Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/15/2018 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop College Station, TX Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting. City Hall Council Chambers6:00 PMThursday, February 15, 2018 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 3. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the consideration of the 2017 P&Z Plan of Work. 18-01344. 2017 Plan of WorkAttachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an overview of best practices in traffic calming implementation and preliminary recommendations for updating the College Station Neighborhood Traffic Calming policy. 18-01235. Sponsors:Schubert and Rother Memo Traffic Calming Policies Best Practices Review College Station Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, February 22, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison - Mather) *Thursday, March 1, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. *Monday, March 5, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison - Osborne) *Thursday, March 15, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. 18-01316. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items: *A Conditional Use Permit for a bar located at 650 William D. Fitch Parkway. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on 18-01327. Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 February 15, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final February 1, 2018, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval with conditions. The City Council heard this item on February 8, 2018, and voted (6-0-1) to approve the request. * An Ordinance Amendment regarding the criteria for Administrative approval of Site Plans, Buildings and Signs in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on February 1, 2018, and voted (6-0) to recommend approval with conditions. The City Council heard this item on February 8, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request. * An Ordinance Amendment regarding the criteria used in the consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on January 18, 2018, and voted (4-3) to recommend approval with conditions. The City Council heard this item on February 8, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request with an amendment. 8. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, BioCorridor Board. 9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning 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. 10. Adjourn. The Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on February 9, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. _____________________ City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 February 15, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 Page 1 of 7 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work Comprehensive Plan Items Implementation of Adopted Plans Summary: Implementation of adopted master plans and neighborhood, district, and corridor plans, namely: Central College Station, Eastgate, Southside Area, Wellborn Community, and South Knoll Area neighborhood plans, and Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways, Parks and Recreation, Water, Waste Water, Medical District, and Economic Development master plans. Project Dates: 12/21/2017: Presentation of UDO & Comp Plan Annual Review (JP & LH) Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: On-Going Thoroughfare Plan Update Summary: Project Dates: The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is in the process of updating its Concept Map for the BCS region. Once adopted by the MPO, the city is anticipating taking action to amend the Thoroughfare Plan to align with the changes in the MPO’s regional Concept Map. 06/15/17: Provide an update on the BCS Thoroughfare Concept Map as adopted by the MPO and provide information on the City’s next steps to amend the current Thoroughfare Master Plan. Presentation at P&Z Workshop. (JS) 11/16/17: Presentation of ordinance amendment aligning the City’s Thoroughfare Plan with the adopted MPO Plan. 11/16/17: Workshop presentation on thoroughfare classifications. 11/20/17: City Council adopts ordinance amendment aligning the City’s Thoroughfare Plan with the adopted MPO Plan. Staff Assigned: Jason Schubert Completed: November 20, 2017 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan Update Summary: Bring additional updates to the Planning and Zoning Commission as the Master Plan update moves forward. Project Dates: 2/2/18 through 2/18/18: Map books with proposed changes online for public comment. Staff Assigned: Venessa Garza Anticipated Completion: Winter 2018 Page 2 of 7 Neighborhood Integrity Items *Traffic Calming Toolkit Summary: Receive information regarding the current traffic calming policy and devices (speed pillows, etc.), and including updates as recommended by the Council Transportation and Mobility Committee. Additionally receive update on the implementation of the neighborhood parking toolbox created by the Neighborhood Transportation Task Force. Project Dates: 2/15/18: Anticipated presentation on consultant’s research on best practices in traffic calming and proposed modifications to College Station’s traffic calming toolkit. Staff Assigned: Troy Rother & Jason Schubert Anticipated Completion: February 15, 2018 Student Housing in Established Single-Family Neighborhoods Summary: Research best practices from peer university communities regarding the management of student housing in single-family neighborhoods. Explore the possibility of expanding options for Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (NCO), mitigate the impacts to on-street parking and drainage and provide educational opportunities for Homeowner’s Associations and Neighborhood Associations Project Dates: 4/20/17: Follow up discussion regarding the presentation on student housing in established single-family neighborhoods. 8/17/17: Presentation on Neighborhood Services (Barbara Moore) 10/19/17: P&Z presentation on student housing in established single-family neighborhoods. 11/9/17: City Council presentation on student housing in established single-family neighborhoods. Staff Assigned: Jenifer Paz, Rachel Lazo & Jade Broadnax Completed: November 9, 2017 UDO Regulatory Items Update on Off-Street Parking Requirements Summary: Provide options to allow flexibility to off-street parking requirements. Receive direction on future UDO text amendments. Project Dates: 5/4/17: Additional presentation and discussion on potential amendments or additions to the City’s current off-street parking requirements. 8/3/2017: Presentation of Draft UDO Amendments to 12-7.3 Off-Street Parking Requirements. 8/24/2017: UDO Amendments to 12-7.3 Off- Street Parking Requirements adopted by City Council. Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai Completed: August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Evaluation of UDO Regulations Summary: Project Dates: Review UDO requirements that add minimal value as identified by staff and consider opportunities to reduce regulations and streamline processes. 06/01/17 Presentation of staff's initial list of identified opportunities to reduce regulations and streamline processes. 06/15/2017: Comprehensive Plans and Rezoning staff reports revised to new coversheet format. 7/6/2017: Presentation of Draft UDO Amendments to eliminate certain screening requirements and eliminate the visual treatment for exposed concrete. 7/27/17: City Council adopts ordinance amendment to eliminate certain screening requirements and eliminate the visual treatment for exposed concrete. 8/3/2017: Presentation of Draft UDO Amendment on Off-Street Parking Requirements which includes the elimination of large parking lot concepts and allowing laydown curbs adjacent to buildings. Also, Preliminary Plan and Final Plat staff reports revised to new abbreviated format. 8/24/2017: The elimination of large parking lot concepts, allowing laydown curbs adjacent to buildings, and adopted by City Council as part of revisions to the parking ordinances. 8/30/17: Public meeting held for feedback on staff proposals regarding Preliminary Plans and Non- Conformities. 9/11/17: City Council adopted ordinance amendment increasing discretion granted to staff regarding requirements for easements. Provides flexibility to the requirement for 20-foot PUEs at the rear of all lots. 9/21/17: Presentation on staff’s initial ideas and public feedback for UDO amendments for changes to the preliminary plan process and requirements for non-conforming properties. 11/16/17: P&Z Presentation of ordinance amendments for preliminary plans and non- conformities. 12/14/17: City Council adopts ordinance amendment to allow preliminary plans to be approved administratively. 12/21/17: P&Z presentation with revisions to staff’s non-conformities UDO recommendation. 1/11/18: City Council presentation on an ordinance amendment to increase flexibility for nonconforming uses, structures, and building materials. 1/18/18: Anticipated ordinance amendment presentations on streamlining rezoning and com prehensive plan review criteria. 2/1/18: Anticipated ordinance amendment presentation on no longer requiring site plans and Page 4 of 7 signs in Wolf Pen Creek to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. 2/8/18: Presentation to City Council on a City- Initiated Removal of the Krenek Tap Overlay zoning 2/8/18: Council adopted ordinances amending Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning criteria and the Wolf Pen Creek site plan and sign approval processes 2/15/18: Anticipated ordinance amendment presentation on streamlining NRA requirements Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai Anticipated Initiation: June 1, 2017 Sign Ordinance Revisions Summary: Review and update the City’s sign ordinance in light of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding sign regulations based upon content. Project Dates: Staff Assigned: Molly Hitchcock, Rachel Lazo & Legal Anticipated Completion: Spring 2018 Suburban Commercial Land Use and Zoning Summary: Under City Council direction, review current Comprehensive Plan land use description and zoning ordinance requirements of the Suburban Commercial zoning district and provide options for future text amendments. Project Dates: 8/30/17: Public meeting held for feedback on staff proposals regarding options for the Suburban Commercial zoning district. 10/5/17: P&Z presentation on staff’s initial ideas and public feedback for changes to the Suburban Commercial zoning district. 11/9/17: City Council presentation on staff’s initial ideas and public feedback for changes to the Suburban Commercial zoning district. 3/15/17: Anticipated P&Z ordinance amendment presentation on changes to the Suburban Commercial zoning district. Staff Assigned: Madison Thomas, Jenifer Paz, Alaina Helton Completed: November 9, 2017 Bicycle Rack Standards Summary: Under City Council direction, review current non- residential parking requirements for providing on- site bicycle parking facilities. Project Dates: 9/5/17: Presentation to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board on current bicycle parking requirements and staff’s recommended revisions. 9/7/17: Presentation to Planning and Zoning Commission on current bicycle parking requirements and staff’s recommended revisions. 11/16/17: Follow-up presentation on bicycle parking requirements. Page 5 of 7 11/20/17: City Council presentation on bicycle parking requirements. 2/15/18: Anticipated ordinance amendment presentations revising bicycle rack requirements. Staff Assigned: Alaina Helton & Madison Thomas Anticipated Completion: February 2018 Non-Residential Landscaping Requirements Summary: Review current city landscaping requirements (including streetscaping and buffer standards) and the water usage needed to maintain current landscaping requirements. Explore options for water-conserving landscaping. Project Dates: 8/30/17: Public meeting held for feedback on staff proposals regarding options for the Suburban Commercial zoning district. 9/21/17: Presentation on staff’s initial ideas and the public feedback on those ideas regarding non-residential landscaping requirements. 12/21/17: P&Z Presentation on proposed revisions to the non-residential landscaping requirements. 2/8/18: City Council Presentation on proposed revisions to the non-residential landscaping requirements. Staff Assigned: Rachel Lazo, Madison Thomas, Jade Broadnax Anticipated Completion: February 2018 On-Going Items Economic Development Updates Summary: Receive regular updates from the Economic Development Department regarding the vision and implementation of the commercialization of TAMU research-related output, including examples of successful efforts elsewhere. Additionally, receive an update on the recent announcement regarding plans for the TAMU System Rellis Campus revitalization effort. Project Dates: 06/15/17: Presentation of a quarterly update on Economic Development efforts and land availability for commercial uses. Presentation at P&Z Workshop. (NR) 12/7/17: Planned presentation of a quarterly update on Economic Development efforts and land availability for commercial uses. Presentation at P&Z Workshop. (NR) Staff Assigned: Economic Development Anticipated Completion: On-Going Semi-Annual Review of Pre-Application Conference Surveys Summary: Provide an update on the survey results from the Pre-Application Conference process. Project Dates: 3/16/17: Provided an update on the status of the PAC meeting process and implementation of the PAC survey. Presentation at P&Z Workshop. (MB) 12/7/17: Provided an update on the status of the PAC meeting process and implementation of the PAC survey. (JG) Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai Anticipated Completion: On-Going Page 6 of 7 Educational/Informational Items Parkland Dedication Summary: Review of parkland dedication requirements and available resources. Project Dates: 7/6/17: Staff presented information regarding parkland dedication requirements and summary or parks and greenways master plan. Staff Assigned: Jenifer Paz Completed: July 6, 2017 Sidewalk Fee-in-Lieu Summary: Review of sidewalk fund requirements and available resources. Project Dates: 9/21/17: Staff presenting information regarding sidewalk fund requirements and available resources. Staff Assigned: Lauren Hovde & Rachel Lazo Completed: September 21, 2017 Block Length and Block Perimeter Summary: Review of current requirements regarding block length and block perimeter. Project Dates: 8/3/2017: Presentation of a review of current requirements regarding block length and block perimeter. Follow-up presentation requested for staff proposed amendments to this section. Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai & Jason Schubert Completed: August 3, 2017 Public Hearing Notifications Summary: Review current community notification requirements and practices for cases involving a public hearing. Project Dates: 12/21/17: Staff presentation regarding current community notification requirements and practices for cases involving a public hearing. Staff Assigned: Lance Simms Completed: December 21, 2017 Mueller Report Update Summary: Update on the implementation of the 2013 Organizational Review of P&DS (AKA “Mueller Report”) Project Dates: 07/20/17: Presentation of an update on the implementation of the Mueller Report. Staff Assigned: Lance Simms Completed: July 20, 2017 Review of Development Fees Summary: Evaluation of the effect of development fees on the price of single family housing to the Project Dates: Page 7 of 7 homeowner and an overview of the financial context of development fees for the City. Staff Assigned: Justin Golbabai & Alaina Helton Anticipated Completion: Spring 2018 Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM February 15, 2018 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Troy Rother, PE, PTOE, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Calming Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an overview of best practices in traffic calming implementation and preliminary recommendations for updating the College Station Neighborhood Traffic Calming policy. Summary: As part of the 2017 P&Z Plan of Work, a Traffic Calming Toolkit item was planned as part of the Neighborhood Integrity section. This item will provide a review of the traffic calming practices of select peer cities, a summary of best practices, and recommended updates to the existing College Station Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy. The Public Works Department has contracted with Kimley-Horn and Associates to provide an assessment and presentation. The summary of their review is attached. Also part of the Plan of Work item, an update of the neighborhood parking toolbox that stemmed from the Joint Neighborhood Parking Task Force will be provided separately at the March 1, 2018 Commission Workshop. Background: City Council adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy in December 2000 to provide a mechanism to address neighborhood concerns regarding impacts of traffic on neighborhood and residential streets. The existing policy is attached for reference. In direction provided to staff, the Council Transportation & Mobility Committee requested that this policy be revisited to update its procedures and the options available in the traffic calming toolkit. Kimley- Horn has reviewed the existing College Station policy, the practices of other municipalities and has provided recommendations for consideration. The Council Transportation & Mobility Committee is scheduled to hear these recommendations at their March 20, 2018 Committee meeting where staff will seek further direction before full Council consideration of a revised policy is sought. Supporting Materials 1. Traffic Calming Policies Best Practices Review 2. Existing College Station Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy Page 1 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 MEMORANDUM To: Troy Rother City of College Station From: Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP, PTP Drew Brawner, AICP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: January 31, 2018 Subject: Traffic Calming Policies Best Practices Review The following memo summarizes the policies and program processes of three cities with established neighborhood traffic mitigation programs – Bryan, TX; Boulder, CO; and El Paso, TX. Each program was reviewed for best practices, which can guide the development of College Station’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming program. Each city’s program was reviewed for the following areas: Program Eligibility Program Process Prioritization Criteria Traffic Calming Toolbox Funding Maintenance Traffic Calming Program Public Education Materials City Program Name Date Adopted/ Updated Stated Program Purpose Bryan, TX Local Area Traffic Management February 2017 Mitigate adverse impacts of traffic: speeding, cut-through traffic Boulder, CO Neighborhood Speed Management Program October 2017 Mitigate the negative effects of speeding traffic on neighborhood streets El Paso, TX Neighborhood Traffic Management Program March 2008; Application revised Feb 2017 Address the following neighborhood Traffic problems: cut-through traffic, speeding, security, aesthetics, other issues PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY Each city reviewed for this memo has a criteria list which is used to determine if a proposed traffic calming location is eligible for study and mitigation. Page 2 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 Bryan The City of Bryan launched its Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) program in 2016, and has been developed to address speeding and cut-through traffic as separate programs. Each program has a different request and eligibility review process. For the first year of the LATM program, the City of Bryan has only accepted requests for the Speeding Mitigation Program. In order to be eligible for speeding mitigation, a street must satisfy the following requirements: Collectors or local streets adjacent to residential, mixed-use w/ residential, schools, or parks Not designated as alley No more than two through traffic lanes (not including two-way left turn) Posted speed limit of 40 mph or less Measured 85th percentile speed must exceed the prima facie or posted speed limit by 3 miles per hour or more in a 24-hour study period; or, there must be five or more reported speed- related crashes within the street segment during the last 24 months of recorded data The eligibility requirements for Cut-Through Mitigation requests do not specify street classification requirements, but the City Engineer may deem requests eligible for study based on: Whether the problem can be remedied under these guidelines and procedures; Whether special conditions, including but not limited to location and nature of businesses, schools, parks, churches or other non-residential traffic generators, may support approval of the project; Whether the request conflicts with an existing approved neighborhood plan; Whether there is community support in favor of the project; and, Whether existing evidence, studies, data or reports regarding severity of the existing problem support implementation of the project. Boulder The City of Boulder launched its Neighborhood Speed Mitigation Program (NSMP) in 1994, with a major update in October 2017. The focus of the program is to mitigate the negative effects of speeding. Traffic volumes and traffic diversion are considered as part of the process, but cut-through traffic is not directly addressed as part of the program . The following are the basic requirements for Boulder’s NSMP: Any residential street, which is classified as a Local or Collector roadway, may be considered for traffic calming through this program. All applicants to the NSMP are eligible to receive education and enforcement options El Paso The City of El Paso launched its Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) in 2008. This program addresses neighborhood traffic concerns related to speeding, cut-through traffic, or other safety/security concerns. The following are the basic requirements for El Paso’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program : Page 3 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 The street must be used to provide access to abutting residential properties (local residential street) and/or to collect traffic for such streets (residential collector). There must be no more than one moving lane of traffic in each direction Traffic volumes must be more than 1,000 vehicles per day but less than 7,500 vehicles per day. Vehicle speeds must equal or exceed the Speed Criteria of 35 miles per hour (mph). – 85th Percentile The street must not be an identified primary route for emergency vehicles PROGRAM PROCESS The following table summarizes the program process for each comparison city for each major phase of the program: Project Application, Pre-evaluation, Evaluation and Project Selection, and Project Development. Many cities structure their program with an annual call for projects from the community, including Bryan and Boulder. El Paso’s program has a rolling application process and does not appear to have a cut-off for when a proposed traffic calming area is no longer evaluated for project development. It is important to note that each city integrates public engagement differently throughout the project selection and development process. Some communities have robust processes to involve community members throughout the program process, others provide fewer opportunities for public involvement. City Project Application Pre-evaluation Evaluation and Project Selection Project Development College Station Neighborhood traffic issues are tabulated by the City based on traffic calls, complaints, or direct requests for traffic calming measures. All requests received by August 1st are considered for the following fiscal year. City staff selects three residential streets that appear to exhibit the highest speeding or cut-through problems. There is no eligibility screening or requirement for evidence of neighborhood support as part of the pre-evaluation process. The City ranks the 3 areas based on speed and volume data to determine a project priority order. Only the top ranked street/area will be selected for further study. The City contacts the residents and property owners within the selected study area and begins the community involvement process; additional data is collected if necessary. The City works with a citizen working group to develop a preferred mitigation plan. A 2/3 approval vote is required within the study area to advance the plan to final design. Bryan Request can be made by a resident, business, school, or other entity whose property is located along the requested street segment. One request round per year (deadline April 1) City determines preliminary program eligibility based on street type and speed/safety criteria. If eligible, City develops preliminary mitigation plan. Coordination with other City departments; Fire Dept can veto street segment. Requester must provide Evidence of Support (EOS): gather and present evidence of support from the community. City prioritizes requests based on ranking criteria: five scoring categories (traffic, crashes, land use, EOS, other) Eligible requests are funded in ranking order within annual budget constraints. Unfunded projects can be reconsidered in up to 2 additional cycles. Requesters can expedite by paying 100% of estimated design and installation cost. Design begins the following year on funded projects. Requester is invited to a design initiation meeting; encouraged to form a design committee of 3-7 persons. Page 4 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 City Project Application Pre-evaluation Evaluation and Project Selection Project Development Boulder Individual submits program registration form within the designated registration period. All applicants will receive an education packet that includes information about a self-facilitated meeting instructions and enforcement options Staff completes project eligibility review based on program goals and policies. For eligible applicants, staff sends a petition template, program education materials, and the date for a Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) public hearing for project prioritization. Signature gathering - The applicant must collect signatures from either 20 neighbors or 30 percent of households on the same block. The applicant submits the petition to the city, which initiates data collection by staff Scoping and data collection - If an applicant submits a viable petition, the program coordinator develops a scope for the project and defines a project area. The program coordinator releases a scoring and ranking report to all applicants and posts it online. Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) is presented with ranking and provides a recommendation to staff; staff develops the final neighborhood notification list. Neighborhood notification of priority projects TAB information packet – staff provides an update on program year TAB Prioritization Hearing – public hearing; final TAB recommendation on list of projects. Projects that are not prioritized are automatically enrolled in the program the following year Projects categorized as simple or complex. Simple – localized impact, low cost (~$10,000), little effect on traffic diversion Complex – impacts to neighboring streets, affects other travel modes, located on emergency route streets, higher cost Internal project team notification (simple) or coordination meeting (complex); Neighborhood forum (simple) or neighborhood meeting series (complex); Final TAB recommendation on staff-recommended design El Paso Need identification can begin with staff, neighborhood association, city council representative, or citizen; Requests for traffic calming measures require the submittal of the attached petition, with signatures, from two-thirds (66%) of the households along the affected street Staff reviews requests and determines eligibility Staff conducts a preliminary study; Express (non-physical) measures are explored first – education and enforcement; Staff may recommend the neighborhood process based on complexity of issues that require more citizen participation Kick off project development with a community meeting; invite interested residents to participate on a Traffic Calming Committee; Develop goals and draft traffic management plan with TCC consensus; Present plan to neighborhood at a community meeting; Two-step voting process: 50% of households and businesses within study area must approve; then goes to City Council for final approval Monitoring – after implementation, the area is monitored for 3-6 months Page 5 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 Evidence of Neighborhood Support (Project Application/Pre-Evaluation) Evidence of Support Requirement Minimum Level of Support Required for Study Eligibility? Level of Support Considered for Project Prioritization? College Station City does not require evidence of neighborhood support during the eligibility or project selection process. Not required No Bryan Collected after determination of project eligibility; City provides a preliminary mitigation plan to the requestor; Neighbors indicate their level of support regarding the proposed mitigation plan No minimum; requests without acceptable petitions will be considered incomplete and do not further the process Yes Boulder Collected after determination of project eligibility; After required number of signatures are collected, City staff initiates project data collection Yes; must have signatures from 20 neighbors or 30% of households on the same block No El Paso Collected prior to determination of project eligibility; Required signatures are submitted with the project application Yes; two-thirds (66%) of the households along the affected street (within the limits identified in the application) Yes Plan Approval Process Public Review of Final Plan Minimum Neighborhood Approval Requirement? City Approval Requirement? (Advisory Board or City Council) College Station A final open house meeting is held to present the plan to all interested persons and letters with ballots are mailed to every resident/property owner within the study area. At least 2/3 of the ballots received have to be in favor of implementing the plan. No Bryan No final review or public meeting is required after the neighborhood reviews the preliminary plan No No Boulder A final neighborhood meeting is held to present the final plan. A neighborhood questionnaire is made available to everyone in the project boundary. No The Transportation Advisory Board considers the community input and makes a recommendation to the City Council El Paso A final public meeting is held and the project committee facilitates a vote of the residents in the study area. A minimum of 50 percent of all ballots distributed in the study area must be returned with a simple majority in favor of the plan. City Council approves prioritization and funding for completed traffic calming studies. A project may be placed on a waiting list depending on available funding. Page 6 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 PRIORITIZATION CRITE RIA Each City has established a set of prioritization criteria which are considered during Evaluation and Project Selection to score and rank which submitted traffic calming areas should move forward to project development. The following table summarizes the scoring categories each City considers during project prioritization: Bryan Boulder El Paso Speed X X X Traffic Volume X X X Crashes X X X Bike/Transit Route X X X Absence of Sidewalks X X Pedestrian/Activity Generators X X X Dangerous Conditions X Level of Community Support X X % Residential Land Use X Environmental Justice Area X % Truck Traffic X Presence of school zones X Presence of diverted traffic from other funded projects X Boulder provides the most transparent scoring method of the three cities by including a Data Collection and Scoring Process explanation sheet in its Neighborhood Speed Management Program Guidelines. This sheet outlines how data is collected for each eligible study, each prioritization criteria category, and the points allocated based on the collected data. Bryan and El Paso provide a list of the criteria categories it considers during project evaluation but does not provide a scoring matrix. El Paso’s program selection process appears to be the most subjective with no clear scoring criteria and a reliance on staff recommendation. TRAFFIC CALMING TOOL BOX Many communities offer education, enforcement and encouragement as a part of, or in addition to, a program that offers engineering treatments. Cities will often provide a traffic calming guide or manual that outlines the available mitigation techniques, as well as their potential benefits and disadvantages. This guide can be used during community outreach to produce informed neighborhood feedback of proposed traffic calming solutions. The following table summarizes the traffic calming techniques provided as options in each City’s guide materials: Page 7 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 Bryan Boulder1 El Paso Speed humps X X X2 Speed tables/raised crossings X X X2 Speed cushions X X Roundabouts/traffic circles X X X Chicanes/Lateral shifts X X X Bulb outs X X X Center islands X X X Full street closures X X Half street closures X X Diagonal diverters X X Median barriers X X Education Programs X Speed enforcement (radar trailer, feedback signs) X X Lane striping (narrowing) X Signage/pavement markings X Two-lane choker X X Forced turn island X 1The City of Boulder may not list all the potential traffic calming methods in its program materials. The City states that it will consider all traffic calming methods as potential treatment options, and will select a method that best suits the specific conditions of the project site. 2Eligible but not preferred FUNDING The following summarizes the funding process for each City’s traffic calming program: Bryan An annual budget will be established for construction of approved projects. For those projects identified to receive public funding, the Department will be responsible for all costs associated with designing and implementing the funded devices. Where appropriate, all designs will include basic landscaping. A request that does not receive funding approval during a funding cycle will automatically be considered in the following cycles for a total maximum of three funding cycles (two years), after which the request expires. Eligible projects which did not receive public funding may be expedited by voluntary payment of all costs. Boulder Neighborhood Speed Management Program project design and construction will be funded entirely through the program’s budget. The City commits to build NSMP projects to a good Page 8 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 level of quality. If a neighborhood desires to enhance the design beyond this level, the neighborhood is responsible for the difference in construction costs. If removed at the request of a neighborhood, the neighborhood is responsible for providing 100% of the funds for treatment removal. El Paso Funding may come from many sources to implement a project. If funding is required, it will be provided by the neighborhood watch or association themselves, through an alternate source (donations, etc), or it can be provided for them at the discretion of the area’s City Representative (through discretionary funds) or by the City council. Depending on the number of NTMP requests received and the available funding for design and construction, a project may be placed on a waiting list and prioritized based on the severity of the neighborhood’s situation. In past years, El Paso City Council has budgeted $1 million (2007-2010) and $500,000 (2012-2013) for project development and implementation. MAINTENANCE The following summarizes the maintenance procedures for each City’s traffic calming program: Bryan The maintenance of the devices and all related features are ultimately the responsibility of the city. The community will maintain any landscaping, public art, or other associated features in accordance with the terms and conditions of an executed Maintenance Agreement. Boulder Existing traffic calming engineering treatments, or treatments constructed through the NSMP, will be re-constructed by the city during regular street maintenance. El Paso The cost for transportation engineering studies and maintenance of the traffic calming device is the responsibility of the City. TRAFFIC CALMING PROG RAM PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIALS Most communities include information to educate neighborhoods about the traffic calming program and the types of traffic calming devices. The following are the materials provided by each comparison City: Bryan Policies and Procedures Manual Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Program Workshop Presentation Boulder Neighborhood Speed Management Program Guidelines Page 9 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 Community Information Sheet Overview of the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Update process including public meeting materials and survey results Community Meetings – in addition to printed materials, the City of Boulder held multiple community meetings during its recent program update to present the updated program goals and procedures, as well as gather public opinion El Paso Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Manual Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Citizen Guidebook BEST PRACT ICES RECOMMENDATIONS Each city reviewed for this best practices memo has a different set of program procedures, but common practices and ideal components can be identified that may benefit the City of College Station in an update of their traffic calming program. The following recommendations summarize the program components that College Station should consider to create a program that is predictable, understandable and effective. Establish and publish a clear set of program eligibility criteria so neighborhoods understand the types of streets or areas that are eligible for study Establish the level of neighborhood support during the Pre-Evaluation phase by requiring application signatures or a “Evidence of Support” process There is a range in how involved neighbors can be in applying for speed reduction treatments and in designing projects. Some cities differentiate simple and complex traffic calming projects, and have a more robust public involvement plan for projects that have greater impacts. Public review procedures may include: A traffic calming advisory board that reviews project ranking and provides a recommendation to staff Neighborhood forums or meetings Neighborhood design committees It is recommended that public engagement and education occurs before preparing preliminary mitigation plans. The City of Bryan’s process includes the development of a preliminary plan prior to public engagement in order to gather and present evidence of support from the community. Most cities only gather evidence of support based on the need for study and do not begin public engagement or development of proposed solutions until after the pre-evaluation phase. Develop an internal project team coordination procedure to allow appropriate City departments to provide recommendations and concerns about proposed traffic calming study areas. It is important to include the Fire department in the planning and design phase of projects to get agreement for the use of traffic calming devices. Develop public education materials that explain the City’s traffic calming program and the 4 E’s of speed/cut-through mitigation: Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Evaluation Page 10 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 REVIEW OF THE EXISTING COLLEGE STA T ION ORDINANCE I-III: Introduction / Objectives / Policies No recommended changes. Update Introduction and Policies as necessary to reflect any future changes to the traffic calming program objectives. IV. Selection of Project Areas Create a project eligibility and project selection flow chart to explain the overall procedures for the traffic calming program, including: City staff-initiated vs. citizen/neighborhood-initiated traffic calming requests Community contact and involvement process Eligibility time frame when immediate funding is available vs. no available funding Process for re-evaluation Remove requirement to select on per fiscal year / Update the criteria to be a continual evaluation of ranking Develop a plan for projects that are selected without funding and projects that are deemed eligible but not ranked first in priority For example, projects that are eligible but go unfunded can be reranked for immediate implementation in 2 subsequent years OR if multiple projects are funded at once (like during bond funding), projects may remain eligible for up to 5 years Develop the 5-year re-evaluation period For example, ineligible or previously funded project areas are not re-evaluated for 5 years Consider updating Prioritization Criteria (Appendix A) with additional categories to reflect other program objectives crashes sidewalk condition/lack of sidewalks existing or planned bike routes activity generators - schools, parks, etc. Consider requiring some level of neighborhood support before advancing a citizen-initiated project to data collection (i.e. signatures from a minimum % of properties within the requested street or study area) V. Community Contact No recommended changes VI. Working Group Page 11 kimley-horn.com 13455 Noel Road, Two Galleria Office Tower, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75240 972-770-1300 This process seems intended for large project areas/complex issues. The City could streamline the working group and neighborhood involvement process depending on the project area and scope of the study. We recommend that the number of working group meetings is reduced from six meetings to three to streamline to process. Develop an outline of what should be accomplished at each working group meeting. The three meetings are recommended to consist of: Introduction to Traffic Calming – discuss existing neighborhood traffic issues, feedback from the initial neighborhood meeting, and potential traffic calming design concepts Development of Alternatives – City reports back findings from further study; working group reviews preliminary design options Approval of Preferred Concept – City presents final concept based on feedback from meeting #2; Working group reviews and approves final preferred design option to be presented at the final neighborhood open house VII-IX. Problem Identification / Data Collection / Evaluation of the Traffic Data No recommended changes X. Menu of Traffic Calming Measures Update the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolbox (Appendix B) to include other best practices Consider providing implementation options for higher cost traffic calming measures (future bond funds, Transportation Alternatives Program funds, neighborhood cost-sharing, etc.) XI-XII. Traffic Calming Plan Development / Plan Approval Process Some cities do not require a final neighborhood vote to approve the preferred design option. Requiring a minimum level of neighborhood support during project selection may be an appropriate alternative. XIII. Measure Location No formal resident veto option should be offered. The process could be modified so that final neighborhood feedback and objections to the preferred design option are collected via open house and survey instead of a final ballot vote. Alternatively, the final approval determination could be handled by an existing City committee or board. XIV-XVI. Landscaping / Impact to Adjacent Streets / Conclusion No recommended changes 1 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING I. Introduction College Station City Council vision statement #8 is directly related to the issue of traffic calming in neighborhoods. “As a result of our efforts, citizens will live in well-planned neighborhoods suited to community interests and lifestyles. “ Where a person lives is a very important part of how a person feels about their community. The noise, safety hazards, vehicular speeds, vehicular volumes, and existence of sidewalks all contribute to a neighborhood's integrity. As speeding and vehicular volume increases, walking to the neighborhood store or even across the street to a neighbor's house can be an uncomfortable event. The City of College Station recognizes the usefulness of physical measures to effectively solve neighborhood traffic problems. The traffic calming guidelines outlined in this report provide a basis for establishing the selection and installation criteria. II. Objectives 1. To promote safe and pleasant conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on local neighborhood and residential collector streets. 2. To reduce impacts of traffic and speed on local neighborhood and residential streets. 3. To preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle travel within neighborhoods 4. To achieve efficient and safe movement of traffic within neighborhoods (including emergency response vehicles) consistent with the intended function of the residential streets. 5. To maintain acceptable levels of service on the city’s arterial streets so as to avoid intrusion/diversion onto local neighborhood streets. III. Policies The following policies are established as part of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for neighborhood streets: 1. Through traffic should use major thoroughfares as shown on the City of College Station’s Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan. 2. Emergency vehicle access should be preserved. 3. Neighborhood Traffic calming projects should encourage and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations. 4. Traffic calming improvements should be limited to neighborhood streets. This includes residential (local) and minor collector streets. 5. Reasonable automobile access should be maintained. 6. Traffic calming measures that result in diversion of traffic to other residential streets should be discouraged. However, a small amount of traffic diverted to other residential streets may be acceptable. The acceptable amount of traffic diverted to other residential streets shall be determined on a case by case basis. 7. Traffic calming measures should be planned and designed in keeping with sound engineering and planning practices. IV. Selection of Project Areas If funding for the program is available, one traffic calming project is selected each fiscal year. The exception to this rule occurs when the size of a project area is so big that its selection means that the project spans over two fiscal years or when the selected project is so small that resources for an additional project exist during the fiscal year. Areas that have been studied in previous years will not be eligible for re-evaluation for five years. 2 Traffic calls and/or complaints along with requests for traffic calming measures to address speeding and cut- through traffic problems on residential streets will be maintained in a database and on a city map. City staff selects three residential streets that appear to exhibit the highest speeding, volumes and/or cut-through traffic, problem. Each year, traffic speed and volume data will be collected on the three neighborhood streets / areas having the highest amount of calls, complaints and requests. These three streets / areas then ranked using the speed and volume data to determine a 1st, 2nd and 3rd project priority order. The street / area ranked 1st will be selected as the annual project. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Prioritization Criteria can be seen in Appendix A. In order to ensure that a particular street or area is considered for neighborhood traffic calming, a citizen or neighborhood association must call or write to the City of College Station to request the problem street(s). Requested streets will be included in the City's traffic calming request list. All requests received by August 1st are considered for the following fiscal year, beginning October 1. This August deadline provides adequate time for the City to collect speed and volume data and rank each of the project areas in time to begin the study process shortly after the start of the new fiscal year. V. Community Contact After the project location has been selected, City staff sends a letter to each business, property owner, and resident in the project area. In addition, letters are also sent to the president of the neighborhood association(s) within the project area. The letter describes the process, goals, timeline, and requirements and includes an invitation to attend a general meeting introducing the program. Also included in the letter is a survey for residents, property owners and businesses to fill in describing various traffic related problems in the project area. This survey can be mailed to the City or brought to the general meeting. At this initial meeting, a working group of volunteers is established. These persons agree to develop the traffic calming plan with the assistance of City Staff. See Section VI for guidelines of the working group. The City of College Station staff notifies the College Station Independent School District, Brazos Transit, TAMU Bus operations, Fire Department, Police Department utility companies and Solid Waste Services. A request for their routes in these project areas is made. They are invited to attend the meeting where the working group identifies possible measures for problem street sections in order to express their concerns. VI. Working Group The working group is comprised of residents living within the project area and an officer of the neighborhood association(s). Non-resident property owners and representatives of area businesses are also encouraged to participate in the working group. Working group members should represent the project street as well as other nearby streets in the neighborhood that could significantly be impacted by the project. Not more than two members should reside on any one street. The maximum number of participants in the working group is 15 persons. It is expected that some of the members may not be able to attend every meeting. Minimum attendance in order to continue with the meeting is 50 percent of the working group, or 5 persons (whichever is greater). If the minimum attendance does not exist, the meeting is rescheduled. Every attempt is made to ensure that the meetings are scheduled for dates and times which work the best for as many members as possible. At the first meeting, a chairperson is elected to serve as the leader of the working group. This person's role is to ensure that the members stay focused on the task, to be the spokesperson of the group, and to provide assistance to City staff in identifying meeting locations or other tasks. Also occurring at this first meeting, ground rules are established for all of the meetings. The list of ground rules may include items such as methods for communicating with each other and the project area residents, meeting start and end times, and any other rule that the group wishes to establish. Although future meetings could include the addition of new rules, this list will make up the basis for the future meetings. As such, it should be posted at every working group meeting. Each of the responsibilities for members of the working group is intended to encourage input and involvement from the participants. By providing feedback on the development of the traffic calming plan, the working group members take more ownership of the finished product. It should be understood that the development of the traffic calming plan typically requires six meetings each lasting 3 no more than two hours in length. VII. Problem Identification After the initial general meeting and before the first working group meeting, City staff summarizes the results of the survey and, if necessary, prepares a list of the possible traffic problem locations in the project area. Following the business items at the first meeting of the working group, the members review these traffic problems and brainstorm any additional locations needing attention. If necessary, the group prioritizes the street sections and intersections in the project area having the worst traffic problems. City staff takes the list from this meeting and, if necessary, collect traffic data to confirm problems mentioned. VIII. Data Collection Data is collected in spring and fall months during regular school days. They consist of vehicular speed, traffic volume, pedestrian activity, and/or any other observation to confirm the traffic problems stated in the survey or at the first meeting. The length of the data collection depends on the type of data that is collected. IX. Evaluation of the Traffic Data City staff evaluates the traffic data to determine levels of traffic volume, vehicular speed, pedestrian activity, and other observations. If specific problems are mentioned as a priority in the survey or at the first meeting, staff assesses the problem. For example, if speeding is said to be a problem on Street A, then City staff collects the speed data to determine the speed on Street A. The results found in these data collection efforts are summarized and presented by the City staff at the second working group meeting. Members have the opportunity to take the information with them to review. X. Menu of Traffic Calming Measures There are many measures currently being used to address neighborhood traffic problems. Some are used to address vehicular speeding and others to address cut-through traffic problems. Some measures may have an impact on both the vehicular speed and volume. Still others are intended to improve the safety of or give priority to non-motorized modes of transportation. See Appendix B for diagrams, advantages, and disadvantages of some of the traffic calming measures. The City recognizes the desire to have measures that are aesthetically pleasing to the residents who live there. Traffic calming measures that include a raised curb allow for vegetation within the measure. In fact, the use of greenery to provide vertical sight restrictions is encouraged. City staff determines whether a proposed measure will provide any traffic enhancement and inform the working group of their findings. Although measures that involve the construction of a raised curb and landscaping are seen as more attractive than the vertical undulations like the speed humps, they are also more expensive and have greater impact to the adjacent properties such as the removal of on-street parking. Limited funds may restrict the number of measures including raised curb and gutter. Every attempt is made to ensure that only the necessary signs and markings are installed. Excessive clutter is not the intent, rather it is to adequately warn, guide and protect the users of the roadway. XI. Traffic Calming Plan Development After reviewing the traffic data and the menu of measures available, the working group is responsible for brainstorming possible solutions to address the given traffic problems. City staff is present to guide this session. In addition to the Transportation Analyst, representatives from the College Station Fire Department, and any other relevant agencies are encouraged to attend. If routes in the project area are critical for their services, then the working group is advised of these streets at this meeting. Regular users of the roadway are considered when developing the type and design of the measures. After some consensus is achieved on which measures the working group desires and the specific locations of the measures, City staff then analyzes the proposal. Each measure is evaluated for its likelihood of addressing the given problem. In addition, roadway alignment, driveway spacing, street width, and other factors are considered in order to determine whether the measure is possible. The evaluation may result in changing the proposed measure. The technical expertise of the Transportation Analyst will govern the selection and, location of the proposed measures. For example, steep grades may preclude the installation of a measure. Staff identifies these barriers and informs the working group. After the evaluation is complete, the City develops a map showing the proposed measures and presents it to the working group. This plan 4 is discussed, modified, if necessary, and voted on by the working group. If modifications are requested, an additional meeting may be required to allow time for the staff evaluation of the proposed measures and/or location of measures. XII. Plan Approval Process After the working group approves the traffic calming plan, the next step involves a vote of all residents, businesses and property owners in the project area. An open house meeting is held to present the plan to all interested persons. The invitation to attend this open house meeting is included in a letter mailed by the City. This letter also contains details of the traffic calming plan, maps showing where the measures are proposed, verbal descriptions of each measure, and a stamped, self-addressed ballot. These letters are mailed to every resident, property owner, and business in the project area. Each household or business is allowed one vote. At least 2/3s of the ballots received have to be in favor of implementing the plan. There is no minimum number of ballots that have to be returned. The letter is mailed at least 10 days prior to the open house meeting and the deadline for receiving the ballots is about one week following the open house meeting. This allows voters the opportunity to read through the material, return the ballot or attend the open house meeting and still have time to fill out the ballot before the deadline. The traffic calming plan is voted on as a whole. Because the plan is a system of integrated calming measures, individual streets or measures can not be taken out of the proposal as part of the vote. If one measure or one street were removed from the plan, the comprehensive nature of the plan would be lost, and residents on that street may experience higher traffic speeds and/or increased traffic volumes. The vote is either yes or no. Comments are welcomed, but do not change the complete package. This is the only opportunity to vote on the traffic calming plan so every effort must be made in the planning stages to ensure that it is correct and complete. If the 2/3s approval is obtained, then City staff completes the design of the measures for the construction. If the 2/3s approval is not obtained, then the City does not implement the plan and the project area is not be eligible for evaluation during the next five years. XIII. Measure Location There are advantages and disadvantages of each traffic calming measure. The advantages could include reduced traffic speed or volume, increased safety, and beautification of the streets. The disadvantages include possible inconvenience to residents driving in the neighborhood, parking restrictions, unattractive measures, and increased noise for residents adjacent to the measure. Because many residents may object to having a measure immediately adjacent to their property, it is necessary to establish the requirements for the consideration of shifting a proposed measure. In some communities, no consideration is given to the resident when objections about the placement of the measure arise. Others give some leeway to residents if nearby locations are acceptable and adjacent residents approve. This decision is controversial and can lead to the downfall of the entire project. If an agency gives residents veto power, then the plan can dissolve as everyone wants something to address the problems, but no one is willing to allow the placement adjacent to their property. A piecemeal plan soon develops and the comprehensive nature is then mute. Therefore, the responsibility to make this decision on whether or not to give residents the ability to veto a measure location adjacent to their property will rest with the working, group. This decision should be made prior to the development of the plan. If deemed necessary, the City will modify the traffic calming plan to address problems discovered during the temporary or permanent installation period. In addition, if safety problems surface following the permanent installation, the City will take the appropriate action to address the problem. XIV. Landscaping Vegetation is chosen which requires minimal attention, such as xeriscape. Measures that include raised curb could contain 1-3 trees, low lying shrubs, and ground cover, depending on the size of the measure. The neighborhood association will have the responsibility of maintaining the landscaping. Adjacent residents could in their routine lawn maintenance, water or trim the vegetation when the need arises. XIII. Impact to Adjacent Streets In order to ensure that the traffic calming plan does not merely shift traffic to other neighborhood streets within the 5 project area, traffic volume data is collected on possible diversion routes before and after implementing the approved plan. If residential streets experience an increase greater than 300 vehicles per day, the City will attempt to address the volume increase. Example actions to mitigate the volume increase include the modification of the measure(s) that created the shift or the installation of additional measures on the impacted street. XIV. Conclusion This Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program offers effective solutions to address residential traffic problems. The comprehensive nature of the program allows for mitigation of potential impacts to all streets within the entire project area. It is a program in which all residents, businesses and property owners are allowed and encouraged to participate in the process. With the technical assistance from the City of College Station, traffic calming plans can be developed and approved by those most affected. As the population in the City of College Station continues to grow, city streets are experiencing increased traffic pressure. Residents, parents, school administrators, and neighborhood associations have avenues to consider when trying to address traffic problems. Evaluating streets in an entire project area can be a worthwhile activity to foster a sense of community and develop solutions that not only address traffic problems, but also offer attractive areas of landscaping and textured pavement. These modifications can, in turn, result in increased safety, property values, and improve the overall quality of life. 6 APPENDIX A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PRIORITY POINT RANKING STREET: FROM TO STAFF NAME DATE 1. Traffic volume (50 points max) Greater of ADT/60 or PHV/60 2. Speed (50 points max) % of vehicles over posted speed limit/2 TOTAL POINTS CATEGORY POINTS 7 APPENDIX B NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX SPEED HUMP DESCRIPTION: Speed humps are raised sections of pavement across the travel way with curved transitions. These measures are 22 feet in length and approximately 3 to 4 inches high. The design consists of 6 feet transitions to a 10 feet flat surface. The purpose of a speed hump is to reduce speeds by vertically deflecting- the wheels and frame of a vehicle. The occupants experience an uncomfortable sensation if the vehicle travels at speeds greater than the design speed of the speed hump. ADVANTAGES: Reduces vehicle speed. More effective if used in a series at 300' to 500' spacing or in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. Can reduce vehicular volumes. No restrictions to on-street parking. Requires minimum maintenance. DISADVANTAGES: May divert traffic to parallel streets that do not have traffic calming measures. Increases emergency response times. Required signage may be considered unsightly. COST: Low 8 SPEED CUSHIONS DESCRIP'TION: Speed cushions consist of raised pavement of pavement raised 3-4 inches in height. The length of the cushion is a minimum of 9 feet. The spaces between the cushions allow wider emergency vehicles to partially straddle the measure. ADVANTAGES: Reduces vehicle speed. More effective if used in a series at 300' to 500' spacing or in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. Can reduce vehicular volumes. No restrictions to on-street parking. Requires minimum maintenance. Less impact to emergency response times than speed humps. DISADVANTAGES: May divert traffic to parallel streets that do not have traffic calming measures. Increases emergency response times. COST: Moderate/ Expensive 9 RAISED CENTER MEDIAN DESCRIPTION: Raised center medians are raised islands constructed in a street. They are typically landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees or paved with decorative pavers. Raised center medians create narrowed lanes and encourage motorist to slow through the narrow section. Raised center medians may be used in conjunction with speed cushons. ADVANTAGES: Reduces lane width and vehicular speed. Provides aesthetic visual break up on long straight residential streets. Used as a neighborhood entry, provides visual que to motorists that they are entering a neighborhood. Can be combined with speed cushions. DISADVANTAGES: Curbside parking must be prohibited. Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic. COST: High 1 0 TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESCRIPTION: Traffic circles are raised islands constructed at intersections. They are typically landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees. Traffic circles require drivers to slow to a speed that allows them to comfortably maneuver around them. Motorists travel in a counter-clockwise direction around the circle. Traffic circles are "yield upon entry" meaning that vehicles in the circle have the right of way and vehicles entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. ADVANTAGES: Reduces speed at intersection approach. Reduces vehicle conflicts at intersection. Provides equal access to intersection for all drivers. Does not restrict access to residents. When landscaped, traffic circles improve the appearance of a street. DISADVANTAGES: A minimum of 30 feet of curbside parking must be prohibited at each comer of the intersection. May not reduce cut-through traffic. Will increase emergency response time. Can restrict access for trucks and longer school buses, and may require that these vehicles turn left in a clockwise direction (in front of the circle, rather than around the circle). Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: If well maintained, traffic circles can be very attractive. However, traffic control signs and pavement markings associated with circles decrease aesthetics. Most effective in reducing speeds when used in series (two or more consecutive intersections) or in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. May require educational campaign and learning period. COST: High 1 1 CHICANE DESCRIPTION: A chicane is a series of two or more staggered curb extensions on alternating sides of the roadway. They are usually landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees. Horizontal deflection encourages motorists to slow through chicane. Small raised island may be added to the design. These islands between or aligned with the curb extensions emphasizes the curvilinear alignment and prevent motorist from crossing the center line ADVANTAGES: Reduces speed. Does not restrict access to residents. Minimal impact to emergency vehicles. Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians. Can be aesthetically pleasing, if landscaped. DISADVANTAGES: Curbside parking must be prohibited. Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped. May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic. COST: High 1 2 ALL-WAY STOP SIGNS DESCRIPTION: Stop signs on the "main street" at an intersection where typically only the "side street" would be required to stop ADVANTAGES: Requires through traffic to stop at an intersection. Increases opportunities for pedestrians to cross the roadway. May discourage cut-through traffic. DISADVANTAGES: May create compliance problems if motorist do not acknowledge the need to stop. Mid-block speeds may increase as motorists try to make up for the lost time. Safety issues for pedestrians when compliance is poor. May increase emergency response time. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: All-way stop warrant study must be conducted to justify the all-way stop. Special consideration may be given to the intersection of two residential collectors. COST: Low / High (Inexpensive to install, expensive to enforce) 1 3 CHOKERS, CURB EXTENSIONS, OR BULB-OUTS DESCRIPTION: Street physically narrowed to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking, etc. These measures narrow the pavement by widening the sidewalk area at strategic locations. They provide shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also senses the roadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction and a sense that the driver is entering a residential area. ADVANTAGES: Minor inconvenience to drivers Minimal inconveniences to local traffic Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing distance Provides space for landscaping Slows traffic without seriously affecting emergency response time Effective when used in a series Single lane narrowing reduces vehicle speed and through traffic DISADVANTAGES: Double lane narrowing not very effective at reduced speeds or diverting through traffic Only partially effective as a visual obstruction Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to accommodate them Conflict between opposing drivers arriving simultaneously could create problems COST: Medium to High Planning and Zoning Commission Regular College Station, TX Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. City Hall Council Chambers7:00 PMThursday, February 15, 2018 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) All matters listed under Item 4, Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary plans and final plats, where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration. 4. Consent Agenda Consideration, possible action, and discussion on Absence Requests from meetings. *Jeremy Osborne ~ January 4, 2018 *Johnny Burns ~ February 1, 2018 18-01124.1 Jeremy Osborne Johnny Burns Attachments: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *February 1, 2018 ~ Workshop *February 1, 2018 ~ Regular 18-01284.2 February 1 2018 Workshop February 1 2018 Regular Attachments: Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 February 15, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final Regular Agenda 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat of Indian Lakes Phase XXXVII being a Replat of Indian Lakes, Phase 1, Lot 5R-B and the 2.51 acre HOACA & Conservation Buffer, Indian Lakes Subdivision Phase III on approximately 10.2 acres, generally located at the intersection of Pawnee Crossing and Tohoma Trail in the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Case #FP2017-000030 18-01246. Sponsors:Helton Staff Report Vicinity, Aerial & SAM Final Plat Attachments: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 4, “Zoning Districts,” Section 4.2 “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from R Rural to GC General Commercial on approximately 4.5 acres of land, located at 11990 Old Wellborn Road. Case #REZ2017-000034 (Final action on this item is scheduled for the March 5, 2018 City Council meeting- subject to change) 18-01307. Sponsors:Lazo Staff Report Background Information Vicinity Aerial SAM Application Attachments: 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. Case #ORDA2017-000021 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 22, 2018 City Council meeting - subject to change) 18-01278. Sponsors:Helton Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 February 15, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final Memo Feb 2 Sec.7.2.J.Bicycle Facilities Redline Sec.7.3.J.Alternative Parking Plans Redline Attachments: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 2.2 “Planning and Zoning Commission”, Section 2.8 “Administrator”, Section 5.8 “Design Districts”, Section 5.10 “Overlay Districts”, and Section 7.10 “Non-Residential Architectural Standards” as it relates to screening, architectural features, and color palette. Case #ORDA2017-000019 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 22, 2018 City Council meeting - subject to change) 18-01299. Sponsors:Hovde Staff Memo Article 2 Revisions-Redlined Article 5 Revisions- Redlined Article 7 Revisions-Redlined Attachments: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a recommendation to the City Council on the annexation of approximately 65 acres located on the west side of the City, generally located in the vicinity of Rock Prairie Road West, Holleman Drive South, and North Graham Road. 18-012510. Sponsors:Simms P&Z Memo ProposedAnnexationAreas Annexation Overview Attachments: 11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning 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. 12. Adjourn The Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on February 9, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. _____________________ Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 February 15, 2018Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 4 College Station, TX Printed on 2/9/2018 Jeremy Osborne January 4, 2018 January 16, 2018 Unable to attend. Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Johnny Burns Request Submitted on February 1, 2018 I will not be in attendance at the meeting on February 1, 2018 for the reason specified: (Date) Out of town for meeting. Signature Johnny Burns February 1, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting February 1, 2018 6:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Casey Oldham, Elianor Vessali, Bill Mather, Jeremy Osborne and Dennis Christiansen COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Johnny Burns CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Rektorik CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Justin Golbabai, Alaina Helton, Lauren Hovde, Rachel Lazo, Jade Broadnax, Laura Gray, Jason Schubert, Kevin Ferrer, Venessa Garza, Adam Falco, Judith Rauscher and Kristen Hejny 1. Call the meeting to order. Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was general discussion on Consent Item #4.2 and Regular Agenda Items #6, #7 and #8. 3. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev There was general discussion amongst the Commission. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the consideration of the 2017 P&Z Plan of Work. Planning Administrator Golbabai presented updates on the 2017 Plan of Work to the Commission including the Traffic Calming Toolkit, Wolf Pen Creek Updates, Comprehensive Plan Amendments Updates, and Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Master Plan Update. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: *Thursday, February 8, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison-Osborne) *Thursday, February 15, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chamber ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. *Thursday, February 22, 2018 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~Workshop 5:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison-Mather) February 1, 2018 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 *Thursday, March 1, 2018 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items: *A Rezoning for approximately eight acres located at 3596 Greens Prairie Road West from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on January 18, 2018, and voted (6-1) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on January 25, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request. *A Rezoning for approximately six acres located at 212 Holleman Drive East from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District for Townhomes. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on January 4, 2018, and voted (5-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on January 25, 2018, and voted (7-0) to approve the request. *A Comprehensive Plan Amendment amending the Future Land Use & Character Map for approximately 35 acres located at the intersection of William D. Fitch Parkway and Rock Prairie Road from Suburban Commercial, Estate and Natural Areas Reserved to General Commercial and Natural Areas Reserved. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on January 4, 2018, and voted (5- 0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on January 25, 2018 and voted (5-2) to deny the request. 7. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio Corridor Board. Chairperson Kee was available to give updates on the recent Design Review Board Meeting. 8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning 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 was no discussion. 9. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services February 1, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 1, 2018 7:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Casey Oldham, Elianor Vessali, Bill Mather, Jeremy Osborne and Dennis Christiansen COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Johnny Burns CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Rektorik CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Justin Golbabai, Alaina Helton, Lauren Hovde, Rachel Lazo, Jade Broadnax, Laura Gray, Jason Schubert, Kevin Ferrer, Adam Falco, Judith Rauscher and Kristen Hejny 1. Call Meeting to Order Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Hear Citizens 4. Consent Agenda 4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes. *January 18, 2018 Workshop *January 18, 2018 Regular 4.2 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Brazos Valley Auto Complex Subdivision consisting of four commercial lots, one common area, and 0.618 acres of right-of-way dedication on approximately 1.9 acres located at 3409 State Highway 6 South, generally located at the intersection of State Highway 6 South Frontage Road and Sebesta Road. Case #FPCO2017-000011 Commissioner Mather motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Osborne seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). Regular Agenda 5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission Action. No items were removed. February 1, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use & Character Map from Suburban Commercial to General Commercial for approximately 1.9 acres located at 2201 Raintree Drive. Case #CPA2017-000016 (Note: Final action of this item will be considered at the February 22, 2018 City Council meeting – subject to change) Staff Planner Lazo presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Commission and recommended denial. Chairperson Kee asked about the recent rezonings on the adjacent property. Commissioner Vessali asked if the City Council approved the changes to Suburban Commercial. Director of Planning & Development Services Simms stated that all recommendations by the Commission were endorsed by the Council. Commissioner Oldham asked about the change in the long-range plan as it applies to utility capacity. Engineer I Ferrer stated that the Water Department utilizes the same assumptions for General Commercial and Suburban Commercial uses for the purpose of the Master Plan. Applicant, Mike Gentry, 1515 Emerald Plaza, College Station, was available to speak on behalf of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Oldham asked if the applicant has an immediate use for the property. Mr. Gentry stated that there is not a current planned use. Commissioner Oldham asked if there were any concerns regarding buffering. Mr. Gentry stated that the applicant is open to any buffer requirements placed on the property. Commissioner Osborne asked if a Planned Development District with a General Commercial underlying rezoning is an option. Mr. Gentry stated that his recommendation to the client was to avoid a Planned Development District. Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. Mark Buxkemper, Raintree, College Station, spoke in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment stating that a Suburban Commercial designation is a better fit for the area. Katy Lane, Raintree, College Station, spoke in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment citing concerns for potential uses, respect for the adjacent single-family homes, value of homes, and quality of residents. Laurie Sorell, Raintree, College Station, spoke in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment citing concerns for neighborhood integrity, use of the property, water runoff, and neighborhood preservation. February 1, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Oldham motioned to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Vessali seconded the motion. There was general discussion. The motion passed (5-1) with Commissioner Christiansen voting in opposition. 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 4, “Zoning Districts,” Section 4.2 “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from GS General Suburban to GC General Commercial on approximately 1.9 acres of land located at 2201 Raintree Drive. Case #REZ2017-000032 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 22, 2018 City Council meeting-subject to change) Staff Planner Lazo presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended denial. Applicant, Mike Gentry, 1515 Emerald Plaza, College Station, was available to speak on behalf of the Rezoning. Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. Mark Buxkemper, Raintree, College Station, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for height restriction and traffic concerns. Laurie Sorell, Raintree, College Station, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for traffic, and flooding, and quality of life. Katy Lane, Raintree, College Station, spoke in opposition of the rezoning citing concerns for noise, height restriction, quality of life, traffic and proximity to the neighborhood. Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Oldham asked for the height limit for Suburban Commercial designation. Mr. Oldham also asked for examples of Suburban Commercial uses. Staff Planner Lazo stated that the height limit for a Suburban Commercial designation would be two stories. Ms. Lazo also provided a list of uses allowed in the Suburban Commercial designation. Chairperson Kee asked if a condition can be made that Raintree Drive is not an access point into the development. Transportation Planning Coordinator Schubert stated that The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) controls the granting or non-granting of access to the feeder road. Mr. Schubert stated that this tract does not have the frongate or distance to have its own access from the feeder road, but a shared access between this parcel and the northern parcel is a possibility. Mr. Gentry stated that the applicant is comfortable with a one-story development height restriction. Mr. Gentry also stated that the applicant would prefer access from Raintree Drive. February 1, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Oldham motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning with conditions that the development is limited to one-story and the rear buffer requirements be increased to 20- feet with a wall. Commissioner Mather seconded the motion. There was general discussion. The motion passed (6-0). 8. Public hearing, possible action, presentation, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use and Character Map from Restricted Suburban to General Commercial for approximately 29 acres generally located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and William D. Fitch Parkway. Case #CPA2017-000021(Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 22, 2018 City Council meeting-subject to change) Senior Planner Hovde presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Commission and recommended denial. Commissioner Oldham asked for the buffering requirements regarding the current active oil well on the property. City Engineer Cotter explained that Housing & Urban Development (HUD) guidelines would come into play concerning the oil well. Chairperson Kee asked for clarification on the designation of Rock Prairie Road. Senior Planner Hovde stated Rock Prairie Road has changed from a minor to a major arterial. Transportation Planning Coordinator Schubert stated that the difference in designation still contains the same number of lanes. Mr. Schubert also stated that a traffic count in this area is 750-800 during the peak hour. Applicant, Crissy Hartl, Mitchell & Morgan Engineers, was available to present on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Oldham asked if there is a use in mind for the development. Ms. Hartl stated that there are no immediate plans for the property. Commissioner Oldham asked about the availability of water infrastructure. Engineer I Ferrer stated that the Water Department had no concerns for demand at this time. Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. Byron Stebbins, Williams Creek, College Station, spoke in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment citing concerns for the rural nature of the area. February 1, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 James Bruggeman, Williams Creek, College Station, spoke in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment stating that the Comprehensive Plan review should first be completed before changing the designation of this property. Applicant, Davis Young was available to speak in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Oldham asked if a Suburban Commercial designation was considered. Mr. Young stated that a Suburban Commercial Designation had been considered, however, the restrictions led to applying for a different designation. Joe Johnson, PR 3221, Fost, Texas, spoke in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan amendment citing concerns for traffic and neighborhood integrity. Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne motioned to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a Conditional Use Permit request for a bar in approximately 1,980 square feet of an existing commercial space at 650 William D. Fitch Parkway, Suite 500, generally located on the southwest corner of Arrington Road and William D. Fitch Parkway. Case #CUP2017-000001(Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 8, 2018 City Council meeting-subject to change) Senior Planner Helton presented the Conditional Use Permit to the Commission and recommended approval. Applicant, Phillip Bargas, Johnson|Pace Incorporated, was available to address the Commission. Mr. Bargas also requested a condition be placed on the Conditional Use Permit to include patio space to the development. Director of Planning & Development Services Simms stated that the Commission can add that condition, however, a new site plan would need to be provided by the applicant before City Council hears the item. Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne motioned to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that an outdoor patio be included. Commissioner Oldham seconded the motion. Director of Planning and Development Services Simms requested that the motion include the requirement to submit a revised Site Plan before the City Council meeting. February 1, 2018 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Osborne amended his motion to include that recommended patio approval is contingent on the applicant providing a new Site Plan to Staff prior to the February 8, 2018 City Council meeting. Commissioner Oldham seconded the amended motion. The amended motion passed (6-0). 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 2.5 “Design Review Board,” Section 2.12 “Summary of Review Authority”, Section 3.7 “Wolf Pen Creek Design District Site Plan Review,” Section 3.8 “Wolf Pen Creek Design District Building and Sign Review,” and Section 5.8.A “Design Districts – Wolf Pen Creek (WPC),” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, regarding the criteria for Administrative approval of Site Plans, Buildings and Signs in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District. Case #ORDA2017-000023 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the February 8, 2018 City Council meeting-subject to change) Senior Planner Helton presented the Ordinance Amendment to the Commission and recommended approval. Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing. No one spoke Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing. Commissioner Oldham motioned to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Osborne seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0). 11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning 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 was no discussion. 12. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services Planning & Zoning Commission February 15. 2018 Scale 4 lots on approximately 10.42 acres. Location Intersection of Pawnee Crossing and Tohoma Trail, in the College Station Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Applicant Travis Martinek, Smiling Mallard Development, LTD. Project Manager Alaina Helton, Senior Planner ahelton@cstx.gov Project Overview This final plat will add 4 estate lots ranging in size from 1.2 acres to 2.3 acres to the Indian Lakes Subdivision. The final plat also includes 0.91 acre of right-of-way dedication. Preliminary Plan Part of the original Master Development Plan approved in 2002 Parkland Dedication Not required as this area is vested to the Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Plan. Impact Fees N/A Traffic Impact Analysis Not required Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance Yes Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes Staff Recommendation Approval Supporting Materials 1. Vicinity, Small Area Map and Aerial 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat Final Plat for Indian Lakes Phase XXXVII Being a Replat of Indian Lakes Phase I, Block 1, Lot 5R-B and 2.510 Acre HOACA & Conservation Buffer Indian Lakes Subdivision Phase III FP2017-000030 INDIAN LAKESSUBDIVISION“”‐‐‐‐“”’’’’1 INDIAN LAKESSUBDIVISION2 February 15, 2018 Regular Agenda Rezoning – Storage Depot To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Rachel Lazo, Staff Planner Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 4, “Zoning Districts,” Section 4.2 “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from R Rural to GC General Commercial on approximately 4.5 acres of land, located at 11990 Old Wellborn Road. Case #REZ2017-000034 (Final action on this item is scheduled for the March 5, 2018 City Council Meeting- subject to change) Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Summary: The applicant has requested a rezoning for approximately 4.5 acres of land from R Rural to GC General Commercial. The property is currently designated as Urban and in Growth Area V on the Comprehensive Land Use and Character Map. This designation calls for intense land use activities that include commercial uses. The property is currently zoned R Rural, a zoning district for low density acreage home sites. The proposed zoning of General Commercial would better suit the current designation on the Comprehensive Plan for more intense uses. REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject area is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map as Urban and in Growth Area V. The Urban land use designation is generally for areas that should have a very intense level of development activities. These areas will tend to consist of townhomes, duplexes, and high-density apartments. General commercial and office uses, business parks, and vertical mixed-use may also be permitted within growth and redevelopment areas. For the Urban area located within Growth Area V the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that intense land use activities including general commercial, office uses, townhomes, high- density apartments, and vertical mixed-use are appropriate. Currently, there are a significant number of apartments and multi-family homes, but limited commercial uses. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: The properties to the north and west of the subject property are zoned R Rural and currently developed as single-family residential and commercial uses. They were designated R Rural upon annexation, but the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use and Character Map show this area as Urban and Growth Area V, which allows for very dense development. The property to the east is currently developed with commercial structures. This proposed zoning change would be compatible with the adjacent properties. 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The proposed zoning request to expand the commercial zoning on this property would allow the existing commercial development to redevelop. The request would then provide the opportunity to enhance the site while trying to bring the existing site up to current development standards. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The property is currently zoned R Rural. The current commercial use is on the portion of the property that is designated as commercial. However, due to the property being zoned R Rural, the commercial portion is not able to redevelop or make modifications on the property. Rural uses would not be ideal here due to the size, location, and close proximity of high-classification roads and commercial uses. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The property is marketed as a commercial property and has been for years. The applicant would like to continue the property’s use as a commercial site, but allow for redevelopment of the site into a conforming commercial property. This site does not have a high potential to be marketed as a rural/single-family residential development as it is located along a major arterial and adjacent to an existing commercial development. Due to these characteristics, it has limited potential with an R Rural zoning designation. Overall, the proposed GC General Commercial rezoning is anticipated to increase the marketability of the property. 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: Water service will be served by Wellborn SUD. Sanitary Sewer service is available via an existing 12-inch sewer line that is along the rear of the tract and parallel to Cain Road. The subject tract is not in the floodplain per Firm Panel 48041C0305F, dated 4/2/2014. It is also in the Bee Creek’s Drainage Basin, and will need to provide detention for any proposed increased impervious with future site development. Drainage and other public infrastructure required with site development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the B/CS Unified Design Guidelines. All other infrastructure appear to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Background Information 2. Vicinity Map, Small Area Map, and Aerial 3. Application NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: February 15, 2018 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: March 5, 2018 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: The Barracks Townhomes Property owner notices mailed: Fourteen (14) Contacts in support: None Contacts in opposition: None Inquiry contacts: None at the time of staff report ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North (across Cain Rd) Urban R Rural Commercial South Urban R Rural Single-Family Residential East General Suburban GC General Commercial Townhomes West Urban R Rural Single-Family Residential DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: November 2002 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open upon annexation (1983) Renamed R Rural (2013) Final Plat: Unplatted Site development: Commercial Retail and Self-Storage THIS APPLICATION NOT REQUIRED IF APPLYING ELECTRONICALLY FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED:_______________ TIME: STAFF: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)APPLICATION Date of Optional Preapplication Conference 7/26/2017 GENERAL NAME OF PROJECT Storage Depot Rezoning ADDRESS 11990 Old Weliborn Rd,College Station,T)(77845 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block,Subdivision) A00071,Crawford Burnett (ICL),Tract 76,Acres 4.535 GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPERTY,IF NOT PLATTED: Corner of Cain Road and Old Weilborn Road. TOTAL ACREAGE 4.52 Acres APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER’S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Erik Osterhus E-mail ejosterhus@yahoo.com Street Address 565 S.Mason Road,#529 City Katy Phone Number 2816857034 PROPERTY OWNER’S INFORMATION: Name College Station Self Storage LLC State ~ E-mail ejosterhus(~yahoo.corn Zip Code 77450 Street Address 565 5.Mason Road,#529 City Katy Phone Number 2816857034 State TX Fax Number Zip Code 77450 Cm’OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas J1&M University’ MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~$1,240 Rezoning Application Fee. ~Application completed in full.This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. ~Traffic Impact Analysis or calculations of projected vehicle trips showing that a TIA is not necessary for the proposed request. ~Copy of a fully dimensioned map a.Land affected b.Legal description of area of proposed change; c.Present zoning d.Zoning classification of all abutting land e.All public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land. ~Written legal description of subject property (metes &bounds or lot &block of subdivision,whichever is applicable). NOTE:If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Council,another application for rezoning shall not be filed within a period of 180 days from the date of denial,except with permission of the Planning &Zoning Commission. Fax Number Revised 1/17 Page 1 of 3 OTHER CONTACTS (Please specify type of contact,i.e.project manager,potential buyer,local contact,etc.): Name Schultz Engineering, LLC E-mail eng©schulteng.com Street Address 911 Southwest Parkway E City College Station State ~Zip Code 77845 Phone Number 979-764-3900 Fax Number ___________________________________ This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated 20171016 and recorded in Volume 14319,Page 107 of the Brazos County Official Records. Existing Zoning Rural -R Proposed Zoning General Commercial -GC Present Use of Property Self-Storage Facility Proposed Use of Property Self-Storage Facility REZONING SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1.List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. The site was recently sold and the new owner wants to make modifications and additions to the existing storage facility. 2.Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.If it is not,explain why the Plan is incorrect. The zoning change is in accordance with comprehensive plan. 3.How will this zone change be compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood? The facility is currently being used as a commercial use and is currently compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Revised 1/17 Page 2 of 3 4.Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the rezoning district requested. 5.Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. 6.Explain the marketability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. 7.List ahy other reasons to support this zone change. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct,and complete.IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY,this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner.If there is more than one owner,all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney.If the owner is a company,the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company’s representative to sign the application on its behalf. Date /2/~v .~ The facility is currently being used as a commercial use and is suitable for the General Commercial district. The property is currently zoned rural and needs to be rezoned to fit with the current use. The facility is currently being used as a commercial use and is not marketable as a rural us since a rural use would require removal of the existing facility. The facility is currently being used as a commercial use and is currently compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Sigr ire and title Revised 1/17 Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM February 15, 2018 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Alaina Helton, Senior Planner SUBJECT: UDO Amendment – Bicycle Parking Standards 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 Parking Plans”, related to Bicycle Parking Requirements. Recommendation: The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board heard this item at their February 5th meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval. Background: This item originated with the 2017 Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission Plan- of-Work and includes updates to the City’s bicycle parking standards. • September 5, 2017, Staff presented this item to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways (BPG) Advisory Board and received recommendations on Staff’s proposed changes. • September 7, 2017, Staff presented the Board’s recommendations to the P&Z Commission and was directed to provide additional research and public input. • October 19, 2017, Staff presented additional proposals to the Commission, and received direction on final recommendations. • November 20, 2017, Staff presented the 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 outlined below: Summary of Changes • 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 for from four to two bicycles, and change calculations for required bicycle parking based on required automobile parking spaces. • Modify the location and design standards for bicycle parking to allow flexibility in placement. • Provide for reductions in automobile parking requirements for developments that provide bicycle parking above the minimum requirements. City Council is scheduled to take final action on this item at their February 22nd meeting. Attachments: 1. UDO Section 7.2.J - Redlined 2. UDO Section 7.3.J - Redlined 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 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) bicycles. 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: Bicycle 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 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. a.d. In 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. b.e. 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: cb. Where bicycle facilities are provided for twofour (24) 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 (9) feet by six (6) feet or as approved by the Administrator. Fig. 2: Examples of Bicycle Parking Footprint and Dimensions dc. 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. ed. 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 12-7.3.I, 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, and 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. MEMORANDUM February 15, 2018 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Lauren Hovde, Senior Planner SUBJECT: UDO Amendment – Color Palette and Screening Requirements Item Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 2.2 “Planning and Zoning Commission”, Section 2.8 “Administrator”, Section 5.8 “Design Districts”, Section 5.10 “Overlay Districts”, and Section 7.10 “Non-Residential Architectural Standards” as it relates to screening, architectural features, and color palette. Background This item originated with the 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan-of-Work and is intended to help streamline the development process and ease non-residential architectural requirements. Summary of Changes Amendments to Section 2.2 “Planning and Zoning Commission” and Section 2.8 “Administrator” include the removal of authority in reference to the color palette Amendments to Section 5.8 “Design Districts” and Section 5.10 “Overlay Districts” include the removal of references to the color palette Amendments to Section 7.10 “Non-Residential Architectural Standards” include: o Removal of references to the color palette, o Removal of mechanical screening requirement for all zoning districts other than Suburban Commercial and Wellborn Commercial; and, o Add architectural relief options. The Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled to make a recommendation on this item at their February 15th meeting, and City Council is scheduled to take final action on this item at their February 22nd meeting. Attachments: 1. Section 2.2 “Planning and Zoning Commission” – Redlined Ordinance 2. Section 2.8 “Administrator” – Redlined Ordinance 3. Section 5.8 “Design Districts” – Redlined Ordinance 4. Section 5.10 “Overlay Districts” – Redlined Ordinance 5. Section 7.10 “Non-Residential Architectural Standards” – Redlined Ordinance Sec. 2.2. - Planning and Zoning Commission. A. Creation. The City Council shall provide for the appointment of a Planning and Zoning Commission and the regulations and restrictions adopted shall be pursuant to the provisions of applicable statutory requirements of the State of Texas. B. Membership and Terms. 1. Number, Appointment. A Planning and Zoning Commission is hereby created to consist of seven (7) members. Members shall be residents of the City and eligible voters. Additionally, one (1) or more ad hoc members may be appointed as needed or desired to review impact fee land use assumptions and capital improvements plans and to perform such other duties in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. 2. Terms. Terms of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be for two (2) years or until their successors are appointed. Four (4) members shall be appointed in even- numbered years and three (3) members shall be appointed in odd-numbered years. 3. Term Limits. Terms of office shall be limited to three (3) consecutive two-year terms or seven (7) consecutive years. 4. Vacancies. Vacancies shall be filled by the City Council for the unexpired term of any member whose position becomes vacant. C. Officers, Meetings, Quorum. 1. Officers. A Chairperson shall be appointed annually by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall select a Vice-Chair from among its members as needed. 2. Meetings. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall meet regularly and the Chairperson shall designate the time and place of such meetings. All meetings of the Commission where a quorum is present shall be open to the public. 3. Quorum. Four (4) members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business. Any recommendation advanced to the City Council without a majority of positive votes from those members present shall be deemed a negative report. 4. Rules of Proceeding. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall adopt its own rules of procedure. 5. Minutes. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating that fact and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the Administrator and shall be a public record. D. Powers and Duties. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the following powers and duties: 1. Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make recommendations for the effective coordination of the various City departments, committees, and boards, in implementing the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Recommendations. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review and make recommendations to the City Council subject to the terms and conditions set forth for such uses in this UDO for the following: a. Conditional use permits; b. Zoning map amendments (rezoning); c. Concept Plans for Planned Development Districts (PDD) and Planned Mixed-Use Districts (P-MUD); d. Text amendments; e. Comprehensive Plan amendments; f. Impact fee land use decisions; g. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) priorities; h. Annexations; and i. Petitions to form a Municipal Utility District. 3. Final Action. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hear and take final action on the following: a. Applicable appeals of decisions of the Design Review Board; b. Preliminary plans, final plats, replats, development plats, and minor plats not approved by staff as set forth in the Plat Review Section in Chapter 12, Article 3 of this UDO; c. Waivers of the standards in Chapter 12, Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements; d. Development exaction appeal; e. Appeal of the Administrator's denial of a final minor or amending plat; f. Appeal of the Administrator's determination regarding applicability of plat requirements; g. Appeal of the Administrator's denial to amend the colorpalette for Northgate roof color; h. Appeal of the Administrator's denial of an alternative parking plan; and i. Appeal of the Administrator's interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 12, Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. Per Ordinance No. 2011-3308 (January 13, 2011) Sec. 2.8 – Administrator. A. Designation. The City Manager shall designate the Administrator for the City of College Station. Where this UDO assigns a responsibility, power, or duty to the Administrator, the Administrator may delegate that responsibility, power, or duty to any other agent or employee of the City whom the Administrator may reasonably determine. B. Powers and Duties. The Administrator shall have the following powers and duties: 1. Administration and Enforcement. The Administrator shall administer and enforce the provisions of this UDO. 2. Interpretation. The Administrator is responsible for interpreting the provisions of this UDO. The Administrator shall make written interpretations of this UDO when requested, setting forth the reasons and explanation therefore. 3. Building Permits. The Administrator shall review and certify that the proposed construction, moving, alteration, or use of the land either does or does not comply with the provisions of this UDO prior to issuance of a Building Permit by the Building Official. 4. Final Action. The Administrator shall review and take final action on the following: a. Sign permits; b. Site plans (not Wolf Pen Creek District site plans); c.b. Architectural reviews; d.c. Administrative adjustments; e.d. Minor and amending plats; f.e. Determination of building plot (Section 7.2, General Provisions); g. Minor Wolf Pen Creek District projects; h.f. Amendments to the color palette for Northgate roof color; i.g. Certificate of Appropriateness Routine Maintenance Work reviews; j.h. Determination regarding applicability of plat requirements; and k.i. Alternative parking plans (Section 7.3, Off-Street Parking). Per Ordinance No. 2011-3308 (January 13, 2011) 5. Other Duties. a. The Administrator, or his designee, shall serve as the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) for the City of College Station. As such, the HPO shall serve as a representative of the Landmark Commission and shall be responsible for coordinating the Landmark Commission's preservation activities with the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, those of state and federal agencies, and with local, state, and national nonprofit preservation organizations. b. The Administrator shall perform other duties imposed under the provisions of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, as amended from time-to- time. c. The Administrator shall administer and enforce the regulations of the Easterwood Field Airport Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. No. 2012-3449 , Pt. 1(Exh. B), 9-27-2012; Ord. No. 2013-3471 , Pt. 1(Exh. A), 1-10-2013; Ord. No. 2015-3663 , Pt. 1(Exh. B), 5-28-2015) 1. 5.8.B.4.f Exterior Building Colors. 1. Building colors shall be neutral and harmonious with the existing man -made or natural environment, and only compatible accent colors shall be used. All colors shall be approved by the Administrator. 1. Building and roof color requirements apply to all new buildings, redeveloped buildings, and façade work. 2. All building façades shall consist of only colorpalette maintained in the Office of the Administrator. All other colors shall be considered accentcolorsand may be used on no more than ten (10) percent of each façade. No more than two (2) accent colors may be used on each façade. 3. Except for flat roofs, all roofs shall consist of only colors from the color palette for Northgate roof color approved by the City Council and as amended and maintained in the Office of the Administrator. No more than one (1) color may be used on a roof when visible. Color shall not be regulated when the roof is flat. 4. Existing buildings may continue to utilize colors that are not from the approved palette provided that repainting is done for maintenance purposes only and the existing color is continued. Any color change on existing buildings shall be brought into compliance with this ordinance and color samples shall be submitted as provided herein. 5.2. Metallic (except copper and silver metallic-colored roofs) and fluorescent colors are prohibited on any façade or roof. 6.3. When applying brick, colors normally found in manufactured fired brick are permitted. A ll colors of natural stone are permitted. 7.4. Color samples shall be submitted for approval to the Office of the Administrator. 2. Canopies/Awnings. 1. Canopies/awnings shall not completely obstruct any window. Transom windows may be located under canopies/awnings. 2. Canopies/awnings are considered part of the building façade and are subject to the color requirements as specified above. AA maximum of one (1) color shall be used for all canopies/awnings on a single building façade (excluding business logo). 3. Canopies/awnings shall consist of cloth, canvas, steel, standing seam metal, architectural metal, and/or perforated metal (not corrugated) and shall be maintained in good repair. Canopies/awnings that are used to meet the required building setback shall not be cloth or canvas, but shall be a permanent structure integrated into the building's architecture, consisting of materials similar to that of the rest of the building. 4. Canopies/awnings located over the public right-of-way shall require a Private Improvement in the Public Right-of-Way agreement (PIP) in addition to the necessary Building Permit. 5.10. - Overlay Districts. In the event that an area is rezoned to apply overlay district provisions, this district shall apply to all multi-family, commercial and industrial property, and where applicable, to single-family, duplex or townhouse development. The underlying district establishes the permitted uses and shall remain in full force, and the requirements of the overlay district are to be applied in addition to the underlying use and site restrictions. A. Corridor Overlay (OV) District. This district is established to enhance the image of gateways and key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity. The following supplemental standards shall apply to this district: 1. Setbacks. All buildings will be set back forty (40) feet from the right-of-way. Where parking is located in the front of the building, there shall be a front setback of twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way to the parking area and all drive aisles. 2. Signs. a. Signs shall utilize only colors not expressly prohibited by the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance. Per Ordinance No. 2011-3340 (April 28, 2011) b. Freestanding signs shall be limited to the restrictions of the signs section of the General Development Standards article of this UDO, but shall not exceed the height of the building. 3. Building Colors. Building colors shall be neutral and harmonious with the existing man-made or natural environment, and only compatible accent colors shall be used. All colors shall be approved by the Administrator. The applicant must provide elevation drawings and colors samples. 5.8.B 14 Waivers. The Design Review Board (DRB) shall review requests for deviations from the standards of the Northgate Districts section of this UDO as listed below. The DRB shall approve waivers found to meet the intent of the standards of the Northgate Districts section of this UDO and the Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan. Financial hardship may not be considered in the review or determination of a waiver proposal. DRB review and waiver approval shall be limited to the following items: a. Relief from the building design standards for historic properties if the proposed building improvements or additions generally conform to the section of this Ordinance addressing Building Design Considerations for Historic Properties—Standards for the Northgate zoning districts, and if the property building improvements or additions generally preserve the historical appearance and architectural character of the building. b. Relief from specific requirements related to building orientation and access for the improvement of existing buildings if it can be proven by the applicant shows that inherent site characteristics constrain the proposed project from meeting the requirement(s) herein. Relief shall not be considered for building expansions or additions. c. Alternatives to the requirements related to building orientation and access when physical characteristics limit the site or provide for unique orientation and access opportunities. d. A reduction in the percentage of required building transparency for the rehabilitation of existing buildings if it can be proven by the applicant that inherent site characteristics constrain the proposed project from meeting the requirements herein. e. Alternatives to the requirements related to building transparency for new construction if the alternatives substantially provide the same visual interest for the pedestrian. f. Alternate architectural features to meet the requirements related to architectural relief when the proposed architectural details substantially provide a level of uniqueness to the building at the pedestrian scale. g. Along non-primary entrance façades that do not abut a right-of-way and that require design elements, murals may be considered by the Design Review Board to meet the two-design element requirement. Mural topics may include architecture and/or Texas A&M University. Murals may not contain copy or logo advertising any business. h. Substitutions of building materials for buildings if the applicant shows that: 1. The building material is a new or innovative material manufactured that has not been previously available to the market or the material is not listed as an allowed or prohibited material herein and the material is similar and comparable in quality and appearance to the materials allowed in the Exterior Building Materials section of this Ordinance for the Northgate zoning districts or 2. The material is an integral part of a themed building (example 50's diner in chrome). 3. No variance shall be granted to minimum building material requirements specified for buildings ten thousand (10,000) square feet or greater in area or for building plots with a cumulative structure square footage of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or greater. i. Alternative materials on façade work that does not involve an expansion of an existing building as defined in the Nonconformities section of the UDO or constitute redevelopment if the applicant shows that: 1. The materials allowed in the Exterior Building Materials section of this Ordinance for the Northgate zoning districts cannot be utilized without a structural alteration(s) to the existing building and 2. A licensed professional engineer or architect verifies in writing that a structural alteration is required to apply the permitted façade materials to the building j. An increase in the percentage of accent color that may be used on a façade, not to exceed a total of twenty (20) percent of the façade. k. An increase in the number of accent colors used on a façade when the additional colors are analogous to the two (2) original accent colors (adjacent to the original accent colors on the color wheel). l.j. Alternatives to the requirements related to surface area parking lots. Alternatives must separate the parking areas so that no more than sixty (60) parking spaces are located in the same vicinity without substantial visual separation from additional parking spaces. m.k. A decrease in parking requirements for residential uses provided that the applicant submits a parking study that supports the decrease based on reasonable assumptions of parking availability. Unless shared or off-site parking is provided as allowed in the Alternative Parking Plans section of the General Development Standards article of this UDO, in no case shall the DRB permit a reduction in the number of required spaces: 1. To less than the number recommended within the parking study, or 2. To more than a fifty (50) percent reduction in the amount of parking required for residential uses by the Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required section of this UDO. n.l. An increase in the distance requirement for shared and/or off-site parking when the shared or off-site parking is provided in a parking garage. o.m. Relief from the sidewalk width standard when bringing an existing sidewalk up to current standard where existing physical conditions prohibit the sidewalk expansion. p.n. Alternatives to the Landscape and Streetscape Standards for projects utilizing an existing structure(s) if it can be proven by the applicant that inherent site characteristics constrain the proposed project from meeting the requirements herein. q.o. Relief from the two-story requirement for casual and fine dining restaurants (not "fast food") and theaters in NG-2 if all façades are a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in height and all façades give the appearance of a two-story structure as determined by the Design Review Board. r.p. Relief from the minimum height requirement in NG-1 and NG-2 for an existing structure undergoing only façade rehabilitation if the applicant shows that inherent site characteristics constrain the proposed project from meeting the requirement(s) herein. Relief shall not be considered for building expansions or additions. a. Sec. 12-7.10. - Non-Residential Architectural Standards. A. Purpose The intent of the design standards provided in and related to this section are to: 1. Protect and enhance the character and quality of non-residential buildings and associated site elements in the interest of the general welfare of the City; 2. Establish minimum design parameters for the appearance of non-residential buildings including heightened standards for more visible and prominent areas of the community; 3. Not limit architectural creativity or prescribe a specific architectural style; and 4. Provide a balance between the community's economic and aesthetic concerns. B. Applicability Except as expressly set forth otherwise herein, the design standards of this section shall apply to development, redevelopment, and façade changes to all non-residential buildings including single tenant buildings, multiple tenant buildings, and any grouping of attached or stand-alone buildings and associated pad sites. The portions of structures containing non-residential uses located in the MF Multi-Family zoning district shall comply with the Non-Residential design standards of this section. The following are exempt from this section of the UDO as defined below: 1. BP Business Park. Any building located within BP Business Park districts is required to comply with this section if it is along the periphery of the zoning district. All other interior buildings located within BP Business Park districts are exempt from this section. 2. Districts. Uses located within the following districts are exempt from this section: BPI Business Park Industrial, M-1 Light Industrial, M-2 Heavy Industrial, R&D Research & Development, NG-1 Core Northgate, NG-2 Transitional Northgate, and NG-3 Residential Northgate. 3. Uses. The following uses are exempt from this section: Churches; Primary & Secondary Educational Facilities; Municipal Industrial facilities; and private utility buildings that are screened from public or private rights-of-way and adjacent properties. 3.4. Types of Structures. The following structures must adhere to Building Colors but are exempt from the other provisions of this section: Freestanding structures such as pavilions, canopies, gazebos, ATM machines, etc. that are unenclosed buildings and do not have walls. Unenclosed structures that are attached or functionally appear part of an enclosed building are to be integrated with and meet the requirements associated with the building C. Standards for Non-Residential Structures. 1. Façade Terms. a. Primary Façade. A façade is considered to be a "primary façade" when it is the primary entrance façade of a primary building (not accessory buildings) or when any façade of a primary building is facing a public right-of-way, private right-of-way, or public way. b. Facing. A façade is considered facing a public right-of-way, private right-of-way, or public way when an imaginary plane could be extended unobstructed by a wall or structure in the building plot from at least 25% of the façade into the public right-of- way, private right-of-way, or public way adjacent to the building plot, as illustrated below. c. Visible. The term visible is used in application of this section. A side or rear façade of a building shall not be considered visible from a public right-of-way or public way if it is located more than four-hundred (400) feet away. 2. Required Screening. For all properties zoned SC Suburban Commercial and WC Wellborn Commercial, the following screening requirements apply: a. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view or located so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way, public way, or residential district when viewed within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the perimeter boundary of the subject lot or tract, measured from a height five (5) feet above grade. Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture, materials, colors and scale to maintain a unified appearance. Acceptable methods of screening are: encasement, parapet walls, partition screens, brick/stone/masonry walls or fences. Electrical panel boxes attached to the side of a building that are painted to match the building color do not require additional screening. b. In SC Suburban Commercial and WC Wellborn Commercial, rRoof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from any right-of-way, public way, or adjacent property by either the roof itself (including within a cut-out) or by a false roof element (i.e. chimney, cupola). Components of a mechanical equipment system, such as vents or exhaust pipes, protruding from the roof that are no larger than twelve (12) inches in diameter nor exceeding the height of the roof line are not required to be screened, but must be painted to match the roof color. 3. Building Mass and Design. a. Horizontal Façade Articulation . 1. Façade articulation (wall plane projections or recessions) is required on the first two (2) stories of any primary façade that exceeds two-hundred (200) feet in horizontal length. No more than thirty-three (33) percent of any primary façade shall be on the same continuous geometric plane. Wall plane projections or recessions shall have a minimum depth of four (4) feet. 2. For all properties zoned SC Suburban Commercial: For buildings over eight thousand (8,000) square feet, primary façades shall have articulation of minimum four-foot (4) depth within each fifty-foot (50) section of façade. 3. For all properties zoned MU Mixed-Use: The vertical wall plane of any façade visible from a public right-of-way, street, or public way shall project and/or recess by a minimum of two (2) feet so that no more than sixty-six (66) percent of the façade is on the same plane. b. Building Entry Design. 1. In order to provide a sense of arrival and shelter, public building entrances are to feature a protected entry through the use of an awning, canopy, porte-cochere, recessed entry or other similar architectural element. 2. Buildings that have multiple ground floor tenants or multiple primary building entrances shall have all entrances treated architecturally. 3. For all properties zoned WC Wellborn Commercial, the following additional standards shall apply: a. All buildings shall be required to provide a covered front porch along the full length of the public entry façade, projecting a minimum four (4) feet from the face of the building. b. All buildings that have frontage on Wellborn Road and/or Live Oak Street, shall have a public entry facing both rights-of-way. c. In cases where more than two facades require a public entrance, the administrator may determine which two facades require entrances. c. Architectural Relief. 1. In order to provide visual interest, the first two (2) stories of any primary façade or façade visible from a public right-of-way or public way shall use at least one (1) architectural relief element for every twenty-five (25) horizontal feet, or part thereof, of façade length. 2. Façades requiring architectural relief shall provide a minimum of two (2) different types of relief elements per façade. 3. To avoid monotony, no more than one-half (½) of the required minimum number of elements on a façade may consist of the same type of relief element. 4. The design elements may be grouped or spaced as needed along the façade, though in no case shall more than seventy-five (75) feet of continuous horizontal length be void of a relief element. 5. Design elements used to meet architectural relief must have a functional architectural purpose such as awnings may not be located over faux windows or a wall area that does not have an opening. 6. A relief element counted to meet the requirement of one (1) façade may not also be counted toward another façade. 7. Architectural relief is not required for façades, or parts of a façade, that are within fifteen (15) feet of another building that screens the façade. 8. Accessory buildings to a primary use, where each façade is equal to or less than twenty-five (25) horizontal feet in length or the perimeter of all façades is less than one hundred (100) horizontal feet in length, and where each façade incorporates the same building materials and colors as the primary structure, are not required to provide architectural relief elements. 9. Architectural relief elements may be added to a non-conforming façade of an existing building subject to the following limitation: if more than fifty (50) percent of the required number of elements on a façade are added, removed, or altered, including on a cumulative basis, the façade must be brought into compliance for architectural relief. 10. Qualifying Architectural Relief Elements . 9. a. For all applicable properties other than those located in SC Suburban Commercial, WC Wellborn Commercial, and MU Mixed-Use districts, the following types of architectural relief may be utilized to meet the requirements of this section: a.1. Canopies, permanent decorative awnings, or windows accompanied by overhangs that exceed eighteen (18) inches; b.2. Wall plane projections or recessions with a minimum of four-foot depth; c.3. Pilasters that project from a wall at least four (4) inches or columns; d.4. Roofline articulation as described below may count as one (1) element for a façade if it is used on a façade where the articulation is not already required; e.5. A well-defined cornice or other architectural termination to visually cap the building along a parapet may count as one (1) element for a façade if it is used on a façade where this feature is not already required; f.6. Recessed entries, stoops, porches, or arcades; g.7. Balconies that extend from the building; h.8. Boxed or bay windows; or 9. Decorative stormwater management initiatives physically integrated with the building, as approved by the Administrator ; or. i.10. Other architectural relief elements nthat provide a visual interest to the affected façade and are of a physical scale to possess an architectural significance may be approved by the Administrator. 10. b. For all properties zoned SC Suburban Commercial and WC Wellborn Commercial, the following types of architectural relief may be utilized to meet the requirements of this section: a.1. Decorative or functional window shutters; b.2. Covered front porch extending along at least fifty (50) percent of building façade and projecting a minimum of four (4) feet from the face of the building, if used on a façade where this feature is not already required; c.3. Eaves in excess of eighteen (18) inches, if used on a façade that does not have a covered front porch; d.4. Window planter boxes; e.5. Window canopy; f.6. Dormers; g.7. Transom windows; h.8. Decorative façade lighting; i.9. Chimneys or cupolas; j.10. Cross gables; k.11. Entry Portico; or 12. Horizontal articulation with a minimum depth of four (4) feet for WC Wellborn Commercial only; or. l.13. Other architectural relief elements that provide a visual interest to the affected façade and are of a physical scale to possess architectural significance may be approved by the Administrator. 11. c. For all properties zoned MU Mixed-Use, the following types of architectural relief may be utilized to meet the requirements of this section: a.1. Canopies or permanent decorative awnings; b.2. Wall plane projections or recessions with a minimum of four-foot depth; c.3. Pilasters that project from a wall at least four (4) inches or columns; d.4. Recessed entries, stoops, porches, or arcades; e.5. Balconies that extend from the building; f.6. Boxed or bay/oriel windows; g.7. Hood/drip molding over windows; h.8. Cornices, corbelling, quoining, or stringcourses; i.9. Decorative or functional window shutters; j.10. Window planter boxes; k.11. Transom windows; l.12. Decorative façade lighting; or m.13. Chimneys or cupolas ; or. 14. Other architectural relief elements that provide a visual interest to the affected façade and are of a physical scale to possess architectural significance may be approved by the Administrator. d. Other Mass and Design Requirements. 1. For all properties zoned SC Suburban Commercial: Gross Floor Area of a single structure shall not exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area. 2. For all properties zoned WC Wellborn Commercial: Gross Floor Area of a single structure shall not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area. 3. For all properties zoned MU Mixed-Use: a. The ground-floor shall have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of twelve (12) feet. b. The commercial portions of any façade facing a public right-of-way, street, or public way shall be at least thirty (30) percent transparent between zero (0) feet and eight (8) feet above ground level. c. Public entry is required on all façades facing a public right-of-way, street, or public way. In the event that more than two (2) façades require a public entrance, the Administrator may determine which two (2) façades require entrances. The Administrator may also forward the question to the Design Review Board for any reason. d. Loading docks, overhead doors and service entries shall not be located on a façade facing a public right-of-way, street, or public way. In the case that more than two (2) façades face a public right-of-way, street, or public way, the Administrator shall determine the most appropriate façade for such activities. e. Roof and Roofline Design . 1. On buildings three (3) stories or less, the horizontal line of a flat roof or parapet along a primary entrance façade, along any façade facing a public right-of-way of a street classified as a minor arterial or greater on the Thoroughfare Plan, and on all façades visible from a public right-of-way for properties that are zoned MU Mixed Use, shall vary by a minimum of two (2) feet up or down so that no more than sixty-six (66) percent of the roofline is on the same elevation, as represented below. 2. For all rooflines that are required to articulate as described above, the parapet roof line shall feature a well-defined cornice or other architectural termination to visually cap the building along the roofline. 3. For all properties zoned SC Suburban Commercial and WC Wellborn Commercial: Roofs shall be similar to residential roof types. Flat roofs are not permitted. Shed roofs are only permitted as part of a peaked roof network. A peaked parapet is permitted if it gives the appearance of a pitched roof from all sides. Roof slope must be a maximum of 8:12 and a minimum of 4:12. f. Building Materials. 1. The following minimum amount of fired brick, natural stone, marble, granite, or any concrete product so long as it has an integrated color and is textured or patterned (not aggregate material) to simulate brick, stone, marble, or granite shall be provided: a. A minimum of ten (10) percent on any façade visible from a public right-of- way or public way; b. A minimum of twenty (20) percent on primary entrance façades (single or multiple tenant building) that exceed two-hundred (200) feet in horizontal length; c. A minimum of twenty (20) percent on any façade facing a public right-of-way of a street classified as a major collector on the Thoroughfare Plan; and d. A minimum of thirty (30) percent on any façade facing a public right-of-way of a street classified as a minor arterial or greater on the Thoroughfare Plan. 2. The following building materials are allowed on all façades subject to the following limitations: a. Stucco, EIFS, high build textured paint on concrete to simulate the appearance of stucco, split-face concrete masonry that does not simulate brick or stone, fiber cement siding, reflective glass, or any material equivalent in appearance and quality as determined by the Design Review Board, shall not cover more than seventy-five (75) percent of any façade. b. Wood or cedar siding, stainless steel, chrome, standing seam metal, premium grade architectural metal, or architecturally finished metal panels (not corrugated metal) shall not cover more than thirty (30) percent of any façade. c. Tile or smooth face, tinted concrete blocks shall only be used as an accent and shall not cover more than ten (10) percent of any façade. d. Painted metal panel siding is allowed without limitation on a rear façade of a building when the façade is not visible from a right-of-way, parkland, greenway, or any residential area. e. Metal, standing seam metal, architectural metal or steel may be used as a roof and or canopy/awnings with no limitation on percentage. f. In WC Wellborn Commercial wood or cedar siding shall be allowed but not cover more than seventy-five (75) percent of any façade and reflective glass shall not cover more than thirty (30) percent of any façade. 3. When determining the area of a façade, doors, windows, and other openings are included and roof area is not included. 4. Existing buildings may continue to utilize materials other than those listed provided that any material replacement is for maintenance purposes only and the existing material is continued. Any material change or replacement of more than ten (10) percent of the total area of a façade, including on a cumulative basis, shall require that all building materials and color be brought into compliance on that façade. 5. All architectural submittals shall provide elevation drawings for each façade and a material legend (see sample below) for each façade. SAMPLE LEGEND USE OF MATERIALS ON FAÇADE 'A' Total Square Footage of Façade 'A': 10,000 s.f. Material Area in Square Feet Percent of Overall Façade Stucco 2,000 s.f. 20% Brick 5,000 s.f. 50% Doors and Windows 3,000 s.f. 30% D. Alternative Compliance Permitted. The Design Review Board (DRB) may authorize variation to the overall requirements of the Non- Residential Architectural Standards through application from a licensed architect for an alternative compliance approval that would allow innovative or visually interesting design or to address unique circumstances not otherwise permitted through strict adherence to this section. Such requests must show reasonable evidence that the purposes of the requirements as set forth in this section were maintained and the additional design flexibility afforded does not provide a means to permit design of lesser quality. E. Waivers and Appeals. The Design Review Board (DRB) shall review requests for deviations from the Non-Residential Architectural Standards. The DRB shall approve waivers or appeals found meeting the intent and general purposes of the standards as it is recognized that unique and unforeseen design circumstances exist in application of the standards. Financial hardship may not be considered in the review or determination of a waiver proposal. DRB may review and grant approval of the following: 1. Substitutions of building materials if the applicant shows that: a. The building material is a new or innovative material manufactured that has not been previously available to the market or the material is not listed as an allowed or prohibited material herein; b. The material is similar and comparable in quality and appearance to the materials allowed in this Section 12-7.10; or c. The material is an integral part of a themed building (example 50s diner in chrome). 2. Alternate colors or materials on each façade if the applicant shows that: a. The applicant is a franchised and/or chain commercial use to be developed as a single detached building (not integrated into a multi-tenant building); b. The proposed colors/materials are part of its corporate branding; and c. The applicant provides all of the alternative color/materials schemes the chain or franchise has used. 3. Alternative materials on façade work that does not involve an expansion of an existing building as defined in Chapter 12, Article 9 of the UDO or constitute redevelopment if the applicant shows that: a. The materials allowed in this section cannot be utilized without a structural alteration(s) to the existing building; b. A licensed professional engineer or architect verifies in writing that a structural alteration is required to apply the permitted façade materials to the building; and c. The DRB may grant a variance of up to one hundred (100) percent from the façade articulation or roofline standards herein if the applicant shows that it is not financially or structurally feasible. 4. Alternatives to the options for required screening of mechanical equipment. 5. Alternatives to the design elements available to provide architectural relief. 6. Relief from the building orientation and access for buildings in MU Mixed-Use districts when physical characteristics limit the site or provide unique orientation and access opportunities. 7. Reduction in the percentage of required building transparency for the rehabilitation or expansion of existing buildings in MU Mixed-Use districts if it can be proven by the applicant that inherent site characteristics constrain the proposed project from meeting the transparency requirement. F. Submittal Requirements. When the non-residential architectural standards are applicable, submitted building elevations shall include the following: 1. Scaled building elevations for each façade, depicting the following: a. Required architectural relief and other design elements; and b. Location of building materials. 2. Accurate building footprint(s) and general orientation of the building façades in relation to adjacent rights-of-way, public ways, and properties; 3. Sample building materials and color details as required by the Administrator; and 4. Table of vertical square footage and percentage of building materials for each façade. (Ord. No. 2012-3449 , Pt. 1(Exh. I), 9-27-2012; Ord. No. 2012-3450 , Pt. 1(Exh. E), 9-27- 2012; Ord. No. 2014-3624 , Pt. 1(Exh. O), 12-18-2014; Ord. No. 2015-3663 , Pt. 1(Exh. H), 5-28-2015; Ord. No. 2016-3792 , Pt. 1(Exh. E), 7-28-2016) Home of Texas A&M University 1101 Texas Avenue South, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Lance Simms Director of Planning & Development Services DATE: 15 February 2018 SUBJECT: Recommendation on Proposed Annexation Item: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a recommendation to the City Council on the annexation of approximately 65 acres located on the west side of the City, generally located in the vicinity of Rock Prairie Road West, Holleman Drive South, and North Graham Road. Background: In 2007, the City entered into numerous non-annexation agreements with property owners in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The agreements contained a ten- year term and expired in November of 2017. In October of 2017, Staff asked the City Council for direction regarding the expiring non-annexation agreements. In some cases, the City Council directed staff to offer property owners another non-annexation agreement. However, the City Council also directed Staff to proceed with the annexation of approximately 65 acres on the west side of the City after the agreements expired (see attached map). The Planning & Zoning Commission is empowered to make a recommendation to the City Council on annexations. Therefore, as part of the annexation process, the purpose of this agenda item is to seek the Commission’s recommendation. In terms of next steps, Staff is currently drafting the annexation service plan and the City Council will conduct two public hearings before taking final action on the proposed annexation. The first public hearing is scheduled for Monday, March 19, 2018 and the second public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March 22, 2015. The Council is scheduled to take final action on the annexation ordinance on Thursday, April 26, 2018. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation. Attachments: 1. Map of proposed annexation areas 2. Annexation overview View.ashx %d×%d pixels https://collegestation.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5790908&GUID=4C475904-F62B-49DE-9A09-A2E29E08B6E8[2/9/2018 2:38:26 PM] 1 Adapted from Texas APA’s A Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Communities Annexation Overview Annexation is the process by which a city extends its municipal services, regulations, voting privileges and taxing authority to new territory. Cities annex territory to provide urbanizing area with municipal services and to exercise regulatory authority necessary to protect public health and safety. Annexation is also a means of ensuring that residents and businesses outside a city’s corporate limits who benefit from access to the city’s facilities and services share the tax burden associated with constructing and maintaining those facilities and services. Annexation and the imposition of land use controls may also be used as a growth management technique to implement a comprehensive plan. Recognizing that annexation is essential to the efficient extension of urban services and to the general well being of cities, Texas annexation law (codified in Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code) allows home rule cities to annex territory on a non-consensual basis. Because cities can only annex land within their extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), discussion of annexation should begin with consideration of the ETJ. The Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) The ETJ of a city is the contiguous unincorporated land adjacent to its corporate limits that is not within another city’s ETJ. The size of a city’s ETJ varies according to its population, ranging from one-half mile for communities with less than 5,000 persons, to five miles for cities greater than 100,000 in population. College Station’s current ETJ extends three and one-half miles beyond the city limits. From an annexation perspective, a city’s ETJ serves two functions. First, there is a statutory prohibition against a municipality annexing into another’s ETJ, which provides a city with land that it alone can annex. Second, cities are authorized to enforce their subdivision regulations within their ETJ, which is a means of ensuring that cities will not have to assume maintenance responsibilities for substandard infrastructure upon annexation. Because of the direct relationship between the ETJ and a city’s ability to annex land, proposals regarding the creation of special districts in the ETJ, requests for incorporation, and ETJ adjustments with other cities should be evaluated in terms of their potential impacts on future annexation. General Annexation Requirements and Procedures Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code establishes a number of general requirements and procedures for annexations. These requirements and procedures include: Annexations must be contiguous to the City’s corporate limits and strip annexations less than 1,000 feet in width are prohibited unless initiated by the owner of the land. 2 Adapted from Texas APA’s A Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Communities The total amount of land annexed in any calendar year cannot be more than ten (10) percent of the city’s total area as of January 1 of that year. If a city does not annex the full ten (10) percent, it may carry over the unused allocation for use in subsequent years. Including acreage carried over, the area annexed in a given calendar year cannot exceed 30 percent of the city’s total area as of January 1 of that year. There are a number of exceptions to this rule. Government property is not included in the total nor is land which is being annexed at the request of a majority of its owners or residents. Owners of property appraised for ad valorem tax purposes as land for agricultural purposes must be offered the opportunity to enter into a non-annexation development agreement with the city in lieu of annexation. Two annexation public hearings are required with public notice published in a local newspaper. The notice muse be published at least eleven (11) days, but not more than twenty (20) days, before the hearing(s). It is possible for one notice to include both hearings. Notice of each hearing must be posted on the city’s website at least eleven (11) days but not more than 20 days before the hearing(s). Following annexation, a city cannot prohibit the continuation of a legal land use if the use was in existence on the date annexation proceedings were instituted or prohibit a landowner from beginning to use land if the use was planned 90 days before the effective date of the annexation and a complete application for any required government permit was submitted before the date annexation proceedings were instituted. Cities must notify all school districts within the annexation area of the hearings. The notice must include an estimate of any financial impact to the districts and proposals to mitigate the impacts on the districts. Cities must reimburse Emergency Service Districts to cover debt issued and facilities and equipment purchased to serve the annexation area. Annexation Service Requirements The Local Government Code places stringent service delivery requirements on cities proposing to annex territory. As part of the public hearings held by the City Council, the City must present a service plan for the area proposed for annexation. The service plan is essentially a contract between the City and the people being annexed. The service plan must provide for the extension of the following services immediately upon annexation, including: Police protection; Fire protection; Solid waste collection (residents of annexation areas have the option of continuing to use private service providers for up to two years after annexation); 3 Adapted from Texas APA’s A Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Communities Maintenance of (public) water and wastewater facilities that are not in the service area of another water or wastewater utility; Maintenance of (public) roads and streets, including road and street lighting; Maintenance of (public) parks, playgrounds, and swimming pools; and, Maintenance of any other publicly owned facility, building, or service. The service plan may not provide services in a manner that would result in more than a negligible reduction in the level of fire, police or emergency services provided to areas in the existing city. The service plan must also include a capital improvements program element for capital projects necessary to provide full municipal services. Full municipal services include water and wastewater service if the city owns a water and wastewater utility and the annexation area is not in the service area of another utility. Annexation Planning Because annexation is so critical to the long term well-being of cities, it needs to be carried out in accordance with established policies and not on an ad hoc basis. A city’s annexation policy should be included in the comprehensive plan include the use of criteria with which to select areas to be annexed from the range of potential annexation areas. The policies must also be aligned with the requirements of the Local Government Code and the city’s charter. A successful annexation plan must include attention to implementation. Implementation of the plan begins with meeting the procedural requirements of State law and includes monitoring the delivery of services and the timely construction of facilities. It cannot be overemphasized that implementation extends through the life of the annexation service plan.