HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesi
MINUTE S
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATLON, TEXAS
7:00 P.M.
November 21,1991
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sawtelle, Members Esmond, Hall,:, Hawthorne, Colson,.
3 Michel and Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT:. None. '
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway,. Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician
Thomas, Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan, Development Services
Director Ash, Transportation Planner Hard, and City Engineer Pullen.
AGENDA ITEM N0.1 Approval of Minutes -November 7,1991.
Mr. Esmond moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 7, 1991 as written. Mr.
~ Michel seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).: (Mr. Colson was not p~~esent for the
approval of the minutes.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2 Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request.. by the
City of Colle a Station to allow a rec clip dro -off facili to `be located at the corner of
g Y g p
~' Wellborn and Louise in the Northgate zoning d';istrct. (91-712)
' The Cite of Colle e Station withdrew the conditional use ermt re ues ror to the meetn
Y g_ p 9_ p g
AGENDA ITEM N0.3 Discuss a proposed amendment to the :Subdivision Regulations
'pertainng to sidewalks andbikeways. (91-812)
Chairperson Sawtelle informed the Commission that they would be making comments on the
proposed ordinance amendments as they relate to ;the Commission's responsibilities. S11e stated that
no official vote will be taken on any of the proposed ordinance amendments `discussed at tonight's
meeting unless there is no clear consensus on a particular :item:. Staff has drafted these amendments
..under the direction of the City Council and are being reviewed by the Commission to receive: input.
Tonight's Commission meeting is not the forum to argue policy, if a Commissioner would like to
argue policy, the City Council is the .proper forum. Public input will be accepted, but the meeting is
not a public hearing. Questions and input will be allowed as they pertain to the responsibilities of the
Commission; however, questions. such as cost should be referred to the City Council. The agenda
advertised in accordance to the Open .Meetings Act does not list the meeting as a public hearing.
Mr. Esmond stated that he received a letter from the City inviting him to a public hearing to review. to
the proposed ordinance amendments.
..Assistant to: the City Engineer Morgan stated that the words "public hearing" were used in the letter
sent to the public; however, the intent was to receive input from developers and engineers who: will
be directly effected by the proposed ordinances and not to conduct a formal public hearing.
~ Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presented the amendment to the Subdivision Re ulatons,
.g
.,
Section 5 regarding development of streets as it pertains to sidewalks. The City Council s objective
m reviewing.: the sidewalks and bikeways of College Station is to "review`and possibly change our
~.: 1 ...
~,.
standard sidewalk design/specification". She outlined the four areas highlighted: under:: the current
practice which are location,. size, flexibility, and timing of `installation. The City's current
specifications call for a standard 4' wide reinforced concrete sidewalk placed 2' from the back of curb.
within he street right of way. This standard. is applied without consideration. for the size or
classification of street, .land use, speed limits, topography, natural features, etc. Currently, the
subdivision regulations requires sidewalks on both sides of streets having a right of ay width greater
than 60', and. on one side of .streets of lesser width. Sidewalks on res%dential and collector streets are
presentlyoptional at the recommendation of the Commission. Exceptions to orpartial waiver of the ~~~
requirements of placement of sidewalks may be granted~~ by the City. Council :,.upon rerommendation~~
of 'theCommission. .when it has been determined hat satisfactory alternative:. pedestrian ways or
pedestrian/bikeways have been. or will. be provided outside the normal right of ay; or that unique
circumstances or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions prevail to theextent
-~ that~strict adherence to said requirements would be unreasonable and not consistent with. the purposes
~ and goals of the subdivision .ordinance of the comprehensve development- plan. Currently, the
~ ...
subdiv~slon ordinance requires.. the construction of the: sidewalk simultaneous with the construction of
the street, unless previously agreed otherwise through a letter of guarantee. Ms. Morgan added that
the recommendations of the Streetscape study indicate a preference for ocating th~~ sidewalks a
minimum of 6' from back of curb; if placed up against the curb the sidewalk should bey 5' wide. Th
e
2' grass strip that is generally built can be a maintenance problem in some areas. Often times, the
sidewalk is located Less than 2' from back of curb o avoid existing., obstacles or obstructions, .leaving
an even smaller grass strip. Even in new areas there will' be conflicts in placement of signs, utilities,
mailboxes, fire .hydrants, water meters, gas meters, elephone, cable, etc.,. within the limits of the
right of way. The postal service requires placement of mailboxes on residential streets within, l8" of
the back of curb. while utility placement varies, the: fire. department recommends placement of fire.
hydrants a maximum of 5 - 6' from the back of curb. Ms. Morgan concluded by making the
following recommendations:
-Location- Sidewalks should be located on both sides of all streets.
Placement- Sidewalks wild be placed in one of the following two manners: °1 they
()
shall be located at least 6' back of curb and be 4' wide, or (2} shall be located against
the back of curb and be aminmum of 6' wide:..
Transitions- Transition sections where the idewalk is between the two lacement
._ ~ .. p
alternatives, sections shall have a minimum radius of 10 and all transition sections
will be a roved' b the Cit En veer.
pp Y y g
Clear Sidewalk width- If the clear width is to be obtained between the back of curb.
and the °front face of the obstruction, clear width;. shall be 6'; if clear width is to be
obtained from the back face of the obstruction and the edge of the sidewalk, the~c~ clear
..::width shall be 4'
_Timin~ of Installation- All sidewalks .should be constructed as art of the street
p
,, construction; thus not allowing sidewal'~s ~to be build after lot construction.
Transportation .Planner Hard presented the amendment o the Subdivision Re ulations Section 5
• .: ... ~.
regarding development of streets: as It pertains to .bikeways. The definition of a bikeway as well as a
new ,section to give the City the authority to require bikewa s in accordance with the Bkewa
,,, y ,,, Y
Master .clan were added to the ordinance. Revisions to the Subdivision R`egulatioms include the
establishment of bikeway types (bike paths, lanes and routes ,location .criteria and desi n criteria
~ g
that would comply with the American Association of State Highway and Trans ortation~ Officals
. p
(AASHTO} and signing and markings as per the 'Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). Bike routes will be des Hated b si nin with no set desi n criteria. The route widths
. g Y g g ~ g
. will be 12.5 ...outer lane for collectors and a 13.5- outer lane for arterials.
._.
P & Z Minutes November 2.:1,1:991 Pa e 2
g
~.r
a
Bike lanes will be one way facilities with a minimum width of 5'. No parking in or ad`acent to the
... J
facilities will be ermitted. Desi n si nin and stri in will be as er AASHTO and-NiUTCD. Bike
p g~ g g p g P
~ .. .. .,
~~ - path .design for a two. way fac~llty will be a minimum of 8 wide with desirable 12 -wide with a 2
graded shoulder on each side. One .way facilities wi l be a minimum of 5' wide. In the instance of a
combination sidewalk /bike path, the facility could be a rninirnum of 14.5' wide if thee- Cit.: re: wires a
q
I minimum 2.5 separation. In lieu of .the separation, the City,.. may .require measures toy delineate uses
through signing, pavement .markings of different surface ty es. Bike Paths when located in
p ,
greenbelts and park. areas will be contained m a bikeway easement.. When located in ~ street right of
way, the path must maintain a minimum 3' back of curb... Bikewa costs to the develo er can include
.. Y p ,
j 'markings and signing, add~t~onal right of way and pavement costs. Bikeway costs to the Cit can
include markln s and Y
g ..singing, maintenance., .pavement costs: and retrofit... The two next steps. in the
action plan are to make rev~slons to the Zoning ordinance pertaining to schools, parks, shopping
centers, apartments.., bus shelters, etc. and to revise the Bikewa Master Plan hrou h the '
Y g forming of a
Bikeway ..Committee to include City staff, Universt re resentatives Plannin and Zonin
Y P ~ g g
Commissioners, Highway Department representatives, and representatives of local bike sho s.
~ _ p
Mr. Hall stated that it appears that the Colle e Station utilit de artment creates the bi est obstacles
~ g Y p gg
with the location of sidewalks. In the slides presented b .staff and in the Streetsca e resentation
pp
~ there..: .. .
were. several obstructions such as utility poles m the paths of -sidewalks. The City should: be
prepared to locate :utility poles so that they do not interfere with the location of sidewalks. He added
j ..
that welsh should be designated a bike way south of George .,Bush and north of Rock ]Prairie Road to
encourage; the bikers to take Holleman and allow them to feed .off and close Geor e hush a a bike
s
route. Traft~c along George Bush .will only increase with the ro osed Presidential.. libra and bikers
p p rY
may not be able to safely use George Bush ,as a bike way.
Transportation Planner Hard stated that there are ion ran a Tans '
g g p to widen George Bush and in the
future the .revisions allow for restriping far three lanes of traffic. When this occurs the '
parking..and
bike Lanes will be deleted. At this point the City may approach the Universit to see if a bike ath
Y p
)'~ ~~~~~ could be installed off of the pavement section on the north side of Geor a Bush.
g
Mark :Paulson, a resident of Raintree Subdivision a coached the Commiss' '
pP ion. and .questioned staff
as to the bikeway and sidewalk requirements an a 39 street.
Transportation Planner Hard sta ed that the 1:2.5' wide bike ath '
p could be developed. in the existing of
the street, but that additional right of way could be re wired. The Bikewa does not necessarl hav
to be q Y Y e
...located within the pavement section of the. street. The placement of bike routes will- be
determined by a subcommittee of staff and communit members.
Y
Mr. Paulson stated that the City is gettn carried awa and is leavn out all c '
~~ g Y g _ ost considerations•
The Crty ~s budding a platinum solution for a tin roblem" Revisions. should be mad
P , e especially
with regard to placement of tdewalks; however, two sidewalks are not needed on a 28' street. Man
citizens of Colle e Station :like the rivac of a street y
g p y without sidewalks to encourage pedestrian
traffic. In regard to bikepaths, a 12.5' additional lane to a roadway is `totall out of the uestion as far
as the increased costs. A 28' stree ` ~ .~ : , :,
t does not carry. enough traffic to absorb:-the additional ~ costs of
sidewalks and bikeways.
A.: P. Boyd, with Pebble Creek Develo meat a coached the `
~ p pp Commission and stated that he
understood the meeting tanrght to be a public hearing. The :'.Pebble ::Creek subdivision is uni ue in
that it is rvate and does not encoura e addti ' ' ` q •
p _ . , g oval traffic. The ordinance revisions need more input
and study before requiring developers to add 12.5' to :every street and addin sidewalks on both: sides
of the treet. Most homeowne - g _
rs do not want sidewalks in front of their home.: Will the-Pebble Creek
development have to fal ow these new guidelines?
l
~. Chairperson Sawteie stated that sidewalks and bkewa s '
~~
y have become a .Council. concern because of
~~ - the expressed citizen concern of edestrians Navin to walk i '
p g n the..street with movingvehicles...
4 _
i
P & Z :Minutes N
ovember 21,1:991 Page 3
P & Z Minutes November 21,1.991 Page 4
P & Z Minutes November 21,1:991 Page 5
P & Z IVlinutes November 21,1991 Page 7
i
w
~,
to the duties and res onsibilities of the administrator the Cit En ineer. These additions include the
p ~ y _g
~ ~
.~ . ; assurance that all ro ert has access to suitable surface water draina a facilities and that all
p p Y
g
easements a ong natural drainage ways and required .upon development. Section four also amends
the :administrative appeals section to allow an appeal; through the Zoning Board of Adjustment in
:place of the Municipal ,Court. Section dive was extensively rewritten to address .ownership and
' responsibility to maintainance of facilities,. how drainage facilities are handled" in subdivisions of
land, general design criteria, and requires engineers and contractors to certify cornpli~nce Section
six addresses National Flood Insurance .Program regulations. Section eight allows penalties to others
besides the owners and increases the fine from $200 - $540.
AGENDA ITEM N0.5: Discuss an ..amendment tto the ::Code of Ordinances ~ertt~inin to
g
`driveway access... (91-816}
~~i Trans ortation Planner Hard `resented the ro osed Drivewa Access Location and Desi n
p P p p Y
g
'~ ,
;.
Ordinance to be added o the College Station Code of Drd~nances The proposed ordinance will
'~~
~~
~ address he location of driveway access, s acin of drivewa access, corner clearance shared access
p g Y ~ ,
'~a geometric design of drivewa access, street structures,. ermits and a eals In ` eneral the ordinance
Y p pp g
'~ `applies to commercial and multifamily developments; however, a 'ud :merit b the En ineerin
_ J g Y
g g
~ .
e artment ma override set criteri
p y a. Single family and two family deve opments will take access
from the lesser street. No commercial driveways will be located such that the left turns into and out
~,, of the driveway. have to crass. a marked left turn queue storage area. Access will be rohibited in
p
'~ right turn lane transition areas. Corner parcels will be allowed only one drivewa unless coven that
y p
~
~ .,
they need additional access to accommodate. traffic volumes or circulation. The intent of the corner
~~~ clearance section of the ordinance is to allow access if minimum re uire t
q men. s can not 1~e met,,
but to
.
keep the driveway as far from the intersection as possible. This section rovidedl for reduced
p
clearance minimums for corner parcels with. distances varying from 75 - 120' according to street
' ..
.classification. There will be a special provision for downstream corner clearance on arterials with a
,.
'~ .
channelized .right turn lane. The ....proposed shared access will minimize the number of access oint to
keep traffic:. off of the street by allowing access to adjacent properties on site. There will- be
..
rovisions for shared and ..
p / or cross access easements...... The rninm~ms may... be lessened if shared
'~~
~ access is used to provide incentives for property owners who do not meet s acin re uirements. He
p g q
reviewed the standard criteria for driveway width and curb return for residential and commercial
;developments. Special design considerations include `drivewa hroat len th -limited access
y g_~
drivewa s r ht turn deceleration lanes and traffic ' ' ' '
y , g signals.: The permitting process states that the site
plan will be considered the "application" fore access. The exstin drives. ma be reconsidered far
g
y
.
,
. .
new buildin ermits zonin char: e and` re lath
. g p
g g p rig. Driveways will be required to-be approved prior
,
to the issuance of a building permit. To appeal a section. of :the ..proposed ordinance, the aggrieved
.
..
must notify the 'City Engineer In wr~ttn . The Plannin and Zonin Commission ma authorize a
g g g y
~~ .
variance to the ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Other business....
Mr. Esmond questioned staff as to the recommendation to dedicate ri ht of wa to rovide for a ri t
g y p h
g
urn lane along University Drive made in the traffic impact study submitted b Scott 8~ white Clinics
Y
for Glenha~en VII.
..Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan stated that he r htturn lane recommendation was not critical
g
to the development but was a suggestion.. The lane was not recommended by staff because the one
way frontage roads will help ;reduce traffic load in the area.:
..,..Trans ortatio .
n
Planner a
H rd a e
red a
n t
d s ated
that
Scott a d
p
g n White was.. not allowed a curb cut on
,
[Unversity Drive. Staff felt that he one: was not critical to the development and that staff did not
~,..; require the dedication for additional right of wa because access was denied.
Y
~,
~~
~j .
P & Z Minutes' November 21;1991 Page 8