HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 12.09.2003 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, December 9, 2003
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 in the City Council Chambers,
located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Streets, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the Mayor,
Councilmembers, and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Saturday preceding the council
meeting. The library's copy is available for public review.
Please Note: This City Council Meeting will be video taped live without editing and shown on the
local cable channel.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 4:00 P.M.
Please note: The Workshop will begin at 5:00 p.m.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 5:00 P.M.
A Joint Workshop with Economic Development Commission regarding a presentation about TASUS
Corporation
B Airport Noise Study Update
C Council Calendar
- Special Council Workshop on Monday, December 15, 2003, at 4:00 p.m.
- Special Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.
- Special Council Meeting on Friday, December 19, 2003, at 5:00 p.m.
- Special Election for registered voters in City Single -Member District 7 on Saturday, December 20, 2003,
with early voting from December 3 through December 16, 2003.
- Special Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 30, 2003, at 5:00 p.m.
- Regular Council Workshop on Monday, January 12, 2004, at 4:00 p.m.
- Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 6:00 p.m.
- Community Meeting on Friday, January 30, at 7:00 a.m. at Georgetown Municipal Complex, San Gabriel
Room
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 that follows
D Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
- Pending Litigation
- Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters
E Sec. 551.072 deliberation on real property
- Discussion and possible action regarding acquisition of property for downtown parking
F Sec.551.087 Economic Development
- Discussion regarding economic development prospects regarding automobile manufacturing suppliers
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 P.M.
City Council Agenda/December 9, 2003
Page 1 of 3 Pages
(The City Council for the City of Georgetown reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at any time during
the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as authorized by Texas Government Code
Sections 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney), 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property), 551.073 (Deliberations
about Gifts and Donations), 551.074 (Personnel Matters), 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices) and
551.086 (Economic Development).
G Call to Order
H Pledge of Allegiance
I Comments from the dais regarding the following items:
- Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments -- Mayor Gary Nelon
- Board/Commission Vacancies:
Announcement of Application Deadline of December 31, 2003, for appointments to be made in February.
- One position on the Library Board (expires February 2005)
- One position on the Airport Board (expires February 2005)
J Announcements and Comments from City Manager
K Public Wishing to Address Council
Keith Peshak regarding "obfuscation by city officials."
L Action from Executive Session
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
M Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop on Monday, November
24, and the Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 -- Sandra Lee, City Secretary
N Airport Land Leases
1. Consideration of and possible action to authorize the Mayor to approve the assignment of the Jim
and Nancy Stugart Trust Airport Land Lease to G. Kent Holiday and Brett Bartschi -- Travis
McLain, Airport Manager and Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
2. Consideration of and possible action to authorize the Mayor to approve the assignment of the
Advanced Services, Inc. Airport Land Lease to Plains Capital Bank -- Travis McLain, Airport
Manager and Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
O Consideration of an award of annual bid for cold pour crack sealer award to Allstates Coating in the
estimated amount of $35,775.00 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant
City Manager for Utility Operations
P Consideration and possible action to request authority to apply for the Selective Traffic Enforcement
Program (STEP) grant from the Texas Department of Transportation in the amount of $40,000 — David
Morgan, Police Chief
O Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment between the City of Gerogetown and
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. (CDM) in an amount not to exceed $45,000 for professional services
related to the completion of a Water System Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Response Plan
Update — Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility
Operations
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
City Council Agenda/December 9, 2003
Page 2 of 3 Pages
A
R Consideration of an award of annual bid for hot mix asphalt to Austin Asphalt in the estimated annual
amount of $251,500.00 — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
S Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution establishing an access management policy on
state -maintained roadways within the corporate limits of the City of Georgetown and the extra -territorial
jurisdiction — Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for
Utility Operations
T Second Readings
1. Second reading of an ordinance of the City of Georgetown renaming Hacia Los Lobos
Boulevard and Turkeytail Trail -- Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief and Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief
2. Second Reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the of City 9.88 acres, more or
less, in the Joseph Thompson Survey, located 100 feet north of and parallel to the approximate
center line of the South Fork of the San Gabriel River — Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner
and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning and Development Services
3. Second Reading of an ordinance providing for the annexation into the of City 308.06 acres, more
or less, in the Joseph Thompson Survey, Abstract 608, located at 2951 SH 29 West, 2.5 miles
West of IH35 — Ed Polasek, Chief Long Range Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of
Planning and Development Services
4. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning of Williams Addition, Block 1, Lot 9 and 10 and .361
acres out of the Nicholas Porter Survey, from RS, Residential Single Family, to OF, Office District,
located at 2201 Williams Drive — Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth,
Director of Planning and Development Services
5. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning of .303 acres out of Block 69 of the Lost Addition from
RS, Residential Single Family District to OF, Office District, located at 214 West University
Avenue -- Bobby Ray, Chief Development Planner and Amelia Sondgeroth, Director of Planning
and Development Services
U Wolf Ranch Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone
1. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution approving the preliminary Project Plan
and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for the Wolf Ranch Reinvestment Zone -- Tom Yantis,
Assistant City Manager
2. Public Hearing to consider the creation of the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone —
Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
3. First reading of an ordinance designating a contiguous geographic area within the City of
Georgetown generally located at the southwest comer of IH 35 and SH 29 West as a
reinvestment zone for tax increment financing purposes pursuant to Chapter 311 of the Texas
Tax Code and creating a Board of Directors for such zone — Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
for Utility Operations
V Consideration and possible action to create and appoint members to the Planning Advisory Committee
for the Airport Master Plan Update -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
Certificate of Posting_ _
I, Sandra Lee, 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 , 2003, at , and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
City Council Agenda/December 9, 2003
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Council Meeting Date: December 9, 2003 Item No.�
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract amendment
between the City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc (CDM) for
professional services related to the completion of a Water System
Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Response Plan update.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act
of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act) requires the performance of vulnerability
assessments on all community water systems that serve more than 3,300
people by June 30, 2004. Additionally, the Act requires the update of
community Emergency Response Plans within six months of the completion of
the Vulnerability Assessment.
This item provides for the completion of the required vulnerability
assessment, Emergency Response Plan update, and submittal to the
Environmental Protection Agency by the required deadlines. The total cost
for this project is $45,000.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds to be paid from the Water Capital Fund (661-101-6632-00) in the
amount of $45,000.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of a contract amendment between the
City of Georgetown and Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc. (CDM) for professional
services relating to the performance of the water system vulnerability
assessment and Emergency Response Plan update.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
None - Cost is below the $50,000 threshold for GUS review.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CDM Proposal for
Assessment me
Submitted By: Jim ri
Ass'st
Wf Ut" t
professional services for the Vulnerability
lency Response Plan update
Glenn W. Dishong,
ty Manager Water Services Mana r
rMIMM
12357-A Riata Trace Parkway, Suite 210
Austin, Texas 78727
tel: 512346-1100
fax: 512 345-1483
November 21, 2003
Mr. Glenn Dishong
City of Georgetown
Georgetown Utility Systems
300 Industrial Avenue
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Subject: City of Georgetown
Vulnerability Assessment and Updated Emergency Response Plan
Dear Mr. Dishong
Please find enclosed three partially executed originals of the Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Georgetown and CDM for services related to the city's Vulnerability
Assessment and Updated Emergency Response Plan.
Please review, and if acceptable, forward for execution. Upon execution, please return one
copy to CDM for our files.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call.
Sinceerelly�,
re�d z/
Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
ENCLOSURES
Trwr id 10211-21-03 doc
consulting - engineering • construction -operations
AMENDMENT
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO PERFORM THE CITY'S VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT (VA)
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN (ERP)
The General Services Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER last authorized on
November 26, 1991, is hereby amended as follows:
The scope and cost of the anticipated services are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The fee for
the work in this Amendment is to be paid on a lump sum basis.
Your signature below will constitute your acceptance of this Amendment.
EXECUTED in duplicate original this _ day of , 2003 at Georgetown, Texas, where
this contract is performable and enforceable.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Party of the Second Part:
C P DRE
SSE & Mc E IN .
By: Allen D. Woelke, P.E.
Vice President
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
This instrument
as
Public,Sta ofTexag
A4272AMD N102.d.
Party of the First Part:
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Gary Nelon
Mayor
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
on this theQL/:7- day of 6k 2000by Mr. Allen
'444mp Dresser & McKee Inc.
name: Jwtr L.
ssion Expires:
EXHIBIT 1
Project Understanding and Approach
As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, the President signed into law the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act).
The Bioteaorism Act requires that vulnerability assessments be performed on all community
water systems serving greater than 3,300 people. In addition, the Bioterrorism Act requires
that all water utilities prepare or update their emergency response / operating plans to
incorporate results from the VA no later than six months after completion of the VA. The
City of Georgetown is required to complete their VA by June 30, 2004, with a submittal to
EPA of their ERP six months after completion of their VA.
Scope of Work and Schedule
1. Scope of Work
To perform the City of Georgetown's Vulnerability Assessment (VA) and Emergency
Response Plan (ERP), the CDM Team will conduct nine major tasks to fulfill the
requirements of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of the 2002
(Bioterrorism Act). In developing the City's VA, CDM will follow the Sandia RAM-WsM
methodology. Once the VA has been completed, CDM will update the City's Emergency
Response Plan (ERP) in accordance with the EPA's guidance document: "Guidance for
Water Utility Response, Recovery & Remediation Actions for Man -Made or Technological
Emergencies."
The RAM-WsM process follows a step -wise approach as shown in Figure 1-1.
Planning Purpose, Objectives
Prioritize Facilities
Threat Assessment Design Basis Threat (PA)
Facility Characterization Prioritized Critical Assets (C)
Protection and
Operating System (PE)
RiskAnalysis R = Pp x (1 -PE) x C
Risks
Acceptable Yes
7
Proposed Upgrades
7
No End
Figure 1-1
RAM -WS°' Process Diagram
Task 1 Water Facility Information
Task Objective: The CDM Team will first visit all water
facilities with staff from the City of Georgetown and
collect preliminary background information on those
facilities. Next, the CDM Team will meet with
management staff to: 1) give the City of Georgetown an
overview of the RAM-WsM process and 2)
review/develop the City of Georgetown security mission
statement. The meeting will provide the City of
Georgetown an overview of the RAM-WsM process and
the Team will also develop 3 to 5 specific goals for the
mission statement objectives and prioritize those goals.
■ Deliverables Develop 3 to 5
Ranked Goals by Importance to
Meeting City of Georgetown's
Mission Statement Objectives
Subtasks:
1.1 Site Visit to City of Georgetown Water Facilities by Project Team
1.2 Collect City of Georgetown Facility Information (Plans, Specifications, etc.)
1.3 Provide an Overview of RAM-WsM Process and Review/Develop Mission
Statement with the City of Georgetown.
1.4 Identify 3 to 5 Goals Important to the City of Georgetown in Meeting Mission
Statement Objectives
1.5 Rank Goals By Importance to Meeting City of Georgetown's Mission Statement
Objectives
Task 2 Design Basis Threat Assessments
Task Objective: The CDM Team and the City of Georgetown staff will work together on
developing a credible threat assessment as to the likelihood of attack on the City of
Georgetown's water system — this is called the Design Basis Threat. The Project Team will
consider all threats — inside, outside, or collusion. A table will be developed for each type of
threat that provides historical information, motivation, tactics, numbers, equipment,
weapons intelligence, technical skills, financial resources, and any other critical information
concerning a potential threat. This information will be
assembled utilizing our Project Team security expertise, the Em
expertise of local law enforcement officials, historical
information on past attacks on the system, and support from ■ Deliverables: Design Basis Threat
the local FBI office. Profile(s)
Subtasks:
2.1 Threat Assessments and Likelihood of
Attack
2.1.1 Outside Threats
2.1.1.1 Vandals
2.1.1.2 Criminals
2.1.1.3 Domestic Terrorists
2.1.1.4 Foreign Terrorists
2.1.2 Internal Threats
2.1.2.1 Current Employees
2.1.2.2 Past Employees
2.1.3 Assessment
2.1.3.1
History of Threats
2.1.3.2
Capabilities of Threats
2.1.3.3
Methods of Attack
2.1.3.4
Motivation
2.1.3.5
Access to Critical Assets
Task 3 Critical Mission Objectives
Task Objective: The CDM Team and key City of Georgetown employees will identify the
City's critical assets. This work will involve a four hours meeting with key staff members.
We will use the RAM-WsM methodology by using pair -wise comparisons and weighted
importance to compare all supply facilities, tanks, wells, pump stations, and distribution
piping to develop a list of critical assets. Using this
information the CDM Team will develop a table of ranked
critical assets.
■ Deliverables None
Subtasks:
3.1 Determine the City of Georgetown's Assets Critical
to Mission Statement Objectives
3.1.1 Identify Critical Assets
3.1.1.1 Water Treatment Plants
3.1.1.2 Storage Tanks
3.1.1.3 High -Service Pump Station
3.1.1.4 Distribution System
3.1.2 Rank Assets By Importance to Meeting Mission Statement Objectives
3.1.2.1 Pair -wise Comparisons
3.1.2.2 Weighted Importance
Task 4 Site Characterizations
Task Objective: Using system diagrams and flow diagrams, the Project Team will identify
critical facilities to the water supply, and delivery process. We will determine the effects of
failure of critical assets on the entire water production and delivery process. Additionally,
we will identify single points of failure, which can disrupt the water service if they are
successfully attacked. Examples of single points of failure include: power delivery systems,
water supply systems, storage and delivery systems, water
storage systems, pumping facilities and the City's Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA). CDM will work
■ Deliverables: None
closely with City staff and the City's current contract integrator
in performing the SCADA evaluation. The Project Team will
develop a list of these single points of failure and describe the
effect of their failure on the process.
Subtasks:
4.1 Site Characterization
4.1.1 Develop Process Diagrams of the System
4.1.2 Identify Critical Facilities
4.1.3 Identify Single Points of Failure
Task 5 Fault Tree Analyses
Task Objective: The CDM Team and select City employees
will conduct a fault tree analysis on the City of
Georgetown's critical assets identified in Task 3. This work
will involve meeting with key management staff members.
The Fault Tree Analysis will identify all undesirable events,
which could adversely affect the single points of failure
identified in Task 4. The consequences of the undesirable
■ Deliverables Memorandum
Summarizing the Outputs of Tasks
3, 4, and 5
events will be identified and the Project Team will develop
a table of these consequences, ranked according to their impact on the City of Georgetown's
mission statement objectives. Based on the Fault Tree Analysis and the Consequences Table,
a list of the assets that must be protected will be developed by the Project Team. In
developing this table, mitigation options will be considered along with detection, delay and
response options for these critical assets.
Subtasks:
Infrared Detectors
5.1 Fault Tree Analysis
5.1.1
Identify Undesirable Events That Can Affect Single Points of Failure
5.1.2
Identify Consequences of Undesirable Events
5.1.3
Rank Consequences of Undesirable Events
5.1.4
Identify Critical Assets Which Must Be Protected
Task 6 Existing Security System Measures
Task Objective: The Project Team will evaluate the effectiveness of the present security
measures used to protect the critical assets identified in the previous five tasks. We will do
this by re -visiting the sites and cataloging the detection devices, delay devices, and response
procedures used for each of the items identified as critical assets. Local law enforcement may
also be utilized for this task, if needed. The effectiveness of the current systems will be
evaluated based on the Design Basis Threat scenarios
developed in Task 2.
Subtasks:
6.1 Existing Security Systems Effectiveness
6.1.1 Detection Systems in Use
6.1.1.1 Cameras
6.1.1.2
Infrared Detectors
6.1.1.3
Microwave Systems
6.1.1.4
Intruder Alarms
6.1.1.5
Administrative Procedures
6.1.2 Delay Systems in Use
6.1.2.1
Fences
6.1.2.2
Doors
6.1.2.3
Gates
6.1.2.4
Locks
6.1.3 Response Procedures in Place
6.1.3.1 Employee Response
6.1.3.2 In -House Security Response
6.1.3.3 Police, Law Enforcement Response
■ Deliverables None
6.1.4 Effectiveness of Detection, Delay and Response Systems
6.1.5 Summarize Security Vulnerabilities of Existing System
Task 7 Risk Analyses and Risk Management
Task Objective: Based on the first six tasks, the Project Team will use the RAM-Wsm risk
equation to determine the vulnerability of the existing City of Georgetown's water system to
the Design Basis Threat. We will then evaluate options for reducing the City of
Georgetown's water system's risk to the Design Basis Threat and develop a list of
improvements needed to reduce this risk. All improvements
will be evaluated based on capital costs. A prioritized list of
recommended improvements will be developed and discussed ■ Deliverables: None
with the City of Georgetown prior to final recommendation.
Subtasks:
7.1 Risk Analyses and Risk Management
7.1.1 Quantify Existing System Risk Using Risk Equation
7.1.2 Develop Options for Reducing System Risk
7.1.3 Evaluate Options for Reducing System Risk Based on Capital and Life -Cycle
Costs
7.1.4 Develop a Prioritized List of Recommended Improvements to Reduce System
Risk
7.1.5 Develop an Implementation Plan for the Prioritized Recommended
Improvements
Task 8 Final Vulnerability Report
Task Objective: Documentation of the seven previous tasks will be described in the Draft
Vulnerability Assessment Report. This Draft Report will outline each task in detail and
document all assumptions and decisions used for the risk assessment. The Draft Report will
be submitted to the City of Georgetown for review. A meeting will be held with CDM and
key management staff to from the City to review the final
report. Following this review meeting, comments will be
incorporated into the Final Vulnerability Assessment Report
and this will be delivered to City of Georgetown. ■ Deliverables: Draft Vulnerability
Assessment Report and Final
Vulnerability Assessment Report
Subtasks:
8.1 Draft Vulnerability Assessment Report
8.2 Review Meeting to Discuss Draft Report
8.3 Final Vulnerability Assessment Report
8.4 Certification to EPA that the City has fulfilled a Vulnerability Assessment and has
met all EPA requirements
Task 9 Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
Task Objective: CDM will update the existing City Emergency Response Plan in accordance
with the EPA's guidance document: "Guidance for Water
Utility Response, Recovery & Remediation Actions for
Man -Made or Technological Emergencies." The plan will ■ Deliverables: Updated Emergency
incorporate the results of the Vulnerability Assessment Report Response Plan (ERP)
performed in previous tasks.
Subtasks:
9.1 Update emergency contact list and chain of command for both internal and external
communication and public notification
9.2 Plans, procedures and equipment to be used in the event of a terrorist attack on the
water system
9.3 Response, recovery and remediation for up to five incident types, such as:
o Threat or Actual Contamination of the Water System
❑ Threat of Contamination at a Major Event
❑ Notification from Health Officials of Potential Water Contamination
❑ Intrusion through the SCADA system
❑ Significant structural damage resulting from an intentional act
The actual incident type will be selected based on the Design Basis Threat scenarios
developed under the VA study.
Schedule
CDM is available to begin work on this project immediately upon receipt of a written notice -
to -proceed from the City of Georgetown.
The project will be completed within 120 days from the notice to proceed. During this
period of time, the following tasks will be completed within the following timeframe:
Tasks 1 through Task 2
Tasks 3 through Task 5
Tasks 5 through Task 8
Task 9
Compensation
First 45 Days to Complete VA
Second 45 Days to Complete VA
Final 30 Days to Complete VA
90 Days to Complete ERP
CDM is to be compensated for this work in the amount of $30,000.00 for the
Vulnerability Assessment.
CDM is to be compensated for this work in the amount of $15,000.00 for the Emergency
Response Plan (ERP).
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO PERFORM THE CITY'S VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT (VA)
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN (ERP)
ENGINEERING FEE ESTIMATE
■ Vulnerability Assessment (VA) $29,500.00
■ Emergency Response Plan (ERP) $14,500.00
■ Other Direct Costs, including: $ 1,000.00
Travel
Telephone
Copying/bluelines
Postage/facsimile
Computer time
Total Basic Engineering Services $45,000.00
TOTAL $45,000.00
A4272AMD_N102.doc
Council Meeting Date: December 9, 2003 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution establishing an
Access management Policy on State -maintained roadways within the corporate limits
of the City of Georgetown and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
ITEM SUMMARY:
Effective September 1, 2003, Senate Bill No. 361 amended the State
Transportation Code to allow municipalities to establish an access management
policy for the purposes of managing access to State Highways within the
jurisdiction of that municipality and the ETJ. The Bill also includes the
provision that the municipality's policy does not impair the ability of the State
to receive Federal funds for highway construction.
Staff has prepared an access management policy, which was presented to
Council at the last regular Council meeting. Due to some questions and concerns
by individuals present at the meeting, staff has revisited in order to clarify
certain issues of the policy which may have been vague or misunderstood.
Subsequently, the policy has been updated to cover many of those issues and
concerns raised at the last Council meeting. We have received positive feedback
from those individuals that the policy is now a much better reflection of an
appropriate policy for this purpose.
Included within the policy is also a provision dealing with the
"grandfathering" of existing driveways and compensation for private property
owners who may lose partial or full access due to a driveway's removal during a
construction project. This policy was completed and developed incorporating
guidelines contained within the City of Georgetown's Unified Development Code
(UDC)and the driveway spacing study, completed by HDR in 2001.
In a meeting with State Transportation officials on December 4, 2003, it
was requested that should the City adopt this policy as our official driveway
access policy, that we do so by resolution, submitting that resolution to the
State of Texas, along with a copy of the approved policy for implementation
purposes.
Therefore, we have included the resolution as well as the updated policy
and staff recommends approval and adoption by the Council and implementation
immediately upon its adoption.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This policy at the current time carries no direct financial impact with its
adoption. As the implementation of this policy moves forward, workload measures
and evaluation of resources needed to administer this policy will be reviewed and
appropriately dealt with within the standard budget process. With regards to
removal or modification of existing driveways contained within specific
construction projects, those particular issues will be identified as a part of
the project evaluation and approval and itemized at that point. Therefore, any
costs associated with driveway or access issues within a construction project
will be funded as a part of the project budget, at the time the project is
developed.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Access Management Policy
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, Mark Miller
Assistant City Manager Transportation Services Manager
for utilities
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT
POLICY ON STATE -MAINTAINED ROADWAYS WITHIN THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND ITS
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 361, 78"' Legislature, effective September 1, 2003,
amends the Texas Transportation Code to allow municipalities to establish an access
management policy, as long as doing so does not impair the ability of the State to receive
federal funds for highway construction; and
WHEREAS, an access management policy can provide for increased traffic safety
while encouraging the orderly layout and sustainability of the community; and
WHEREAS, the access management policy attached hereto as Exhibit "A" was
prepared by HDR Engineering for the Georgetown City Council to consider adopting as its
policy; and
WHEREAS, said policy was developed incorporating guidelines currently contained
in the City of Georgetown's Unified Development Code and HDR's Driveway Spacing
Study completed in 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution
are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference
herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby
finds that this resolution implements the Transportation Policy End 10.00 of the Century
Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "Citizens and commercial goods move safely and
efficiently throughout all parts of the C ity," a nd f urther f inds t hat t he a doption o f t his
resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required
by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. It is in the best interest of the citizens of Georgetown and of the
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown to adopt the policy attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" as the City's Access Management Policy.
SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City
Secretary to attest thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown.
Resolution No.
Establishing Access Management Policy
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 6. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
day of December, 2003.
Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP
City Attorney
Resolution No.
Establishing Access Management Policy
Page 2 of 2
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Gary Nelon, Mayor
EXHIBIT
s jl
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN GEORGETOWN ETJ
Prepared for:
sf
V
Cid Georgetown
T E KK A 0
Prepared by:
I�Z
December 2003
City of GeorgetowrDrrveway Access Policy
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN GEORGETOWN ETJ
Prepared for:
City of Georgetown, Texas
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, INC.
Gary L. Gemar, P.E.
Project Manager
December 2003
City of Georgeto,,Dn,eway Access Pohc}
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Overview................................................................................................................ 1
2 Design Documentation........................................................................................... 2
3 Driveway Spacing/Frontage Roads......................................................................... 6
4 Driveway Spacing — Other State System Highways ................................................ 12
5 Waivers.................................................................................................. 14
6. Appeals.................................................................................................................. 15
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Access Connection Spacing................................................................................... 7
2 Frontage Road U -Turn Spacing.............................................................................. 7
3 Recommended Access Control At Exit Ramp Junction With Frontage Road ........... 8
4 Recommended Access Control At Entrance Ramp Junction With Frontage Road ... 9
List of Tables
Table
1 Frontage Road Connection Spacing Criteria ...........................................
2 Desirable Spacing Between Exit Ramps and Driveways .........................
3 Other State Highways Connection Spacing Criteria ................................
4 Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines....................................................
NOTE: Reference to Figures and Tables within this document is in
reference to the above listings unless specified otherwise.
iii
Qty of Georgctow Driveway Access PoLcy
Page
8
10
12
13
ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM WITHIN GEORGETOWN ETJ
S.B. No. 361, effective
September 1, 2003,
amends the Transportation
Code to state that a state
highway access
management plan does
not surpass a city's rule. In
other words, S.B. 361
prohibits TxDOT
endorsement of a city's
highway access rules as a
stipulation for enforcement
of a city's regulations.
As a result, City of
Georgetown desires to
implement access
permitting for state
highway system roadways
within their jurisdiction
through the development
of an access management
policy incorporating
guidelines currently
contained in The City of
OVERVIEW
S.B. No. 361
SECTION 1. Section 203.032, Transportation
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 203.032. PRECEDENCE OF
COMMISSION ORDER. (a) Except as provided
by Subsection (b), an [An) order of the
commission under Section 203.031 supersedes
a conflicting rule or ordinance of a state
agency or subdivision of this state or any
county or municipality, including a home -
rule municipality.
(b) An order of the commission under
Section 203.031(a)(2) or (4) does not
supersede a conflicting rule or ordinance
of a municipality, including a home -rule
municipality, unless the United States
Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration notifies the
department that enforcement of the
municipal rule or ordinance would impair
the ability of the state or the department
to receive funds for highway construction
or maintenance from the federal government.
(c) Subsection (b) does not apply
when the department owns the access rights.
Georgetown's Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC is based in large
part on the recommendations contained in the City of Georgetown's 2001
Driveway Spacing Study. This study included investigation into area and national
access policies as well as those found in industry design manuals such as
AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. In addition,
the TxDOT's Access Management Manual was consulted as guide in the
development of this policy.
Proper access management aids in protecting the substantial civic investment in
transportation by safeguarding roadway efficiency and augmenting traffic safety,
consequently reducing the necessity for costly improvements. Additionally,
access management can significantly lower traffic accidents, personal injury, and
property damage, as well as encourage the orderly layout and sustainability of a
City or Co gelo%l Driveway Access Policy
community. It is for these
following driveway access
City's jurisdictional limits.
easons, the City of Georgetown has compiled the
policy governing the state highway system within the
17�•�C�I�Z�Z�1►lul�i`�tIL�1��1
Adherence to the City of Georgetown's driveway access policy does not preclude
the need for engineering driveway locations. Any changes to drainage or
hydraulics on the state highway system resulting from access connections must
be approved by TxDOT prior to any local access connection approval.
Consideration also needs to be given to the actual driveway design, utility
location/relocation, traffic control during construction, compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS),
environmental requirements, wetland considerations if appropriate, and the need
to follow all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations.
Engineering studies or analyses can be used as needed to assist in the
evaluation of future access connections to the state highway system within the
City of Georgetown. Regardless, if the preceding criteria can or cannot be met,
an engineering study may be required. The need for an engineering study will be
determined by the City of Georgetown.
The purpose of an engineering study is to determine the safety, mobility, and
operational impacts that the access connection will have on the highway system.
In addition, such studies can also assist in the determination of the compatibility
between the proposed land use and the transportation network.
Early Coordination
As early as possible, when in the development process, applicants are
encouraged to meet with the City of Georgetown to discuss specific requirements
associated with obtaining access to the state highway system. This meeting, in
addition to bringing all affected parties together regarding access connection
issues, will also help to define the requirements of any needed engineering
study.
When determining the need for and level of detail of an engineering study, the
following questions should be considered:
• Does the proposed driveway(s) meet the minimum spacing requirements
per Tables 1, 2 and 3?
• Will the proposed driveway(s) require a deceleration or acceleration lane?
• What are the traffic volumes and classification of the intersecting street at
the proposed driveway location?
City of Gcorgctow Driveway Access Policy
• Are there any sight distance or physical obstructions and/or constraints that
will result in a safety problem?
• Are there any environmental or hydraulic issues associated with the
proposed driveway(s)?
• Is there an unusual lot configuration?
The responses to the above list of questions will determine whether an
engineering study would be required and the level of detail required in the
engineering study. If necessary, specifics regarding needed level of st udy, time
of day analysis, phasing of development, and project area can be defined and
agreed upon at the initial coordination meeting. Additional information and
analyses may be required if the access connection cannot meet the minimum
spacing requirements, or there is an operational or safety impact. The City of
Georgetown will make that determination jointly with the applicant.
Engineering Study versus Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is defined in the requirements described below.
The following section outlines the purpose and requirements of an engineering
study and a TIA.
In all cases where the access spacing requirements set forth herein are satisfied,
a TIA will not be required. Typically, the impacts of an access point along a state
facility can be ascertained by means of an engineering study that indicates the
forecasted turning movements at the proposed access connections. The
forecasted turning movements, used in conjunction with the TxDOT Roadway
Design Manual, will determine the need for and the required length of left -turn
and/or right -turn deceleration lanes.
Where possible, existing studies and data completed by the City of Georgetown
will be utilized for consistency and reduced financial impact.
Requirements for Engineering Studies and TIAs
The intent of this section is to identify the possible criteria for engineering studies
and TIAs. The City will require only those elements of an engineering study or
TIA that are necessary to answer the specific questions that arise during the
permitting process for specific access points. The City will not require an
exhaustive TIA for every application for a driveway permit on a state roadway.
The early coordination meeting, as discussed above, will be the mechanism to
identify whether or not an engineering study or TIA is required and, if so, the level
of detail that will be required.
City of Georgetown—Driveway Access Policy
Engineering Study
When the determination is made that an engineering study will required, it will
include the following elements: trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic
assignment at the proposed access points. In order to assess the above, the
engineering study may require that existing traffic volume data be collected. The
traffic engineer conducting the study will dtermine this need.
• The trip generation will be conducted using the latest edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual unless there
is acceptable data that supports the use of another trip generation source.
• Trip distribution will be performed with input from the City of Georgetown.
The traffic assignment will be conducted to determine the forecasted
turning movements attributable to the proposed development.
• The existing traffic counts will be grown using an annual growth rate as
agreed to by the City to the build -out year of the proposed development.
• The resulting traffic volumes will be used as background traffic volumes,
and the assigned forecasted turning movements will be added to the
background traffic volumes resulting in the total traffic volumes.
• The total traffic volumes will be used to determine the need for left -turn
and right -turn lanes. If such lanes are needed, refer to the TxDOT
Roadway Design Manual to determine their lengths and other design
criteria. As an example, if the proposed development will take two years
to construct and occupy, the existing traffic volumes will be grown by the
agreed upon growth factor for two years
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
In the instances where a TIA is required, it will include the above-mentioned
elements as well as the same type of data for intersections adjacent to the
proposed site. Additionally, the TIA may require operational analyses (including
LOS and capacity analyses) for the study intersections as determined during the
initial meeting between the applicant and the City of Georgetown. Furthermore,
the applicant's TIA will include recommendations for mitigation measures should
the impact of the proposed access point(s) on the state highway system result in
unacceptable levels of service.
DRIVEWAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Applications for driveway permits within the jurisdictional limits of the City of
Georgetown will be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The
City of Co gctow Drivcway Access Policy
City of Georgetown shall review driveway permit applications as to their impact
on vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and safety and approve or deny the permit
based on these considerations. No permit will be denied unless it is determined
that the proposed location of the driveway will have an adverse effect on the
public safety. In making this determination, the following will be evaluated:
1. The topography of the land;
2. Land use (including but not limited to the intensity of development
and trip attraction/generation potential, mix of vehicles and turning
movements;
3. Function of public street (including but not limited to the number of
lanes, medians, median openings, vertical and horizontal curvature,
sight distance, operating speeds, traffic volumes, entrance/exit
ramps and frontage roads);
4. The location of nearby streets and driveways;
5. The site plan (including but not limited to on-site circulation,
delineation of the intended paths, parking stalls, location of
buildings, location of loading areas;
6. Actual or anticipated excessive increase in vehicular traffic being
routed onto streets occurring as a result of any such permit;
7. Physical constraints on the site;
8. Unusual lot configurations;
9. Potential traffic movements which are unsafe or have an adverse
effect on traffic operations; and,
10. Joint access at the time of subdivision or site plan approval for
abutting lots which have insufficient frontage to allow a driveway
approach for each lot.
No driveway permit shall be issued unless the design of the driveway approach
has been approved based on the City's current approved UDC design standards
or is established in accordance with an approved site plan.
City of GeorgetowrDriveway Access Policy
DRIVEWAY SPACING / FRONTAGE ROADS
This section describes the spacing of driveways directly accessing freeway
frontage roads within Georgetown's jurisdictional limits, including how access
connections will be applied along these frontage roads. Frontage roads are
roadways that are constructed generally parallel to a freeway or other highway.
Frontage roads will be considered in order to provide direct access to abutting
property where 1) alternative access is not available and the property would
otherwise be landlocked, 2) where it is not feasible to purchase the access, and
3) where the frontage road allows for improved mobility together with the property
access.
Connection Spacing Criteria for Frontage Roads
Table 1 gives the minimum connection spacing criteria for frontage roads.
However, a lesser connection spacing than set forth in this document may be
allowed without deviation in the following situations:
• To keep from land -locking a property; or
• Replacement or re-establishment of access to the state highway system
under highway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.
It should be noted that for areas with conventional diamond ramp patterns the
most critical areas for operations are between the exit ramp and the arterial
street and between the arterial street and the entrance ramp. In X -ramp
configurations, the most critical areas are between the exit ramp and the
subsequent entrance ramp. While Table 1 gives minimum connection spacing
criteria, the critical areas with respect to the ramp pattern may need greater
spacing requirements for operational, safety, and weaving efficiencies.
The distance between access connections is measured along the edge of the
traveled way from the centerline of pavement of the first access connection to the
centerline of pavement of the second access connection (Refer to Figure 1).
Additionally, the access connection spacing in the proximity of frontage road U-
turn lanes will be measured from the inside edge of the U-turn lane to the
centerline of the first access connection (Refer to Figure 2).
6
City of Georgeto,n Driveway Access Policy
(refer to Table I or 2)
Access Connection Spocina
v �
L
L O
Figure 1: Access Connection Spacing Diagram
FRONTAGE ROAD
e
W
z w
FREEWAY MAINLANES� v~i
w
i0
V)
FRONTAGE ROAD
Access Connection VC in
T I (refer to Table I 2) o
0
s
m o
L v
o �
two
v
w
Figure 2: Frontage Road U -Tum Spacing Diagram
7
City of Georgetow Driveway Access Policy
Minimum Connection Spacing Criteria for Frontage Roads
Minimum Connection Spacing feet
Posted
Speed
*One Way
Two -Way Frontage
(mph)
Frontage Roads
Roads
< 30
125
200
35
200
300
40
325
360
45
325
435
>_ 50
450
1 510
Table 1: Frontage Road Connection Spacing Criteria
* In conformance with UDC
(1) Distances are for passenger cars on level grade. These distances may be adjusted for
downgrades and/or significant truck traffic.
In the case where frontage roads are provided, access will be controlled for
operational purposes at ramp junctions with frontage roads through access
restrictions to control driveway location and design. Figures 3 and 4 show
recommended access control strategies for planned exit and entrance ramps,
respectively, and should be used where practical.
Fx;* Intersection of Intersection
Roadway Surface of Travel Lanes
Frontage Road
Control of
access line
Weaving Lanes
Variable O Q
C3
4o
(1) For exit ramp to driveway, side street, or cross street spacings, see Table 2.
(2) When the recommended minimum separation distance cannot be obtained,
consideration should be given to channelization methods that would restrict
access to driveways within the minimum separation distance.
NOTE: THIS SHEET IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW CHANNELIZATION,
STRIPING, OR PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS.
Figure 3. Recommended Access Control At Exit Ramp Junction With Frontage
Road.
City of Georgetow Driveway Access Policy
t
m
to
TL
O
N
3
>0
U
LN
0
4o
Intersection RoadwaycSurface
of Travel Lanes
0
200 ft desirable
Access denied where
nc
Ent��
Frontage Road
Control of
access line
(1) For exit ramp to driveway, side street, or cross street spacings, see Table 2.
(2) When the recommended minimum separation distance cannot be obtained,
consideration should be given to channelization methods that would restrict
access to driveways within the minimum separation distance.
NOTE: THIS SHEET IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW CHANNELIZATION,
STRIPING, OR PAVEMENT MARKING DETAILS.
Figure 4. Recommended Access Control At Entrance Ramp Junction With
Frontage Road.
The placement of streets and driveways in the vicinity of freeway ramp/frontage
road intersections will be carefully considered and permitted only after overall
local traffic operations are considered. Table 2 shows the spacing to be used
between exit ramps and driveways, side streets, or cross streets if practical. The
number of weaving lanes is defined as the total number of lanes on the frontage
road downstream from the ramp.
City of acorgctow Drivcwey Access Policy
Desirable Spacing
Total Volume
(Frtg rd +Ramp)
(v h)
between Exit Ramps and Driveways
Driveway or Spacing
Side Street (ft)
Volume (vph)
Number of Weaving Lanes
DO®
< 2500
< 250
460
460
560
> 250
520
460
560
> 750
790
460
560
> 1000
1000
460
560
> 2500
< 250
920
460
560
> 250
950
460
560
> 750
1000
600
690
> 1000
1000
1000
1000
Table 2 - Desirable Spacing between Exit Ramps and Driveways
Driveway or side street access on the frontage road in close downstream
proximity to exit ramp terminals increases the weaving that occurs on the
frontage road and may lead to operational problems. For this reason, it is
important to maintain appropriate separation between the intersection of the exit
ramp and frontage road travel lanes, and downstream driveways or side streets
where practical.
It is recognized that there are occasions when meeting these exit ramp
separation distance values may not be possible due to the nature of the existing
development, such as a high number of closely spaced driveways and/or side
streets especially when in combination with closely spaced interchanges. In
these cases, at least 250 ft of separation should be provided between the
intersection of the exit ramp and frontage road travel lanes and the downstream
driveway or side street. Since the use of only 250 ft of separation distance may
negatively impact the operation of the frontage road, exit ramp, driveway and/or
side street traffic, careful consideration should be given to its use. When the 250
ft separation distance cannot be obtained, consideration should be given to
channelization methods that would restrict access to driveways within this 250 ft
distance. Refer to the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(TMUTCD) for specific types of channelization.
There will be similar occasions when meeting the entrance ramp separation
distance values may not be possible due to the same existing development
conditions associated with exit ramps. In these cases, at least 100 ft of
separation distance should be provided between the intersection of the entrance
ramp and frontage road travel lanes and the upstream driveway or side street.
10
City of Georgeto.�Driveway Access Policy
Since the use of only 100 ft of entrance ramp separation distance may also
negatively impact the operation of the frontage road, entrance ramp, driveway,
and/or side street traffic, careful consideration should be given to its use. As with
exit ramps, when the 100 ft entrance ramp separation distance cannot be
obtained, consideration should be given to channelization methods that would
restrict access to driveways within this 100 ft distance. Refer to the Texas
MUTCD for specific types of channelization.
Existing Driveways
If a driveway is being reconstructed in it's original location, documentation must
be submitted verifying the driveway location and width is not being altered for the
proposed reconstruction. This documentation can be in the form of a drawing (to
scale) showing the roadway, the existing drive location, the new drive location
and materials proposed for construction.
If however, the reconstruction is due to a change in property usage or zoning,
resulting in the modification of the configuration of the driveway, the same
policies and procedures will be followed as if the driveway access was being
requested for the first time. However, existing driveways will not be removed
unless additional driveway accesses are included in the request for change of
land use.
In cases where roadway widening or realigning is necessary at the discretion of
the City or TxDOT, relocation or removal of existing driveways will be at the
expense of the public entity. Any compensation for loss of access will be applied
to the project as compensation to the private landowner.
Relocating Driveways
On roadway reconstruction projects, it may be necessary to close or relocate
driveways in order to meet these guidelines. However, if the closure/relocation is
not feasible, and adjustment of the location of the ramp gore along the frontage
road is not practical, then deviation from these recommended guidelines may be
necessary. Any closure or relocation would be at the City's expense and
compensation would be made to the landowner to be made whole.
Ramp Location
In the preparation of schematic drawings, care should be exercised to develop
design in sufficient detail to accurately tie down the locations of ramp junctions
with frontage roads and thus the location of access control limits. These drawings
are often displayed at meetings and hearings and further become the basis for
City of Georgctow Drrnzway Access Policy
right-of-way instruments or, in some cases, the City's regulation of driveway
location.
In some instances, ramps must be shifted to satisfy level of service
considerations or geometric design controls. When this is necessary, the access
control limits should also be shifted if right-of-way has not been previously
purchased.
DRIVEWAY SPACING -OTHER STATE SYSTEM
HIGHWAYS
This classification applies to all state highway system routes that are not new
highways on new alignments, freeway mainlanes, or frontage roads within the
city limits.
Connection Spacing Criteria
Table 3 provides minimum connection spacing criteria for other state system
highways. However, a lesser connection spacing than set forth in this document
may be allowed without deviation in the following situations:
• To keep from land -locking a property, or
• Replacement or re-establishment of access to the state highway system
under highway reconstruction/rehabilitation projects.
Other State Highways Minimum Connection Spacing(')
Posted Speed
Distance
(mph)
ft
< 30
125
30
200
35
200
40
325
45
325
>_ 50
450
Table 3: Other State Highways Connection Spacing Criteria
(1) Distances are for passenger cars on level grade. These distances may be adjusted for
downgrades and/or significant truck traffic.
Corner Clearance
Table 3 provides minimum corner clearance criteria.
12
City or Georgetow Driveway Access Policy
Where adequate access connection spacing cannot be achieved, the City of
Georgetown will allow for a lesser spacing when shared access is established
with an abutting property. Where no other alternatives exist, construction of an
access connection will be allowed along the property line farthest from the
intersection. This will provide reasonable access under these conditions but also
provide the safest operation, consideration will be given to desgning the
driveway connection to allow only the right -in turning movement or only the right-
in/right out turning movements to provide continued flow of traffic without
interruption.
Width of Access
The City of Georgetown shall determine the width of access driveways in
accordance with Table 4. However, in no case shall an individual driveway width
be greater than 35 feet, except that the width of a landscaped center median
shall not count towards this standard.
Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines
Urban
Rural
Residential Commercial I Industrial
Residential Commercial I Industrial
Minimum
10
15
20
10
15
20
Width ft
Maximum
30
35
35
30
35
35
Width ft
Table 4: Basic Driveway Dimension Guidelines
The minimum width of commercial driveways is intended to apply to 1 -way
operation. In high -pedestrian activity areas, such as in a central business district or
in the same block with auditorium, school, or library, the maximum basic widths will
be 30 feet. The width shown applies to rural routes and most city streets including
neighborhood business, residential, and industrial streets. The width is intended to
be measured along the right-of-way line, in most instances, at the inner limit of a
curbed radius or between the line of the radius and near the edge of a curbed
island at least 50 feet square in area.
The minimum radius for proposed drives shall be determined based upon the
intended usage including the volume and size of truck traffic. However, in no case
shall the drive return radius be less then 15eet.
13
City of GiwgeWw Dnvmiiy Acem; Policy
Existing Driveways
If a driveway is being reconstructed in it's original location, documentation must
be submitted verifying the driveway location and width is not being altered for the
proposed reconstruction. This documentation can be in the form of a drawing (to
scale) showing the roadway, the existing drive location, the new drive location
and materials proposed for construction.
If however, the reconstruction is due to a change in property usage or zoning,
resulting in the modification of the configuration of the driveway, the same
policies and procedures will be followed as if the driveway access was being
requested for the first time. However, existing driveways will not be removed
unless additional driveway accesses are included in the request for change of
land use.
In cases where roadway widening or realigning is necessary at the discretion of
the City of TxDOT, relocation or removal of existing driveways will be at the
expense of the public entity. Any compensation for loss of access will be applied
to the project as compensation to the private landowner.
Relocating Driveways
On reconstruction projects, it may be necessary to close or relocate driveways in
order to meet these guidelines. However, if the closure/relocation is not feasible,
deviation from these recommended guidelines may be necessary. Any closure
or relocation on a roadway reconstruction project would be at the City's expense
and compensation would be made to the landowner to be made whole.
WAIVERS
In the events circumstances, for whatever reason, do not allow the preceding
criteria to be met, a waiver from the criteria may be requested. The
documentation required for application for a waiver will be determined by the
Development Engineer in accordance with the previous section titled: Design
Documentation.
As the potential exists for factors other than those listed above to be sufficient to
warrant consideration of an exception to the policy, the City Development
Engineer should be consulted for a recommendation as to documentation
requirements for each particular situation.
14
City of Georgeto r Driveway Acus Policy
APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Within 30 days after the date of the administrative decision, appeal of an
administrative decision may be initiated by any person aggrieved by the
administrative decision, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the City
affected by the decision. Appeals must conform to the provisions detailed in
Section 3.14 of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code. Appeals of
administrative decisions should be submitted the City of Georgetown's Planning
and Zoning Commission.
15
City of Georgetc, o- D iveway Access Policy