Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_02.12.2010Minutes of the Meeting of Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Friday, February 12, 2010 The Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Friday , February 12, 2010 presiding. Board Members Present: Tina Geiselbrecht. , John Aldridge, Joe Graff, Gabe Sansing, Don Padfield Board Members Absent: Keith Brainard, Lynn Williams Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Tom Benz, Bill, Dryden, Laura Wilkins, Ed Polasek, Terri Calhoun, Mark Miller, Candice McDonald Others Present: Rebecca Bray - Klotz & Associates, Val Grayson - Hughes Family, Ellen M. Hughes - Hughes Family, Leslie McConnico - Hughes Family Minutes Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER at 10:04 a.m. by Aldridge Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from regular GTAB Board meeting held on November 13, 2009. -- Jana Kern Discussion: Padfield - Someone named twice on staff present (Marsha Iwers). Then on Page 2 - near bottom adopt the "dame" roadway section - word should be changed to "same". Changes made 2/26/10 Action: Motion by Padfield to approve with stated changes, second by Sansing - Approved 5-0 (Brainard and Williams absent) B. Consideration and possible recommendation on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) for 293 acres and 17 acres in the Addison Survey, also known as Lera B. Hughes Tract, located at 1200 CR 110 (CPA-2009-003). -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner. Discussion: Polasek presented the item. Hughes Drive across SE 1 to Maple and Inner Loop. We would support if there was a traffic study. No need for the road except for the use of the project. It could be funded through 4A or 4B. However, we do not recommend for t he OTP. Rebecca Bray stated that they did the study "with" or "without" Hughes project scenario. Everything shows it is a development driven roadway. It truly doesn't divert much traffic - it is only to serve the development. Does not provide a time saving route either. Discussion of Letter and Exhibits. Polasek explained the documents. Public Hearing by P&Z there will also be one at the City Council level. We are recommending denial of this project for funding in the OTP. Sansing - what about future access to that road - way to plan in Inner Loop and other area entrance off Maple all the way over to Southwestern would be helpful - Benz - Southwestern would provide connection to Maple with Hughes Drive crossing in the future. Sansing - would the road be at or above grade? Benz answered below grade - Hughes would cross as a bridge over SE1. Question Padfield - in the ultimate design will it be a part of the freeway or a frontage road? Benz - possible option a possible frontage road to extend . Briggs it is planned - but only available in the ultimate design - full build- out. Hughes - concerned about possibly being cut off from the other property. Padfield - are we saying her access from the south would be at Maple Street until the frontage road was built? Polasek - yes - we could build access in the interim until it is built out. Discussion about the level of the roadway (if it would be depressed until you get to the ramps) Answered by Dryden - Freeway section will be depressed and will hit at the alignment of the future main lanes. Briggs - how depressed? Where will the grade of the actual road will be in contrast to the land today? Dryden - could be as much as 20 - 25 feet deep and sloping back up about 10 to 1 to prevent a channel. Hughes drive will not prevent connectivity from one side of the property to the other. In the ultimate design we will have bridges that will come up to that point. Additional explanation of what will be built - using maps as visual. Briggs - Are there plans for interim driveway access? Answered Dryden - currently no plans for interim access. Additional explanation of the maps by Dryden. Hughes family - Asked question under temporary construction easement - what will we get back? answered by Dryden - the land itself and it will be re-vegetated. Sansing commented that a retaining wall would probably be a better scenario rather than slopes. Briggs confirmed it would be better to review the possibility of building a retaining wall. Action: Motion by Padfield denial of amendment changing the OTP based on TIA analysis. Comment by Sansing - idea of being able to proceed in the future to what we have been discussing to cross the property and build the bridge at a later date. Made as an amendment to the motion. Second by Geiselbrecht. Approved: 5-0 with amendment (Brainard and Williams absent). Polasek said he would take this item to Council next week. Consideration and possible action concerning a progress report on the Overall Transportation Plan Update process and Task Order with Klotz Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $46,432.00 to complete the Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan Update (OTP). Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Director of Community Development. Discussion: Polasek explained the item asking for the remaining amount. Consultant and City working with CARTS - money encumbered in last year's budget . Asking to approve the additional task order with money from last years budget. First update on OTP Process: Waiting on CAMPO - have approved the scenario - we have enough to start the modeling process. Modeling up date getting rolling pretty well - getting ready for public meeting. Scheduled Council Workshop on April 13th. Then pu blic meetings after that. Council meeting presentation. A bigger issue of this Board and the Council is the Sidewalk Master Plan. Sidewalk element - incorporate into sidewalk transportation plan - binders of sidewalk master plan handed out with current code we use for sidewalks. very good document. We will send the same info to Council. Rebecca Bray - we are working heavily on the modeling and in the meantime we are working on sidewalk plan update. Take existing plan we have and update to reflect current conditions. Work in progress - we will identify the gaps and what we will focus on. We will research a number of funding options and priorities for the sidewalk plan - public improvements districts - safe routes to school, etc. Good plan but no mechanism set in place to address certain things every year. Aldridge - will we build more sidewalks faster? Miller - yes. Geiselbrecht - Williams Drive - what sidewalk accommodation are planned? Answered by Polasek - we will look at inventory of sidewalks - we will up date the plan and identify the gaps - not enough money to bring up to ADA standards - but any reconstruction project will be built to ADA as we build /update. Geiselbrecht - asked about the inventory. - answered by Polasek - we are just looking for the gaps right now. We used some GTEC money the first couple of years. Geiselbrecht - once you identify the gaps will you then come up with funding mechanism to fund it? Rebecca responded correct. Padfield then re -do the inventory? Polasek answered - yes. Miller - we get approximately $75,000/year to bring things up to standards. We apply every year or every other year for additional funding. Project is eligible - but we have not gotten the funding approved yet. Austin and Williams part of the project they are looking for crossing across IH 35 for students. To tie to existing sidewalk done in Phase 1 and that will complete one section on Williams Drive. Padfield - which sections three years from now - do we know? Miller not yet - no additional plan. Geiselbrecht. - bond election or something could be a funding mechanism. Polasek - by having this prioritized in our plan there may be other funding sources - we will be more competitive in the region by having an updated inventory plan. Additional comments/discussion. Rebecca - highest priorities is paying attention to the schools - then activity centers. Padfield. since we are on this item "C" - are we saying that the consultant work is part of the $46,000 we are going to work o n? Polasek yes - but part of it will be for the sidewalk plan and we have to do something else. Rebecca - ADA portion will have to be funded some other way. Padfield - $46,000 is that all going to go to sidewalks? Polasek - No, some will be used for 2nd round public meeting and some for final plan preparations. Padfield what is Kimley Horn going to do? Answered by Polasek - they will do the modeling and presenting the modeling and contact sensitive work. Action: Motion by Padfield, second by Graff to recommend approval of the task order as part of the larger project. Approved 4-0 (Brainard, Williams and Sansing absent) A. Discussion and possible action regarding the Project Progress Report and time lines. --Bill Dryden, Tom Benz GTAB Projects: 2009 Curb & Sidewalk Project Williams Drive Widening - Sedro Trail Intersection College Street Bridge DB Wood Rd/Shell Rd Improvements Maple Street Drainage N.E. Inner Loop & FM 971 Northwest Blvd Drainage Oak Tree Drive Bridge over Berry Creek Rock Street Extension Southeast Arterial 1 (Bond) GTAB Project Update & Status Report GTEC Projects: GTEC Project Update & Status Report Discussion: Curb and Gutter - under way - next year new street repairs Williams drive progressing - problem with Verizon not getting out of the way - Padfield - what are we going to do about that. Briggs we are a partner - Williamson County is the lead - they are dealing with it. Dryden - Verizon has laid the bypass conduit - 30 days is what we have been told - end of March. College St. Bridge - most of the bridge is built - building the circle itself and tying it back to the bridge. Benz - the weather has significantly delayed us. March is still an opening time line - but it will be determined by the upcoming weather. Sedro Trail - Trying to work out a connection with Penny Lane and then out to Williams Drive. Briggs - Not sure all the land owners are in agreement- but this would possibly allow a light at the intersection with Olde Oak. Dryden - Mr. Deavers called today before the meeting. He has been very concerned about connectivity for the neighborhood. We have been working on this issue for a long time. DB Wood/Shell Road - has been brought to the board before. Lane assignments - right turn lane - it is currently out for bids alternative is to deduct that out of the project. Mr. Curry...? asked for left turn slot - safety issue and the project currently has the left turn slot. Aldridge asked if the board was going to be able to review one more time. Dryden - previous direction was that we would add the right turn. Briggs - Board took action in September and then in November they saw it again. We thought that the second time was good. Meeting coming up is an informative meeting and public comment - not a hearing. We can bring that back and share with the board and then make adjustments based on that. Benz - We will bring it back to the Board in March meeting - yesterday was very positive (with the businesses). We will work with HEB transportation department to keep access while we build. Regarding the bank - we can do that part on Sunday or a bank holiday and work that out. Felt that the project was well received and we did well at getting them involved - got their e-mail addresses and will keep them informed through website and e-mail. The only thing we have received so far has been positive. Action: NONE MOTION TO ADJOURN: Motion by Padfield, second by Graff. Meeting Adjourned at 11:29 a.m. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:29 AM. Approved : Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Board Member Name Secretary