The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 01.13.2015 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas JANUARY 13, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on JANUARY 13, 2015 at 3:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan -- Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services B Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan -- Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services C Discussion and Presentation on the 2015 Road Bond Recommendations -- Tom Crawford, 2015 Road Bond Committee Chair and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director D Update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center -- Codi Newsom, Senior Project Manager and Wayne Nero, Chief of Police Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Water Quality Ordinance Update - Public Safety Complex - Summit at The Rivery Project - EEOC Claims Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - VFW Parkland – Potential Purchase - Acquisition of real property for an electric utility easement- Oakmont Drive Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code - Legal Department Update Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan -- Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services ITEM SUMMARY: Transportation Services Department initiated the Sidewalk Master Plan in accordance with City Council focus areas defined during the 2014/2015 budget cycle (2014/2015 Department Narrative, T6, Transportation). The 2014 Plan is an update of the 2001 City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study. The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan is to inventory existing sidewalk infrastructure, identify design deficiencies, evaluate future sidewalk requirements and develop an implementation plan for all pedestrian facilities within the City of Georgetown City Limits. The implementation plan will also be utilized by City staff to assist in the prioritization of future pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The Sidewalk Master Plan will be a stand-alone document, serving as the primary sidewalk facility management plan with regulatory authority conferred by the City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). This study will also serve as an addendum to the City of Georgetown Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan by providing a project list for ADA compliance improvements within the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP® ATTACHMENTS: Executive Summary Presentation Cover Memo Item # A Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 47 Item # A City Council Dale Ross, Mayor Pa tt y Eason, District 1 Keith Brainard, District 2 John Hesser, District 3 Steve Fought, District 4 Jerry Hammerlun, District 5 Rachael Jonrowe, District 6 Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Truman Hunt, Chair Steve Johnston Christopher H’Luz Rachael Jonrowe John Pett it John Hesser (GTEC Rep) Ray Armour David Johnson Scott Rankin (P&Z Rep) Project Manager Nathaniel Waggoner HDR Engineering, Inc. 504 Lavaca Street, Suite 1175 Austin, TX 78701 Tel. 512-904-3700 www.hdrinc.com Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1January 2015 The offi cial Census population count in April 2010 reported 47,400 residents within Georgetown’s city limits. Since the 2000 Census, when the population count was 28,339, Georgetown has undergone a 67% increase in population. Following the overall growth trend, the number of pedestrians, roadway network and mobility needs within the City have also grown. This increase in pedestrian activity, combined with the aging pedestrian infrastructure, has created a demand for a Sidewalk Master Plan Update. to as the Master Plan, is to inventory existing sidewalk infrastructure, identify design deﬁ ciencies, evaluate future sidewalk requirements and develop an implementation plan for all pedestrian facilities within the City of Georgetown City Limits. The implementation plan will also be utilized by City staff to assist Executive Summary PLAN PURPOSE The City of Georgetown Transportation Services Department initiated the Sidewalk Master Plan as an update to the 2001 City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study. The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Master Plan, heretofore referred Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 2 City of Georgetown in the prioritization of future pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The Sidewalk Master Plan will be a stand-alone document, serving as the primary sidewalk facility management plan with regulatory authority conferred by the City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). This study will also serve as an addendum to the City of Georgetown Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan by providing a project list for ADA compliance improvements within the City. PLAN BOUNDARY The Sidewalk Master Plan includes all sidewalks within the Georgetown City limits, excluding the extra-territorial jurisdiction. A detailed survey of the Downtown Overlay District was included in the study. SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN UPDATE The 2001 Sidewalk Study developed general design guidelines, procedural recommendations and a detailed sidewalk implementation plan. Through the City’s Uniform Development Code and City Design Standards, the City has implemented many of the procedural recommendations from the Sidewalk Study. Several design recommendations are still applicable and should continually be enforced by the City; these will be reiterated in this Sidewalk Master Plan document. Since completion of the 2001 Sidewalk Study, the City has also made strides to implement a signiﬁ cant portion of the Phase 1 Sidewalk Plan recommendations. Phase 1 projects, complete and incomplete, are reﬂ ected in this analysis. THE PLANNING PROCESS The 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan process includes several key steps to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current state of sidewalk planning within the City of Georgetown. ●Literature and Document Review. A thorough review of existing City Standards and Planning Documents was undertaken to evaluate the current requirements, ambiguity in the requirements, document conﬂ icts and any construction standard deﬁ ciencies. ●Existing Conditions Analysis. A detailed review of existing sidewalk infrastructure and related funding allocations was completed within the City limits. This helped establish a baseline for future improvements. ●Government & Stakeholder Engagement. The planning team established a Government & Stakeholder Georgetown City limits served as the study boundary. A detailed survey of downtown was included in the study. Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3January 2015 Participation Plan to engage key agencies impacted by the planning process. The team met with stakeholders to gather information on their sidewalk needs and priorities in the City of Georgetown. ●Public Engagement. A Public Participation Plan was also established to encourage open communication with the residents of the City of Georgetown. Two open houses were completed, an email blast list along with print media was published, and a project website was developed to encourage public input. Residents provided information on the current conditions of sidewalks in their community and feedback on their priorities for future needs. . ●Development of Prioritization Methodology. A prioritization methodology was developed based on several key categories, resulting from the government stakeholder and public meeting. The methodology was applied to the existing infrastructure conditions to develop a prioritized project list. ●Analysis & Recommendations. The prioritized project list was presented to the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board, the Georgetown City Council, and to residents in a second public open house. Recommendations on City requirements, processes, design elements, and installation and maintenance of sidewalk facilities were included in the ﬁ nal analysis and included in this Master Plan. EXISTING SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT The process of evaluating existing sidewalk infrastructure conditions provided crucial insight into the current state of Georgetown’s pedestrian network. Existing design deﬁ ciencies and infrastructure gaps compromise connectivity, pedestrian safety and ultimately mobility in the City. The comprehensive evaluation process determined where resources should be focused for improvements and new facilities. Data Collection Process To develop a complete sidewalk inventory, the project team initially used Google Earth Imagery, City aerial photography, and existing City GIS data prior to on-site ﬁ eld analysis. The sidewalk inventory included a review of existing sidewalk segments, segments along streets without sidewalks (referred to as “no sidewalk” segments), curb ramps, traffi c signals, and marked crosswalks along roadways. During ﬁ eld review, pedestrian elements were assessed using established evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria included sidewalk conditions, types of sidewalk failures (i.e. faulting, distortion, etc.), sidewalk obstructions, curb ramp conditions, types of curb ramp failures and a crosswalk assessment where presence of striping and pedestrian push butt ons was noted. Data collection eff orts utilized mobile GIS technologies. Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 4 City of Georgetown Sidewalk infrastructure in the downtown area was evaluated in greater detail for ADA compliance. In addition to assessing sidewalks, curb ramps and crosswalk conditions, ﬁ eld crews noted non-compliant infrastructure including protruding objects, pedestrian push butt ons, door thresholds, ramps, and driveways. Existing Sidewalk Conditions Field crews inventoried the conditions of approximately 2,400 sidewalk segments totaling 144 miles. Additionally, the condition of more than 2,000 curb ramps and 300 crosswalks were documented. Signiﬁ cant results of the sidewalk assessment include: ●13% of all sidewalks segments in the City showed noticeable failures and were classiﬁ ed as “limited failure” or “failing”. These sidewalks could not be traversed by wheelchairs and would be diffi cult for pedestrians to maneuver. ●14% of sidewalks with failures were noted as having distortion failures. ●4% of all sidewalk lengths in Georgetown are in need of repair. ●24% of all curb ramps in the City are non- functional and exhibit excessive slope or failures. ●The most common curb ramp failure was absence of an ADA compliant detectable warning surface. This was exhibited in 43% of all curb ramps in the City. ●In the Downtown Overlay District, 15% of sidewalks and 65% of curb ramps did not meet ADA compliance. The most common issues were protruding objects (trees and vegetation) and non-compliant driveways. This inventory of existing sidewalk infrastructure was used to develop an implementation plan for sidewalk maintenance and construction of new sidewalks within the Georgetown City limits. SIDEWALK PRIORITIZATION The prioritization process was initiated to answer three primary questions asked in the original Sidewalk Study: ●What factors most dramatically aff ect pedestrian movement in the City? ●What land uses or pedestrian att ractors generate the most pedestrian traffi c? ●What improvements would most impact pedestrian safety and connectivity in the City? In addressing the three questions above, a project list was developed for the Sidewalk Master Plan. The prioritization process allowed for consideration of several elements, including pedestrian att ractors, pedestrian safety, demographics, government, stakeholder and public input, which were weighed into a ﬁ nal prioritization tool. The prioritization tool is a transparent methodology for selecting sidewalk projects without inputt ing bias into the selection process. Prioritization Considerations Among the major considerations for the prioritization of sidewalk facilities were stakeholder input, public input, residential demographics, pedestrian safety and existing sidewalk conditions. Government and stakeholder meetings were conducted to obtain a list of key sidewalk projects considered important to the functionality of that agency. In general, stakeholders identiﬁ ed critical routes, missing sidewalk segments and safety concerns. The ﬁ rst public open house facilitated similar input from the public on key sidewalk projects as well as preferred pedestrian att ractors. Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5January 2015 This qualitative data was combined with a quantitative analysis of pedestrian safety and demographics within the City of Georgetown. Results from this public outreach were included in the prioritization process. Government and Stakeholder Input Multiple stakeholders meetings were conducted in order to engage representatives in discussions about sidewalk infrastructure challenges within the City. Stakeholder meetings included discussions with: ●Texas Department of Transportation ●Georgetown Independent School District ●Williamson County Transportation Department ●City of Georgetown City Manager’s Offi ce ●City of Georgetown Facilities Department ●City of Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department ●City of Georgetown Transportation Department ●City of Georgetown Planning and Housing Planners ●City of Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board ●Georgetown Village Public Improvement District ●City of Georgetown 2015 Road Bond Committ ee ●City of Georgetown Historic Architectural Review Committ ee ●Southwestern University These meetings encouraged feedback regarding sidewalk priorities, facilitated the development of a process to address those challenges and increased support for the Master Plan. Public Input The ﬁ rst Sidewalk Master Plan public open house was conducted after completion of the data collection and ﬁ eld inventory phases. The public meeting communicated the purpose of the Sidewalk Master Plan and gathered input from att endees. Exhibits displayed sidewalk inventory results, City land uses, City facilities, GISD schools and priorities, parks and trails locations and priorities, recent pedestrian- automobile crashes, pedestrian safety issues and provided information on ADA compliance. Att endees were encouraged to provide comments regarding safety and the location of desired sidewalk infrastructure improvements. An interactive land use “dot voting” exercise took place at the open house that asked att endees to choose their preferred sidewalk location preference by associated destination. The results of this exercise are shown in the pie chart on the next page. The “dot voting” exercised gathered preferences from more than 40 att endees, representing private citizen interests as well as several community partners. Stakeholder meeting with GISD staff . Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 6 City of Georgetown Att endees gave the highest priority to sidewalk access to Southwestern University, Georgetown ISD facilities, and the Central Business District. Pedestrian Access Survey forms were distributed at the open house and were available online for those who could not att end the meeting. The survey asked participants to rate the importance of improved access to four diff erent types of amenities - City Buildings and Facilities, City Parks and Trails, Retail Centers and Schools. The results of this survey aligned with the “dot voting” exercise with participant ranking improved pedestrian access to schools as the most important planning consideration. Access to City Parks and trails was rated the second most important. Public comments provided valuable insight into existing sidewalk infrastructure challenges and improvement priorities. Comments were tabulated and incorporated into the prioritization process as weighted criteria. Prioritization Methodology A prioritization methodology was developed based on a literature review of sidewalk prioritization methodology developed in other U.S. cities, input from stakeholders, and public input. The Georgetown sidewalk prioritization methodology evaluated four major categories: pedestrian att ractors, pedestrian safety, demographics and special considerations. Within each category, several elements were weighed as described below. Pedestrian att ractors included: ●Downtown District ●Proximity to Schools (GISD) ●Proximity to Schools (Southwestern University) ●Proximity to Trails ●Proximity to Retail ●Proximity to Single-Family Residential Land Uses ●Proximity to Playgrounds, Parks An open house helped to gather public input. Sidewalk Location Preference by Associate Land Use Types Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7January 2015 ●Proximity to Multi-Family Residential Land Uses ●Proximity to City Facilities ●Pedestrian safety elements included: ●Functional Classiﬁ cation of Streets ●Pedestrian-Automobile Crashes Demographic elements included: ●Median Household Income ●Residential Population Density ●Aff ordable Housing Special considerations included: ●Requests by Georgetown Independent School District ●Requests by Parks & Recreation Department ●Identiﬁ ed as a Priority in 2001 Sidewalk Study ●Identiﬁ ed as a Priority in the Downtown Master Plan ●Requests by Public ●Sidewalk Gaps The prioritization tool assigned a score to each sidewalk segment within the City of Georgetown based on their relation to each element. Sidewalk segment priority rankings ranged from 0 to 73 points. Initial output from the prioritization tool did not consider existing sidewalk conditions. The priority ranking for each sidewalk segment was compared with the existing conditions analysis to develop a prioritized project list. Sidewalks with the following existing conditions were included in the prioritized project list – missing sidewalk segments, limited failure sidewalk segments, and failing sidewalk segments. Pedestrian curb ramps identiﬁ ed as either limited-failure, failing, or missing were also included in the project list. For documentation purposes, pedestrian curb ramps are assumed to be installed or repaired as part of adjacent sidewalk projects. Analysis results from the prioritization methodology identiﬁ ed individual sidewalk segments. These segments were then grouped with adjacent sidewalk needs to provide sidewalk “projects”. Through this grouping, the sidewalk projects are bett er able to provide a connected, destination- oriented sidewalk project list. Prioritization Results Three tiers of projects were identiﬁ ed through the analysis: Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3. Through the analysis process, sidewalk segments with 40 or Special considerations included schools. Missing sidewalk at Edwards Park.Missing sidewalk at Edwards Park Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 8 City of Georgetown greater points were considered Priority 1 and 2 projects. Segments with 30 to 40 points were considered Priority 3 projects. Priority 1 sidewalks are anticipated to be completed with a ten-year, $10,000,000 bond package. The Priority 1 Projects are anticipated to be completed in a 10-year timeframe with potential funding from a $10M bond program, pending approval by City Council and authorization from City residents in a potential May 2015 referendum. If the referendum is not successful, the project team recommends budget administrators appropriate funds to cover Priority 1 projects across the same 10-year timeframe as the Master Plan through the Capital Improvement Planning process. In addition to the priority projects identiﬁ ed through this process, four other pedestrian accessibility projects were identiﬁ ed: Priority Location Description Estimated Fee 1 Downtown Overlay District Accessibility Repairs $1,730,000 1 Downtown Overlay District New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps $1,890,000 1 Citywide APS Signal Upgrades $710,000 1 Citywide Ramp and Crosswalk Upgrades at Signals $150,000 1 Citywide Accessible Routes to Government Facilities $200,000 1 Old Town Northeast New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $1,180,000 1 SH 29 Central New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $2,070,000 1 2nd St.New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $410,000 1 South Austin Avenue New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $370,000 1 Old Town Southeast New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $1,470,000 2 Old Town Southwest New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $1,810,000 2 North Austin Avenue New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $230,000 2 Shell Rd.New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $1,950,000 2 Lakeway Dr. & Williams Dr.New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $2,130,000 2 Leander Rd.New Sidewalk & Curb Ramps, Sidewalk & Curb Ramp Repairs $920,000 ●Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) units are audible push units with speech message capability and audible locator tones. These units are required by federal law when traffi c signals are modiﬁ ed or upgraded. It is recommended that upgrades to existing pedestrian signal equipment be included as a Priority 1 project. ●During the APS upgrades, pedestrian curb ramps at signalized intersections should be brought to ADA compliance. This includes repair of non-functional ramps and crosswalks. ●It should also be noted that projects within the Downtown Overlay District were grouped as a single cohesive project due the importance they received in the prioritization and public comment process. Priority 1 and 2 sidewalk projects and estimated costs are as follows. Priority Projects and Preliminary Costs Table Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9January 2015 Priority 1 and Priority 2 projects are depicted in the att ached ﬁ gures. The Priority 1 project list captures the public’s three main priorities: sidewalks in the Downtown Overlay District, connectivity to Southwestern University and connectivity to Georgetown ISD facilities. ●34% of funding is dedicated to downtown sidewalks ●28% of funding is recommended within ¼ mile of Southwestern ●26% of funding is recommended within ¼ mile of Georgetown ISD facilities IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Summary of Approximate Costs Preliminary construction cost estimates were developed for the sidewalk projects identiﬁ ed in the Sidewalk Master Plan. A breakdown of potential sidewalk construction costs, in present dollars, is as follows: Preliminary Costs Table Description Estimated Fee Priority 1 Projects $10,180,000 Priority 2 Projects $7,040,000 Priority 3 Projects $7,770,000 Remaining Sidewalk Master Plan Projects $244,170,000 Existing Funding Sources The Streets Department within Transportation Services is responsible for the maintenance and operations of the City’s pedestrian network. The Streets Department relies on two main sources of revenue to complete its maintenance and operations requirements. ❶ The ﬁ rst and largest revenue source comes from the City’s General Fund. Annual funding for sidewalk construction and maintenance is approximately $75,000. ❷ The Uniﬁ ed Development Code (UDC) generally requires sidewalks on both sides of all streets having a right-of-way width equal to or greater than 50 feet. However, the UDC does provide for deferment of construction. To qualify for the deferment of residential sidewalks, developers must pay 20% of the total cost of the uninstalled sidewalk improvements to the City for allocation to a residential sidewalk fund. These funds are held for ﬁ ve years to complete sidewalk construction in the speciﬁ c subdivision. Any remaining funds will roll over into a general sidewalk fund. Although this mechanism is available for construction and maintenance by the Streets Department, there are currently no monies within the fund to do so. Annual funding levels do not adequately support maintenance of existing infrastructure nor do they mirror the growth in the pedestrian network brought about by new roadway construction and development as required by Federal and State law. The scope of the Sidewalk Master Plan does not prescribe a recommended annual funding amount. However, the project team does recommend that City Council, related Priority projects include improved accessibility throughout the City. Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 10 City of Georgetown boards and commissions evaluate legal requirements and appropriate maintenance and operation standards which, when fully funded, support community expectations and legal requirements. Potential Funding Sources Outside of the City’s general fund, there are four areas, which could be harnessed to support the maintenance and operations of the City’s pedestrian network. ❶ Special revenue districts are appropriate sources because excess revenues generated by that district above and beyond an established assessed value bring about additional reinvestment in that district through infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure within the Downtown, Rivery and Williams Dr. Gateway Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) are designed to serve pedestrian needs. Maintenance and operational expenses within those districts should be supported by a dedicated source of funding directly related to the value it creates. ❷ City staff , led primarily by the Housing Coordinator, has experienced success in securing Federal and State funding through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Since 2008, the City has been awarded approximately $1.1 million for the construction of sidewalk projects that serve low to moderate income areas. This funding is important to the overall management of the City’s pedestrian network not only because it enhances mobility along heavily traffi cked corridors, but it also induces economic activity and creates ancillary tax revenue opportunities. ❸ Like TIRZs, the City administratively supports Public Improvement District (PIDs), which through additional tax increments, manages infrastructure enhanced beyond minimal City requirements. Although the City cannot directly harness the additional taxes raised by the PID, it could partner with PIDs to improve and maintain the pedestrian network. ❹ Subsequent to the adoption of this Sidewalk Master Plan, the City may complete a bond referendum in May 2015 focused on transportation improvements. Should the City Council elect to hold the referendum, the referendum could provide several funding mechanisms for the pedestrian network. All new roadway projects, by design of the UDC, will provide sidewalks on both sides of the road. This will grow the pedestrian network and further the City’s stated goal of multi-modal transit. This increase in the pedestrian network will require increased maintenance capacity. Secondly, if held and approved by the voters, the transportation bond referendum should consider allocating a dedicated portion of the overall bond to reducing accessibility barriers, which in the normal course of budgeting, would be impracticable given the amount needed. Accessible pedestrian signals should be provided at all signalized intersections to meet ADA standards. Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11January 2015 Operation and Maintenance Prioritized projects identiﬁ ed in the Sidewalk Master Plan include the construction of new pedestrian facilities as well as repair of existing facilities. Funding for those projects will come from either the annual budgeting process, special revenue accounts or from outside sources such as grants. The programming of these prioritized projects is in addition to the annual maintenance of pedestrian facilities within the City. The planning cycle for operations and maintenance will follow the same 10 year cycle proposed for prioritized projects. In determining life cycle costs, the project team reviewed industry literature and adopted best management practice lifecycles. According to that literature, a new sidewalk has an expected useful life of up to 50 years; sidewalks in fair condition have an expected useful life of 10 years. If the recommendation to inventory the City’s pedestrian facilities every 10 years is adopted, the project team does not recommend including facilities identiﬁ ed as fair, which includes those deemed “Passable”, “Good” or “Excellent”. Facilities that fall within those categories are assumed to maintain their usable status until the next inventory cycle. Through this Plan’s eff orts, the project team determined that $5,540,000 is required to repair all failing and limited-failure pedestrian facilities citywide (excluding the Downtown Overlay District, whose repairs have been accounted for through the Capital Improvement Plan process). Cost estimates for Operations and Maintenance projects include all elements of cost associated with projects completed by external contractors including materials, contingency, design and construction administration. Should internal staff not be able to complete those scheduled projects, the City will have suffi cient funds to hire external contractors to complete the work. Maintenance funding and eff orts should be focused on these project types: ●Failing sidewalk facilities not included in Priority 1 projects ●Limited-failure sidewalk facilities not included in Priority 1 projects ●Failing curb ramps not included in Priority 1 projects ●Functional ramp repairs requiring ADA compliant detectable warning surfaces The funding of Priority 1 projects through the CIP process will include roughly $560,000 towards these repairs, leaving approximately $4,980,000 required for operations and maintenance over 10 years. The project team recommends a 10-year operations and maintenance forecast based on ability to internally administer and complete projects with existing staff . ppj g Pedestrian facilities should be provided on at least one side of every roadway. Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 12 City of Georgetown At current staffi ng levels, the Streets Department can administer approximately ﬁ ve projects a year with an individual project cost of $100,000; resulting in the maintenance of approximately 1,500 linear feet of sidewalk, 40 curb ramps, 60 detectable warning surface repairs and crosswalk striping as needed. The project team recommends $490,000 in annual operations and maintenance funding, which is 98% of the overall need. The project team also recommends adjusting the operations and maintenance baseline of $490,000 by 6% annually through the next inventory cycle (2024) to account for project cost inﬂ ations (to include materials and labor) as well as growth in the pedestrian network. Annual Review Process An annual review process is paramount to the execution of the Sidewalk Master Plan. City staff and management have made a concerted eff ort to include pedestrian infrastructure within the same asset management schema as other capital items in the City’s inventory. The pedestrian network serves the community in the public right-of-way which conveys liability and requires public expenditure. The project team recommends that the Sidewalk Master Plan be reviewed annually in coordination with CIP eff orts. Every eff ort should be made to synchronize roadway and pedestrian improvements to minimize impact to public and staff . Initial project prioritization and recommended scheduling are included in this Sidewalk Master Plan; however, additional project selection criteria will be included that allows staff to respond to public partners and elected offi cial requests in a transparent and predictable manner. The annual review should include three components: ❶ An audit of projects completed in the prior year in terms of costs, scheduling, and scope. ❷ Analysis of current needs compared to the prioritized project list. ❸ Funding request through the CIP process, informed by expected revenues and grants. CITY MANUALS AND STANDARDS REVIEW Resources & Standards As part of the Sidewalk Master Plan process, a review and evaluation of current City documents and policies relevant to sidewalk infrastructure planning was completed. Through this process, the following documents were reviewed in terms of the following aspects: sidewalk requirements, sidewalk connectivity, sidewalk accessibility, sidewalk design, city processes, sidewalk funding, sidewalk construction, or sidewalk maintenance: ●City of Georgetown Uniﬁ ed Development Code (April 2012) ●City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan (June 2004) ●Zoning Regulations for Mixed Use Faulting sidewalks create tripping hazards. Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13January 2015 Developments (January 2008) ●Georgetown Downtown Master Plan Update (January 2014) ●Georgetown Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan(June 2009) ●City of Georgetown ADA Transition Plan (March 2014) ●City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan (May 2009) ●Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan (April 2006) ●City of Georgetown Construction Standards and Details (June 2006) ●City of Georgetown GIS Files (Accessed June 2014) ●Texas Accessibility Standards (March 2012) ●Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right- of-Way (July 2011) Summary Notable ﬁ ndings include: ●The UDC requires new developments to provide for the provision of pedestrian facilities to ensure orderly growth of the City. The UDC allows for exceptions to sidewalk installation: ⚪80% Rule – Sidewalks will not be required for a residential development of four or fewer lots, when 80% of the adjacent lots are developed. ⚪Deferred Installation – The installation of residential sidewalks may be deferred until the construction of a residential unit on each lot. ⚪Alternative Sidewalk Plan – Sidewalks will not be required for sites with unique and extraordinary conditions. These sites may qualify for alternative routes, payments-in-lieu of construction, or delays in construction. ⚪City Participation – Developments may request City participation in the cost of pedestrian improvements. Exceptions to these rules include sidewalks near school facilities, parks, or prioritized in the Sidewalk Master Plan. ●Maintenance of sidewalk facilities within the City right-of-way should be maintained by the City of Georgetown unless otherwise deﬁ ned: ⚪Public improvements, such as sidewalks, may be accepted by the City after the applicant submits record drawings and a one-year maintenance bond. ⚪A Property Owners Association (POA) may be established and approved by City Council for the continuous operation, maintenance, and supervision of common physical facilities, such as sidewalks. ●Sidewalk design requirements varied throughout the City documents. Sidewalk width requirements varied between 5’ and 12’, depending on the location and functionality of the sidewalk. Similarly, the recommended setback between the sidewalk and the adjacent roadway varied between 2’ and 25’. In most cases, the recommended setback was not clearly deﬁ ned. Steps and stairs are diffi cult for strollers and wheel- chair users- and in some cases, not traversable at all. Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN 14 City of Georgetown Recommendations The following recommendations are made: ●Enforcement of the UDC requirements for sidewalk installation should be continued to ensure new developments are contributing to the sidewalk network. ●A unique sidewalk fund should be established within the City of Georgetown to track all fee-in-lieu payments by developers who utilized the Deferred Installation or Alternative Sidewalk Plan. This will ensure the fees are dedicated back to sidewalk facilities identiﬁ ed in the Sidewalk Master Plan. ●Minor rewording of the UDC will ultimately be required to capture the prioritized sidewalk analysis completed in this Sidewalk Master Plan. ●The City should develop a single document that clearly identiﬁ es sidewalk width and setback requirements. This should be reviewed and agreed to by all applicable City departments. SUMMARY Through the sidewalk master planning process, recommendations were developed to assist the City in facilitation of the installation and maintenance of sidewalk facilities. The results of the study identiﬁ ed areas for improvement in City requirements and processes, design and planning elements and most notably installation and maintenance. The following recommendations are made to guide near- term sidewalk implementation and establish a process for successful management of an integrated pedestrian network. City Requirements and Processes: ●Enforcement of the UDC requirements for sidewalk installation should be continued to ensure new developments are contributing to the sidewalk network. ●A unique sidewalk fund should be established within the City of Georgetown to track all fee-in-lieu payments by developers who utilized the Deferred Installation or Alternative Sidewalk Plan. This will ensure fees are dedicated back to sidewalk facilities identiﬁ ed in the Sidewalk Master Plan. ●Minor rewording of the UDC will ultimately be required to capture the prioritized sidewalk analysis completed in this Sidewalk Master Plan. Design and Planning Elements: ●Sidewalks should be located on at least one side of every roadway within the City. Some roadways, in particular the major arterials, should have sidewalks located on both sides of the roadway throughout the developed portions of the City. ●Along arterials, sidewalks should be separated from the curb and/or Detectable warning surfaces indicate the boundary between a pedestrian and vehicular routes for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 47 Item # A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15January 2015 identiﬁ ed as Priority 1 improvements through the prioritization process, completing these segments will provide for quick and cost eff ective upgrades to the current sidewalk system. ●Incorporate ﬁ ndings from the annual sidewalk review process prior to the initiation of the Capital Improvements Plan process, including: ⚪An audit of projects completed in the prior year in terms of costs, scheduling, and scope. It is recommended that completed projects are tracked in the GIS database. ⚪An analysis of current needs compared to the prioritized project list. A detailed cost evaluation will be required once current projects needs have been identiﬁ ed and annual projects selected. ⚪Funding request through the CIP process, informed by expected revenues and grants. edge of roadway wherever possible. A recommended sidewalk setback is implied for arterials and boulevards in several City documents; however, standards have not been established. Required and recommended sidewalk setbacks should be more clearly identiﬁ ed in the UDC This separation provides for safer movement of pedestrians when separated from adjacent traffi c. ●The City should develop a single document that clearly identiﬁ es sidewalk width and setback requirements. This should be reviewed and agreed to by all applicable City departments. ●Well-marked crosswalks should be provided at all signalized intersections and intersections near schools. Crosswalks should also be installed at unsignalized intersections with arterials. Sidewalk Installation and Maintenance: ●Adopt policy standard for operations and maintenance of the pedestrian network with associated funding levels. ●Complete Sidewalk Master Plan Priority 1 projects within 10 years. While the Sidewalk Master Plan list prioritizes sidewalk segments, ﬂ exibility will be required in implementation of the plan. It is anticipated that the sidewalk segments could move up or down the priority list based on a variety of external factors including ongoing or future roadway construction projects, new developments, construction cost estimates, etc. ●Document, to the extent possible, public comments received on deﬁ cient or missing sidewalk infrastructure. Managing these comments will make for easier prioritization of projects in future reviews. ●Fill sidewalk “gaps” as soon as possible. Although sidewalk gaps were not always Incomplete sidewalks direct pedestrians into the street. Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS TRAIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A1January 2015 Overall Sidewalk Inventory Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 47 Item # A W 10TH ST E UNIVERSITY AVE W UNIVERSITY AV E E 11TH ST E 10TH ST E 9TH ST E 8TH ST HA R T S T E 7TH ST E 6TH ST E 5TH ST E 4 TH ST E 3RD ST W 9TH ST W 8TH ST E 2ND ST MA R T I N L U TH E R KING JR S T W 6TH ST W 11TH ST W 13TH ST W 14TH ST S M A I N S T ELM S T S C H U R C H S T S M YRTLE ST S A U S TI N A VE W 3RD ST RO C K S T W 7TH ST W 2ND ST TI M B E R S T W 4TH ST W 5TH ST FOR E S T S T SCENIC DR WEST S T BLUE HOLE PARK RD RAILROADAVE 0 500FEET LEGEND NON-COMPLIANT OBJECT OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A2 City of Georgetown Downtown Overlay District Sidewalk Inventory Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND GISD SCHOOL OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A3January 2015 Proximity to Schools (GISD) Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A4 City of Georgetown Proximity to Schools (Southwestern University) Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND TRAIL ACCESS OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL PARKS DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY (PARKS) 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE PROXIMITY (TRAIL ACCESS) 1/2 MILE 1/4 MILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A5January 2015 Proximity to Trails, Playgrounds, Parks Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A6 City of Georgetown Proximity to Retail Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A7January 2015 Proximity to Single-Family Residential Land Uses Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A8 City of Georgetown Proximity to Multi-Family Residential Land Uses Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A9January 2015 Proximity to City Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 47 Item # A 3405 971 2338 2243 L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE WILLIA MS DR 29 29 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND STREET FUNCTION FREEWAY MAJOR ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL MAJOR COLLECTOR MINOR COLLECTOR LOCAL STREET TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A10 City of Georgetown Functional Classiﬁ cation of Streets Attachment number 1 \nPage 27 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND CRASH BY YEAR 2011 2012 2013 2014 OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A11January 2015 Pedestrian-Automobile Crashes Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 47% UNDER MHI GREATER THAN 47% UNDER MHI GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A12 City of Georgetown Median Household Income Attachment number 1 \nPage 29 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS POPULATION DENSITY* 2015 > 2,000 PEOPLE / SQ.MI 2015 > 3,000 PEOPLE / SQ.MI *Population density is less than 2,000 people / sq. mile in areas not specified on the map EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A13January 2015 Residential Population Density Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROXIMITY 1/4 MILE 1/8 MILE GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A14 City of Georgetown Aff ordable Housing Attachment number 1 \nPage 31 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND PRIORITY FACILITY (GISD) NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A15January 2015 GISD Priority Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 32 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI L L I AMS D R L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND PRIOITY FACILITY (PARKS & RECREATION) NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A16 City of Georgetown Parks & Recreation Priority Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 33 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND PRIORITY FACILITY (2001 SMP PHASE 1) PRIORITY FACILITY (2001 SMP PHASE 2) NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A17January 2015 2001 Sidewalk Study Priority Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 34 of 47 Item # A E UNIVERSITY AVE W 10TH ST E 11TH ST E 10TH ST E 9TH ST N A U S T I N A V E W UNIVERSITY AVE E 8TH ST E 7TH ST E 6TH ST E 5TH ST S A N G A B R I E L VILLAGE BLVD E 4TH ST E 3RD ST W 9TH ST W 8TH ST E 2ND ST MA R T I N L U TH E R KING JR S T FO RE S T S T W 6TH ST W 11TH ST W 13TH ST S MA IN S T W 3RD ST RO C K S T W 7TH ST W 2ND ST W 4TH ST W 5TH ST SCENIC DR WEST S T BLUE HOLE PARK RD RAILROAD AVE ELM S T S CHURCH ST S MYRTL E ST S A US T I N A VE 0 500FEET LEGEND PRIORITY FACILITY (DMP PRIORITY 1) PRIORITY FACILITY (DMP PRIORITY 2) PRIORITY FACILITY (DMP PRIORITY 3) TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A18 City of Georgetown Downtown Master Plan Priority Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 35 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND PRIORITY FACILITY (PUBLIC) NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A19January 2015 Public Priority Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 36 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND EXISTING SIDEWALK GAPS NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A20 City of Georgetown Existing Sidewalk Infrastructure Gaps Attachment number 1 \nPage 37 of 47 Item # A 3406 3405 971 1431 2338 2243 WI LLI A M S DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND PRIORITIZATION SCORE 0 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 70 71 - 80 TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS *A prioritization score of 0 has the lowest priority and 70 has the highest priority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A21January 2015 Initial Prioritization Map Attachment number 1 \nPage 38 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A22 City of Georgetown Priority 1 Projects Attachment number 1 \nPage 39 of 47 Item # A E 7TH ST ELM ST PINE ST E 6TH ST S CO L L EG E S T S M Y R T L E S T S CH U R C H S TS A U S T I N A V E S MAIN S T E 11TH ST M A P L E S T AS H S T E 9TH ST E 10TH ST E 5TH ST WALNU T S T E 8TH ST 0 500FEET LEGEND 1: OLD TOWN NORTHEAST OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 29 35 130 E 15TH ST SOUTHCROSS RD REINHARDT BLVD ELM ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST INDIAN CREEK DR RIVER BEND DR S MYRTLE ST MESQUITE LN GOLDEN OAKS DR S COLLEGE ST SHADY HOLLOW DR INDIAN MEADOW DR B O O T Y S CROSSING RD H U T T O R D S C H U R C H S T ME M ORIAL DR C O U N T R Y C L U B RD W 10TH ST W I L L I A M S D R S M A I N ST E 7 T H S T R A N C H R D W UNIVERSITY AVE NAUSTINAVE ST A R VIEW D R W E S T W O O D LN ASH S T F M 971 NORTHCROSSRD W 17TH ST RA I L R OA D AVE D A W N D R S O U T H W E S T E R N BLVD PIN E ST P A R K E R D R D B W O O D R D MA PL E ST H O L L Y ST CHURCHILL F A R M S D R ROC K S T N O R T H W E S T BLVD RIVER C H A S E B L V D POW ER R D E CEN T R AL D R PA R K W AY S T E A G L E T R A C E D R S P R IN G V A L L E Y RD S K Y L I N E R D O A K C REST LN N E INNER LOOP G O L D E N OAKS RD SE INNER LOOP W O L F R A N C H PKWY P E R KIN S P L SCENIC DR BA S T I AN LNGABRIEL V I E W D R A S H B E R R Y T R L E M O R R O W S T E 8TH S T S A U S T I N AVE WEST ST PARK L N N C O L L E G E S T RID G E C R E ST R D RIVERY BLV D L O W E R P A R K RD SMITH C R E E K R D O L D AIRPORT RD LEGEND 2: SH29 CENTRAL OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 04,000FEET EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A23January 2015 Priority 1 Projects - SH 29 Central Priority 1 Projects - Old Town Northeast Attachment number 1 \nPage 40 of 47 Item # A EL M ST MARTIN LUTHER K ING JR ST ASH ST N C O L LE G E S T E 7TH S T S C OLL E G E ST BRENDON LEE LN W 6TH ST E 6TH ST E 3RD ST WA L NU T ST S A N GABR IE L V I L L A G E B L V D N A US T I N A VE ROC K ST HOLL Y S T S A U ST I N A VE S M AIN S T E 4TH ST E 5TH STS C H U R CH S T S MY R T LE ST W 3RD ST W 2ND ST W 4TH ST W 5TH ST BLUE HOLE PARK RD PI N E S T S C E N I C D R E 2ND ST 0 600FEET LEGEND 3: 2ND STREET OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT FM1460 E 15TH ST L E A N D E R S T LEANDER RD SAUSTINAVE ASH S T HA RT S T PI NE S T S I H 3 5 F W Y N B OLIVE S T E 18TH S T W 17TH ST W 18TH ST EL M S T W UNIVERSITY AVE Q U A I L V A L L E Y D R S MY R TLE S T E 16TH S T E 19 TH ST S MAIN ST RA I LR O A D AV E E 13TH ST E UNIVERSITY AV E W 11TH ST W 16TH ST S A N J O S E S T WALN UT S T E 11 TH ST W 21S T ST W 15TH ST FORE ST S T E 21ST ST TIM BER S T W 22ND ST S I H 3 5 F W Y S B S C H U R C H S T MAPLE S T S COLLEGE S T INDU STR I AL AV E SCENIC DRLEGEND 4: AUSTIN AVENUE SOUTH OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 01,200FEET GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A24 City of Georgetown Priority 1 Projects - Austin Avenue South Priority 1 Projects - 2nd Street Attachment number 1 \nPage 41 of 47 Item # A E 1 5T H S T Q U A I L V A L L E Y D R H U T T O R D PI NE S T K N I G H T S T K AT H E R I N E C T ASH S T EL M ST S MYRTLE ST R I F L E B E N D D R E 17 TH ST OL I V E S T H O G G S T S MA IN ST E 1 8 T H S T S M I T H B R A N C H B L V D E 16TH ST E UNIVERSITY AVE E 19TH ST E 13TH ST T R A I L S E N D D R E U B A N K S T E 2 0T H ST L O N G B R A N C H DR W 11TH ST L O U I S E S T V I R G I N I A S T V I N E S T WA L NU T ST C Y RU S A V E E 14TH ST E 11TH ST W UNIVERSITY AVE PA IGE S T BRUSHY S T LAUREL S T W 16TH ST W 17TH ST W 21ST ST E 21ST ST E 22 N D ST P E C A N S T M I M O S A S T W I N C H E S T E R D R F I N C H L N S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N A V E S C OLL EGE ST B A R C U S D R K A T Y L N H A V E N L N SAN JOSE ST MAPLE ST01,000FEET LEGEND 5: OLD TOWN SOUTHEAST OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A25January 2015 Priority 1 Projects - Old Town Southeast Attachment number 1 \nPage 42 of 47 Item # A GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A26 City of Georgetown Priority 2 Projects Attachment number 1 \nPage 43 of 47 Item # A LEANDER ST RAILROAD AVE W 17TH ST W 18TH ST W 15TH ST UNIVERSITY AVE TN NB INDUSTRIAL AVE S M AIN S T S A U ST I N A V E LEA NDER RD E 15TH ST H O G G S T K N I G H T S T E 17TH ST E 19TH S T E 18TH ST E 13TH ST S COLLEGE S T E 16TH ST EL M ST FM 1460 BRIDGE ST W 16TH ST W 13TH ST W 14TH ST E U B A N K S T C YR US A VE E 14TH ST S MY RTL E ST PA I G E S T E 20TH ST BR U SH Y S T W 21ST ST FO RE S T S T E 21ST ST TIM BER S T CAN D EE S T AL LY W 2 2ND ST S C H U R C H S T ASH S T SCE NI C DR HART S T S I H 3 5 F W Y S B S I H 3 5 F W Y N B W UNIV ERSITY AVE 0 1,000FEET LEGEND 6: OLD TOWN SOUTHWEST OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT E 3RD ST W MORROW ST S IH 3 5 F W Y NB N AU STI N A V E S A U ST I N A V E SAN GABRIEL VI LL A G E BLVD H O L L Y ST C H A M B E R W A Y WI L L I A M S D R E M O R R O W S T E 4TH ST N CHURCH S T E 2ND ST W 3RD ST N M Y RTLE S T E VALLEY ST L O W E R P A R K R D S IH 35 F W Y SB WOODLAWNAVE S C E N I C D R RIVERY BLVD N C O L L E G E S TWILLIAMSDRTNNB BLUE HOLE PARK RD LEGEND 7: AUSTIN AVENUE NORTH OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 01,000FEET EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A27January 2015 Priority 2 Projects - Austin Avenue North Priority 2 Projects - Old Town Southwest Attachment number 1 \nPage 44 of 47 Item # A BELLAIREDR W S E Q U O I A S P U R ROSEDALE BLVD V I L L A G E COMMONS BLVD WEST B U R Y L N B I R C H D R S O N O R A T R C E GREENSIDE LN P E N N Y L N W O O D S T O C K D R MADRID DR W O O DLAKE D R W I L D W O O D D R A C K E R R D SE D R O T R L LA P A L O M A DR C A P R OC K CANYON T R L E E S P A R A D A D R CO UNTR Y RD W E S P A R A D A D R E S E Q U O I A SPUR V A L V E R D E D R M A L A G A D R R I V E R W A L K T R L S E R E N A D A D R S E V I L L A D R E S T RELL A XIN G LA S PLUMAS D R VERDE VISTA SINUSO DR L U C I N D A TER MIRAMAR D R ME SA D R L O G A N R A N C H R D W IL LIA M S DR B I G B E N D T R L T A S C A T E S T NARANJO D R B L U E H A W D R R O W A N D R SU TTON P L W SEQUOIA T R L O L D E O A K D R HIDDEN SPRINGS TRL Axis Loop SHELL RD CEDAR LAKE BLVD FAIRMONT DR BIG SPRING ST BOQUILLA TRL INDIAN LODGE ST MORAL PASS D B WOOD RD NAMBOCA WAY ROSEBUD LN WIND HOLLOW DR FAIRFIELD CT BIG THICKET ST ENCHANTED ROCK TRL CLIFFWOOD DR GREEN GROVE RUSTLE CV ALGERITA DR MANZANITA DR WINDFLOWER LN MADRONE DR FORT DAVIS ST BOXWOOD LOOP SIERRA BLANCO LOOP LAKE OVERLOOK RD02,000FEET LEGEND 8: SHELL ROAD OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT B O O T Y S CROSSING RD C O U N T R Y C L U B R DSOUTHCROSSRD RANCH R D N AUS T I N AVE WOODWAYDR WESTWOODLN C O U NTRY R D L A K E W A Y D R S E R E N A D A D R FM 9 7 1 NORTH CR OS S RD H E D G E W O O D DR DeerHavenDrive N O R T H W E S T BLVD PARKVIEW DR W EST E RN T R L S H A N N O N L N C L E A R S P R I N G R D O A K R I D G E R D D A W N D R KATHI LN R I V E R B E N D D R B U F F A L O S P R I N G S T R L P A R K E R D R T H O R N T O N LN R I O V I S T A D R W A G O N W H E E L T R L M E S Q U IT E L N P O W E R RD E C ENT R A L D R STAGECOACH DR G O L D E N O A K S D R D U N M A N D RS H E P H E R D R D P A R K W A YST OAK CREST L N P R I M R O S E T R L SPRING VAL L E Y RD AI R P O RT R D A L G ER ITA DR R A N D O L P H RD G A N N ST W HIS P E R OAKS LN RIV E R Y B L V D GOLDEN OAKS RD CROSSLANDDR G A R D E N M E A D O W DR B R O K E N S P O K E T R L E S TRE L LA XI NG W I L L I A M S D R L O N E S O M E T R L S P A N I S H OAK DR E M O R R O WS T F O N TA N A DR ASHW O O D LN R I V E R RD W O O D L A N D RD N I H 35 FWY N B N IH 3 5 F W Y S B P A R K L N N O R T H W O O DDR R O C K Y H O L L O W T R L G A B RIE L VIEW D R B R A Z O S D R P E C A N L N B R A N D Y L N R I D G E C R E S T R D PARKER C I R Axis L oop SU T TON P L A D D IE L N TERRYLN CANYON R D OLD AIRPORT RD S H A D Y H O L L O W D R ARROWHEAD LN TANGLEWOOD DR SPRINGWOOD LN GARDEN VIEW DR SABINE DR E JANIS DR JOHN THOMAS DR APPLE CREEK DR HIGHVIEW RD LEGEND 9: LAKEWAY AND WILLIAMS OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 02,400FEET GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A28 City of Georgetown Priority 2 Projects - Shell Road Priority 2 Projects - Lakeway and Williams Drive Attachment number 1 \nPage 45 of 47 Item # A SAN GABRIEL BLVD LEANDER RD SPANISH OAK CIR RIVERVIEW CV F O X H O L L O W D R R I V E R R I D G E D R W O O D V I E W D R R O C K C R E S T D R R I V E R V I E W D R D E B O R A D RK R I S T I N A D R RIVERB O W D R THO U S A ND OAK S BL VD R O C K M O O R D R NOR W OOD D R GREEN L E E D R GRE ENWO O D DR NORWOOD W E S T SOUTH RIDGE C I R F R I E N D S W O O D D R L I V E O AK D R W O O D M O N T D R W O O D S T O N E D R O A K W O O D D R R I V E R W O O D D R B U R N I N G T R E E D R P I N O A K D R R I D G E R U N D R L U T H E R DR R I V E R D O W N R D R I M R O C K D R S H A D Y O A K D R T A M A R A D R R I D G E W O O D DR S US A NA D R I N N W O O D D R D E E P W O O D D R T A L L W O O D D R REDOAK C T 0 1,200FEET LEGEND 10: LEANDER ROAD OVERALL SIDEWALK CONDITION EXCELLENT GOOD PASSABLE LIMITED FAILURE FAILING NO SIDEWALK TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A29January 2015 Priority 2 Projects - Leander Road Attachment number 1 \nPage 46 of 47 Item # A 3405 971 2338 2243 WILLIA MS DR L E A N D E R R D W UNIVERSITY AVE 29 29 35 35 130 0 2MILES LEGEND 2015 PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS TRAIL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN A30 City of Georgetown Priority 3 Projects Attachment number 1 \nPage 47 of 47 Item # A 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN “Complete the citywide Sidewalk Master Plan Element to increase pedestrian access from neighborhood to neighborhood, medical facilities, school, parks and local service retail.” - 2014/2015 Budget Narrative, Council Focus Area T6, Transportation Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT DOCUMENT CURRENT REQUIREMENTS Literature and Document Review Goal 2030 Comprehensive Plan Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan ADA Transition Plan Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan Unified Development Code Overall Transportation Plan Zoning Regulations for Mixed Use Developments Downtown Master Plan Update Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right- of-Way Texas Accessibility Standards Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT DOCUMENT CURRENT CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Analysis Goal Infrastructure Quantity Total Sidewalks 759,112 lf (144 miles) Sidewalks in the Downtown District 38,858 lf (7 miles) Total Roadways with No Sidewalks 2,045,678 lf (387 miles) Total Curb Ramps 2,368 each Curb Ramps in the Downtown District 268 each Total Crosswalks 361 each Crosswalks in the Downtown District 174 each Sidewalk Condition Description Quantity Percentage Excellent New or nearly new sidewalk 47,013 lf 6% Good Functional sidewalk, good condition, may be of insufficient width 474,988 lf 63% Passable Functional sidewalk with no noticeable failures, may be of insufficient width 132,249 lf 18% Limited Failures Functional with spot failures 48,836 lf 6% Failing Nonfunctional, cannot be used by wheelchairs, difficult for pedestrians 56,026 lf 7% Total 759,112 lf 100% Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT BE TRANSPARENT LISTEN ENGAGE COLLABORATE Government and Stakeholder Engagement Goal Southwestern University Williamson County Transportation Department Texas Department of Transportation Georgetown Independent School District More than 14 Engagement Meetings Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT BE TRANSPARENT LISTEN ENGAGE COLLABORATE Public Engagement Goal •Public Open House 1 •Public Open House 2 •Email Blast List •Project Website Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT BE TRANSPARENT LISTEN ENGAGE COLLABORATE Public Engagement Goal Restaurants/Dining 2.5% Post Office 1.4% Banks/Financial Services 1.2% Hotels/Overnight Accomodations 1.2% Religious Institutions 1.1% Strip Center Retail 1.1% Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities 0.9% Other Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT BE TRANSPARENT LISTEN ENGAGE COLLABORATE Prioritization Methodology Goal Category Element Criteria Points Weighted % to Subtotal Weighted % to Total Pedestrian Attractors Downtown District Segment is within the Downtown District 100 18% 30% Proximity to Schools (GISD) Segment is within 1/8 mi of a GISD school 100 17% Segment is within 1/4 mi of a GISD school 50 Proximity to Schools (Southwestern University) Segment is within 1/8 mi of Southwestern University 100 16% Segment is within 1/4 mi of Southwestern University 50 Proximity to Trails Segment is within 1/4 mi of Trail Access 100 11% Segment is within 1/2 mi of Trail Access 50 Proximity to Retail Segment is within 1/8 mi of Retail 100 11% Segment is within 1/4 mi of Retail 50 Proximity to Single Family Residential Land Uses Segment is within 1/8 mi of a Single Family Residential Land Use 100 11% Segment is within 1/4 mi of a Single Family Residential Land Use 50 Proximity to Public Recreational Facility/Playground/Parks Segment is within 1/8 mi of Public Recreational Facility/Playground/Parks 100 8% Segment is within 1/4 mi of Public Recreational Facility/Playground/Parks 50 Proximity to Multi Family Residential Land Uses Segment is within 1/8 mi of a Multi-Family Residential Land Use 100 4% Segment is within 1/4 mi of a Multi-Family Residential Land Use 50 Proximity to City Facilities Segment is within 1/8 mi of a City Facility 100 4% Segment is within 1/4 mi of a City Facility 50 Pedestrian Safety Functionally Classification of Streets Segment is on a Freeway/Tollway 0 50% 15% Segment is on an Arterial 100 Segment is on an Collector 50 Segment is on a Local Street 0 Pedestrian/Automobile Incidents Pedestrian-Auto Crash on Facility in last 5 years 100 50% Demographics Median Household Income Segment is within an area with greater than 47% of the population at low to moderate income households 100 33% 15% Residential Population Density Segment is within an area with population density greater than 3,000 people per square mile 100 33% Segment is within an area with population density greater than 2,000 people per square mile 50 Affordable Housing Segment is within 1/8 mi of Affordable Housing 100 33% Segment is within 1/4 mi of Affordable Housing 50 Special Considerations Agency Request Requested by GISD 100 14% 40% Requested by Parks & Rec 100 14% Requested as Phase I Priority in 2001 Sidewalk Master Plan 200 14% Requested as Phase II Priority in 2001 Sidewalk Master Plan 100 Requested as Priority 1 in the Downtown Master Plan 200 14% Requested as Priority 2 in the Downtown Master Plan 100 Requested as Priority 3 in the Downtown Master Plan 50 Requested by Public (Greater than 5 requests) 200 14% Requested by Public 100 Requested by Others 100 14% Miscellaneous Segment less than 200' in length with no sidewalk (i.e. a "sidewalk gap") 200 14% Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal Total Project Costs $10.1 M Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal Location Description Estimated Cost Downtown Overlay District Accessibility Repairs $1,730,000 Downtown Overlay District New Sidewalks and Curb Ramps $1,890,000 Citywide APS Signal Upgrades $710,000 Citywide Ramp and Crosswalk Upgrades at Signals $150,000 Citywide Accessible Routes to Government Facilities $200,000 Old Town Northeast New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $1,180,000 SH 29 Central New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $2,070,000 2nd Street New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $410,000 South Austin Avenue New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $370,000 Old Town Southeast New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $1,470,000 •34% of funding for Priority 1 projects is dedicated to downtown sidewalks •28% of funding for Priority 1 projects is recommended within ¼ mile of Southwestern •26% of funding for Priority 1 projects is recommended within ¼ mile of Georgetown ISD facilities Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal OLD TOWN NORTHEAST Total Project Costs $1.2 M Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal SH 29 CENTRAL Total Project Costs $2.1 M Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal 2nd Street Total Project Costs $410K Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal South Austin Avenue Total Project Costs $370K Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 1 Projects Goal OLD TOWN SOUTHEAST Total Project Costs $1.5 M Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results –Priority 2 Projects Goal Total Project Costs $7.0 M Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 2 Projects Goal Location Description Estimated Cost Old Town Southwest New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $1,810,000 North Austin Avenue New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $230,000 Shell Rd. New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $1,950,000 Lakeway Dr. & Williams Dr. New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $2,130,000 Leander Rd. New Sidewalk and Curb Ramps, Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Repairs $920,000 Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Analysis Results – Priority 3 Projects Goal Total Project Costs $7.8 M Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Existing Funding Sources Goal 1.City’s General Fund - $75,000 annually (without inflation) 2.City’s residential sidewalk fund - Currently unfunded. Potential Funding and Partnerships 1.Special revenue districts (Downtown, Rivery, Williams Dr. Gateway TIRZs) 2.Federal, State, County and Independent School District 3.Public Improvement Districts (PIDs), Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) 4.Bonded funds Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT Operation and Maintenance •$4, 980, 000 Required (City Wide) •10 Year Maintenance Cycle •Based on Ability to Administer In House •1,500 linear ft. •40 Curb Ramps •60 Detectable warning surface repairs •Crosswalk striping as needed •$490,000 Annual, Adjusted by 6% annually Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Summary and Recommendations Goal City Requirements and Processes •Enforce UDC sidewalk installation requirements •Establish a unique sidewalk fund •Future minor rewording of the UDC •Update SWMP every 10 yrs. Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Summary and Recommendations Goal Sidewalk Design •Locate sidewalks on one side of every roadway •Separate sidewalks from traffic •Develop clear sidewalk design guidelines •Focus on crosswalks at signalized Intersections •Consider additional pedestrian safety designs above current design Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Summary and Recommendations Goal Sidewalk Installation and Maintenance •Implement Priority 1 projects •Formalize public request tracking system •Complete sidewalk “gaps” •Initiate an annual review process •Adopt O&M standards •Adopt annual funding recommendations that support O&M Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT PROVIDE A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN FOR USE IN 2015 THROUGH 2024 Goal Remaining Tasks •January 22nd - 2nd Open House •February 24th – Public Hearing and 1st Reading •March 10th – 2nd Reading and Adoption Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT Questions, Concerns and General Guidance Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 25 Item # A CITY OF GEORGETOWN 2014 SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN & PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS AUDIT Nathaniel Waggoner Transportation Services Analyst (512) 930-8171 nathaniel.waggoner@georgetown.org Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 25 Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan -- Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services ITEM SUMMARY: This Plan is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a travel demand model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system, and a revised Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This update serves many purposes. It builds upon the previous plan, accommodates city wide changes, recommends new roadway locations and functional classifications, revises the implementation program and improves design recommendations through the implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions. The update also provides a review of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and outlines the requirements for future analysis and planning studies. Improvements offered for consideration include roadway widening and/or extensions, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The study involves an evaluation of various transportation improvements and considers the impacts related to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction, and right-of- way costs as well as environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the travel demand model has been updated and integrated with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2035 plan/model providing a more detailed transportation zone structure and socioeconomic data enabling a better forecast of future travel demands in and around the Georgetown area. The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of Georgetown Staff and other City- supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory Committee was not specifically set up for this effort, the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis. During each of the presentations, comments and suggestions were solicited and considered during completion of the OTP. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP® ATTACHMENTS: Exective Summary OTP Presentation Cover Memo Item # B City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan Update 901 South MoPac Expressway Building V, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78746 Texas PE Firm Registration No. F-929 Project No. 0573.003.001 December 2014 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 17 Item # B ES-1 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a result of completion of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (CAMPO) 2035 Transportation Plan, the City of Georgetown has updated the City’s Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). The implementation of the OTP is critical in the overall development of the City as it guides future roadway improvements, construction of new facilities, and outlines the City’s transportation goals. The revision and adoption of the OTP is a deliberate and thoughtful process whose goal is the complete understanding of the relationship between land use and the transportation infrastructure required to support those land uses. The adoption of the OTP by ordinance, sets forth long term capital planning and financing considerations designed to ensure that basic transportation infrastructure needs and right-of-way will be available as the city grows and network needs improvements. STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This updated document is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a travel demand model, review of the City’s roadway functional classification system, and a revised Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The 2004 OTP assisted the City in defining cross-sectional needs as well as access management and detailed intersection needs. Since the 2004 OTP, the City has experienced tremendous growth, including several major retail and residential developments. Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008 includes a revised Future Land Use Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for physical growth and land use within the City, the OTP provides guidelines for transportation management and development. These documents should be used in coordination with one another, not as separate competing documents. This update serves many purposes. It builds upon the previous plan, accommodates city wide changes, recommends new roadway locations and functional classifications, revises the implementation program and improves design recommendations through the implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions. The update also provides a review of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and outlines the requirements for future analysis and planning studies. Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 17 Item # B ES-2 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update The transportation improvement recommendations are based on the projected 2035 travel demands. The implementation program categorizes improvements through short-term and long-term prioritization recommendations. The improvements already chosen for funding are identified as “near term” and those where funding, routing, and right-of-way have not been identified are considered “long term”. Improvements offered for consideration include roadway widening and/or extensions, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and transit programming. The study involves an evaluation of various transportation improvements and considers the impacts related to traffic/mobility, anticipated construction, and right-of-way costs as well as environmental/land use criteria. As part of the study, the travel demand model has been updated and integrated with the CAMPO’s 2035 plan/model providing a more detailed transportation zone structure and socioeconomic data enabling a better forecast of future travel demands in and around the Georgetown area. STUDY AREA The study area for the OTP includes the City of Georgetown city limits as well as the Extra Territorial Jurisdictional (ETJ) area, which typically extends one to two miles beyond the city’s limits. This area includes added roadways of which the City has sole control, including Williams Drive, Shell Road, D B Wood Road, and Inner Loop. These facilities provide critical connectivity for the residents within the City and, while there are some limitations, there are opportunities for roadway expansion. The study area is depicted in Figure ES-1. There are many transportation facilities within the city that are not under the City’s jurisdictional control. These include Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) facilities such as Interstate Highway 35, Business Highway 35 (Austin Avenue), State Highways 29 and 195, as well as the tolled State Highway 130. There are also state facilities that provide regional circulation – Farm-to-Market Roads 971, 972 and 1460, as well as Ranch-to-Market roads 2243 (Leander Road) and 2338 (Williams Drive). These facilities are outside of the purview of the City and as such, only limited improvements can be recommended. In addition, many roads are challenged by the surrounding geography and land uses such that improvement recommendations are extremely difficult and cost prohibitive to implement. Many of these facilities provide a critical link in the City’s overall development plan yet there is little opportunity for roadway improvement. Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 17 Item # B §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Georgetown Round Roc k Cedar Par k ¬«29 Weir ¬«195 ¬«29 Lake Georgetown Study Area ²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles Figure ES-1 FM 971 U n i v e r s it y A v e . I n n e r L o o p C R 1 1 0 C R 1 5 0 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d . D B W o o d R d . W illia m s Dr. Airport Rd.S h ell R d .D el W e b b Blv d. S un City Blvd. Roads Rivers & Streams Lakes Round Rock Georgetown Georgetown ETJ Weir Cedar Park FM 1460 RM 2243 Path: G:\0573.003.001 Finalize OTP Updates\07.00 CADD\Revised Exhibits_2014_12_11\ES-1 Study Area.mxd Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 17 Item # B ES-4 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update STUDY PARTICIPANTS The development of the OTP was a cooperative effort between the City of Georgetown Staff and other City-supported agencies. While a Technical Advisory Committee was not specifically set up for this effort, the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) was updated on a regular basis. During each of the presentations, comments and suggestions were solicited and considered during completion of the OTP. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Four public meetings were held, inviting the public to learn about the project and the changes that have occurred city wide since the previously adopted OTP. Two meetings were held on April 13, 2010 and two were held on November 10, 2010. On April 13, one meeting occurred in the morning at Sun City and the second meeting occurred that evening at the City of Georgetown offices. There were a total of 20 people in attendance at these two meetings. Individuals were invited to discuss issues and concerns as they related to the Georgetown transportation system and network, including the existing roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle trails/paths, and transit needs/usage. The meeting attendees were asked to provide input regarding all aspects of the updated OTP. The feedback received at the first two meetings was analyzed and a second set of public meetings was held in November 2010 to present the recommended roadway improvements. As with the April 2010 meetings, the morning meeting was held at Sun City and the evening meeting was held at the City of Georgetown offices. There were approximately 20 people at the morning session and four people at the evening session. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals established as part of this study will mirror those set forth in the previous 2004 plan as well as the overriding transportation goals from the recently completed 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the OTP is to develop a transportation system that is safe, efficient and economically feasible and will accommodate present and future needs for mobility of all people and goods traveling within and through the Georgetown area. This goal will be revisited during subsequent updates, but will remain unchanged; only the underlying objectives will be further refined. A Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 17 Item # B ES-5 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update secondary goal of this study is to review the existing pedestrian/bicycle plans and recommend further planning development and programming needs. These recommendations provide a foundation on which to build a more complete system through the implementation and adoption of a comprehensive bicycle and sidewalk plan. The following goals and objectives established in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provided the framework for the development of the OTP. They establish the community values and aspirations, as they relate to transportation, in each of four main themes: quality of life, sustainable development, balanced transportation/efficient mobility, and effective governance. The transportation goals and objectives are: · Implement improvements to the local road and traffic control system, including new thoroughfare linkages to enhance connectivity, improved and coordinated traffic signalization, standards for access management to enhance traffic flow and safety. · Progress toward a functional, well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system that provides a variety of choices – bicycle, public transportation, and pedestrian – on a local and regional level. · Reduce reliance on single-occupant automobile traffic by retrofitting bicycle lanes and sidewalks in underserved areas to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility; incorporating these facilities in new developments; and encouraging compact mixed-use and other “walkable” development types. · Guide the future growth and development of the City toward a more balanced approach between employment and commercial centers, schools and other high traffic generators. As further refined by the stakeholders, the following goals and objectives were set forth to guide the development of the OTP: 1. Provide for a high degree of safety for motorists, transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists 2. The transportation system should be a total system approach, incorporating the various modes of transportation in appropriate combination, based on analysis of travel demand and consideration of community costs, benefits and needs. Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 17 Item # B ES-6 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update a. Roadway facilities should be planned and classified by function and relative importance, providing a proper balance of freeways, toll ways, expressways, major/minor arterials, collectors and local streets. b. Through traffic should be encouraged and accommodated on the classified roadway network and discouraged on collectors and local neighborhood streets. c. The most efficient use of existing and future highway and street facilities should be encouraged to maximize the benefits of capital investments. 3. The transportation system should consider planned development patterns, accessibility and mobility needs. a. Improve overall accessibility to employment, education, public facilities, downtown and other activity centers b. Provide access between all developed areas of the region and connections to other cities and facilities in the region c. Minimize disruption of existing and planned developments and establish community patterns d. Consider development potential within and beyond the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) for the design years and provide tools to assess the impacts of growth to assist the decision making. This includes the recently adopted CAMPO Growth Center model, the specifics of which are discussed further within this report. 4. Meet the area’s long range transportation needs. a. Establish the procedures for monitoring the OTP and provide for periodic updating and revision. The OTP should be updated on a pre-scheduled annual basis to allow for incorporation of all new developments and roadway projects. It should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in land use planning for the City of Georgetown and other unforeseen changes and conditions. b. Preserve right-of-way for future roadway development and expansion. Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 17 Item # B ES-7 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update c. Transportation planning should be performed within the framework of comprehensive regional planning and should support regional growth and development goals. d. Provide for an orderly improvement and expansion of the roadway system at a minimum cost as the need for improvement arises. 5. Consideration should be given to social and environmental impacts. a. Minimize air and water pollution, noise and other environmental impacts of transportation improvement and new facility construction and reduce negative impacts when possible. b. Minimize the impacts social impacts to particular areas of the City. All roadway improvement recommendations should not be concentrated in a single location. As much as possible they should be equitable across the City. TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT The primary focus of the updated OTP is the development and refinement of the existing Travel Demand Model (TDM). Using this travel demand model, existing and forecasted future traffic demands on the transportation network were determined. For this study both the completed 2035 CAMPO model and the existing Georgetown TDM were used. The CAMPO model was used to project future traffic demands on a regional basis and the existing roadway network was obtained from the Georgetown TDM. These two models were combined to complete the refined Georgetown network using 2035 regional data in conjunction with the existing Georgetown model network. The refined Georgetown network has been input into the existing TDM and was defined further to include areas that had been annexed and/or developed since completion of the 2004 OTP. Once completed, both models (CAMPO and Georgetown) work in coordination with one another providing not only a regional review of roadway operating conditions, but a more localized analysis based solely on the refined Georgetown network. Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 17 Item # B ES-8 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Roadway functional classification refers to the hierarchical arrangement between roadways and the interaction therein. The City of Georgetown UDC uses eight distinct classifications; Alley, Residential Lane, Residential Local Street, Residential and Major Collector, Minor and Major Arterial, and Freeway. Each classification has a distinct function in terms of allowing movement in and around the City of Georgetown. For example, alleys serve local residences, providing access to and from individual residences at low speeds and volumes. In comparison, freeways primarily provide regional access, traveling across town or connecting Georgetown to other cities within the region. Those roadway classifications within the study area are depicted in Figure ES-2. Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 17 Item # B §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Georgetown Round Roc k Cedar Par k ¬«29 Weir ¬«195 ¬«29 Lake Georgetown Existing Functional Classification ²0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles Figure ES-2 FM 971 U n i v e r s it y A v e . I n n e r L o o p C R 1 1 0 C R 1 5 0 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d . D B W o o d R d . W illia m s Dr. Airport Rd.S h ell R d .D el W e b b Blv d. S un City Blvd. Freeways/Frontage Roads Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Roads Rivers & Streams Georgetown Georgetown ETJ Round Rock Weir Cedar Park Lakes Path: G:\0573.003.001 Finalize OTP Updates\07.00 CADD\Revised Exhibits_2014_12_11\ES-2 Existing Functional Classification.mxd RM 2243 FM 1460 Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 17 Item # B ES-10 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Using the refined TDM, a detailed roadway analysis was completed. This analysis, commonly referred to as a Level of Service (LOS) analysis, is used to evaluate existing and projected traffic volumes on the study area roadways. Once the operating conditions have been analyzed, an operational LOS is assigned to each roadway link. There are six LOS capacity conditions for each roadway facility, designated “A” through “F”. This is much like a rating system with roadway segments ranked from LOS A (representing a free-flow optimal condition) to LOS F (representing a congested forced flow condition). As proposed within the OTP, LOS D is the threshold at which a roadway operates at or above acceptable conditions. Currently the City of Georgetown’s Unified Development Code has a threshold of LOS C; however, this is primarily for peak hour intersection conditions. Improvements are easier to make at intersections as opposed to roadway segments because attaining LOS C is more difficult and costly. Typically LOS D is utilized in more urbanized areas. As the City of Georgetown continues to grow, this LOS threshold may need to be evaluated. LOS D is a more realistic performance measure to achieve in roadway operations, and as such, it is the recommended goal threshold. Under existing conditions, most roadways operate at or better than LOS D. There are some exceptions, primarily segments of Williams Drive and SH 29. A number of segments associated with these roadways are operating at LOS E or LOS F. FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT As was highlighted within the CAMPO 2035 plan, the City of Georgetown is expected to experience significant growth and development. With this influx of residential developments and the myriad commercial/office developments, population and employment are projected to increase. It is anticipated that Georgetown will attain a population level of at least 100,000 residents by 2030, a substantial increase from 47,400 residents in 2010. This has significant funding and control implications for the City, from control of all traffic signals to funding a separate/independent transit system. Thus, the need for transportation infrastructure improvements becomes paramount. Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 17 Item # B ES-11 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update As part of the CAMPO 2035 Plan, the concept of Activity Centers was developed. This concept evolved out of the Envision Central Texas (ECT) initiative that began in the early 2000s and has spurred a number of new ideas to improve the way Central Texas grows into the future. The preferred growth pattern developed through the scenario planning effort of the ECT identified key areas where future population and employment growth could be developed into walkable activity centers around the region. Within the Georgetown city limits and ETJ, there is only one activity center. Another 36 activity centers are located in the surrounding Central Texas region, including one large center, 13 medium centers, and 23 small centers. The Georgetown activity center is medium and is centered on the proposed location of the planned Lone Star rail station in the City’s southeast quadrant. Since the ECT was initiated and the scenario planning efforts were accomplished, CAMPO has adopted these concepts and integrated them into their growth projections for 2035. The following descriptions were adapted from CAMPO’s 2035 Regional Growth Concept report from May 2007. The large growth area is the Austin Central City, which consists of the central business district (CBD), the Capitol, and the University of Texas. This area has the region’s highest amount of housing, jobs and recreational opportunities. It has a radius of approximately two miles and has the potential to contain a population of at least 125,000 and employment of 200,000 in 2035. The medium growth areas (within the Georgetown city limits) are large regional cores that are major centers for population and employment in the future. They have a radius of approximately one mile and have the potential to contain a population in the range of 9,000 to 75,000. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, the Georgetown Activity Center had 1,400 employees in 2005. The potential for this area ranges from 9,000 to 40,000 employees in full build-out. The small growth areas are smaller centers that are more focused on serving medium-sized communities and neighborhoods. In most instances, these centers have a key transit node that connects to the larger regional transportation network. These small activity centers have a radius of approximately ½ mile and have the potential to contain a population in the range of 2,000 to 10,000 and employment of 2,000 to 10,000. Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 17 Item # B ES-12 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS The roadway design standards presented below in Figure ES-3 represent the minimum criteria required to support the City’s rights-of-way preservation and roadway spatial planning needs as well as ensure the functionality of the City’s transportation network. The minimum criteria prescribed by this Plan includes utility location reservation, the total number of lanes and their width, median widths, parking allowances, bike lanes and sidewalks per roadway functional classification. Although the Plan recommends a typical cross-section design for each of the functional classifications, this Plan does recognize the value in providing guidelines that are flexible and complement the City’s varying land uses and community characteristics. The OTP provides roadway design flexibility through the incorporation of Context Sensitive Solutions; allowing alternating configuration of those minimum criteria which support the density and urban form achieved through the City’s development code. Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 17 Item # B 12'12'12'25'MEDIAN12'12'12' 110' VAR IES ROW = 135' MINIMUM 22' MEDIAN 12'12'12'12' 80' ROW = 110' MINIMU M 14.5'14.5'8' 45' 14'14' ROW = 73' MINIMUM 10.5'10.5'8'14'14' 37' ROW = 65' MINIMUM 8.0'6'8'6'11' BORDERAREA 11' 8'8' 28' ROW = 50' MINIMUM BORDERAREA PARK PARK BORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREABORDERAREA BORDERAREA BORDERAREA PARK PARK VARIES VARIESVARIES 1 1 1 1 1 3 NOTES: FAC E OF CUR B TO FACE OF CURB. Major ArterialADT > 24,000 Minor ArterialADT > 12,500 ADT > 2,500Major Collector Residential CollectorADT > 800 5' BIKE BIKE 5' 5' BIKE 5' BIKE 2 REQUIR ED, PENDING ADOPTION OF FU TU RE FIREC OD E WHICH CALLSFOR MINIMUM 32' ROADWAY. OPTIONS FOR 3 AND 4 LANE CON FIGURATIONS. 2 SEE CHAPTER 2 FOR COLLECTOR 1 PAVEMENT MEASUREMENTS ARE 3 UPDATES TO WIDTH MAY BE Functional Classification SystemCross-Sections Figure ES-3 Path: G :\0573.003.001 Finalize O TP Updates\07.00 CADD\Revised Exhibits_2014_12_11\ES-3 Cross-Sections.mxd NOTES: PAVEMEN T MEASUREMENTS ARE FACE OF C UR B TO FACE OF CURB. SEE CH APTER 2 FOR COLLECTOR OPT ION S FOR 3 AND 4 LANE C ONF IG UR AT IO NS. U PDATES TO WIDTH MAY BE REQU IRED , PENDING ADOPTION OF F UTU RE FIR ECODE WHICH CALLS F OR MIN IMU M 32' ROADWAY. 1 2 3 28' Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 17 Item # B ES-14 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS OVERVIEW In an on-going effort to coordinate transportation engineering and planning efforts, a national dialogue has been established to move toward the implementation of CSS applications to new roadway projects. CSS is a philosophy that guides public agencies and private entities in all phases of project development, from planning through project scoping, design and into construction and maintenance. CSS strives for outcomes that meet transportation service and safety needs in addition to environmental, scenic, aesthetic, cultural, natural resource and community needs. Context sensitive projects recognize community goals, and are planned, scoped, designed, built and maintained while minimizing disruption to the community and the environment. CSS is not an aesthetic treatment; rather, it involves development of a transportation solution that fits into the project’s surroundings. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended transportation plan for the City of Georgetown has been developed based on three primary components: community input, community needs and TDM results. Subsidiary inputs to the TDM ultimately determined what recommendations were made. These inputs included forecasted future traffic volumes, network continuity, future developments (based upon adopted future land use plan), corridor preservation and access management. The recommendations included in this Plan are for both roadway extensions and widening, as well as for construction of new roadways. While many of these recommendations have been previously identified, there are a number of new projects that have developed because of the growth and development that has occurred and is projected to continue. All identified roadway improvement projects are listed in Chapter 5 and the 2035 proposed thoroughfare plan is shown in Figure ES-4. PLAN ADOPTION Once the public has had an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations, the updated OTP will be finalized and implementation strategies will be developed. It is imperative that the Plan be fully adopted by the City Council and GTAB in order to recognize the development of the OTP as part of the City’s policies and guidelines. Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 17 Item # B ES-15 Klotz Associates Project No. 0573.003.001 City of Georgetown December 2014 Overall Transportation Plan Update PLAN AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES The OTP is developed through a deliberate, thoughtful and collaborative process. It forecasts needs based on existing conditions and assumptions and therefore is critical that it remain a flexible and working document. Acknowledging that as land uses, economic environment, and travel demand needs evolve over time, amendments to the adopted network may be warranted. The recommendations provided herein set forth long term financing and technical design work flows for both public and private sector activities. Changes to the City’s transportation infrastructure plan must recognize and fully understand the affect those changes will have on private and public interests. Modifications to the recommended transportation networks described by this OTP should only result from similar, deliberate and technical studies and the appropriate public processes set forth in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 17 Item # B \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ §¨¦35 §¨¦35 Georgetown Round Roc k Cedar Par k ¬«29 Weir ¬«195 ¬«29 Lake Georgetown Proposed 2035 Thoroughfare Plan Figure ES-4 FILE PATH: G:\0573.003.000 OTP Update\07.00 CADD\GIS Exhibits\ES-4 2035Functional Classification.m xd F M 9 7 1 U N I V E R S I T Y A V E I N N E R L O O P W E S T I N G H O U S E R D D B W O O D R D WILLIA M S D R AIRPORT RDSHELL R D D E L W E B B B L V D S U N CIT Y B L V D Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Collector Proposed Freeway Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Collector \\\Proposed Rail Local Roads Cedar Park Round Rock Weir Georgetown Georgetown ETJ F M 1 4 6 0 RM 2 2 4 3 ²0 1 2Miles Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown City of Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan Update January 9, 2015 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown OTP Purpose Understand relationship between land use and transportation infrastructure The OTP shapes: Long term capital planning and financing considerations Transportation infrastructure needs Rights-of-way availability Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Reasons for Update CAMPO’s 2035 Transportation Plan Adoption of Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Changes within the City Implementation Critical to Development: Guides roadway improvements Guides construction of new facilities Outlines the City’s transportation goals Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Goals Develop a transportation system: Safe, Efficient and Economically Feasible Accommodate present and future needs Provide for a high degree of safety Incorporate the various modes of transportation Consider planned development patterns, accessibility and mobility needs Meet the area’s long range transportation needs Consideration given to social and environmental impacts Review the existing pedestrian/bicycle plans Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Study Area Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Study Participants City of Georgetown Staff and other City -supported agencies • City Council • Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) • Georgetown Planning and Zoning Commission 4 Public Meetings with Online Presence through City Website Two on April 13, 2010 •20 people in Attendance •Discuss issues and concerns -Existing Roadway Network -Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails/Paths -Transit Needs/Usage Two on November 10, 2010 •24 people in Attendance Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown OTP Development OTP developed based on three primary components: Community needs Community input TDM results •Forecasted future traffic volumes •Network continuity •Future developments •Corridor preservation •Access management Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Existing Functional Classification System Hierarchical arrangement between roadways and their interaction General Guidelines change over time The City of Georgetown currently uses eight distinct classifications: Alley Residential Lane Residential Local Street Residential and Major Collector Minor and Major Arterial Freeway Each classification has a distinct function in terms of allowing movement in and around the City of Georgetown Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Existing Functional Classification Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Recommended Design Standards Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Existing Transportation Conditions LOS analysis was completed OTP threshold is LOS D Current City of Georgetown UDC threshold is LOS C Recommend revision during UDC update Under existing conditions, most roadways operate at or better than LOS D Exceptions: Williams Dr. and SH 29 Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Future Growth And Development Anticipated population of 100,000 by 2030 Significant funding and control implications for the City Control of all traffic signals Funding a separate/independent transit system Activity Centers – One medium growth within Georgetown Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Network Improvement Recommendations New roadways Roadway extensions Roadway widening Context Sensitive Solutions Adopt and Implement Sidewalk Master Plan Complete, Adopt and Implement Bicycle Master Plan Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Context Sensitive Solutions Collaborative, interdisciplinary decision making process Flexibility to consider alternative solutions Incorporation of both land use and roadway functions Results in facilities that are safe and effective CSS projects: Recognize community goals Minimize disruption to the community and the environment Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Proposed Thoroughfare Plan Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Plan Amendments And Updates A flexible and working document based existing conditions and assumptions Needs change overtime Modifications to OTP should: Result from a similar, deliberate process and technical studies Appropriate public processes set forth in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 17 Item # B Overall Transportation Plan Update City of Georgetown Comments/Questions? Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 17 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and Presentation on the 2015 Road Bond Recommendations -- Tom Crawford, 2015 Road Bond Committee Chair and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Road Bond Presentation Cover Memo Item # C 2015 Road Bond Committee Recommendations City Council Workshop January 13, 2015 City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 20 Item # C Agenda •Introduction of Committee Members •Where Did We Start •Results to Date •Remaining Meetings •Questions and Comments from Council City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 20 Item # C Introduction of Committee Members Member Appointed by Tom Crawford, Chairman Mayor Ross Bob Smith Patty Eason Wade Todd Keith Brainard Charles Baker John Hesser Virginia Hahn Steve Fought Jack Alley Jerry Hammerlun Sharon Reed Rachel Jonrowe Michelle Brown Tommy Gonzalez Truman Hunt GTAB Chris H’Luz GTAB Scott Rankin GTAB Ray Armour GTAB Steve Johnston GTAB John Pettitt GTAB City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 20 Item # C Where Did We Start Initial Project List 34 Projects $540M City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 20 Item # C Results to Date •9 Objectives 1.Repair critical faults on Austin Ave. Bridges 2.Reduce Traffic on Williams Dr. and Improve Circulation in the Gateway area 3.Reduce Traffic on SH 29 4.Repair Urgent Sidewalk ADA and Safety Issues 5.Reduce Congestion and Improve Traffic Flow on Leander Rd. 6.Improve Intersection Management 7.Improve Accessibility to GISD Facilities from Austin Ave. and FM 971 8.Improve Safety and Access from SH 29 to Sam Houston Ave. 9.Improve Capacity and Safety of eastern SH29 City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Objective # 1- Repair Critical Faults on Austin Ave Bridges Roadway Project Net Cost to Complete CT Austin Ave. Bridges (4 Lane Design with Left Turn Lanes) $ 10.3 M Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 20 Item # C Objective # 2-Reduce Traffic on Williams Dr. and Improve Circulation in the Gateway area City of Georgetown Rivery Blvd. $6.6 M 4 Lane Divided Roadway Williams Dr. $2.1 M Deceleration & right turning lane N.W. Blvd Rd & Bridge $12.4M 4 Lane Roadway & Bridge I 35 NB Frontage Rd. $7.0 M New location for NB Frontage Rd. I 35 SB Frontage Rd $4.7 M I 35 SB Frontage Rd. Objective # 2 Total $32.8 M Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Objective # 3- Reduce Traffic on SH 29 Shell Rd. $20.7 M 4 Lanes of ultimate 6 DB Wood Rd. $18.3 M Widen to 4 lane divided SE. Inner Loop $12.4 M Widening to 5 lanes SE. Inner Loop $29.6 M 4 Lanes of Ultimate FWY SW. Bypass $15.2 M 2 Lanes of Ultimate FWY Leander Rd. $5.2 M Widen to 5 Lane Divided DB Wood Rd. $20.2 M Widen to 4 lanes Wolf Ranch Pkwy $3.6 M 2 of Ultimate 4 Lane SW. Bypass $4.2 M 2 Lanes of Ultimate FWY Objective # 3 Total $129.4 M Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Objective # 4-Repair Urgent Sidewalk ADA and Safety Issues Roadway Project Net Cost to Complete Sidewalk, Safety & ADA Pool $ 10.3 M Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Roadway Project Net Cost to Complete CS Leander Rd Bridge @ IH 35 $4.5 M Funding to provide “shovel ready “ Schematic and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for a future TxDOT project. Objective # 5 - Reduce Congestion & Improve Traffic Flow on Leander Road Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Roadway Project Net Cost to Complete Site Specific Projects Program $ 10.3 M Jim Hogg Dr. and Williams Dr. Serenada Dr. and Williams Dr. Objective # 6-Improve Intersection Management Example Intersection Improvements Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Objective # 7-Improve Accessibility to GISD Facilities from Austin Ave. and FM 971 Stadium Dr. (CR151) $4.5 M 4 Lane Divided NE. Inner Loop $5.5 M 4 Lanes of Ultimate 6 Objective # 7 Total $10.0 M Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Objective # 8-Improve Safety and Access from SH 29 to Sam Houston Ave Roadway Project Net Cost to Complete BP Southwestern Blvd. $ 4.2 M City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Roadway Project Net Cost to Complete AT SH 29 $ 4.5 M Funding to provide “shovel ready “ Schematic and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for a future TxDOT project. Objective # 9-Improve Capacity and Safety of eastern SH29 Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 20 Item # C Committee Recommended Priorities City of Georgetown Committee Recommended Rankings OTP Roadway Project Commitment Functional Classification Delivery Timeframe Net Cost to Complete (Bond Package) 1 CT Austin Avenue Bridges High Minor Arterial Short $ 14.3 M 2 AE Northwest Blvd Bridge - Fontana Dr. To Austin Ave High Commitment Major Arterial Short $ 12.4 M 3 AD Rivery Blvd Extension - Williams Dr. To Northwest Blvd High Commitment Collector Short $ 6.6 M 4 AF IH 35 NB Frontage Road - Williams Dr. To Lakeway Bridge High Commitment Frontage Short $ 7.0 M 5 AZ1 Southwest Bypass - Wolf Ranch Pkwy To Leander Rd Medium Commitment Freeway Medium $ 15.2 M 6 BC Wolf Ranch Pkwy - DB Wood Dr. To Southwest Bypass Medium Commitment Minor Arterial Medium $ 3.6 M 7 - Intersection/Capital Pool High - Short $ 10. 3 M 8 CS Leander Rd Bridge @ IH 35 High - Short $ 4.5 M 9 - Sidewalk, Safety and ADA Accessibility Pool High - Short $ 10.3 M 10 BJ2 Leander Rd (RM 2243) - 400ft W of SW Bypass to River Ridge Dr. Medium Major Arterial Medium $ 5.2 M 11 AN DB Wood Dr. - SH 29 To Oak Ridge Dr. Medium Minor Arterial Medium $ 18.3 M 12 AC Williams Dr. - Rivery Blvd. to Frontage Rd Medium Major Arterial Medium $ 2.1 M 13 AO IH 35 SB Frontage Rd - Williams Dr. To Rivery Blvd Long Term Frontage Long $ 4.8 M 14 AJ NE Inner Loop - Stadium Dr To FM 971 High Major Arterial Short $ 5.5 M 15 BU SE Inner Loop - Southwestern Blvd To IH 35 Medium Freeway Medium $ 29.6 M 16 CQ Stadium Dr (CR 151) - Austin Ave To NE Inner Loop Medium Minor Arterial Medium $ 4.5 M 17 BG SE Inner Loop - SH 29 To Southwestern Blvd High Bond Minor Arterial Short $ 12.4 M 18 BP Southwestern Blvd - Raintree Dr. To SE Inner Loop Medium Collector Medium $ 4.2 M 19 AZ2 Southwest Bypass- Wolf Ranch Pkwy To SH29 Long Term Freeway Medium $ 4.2 M 20 HH Shell Rd - Williams Dr to Shell Spur Rd Long Term Major Arterial Long $ 20.7 M 21 AT SH 29 (Haven Lane to SH130) Medium Major Arterial Medium $ 4.5 M 22 TT DB Wood Dr. - Oak Ridge Dr. To Lake Overlook Dr. Long Term Major Arterial Long $ 20.2 M $ 220 M Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 20 Item # C Committee Recommended Total Bond Funding 22 Projects $220 M Over a 15-20 year timeframe City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 20 Item # C Remaining Meetings City of Georgetown •January 14, 21 2015 – Road Bond Committee Meeting •January 27, 2015 – City Council Workshop – Final presentation •January 28, 2015 – Road Bond Committee Meeting •February 4, 2015 – Road Bond Committee Meeting •February 10, 2015 – Road Bond Call by City Council Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 20 Item # C Contact Tom Crawford, Chairman Georgetown 2015 Road Bond Committee C: 512-431-5285 TomCrawford@CIB.net City of Georgetown Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 20 Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center -- Codi Newsom, Senior Project Manager and Wayne Nero, Chief of Police ITEM SUMMARY: General update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Wayne Nero, Chief of Police Cover Memo Item # D City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Water Quality Ordinance Update - Public Safety Complex - Summit at The Rivery Project - EEOC Claims Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - VFW Parkland – Potential Purchase - Acquisition of real property for an electric utility easement- Oakmont Drive Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code - Legal Department Update ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # E