Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBike Rack Ordinance\ CITY OF COLI.EGE STATION ~Texas A&M Univmiry0 MEMORANDUM {SJ 8o1:, . February 15, 2018 (0 Un fl {))Jf'IV">· TO: ~bers of the Planning & Zoning Co~&~ ... · ~---·-------~ Alai~ Helton, Senior Planner dcM . ,,.., o( r-(u,., UDO Amendment -Bicycle Parking Standards -(t\si~.a.L<L - Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, "Unified Development Ordinance," Article 7, "General Development Standards'', Section 7.2.J, "Bicycle Facilities", and Section 7.3.J, "Alternative .~ar~ng 1.l~s''.o ( -k related to Bicycle Parking Requirements. l ~ratt~· <;p0 (Ju l<ll1 Recommendation: The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board heard this item at their February 5th meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Back round: This item originated with the 2017 Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission Plan- , -Work and includes updates to the City's bicycle parking standards. --."'~i,-September 5, 2017, Staff presented this item to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways (BPG) ~dvisory Board and received recommendations on Staffs proposed changes. eptember 7, 2017, Staff presented the Board's recommendations to the P&Z Commission and as directed to provide additional research and public input. • October 19, 2017, Staff presented additional proposals to the Commission, and received direction on final recommendation~ • November 20, 2017, Staff prese~he P&Z Commission and BPG Advisory Boards recommendations to City Council for discussion. Council directed Staff to move forward with a combination of Staff and the BPG Boards recommendations, which are out! ined belo~: Summary of Changes 'o''l)./ \~,..,./• • Eliminate required bicycle parking for Self-Storage, Industrial and Manufacturing land ~as well as property located in the Rural Zoning District. • • Reduce the minimum bicycle parking requirements for from four to two bicycles, and change ~ calculations for required bicycle parking based on required automobile parking spaces. ReStd..O!v\µ · ~-Modify the location and design standards for bicycle parking to allow flexibility in placement. () tf'x • Provide for reductions in automobile parking requirements for developments that provide Nw1'l bicycle parking above the minimum requirements. City Council is scheduled to take final action on this item at their February 2200 meeting. r \cn _.e ~ tn-cC. Attachments: ~ 0... Stm"CL (2 C R "'{""vt'> it( ~ UDO Section 7.2.J -Redlined 9 UDO Section 7.3.J -Redlined Planning e!r Development Services P.O. BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE · COi.LEGE STATTON ·TEXAS • 77842 TEL. 979.764.3570 • l'AX. 979.764.3496 cstx.gov/devservices J. Bicycle Facilities. 1. Number Required . a_For sites subject to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards of this UDO except for Mini-Warehouse/Self-Storage. Industrial and Manufacturing land uses. and property located in the Rural Zoning District.MU Mixee Use eistricts: The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be as set forth in the chart below (Figure 1) and in any event no less than two (2) bicycle parking spaces must be provided. Each primary buileing shall proviee a facility capable of storing a minimum of four (4) eisysles. b. Bicycle Parking Requirements: The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be based on the required automobile parking spaces and shall be provided in accordance with the following. Fia. 1: Bicvc/e Parkina Standard Chart Non-Residential 0-40 required auto spaces = 2 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum 41-80 required auto spaces = 4 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum 81-120 required auto spaces= 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum 121+ required auto spaces= 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum c. Notwithstanding the above. In multi-tenant buildings in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, one (1) or more facilities capable of storing eight (8) bicycles shall be provided at a minimum. f a4_1n MU Mixed-Use districts, bicycle storage facilities shall be provided at a rate [of] one (1) bicycle for every 15,000 square feet of non-residential uses, and one (1) bicycle for every two (2) dwelling units. ~Refer to the Alternative Parking Plan Section for the potential to substitute additional bicycle facilities for vehicular parking. 2. Placement and Design. a. Facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both bicycles and vehicles from accidental damage and shall be sufficiently separated from building or other walls, landscaping, or other features to allow for ease and encouragement of use. This separation shall be a minimum of three (3) feet. b. Bicycle Corrals: In areas with limited sidewalk space and frequent bicycle activity. bicycle parking may be provided in "bike corrals" located in the vehicular parking area adjacent to a curb. Design will be considered as context dictates as approved by the Administrator. Bicycle corrals shall be designed to distinguish and define the parking stall they inhabit for visibility and safety purposes. The corral should be well defined. such as generally surrounded by a painted white box on the pavement with flexible vertical delineators and a wheel stop where vehicles in adjacent parking spots might back into the corral. See example image below: "--~ gb. Where bicycle facilities are provided for tw~ (~4) bicycles, a standard footprint which is at least four feet wide by six feet long shall be used.the area for such a facility shall be approximately fifty four (54) square feet in area, approximately nine (Q) f.eet by six (6) feet or as approved by the Administrator. Fig. 2: Examples of Bicycle Parking Footprint and Dimensions T t l' l ~ ~ ~ .--.... ;;,.~ QG. Facilities shall be placed in clearly designated, safe, and convenient locations and such that ~· ..-no primary building entrance is further than one hundred fifty (150) feet from a bicycle faci~. gd. Bicycles may be permitted on sidewalks or other paved surfaces provided that the bicycles do not block or interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. fe. Bicycle facilities shall be constructed so as to enable the user to secure a bicycle by locking the frame and one (1) wheel of each bicycle parked therein. Facilities must be easily usable with both U-locks and cable locks and support the bicycle frame at two (2) points. Facilities shall be anchored securely to the ground. J. Alternative Parking Plans. 1. Scope. An "Alternative Parking Plan" represents a proposal to meet vehicle parking and transportation access needs by means other than providing parking spaces on-site in accordance with the ratios established in Section ~7 .3.1 , Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required. 2. Applicability. Applicants who wish to provide fewer or more off-street parking spaces than allowed above shall be required to secure approval of an Alternative Parking Plan, in accordance with the standards of this Section. The Administrator may require that an Alternative Parking Plan be submitted in cases where the Administrator deems the listed standard to be inappropriate based on the unique nature of the use or in cases where the applicable standard is unclear.' 3. Contents. Alternative Parking Plans shall be submitted in a form established by the Administrator and made available to the public. At a minimum, such plans shall detail the type of alternative proposed and the rationale for such a proposal. 4. Review and Approval Procedure. The Administrator shall be authorized to approve Alternative Parking Plans. Appeals of the Administrator's decision may be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. Recording. An attested copy of an approved Alternative Parking Plan shall be submitted to the County Clerk's office for recordation on forms made available in the Department of Development Services. Proof of recordation of the agreement shall be presented to the Administrator prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An approved Alternative Parking Plan may be amended by the Administrator. 6. Eligible Alternatives . A number of specific parking and access alternatives are described below. The Administrator shall, however, be authorized to consider and approve any alternative to providing off-street parking spaces on the site of the subject development if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed plan shall result in a better situation with respect to surrounding neighborhoods, City- wide traffic circulation, and urban design than would strict compliance with otherwise applicable off-street parking standards. a. Demand-Based Parking. When the developer of a non-residential or multi-family development can demonstrate that such development will require fewer parking spaces than required by the standards of this Section, the Administrator may permit a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the development. Such a reduction in parking spaces shall be justified by the applicant through the development of a parking study prepared by a professional engineer or transportation planner and submitted to the Administrator. Duplex, townhomes and single family developments are not eligible for the demand-based parking option. b. Shared Parking . The Administrator may authorize a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces for multiple-use developments or for uses that are located near one another and that have different peak parking demands or different operating hours. Shared parking shall be subject to the following standards: 1) Location. Shared off-street parking spaces shall be located no farther than five hundred (500) feet from the building site. The Administrator may waive this distance limitation, if adequate assurances are offered regarding the usability of the shared lot and the principle use (such as the operation of a van or shuttle service, etc.). 2) Zoning Classification. Shared-parking areas shall be considered accessory uses of principal uses that the parking spaces are intended to serve. Shared parking areas shall require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than that required for the most intensive of the uses served by the shared parking area ; 3) Required Study and Analysis. The applicant shall submit a shared parking analysis to the Administrator that clearly demonstrates the feasibility of shared parking. The study shall be provided in a form established by the Administrator and made available to the public. It shall address, at a minimum , the size and type of the proposed development, the composition of tenants, the anticipated rate of parking turnover, and the anticipated peak parking and traffic loads for all uses that shall be sharing off-street parking spaces. The Administrator shall have the authority to require a revised study and analysis should conditions change that may result in a change in site parking conditions; 4) Shared Parking Agreement. A shared parking plan shall be enforced through written agreement among the owners of record. An attested copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the County Clerk's office for recordation on forms made available in the Department of Development Services. Proof of recordation of the agreement shall be presented to the Administrator prior to issuance of a Building Permit. If a shared parking agreement is revoked by the parties to the agreement, either off-street parking must be provided pursuant to this Section or an Alternative Parking Plan must be approved by the Administrator; and 5) Revocation . Failure to comply with the shared parking provisions of this Section shall constitute a violation of this UDO and shall specifically be cause for revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy or Building Permit. c. Off-Site Parking . The Administrator may permit all or a portion of the required off-street parking spaces to be located on a remote and separate lot from the lot on which the principal use is located , subject to the standards of this Section. 1) Location . No off-site parking space shall be located more than five hundred (500) feet from the building site. The Administrator may waive this distance limitation if adequate assurances are offered regarding the usability of the off-site lot and the principle use (such as the operation of a van or shuttle service, etc.). 2) Zoning Classification. Off-site parking areas shall be considered accessory uses of principal uses that the parking spaces are intended to serve. Off-site parking areas shall require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than that required for the use served; 3) Off-Site Parking Agreement. In the event that an off-site parking area is not under the same ownership as the principal use served, a written agreement among the owners of record shall be required. An attested copy of the agreement between the owners of record shall be submitted to the County Clerk's Office for recordation on forms made available in the office of the Administrator. Proof of recordation of the agreement shall be presented to the Administrator prior to issuance of a Building Permit. If an off-site parking agreement is revoked by the parties to the agreement, either off-street parking must be provided on- site pursuant to this Section or an Alternative Parking Plan must be approved by the Administrator. d. Bicycle Parking . The Administrator may authorize reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces by up to five percent (5%) for developments or uses that make The Administrator may authorize a reduction in the number of required off street parking spaces for de'lelopments or uses that make special provisions to accommodate bicyclists. Examples of , accommodations include bicycle lockers, employee shower facilities,_-ami-dressing areas for employees. or the provision of bicycle parking spaces above the minimum requirements provided that adequate accessibility by motor vehicle and bicycle to the subject site is maintained. For developments that provide bicycle parking spaces above the minimum requirements. the reduction in automobile parking spaces shall be calculated at a one-to- one ratio. CtTYOF Crn.LEGEST.-\TION Hnn1' of7°"1s A&M U11ivmiry' MEMBERS PRESENT: ST PRESENT: ~ s~~ \) ~ c.'-1 MINUTES BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS ADVISORY BOARD Monday, February 5, 2018 3:00 PM College Station City Hall 2"d Floor Conference Room 1 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 Chairman Linda Harvell, Jon Denton, Tina Evans, Neal Johnson, Jonathan Coopersmith, Andrew Middleton Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Senior Program Manager Venessa Garza, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Alaina Helton, Staff Planner Laura Gray, Board Secretary Robin Macias AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order. Chairman Harvell called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors. There were no visitors present who wished to address the board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting absences Board Member Denton motioned to approve the meeting absences from November 6, 2017. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johnson and was approved (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. Board Member Denton motioned to approve the meeting minutes from November 6, 2017. The motion was seconded by Board Member Evans and was approved (4-0). Board Member Coopersmith arrived at 3:07 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, "Unified Development Ordinance," Article 7, "General Development Standards", Section 7.2.J, "Bicycle Facilities", and Section 7 .3.J, "Alternative Parking Plans", related to Bicycle Parking Requirements. Chairman Harvell opened the public hearing. There were no speakers during the public hearing. Chairman Harvell closed the public hearing Senior Planner Alaina Helton presented this item to the board. Ms. Helton presented the changes that were made to the ordinance. The ordinance changes were first brought to the Board on September 5th, 2017. She explained the current UDO requirements and what the Board recommendations were for changes. She also explained what the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council recommendations were. The Board held a general discussion regarding the proposed changes to the ordinance. Board Member Johnson asked if there were any of the Boards recommendations that were not in the changes. Ms. Helton explained that there were two recommendations not in the ordinance changes. These recommendations were bicycle parking for churches and additional bicycle parking for mixed use development. Board Member Evans asked for clarification regarding the cred it for developers. Ms. Helton explained what the reductions in parking requirements would do. Chairman Harvell asked what brought up changes to this ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Helton explained that the changes were brought up during a City Counci l workshop meeting. Board Member (;;oo_e,_ersmith asked how many bus;!JinQJe;.s;>es-h<~~:tkl=n-aa1Jvv:aannfcta~g~e~oiftthhe;tb~ic~yfdcle facilities. ~on statecl ti 1at to tier knowledge no bosirresses l1ave i11 stalled bicycle facilit ies. Board Member Coopersmith asked what efforts are made to relay the changes to the developers. ~Ssistant Director Molly Hitchcock explained that we do not mail out anything regarding ;~rdinance changes. She stated that the City will post the new ordinance on the website. Senior Program Manager Garza stated that when a developer comes in staff would notify them of the new ordinance requirements. t d Member Johnson asked for clarification on mixed use districts. Ms,,1-i elton stated that a mixed use district is a zoning district that a developer can select when refoning a property to a planned development district. It is a combination of residential and commercial use or commercial and multi-family use. Bo/rd Member Evans asked what is different about the bicycle corrals from what the developers _J'e doing now. Ms. elton stated that the bicycle corrals allow bicycle parking to be located in parking areas as lo g as there is adequate buffering. It gives the developers more flexibility on where to locate e bicycle parking. Board Member Coopersmith motioned to approve the proposed changes to the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johnson and was approved (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Update. Senior Program Manager Garza presented this item to the board. Ms . Garza presented the board with new map books and explained the changes that were made. Ms. Garza stated that public comments regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Master Plan on the city website will close on February 18, 2018. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Presentation and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings. • February 15, 2018 rv Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting rv City Hall, Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue rv 6:00 p.m. • March 1, 2018 rv Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting rv City Hall, Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue rv 6:00 p.m. • March 5, 2018 rv Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board rv City Hall, City Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room 1, 1101 Texas Avenue rv 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Possible action and discussion on future agenda items - A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Board Member Coopersmith requested to have Jay Maddock speak at a future meeting about walkability. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. APPROVED: Linda Harvell, Chairman ATTEST: Robin Macias, Board Secretary C tTY oF Cou .EGE ST.-\TJON Hom< of7mu A&M U11ivmity• MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: MINUTES BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS ADVISORY BOARD Monday, September 5, 2017 3:00 PM College Station City Hall Administrative Conference Room #2 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 Chairman Blanche Brick, Jon Denton, Tina Evans, Andrew Middleton, Neal Johnson, Jonathan Coopersmith, Philip Lasley Molly Fierro Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Senior Program Manager Venessa Garza, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Transportation Planning Coordinator Jason Schubert, Senior Planner Alaina Helton, Staff Planner Madison Thomas, Board Secretary Amber Johnson AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order. Chairman Brick called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors. There were no visitors present who wished to address the board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting absences. Board Member Denton motioned to approve the meeting absence from August 7, 2017. The motion was seconded by Board Member Evans and was approved (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. Board Member Coopersmith stated that the minutes incorrectly identified Board Member Middleton as being both present and absent at the last meeting and was corrected to remove him from the list of those present. Board Member Middleton arrived at the meeting. Board Member Coopersmith motioned to approve the meeting minutes from August 7, 2017 with one correction to the members present. The motion was seconded by Board Member Denton and was approved (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Presentation and discussion regarding amendment recommendations to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 12-7.2.J. Bicycle Facilities. t Senior Planner Alaina Helton presented this item to the board. Staff was directed by City Council to reexamine the current bicycle parking standards to determine if reductions could be made in the number of required bicycle parking spaces for land uses that are predominately auto-oriented and/or do not generate a great deal of bicycle traffic. This evaluation also includes proposing modifications to the current design standards for bicycle parking spaces to allow flexibility in the location and placement of bicycle facilities. A summary of the proposed changes are: • Eliminate required bicycle parking for Self-Storage, Industrial and Manufacturing land uses as well as property located in the Rural Zoning District. • Reduce the minimum bicycle parking requirements from two to one bicycle rack. • Base the number of required bicycle parking on the number of required automobile parking spaces . • Modify the location and design standards for bicycle parking to allow flexibility in placement. Board Member Lasley arrived at the meeting . Ms. He lton explained that to aid in the creation of these proposed changes staff examined the current requirements in peer cities. Staff also received feedback from citizens through an online survey. Ms. Helton stated that the feedback that was received in the survey was a m ixture of those who were in favor of the proposed change done on the basis of automobile parking and some were concerned about any bicycle parking being removed and thought more was needed . Mr. Lasley stat ed that he believed requiring the bicycle parking based on automobile parking was fine but to have the minimum bicycle parking requirement stay at two. He added that eliminating it from auto-dominated uses would be okay but then he questioned why we don't require it at churches, municipal buildings, and educational facilities where you're probably likely to have more biking. Ms . Helton stated that the reason those requirements aren't applied to those type of uses is that when the bicycle parking requirements were originally adopted they were tied to the Non- Residential Architectural Standards. At the time, churches and educational facilities didn't have to meet those requirements. She added that educational facilities will often install bicycle parking regardless but that bicycle parking for churches was also mentioned at the City Council workshop. Board Member Evans stated that she is concerned about the proposed maximum requirements. Ms. Helton stated the maximum requirement described by Ms. Evans is actually the current standard where the largest is four racks in any scenario. She added that she didn't want to be proposing any more than we would be requiring today under any given circumstance. Board Member Coopersmith asked if any of the peer cities had a maximum number of bicycle racks. Ms. Helton stated that one of the cities examined did have a maximum requirement and was for properties that required over 100 automobile parking spaces and they did have a bicycle rack cap at 2.5% or 10 whichever was larger. Mr. Coopersmith asked if there have been any multi-tenant owner or operators say that there are too many bike racks being required. Ms. Helton stated that she personally has not received any direct feedback but noted that she has only been with the city for a few months. She added that staff did receive feedback from City Council that the requirements may be burdensome in some scenarios. Generally the public said there was not enough but that it is important to keep in mind that survey responders may be of a specific subset of the population with specific interests in mind. Mr. Lasley stated he believed this topic has been discussed before. He stated that facilities such as restaurants don't seem to have enough bicycle parking. Ms. Helton stated that the need for more bicycle parking at restaurants was also mentioned in the City Council workshop. She added that a lot of the employment base for that particular land use bike to work. Board Member Denton stated that it does not appear that street traffic is being taken into account . He added that for example along Texas Avenue there are not bike facilities so there may not be much bicycle traffic unless there are side streets to provide access for the bicyclists it didn't seem like people would be using those particular businesses. Board Member Johnson added to Mr. Denton's statement asking if there is consideration for the surrounding roads such as is that a road that has bicycle infrastructure already in place. Ms. Helton stated that staff did discuss internally if additional bike racks would be needed where there is existing infrastructure. However, the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan is subject to change so while there may not be existing infrastructure today there may be one planned for the future. She added that they are trying to make it simpler. Ms. Evans asked what the goal of the reduction is . Ms. Helton stated that the goal is to update the requirements so that it makes more sense in terms of proportionality. Ms. Evans stated that she was concerned what the reduction to one bicycle rack would impact. She added that it seemed everyone was on board with the idea of proportionality to automobile parking it just seemed like the reduction to one in a town that is growing exponentially is concerning. Ms. Helton said that the reduction to one bicycle rack would only apply to smaller businesses such as a small corner store or dry cleaners that may not generate a lot of bicycle and pedestrian traffic or generate much trip generation in general. Chairman Brick stated that she believed that some on the Council were speaking in particular to specific office type buildings that don't typically have a lot of bicyclists. Mr. Lasley asked if we should want to encourage biking and walking in small neighborhood communities. Chairman Brick asked if Mr. Lasley felt like this reduction is detrimental to that. Mr. Lasley stated that it seemed that going from two racks to one rack there may be people who would have trouble figuring it out. Ms. Garza stated that if you bike you would be able to figure it out. Mr. Lasley stated that some businesses seem to almost hide the racks and they are hard to locate. Ms. Garza stated that the racks have to be within 150 feet of the primary entrance. Mr. Lasley stated that even then it could be off to the side and surrounded by shrubs. He added that reducing an already sometimes non-visible item may not be ideal. Ms. Garza added that some developments may not have adequate bicycle parking as they may have been constructed before there were specific requirements. Mr. Johnson stated that as the city is continually growing why reduce the requirements now as the city is still growing. Ms. Evans added that it is an opportunity on the ground level when things are being constructed to have those items in place. Chairman Brick stated that it sounded like the consensus recommendation from the group would for a reduction only to professional office, and medical or dental facility land uses and to the keep requirements as is for retail and restaurant developments. Ms. Evans stated that she doesn't think any of them should be reduced. Ms. Helton stated that the presentation brought before at this time is more for informational purposes and will be brought back to the board after it is presented to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Mr. Coopersmith stated that it may be helpful to have data on specific sites and types that would receive a reduction. Ms. Helton stated that she can send out some more information to the board. Mr. Coopersmith added that maybe something along the lines of the actual number of buildings that would be affected. Ms. Evans added that it would be helpful to have examples of what the change impact would be. Mr. Coopersmith stated maybe specifically those that are going to receive a reduction. He added that the future is the concern if the infrastructure is put in now. Mr. Lasley added that this has been a common discussion point is if the infrastructure is not put in now it is hard to get that in the future. Board Member Middleton asked if there would be a way to incentivize developers to install more bike racks. He added that the roadway impact fee that is increasing in January will only affected developers more. He added if there is any way to incentivize them to construct the bike racks by maybe providing them with a tax credit to a certain amount or roadway impact fee. Ms. Helton stated that they did find that some cities do provide incentives for bicycle parking usually in the context of the swap. She added that in one city that was examined you could reduce your automobile parking up to five spaces for every bicycle parking stall that was provided. Mr. Coopersmith asked if restaurant needs are currently being addressed in terms of parking especially for their staff. Ms. Helton stated that that was something that was discussed at the Council workshop and that there are certain scenarios and areas that there is probably a need but we are not sure to what extent. Mr. Coopersmith stated that we may want to figure out how we encourage restaurant owners to ensure they have adequate parking for their staff. Ms. Helton stated that City Council recently adopted a small reduction in automobile parking. She added that incentives would be something that could be further explored. The board agreed that incentivizing could be something to be looked into further. Mr. Lasley noted that there is a proposed reduction for Retail Shopping from four to three bicycle racks. Ms. Helton that the Retail Shopping Center (RSC) would be based on trip generation . Mr. Johnson asked what an example of a 20,000 to 30,000 square foot would be. Ms. Helton stated that she could provide some examples with the other information that was requested. The group held a general discussion regarding the survey feedback that was received on bike corrals, long-term bicycle parking, and other alternative bicycle parking options. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Update. Senior Program Manager Garza presented this item to the board. The first area evaluated by the board is located on Lincoln Avenue. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing adding a sidewalk on the South side of Lincoln Avenue from Texas Avenue to University Drive East. There board held a general discussion about the area. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The second area evaluated by the board is located on South College Avenue. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing adding a sidewalk on the West side of South College Avenue from University Drive to the City limit line. Mr. Middleton stated that he believe a sidewalk is necessary from University Drive down to Cross Street along South College Avenue as there is a lot of foot traffic. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The third area evaluated by the board is located on Nagle Street. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing adding a sidewalk on the east side along Nagle Street from Church Avenue to University Drive. There board held a general discussion about the area. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The fourth area evaluated by the board is located off of Holleman Drive West. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing adding a sidewalk on Woodway Drive from Holleman Drive West to the Alleyway and on Holleman Drive West from FM 2818 to Wellborn Road. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The fifth area evaluated by the board is located in the South Knoll area. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing adding a sidewalk on Gunsmith Street from Caudill Street to Trigger Street and a sidewalk on Trigger Street from Gunsmith Street to Dexter Drive South. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The sixth area evaluated by the board is in the South College Station area. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing to add a sidewalk on both Harvest Drive and Flower Mound Drive from Springfield Drive to Westfield Drive and on Westfield Drive from Graham Road to Harvest Drive. She added that these additions are to fill in gaps. Mr. Coopersmith asked how gaps were created. Ms. Garza stated that she is uncertain how these gaps were created. Mr. Johnson stated that filling in gaps is crucial. Ms. Evans stated that she is concerned about the removal of trees in the area. Ms. Garza stated that she wouldn't want to propose the removal of any of the trees in this area if possible. Assistant Director Hitchcock stated that she believed the roadway was built to a higher standard and there would be room to accommodate a sidewalk addition. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The seventh area evaluated by the board is on Arrington Road. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing to add a sidewalk on Arrington Road at the intersection of William D. Fitch Parkway. Mr. Lasley stated that it is something that is needed in the area. Chairman Brick stated that doesn't seem safe. Mr. Johnson asked if there are crossing signals there. Ms. Garza stated that there are lights but that they would have to go in and put pedestrian signals. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The eighth area evaluated by the board is on Southwest Parkway. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing the extension of the sidewalk on the south side of Southwest Parkway from Eastmark Drive to State Highway 6 South. Mr. Middleton asked if there was a sidewalk on one side. Ms. Garza stated that there is on the north side and that the goal would be to have it on both sides. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The ninth area evaluated by the board is on Merry Oaks Drive. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing to add a sidewalk on Merry Oaks Drive from Dominik Drive to Merry Oaks Park. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The tenth area evaluated by the board is on University Oaks Boulevard. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing to add a sidewalk on University Oaks Boulevard from Merry Oaks Park to Tara Court and from Harvey to the existing sidewalk. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. The eleventh area evaluated by the board is on George Bush Drive East. Ms. Garza stated that staff is proposing to add a sidewalk on George Bush Drive East from University Oaks to Harvey Road. There was no opposition from the board regarding this item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Presentation and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings. • September 7, 2017 "' Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting "'City Hall, Council Chambers"' 6:00 p.m. • September 21, 2017 "' Planning and Zon ing Commission Meeting "'City Hall, Council Chambers "' 6: 00 p.m. • October 2, 2017 "' Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board "' City Hall, Council Chambers "' 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Possible action and discussion on future agenda items - A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no discussion regarding any future agenda items. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4 :22 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Blanche Brick, Chairman Amber Johnson, Board Secretary Cl:lapter U : UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Article 7. General Development Standards Sec. -H-7.3. -Off-Street Parking Standards. J. Alternative Parking Plans . 1. Scope . An "Alternative Parking Plan" represents a proposal to meet vehicle parking and transportation access needs by means other than providing parking spaces on-site in accordance with the ratios established in Section 42--7.3.1, Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required. 2. Applicability . Applicants who wish to provide fewer or more off-street parking spaces than allowed above shall be required to secure approval of an Alternative Parking Plan, in accordance with the standards of this Section. The Administrator may require that an Alternative Parking Plan be submitted in cases where the Administrator deems the listed standard to be inappropriate based on the unique nature of the use or in cases where the applicable standard is unclear.' 3. Contents . Alternative Parking Plans shall be submitted in a form established by the Administrator and made available to the public. At a minimum, such plans shall detail the type of alternative proposed and the rationale for such a proposal. 4. Review and Approval Procedure . The Administrator shall be authorized to approve Alternative Parking Plans. Appeals of the Administrator's decision may be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. Recording . An attested copy of an approved Alternative Parking Plan shall be submitted to the County Clerk's office for recordation on forms made available in the Department of Development Services. Proof of recordation of the agreement shall be presented to the Administrator prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An approved Alternative Parking Plan may be amended by the Administrator. 6. Eligible Alternatives . A number of specific parking and access alternatives are described below. The Administrator shall , however, be authorized to consider and approve any alternative to providing off-street parking spaces on the site of the subject development if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed plan shall result in a better situation with respect to surrounding neighborhoods, City- wide traffic circulation, and urban design than would strict compliance with otherwise applicable off-street parking standards. a. Demand-Based Parking . When the developer of a non-residential or multi-family development can demonstrate that such development will require fewer parking spaces than required by the standards of this Section, the Administrator may permit a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the development. Such a reduction in parking spaces shall be justified by the applicant through the development of a parking study prepared by a professional engineer or transportation planner and submitted to the Administrator. Duplex, townhomes and single family developments are not eligible for the demand-based parking option. b. Shared Parking . The Administrator may authorize a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces for multiple-use developments or for uses that are located near one another and that have different peak parking demands or different operating hours. Shared parking shall be subject to the following standards: 1) Location . Shared off-street parking spaces shall be located no farther than five hundred (500) feet from the building site. The Administrator may waive this distance limitation, if adequate assurances are offered regarding the usability of the shared lot and the principle use (such as the operation of a van or shuttle service, etc.). 2) Zoning Classification. Shared-parking areas shall be considered accessory uses of principal uses that the parking spaces are intended to serve. Shared parking areas shall require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than that required for the most intensive of the uses served by the shared parking area; 3) Required Study and Analysis . The applicant shall submit a shared parking analysis to the Administrator that clearly demonstrates the feasibility of shared parking. The study shall be provided in a form established by the Administrator and made available to the public. It shall address, at a minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, the composition of tenants, the anticipated rate of parking turnover, and the anticipated peak parking and traffic loads for all uses that shall be sharing off-street parking spaces. The Administrator shall have the authority to require a revised study and analysis should conditions change that may result in a change in site parking conditions; 4) Shared Parking Agreement . A shared parking plan shall be enforced through written agreement among the owners of record. An attested copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the County Clerk's office for recordation on forms made available in the Department of Development Services. Proof of recordation of the agreement shall be presented to the Administrator prior to issuance of a Building Permit. If a shared parking agreement is revoked by the parties to the agreement, either off-street parking must be provided pursuant to this Section or an Alternative Parking Plan must be approved by the Administrator; and 5) Revocation . Failure to comply with the shared parking provisions of this Section shall constitute a violation of this UDO and shall specifically be cause for revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy or Building Permit. c. Off-Site Parking . The Administrator may permit all or a portion of the required off-street parking spaces to be located on a remote and separate lot from the lot on which the principal use is located, subject to the standards of this Section. 1) Location . No off-site parking space shall be located more than five hundred (500) feet from the building site. The Administrator may waive this distance limitation if adequate assurances are offered regarding the usability of the off-site lot and the principle use (such as the operation of a van or shuttle service, etc.). -.. 2) Zoning Classification . Off-site parking areas shall be considered accessory uses of principal uses that the parking spaces are intended to serve. Off-site parking areas shall require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than that required for the use served; 3) Off-Site Parking Agreement . In the event that an off-site parking area is not under the same ownership as the principal use served, a written agreement among the owners of record shall be required. An attested copy of the agreement between the owners of record shall be submitted to the County Clerk's Office for recordation on forms made available in the office of the Administrator. Proof of recordation of the agreement shall be presented to the Administrator prior to issuance of a Building Permit. If an off-site parking agreement is revoked by the parties to the agreement, either off-street parking must be provided on-site pursuant to this Section or an Alternative Parking Plan must be approved by the Administrator. d. Bicycle Parking . The Administrator may authorize reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces by up to five percent (5%) for developments or uses that make The Administrator may authorize a reduction in the number of required off street parking spaces for developments or uses that make special provisions to accommodate bicyclists. Examples of accommodations include bicycle lockers, employee shower facilities,_-aRG--dressing areas for employees. or the provision of bicycle parking spaces above the minimum requirements provided that adequate accessibility by motor vehicle and bicycle to the subject site is maintained. For developments that provide bicycle parking spaces above the minimum requirements. automobile parking spaces shall be reduced at a one-to-one ratio. C~apter 12: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Article 7. General Development Standards Sec. ~7.2. -General Provisions. J. Bicycle Facilities. 1. Number Required . £,.... For sites subject to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards of this UDO except for Mini-Warehouse/Self-Storage. Industrial and Manufacturing land uses. and property located in the Rural Zoning District.MU Mixed Use districts: The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be as set forth in the chart below (Figure 1) and in any event no less than two (2) bicycle parking spaces must be provided. Each primary building shall provide a facility capable of storing a minimum of four (4) eisysles. b. Bicycle Parking Requirements: The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be based on the required automobile parking spaces and shall be provided in accordance with the following. Fig. 1: Bicvcle Parking Standard Chart Non-Residential 0-40 required auto spaces = 2 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum 41 -80 required auto spaces = 4 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum 81-120 required auto spaces = 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum 121+ required auto spaces= 8 short-term bicycle parking spaces minimum L Not withstanding the above. In multi-tenant buildings in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, one (1) or more facilities capable of storing eight (8) bicycles shall be provided at a minimum. &.d_J n MU Mixed-Use districts, bicycle storage facilities shall be provided at a rate [of] one (1) bicycle for every 15,000 square feet of non-residential uses, and one (1) bicycle for every two (2) dwelling units. &.!L Refer to the Alternative Parking Plan Section for the potential to substitute additional bicycle facilities for vehicular parking. 2. Placement and Design. a. Facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both bicycles and vehicles from accidental damage and shall be sufficiently separated from building or other walls, landscaping, or other features to allow for ease and encouragement of use. This separation shall be a minimum of three (3) feet. ~-Bicycle Corrals: In areas with limited sidewalk space and frequent bicycle activity. bicycle parking may be provided in "bike corrals" located in the vehicular parking area adjacent to a curb. Design will be considered as context dictates as approved by the Administrator. Bicycle corrals shall be designed to distinguish and define the parking stall they inhabit for visibility and safety purposes. The corral should be well defined. such as generally surrounded by a painted white box on the pavement with flexible vertical delineators and a wheel stop where vehicles in adjacent parking spots might back into the corral. See example image below: fb. Where bicycle facilities are provided for twofel.H: (~4) bicycles, s standard footprint which is at least four feet wide by six feet long shall be used.the area for such a facility shall be approximately fifty four (54) square feet in area, approximately nine (9) feet by six (6) feet or as approved by the Administrator. Fig. 1: Examples of Bicycle Parking Footprint and Dimensions EQ EQ 4'-0" • 1 t l' l ......... / /&' gs. Facilities shall be placed in clearly designated, safe, and convenient locations and such that no primary building entrance is further than one hundred fifty (150) feet from a bicycle facility. ~-Bicycles may be permitted on sidewalks or other paved surfaces provided that the bicycles do not block or interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. fe. Bicycle facilities shall be constructed so as to enable the user to secure a bicycle by locking the frame and one (1) wheel of each bicycle parked therein . Facilities must be easily usable with both U-locks and cable locks and support the bicycle frame at two (2) points. Facilities shall be anchored securely to the ground. .,. L I . ~Cbrorv;r)9""1"\ 9 La ~r -~ON IO'Ct - . ~-~Jdl->-t-tf)l d ~)}VP ~ " ~)l'lbo~ ... - .'>'21~~'71!' ':S/\ c·nk41~· , 1)1 -l-V-n4:/ -{. -v ;') YI J r\ -vr,;t~°f v ~ ~"'(;?.:± tmnM ~"Via;+-} o~ -~ ~~~"'11 ~~J~ ·~1 i ~'1. .- . '"'1.0\f i1 TI p)iJ r IT 0 ..q CJ -~~ I ·~d """"'"1' -~I • ooos~ . ,,..... n ~a I,._.;.·· .v(Y)~ )rj '?<'\ ~b ,'.f'1P'V o r . City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Survey The purpose of this survey is to gather community feedback on potential ordinance updates and changes to the City's Bicycle Parking requirements. Please let us know how you feel about these proposed changes by answering the survey questions below. A comment box is provided at the end of the su~or any additional feedback you would like to provide us with. li1o1.lL..P ~ o~~ 1. Current Ordinance: .to~~~ Property located in the Business Park Industrial (BPI), Light Industrial (M-1), Heavy Industrial (M-2), and Research & Development (R&D) Zoning Districts are not required to provide bicycle racks. Proposed Changes: In addition to the zoning districts listed above , property located in the Rural (R) Zoning District, and land uses that include Manufacturing, Industrial, and Self-Storage would not have to provide bicycle racks. 1. Please provide your response to the proposed changes below. Agree Neutral Disagree Rural Zoned areas¥~~ not have to provide bicycle racks. (ex. Outdoor Animal Care 0 /) 0 Facilities, Commercial Greenhouse, Agricultural Uses, Barns, etc.) Manufacturing land uses do not have to provide () ::__) ') '-.../ bicycle racks. Industrial land uses do -0 () not have to provide bicycle racks. Self-Storag_e land uses do not have to provide () ::__) u bicycle racks. Other (please specify) 2. Current Ordinance: ·~·~ Each commercial building that is subject to the bicycle r~ standards, must provide a minimum of two (2) bicycle racks. Proposed Ordinance: ~ Each building that is subject to the bicycle7 1<.. standaro/. must provide a minimum of one (1) bicycle rack. Additional bicycle racks would be provided based on minimum automotive parking requirements. Proposed ratio is one (1) bicycle rack per forty (40) automotive spaces. No more than four (4) bicycle racks would be required. Note: 1 bicycle rack holds 2 bicycles. Comparison Table of Current and Proposed Bicycle Rack Requirements Land Use Square Feet Professional Office & Retail (Stand Alone) & Retail Shopping Center (Mixed-Use, Multi-Tenant) ~~~.~ '3s,ooo+ ~- 4 Medical or Dental Clinit 1 2 3 4 Restaurant (No Drive-Thru) 2 3 4 7 '" -z_o,..... . 2. The table above rovid! a comparison of current and proposed bicycle r~i;ements based on land use. Please pr vide comments and feedback below. - 3. Current Or inan~~ Bicycle f · · s shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both the bicycles and the vehicles from accidental damage. Proposed Ordinance; ?~. Bicycle fa~s shal?be allowed to be placed in motor vehicle parking areas as long as a buffered bike corral is used and the site is identified by pavement markings. Please see picture below as an example. 3. Please provide us with feedback for the questions below on bicycle corral parking options. tJ~ i,,XV\rp'--' Agree Neutral Disagree I believe that this bicycle parking would be a good( _ option to offer. ~~ o '< I would use this bicycle parking option. I feel that this type of bicycle parking is a safe place to store my bicycle. Other (please specify) 0 (_) 0 () 0 0 4. Planning Staff would potentially like to offer additional bicycle parking options for multi- family uses. We would like to look into long-term, covered bicycle parking options, like the example provided below. - • 4. Please provide us with feedback for the questions below on long-term, covered bicycle parking options. ~-)I( Agree Neutral Disagree I believe that this bicycle parking would be a goo' . option to offer. \!\ 'f<.,,o'i\ I would use this bicycle parking option. I feel that this type of bicycle parking is a safe place to store my bicycle. Other (please specify) 0 0 0 5. Please provide us with any additional feedback. 0 ~) l) () (J .. - ·City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Page 1of8 City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey The purpose of this survey is to gather community feedback on potential ordinance updates and changes to the City's Bicyclet..Paeilities... ~vk-/'PA1t-~j requirments. Please let us know how you feel about these proposed changes by answering the survey questions below. A comment box is provided at the end of the survey for any additional feedback you would like to provide us with. 1. Current Ordinance: Property located in the Business Park Industrial (BPI), Light Industrial (M-1 ), Heavy Industrial (M-2), and Research & Development (R&D) Zoning Districts are not required to provide bicycle racks. Proposed Changes: In addition to the zoning districts listed above, property located in the Rural (R) Zoning District, and land uses that include Manufacturing, -Industrial, and Self-Storage would not have to provide bicycle racks. 1 . Please provide your response to the proposed changes below. Rural Zoned areas do not have to provide bicycle racks. (ex. Outdoor Animal Care Facilities, Commercial Greenhouse, Agricultural Uses, Barns, etc.) Agree 0 n Neutral 0 n https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey Disagree 0 n 8/10/2017 · City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Manufacturing land uses do not have to provide bicycle racks. Industrial land uses do not have to provide bicycle racks. Self-Storage land uses do not have to provide bicycle racks. Other (please specify) Agree L_J 0 0 1 2. Current Ordinance:~ · r----- Neutral L_) 0 0 Disagree L_) 0 0 Page 2of8 Each building that is subject to the bicycle rack standards, must provide a minimum of two (2) bicycle racks. wl\!\l4'1L · ;_~ ·1 . ,__.,. ) \ lit\!Ac... y-o\..Qs 2. b1!<.t..1in~ S Proposed Ordinance: Each building that is subject to the bicycle rack standards, must provide a minimum of one (1) bicycle rack. Additional bicycle racks would be provided based on minimum automotive parking requirements. Proposed ratio is one (1) bicycle rack per forty (40) automotive spaces. No more than four (4) bicycle racks would be required. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey 8/10/2017 · City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Comparison Table of Current and Proposed Bicycle Rack Requirements Retail Shopping Center Retail Page 3of8 Restaurant 15,000 10,000 5,000 6,000 3,000 2 1 1 J 2 2. The table above provides a comparison of current and proposed bicycle rack requirements based on land use. Please provide comments and feedback below. 3. Current Ordinance: Bicycle facil ities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both the bicycles and the vehicles from accidental damage. Proposed Ordinance: Bicycle facilities shall be allowed to be placed in motor vehicle parking areas as long as a buffered bike corral is used and the site is identified by pavement markings. Please see picture below as an example. (C- \) /\r-cJ ~~~ ~ AC~ ~.; ~\r-c4 @oU~tL ~~It~? https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey 8/10/201 7 · City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Page 4of8 3. Please provide us with feedback for the questions below on parki ng options. Agree Neutral Disagree I believe that this bicycle yarking 0 0 0 cot.t~~ll'! be a .--...... good option to offer. I would use this ~icycle parki~ 0 0 0 option. I feel that this type of bicycle . rack faci lity is a safe k-t'J._ e,?·Q 0 0 • cftV'-.J" -place to store my bicycle. Other (please specify) https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey 8/10/2017 · City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Page 5of8 4. Planning Staff would potentially like to offer additional bicycle parking options for multi-fam ily uses. We would like to look into long-term, covered bicycle parking options, like the example provided below. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey 8/10/2017 · City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Page 6 of 8 https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey 8/10/2017 · City of College Station: Bicycle Parking Facilities Survey Page 7of8 4. Please provide us with feedback for the questions below on long-term, covered bicycle parking options. I believe that this bicycle parking facility would be a good option to offer. I would use this bicycle parking option. I feel that this type of bicycle rack facility is a safe place to store my bicycle. Other (please specify) Agree Neutral 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Please provide us with any additional feedback. Done Powered by t'\ SurveyMonkey· See how easy it is to create a survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CollegeStationBicycleParkingFacilitiesSurvey Disagree 0 0 0 8/10/2017 r 11 ~~ I ~ I I UJSf-.