  constructed along Austin Ave.  Driveway  access will be via Austin Avenue.        X  The provisions of cultural or  recreational facilities for all  segments of the community No recreational facilities proposed.    X    The location of general  building envelopes to take  maximum advantage of the  natural and manmade  environment  The building is properly located on the site  between IH‐35 NB and Austin Ave.   X      The staging of development  in a manner which can be  accommodated by the  timely provision of public  utilities, facilities, and  services  Adequate public utilities are addressed in the  PUD. Water lines are in place and the owner  will extend the wastewater line to the south of  the property. The wastewater line extension is  the area of the PUD where the applicant went  beyond minimum standards of the Code.    Page 35 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 7 of 11    General Findings  Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings:    1. The proposed use is generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map.  2. The proposed building design and site layout deviates from the normal General  Commercial (C‐3) zoning standards to less restrictive standards in the areas of building  design, signage and outdoor display.   Staff Recommendation  Staff has reviewed the requested PUD and has worked with the applicant to fully understand the  applicant’s vision for the property. Given the nature of the equipment sold the proposed use did  not squarely fit into one zoning classification. The closest use classification would be “heavy  equipment” which is only permitted in the Industrial zoning district. In advising the applicant  for rezoning the PUD tool was selected in order to provide flexibility in allowing a use that could  be appropriate along I‐35 given the appropriate development standards, and given the location  along a major gateway into the community. As the PUD was prepared the applicant identified  various standards he sought to seek relief from. Staff has broken the recommendation portion of  this staff report to identify areas of the PUD that staff can recommend support of and those  standards we do not.     Proposed Development  Standard Recommendation Reason  Land Use  Use of a PUD to permit the  use in the C‐3 zoning district  Approval  Given the nature of the  equipment sold the proposed  use did not squarely fit into  one zoning classification.  Given the emphasis on sales  a PUD was selected with a C3  base zoning.   Outdoor Display  1.Request to allow display  of merchandise on a non‐ paved surface.  2. Request to exceed the  maximum permitted  outdoor display.     Staff cannot support the  request in its entirety.    As a gateway into the  community, outdoor display  is a development standard  staff is highly concerned  about.  The UDC identifies  the purpose of the Gateway  Overlays is to protect and  enhance the entrance  corridors to the City with  landscaping, setbacks, and  Page 36 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 8 of 11  special design standards. The  intent of the Gateways are to  establish entrance corridors  that herald the approach to  the City, define the arrival to  a destination, and link  common elements together.    1. Paved Surface. Staff can  support the request that  outdoor display areas shall  not be required to be paved if  the merchandised is located  on a grass or turf area that is  fully irrigated. The purpose  of the irrigation is to ensure  the grass remains healthy,  attractive and alive.     2. Display Amount. Per the  UDC, outdoor storage shall  not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. or 10%  of the site, whichever is  greater. The applicant is  seeking 23,958 square feet of  outdoor display. Due to the  key location of the property  and comprehensive plan  guidance to set high design  standards for all commercial  development along highway  corridors, staff is not  supportive of this request.   Outdoor Storage  1. Amount of outdoor  storage.  2. Screening of outdoor  storage   Staff cannot support in its  entirety.   1. The applicant has  requested a 1 acre area to be  devoted as non‐paved  storage. While the area is  expansive, staff is willing to  support the areas should the  surface be a compacted and  improved surface and the  Page 37 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 9 of 11  items within the storage area  are completely screened from  view.       2.  The applicant has  proposed screening of the  outdoor storage area to be  accomplished with an 8’ tall  fence. Additionally, the  applicant has requested  storage be permitted in the  front, side and rear yards.  Staff recommends the storage  area only be permitted in the  rear of the property where all  storage materials are  completely screened from  view from all public rights of  way.    Building Design Staff cannot support  There is not enough building  design information to grant a  variance or ensure quality  design. The addition of tile as  a building material is  typically not allowed.  Additionally, this area is  within the Gateway Overlay.  Section 4.11 of the UDC states  that the purpose of the  gateway is to protect and  enhance the entrance  corridors to the city with  landscaping, setbacks, and  special design standards. The  proposed building design  standards do not ensure a  quality design. The applicant  has provided a rendering of a  store in Austin, however the  applicant could not ensure  the same building would be  Page 38 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 10 of 11  constructed at the property  currently under review.    Sign Standards Staff cannot support  The proposed sq. footage of  the sign face is 3 times the  amount allowed by the UDC.  The applicant has also not  provided renderings of the  signage.  Parking Requirements – No  additional parking shall be  provided for the  indoor/outdoor display areas  Approval  Based on the submitted  concept plan the applicant  has provided adequate off‐ street parking to fully  accommodate customers on  site.  Outdoor Lighting within a  bufferyard Approval  Given the location of the site  it does not appear the  lighting will have an adverse  impact on the adjacent  properties. The site will still  be subject to the foot candle  lighting specifications  required by the UDC.  Parking lot landscaping  requirements shall not apply  to equipment storage and  display areas.  Approval with condition ‐ If  equipment is parked on a  landscaped areas (turf or  grass) the area must have an  irrigation system.  It is the applicant’s desire to  have equipment displayed on  a more natural area. As a  gateway into the community  staff wants to ensure the area  remains attractive and all  grass/turf areas remain alive.  Landscaping Approval  All landscaping will be in  conformance with Chapter 8  of the UDC. A 25‐foot  landscape buffer yard shall  be required along IH‐35 and  N. Austin Ave in accordance  with the Highway Gateway  Overlay district. 25‐foot  landscape buffer yards shall  be provided along the north  and south property line.    Page 39 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Ewald Kubota PUD Page 11 of 11  Public Comments  No public comments received.   Attachments  Attachment 1 – Location Map  Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map   Attachment 3 – Zoning Map  Attachment 4 – Aerial Map  Attachment 5 – Ewald Kubota PUD  Page 40 of 113 N IH 3 5 LAKEWAYDR NORT H W E S T B L V D SERENADADR W I L L I A M S D R A I R P O R T R D N AU S T I N A V E §¨¦35 ¬«130 ")SPUR158 BOOTYS CROSSING RD W I L L I A M S D R ")971 REZ-2017-005Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 41 of 113 LAKEWAYDR A I R P O R T R D §¨¦35 ")SP U R158 ")97 1 Coo rd inate Sys tem: Te xas S tate Plane/C entral Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic D ata Fo r General Planning Purposes O nly ¯ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhi bit #2 REZ-20 17 -00 5 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regi onal Commercial Community Commerc ial Em ployment Center Low Dens ity Residential Mining Mix ed Us e Community Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Us e Area Ag / Rural Residential Ex isting Collector Ex isting Freeway Ex isting Major Arterial Ex isting Minor Arterial Ex isting Ramp Pr oposed Collector Pr oposed Freeway Pr opsed Frontage Road Pr oposed Major Arterial Pr oposed Minor Arterial Pr oposed Railroad High Density Residential 0 ¼½¾Mi Le ge ndSi teParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ Page 42 of 113 LAKEWAYDR A I R P O R T R D §¨¦35 ")SP U R158 ")97 1 Zon in g Inf ormationREZ-2 017-0 05Exhibit #3 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ¯ 0 ¼½¾MiPage 43 of 113 N IH 35 SB AIR PO RT R D N IH 35 FWY SB N IH 35 FWY NB S T A D I U M D R N AUSTIN AVE EXIT 262 SB NE INNER LOOP EXIT 264 NB S U D D U T H D R L A K E W A Y D R N IH 35 NB I N D U S T R I A L P A R K C I R M A H O G A N Y L N G OLDEN OAKS RD H I C K O R Y T R E E D R O R A N G E T R E E L N LAKEWAYDR Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only ¯ Aerial REZ-2 017-0 05 Le ge n d SiteCity Limits 0 500 1,000Feet Page 44 of 113 Page 45 of 113 Ewald Kubota Georgetown Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan Exhibit A – PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 A. PROPERTY The Ewald Kubota Georgetown Planned Unit Development District is located on the east side of IH-35 and approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lakeway Drive and IH-35 and encompasses approximately 5.605 acres, described per the attached legal description, Exhibit B, herein defined as the “property”. B. PURPOSE Ewald Kubota, Inc. is a Kubota Corporation equipment dealer with seven locations across central and south Texas. Ewald Kubota, Inc. intends to develop a new equipment dealership on the subject property. The project will include approximately 10,500 square feet of office, showroom, warehouse, and service shop to support the dealership location. Additional improvements include equipment display and storage areas, fencing, parking, paving improvements for site circulation, and utility infrastructure. Kubota Corporation dealerships are a unique development project due to the size of equipment and associated building structure required to repair and service the equipment. Large expansive areas are required for display, storage, and circulation of the equipment. Ewald Kubota, Inc. carries what is known in the industry as “Compact Equipment” as the size of their merchandise is on a much smaller scale than equipment used for commercial agriculture purposes. However, as the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code (UDC) does not have a compact equipment designation, this development will fall under the use of “Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair”. The Ewald Kubota, Inc. use of Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair will be located on approximately 5.605 acres. The standards established in this PUD shall be applicable only to these 5.605 acres that Ewald Kubota, Inc. will develop, as demonstrated on the attached concept plan. This PUD serves to augment and/or modify the standards for development outlined in the City’s UDC in order to implement the vision for the property and insure a cohesive, quality development not otherwise anticipated by the underlying base zoning district. In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.C “Development Plan Required”, this Development Plan titled Exhibit A is a summary of the development and design standards for the property. This PUD is intended to conform to the approval criteria of Sections 3.06.030 and 3.06.040 of the UDC. Per Section 3.06.030, the following criteria shall be considered by City Council for zoning changes: Page 46 of 113 2 A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action; B. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; C. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe, orderly, and healthful development of the City; D. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and E. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. Section 3.06.040 provides that, in addition of consideration of the foregoing criteria of Section 3.06.030, the following applicable criteria shall be considered by City Council for approving this PUD: A. A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community; B. An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community; C. A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system providing for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and pedestrian walkways; D. The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community; E. The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and manmade environment; and F. The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities, and services. C. LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION On October 27, 2016, John Ewald was granted a Legal Lot verification for the subject property. As such, the property will not require platting or a preliminary plan. A copy of the Legal Lot verification letter can be found as Exhibit C of this Development Plan. D. APPLICABILITY AND BASE ZONING In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.A “Compatibility with Base Zoning District”, the PUD shall be designed to be used in conjunction with a designated base zoning district. All development of the property shall conform to the base zoning district of General Page 47 of 113 3 Commercial – “C-3”. All General Commercial standards and requirements shall apply except for those specifically deviated by this PUD Development Plan. E. CONCEPTUAL LAND PLAN A Conceptual Land Plan has been attached to this PUD Development Plan as Exhibit D to illustrate the land use and design intent for the property. The Conceptual Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a guide to illustrate the general vision and design concepts and is not intended to serve as a final document. As such, the proposed configurations are subject to refinement at time of Site Plan review. Approval of this PUD, Development Plan, and Conceptual Land Use Plan does not constitute approval of a Site Development Plan per Section 3.09 of the UDC. F. PERMITTED / EXCLUDED LAND USES 1. Primary Use The primary uses of the 5+/- acre property shall be for Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair and Small Engine Repair. 2. Other Permitted Uses Permitted uses in the C-3 – General Commercial zoning districts. 3. Prohibited Uses Those uses prohibited in the C-3 – General Commercial zoning districts. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses Permitted accessory uses in the IN – Industrial and C-3 – General Commercial zoning districts shall be allowed on all the property. Accessory uses include but are not limited to: office, warehouse, and equipment display and storage. G. DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Density Not Applicable in the C-3 zoning district. There shall be no limitation on building square footage as long as applicable setbacks, buffer yards and impervious cover are achieved. Floor to area ratio requirements shall not be applicable. These standards shall be applicable to the entire property. 2. Sidewalks Sidewalks shall be required on all four sides of the property. There is currently an existing sidewalk along Lakeway Dr. north of the property as shown on Exhibit E. The developer will not be responsible for replacing this sidewalk so long as it is in good shape and ADA compliant at the time of development. Per the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan, developers have the option to pay 20% into a sidewalk fund in lieu of constructing sidewalks. This 20% funding option shall be applicable to the southern and western sides of the property, both of which may be subject to TxDOT improvement in the future. The 20% cost shall be based Page 48 of 113 4 on the cost of design, and construction cost. The cost shall be submitted for the review and approval of the development engineer. As for the eastern side of the property along Austin Ave., the developer shall be responsible for the construction of a 6-foot sidewalk and associated crosswalks. 3. Setbacks These standards shall be applicable to the entire property. These setbacks on the property shall be as follows: Front Setback - minimum 25 feet Side Setback - minimum 10 feet Side Setback to Residential District - minimum 15 feet Rear Setback - minimum 10 feet Rear Setback to Residential District - minimum 25 feet 4. Building Height These standards shall be applicable to the entire property. The maximum building heights on the property will comply with the UDC, Table 7.03.020. 5. Exterior Lighting Exterior Lighting on the Property and its buildings will comply with the requirements set forth in Section 7.05 of the UDC related to outdoor lighting unless otherwise described in this PUD Development Plan. 6. Fencing A minimum 8-foot tall fence shall be required for outdoor storage area within I-35 view. Per Section 5.09.030.E, wall or fence shall be constructed of materials that include, but are not limited to, brick, stone, reinforced concrete or other similar masonry materials; redwood, cedar or preservative pressure-treated wood; or other materials as approved by the Director. 7. Paving Outdoor Display, General areas need not be paved as per Section 5.09.030.C of the UDC. Areas designated as Outdoor Storage, Limited, however, do require paving as per Section 5.09.030.E. Outdoor Display, General areas shall not be paved in order to maximize greenspace and a natural aesthetic. 8. Fire Access Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility per the 2002 International Fire Code (IFC) Section 503.1.1. Per 2002 IFC 503, fire apparatus roads shall be an all-weather drive surface of asphalt or concrete or chip seal placed onto base material engineered to withstand 75,000 lbs. Page 49 of 113 5 H. PARKING Parking on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 9 of the UDC except as otherwise stated in this Development Plan. Parking requirements shall be as shown on the Conceptual Land Plan. No additional parking shall be required for indoor and outdoor storage or staging area. I. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 1. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) TIA shall be required at time of site plan for projects that exceed 2000 trips per day as described in Section 12.05.030 of the UDC. 2. Driveway Access Driveway shall meet the requirements of Chapter 12 and TxDOT requirements, as applicable. J. UTILITIES Water service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 8” waterline that runs east of the property along the east side of N. Austin Drive. Wastewater service to the property shall be provided by a City of Georgetown 30” wastewater line that runs east to west 650 feet south of the property. Wastewater will be extended to the southern edge of the property at the owner’s expense. K. TREE PRESERVATION Tree Preservation on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the UDC. A Tree Survey has been provided as Exhibit F. L. LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS Landscaping on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this PUD Development Plan. A 25-foot landscape buffer yard shall be required along IH-35 and N. Austin Ave in accordance with the Highway Gateway Overlay district. 25-foot landscape buffer yards shall be provided along the north and south property line. Proposed species and locations are subject to refinement at time of Site Plan review. Likewise, mitigation measures to be as shown on the Tree Mitigation Summary per UDC Section 8.04.030. Parking lot landscaping requirements shall not apply to equipment storage and display areas. Light poles shall be allowed in a bufferyard, setbacks, and easements. Page 50 of 113 6 M. SIGNAGE Signage on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code unless otherwise stated in this Development Plan or in a Master Sign Plan for the property. Signage along N. Austin Avenue shall be limited to a 6’ masonry monument sign with a sign face of a maximum of 150 square feet per sign face meeting the sign location requirements of the UDC. Signage along I-35 shall be limited to one pole sign meeting the sign height, area, spacing and location standards of the UDC. N. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE Impervious coverage on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 11 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this PUD Development Plan. Detention ponds, water quality ponds, and landscape rock shall be considered pervious cover. Up to a 5% impervious cover credit for preservation of protected trees shall be awarded to the Heavy Equipment Sales and Repair Use per Section 8.02.050.A.1 of the UDC. Per code, a maximum of a 30% total reduction in the number of required spaces for preservation of protected trees, with approval of the Urban Forester. Impervious Cover % = [0.70 * 5 acres] + [0.55 * (Total Acreage – 5 acres)] / Total Acreage Impervious Cover % = [0.70 * 5 acres] + [0.55 * (5.605 acres – 5 acres) / 5.605 acres Impervious Cover % = 69.00% O. STORMWATER Impervious coverage on the property shall be in conformance with Chapter 11 of the UDC unless otherwise stated in this PUD Development Plan. A portion of the property is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone according to the TCEQ USGS Quad Map. The property must comply with the requirements of Chapter 11 of the UDC and the Edwards Aquifer Rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and must meet 85% removal according to the Georgetown water quality ordinance. Detention and water quality ponds including outlet structures shall be allowed in building setback areas. Pond design shall include berms, not retaining walls. Detention and water quality ponds shall not be allowed in landscape buffer yards. P. PARKLAND AND COMMON AMENITY AREA (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Not Applicable Page 51 of 113 7 Q. OTHER ITEMS APPLICABLE TO THE EWALD KUBOTA HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND REPAIR USE 1. General Outdoor Display shall follow all requirements found in Section 5.09.030A and 5.09.030C aside from those listed hereafter: 1. Height restriction of display items in the designated Outdoor Display areas shall be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet to allow for flexibility with future merchandise. General Outdoor Display areas as designated on the Site Plan need not be adjacent to the building. 2. General Outdoor Display and Storage areas will not be required to be paved. Keeping the areas unpaved will allow for flexibility with equipment placement, showcase the equipment in its intended environment, reduce impervious coverage, and keep the property more visually appealing. 3. General Outdoor Display and Storage shall be allowed to be located in front, street, side and rear yards, but not located in setbacks or bufferyards. General Outdoor Display and Storage shall be permitted in locations identified on the Conceptual Land Plan. 2. 7.04.040 A Building Materials shall read as follows: At least 80% of the collective walls of the office and showroom, not to include overhead doors or windows, of a building shall be finished in one or more of the following building materials: 1. Brick, stone, cast stone, rock, marble, granite, glass block or tile; 2. Stucco or plaster; 3. Split-face concrete block, poured-in place concrete, and tilt-wall concrete. Any use of concrete products shall have an integrated color and be textured or patterned. Tilt-wall concrete structures shall include reveals, punch-outs or other similar surface characteristics to enhance the wall on at least 10% of each wall; 4. Glass with less than 20% reflectance. However, a maximum of 50% of the first two stories or floors of a building may be constructed in glass. This requirement shall not pertain to the service shop portion of the building as it will be screened by the fence. 3. 7.04.040 C. Roof Styles: The service shop portion and the track shop building propose a 1:12 slope roof. 4. 7.04.040 E which provides requirements on entryway and entrance treatments shall not be required for the Ewald Kubota heavy equipment sales and repair use. 5. 7.04.050 C. 1. Horizontal Articulation: The service shop portion and the track shop building will not step in or out in plan to permit horizontal articulation. Page 52 of 113 8 6. 7.04.050 C. 2. Vertical Articulation: The service shop portion and the track shop building will lack vertical articulation in the building elevation. 7. 7.04.050 D Architectural Features: Limited architectural features are being proposed for the utilitarian functions of service shop portion and the track shop building. R. PUD MODIFICATIONS In conformance with Section 4.06.010.D.3 of the UDC, modifications to this Development Plan shall require City Council approval of an amendment to this PUD processed pursuant to Section 3.06 of the UDC, except, where the Director of Planning determines such modifications to be minor, the Director may authorize such modifications. Minor modifications may include changes to building sizes, uses, or locations providing those modifications conform to the general intent of this PUD, uses authorized by this PUD, or to applicable provisions of the UDC and any other applicable regulations. It is anticipated that building structures, loading docks, parking spaces, etc. may change in size and location during final design of the Ewald Kubota Heavy Equipment Sales and Service Use. S. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A – PUD Development Plan Exhibit B – Survey and Field Notes Exhibit C – Copy of Legal Lot Verification Letter Exhibit D – Conceptual Land Plan Exhibit E – Lakeway Drive Sidewalk Aerial Exhibit F – Tree Survey Page 53 of 113 9 Exhibits Page 54 of 113 Page 55 of 113 Page 56 of 113 Page 57 of 113 L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\Case Files\Verification Letters\Legal Lot Verification Letters\2016\LTR-2016-027 I35 and Lakeway\IH 35 NB and NE Inner Loop Legal Lot Verification Letter.doc        October 27, 2016      John Ewald  Ewald Kubota, Inc.  Seguin, TX 78155  Via email: john.e@ewaldkubota.com   RE: Legal Lot verification for a portion of that called 12.5 acre tract of land in the  Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract no. 235, located at Interstate Highway 35 and  Lakeway Drive    Dear Mr. Ewald:   Per Section 3.10.020 B of the Unified Development Code (UDC1) of the City of  Georgetown, this letter confirms that the 5.605‐acre portion of that called 12.5 acre tract  of land in the Antonio Flores Survey, Abstract no. 235, located at Interstate Highway 35  and Lakeway Drive, and more fully described in a deed recorded as Document number  2009008812, of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas is a legal lot.  Thus per  Section 3.08.020 F, a plat would not be required for this tract to be developed, unless it  were to be divided.   Also, this letter does not authorize the property owner to proceed with  development of the tract and does not specify requirements that must be met for future  development.  For your information, “development” is defined in Section 16.02 of the  UDC as follows: “The term “development” includes any of the following occurrences:  The division of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels; the construction,  reconstruction, conversion, structural alternation, relocation, or enlargement of any  buildings; the extension of any use of land; any clearing, grading, excavation, or other  movement of land, for which permission may be required pursuant to this ordinance;  reconstruction, alteration of the size or material change in the external appearance of a  structure; and excavation for the construction, moving, alteration, or repair, not  including ordinary maintenance and repair, of any building or structure exceeding 144  square feet in area.”    1 You can access the complete UDC on the City’s internet site at www.georgetown.org. Page 58 of 113 L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\Case Files\Verification Letters\Legal Lot Verification Letters\2016\LTR-2016-027 I35 and Lakeway\IH 35 NB and NE Inner Loop Legal Lot Verification Letter.doc Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.    Sincerely,      Carolyn Horner, AICP  Planner          Page 59 of 113 % '9 # . &  - 7 $ 1 6 # %1 0 % ' 2 6 7 # .  . # 0 &  2 . # 0 )' 1 4 ) ' 6 1 9 0   6 ' : # 5 :::::::::: .')'0& 0 # 7 5 6 + 0  # 8 '  +*    ': * + $ + 6  & Page 60 of 113 Imagery ©2017 Google, Map data ©2017 Google 100 ft Lakeway Dr. Sidewalk Ewald Kubota 5.604-ac site Page 1 of 1Google Maps 2/27/2017https://www.google.com/maps/dir//N+Austin+Ave,+Georgetown,+TX+78626/@30.6734139,-97.6639593,333m/data=!3m1!1e... Page 61 of 113 Page 62 of 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t to Rezone approximately 12.228 ac res in the J. Po well Survey, loc ated at the inters ectio n o f Kelley Drive and Gateway Drive, alo ng North Inters tate 35 fro m the Agriculture (AG) Dis trict to the Regio nal Co mmercial (C-3) Dis tric t. (REZ-2017-007, Ec ho Park) Nathan Jones -Meyer, P lanner ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The ap p licant has reques ted to rezo ne the und eveloped 12.228 ac res tract fro m Agriculture (AG) Dis tric t, as s igned up on annexation in 2017, to Regional Commerc ial (C-3) District to allo w fo r future c o mmercial d evelopment of the property. In ad d ition to this rezone petition, the applic ant intends to ap p ly fo r a s p ecial use p ermit for an auto s ales d evelopment at this p ro p erty. Public Comment: To d ate, no written c o mments have b een rec eived. Staff Recommendation: Staff rec o mmend s approval of the reques t to rezone the 12.228 ac re tract to the C -3 District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None studied at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Nathan Jo nes-Meyer, Planner, and Sofia Nels o n, C NU-A, P lanning Director ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Attachment 1 – Location Map Backup Material Attachment 2 – Future Land Us e Map Backup Material Attachment 3 – Zoning Map Backup Material Attachment 4 – C-3 Dis trict Development Standards and Permitted Land Us es Backup Material Page 63 of 113 Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 1 of 6 Report Date: June 16, 2017 File No: REZ-2017-007 Project Planner: S. Nathan Jones-Meyer, Planner Item Details Project Name: Echo Park Project Address: Intersection of Kelley Drive and Gateway Drive, along North IH-35 Owner: W.D. Kelley Foundation 707 S. Rock St. Georgetown, TX 78626 Applicant: Karen Wunsch, Masterplan 6500 River Place Blvd., Bldg. 7, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78730 Total Acreage: 12.228 acres Legal Description: Portions of Georgetown Gateway AMD Phase A, Section 1, Lot 1 and AW0491 AW0491 - Powell, J. Survey Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) Proposed Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3) Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone the undeveloped 12.228 acres from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Community Commercial (C-3) District to allow future commercial development at the site. The requested rezone would provide the property owner with permitted uses allowed by the C-3 District. Site Information Location: The subject site is located at the intersection of Kelley Drive and Gateway Drive. It is part of the W.D. Kelley Foundation Kelley Trust. It is bordered by Celebration Church to the east, IH-35 to the west, and several auto sales business to the south. Physical Characteristics: The site is comprised of a portion of two tracts totaling 12.228 acres. The site sits at the foot of a hill, commonly referred to as Rabbit Hill. The site is covered in brush and, due to the incline, would need to be cleared and leveled before development. Page 64 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 2 of 6 Surrounding Properties: Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North None Community Commercial Undeveloped South C-3 Employment Center Commercial Use East PF Employment Center Place of Worship West None Mining Highway ROW Property History The site is part of approximately 90 acres of undeveloped, unincorporated land known as the Kelley Trust. The Kelley Trust is managed by the non-profit W.D. Kelley Foundation and extends from its frontage along IH-35 to Rabbit Hill Road. In the late 1990’s, the City of Georgetown approved a concept plan proposed by the W.D. Kelley Foundation for the future development of the site. The concept plan included a proposed lot layout and showed the northern extension of Kelley Drive to connect to Rabbit Hill Road. Since that time, there has been no major development on the property and the concept plan has expired. A portion of the site was platted in 1988 by Rabbit Hill Joint Venture. In 1993, both the platted portion of the site, and an additional unplatted portion, were sold to the Kelley Trust. In April 2017, the W.D. Kelley Foundation submitted a voluntary petition of annexation with the City. The petition for annexation was approved by the City Council, and after its second public hearing, the subject site was incorporated into the City. The subject site was designated Agriculture (AG) upon annexation. This request to rezone, as well as the petition for annexation, is being processed by City staff as the result of pre-development meetings that took place in early 2017 between the owner, City staff, and the land developer, Sonic Automotive. The ultimate goal of the property owner and the developer is to develop the land as an auto sales facility. An SUP application has been submitted with the Planning Department and is scheduled to be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation on July 18th. City staff has shared concerns with the property owner and developer regarding the consistency of auto sales with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The zoning request and SUP request will be considered separately. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use: The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Community Commercial and Employment Center. The Community Commercial category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as areas that accommodate retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities that serve more than one residential neighborhood. These areas are typically configured as “nodes” of varying scales at the intersection of arterial roads, or at the intersection of arterials and collectors. Community Commercial areas typically will include neighborhood serving commercial uses as well as larger retail uses including restaurants, specialty retail, mid- Page 65 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 3 of 6 box stores and smaller shopping centers. They may also include churches, governmental branch offices, schools, parks, and other civic facilities. The Employment Center category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive as intended for large, undeveloped tracts located at strategic positions, which are designated for we ll planned, larger scale employment and business activities. These areas act as a transition between more intensely developed commercial uses and residential neighborhoods. Future land uses allowed under this category should be encouraged to develop in a campus-like setting with generous open space that encourages pedestrian activity. Primary uses include offices, flex offices, and technology research and development. While some light industrial land uses may be included, care should be taken to protect adjacent uses from adverse impacts, use as truck traffic and outdoor storage. Growth Tier: The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 2 (Intermediate Growth Area). The City may consider rrequests for annexations and rezonings in this area; however, the City should first examine such requests based on object criteria and then require applicants to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment demonstrating that impacts can be adequately mitigated. Transportation The subject site’s current access is from a driveway curb cut on the IH-35 Frontage Road and a street stub at the end of Kelley Drive. Trip generation will be reviewed with the Site Development Review application, possibly triggering the need for a TIA at that time. Cross access to future development adjacent to the subject property will be required. Utilities Water/Wastewater and Electric is served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property by existing capacity. Proposed Zoning District The C-3 district is intended to provide a location for general commercial and retail activities that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may be large in scale and generate substantial traffic, making the C-3 District only appropriate along freeways and major arterials. The C-3 District offers the most options of permitted land uses and is the most intense land use apart from the Industrial District. Typical uses in this district include general retail, hotels, restaurants, and general office. Attachment 4 contains a comprehensive list of C-3 District allowable uses and development standards. Certain land uses, including automotive sales, rental or leasing facilities, require a Special Use Permit. Some land uses have specific design limitations to ensure compatibility with the surrounding properties. Staff Analysis Staff has determined that the requested zoning of C-3 meets the intent of the Future Land Use Page 66 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 4 of 6 categories of Community Commercial and Employment Center. The site sits along the IH-35 frontage road and is a major gateway into the City. The land uses that are permitted by right and do not require a SUP under the C-3 District complement the Future Land Use designations and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would not be required. Seen from a regional perspective, the site acts as the beginning of the transition from the existing automotive sales and commercial land uses near Westinghouse to a well-planned, larger scale employment and business center intended for the undeveloped land located to the north. As the rest of the Kelley Tract continues to develop, it will add a valuable mix of commercial and employment land uses along the IH-35 gateway. This will eventually tie into the residential single family and multi-family development that is occurring along Rabbit Hill Road and Westinghouse. As these land uses interact, they will enhance each other by creating a mix of employment, commercial, retail and residential uses within close proximity to each other. As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element identified a number of land use goals, policies and actions. The following goals and action statements are the most relevant to this request:  Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.A2 states that the City should “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.”  Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.D4 states that the City should “develop and apply standards for the location and design of mid-box and big-box retail centers to improve their aesthetics, maintain appropriate commercial scale and provide for their future adaptive re-use.”  Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.E3 states that the City should “encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street network, safe pedestrian routes, and healthy active living.”  Goal 3, Policies and Action 3.A1 states that the City should discourage “pre-mature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient development.” Complies Does Not Comply Approval Criteria for Rezoning X The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action An application must provide the necessary information to review and make a knowledgeable decision in order for staff to schedule an application for consideration by P&Z and City Council. This application was reviewed by staff and deemed to be complete. X The zoning change is consistent The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Page 67 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 5 of 6 with the Comprehensive Plan Community Commercial and Employment Center future land uses of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Commercial category supports the C-3 District at this location since it is located along a major highway. The Employment Center category supports C-3 because this area begins the transition from the saturated automotive sales and commercial land uses near Westinghouse to a well planned, larger scale employment and business center intended for the undeveloped land located to the north. X The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City The zoning change request promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The location of commercial development along corridors such as Williams Drive will help serve the nearby residential neighborhoods. The C-3 District will help facilitate orderly commercial development along a major highway. X The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and uses. A landscape gateway buffer will be required along IH-35, per the UDC. X The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. The uses allowed in the C-3 District are suitable along major arterials such as IH-35 and within the areas of the Future Land Use designated as Community Commercial and Employment Center. General Findings Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings: 1. The proposed rezone to C-3 would support the following goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:  Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.A2 states that the City should “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long term commercial and employment uses and prevent its use for residential subdivisions.” The rezoning of this property to the C-3 District for the future commercial development would support this goal. Residential land uses are not permitted within the C-3 District.  Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.D4 states that the City should “develop and apply standards for the location and design of mid-box and big-box retail centers to improve their aesthetics, maintain appropriate commercial scale and provide for their future adaptive re-use.” The rezone of this property the C-3 District would support this goal by encouraging a well-planned mix of commercial and business activities. Page 68 of 113 Planning Department Staff Report Echo Park Rezoning AG to C-3 Page 6 of 6  Goal 1, Policies and Action 1.E3 states that the City should “encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street network, safe pedestrian routes, and healthy active living.” The land uses permitted under the C-3 district could support this goal by developing in a campus-like setting with linked open space to maximize value, promote visual quality, and encourage pedestrian activity between employment, retail, and residential areas.  Goal 3, Policies and Action 3.A1 states that the City should discourage “pre-mature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient development.” The rezoning of this property will contribute to this goal by connecting the commercial and employment land uses intended along the IH-35 gateway to the residential land uses along Rabbit Hill Road. 2. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Community Commercial and Employment Center future land uses of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Commercial category supports the C-3 District at this location since it is located along a major highway. The Employment Center category supports C-3 because this area begins the transition from the saturated automotive sales and commercial land uses near Westinghouse to a well-planned, larger scale employment and business center intended for the undeveloped land located to the north. 3. The zoning change request promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The location of commercial development along corridors such as Williams Drive will help serve the nearby residential neighborhoods. The C-3 District will help facilitate orderly commercial development along a major highway. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s zoning request based on the above-mentioned findings. Public Comments As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application (5 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper (June 4, 2017) and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has not received any written or verbal comments in support or against the zoning request. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map Attachment 3 – Zoning Map Attachment 4 – C-3 District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses Page 69 of 113 W E S T I N G H O U S E R D §¨¦35 REZ-2 017-0 07Exhibit #1 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only ¯ Locati on Map Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ 0 0.5 1Mi Page 70 of 113 S I H 35 SB S IH 35 NB S I H 35 F W Y S B S IH 35 FWY NB W E S T I N G H O U S E R D R A B B I T H I L L R D K E L L E Y D R EXIT 259A NB EXIT 257 SB C L E A R V I E W D R ENTR 259 NB C O M M E R C E B L V D P A R K C E N T R A L B L V D S IH 35 FRN I H 3 5 F R GATE WAY DR C L E A R V I E W D R Coo rd inate Sys tem: Te xas S tate Plane/C entral Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic D ata Fo r General Planning Purposes O nly ¯ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhi bit #2 REZ-20 17 -00 7 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regi onal Commercial Community Commerc ial Em ployment Center Low Dens ity Residential Mining Mix ed Us e Community Mix ed Us e Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Us e Area Ag / Rural Residential Ex isting Collector Ex isting Freeway Ex isting Major Arterial Ex isting Minor Arterial Ex isting Ramp Pr oposed Collector Pr oposed Freeway Pr opsed Frontage Road Pr oposed Major Arterial Pr oposed Minor Arterial Pr oposed Railroad High Density Residential 0 ¼½Mi Le ge ndSi teParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ Page 71 of 113 S I H 35 SB S IH 35 NB S I H 35 F W Y S B S IH 35 FWY NB W E S T I N G H O U S E R D R A B B I T H I L L R D K E L L E Y D R EXIT 259A NB EXIT 257 SB C L E A R V I E W D R ENTR 259 NB C O M M E R C E B L V D P A R K C E N T R A L B L V D S IH 35 FRN I H 3 5 F R GATE WAY DR C L E A R V I E W D R Zon in g Inf ormationREZ-2 017-0 07Exhibit #3 Co ord inate System: Texas Sta te Plane/Centra l Zone/NAD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purp oses Only Le ge n dSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ¯ 0 ¼½MiPage 72 of 113 District Size‐min. acreage = 5 Side Setback = 10 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings  Maximum Building Height = 45 feet Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet     adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,  Front Setback = 25 feet Rear Setback = 10 feet     MF‐1, or MF‐2 districts   (0 feet for build‐to/downtown) Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required Agricultural Sales Activity Center (youth/senior) Auto. Parts Sales (outdoor) Artisan Studio/Gallery Athletic Facility, Indoor or Outdoor Auto. Repair & Service, General Assisted Living Bar/Tavern/Pub Auto. Sales, Rental, Leasing Automotive Parts Sales (indoor) Business/Trade School Bus Barn Auto. Repair and Service, Limited Church (with columbarium)Cemetary, Columbaria, Mausoleum, or  Memorial Park Banking/Financial Services College/University Correctional Facility Blood/Plasma Center Commercial Recreation Firing Range, Indoor Car Wash Community Center Flea Market Consumer Repair Dance Hall/Night Club Hospital, Psychiatric Dry Cleaning Service Data Center Lumber Yard Emergency Services Station Day Care (group/commercial) Major Event Entertainment Event Catering/Equipment Rental Driving Range Manufactured Housing Sales Farmer's Market Event Facility Meat Market Fitness Center Heliport Multifamily Attached Food Catering Services Kennel Recreational Vehicle Sales, Rental,  Fuel Sales Live Music/Entertainment Self‐Storage (indoor or outdoor) Funeral Home Micro Brewery/Winery Substance Abuse Treatment Facility General Retail Neighborhood Amenity Center Transient Service Facility General Office Park (neighborhood/regional) Wireless Transmission Facility (41'+) Government/Postal Office Pest Control/Janitorial Services Home Health Care Services School (Elementary, Middle, High) Hospital Upper‐story Residential Hotel/Inn/Motel (incl. extended stay) Wireless Transmission Facility (<41') Integrated Office Center Landscape/Garden Sales Laundromat Library/Museum Medical Diagnostic Center Medical Office/Clinic/Complex Membership Club/Lodge Nature Preserve/Community Garden Nursing/Convalescent/Hospice Parking Lot (commercial/park‐n‐ride) Personal Services (inc. Restricted) Printing/Mailing/Copying Services Private Transport  Dispatch Facility Restaurant (general/drive‐through) Small Engine Repair Social Service Facility Surgery/Post Surgery Recovery Theater (movie/live) Transit Passenger Terminal Urgent Care Facility General Commercial (C‐3) District District Development Standards Specific Uses Allowed within the District Page 73 of 113 Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major) Veterinary Clinic (indoor only) Page 74 of 113 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Presentatio n, d is c us s io n and p o s s ib le rec o mmend ation to City Co uncil for ac c ep tance o f the CAMPO/City of Geo rgeto wn Williams Drive S tud y Final P lan – Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, P MP, Trans p o rtation Analys t, and Andreina Dávila-Quintero, P ro ject Co o rd inator. ITEM SUMMARY: The City and C AMP O partnered to d evelop a p lan o f ac tion for Williams Drive to p ro vide s afety, effic ient trans p o rtation operatio ns, safe acc o mmo d atio ns o f all mo d es of trans p o rtation, and land use recommend atio ns that s upport c o mmunity needs , future ec o nomic gro wth and es tab lis h the c o rrid o r as a p remier gateway for the c ity and regio n. The Williams Drive S tud y final p lan c ap tures the vision of the community for the c o rrid o r incorporating rec ommend ations that address the five p rimary is s ues id entified: traffic c o nges tio n, traffic o p erations , b arriers to red evelopment and reinves tment, aes thetic enhancements, and p ed es trian and b icycle facilities . The comp lete final p lan may b e viewed online at http://www.c amp o texas .org/wp -content/up lo ad s /2016/07/Williams -Drive-Draft-F inal-Rep o rt-050517- 2.p d f. On May 30, 2017, the City and CAMPO hos ted an Op en Hous e Public Meeting to p res ent the Williams Drive Stud y final plan. T he Op en Hous e was fac ilitated b y the P ublic Works , P lanning and Communic atio ns d ep artments, and City Manager ’s Office. The event was attended b y 58 people who were ab le to see and provid e feedbac k o n the rec ommend ed projec ts and p o licies that may be imp lemented over 10 years and b eyond . City s taff als o fac ilitated a joint works hop with the Geo rgeto wn Transportatio n Ad vis ory Board (GTAB) and the Planning and Zoning Co mmis s io n (P &Z) on June 1, 2017. At this jo int wo rks ho p , the P ro ject Team and Bo ard memb ers reviewed: The Purpos e and Go als of the Stud y (Exhib it A); Pub lic C o mment (Exhib it B); Concep t p lans and recommend ations ; and Imp lementatio n Plan (Exhib it C). Comments and rec o mmendatio ns fro m the pub lic and Bo ard members have b een inc luded in the Stud y or noted to be inc orporated through the imp lementatio n o f the recommend ed p ro jec ts (Exhib it D). The Projec t Team rec o mmends acc ep tance of the final plan as it meets the p urpos e and goals o f the Williams Drive Study. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Final Plan inc lud es F is cal Year 2018 b ud get rec o mmendatio ns which will ultimately require City Counc il appro val thro ugh the annual bud get p ro c es s . Tho s e funding req ues ts are s up p o rted b y existing revenues collec ted through the Gateway Tax Inc rement Reinves tment Zone (T IRZ), contributions acc umulated through Traffic Imp act Assessments pro-rata improvements , and other p o tential City fund ing s o urc es . Page 75 of 113 SUBMITTED BY: Nathaniel Waggo ner, AICP, PMP, Trans p o rtation Analyst, and Andreina Dávila-Quintero, P ro ject Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Exhibit A - Purpos e, Goals and Objectives Exhibit Exhibit B - Public Comment Exhibit Exhibit C - Implementation Plan Exhibit Exhibit D - Joint GTAB and P&Z June 1 Works hop Comments Exhibit P&Z Power Point Pres entation Exhibit Page 76 of 113 GOAL 1. ENHANCE MULTIMODAL MOVEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ¡ŔǫȥʋŔǫȥɭơȍǫŔŹȍơŔȥƎơlj˪ƃǫơȥʋʋɭŔlj˪ƃȶɢơɭŔʋǫȶȥɽࡳ •¶ŹǿơƃʋǫʽơࠁࡳMinimize delay to persons and goods movement. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ Enhance connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ Improve intermodal and multimodal connections. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠄࡳ Develop cost-effective improvements to the existing transportation network and multimodal facilities. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠅࡳ Promote safety and security by improving multimodal transportation throughout the corridor. GOAL 2. SUPPORT CORRIDOR-WIDE AND REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ Enable and plan for context sensitive economic activity in the corridor. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠁࡳ Ensure consistency of transportation actions with economic development actions, relevant regional and local plans, and available municipal economic development policies. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ Enhance connectivity and access to major residential, industrial, commercial and recreational sites. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ Ensure equity of transportation throughout the study area to enhance access to education, employment, housing, and recreation. PURPOSE STATEMENT Williams Drive is a critical gateway into the City of Georgetown. As such, it must strike a balance in providing: - mobility through an efficient, effective and reliable transportation network; - moving people and goods through multiple travel options - enhancing economic development and housing options within the neighborhoods it traverses. Proactive transportation and land use planning will assist the corridor in addressing the immediate and future mobility issues that stem from population growth and development pressures; positioning Williams Drive as a premier gateway for the City of Georgetown and the Capital region. Page 77 of 113 GOAL 3. PROTECT AND ENHANCE QUALITY OF LIFE. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ Minimize adverse impacts from transportation actions and the use of transportation facilities and services to avoid or minimize disproportionately adverse environmental, public health, social, and economic effects, on vulnerable populations. Objective 2. Provide a well-connected, multi-modal transportation network to increase people’s ability to access destinations that can ǫȥ˫ʠơȥƃơʋǠơǫɭǠơŔȍʋǠŔȥƎˁơȍȍ࢛Źơǫȥnj࡬ɽʠƃǠŔɽǿȶŹɽ࡬ǠơŔȍʋǠƃŔɭơ services, and parks. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ Protect unique environmental resources, including the San Gabriel Park and San Gabriel River. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ Support sustainable forms of development and the attainment of “Quality Communities” objectives. GOAL 4. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT THAT CREATES A VARIETY OF CONTEXT SENSITIVE MIXED-USE SERVICES THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO NEIGHBORHOODS. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ To encourage context sensitive mixed-use, multi-modal development that will increase travel options within existing urbanized areas and along the corridor as a means to accommodate new population growth, reduce land consumption, preserve valuable open space, conserve ecosystem functions, protect water quality, and improve community health. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠁࡳ To promote reinvestment in underutilized vacant properties, opportunities for context sensitive ȟǫˉơƎ࢛ʠɽơƎơʽơȍȶɢȟơȥʋ࡬ŔȥƎɢȶɽɽǫŹǫȍǫʋǫơɽljȶɭɽʠŹʠɭŹŔȥɭơʋɭȶ˪ʋɽˁǠơɭơŔɢɢɭȶɢɭǫŔʋơࡳ •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ To encourage transit-supportive land uses and complete street principles along and connecting to the Williams Drive corridor as part of the transportation system that makes up the built environment. •¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ To capitalize on existing investments in infrastructure by encouraging development in areas ˁǠơɭơǫȥljɭŔɽʋɭʠƃʋʠɭơǫɽŹơǫȥnjʠȥƎơɭʠʋǫȍǫ˖ơƎȶɭɢȍŔȥȥơƎljȶɭơˉɢŔȥɽǫȶȥˁǫʋǠȶʠʋɽʋɭŔǫȥǫȥnj˪ɽƃŔȍŹʠƎnjơʋɽȶɭ creating new environmental impacts. Page 78 of 113 Outreach Efforts BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC INPUT October Open House • 105 Attendees •70 Comments November Charrette Events • 86 Attendees •50 Comments 1,300 member email list 8,100 views 5,500 views 33,000 newspaper readers 400+ phone calls March Open House •72 Attendees •21 Comments May Open House •58 Attendees •14 Comments Page 79 of 113 PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS Location Area of Concern 1 Need sidewalk and bicycle path from Williams Drive to riverwalk/ Booty's Crossing Park along DB Wood Dr. Current sidewalk ends at Fire Department Williams Drive/ DB Wood Road at Booty's Crossing Park Bike/ Ped 2 Need better lighting between Lakeway to Sun City/ Jim Hogg Road Williams Drive between Lakeway dr to Jim Hogg Built Form 3 Motel broken fence, drug raids, and dilapidated Williams Drive and Clay Street Built Form 4 Allow development here to accentuate the Rive Williams Drive, just south of Rivery Blvd. Built Form 5 Need to reserve frontage for commercial, services, office, etc. and serve needs of nearby residents of Sun City. Williams Drive near Sun City (Del Webb intersection and up) Built Form 6 West end of Williams Needs more grocery store options- why is the HEB the only grocery store in the City? West end of Williams Drive Built Form 7 Political sign board at Del Webb and Williams Drive is an eyesore Williams Drive at Del Webb Built Form 8 Need a turn lane for Rivery Rd off of Williams Drive. Williams Drive at Rivery Rd. Car 9 Traffic lights not in sync. Traffic in PM not able to turn left, causing west traffic to back up. Williams Drive and Lakeway Dr, River Bend Dr., and Rivery Blvd. Car 10 Williams Drive needs to extend past Austin Avenue and connect to North College Street, or newer plans to any newer roads Williams Drive at Austin Avenue (proposed to North College) Car 11 Need more left turning lanes from Austin Avenue onto Williams Drive Austin Avenue at Williams Drive Car 12 2008 road bond project FM 971 (between Austin and NE Inner Loop) Car 13 Recommend 6 lanes for all of Williams Drive All of Williams Drive Car 14 Light synchronization Williams Drive at Woodlake Drive Car 15 Poor vehicle flow and very crowded parking at HEB at Williams Drive and DB Wood Road- crowded every time of day (dot #33)Williams Drive and DB Wood Rd. (HEB) Car 16 Ever since the Walmart general area was built, the increase in traffic flow on Mesquite Road has increased significantly. It could be considered as a minor artery. (dot # 34)Mesquite Road Car 17 Putting two bus stops on Dawn Dr. will add to the traffic. Dawn Dr. already has lots of traffic and for a curvy road, people travel too fast. Dawn Dr. Car 18 Upgrade the stoplight to a pole, not wire, long distance traffic signal (dot 36) Williams Drive at Serenada Dr. Car 19 Verde Vista Extension to Williams Drive Verde Vista dead end Car 20 Traffic study on light timing Williams Drive and Shell Rd/DB Wood Road Car 21 While not in the study, we use DB Wood to exit Williams and get to 35. They need 2 left turn lanes on University to make it a more attractive option and reduce Williams Drive traffic.University Drive at DB Woods (outside study area) Car 22 Deceleration lane to enter HEB coming from Sun City/ W Williams Drive at and DB Wood Road (HEB) Car 23 Heavy traffic on NW to bus route on Dawn Drive Dawn Drive Car/Ped/Transit 24 Bus route should pick up apartments on Northwest Drive (Between Lakeway and Central) Northwest Drive between Lakeway and Central Transit 25 Wider sidewalks to cross Austin Avenue Williams Drive at Austin Avenue Ped 26 Sidewalks on Shell Road from Bowling to Overlook Shell Road from Bowling to Overlook Ped 27 Sidewalks from Merrick Apartments at Estrella to DB Wood Estrella to DB Wood Road Ped 28 Split up traffic crossing I-35 and Austin Avenue- Add a Bridge, one way each. SE bound, branch off of Cedar Drive. Swing around behind River View Mall, cross over I-35 and connect to W. Morrow Street.Alternative Route Car 29 Split up traffic crossing I-35 and Austin Ave- NW bound goes off of Austin Avenue N. or Republic Square at Chamber Way, cross over I-35, connect to Park Ln., then connect to Dawn Drive, to Lakeway or Wagonwheel before re-merging to Williams Dr. Alternative Route Car 30 Significant redesign for Austin Avenue, past Rivery. Need to allow better thru traffic movement. Austin Avenue- past Rivery Car 31 Additional traffic on Dawn Dr with bus service on that street. We already have a huge amount of traffic and people speeding. This is a two curve street as it is. There are a number of children on this street and it makes it almost impossible for them to ride bicycles except on the sidewalk- which walkers also use. Dawn Drive Car/ Transit /Bike/Ped 32 Link east Georgetown to west Georgetown with a land mass over 35 from 29 to North Loop. Fill in with buildings, parks, and pedestrian malls. From 29 to North Loop. Ped 33 I saw nothing relating to the Randall's development at the corner of Hogg Road and Williams Drive Hogg Road and Williams Drive Built form 34 The traffic on Mesquite Rd increased so much since the development of Walmart and all the other retail in the area. I feel that Mesquite can now be considered a minor artery street. Mesquite Road Car 35 Suggest moving bus route to Northwest. Northwest Drive Transit 36 Other roads that need bike access off William's Drive are Lakeway- all the way to Austin Avenue on the other side of the interstate. Williams Drive- all roads connecting from Lakeway to Austin Ave. Bike October 6th Open House Williams Drive Study Public Comments Data Comment Sheets Page 1 of 5Page 80 of 113 PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS Location Area of Concern Williams Drive Study Public Comments Data Comment Sheets 37 Right-hand turn from Williams Drive onto I-35 Frontage Road if you are headed east is a train wreck. Needs to be expanded for people heading south. Williams Drive at 1-35 Frontage Road intersection Car 38 Williams Drive and N. Austin Avenue intersection is a disaster. Left turns off of Williams into the Chipotle/ Starbucks should be prohibited to alleviate traffic back ups. Left turns into McDonalds at the same intersection should be prohibited. Williams Drive at Austin Avenue Car 39 Red light be installed at Williams Drive and CR 245 Williams Drive at CR 245 Car 40 You are probably using traffic flow data of a year ago that is flawed, as it does not include peak shopping hours at HEB (10am-12pm and 2-4pm) Williams Drive at DB Wood (HEB) Car 41 Consider over-pass at crucial intersections: Williams Drive at DB Wood and Lakeway Williams Drive at DB Wood and Lakeway Intersection Car 42 Red lights be installed at Ronald Reagan and Williams Drive Williams Drive at Ronald Reagan Car 43 Shoulders on Williams Drive- used by cyclists. When a right hand turn lane take away the shoulder, a bike-through access should be added similar to what is occurring up and down Farmer/Ronald Reagan. Williams Drive Corridor Bike 44 If we can fix the vehicular and pedestrian issues then we can talk about bicycles but it is Texas, it is hot and the percentage of the population impacted by bike lanes is miniscule.Williams Drive Corridor Bike/Car/Ped 45 Need to reserve road frontage for commercial, retail, offices, services, etc. to support the needs of nearby residents. Williams Drive Corridor Built Form 46 Multi-family developments in area need to be restricted. They put much more traffic on roads and commute beyond the local area. Williams Drive Corridor Built form/ Car 47 Uninterrupted turn lane down the middle of Williams Drive, giving ample opportunity for conflicting left hand turns. This should be divided by a median.Williams Drive Corridor Car 48 Williams Drive- Add right hand turn lanes.Williams Drive Corridor Car 49 Widen Williams Drive. Add additional traffic lanes. Williams Drive Corridor Car 50 I drive from my house in old town to Embree (most of the 6-miles) on average round trip twice a day. Williams Drive Corridor Car 51 Make right hand turn lanes along the whole of Williams Drive (not just intersections. Need to stop the back up of cars when turning into businesses.Williams Drive Corridor Car 52 Lack of sidewalk- I see little reason why the entire 6-mile strip should not have a sidewalk on both sides. Williams Drive Corridor Ped 53 Williams Drive- Add sidewalks. Williams Drive Corridor Ped 54 Plan/encourage for more and better development beyond Jim Hogg now to prevent future problems. Williams Drive- past Jim Hogg Built form 55 Future of Williams Drive- extending toward North College to Highway 29 Williams Drive to Highway 29 Car 56 As one gets closer to 35 the traffic increases. Fact. Williams Drive toward I-35 intersection Car 57 6 bike clubs/organizations in Georgetown and cycling continues to grow. We need to modernize our thinking on our roads, not one size fits all. Bike 58 New developments needed north to 195 and south to 29. Built Form 59 Consider greater employment opportunities within immediate and nearby area. Built form 60 Re-think further into the future and make alternative north/south corridors more attractive and wider to pull more traffic off Williams.Car 61 No reasonable alternative routes to downtown- there is only Williams Dr. Car 62 Consider parallel road to compliment and relieve Williams Dr road volume. Car 63 Add continuous turn lanes at major intersections. Car 64 Interconnect between business parking lots to keep cars off streets. Car 65 Very well presented, I appreciate being allowed to be part of this process. 66 Your study doesn't extend to Williams Dr and 3405 as it should. 67 Your poster presentation contains incorrect street connections. 68 Think bigger. Hold a design charrette for city planning or invited universities (Texas Tech/Houston/Arlington/UTSA/Am) I would not considering how badly Austin turned out. 69 Living in Sun City. Areas of concern include: 70 Look to shorten distance between points of origin (home) and destination (whatever that may be). November 12th-16th Charrette 71 Too much asphalt Car/Roadway 72 Landscaped median with designated left-turns to lots/businesses Car/Roadway 73 How to widen the road without adversely impacting commercial businesses Car/Roadway Page 2 of 5Page 81 of 113 PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS Location Area of Concern Williams Drive Study Public Comments Data Comment Sheets 74 Have shared use pathway on one side of the street at western end Bike/Ped 75 Town Center use at Jim Hogg Land Use 76 Small standalone retail on western end Land Use 77 Small scale sub divisions on western end Land Use 78 Congested D B Wood Road/Williams Drive Car/Roadway 79 Multi-modal transit Transit 80 Town Center Walkability Pedestrian 81 Street Lighting D B Wood Road to Serenada Pedestrian/Car/Roadway 82 Congested Lakeway Car/Roadway 83 Congested Rivery Car/Roadway 84 Congested I-35 Car/Roadway 85 Congested Austin Avenue Car/Roadway 86 Mixed Use development GISD site Land Use 87 Mixed Use development I-35/Austin Avenue Land Use 88 Landscaping I-35 Interchange Car/Roadway 89 Mixed Use development at major intersections Land Use 90 Interconnectivity in road design Car/Roadway 91 Safety/access management with medians Car/Roadway 92 Interconnectivity between parcels Land Use 93 Access management away from intersections Car/Roadway 94 Shell Road connection to Williams Not safe Shell Road Car/Roadway 95 Access between properties and subivisions Car/Roadway 96 Speeding vehicles (Need slower speed in Centers Area)Lakeway Dr EB Car/Roadway 97 Walkable center Lakeway/Booty's Pedestrian 98 Better Connectivity to street grid and downtown Car/Roadway 99 Put needs near where people live (Basic services - small centers)Land Use 100 Drive traffic off corridor to use 195 and 29 Car/Roadway 101 Need Green Pockets to connect to City trail system Bike/Ped 102 No sidewalks or opportunities to cross I-35/Williams Drive Pedestrian 103 Traffic on Dawn Drive from Lakeway to Central Dr Dawn Drive Car/Roadway 104 Traffic on Mesquite Rd from River Bend to Country Club Rd Car/Roadway 105 Modify tree ordinance to save trees along road frontage Land Use 106 Bury Utilities Land Use 107 Street Lighting Car/Roadway 108 Need to fund façade improvements Land Use 109 No Roundabout on Rivery Blvd Car/Roadway 110 Include shared use path along Williams Drive Bike/Ped 111 Include sidewalks along the entirety of the corridor Pedestrian 112 Buffered bike lanes and sidewalks where appropriate Bike/Ped 113 Create buffer from sidewalks to roadway Pedestrian 114 Cycle track in centers areas Bike/Ped 115 Remove TWCTL to include medians an left-turn pockets Car/Roadway 116 Excellent options - very interested in more biking trails & lanes Bike 117 Appreciate elimination of suicide lanes Car/Roadway 118 Access management = safety Car/Roadway 119 Traffic Signal Optimization Car/Roadway 120 Density: Are the decision makers on board Land Use Page 3 of 5Page 82 of 113 PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS Location Area of Concern Williams Drive Study Public Comments Data Comment Sheets March 9th Open House 121 Light timing on Williams Drive is an easy and cheap fix Car 122 Seems too much work on bike paths. This is not Austin Bike 123 Sceondary route needed rom Sedro Trail Road (Charparro Estates)Sedro Trail Car 124 We have been dealing with increased traffic since Sun City was built. The City allowed Sun City to block the secondary route with homes but we still don't have a secondary route. Please fix this problem that the City created. We have been waiting 20+ years Sun City Car 125 Well done and impressive General 126 The small hurdles will be worth the effort General 127 Looking forward to the I35/Austin Avenue final plan i35/Austin Ave Car 128 This looks great.General 129 Cost will be enormous but so will the cost of doing nothing.General 130 I know it's minor but lighting should be considered particularly with the projected increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic Lighting 131 Concerned that emphasis are not on other corridors (Austin Ave, University Ave to D.B Woods) Downtown/other areas General 132 Concerned that other priorities are for development and not the new City Hall and municipal buildings.General 133 I think the priorities are not in the right place and the study is the wrong place and places the old town on the back burner General 134 The CCTL on Williams is being eliminated. At times of high traffic there will not be an avalable passage way for emergency vehicles Car 135 Otherwise the concepts look reasonable. The parking and interconnectivity is a good approach. Potential problems could be access to buisnesses Parking/Connectivity 136 Signal control could allow for :go green: to allow thru traffic to clear roadway and not bottleneck in meregncy situations Car 137 Make Wildwood Drive entrance to 2 lanes. Left lane is required and other lane can be left, right or straight (just like Rivery Blvd) Wildwood Car 138 Nw Blvd: If proposed changes include diverting school age buses to NW Blvd, wouldn't sidewalks be vital for safety on the main thoorughfare. Concerned that pedestrian safety at this area NW Blvd Pedestrian 139 There are lots of bikes, walkers and kids on NW Blvd from Frost School, how will this work with increased traffic NW Blvd Pedestrian/Bike 140 Lower Income housing - concern that ir is right in the middle of low density safer neighborhood on NW Blvd. Crime, crime, crime, lock doors, no walking around at night Rivery Blvd Housing 141 School buses take 25mins to load and unload on NW Blvd at 7am sharp and 3:15pm everryday. Where is your common sense. NW Blvd Car 142 Respect North Lake deed restrictions along Williams Drive and 3405 Land Use 143 Use eminent domain to remove unsightly businesses operating in residential buildings from Lakeway Drive to I-35. Expand the roadway Land Use/ Car 144 Plan needs to include expansion of Shell Road and D. B Wood to 4-lanes, median.Car 145 Williams Drive at Austin Avenue has to be addressed Car 146 Transit/Bus stops need to have turn-out lanes Transit 147 Building of the new Randalls on Jim Hogg will trigger more development on west Williams. What are the long-term plans there? Cheaper to build now than in 5-10 years.Land Use/Car 148 Not clear in plans include below grade storm drains, no line item for storm drains listed on boards General 149 I just moved to Georgetown from Austin. Overall a good plan General 150 The proposed Verde Vista extension runs through two large lots R039522 (14.5ac) and R039520 (9.4ac). Please do not allow this extension to be a major cut-through road from Shell Rd to Williams Drive. It needs a low speed limit and some way to deter bikers from excessive speed an going through each gear at max rpm like they do late at night on Williams Drive Car 151 We have a valuable asset in the current Williams Drive corridor s it has wide, smooth surfaced shoulders. Using part of the shoulders as bike lanes will benefit the community now and in the future.Bike 152 I like the fact that the project is sectioned out into 6 component/areas as this road varies greatly on density. I can see the use of bicycles explode with these proposed improvements for their mobility as Georgetown and Sun City I see already high usage. I love the asthestic improvements that I see Georgetown already does a good of so far. It would be interesting to see projected demographics for Williams Drive corridor over the timeframe and just how much traffic will increase over its current. Another item I would like to see is when/how construction would take place while having the least impact on congesting current traffic.Car/Bike/Aesthetic 153 Pro's: Timed lights, sidewalks, trees, medians Car/Aesthestic/Ped May 30th Open House Page 4 of 5Page 83 of 113 PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS Location Area of Concern Williams Drive Study Public Comments Data Comment Sheets 154 Con's: Bike lanes - the reality is that <1% of traffic may use the lanes, that precious real estate needs to be saved for cars. Also is far too dangerous to ride a bike on Williams, even with "protected zone". If goal is to allow less "carbon" then the space would be better served as a bus lane.Bike/Car 155 Don't make the same mistake as other Cities have. Bike lanes sound good on paper but are better served in an urban setting not the Williams corridor which is a main traffic artery. People will be killed/Bike/Car Page 5 of 5Page 84 of 113 Williams Drive Study Public Comment - Survey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6) Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams Drive? Meeting No. of Responses October 6 Open House 1 November 12-16 Charrette 2 March 9 Open House 2 No 13 Meeting No. of Responses October 6 Open House 1 November 12-16 Charrette 0 March 9 Open House 1 No 8 Meeting No. of Responses October 6 Open House 2 November 12-16 Charrette 1 March 9 Open House 2 No 6 Go a l s ? Ye s Go a l s ? Pa r t i a l l y Go a l s ? No Yes 58%No 18% Partially 24% Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and recommendations within the study? Car 32% Ped 4% Bike 13% General 19% Land Use 23% Transit 7% Aesthetic 2% Overall Comments •50 Responses •53 Comments Page 85 of 113 Williams Drive Study Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6) Are there any improvements that you think could be added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not addressed through the Plan? Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern Response Comment:Open-Ended Response Yes - October Public Open House Yes - November Design Workshop Yes - March Public Open House No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode Yes Yes No.30 years behind!General Yes Yes Yes Yes No. Yes Aesthetically pleasing with trees, plants, low signage.No.Aesthetic Yes Yes Yes Yes Bike safety signage and restripes of busy right-hand turn lanes on Williams Drive right now. Safety features cannot wait 0-4 years or more. Bike plan should be included in 2017-2018 budget. Yes - October Public Open House Yes - November Design Workshop Yes - March Public Open House Thank you very much for putting so much work into the process. Bravo to the City. But now, we need to see some progress happen. Cyclists have been waiting for almost 20 years for the City to do anything. Let's get to some low-hanging fruit that is inexpensive. Car/Bike Yes No. Yes No. Yes No. Yes Bike transportation is my main priority. It's nice to see multimodal transport as a top goal Bike Yes No. Yes Relocate the entrance/exit from chipotle onto Williams drive and move it to enter directly onto the entrance ramp for IH 35 Yes - November Design Workshop Car Yes No. Yes Good plan - but will it ever get done. Would be good to see some things happen quicker than indicated, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians.th No. Thank you and let's make it happen! Bike/General Yes Yes continue and implement additional milestone and plan checking points with community involvement and surveys as the progress takes place. Yes - March Public Open House Tis looks a lot better than the hap hazard development and method currently employed.Land Use Yes Yes Develop not just mixed-use communities but mixed-use/mixed- income communities along Williams Dr. No. Now is the time to plan for more east-west bridges across I-35 and more larger roads going north-south. We're top dependent on Williams Dr. to move folks around. We need thse systems to make Georgetown a better place in which to live. Also, we need to take measures to slow down growth. Our road systems and bridges are not keeping up with our accelerated growth. Car/Land Use Yes No No.NA General Yes Yes Spend less money.No.General Yes Yes Yes No. The study puts forth the following four overarching goals. Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations. Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development. Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life. Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods. Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary. Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams Drive? Page 1 of 4Page 86 of 113 Williams Drive Study Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6) Are there any improvements that you think could be added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not addressed through the Plan? Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern Response Comment:Open-Ended Response Yes - October Public Open House Yes - November Design Workshop Yes - March Public Open House No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode The study puts forth the following four overarching goals. Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations. Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development. Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life. Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods. Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary. Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams Drive? Partially Congestion and lights west of I-35 On williams drive will continue to be an issue. It is becoming o the same that happened to 183 in Austin years ago as the city pushed west. No. Once the Randalls opens at Jim Hogg Road and Williams that intersection is going to become a nightmare, especially for us residents who live off Jimm Hogg Road. Car Partially Partially A bus should stop at Sun City and make stops at the grocery stores, going on to the Wolf Ranch Shopping Center, City Lights Theater, and back to Sun City. Many residents are no longer able to drive. See comment on Question #1. I was told that a test was done for Sun City but it was decided that the route wouldn't get enough users. I was also told that the test was done during a time when it was raining almost every day so that the test had skewed results due to the weather. No.We just moved to Sun City in August and so we're a bit late in giving our opinion.Transit/Car/General Partially If we want to enhance bus routes, your plans need to go out to Sun City. The intersection at Austin Ave. and Williams Drive has not been addressed as far as I can tell. Need to purchase the land where the businesses are and move that intersection further away from I35. No. I was unable to go to events, but did call on the phone with ideas and comments about issues. I am glad to see there is no mention of the "X" type of intersection at Williams and I35. I also thought there was going to be another overpass over I35 where Northwest Blvd ends. That would relieve pressure from inexperienced high school drivers. Transit/Car Partially number one should be create, not enhance. number 2 is so full of buzz words it doesn't mean anything. number four is a masked sentence that really just says encourage development. a goal should be added that says maintain traffic flow that allows drivers to travel through corridor at posted sipped limit. no one wants another 620. No.Car Partially Partially Partially No. Don't see the point of sidewalks and bike lanes way out on Williams Dr. There is not a lot of foot traffic here. Also not sure a bike lane is necessary either. Just seems like these are going to expensive unnecessary changes without much benefit. Nothing against bikers or eskers but we have plenty of trails in Georgetown. I know this is a different part of Williams but it would make sense to tackle where it dead ends into Austin Avenue. Bike/Ped Partially should include storm drains, it seems a mistake to develop and improve without them below ground storm drains, you cannot have a first class project without them... big mistake to build and improve but just depend on ditches along the road Yes - October Public Open House Yes - March Public Open House it may be over ambitious to include six miles in the project, maybe should reduce length to do a better job. Do from I-35 to end of existing development about at Sudsy Car Wash. General Partially We need a train rail in Georgetown and round rock, and no more fast food joints or storage facilities. A train rail, zoning restrictions on fast food places and storage facilities. And lift the zoning restrictions on small houses and encourage them to be built No.Transit/Land Use Partially No. Page 2 of 4Page 87 of 113 Williams Drive Study Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6) Are there any improvements that you think could be added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not addressed through the Plan? Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern Response Comment:Open-Ended Response Yes - October Public Open House Yes - November Design Workshop Yes - March Public Open House No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode The study puts forth the following four overarching goals. Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations. Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development. Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life. Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods. Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary. Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams Drive? Partially In general, the plan consists of old ideas that will turn Georgetown into another Austin. I'm not in favor of that at all. Driving higher density ideas to a roadway that will remain a four lane road will not alleviate traffic or improve quality of life for those that currently live her and want to continue a small town/city look and feel. Driving alternative routes to existing residential area like northwest Blvd will drive people out of their homes. You need to rethink the high density and commercial development along Williams drive. What is wrong with a few pockets of undeveloped land? No. I thought no I covered it in item 2. Commuters in Georgetown do not ride their bikes to work. Recreational biking is best left to parks and recreation organizations. I'm not for increasing the density of population in the Williams drive area west of Serenada Drive. We like our suburban/rural areas and life. Land Use/Bike No Looking at the final study is the first time some communities have seen Proposed New Sabine Drive Connections to Williams. Not pleased at all that the map shows Sabine Drive connecting to Williams as a cut thru to Bootys. This connection would require drivers to drive all the way thru our neighborhood residential streets just to get to Bootys. We are an over 55 community with a slow 20-25 MPH speed limit and we don't need people racing thru our development. This is not a practical connection. In addition, we've always been told that the area where the new connection is suggested is protected due to caves and springs. Bringing Williams down to 35 MPH is going the wrong way. Williams can tolerate 40-45 easily. Extending the 35 mph even further slows down the gridlock even more. No. The study is expressing the problems that too much growth is placing on Williams Drive but the study shows that the city is planning to increase demands by building more multi-family units, more retail, increased demands on this already over burdened route. The limited alternate routes are still thru residential areas so have limited capacity for relief. And although bike and pedestrian routes are great, they will only have very limited elevation of the roadway. In fact, motorist have to slow down or stop to enter driveways that pedestrian and bike routes cross. Car/Bike No Widen Williams dr to 3 lanes both directions No.Widen the road Car No It's still uncontrolled growth that just repeats and gets worst. Slow growth until you build sustainable infrastructure while keeping a Quailty of Life that doesn't create urban sprawl all the way up IH 35 like a cancer. The present pattern is to saturate one area into over congestion then repeat the same pattern with the next city. Eventually, killing the community life to urban cancer before moving to the next victim. Sane Growth is being smart and sensitive to maintaining community life not simple based on greed and over development. It makes community life ugly and unstable. Look at the obvious mess building all around Georgetown. No. It's a mess from Austin avenue to DB woods and growing worst. Stop the growth in these over developed areas. Instead spread out growth ares before it becomes a knot of lights and traffic. Tell developers to move on to Jarrell. Land Use/Car No Yes - October Public Open House Yes - November Design Workshop Yes - March Public Open House No Yes - October Public Open House Georgetown needs to stop the expansion of residential communities around Williams and west of Shell/DB Woods. Williams rd will not be able to take the expansion. Georgetown should focus the expansion efforts east of the I-35 corridor and east of the inner loop and SH29. Growth west of I-35 and around Williams has stressed the local populace. Land Use Page 3 of 4Page 88 of 113 Williams Drive Study Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6) Are there any improvements that you think could be added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not addressed through the Plan? Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern Response Comment:Open-Ended Response Yes - October Public Open House Yes - November Design Workshop Yes - March Public Open House No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode The study puts forth the following four overarching goals. Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations. Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development. Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life. Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods. Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary. Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams Drive? No Yes - March Public Open House No No. No Central Texas and Georgetown in particular are in hyper drive expansion and will be for a long time to come. Cedar Park has gotten it right, Georgetown not so. Williams Drive needs to be seven lanes. All the thilngs about cutting down on driveways, bringing businesses upt to the street, etc are all fine if you solve the basic probelm first. This plan does not and I happen to think it is actually anti-business. However, Georgetown needs to hire the planner from Cedar Park because they understand gestting ready for future expansion. I have been to every state in the US and 84 countries around the world. I know this plan will saddle Georgetown for years to come and unfortunately, the crowding they are talking about of businesses up to the street will mean future expansions will be impossible. This is a terrible plan. Yes - 3 lanes each way with a turning lane. This plan will end up killing Williams Drive.No. I would also add that these cross walk areas on the side road are redicullous. They have 4" upliftson the sides that are a hazard to pedestrians, wheel chairs and mowing. The designer of these should be shot. Go get a designer from Cedar Park and get this thing right. Car/Land Use/Ped No Too much emphasis has been put on growth without enough thought put into the effects of this growth. The worst issue on Williams is the traffic light timing. Feom beginning to end the flow does not fit the traffic and causes long back ups. No. Land Use/Car Page 4 of 4Page 89 of 113 Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan As of June 5, 2017 Page 1 of 6 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/ Committed Partners T-01 Rivery Blvd extension from Williams Dr to Northwest Blvd (build).42 miles $ 10,500,000 2015 Road Bond X T-02 Reconstruction and new construction of Northwest Blvd from Fondana Dr to Austin Ave, including proposed bridge over IH 35 (build).42 miles $ 11,150,000 2015 Road Bond X T-03 Intersection improvement at Williams Dr and IH-35 .27 miles $ 52,000,000 TxDOT My35 X TxDOT T-04 Eastbound right-turn lane Williams Dr to SB Rivery Blvd .04 miles $ 345,959 Developer/City of Georgetown X Rivery TIA T-05 Northbound right-turn Rivery Blvd to eastbound Williams Dr .034 miles $ 284,000 Developer/City of Georgetown X Rivery TIA T-06 Intersection operation improvements for Austin Ave and Williams Dr .04 miles $ 500 Developer/City of Georgetown TxDOT T-07 Preliminary Engineering analysis for access management/driveway consolidation, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, speed, and utilities 7 miles $ 515,000 TIA Funds/TIRZ Fund/City General Fund T-08 Install a painted median and center left hand turn pockets along one of the character areas of the Williams Dr corridor (pilot program)1 mile $ 18,303 City General Fund T-09 Traffic Signal Coordination from Austin Avenue to Jim Hogg Rd 5.8 miles $ 24,000 City General Fund X T-10 Inventory existing traffic signal infrastructure and identify standard operating systems/upgrades, limited implementation 5.8 miles $ 24,000 City General Fund X T-11 Promote Go-Geo $ 5,000 City General Fund T-12 Communication/Public Education about alternate routes, best practices/suggestions during peak hours. $ 10,000 T-13 Work with the Post Office to relocate individual mail boxes USPS USPS T-14 Establish Traffic Management Center (TMC) and appropriate staffing 6 miles $ 200,000 Bonds T-15 Work with Police Department for enforcement and traffic control $ 25,000 TIA Funds, Bonds T-16 Stripe Northwest Blvd to accommodate a 10 foot center turn lane, two 10 foot through lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes on either side off the roadway 1.2 miles $ 304,128 Street Maintenance T-17 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Centers Area 1.25 miles $ 2,376,000 Bonds, GTEC, Street Maintenance T-18 Reconfigure Northwest Blvd's 40 foot wide roadway to accommodate a 10 foot center turn lane, two 10 foot through lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes on either side off the roadway 1.2 miles $ 4,093,056 City General Fund T-19 New Roadway to connect Rivery Blvd to Riverside Dr 0.40 miles $ 4,224,000 TIRZ Funds T-20 Implement a center island on Northwest Blvd at Windmill Cove N/A $ 38,016 City General Fund T-21 Implement shared streets within the Georgetown Independent School District site N/A N/A Developer Funds GISD T-22 Extend Apple Creek Dr to connect to Northwest Blvd 0.10 miles $ 1,056,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-23 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Corridor Area (Lakeway Dr to DB Wood Blvd)2.3 miles $ 4,324,320 Bonds T-24 New construction of frontage road on northbound IH 35 from Williams Dr to Lakeway Bridge (build)1.90 miles $ 7,000,000 2015 Road Bond X T-25 Reconstruction of DB Wood Dr from Oak Ridge Dr To Lake Overlook Dr (Plan)1.46 miles $ 8,000,000 2015 Road Bond X T-26 Reconstruction of Shell Rd from Williams Dr to Shell Spur Rd (Plan)2.45 miles $ 18,480,000 2015 Road Bond X Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Mi d ( 5 - 1 0 y e a r s ) Page 90 of 113 Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan As of June 5, 2017 Page 2 of 6 T-27 Reconstruction of IH 35 SB Frontage Rd from Williams Dr To Rivery Blvd (plan).54 miles $ 4,436,000 2015 Road Bond X T-28 Intersection improvements along Williams Dr from Rivery Blvd to IH 35 Frontage Rd (plan).38 miles $ 1,894,000 2015 Road Bond X T-29 New Roadway connecting Limestone Lake Dr to Williams Dr 0.5 miles $ 5,280,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-30 New Roadway connecting Verde Vista Dr to Williams Dr at Woodlake Dr 0.25 miles $ 2,640,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-31 New Roadway to connect La Paloma Dr to Sabine Dr 0.50 miles $ 5,280,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-32 New Roadway to connect Country Rd to Pecan Lane at Booty's Crossing Rd 0.40 miles $ 4,224,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-33 New Roadway to connect Serenada Dr to Oak Crest Lane at Booty's Crossing Rd 0.50 miles $ 5,280,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-34 New Roadway to connect Lakeway Dr to River Bend Dr at Westwood Lane 0.40 miles $ 4,224,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-35 New Roadway to connect River Bend Lane to Park Lane 0.30 miles $ 3,168,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-36 New Roadway to connect Oak Lane Circle between Ranch Rd and Parkway Street 0.06 miles $ 633,600 Developer/Bonds Developer T-37 New Roadway to connect W Janis Dr to Park Lane 0.25 miles $ 2,640,000 Developer/Bonds Developer T-38 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Corridor Area (DB Wood Blvd to Jim Hogg Rd)2.3 miles $ 4,324,320 Bonds Total Costs $ 169,021,202 Lo n g ( B e y o n d 1 0 y e a r s ) * * T i m e f r a m e t o b e D e v e l o p m e n t D r i v e n Page 91 of 113 Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan As of June 5, 2017 Page 3 of 6 BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/ Committed Partners R-01 Update the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Williams Dr recommendations Staff Time Funded - FY2017 Budget X R-02 Amend the FLU map to include a subarea plan for the Centers Area $ 24,500 TIRZ Funds X R-03 Adjust the TIRZ boundary to include the entirety of the GISD site and adjacent sites and develop TIRZ spending plan Staff Time R-04 Engineering studies for water, wastewater, drainage/stormwater/water quality $ 200,000 City General Fund, Utility Fund R-05 Work with GISD on potential redevelopment of catalytic site N/A GISD R-06 Review and update the development standards applicable to properties in the Williams Dr Centers Area, specifically regulations pertaining to block/lot standards, landscaping, signage, and streetscape improvements Staff Time R-07 Adopt a MU district/SP overlay district/Rezoning for the Centers Area Staff Time R-08 Adopt a MU district/SP overlay district/Rezoning for the Catalytic Site(s) Staff Time R-09 Create a special assessment/financial district to fund these recommended public projects Staff Time Total Costs $ 224,500 plus Staff Time Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Page 92 of 113 Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan As of June 5, 2017 Page 4 of 6 AESTHETICS ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/ Committed Partners A-01 Update City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Williams Dr recommendations, specifically as it applies to gateways Staff Time Funded - FY2017 Budget X A-02 Remove empty telephone poles on the north side of Williams Dr between Shell Rd and La Paloma $ 500 City of Georgetown Electric Fund A-03 Update the City's UDC relating to the Gateway Overlay district standards as these apply to the Williams Dr Corridor. This may include new regulations pertaining to signage, front building façade and parking in addition to landscaping. Staff Time A-04 Undertake corridor wide signage and wayfinding study $ 40,000 TIRZ Funds, City General Fund A-05 Intersection demonstration gardens at the intersection of Williams Dr and I-35 $ 5,000 TDS TDS/Wilco Master Naturalists A-06 Draft and adopt a grant program to incentivize or assist in signage, street frontage landscaping and other streetscape improvements Staff Time CAMPO/TxDOT A-07 Implement corridor wide aesthetic enhancements (landscaping, street lighting, signage and wayfinding) $ 100,000 TIRZ Funds, GTEC, City General Fund TxDOT Total Costs $ 145,500 plus Staff Time Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Mi d ( 5 - 1 0 ye a r s ) Page 93 of 113 Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan As of June 5, 2017 Page 5 of 6 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/ Committed Partners P-01 Design and construction of sidewalk along the west side of Austin Ave from Morrow St to Williams Dr .16 miles $ 20,000 2015 Bonds X TxDOT P-02 Remove mid-block pedestrian crossing on Williams Dr between I-35 and Rivery Blvd 0.01 miles $ 1,000 Street Maintenance P-03 Preliminary Engineering analysis and schematic design for bikeways along and parallel to Williams Dr 7 miles $ 5,000 TIRZ Fund/City General Fund P-04 Undertake a Citywide Bicycle Master Plan N/A $ 65,000 City General Fund P-05 APS Signal Upgrades at Williams Dr and Lakeway Dr, Williams Dr and Shell/DB Wood Rd, Williams Dr and Wildwood Dr, Williams Dr and Lakewood Dr, and Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd 5 signals $ 250,000 2015 City Bonds X P-06 Implement buffered bike lanes along both sides of Williams Dr between Jim Hogg Rd and Lakeway Dr 5 miles $ 409,500 Street Maintenance P-07 Implement an on-street bicycle lane along W Sequoia Spur from Shell Rd to Val Verde Dr 0.7 miles $ 49,379 Street Maintenance, Parks P-08 Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Serenada Dr between Booty's Crossing and Northwest Blvd, continuing east along Northwest Blvd to just east of E. Janis Dr 1.6 miles $ 112,865 Street Maintenance, Parks P-09 Implement parallel signed bicycle routes along Park Lane between Williams Dr and W Central Dr, along Dawn Dr between Park Lane and Western Trail, and along Mesquite Lane between Booty's Crossing and Rivery Blvd 3.6 miles $ 215,931 City General Fund P-10 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Williams Dr between Lakeway Dr and Rivery Blvd, and Lakeway Dr between Williams Dr and Northwest Blvd 1 mile of sidewalk $ 316,800 City General Fund P-11 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Whisper Oaks Dr between Lakeway Dr and Northwest Blvd .17 mile of sidewalk $ 52,560 City General Fund P-12 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Broken Spoke Trl between Western Trail and Lakeway Dr .19 mile of sidewalk $ 60,000 City General Fund P-13 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Williams Dr between Estrella Crossing and Lakeway Dr 2 miles of sidewalk $ 633,600 City General Fund P-14 Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Shell Rd and DB Wood Rd between Westbury Lane and Cedar Breaks Rd 3.4 miles $ 239,839 City General Fund P-15 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Shell/DB Wood Rd between Lake Overlook Rd and the city limit at approximately Westbury Lane 3 miles of sidewalk $ 950,400 City General Fund, PID Developer P-16 Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Country Rd from Williams Dr to the proposed sidepath at Booty's Crossing Rd 0.42 miles $ 29,627 City General Fund P-17 Implement a sidepath on I-35 south Frontage Rd from Northwest Blvd to Rivery Blvd 1 mile $ 2,756,160 TxDOT My35 TxDOT P-18 Implement a sidepath from Apple Creek Dr along the north side of I-35 to the I- 35 north Frontage Rd and extending to San Gabriel Village Blvd 1 mile $ 1,378,080 TxDOT My35 TxDOT Sh o r t ( 0 - 4 y e a r s ) Mi d ( 5 - 1 0 y e a r s ) Page 94 of 113 Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan As of June 5, 2017 Page 6 of 6 P-19 Implement a sidepath along Booty's Crossing Rd between Williams Dr and DB Wood Rd 1.9 miles $ 5,236,704 City General Fund, Future Bond Election, Private Development P-20 Implement a sidepath on Rivery Blvd Extended from Northwest Blvd to Williams Dr 0.5 miles $ 1,378,080 City General Fund/ Private Development Developer P-21 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along streets surrounding Georgetown Independent School District site including Park Lane, Shannon Lane, and Janis Dr 2 miles of sidewalk $ 1,193,914 Site Development GISD P-22 Implement a cycle track along both sides of Williams Dr between Rivery Blvd and I-35 1 mile $ 2,756,160 Private Development Developer P-23 Implement a sidepath along Williams Dr between Jim Hogg Rd and Lakeway Dr 4.3 miles $ 11,851,488 City General Fund, Future Bond Election, Private Development Developer P-24 Implement a sidepath along Northwest Blvd from just east of E. Janis Dr, across I- 35, to San Gabriel Park 1 mile $ 2,756,160 City General Fund, Future Bond Election, Private Development Developer Total Costs $ 32,718,247 Lo n g ( B e y o n d 1 0 y e a r s ) Page 95 of 113 Joint GTAB and P&Z Workshop Recap June 1, 2017 Comments Response Provide more "slip-roads" or "backroads" between parcels - innerparcel connectivity and shared parking facilities This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Provide a decel lane (right-turn only) where appropriate This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Update traffic volumes prior to uncdertaking engineering analysis (preliminary engineering) of the corridor Traffic volumes, inlcuding turning movements, are included as work tasks in the preliminary engineerning study in the first 18 months. Evaluate turning movement exiting property when raides medians are built (i.e. will drivers be allowed to turn left?) This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study No new traffic signals in the Centers Area New traffic signals are not proposed in the Centers Area Evaluate and determine the mechanism to consolidate existing driveways This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Identify the existing curbcuts to be consolidated and preferred location for new curbcuts This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study New driveways must be built to current standards New projects proposed along the corridor, to include constuction of new driveways, are subject to current UDC standards Evaluate regional stormwater, drainage and water quality facilities, including the location of these facilities. Revisit previous studies completed. This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in 18-24 months following acceptance of the study Evaluate the relation and impact to current projects under development This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study, as well through the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and possible UDC standards Relationship with GISD for catalytic site Collaboratively maximize redevelopment The City will continue to work with its partners to incentivize redevelopment of the study area Requirements for additional ROW or landscape improvements should not exceed what is required today Concept Plans have been revised to not require additional ROW or landscape buffer from current requirements (135-ft ROW, and 25-ft landscape buffer) Determine standards for share use paths (i.e. concrete vs. asphalt)This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Tr a f f i c C o n g e s t i o n / O p e r a t i o n s Ba r r i e r s t o R e d e v e l o p m e n t / Re i n v e s t m e n t Ae s t h e t i c E n h a n c e m e n t s Primary Issue Page 96 of 113 Comments Response Primary Issue Evaluate and determine appropriate location for new amenities Standards and requirements will be evaluated through the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan in the first 18 months following acceptance of the Study Landscape raised medians look better Landscape raised medians are proposed in the short, median and long terms along the corridor Wider sidewalks - development driven?Standards and requirements will be evaluated through the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan in the first 18 months following acceptance of the Study Overhead utilities - look at relocating to rear of property where appropriate Standards and requirements will be evaluated through the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan in the first 18 months following acceptance of the Study Main goal is to provide off-street bicycle facilities (off of Williams Drive) The final plan identifies off-street bike facilities along Williams Drive as a long- term project (beyond 10 years). Feasibility, phasing and standards will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Evaluate turning movements against bicycle facilities This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Evaluate appropriate locations and treatments for bike facilities through the Bike Study This will be evaluated with the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Determine the number of bike riders to see if it warrants the cost for off-site facilities This will be evaluated with the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Determine the type of riders - recreational vs commuters. Use this information to develop appropriate standards for bike facilities This will be evaluated with the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan proposed in the first 18 months following acceptance of the study Bike facilities are a lower priority than addressing congestion Bike facilities are proposed in phases in the short, mid and long terms. Priorities of these facilities will be determined by the City Council Fi n a l p l a n Highlight what people are going to see in the first five years To be included in the executive summary of the final plan Overall Ae s t h e t i c E n h a n c e m e n t s Pe d e s t r i a n a n d B i c y c l e F a c i l i t i e s Page 97 of 113 Williams Drive Study Final Plan Planning and Zoning June 20, 2017 Page 98 of 113 Overview Progress to Date Study Purpose and Goals Public Comment Implementation Plan Performance Measures Next Steps What we ask today… –Recommendation to City Council –GTAB recommended acceptance of the Williams Drive Study and short-term implementation plan, with a further recommendation that the City Council review the recommended mid-term and long-term projects prior to adoption (5-3 vote)Page 99 of 113 Check-Ins with GTAB and P&Z Study Kick-Off –12/2015 –Scoping, Proposal review –Interlocal Agreement –Established Purpose, Goals & Objectives Existing Conditions Assessment -11/2016 –Primary Issues –02/2017 Concept Plan –04/2017 –Design Workshop –11/2016 –Vision –Recommendations Implementation Plan –06/01 –Short to long term projects Recommendation to City Council G TA B –06/09 P & Z –06/20 Page 100 of 113 Purpose: Develop a plan of action that will incorporate safety, efficient transportation operations, safe accommodations of all modes, and integration of smart transportation and land use, community needs, and the future economic growth of Williams Drive. T h e goals for Williams Drive include: Enhance multimodal movements and transportation operations Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods. Purpose and Goals Page 101 of 113 What we have heard Page 102 of 113 What we have heard 3 i n 5 b e l i e v e t h e goals were met 1 i n 5 b e l i e v e t h e goals were not met 1 i n 4 t h e g o a l s w e re partially met Page 103 of 113 First 4 years 1 & 2 -Traffic Congestion/Circulation and Operations •Right-turn lanes on Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd •Traffic Signal Coordination •Preliminary Engineering (access management, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, speed and utilities) •Williams Dr & Austin Ave intersection operation improvement •Painted median pilot program •Promote Go-Geo •Communication/Public Education •Traffic Management Center •Williams Dr & I-35 intersection improvement •Stripe Northwest to include center turn lane and on-street bike lanes •Raised, planted medians in Centers Area Page 104 of 113 First 4 years 3 -Barriers to Redevelopment/Reinvestment •Update the 2030 Comprehensive Plan •Amend the Future Land Use Map •Preliminary engineering (access management, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, and speed) •Review and update development standards and zoning •New connecting roadways Page 105 of 113 First 4 years 4 -Aesthetic Enhancements •Remove empty telephone poles •Review and update development standards and zoning •Signage and wayfinding study •Raised, planted medians in Centers Area •Grant program for signage and streetscape Page 106 of 113 First 4 years 5 -Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities •Sidewalks on west side of Austin Ave •Install and repair curb ramps •Bicycle Master Plan •Remove mid-block pedestrian crossing •Bicycle facilities •Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) upgrades at intersections •Install and repair sidewalks on Williams Dr Page 107 of 113 5-1 0 Ye a r s Reconfigure Northwest Blvd Center islands on Northwest Blvd N e w roadway connections Raised, planted center medians Reconstruction of DB Wood B l v d a n d Shell Rd Intersection improvements between Rivery B l v d a n d I-35 Grant program for signage and streestscape Install and repair sidewalk On-street and sidepath bicycle facilities Page 108 of 113 Beyond 10 years New roadway connections Raised, planted center medians in the Corridor Area, west of DB Wood Blvd Install and repair sidewalks Install and repair curb ramps Sidepaths along Williams Dr. and Northwest Blvd Page 109 of 113 Performance Measures Page 110 of 113 Next Steps J u n e 2 7 –Workshop Presentation to City Council July 11 –City Council consideration of the Williams Drive Study Page 111 of 113 What we ask today Recommendation to City Council –Meets the goals of the Study with emphasis on traffic congestion and operations –Balances public comment with Council input –Provides a plan to improve the Williams Dr corridor over the short, mid and long terms –Promotes Council’s strategic goals: •Create a strategy to increase mobility •Create and maintain outstanding aesthetics, and a welcoming appearance and spirit Page 112 of 113 Questions and Feedback Thank you! Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator https://transportation.georgetown.org/williams-drive/ Page 113 of 113