The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/19/2012 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission Ð´¿²²·²¹ ú Æ±²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² Ö«´§ ïçô îðïî É±®µ¸±° Ó»»¬·²¹ êæðð ÐÓ Î»¹«´¿® Ó»»¬·²¹ éæðð ÐÓ ï AGENDA PLANNING&ZONINGCOMMISSION WM ORKSHOP EETING J19,2012,6:00PM ULY AT CHCC ITY ALL OUNCIL HAMBERS 1101TA EXAS VENUE CS,T OLLEGE TATIONEXAS 1.Call the meeting to order. 2.Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 3.Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff. Final Plat ~ Minor Plat ~ Copper Falls Commons 4.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items within the 2012 (JS) P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). 5.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding street connectivity and block (BC) length. 6.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following item: A rezoning from C-1 General Commercial to R-4 Multi-Family for approximately 0.7 acres and R-4 Multi-Family to C-1 General Commercial for approximately 0.85 acres for the properties located at 2041 Holleman Drive West and 1451 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, generally located at the corner of Holleman Drive West and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South.The Commission heard this item on June 7 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on June 28 and voted 6-0 to approve the rezoning. 7.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. Thursday, July 26, 2012 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Thursday, August 2, 2012 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. 8.Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Joint Parks / Planning & Zoning Subcommittee, Neighborhood Plan Stakeholder Resource Team, BioCorridor Committee, Lick Creek Nature Center Task Force, Zoning District Subcommittee, Joint Task Force on Neighborhood Parking Issues, and Wellborn District Plan Resource Team. î 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. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071} ; possible action. The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning & Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on July 19, 2012at 6:00 PMat the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The followingsubjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the Day day of Month,2012at time . , CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ David Neeley, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of the Workshop Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on Month Day ,2012, at Time and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of_____________, 2012. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of_______________, 2012. Notary Public-Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov.Planning and Zoning Commissionmeetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. í AGENDA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RM EGULAR EETING J19,2012,7:00.. ULY AT PM CHCC ITY ALL OUNCIL HAMBERS 1101TA EXAS VENUE CS,T OLLEGE TATIONEXAS 1.Call meeting to order. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Hear Citizens. 3.At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on planning and zoning 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 Planning & Zoning 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. Consent Agenda 4.. 4.1Consideration, discussion,and possible action on AbsenceRequestsfrom meetings. Craig Hall ~ July 19, 2012 4.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. July 5, 2012 ~ Workshop July 5, 2012 ~ Regular 4.3Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Great Oaks Phase 1A consisting of 3 lots on approximately 4acres generally located at the intersection of Great Oaks Drive and Arboleda Drive in the Great Oaks Case #11-00500193 (MTH) Subdivision. ì Regular Agenda 5.Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 6.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a recommendation to City Council (DH) on Capital Improvement Program projects. 7.Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.7 “Requirements for Park Land Dedication" Case # 12-00500136 (DS) (Note: regarding park land dedication and development fees. Final action on this item is scheduled for the August 9, 2012 City Council Meeting - subject to change) 8.Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.2.K “Sidewalks" regardingthe placement and Case # 11-00500205 (JS) (Note: Final action on this width of sidewalks along streets. item is scheduled for the August 9, 2012 City Council Meeting -subject to change) 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. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071} ; possible action. The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the College Station Planning & Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held onJuly 19, 2012at7:00 p.m.at the City Hall Council Chambers,1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the _____ day of Month, 2012, at _______ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ David Neeley, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on July___, 2012, at _______ and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. ë Dated this _____ day of_____________, 2012. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of_______________, 2012. Notary Public-Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed onwww.cstx.gov.Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. ê 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work Comprehensive Plan Implementation Implementation of Adopted Plans Summary:Project Dates: Implementation of adopted master plans and Numerous on-going items and projects. neighborhood, district, and corridor plans, namely: Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, Eastgate Neighborhood Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Water Master Plan, and Waste Water Master Plan. Staff Assigned: P&DS StaffAnticipated Completion: On-going Medical District Plan Summary:Project Dates: 10/25/11: Consultant presented draft plan at final In partnership with the College Station Medical Center Medical Corridor Advisory Committee meeting. and other stakeholders, development of a plan focused 1/12/12: Council update regarding plan. on the creation of a healthcare and wellness district centered at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and 2/2/12: P&Z Workshop update regarding plan. State Highway 6. 5/16/12: Health & Wellness subcommittee meeting. Staff Assigned: JPAnticipated Completion: Summer 2012 BioCorridor Plan Summary:Project Dates: 6/5/12: Presentation at Joint P&Z meeting with Bryan. In collaboration with the City of Bryan and other 8/2/12: Public hearing for recommendation on stakeholders, development of a corridor plan near State BioCorridor rezoning and ordinance amendments. Hwy 47 and Raymond Stotzer Pkwy to realize a unique research district where plant, animal, and human health 8/23/12: Public hearing for adoption of BioCorridor may be studied in one place. rezoning and ordinance amendments. Staff Assigned: MH, BCAnticipated Completion: Summer 2012 Southside Area Neighborhood Plan Summary:Project Dates: 7/10/12: Plan Open House in City Hall at 6pm. Development of neighborhood plan for a number of 7/17/12: Neighborhood Resource Team meeting. unique neighborhoods including Oakwood, College 8/2/12: Plan presentation at P&Z Workshop. Park, portions of the Knoll, McCullough Subdivision, Redmond Terrace, and Wolf Pen Village. The plan area 8/6/12: Plan recommendation at Bicycle, is generally bounded by George Bush Drive, Texas Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board. Avenue, and Wellborn Road. 8/9/12: Plan presentation at Council Workshop. 8/16/12: P&Z public hearing for Plan recommendation. 8/23/12: Council public hearing for Plan adoption. Staff Assigned: JP, LHAnticipated Completion: Summer 2012 Ð¿¹» ï ±º í é Wellborn District Plan Summary:Project Dates: 6/18/12: Wellborn Resource Team meeting at Development of district plan for the recently annexed Wellborn Community Center at 630 pm. Wellborn area that contains elements of a rural historic community with a unique character that residents of the 6/19/12: Area meeting at Wellborn Community Center area desire to retain. at 630 pm. 7/9/12: Wellborn Resource Team meeting at Wellborn Community Center at 6 pm. 8/6/12: Wellborn Resource Team meeting at Wellborn Community Center at 6 pm. Staff Assigned: MR, LHAnticipated Completion: Fall 2012 Economic Development Master Plan Summary:Project Dates: 2/23/12: Council approved consultant contract. Development of a Master Plan to provide consistent 3/22/12: Project Kick-off meeting with consultant. direction on how the City will help ensure its economic health for years to come while providing a positive 4/10/12: Staff meeting with consultant. business development environment. 7/5/12: Update at P&Z Workshop. 7/26/12: Update at Council Workshop. Staff Assigned: P&DS StaffAnticipated Completion: Fall 2012 New Zoning Districts Summary:Project Dates: 5/9/12: Public meeting at 6 PM at City Hall to introduce Create and adopt new zoning districts to implement draft non-residential district concepts. character and land use designations identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 7/6/12: P&Z Subcommittee meeting at 815am. 7/9/12: P&Z Subcommittee meeting at 815 am. Staff Assigned: JP Anticipated Completion: Neighborhood Parking Summary:Project Dates: 3/21/12: Initial Joint Task Force meeting. Analyze neighborhood parking issues by engaging stakeholders, form Joint Task with Council and 4/25/12: Joint Task Force Meeting at 5 PM. recommendations that seek solutions. 5/30/12: Joint Task Force Meeting at 5 PM. 6/27/12: Joint Task Force Meeting at 5 PM. 8/8/12: Joint Task Force Meeting at 5 PM. Staff Assigned: BC, TR Anticipated Completion: Employment Diversification Diversification of Employment Opportunities Summary:Project Dates: 1/12/12: Strategic Plan policy discussion with Council. Discuss workforce and employment opportunities in the community and strategies to increase their diversity and 7/5/12: Economic Development Master Plan update at the City's role in providing a positive business P&Z Workshop. development environment. Staff Assigned: P&DS StaffAnticipated Completion: Ð¿¹» î ±º í è Housing Affordable Housing Summary:Project Dates: 3/1/12: Discussion at P&Z Workshop, led by Discuss how housing affordability is measured and Community Development Division. provide information on affordability of homes in the 8/2/12: Discussion of Community Development Action College Station and Bryan housing markets. Plan at P&Z Workshop. 8/9/12: Community Development Action Plan for Council approval. Staff Assigned: P&DS StaffAnticipated Completion: Role of Planning and Regulation Summary:Project Dates: Discuss role of planning and regulation on housing supply and value. Staff Assigned: P&DS StaffAnticipated Completion: Impact of Student Housing Market Summary:Project Dates: Discuss impact of single-family dwellings used for student rental purposes on the local housing market. Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Ð¿¹» í ±º í ç 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM July 13, 2012 TO:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A Executive Director –Planning & DevelopmentServices Street Connectivity and Block Length SUBJECT: At the request of the Planning & Zoning Commission, staff will provide an overview of the City’s th current efforts and requirements associated with street connectivity, at the July 19Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop. The objective of this workshop will be to provide the Planning & Zoning Commission an overview of the adopted City policies related to street design and connectivity, the basis for that policy, the current ordinances and standardscurrently in place to implement those policies, proposals for amendment to those ordinances and standards brought forward by development interests, and other information. Some of the Planning & Zoning Commission may recall that this topic has been discussed among the Commissioners for a number of years with similar presentations conducted in 2004, 2009 and 2010. The current policy was discussed with and adopted by Council in 2009 with adoption of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and then again in 2011 with adoption of the current ordinances. I have attached a copy of the relevant section of the Comprehensive Plan for your reference and a copy of the current UDO requirements related to connectivity (block length, street projections, etc). Additional information will be provided at the workshop. Attachments: 1)Chapter 6 “Transportation” of the College Station Comprehensive Plan 2) Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.2.G “Blocks”, Section 8.2.E “Streets”, Section 8.2.J “Access Ways”,and Section 11.2 “Definitions” (applicable) ïð 6 T RANSPORTATION The economic vitality, character, and identity of College Station depend, in part, upon a well-connected transportation system. College Station requires a transportation system that provides mobility in the face of ever-increasing population and traffic. Residents seek a system that responds to this mobility challenge in an integrated and context sensitive manner. Facilities should accommodate automobiles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, furthering the City’s efforts to promote positive community character and identity. Residents have voiced their support for a transportation network that better manages congestion; offers more travel options and choices; and is sensitive to the neighborhoods, natural areas, and districts. The challenges facing the current transportation system demand strategic thought about how College Station plans land uses, designs projects, and makes the system more bike friendly and walkable. It is also necessary that significant expenditures be made to add capacity to our existing roadways and to build new streets. The City must also keep planning for to ensure adequate right-of-ways exist By living in to accommodate the needs of future generations, while not compromising a growing future transportation options. Developing a successful transportation plan university requires a thorough understanding of current conditions, opportunities, community, challenges, and preferred outcomes. College Station residents have PURPOSE mobility options beyond the private The purpose of this chapter is to ensure orderly and integrated development automobile, including of the community’s transportation network, considering not only facilities for designated bike automobiles, but also transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. This chapter includes routes, an the Thoroughfare Plan, identifying the network’s roadway needs for the next extensive 20 years. It also includes an overview of the planning considerations sidewalk network, associated with the City’s transportation needs and a discussion of context and local transit services. sensitive solutions. It also serves as the foundation for the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. Finally, there is the identification of strategies and action recommendations that will facilitate the development of the transportation system. EXISTING MOBILITY Street Network The thoroughfare network in College Station and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction consists of more than 200 miles of existing streets. The freeways and a 6-1 ADOPTED 05-28-09 ïï Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 majority of the arterial streets are part of the Texas Department of Transportation system, with the remainder planned, built, and maintained by the City and Brazos County. Many of the freeway and arterial streets have seen dramatic increases in traffic volumes over the past decade, necessitating substantial capacity improvement projects, such as the widening of Texas Avenue, interchange improvement on State Highway 6, and improvements on Wellborn Road (FM 2154) and Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Current traffic counts on various roadways across the community are displayed in Map 6.1, Existing . Traffic Volumes Increases in traffic volumes have resulted in peak hour congestion along certain corridors and at specific intersections. These hotspots are dispersed throughout the City, but tend to be found most often where two high-volume roadways intersect. In addition to increases in traffic volume, intersection design, traffic signal operations, driveway locations, and adjacent land uses each contribute to the decreased service levels in these hotspots. The College Station: Existing Conditions report, prepared to accompany this Plan, provides detailed information about the current thoroughfare network. The level of service on area roadways in 2007 is displayed in Map 6.2, 2007 Level of . Service Transit A variety of organizations provide transit service in College Station, with the primary provider being Texas A&M University. Other providers include The District and the Brazos Valley Area Agency on Aging. Additionally, the College Station Independent School District operates a large fleet of buses used to transport students to and from its schools. Texas A&M University has operated a transit system for students, employees, and on-campus visitors since 1982. The system currently consists of 95 buses operating 13 off-campus routes in the cities of Bryan and College Station, every day of the week. In addition to these fixed off-campus routes, the system also includes seven on-campus routes, a door-to-door shuttle service for disabled students and employees, an airport shuttle between campus and Easterwood Airport, and charter services. During home football games, special game day transportation is provided, shuttling riders between the campus and park-and-ride lots located at Post Oak Mall. Based on the latest available data, the daily ridership on the fixed off-campus routes averaged more than 18,000 passengers and on-campus routes averaged nearly 15,000 passengers (2004). The District, first established as the Brazos Transit System, has operated transit routes for the general public since 1982. Services extend across a 16-county area in southeastern Texas. The system currently operates eight fixed-routes in the cities of Bryan and College Station, Monday ïî 6-2 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 through Friday. In addition to these fixed-routes, the system also includes limited door-to-door services for elderly and disabled residents and demand response (by schedule) door-to-door services, with a preference to persons with medical appointments. Based on the latest available data, the annual ridership for the system in the cities of Bryan and College Station was more than 270,000 passengers (2001). , displays the existing bus transit routes in Map 6.3, Existing Transit Routes College Station and Bryan. MAP 6.3 Existing Transit Routes SOURCE: City of College Station The Brazos Valley Area Agency on Aging operates a demand response (by schedule) door-to-door service for elderly residents of College Station with a preference to persons with medical appointments. This service is coordinated through the Brazos Valley Council of Governments. The College Station Independent School District operates a fleet of 48 buses, including eight buses designed and used for special needs. Currently, the system consists of 42 routes serving 12 schools and more than 2,500 of the 9,000 students enrolled in the district. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities College Station currently accommodates bicyclists by on-street bike lanes, off-street multi-use paths, and signed bicycle routes. Pedestrians ïí 6-3 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 are accommodated by a network of sidewalks and multi-use paths. Over the past couple of decades, the City has adopted a series of master plans addressing the bicycle and pedestrian needs of the community. Each of these plans has initiated actions and funding approvals by residents, resulting in 32 miles of on-road bike lanes, three miles of off-road multi-use paths, 50 miles of signed bicycle routes, and 106 miles of sidewalks dispersed throughout the City. Texas A&M University has a similar network, facilitating bicycle and pedestrian movements on campus. Aviation Easterwood Airport connects the City of College Station to other metropolitan areas of Texas and the Nation. The airport has been owned and operated by Texas A& M University since 1938 and is served by two commercial airlines, as well as offering general aviation services. The airport encompasses nearly 700 acres, including three runways – one primary and two crosswind runways. The airport includes a passenger terminal constructed in 1990 and recently remodeled, as well as a general aviation terminal remodeled in 1994. Recent data (2005) indicates the airport had total aircraft operations of more than 60,000, with more than 60% of the operations involving general aviation aircraft. In 2008, the airport served more than 150,000 passengers through commercial operations, slightly fewer than the numbers served in the preceding year. Pending Projects The City of College Station and other regional transportation providers, through partnership with the Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization, have identified transportation projects needed to meet increasing demands. These projects are identified in a number of plans and studies, but most important are those projects identified in the City’s Capital Improvements Program, the City’s most recent bond approval, the State’s Transportation Improvement Program, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Transportation Improvement Program. These documents identify projects that have funding either authorized or appropriated for land acquisition, design, and construction, and are therefore imminent. Projects on these lists include the following: State Highway 6 ramp and interchange improvements; Barron Road - State Highway 6 interchange construction; Barron Road widening; William D. Fitch Parkway widening; FM 2154 and FM 2818 grade separation; Bee Creek Trail design and construction; ïì 6-4 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 Spring Creek Trail design and construction; and, Texas A&M University bus system improvements. For a complete list and project details, consult the documents previously referenced. FIGURE 6.1 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Activities Analyzed by Travel Demand Model Future Conditions With the population projected to increase by approximately 40,000 persons by 2030, traffic, too, is expected to increase substantially. With increased traffic comes the potential for increased congestion and degradation of levels of service. However, this growth will also increase the demand for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. A travel demand model was prepared for this Plan, in the manner depicted in Figure 6.1, Activities , using Analyzed by Travel Demand Model projected population and employment growth based on the Future Land Use & Character map. The model was used to aid in the determination of the transportation network needs, to refine the Future Land Use & Character map, and for identification and prioritization of the recommended capital expenditures. Without significant investments in new and expanded roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit, the estimated travel demand will result in increased congestion and a degradation of level of service in numerous locations. To be successful, transportation investments must be accompanied by significant increases in transit ridership and the reduction of vehicle trip and travel distance through better land use planning, increased use of bicycles, and improved walkability. , displays the Map 6.4, 2030 Lanes with Programmed Projects number of lanes required to accommodate the projected traffic volumes in 2030. Map 6.5, 2030 Traffic Volumes with Programmed , displays the projected traffic volumes on College Station Projects roadways in 2030. Regional Transportation Network The City of College Station is only one of many entities involved in the planning, construction, and operation of transportation facilities. The Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Agency, the Brazos Valley Council of Governments, and the Texas Department of Transportation each have their own role in transportation planning, funding, ïë 6-5 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 construction, and maintenance. The Metropolitan Planning Organization serves as the regional partnership that coordinates regional transportation planning and manages federal transportation funding that comes to the region. The Organization maintains the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. The Brazos Valley Council of Governments is a regional partnership focused on a variety of topics of importance to its members. The Council is involved in planning for and operating transit services for the elderly through the Area Agency on Aging. The Council also assists the City in its involvement with the Texas High Speed Rail Initiative and the establishment of a regional mobility authority. The Texas Department of Transportation is responsible for planning, constructing, and operating most of the City’s primary mobility corridors, including State Highway 6, Harvey Road (State Highway 30), William D. Fitch (State Highway 40), Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818), Wellborn Road (FM 2154), and Texas Avenue. The Department also partners with the City to enhance landscaping within State highway rights-of-way, bicycle facilities funding, and railroad crossing safety improvements. It is critical that transportation planning in the City be coordinated with each of these partners so that the City’s transportation system supports the mobility needs of the region. Transit Transit will need to play an increasing role in the City’s transportation system in order to provide travel choices and minimize expenses in expanding roadway capacity. While providing valuable services and congestion relief today, the fragmented and limited system of current transit services will not be sufficient to meet future needs. The City is a partner in the Texas High Speed Rail Initiative which, if constructed, would provide high-speed commuter rail services to College Station, connecting it to the major metropolitan areas of eastern Texas. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as part of an integrated multi-modal transportation network, needs to offer alternatives to vehicular travel and aid in reducing the vehicle miles traveled, and thus the costs associated with extensive roadway expansion. Aviation Continued modernization of Easterwood Airport and protection from incompatible land uses are essential to the long-term viability of airport operations. The presence of commercial airline service adds a critical and valuable element to both the City’s transportation network and to its competitive advantage over other areas in the region. ïê 6-6 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 Connectivity Poor transportation connectivity can degrade the overall efficiency of the transportation network as the majority of trips are funneled to a few corridors. Connectivity in College Station is limited, especially where constrained by natural features, such as floodplains. Neighborhood opposition and development oriented around cul-de-sacs has limited connectivity in the City. Future transportation system effectiveness necessitates improved connectivity to facilitate multiple routes to move traffic to and from destinations. Otherwise, traffic congestion will increase and will increasingly push additional traffic through neighborhoods. Increased connectivity must be balanced with resource protection and neighborhood concerns. Connectivity with and to each of the travel modes is crucial to future accessibility and mobility. Context sensitive design and traffic calming measures are essential components of any effort at increased connectivity. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction This Plan proposes a land use pattern and growth management efforts that, if successful, will minimize the amount and intensity of development occurring in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Still, the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction will continue to see some level of development. It will also continue to expand in size through annexation and should therefore be connected to the rest of the planning jurisdiction. It is essential, though not currently necessary for capacity, that the Thoroughfare Plan in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ensure the reservation of adequate rights-of-way in a pattern that is dense enough to provide connectivity through the area beyond this planning horizon. Relationship to Land Use Pattern A very close relationship exists between the transportation network and the land use pattern. For example, high-volume six-lane roads, designed exclusively for the private automobile, tend to attract uses such as big-box retail and large apartment complexes, while repelling other land uses such as single-family homes. In a similar manner, land uses arranged in a mixed-use, dense pattern can reduce the frequency and length of vehicular trips, and if designed properly, can promote walking, biking, and transit use, therefore reducing the demand placed on the street network. The Concept Map and Future Land Use & Character map define an approach to land use planning and design that, when combined with the proposed context sensitive solutions approach, will strengthen the transportation-land use relationship in a positive manner. ïé 6-7 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 Build-out Conditions Though beyond the scope, the framework of this Plan must, consider the transportation needs of the community as it approaches build-out, that is, as it approaches the complete development of all developable land in the City. This is necessary to ensure that actions taken within this planning time-frame do not preclude future options. Even better, it is to ensure that actions taken within this planning time-frame actually offer more opportunities for future decision-makers. An example of this approach is ensuring that rights-of-way are reserved in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for a future street system, even though this capacity is not expected to be necessary within this planning timeframe. This Plan projects a 2030 population of approximately 134,000. The Future Land Use & Character map contained in this Plan identifies land uses capable of accommodating an ultimate population of approximately 196,000 within the current City limits. Planning for land uses capable of accommodating a larger population than is projected for the City provides a margin of error and allows for market flexibility. The transportation network needed to serve the build-out population Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a broad term given to a could differ considerably from that proposed to serve the projected variety of transportation 2030 population. systems that, through improvements to More efficient and higher capacity streets, increased access infrastructure, vehicles and scheduling, attempt to use management along heavily traveled corridors, increased reliance on buses to provide a service transit, bicycling, and walking, and the emergence of dense mixed-use that is of a higher quality development are just a few of the possible needs to serve the build-out than an ordinary bus line. The goal of such systems population. This Plan must respond to this possible future by providing a is to approach the service high level of connectivity with and to each travel mode; ensuring that quality of rail transit, in rights-of-way are appropriate to accommodate future roadway terms of timeliness and amenities, while still expansion; access management is employed where appropriate; enjoying the cost savings street designs promote multi-modal solutions and allow expansion into of bus transit relative to services such as bus rapid transit; and land use designations enable more capital intensive rail systems. dense mixed-use development where and when appropriate and necessary. CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a This Plan proposes the use of context sensitive solutions to meet the different approach to the design and planning of City’s transportation needs and support its land use and character transportation projects. objectives. Context sensitive solutions, as promoted by The Federal It balances the competing Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is needs of stakeholders early on in the decision making a way of planning and building a transportation system that balances process. Its benefit comes the many needs of diverse stakeholders and offers flexibility in the from the flexibility in the application of design controls, guidelines, and criteria, resulting in application of projects based on different standards facilities that are safe and effective for all users regardless of the mode and different transportation of travel they choose. The basic principles of context sensitive solutions modes. include (Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban ïè 6-8 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, ITE: 2006): Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in all projects; Involve the public and stakeholders early and continuously throughout the planning and project development process; Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs; Address all modes of travel; Apply flexibility inherent in design standards; and, Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. The use of context sensitive solutions in transportation planning can help ensure projects respond to the community’s transportation needs, values, and vision for the future, helping specific projects move from design to construction faster and with less objection. This Plan includes the long-range planning of the transportation system, in which context sensitive solution facilitates the planning of a transportation network integrated into the long-range land use and character strategies of the City. This approach allows the City to define the mobility needs of each of the system users. The transportation network should ensure reservation of rights-of-way needed for the ultimate thoroughfare width based on long-term need. The spacing of thoroughfares should be standardized and support the strategies of the Plan. For example, arterials spaced as far as one-mile apart may carry the anticipated traffic but will likely require six lanes, which may be inappropriate for some contexts. Closer spacing of arterials could carry the same volume of traffic but reduce the number of lanes necessary. Likewise, collectors spaced close together (one-eighth mile) result in lower block lengths and promote greater pedestrian and bicycling activities. Local streets should connect as frequently as practical to the collector network to keep block lengths short and to promote connectivity throughout the system. In general, context sensitive solutions are focused on streets that play the most significant roles in the local transportation network and that offer the greatest multi-modal opportunities – arterials and collectors. Primary mobility routes or freeways, such as State Highway 6, are generally intended to move very high volumes of high-speed traffic through College Station, providing connections to the larger region. These streets should be the focus of their own unique planning and design process and are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. Similarly, local or residential streets are generally not the focus of context sensitive solutions, while they should be designed to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians and should be interconnected to one another and into the larger transportation network. ïç 6-9 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 THOROUGHFARE PLAN The Thoroughfare Plan is based on the projected transportation demand resulting from the anticipated growth in population and employment and is guided by the proposed Future Land Use & Character map. In the development of the Thoroughfare Plan, a travel demand model was used to project the increase in vehicle trips. This information was used to identify the purpose of the various transportation corridors – that is what they need to function as, such as an arterial or collector. This information also aided in identifying the location of new roads needed either for capacity enhancements or to provide connectivity, as well as the number of lanes needed for each of the streets in the network. Three transportation network scenarios were developed based on results from the travel demand model. Each of these scenarios were tested against the community’s goals and preferences identified in the development of this Plan. This testing resulted in the selection of a preferred scenario adopted as part of this Plan. Each of the scenarios considered is briefly discussed in the following. The selected scenario is further described through the accompanying maps and graphics. Current-Network Option This scenario would focus future efforts on maintaining the streets and lanes currently in place, with the additional construction of new streets to serve private development. This scenario would result in increased congestion and degradation of levels of service in some of the busiest areas. Although some locations may experience unacceptable levels of congestion and delay, much of the network will likely continue to function at acceptable levels of service. It is also possible that the scenario would promote a greater reliance on transit or alternative modes of travel, though without the construction of additional facilities, the success of even these options is questionable. Though offering some advantages, such as more efficient use of some of the road corridors, affordability, and increased use of alternative modes of travel, this scenario was rejected due to the increase in unacceptable levels of congestion, which conflicts with the community’s desire to manage and reduce congestion. Programmed-Project Option This scenario focuses future efforts on expanding the capacity of existing streets, adding new streets and increasing multi-modal facilities and options as currently programmed – that is projects that have funding authorized or appropriated. This scenario would result in the construction of more than 130 lane miles in addition to the construction of local streets necessary to serve private development, several miles of off-street multi-use paths, and continued maintenance of the existing îð 6-10 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 transit system. It is anticipated this scenario would require more than $200 million (in 2009 dollars) in public funds, as well as expenditures by development interests on streets serving private development. This scenario accommodates the projected increase in vehicle miles; however it also results in a slight increase in congestion and degradation of levels of service in specific areas along the network. This scenario is dependent on an increase in the use of alternative modes of travel, which could be encouraged through multi-modal design with the new construction. A modified version of this scenario has been selected as the preferred scenario due to its fiscal practicality, its ability to support expansion of multi-modal opportunities, and its response to the community desire to manage and reduce congestion. This option necessitates land use planning that promotes alternative modes of transportation and reduces the frequency and length of vehicular trips. Additionally, the selected option requires an increased investment in transit and enhancement of the Thoroughfare Plan in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to reserve rights-of-way for future needs and facilitates connectivity. Congestion-Reduction Option This scenario focuses future efforts on substantial expansion of roadway capacity and the construction of new streets. This scenario would result in the construction of more than 440 lane miles in addition to the construction of local streets necessary to serve private development, several miles of off-street multi-use paths, and continued maintenance of the existing transit system. It is anticipated this scenario would require more than $650 million (in 2009 dollars) in public funds, as well as expenditures by development interests on streets serving private development. This scenario accommodates the projected increase in vehicle miles, with a decrease in congestion and maintenance or improvement in levels of service throughout the network. This scenario is dependent on an increase in the use of alternative modes of travel, though the general lack of congestion and abundance of six-lane streets could reduce the likelihood of this occurring. Though meeting the community’s desire to reduce congestion, this option was rejected due to its high-costs and incompatibility with other community goals and strategies. Preferred Scenario A modified version of the Programmed-Project Option is the preferred scenario based on its multi-modal cost-effective approach to managing increasing transportation demands balanced with other community goals and objectives. The preferred scenario includes îï 6-11 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 completion of all of the programmed projects. Additionally, the Thoroughfare Plan in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction must be enhanced to reserve rights-of-way for future needs and promote connectivity. All new and expanded streets must meet the multi-modal objectives of this Plan. Additional funding must be provided for improvements and expansion to the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems in the City. Finally it is essential that all streets be designed to enhance their context. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Functional classification categorizes streets according to the category’s traffic service function they are intended to provide. All streets are grouped into a class depending on the character of traffic and the degree of land access they allow. For the purposes of this Plan streets in College Station are divided into five classes: freeway/expressway; major arterial; minor arterial; collector; minor collector; and local or residential street. Freeways/expressways are intended to carry the highest volumes of traffic for the longest distances with the least amount of direct access. By contrast, local residential streets are intended to carry low volumes of traffic at slow speeds for short distances, offering the highest level of access and connectivity. Functional classification identifies the necessary right-of- way width, number of lanes, and design speed for the streets. Map 6.6, , displays the functional Thoroughfare Plan – Functional Classification classifications for current and future proposed roadways. Context The first step in determining the appropriate context sensitive solution for streets is to define the contexts through which they travel. This step is accomplished by evaluating the Future Land Use & Character map and defining the context of segments of the transportation corridor. For the purposes of this Plan, five context classes are used as listed below and illustrated in Figure 6.2, Link between Development : Character and Roadway Design Urban Mixed Use (an example is Northgate). Urban (an example is the area surrounding University Drive between Texas Avenue and State Highway 6). FIGURE 6.2 Link between Development Character and Roadway Design îî 6-12 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 General Suburban (an FIGURE 6.3 example is the area Correlation between Functional Classifications and Context Classes surrounding Holleman Drive). Restricted Suburban (an example is the area surrounding Stonebrook Drive). Estate/Rural (an example of Estate is Foxfire Subdivision and SOURCE:Context Sensitive Solutions for Major Urban Thoroughfares, an example of Rural is Institute of Transportation Engineers the area around Peach Creek). Boulevard A high speed roadway that is capable of large traffic volumes. , Map 6.7, Thoroughfare Plan – Context Class Speeds on boulevards do not exceed 40 miles per hour and can identifies the context class along each achieve volumes up to 50,000 vehicles per day. Boulevards generally carry long distance traffic. These road types are segment of major arterial, minor arterial, characterized by having a center median to allow for some collector, and minor collector corridors in the elements of access management techniques to be implemented. City. Thoroughfare Type With the functional classifi-cation and context class defined, the thoroughfare type can be defined. There are three thoroughfare types: Boulevard, Avenue, and Street. The thoroughfare type is used to establish the design criteria of street. Figure 6.3, Correlation between Functional displays Classifications and Context Classes, Avenue one or more thoroughfare types for each Can be the most flexible of the three new road classes by functional classification. Specific cross- integrating moderate traffic volume and speeds (not exceeding section designs for each of these 35 miles per hour) with multi-modal transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. Automobile capacity can vary thoroughfare types depend on the context from 1,000 vehicles per day in some suburban areas to class identified in Map 6.7. Map 6.8, 30,000 vehicles per day in busier areas of the City. Avenues , Thorough-fare Plan – Thoroughfare Type are generally more walkable and allow for greater regional connectivity for bicycles because of the slower speeds. identifies the appropriate thoroughfare type for each of the functional classifications. Design Once the functional classification, context class, and thoroughfare type are known, the specific cross-section designs can be determined for the street or street segment. Context sensitive solutions divides the right- of-way into two design components – roadside and travelway. Each of these has îí 6-13 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 specific sub-components as described Street through the following text and Figure 6.4, Low speed, low volume roadways that have a great deal of access to surrounding land uses. Speeds do not exceed , and Roadside DesignFigure 6.5, Travelway 30 miles per hour, and volume does not exceed 10,000 . Design vehicles per day. Ideal for retail activities in urban areas and also can serve residential neighborhoods with little Sub-components of Roadside Design disturbance. Ideal for multi-modal activity since vehicle speeds are low. Edge Zone - The space needed to accommodate opening and closing of car doors and overhanging vehicles. Furnishings Zone - The space needed to accommodate street trees, landscaping, and street furnishings. This space may also be used to accommodate utilities. Throughway Zone - The space needed to FIGURE 6.4 accommodate the uninterrupted flow of Roadside Design pedestrians. Sidewalks are located in the throughway zone and in urban contexts may extend into the furnishings and frontage zone as well. This space may also be used to accommodate utilities. Frontage Zone - The space between the throughway zone and the right-of-way line or building façade. This space may include sidewalks and in urban contexts may accommodate outdoor seating or merchandise displays. In suburban contexts this may also be used to accommodate utilities. Sub-components of Travelway Design The sub-components of the travelway may include on-street parking, bike lanes, travel lanes, or medians. SOURCE:Context Sensitive Solutions for Major Urban Thoroughfares, Each of these sub-components of design has been Institute of Transportation Engineers incorporated into the cross-sections included in this chapter. Additional consideration must be given for access management, cross-walks, bus stops, transition between designs, pedestrian refuges, and intersections. Each of these is discussed further in this chapter. The (located at the end of this chapter) Street Cross-Section Standards provide a preliminary set of design criteria for both the roadside and travelway design. Additional design criteria are provided within the City’s Unified Development Ordinance and the Bryan-College Station Unified Design Guidelines. îì 6-14 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 FIGURE 6.5 Travelway Design SOURCE:Context Sensitive Solutions for Major Urban Thoroughfares, Institute of Transportation Engineers OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Context Transitions When planning and designing a context sensitive transportation network, there will be the need to transition between street designs, from time to time. These transitions will most often involve a change in the right-of-way width, number of lanes and the character treatments found in the travelway or the roadside. Transitions may include traditional geometric design changes such as smooth tapers where lanes change and speed limit changes where design speeds change. Transitions in a context sensitive environment extend beyond geometric changes and include multi-modal considerations, as well as visual cues to the change in context. Transitions of these types can indicate that changes in the emphasis on pedestrians, the width of the street, or entering or leaving a special district or corridor. Transitions should, as with all other aspects of the context sensitive design, be guided by the principles found in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials “Green Book,” Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other approved design guides. Intersections In any street network the design and operation of intersections is significant. In context sensitive design the design and operation of intersections is critical. Multi-modal systems require the safe movement of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through the intersection. Intersection design encompasses the intersection itself and the approaches to the intersection, and may impact adjacent land uses. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable îë 6-15 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 Communities, identifies the following principles for the design and operation of intermodal intersections: Minimize conflicts between modes; Accommodate all modes with the appropriate levels of service for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and motorists; Avoid elimination of any travel modes due to intersection design; Provide good driver and non-driver visibility ; Minimize pedestrian exposure to moving traffic; Design for low speeds at critical pedestrian-vehicle conflict points; Avoid extreme intersection angles and break up complex intersections with pedestrian refuge islands; and, Ensure intersections are fully accessible to the disabled and the hearing and sight impaired. As with other design considerations in the context sensitive design approach, accepted engineering guidelines should be used, with the aforementioned principles employed. Other Design Components In context sensitive design, consideration should be given to a number of design components that respond to the multi-modal nature of the system. These include, but are not limited to, access management and the placement and design of cross-walks, bus stops, curb extensions, and pedestrian refuges. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, and the various Public Role in CSS American Association of State Highway and Transportation The community involvement that Officials guidance documents should be consulted for the occurred through the Comprehensive proper and safe application of each of these components. Plan process provided a solid foundation for establishing context Rehabilitation Projects and Neighborhood Street Network sensitive design objectives for most streets across the City. City Council Much of this chapter has focused on the design and public hearings related to street projects provide another avenue for construction of new streets. In a number of instances, community input on design improvements may be necessary within established considerations. Primary mobility neighborhoods, involving either rehabilitation projects or routes will have their own unique design and input process. Likewise, possibly even new street construction. While the guidance streets in established neighborhoods provided in this chapter should serve as a foundation for and districts will be evaluated in greater detail through the projects in established neighborhoods, it is necessary to development of area-specific plans recognize the sensitivity of such projects. Projects in such areas (or, in the interim, would receive often have to address constrained rights-of-way, the presence official and public scrutiny through the Council-approved involvement of mature vegetation, and resident preferences. It is proposed process for specific street projects). that, where possible, the identification of and design for îê 6-16 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 projects within established neighborhoods be guided by the neighborhood plan and direct public input unique to each project. A similar process is appropriate for the districts and corridors identified in the Future Land Use & Character map contained in this Plan. Primary Mobility Corridors The context sensitive solutions approach outlined in this chapter focuses primarily on arterials and collectors, due to their role in the transportation network and ability to serve multiple modes of travel. Streets classified as freeways or expressways serve primarily to move vehicles through the City and between distant locations within the City. State Highway 6 and sections of Raymond Stotzer Parkway (FM 60), William D. Fitch (State Highway 40), and Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) are examples. For the purposes of this Plan, these streets are considered primary mobility corridors. While it may be possible that these corridors be designed to handle pedestrians and bicyclists, in general they will be designed to accommodate high volumes of vehicular traffic at high speeds (usually in excess of 45 mph). These corridors can also carry transit vehicles, though they are not likely to provide transit stops. Alternative parallel routes should be identified to accommodate the modes of travel that the primary mobility corridors cannot. The design of these corridors should be guided by their own unique requirements (both mobility and access and other contextual needs) and should include direct public input unique to each project. Right-of-Way Constrained Projects From time to time, the right-of-way for a public street project will be constrained due to a natural constraint, such as floodplain, or because of the proximity of existing development. In such instances, it is necessary to evaluate what can and cannot be accommodated within the available right-of-way. This evaluation should be guided both by the vehicular needs and the context of the street. A uniform process should be developed incorporating a “decision-matrix,” such as the example shown in Figure 6.6, Example of Constrained Right-of- , that will aid decision makers in such trade-offs. Way Decision Matrix In some contexts it may be appropriate to eliminate parking lanes to accommodate wider sidewalks or planting areas. In other contexts it may be appropriate to use narrower sidewalks to accommodate both parking lanes and bicycle lanes. In still other contexts it may be appropriate to eliminate a travel lane or alter the design of travel lanes to accommodate parking lanes. îé 6-17 Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²¤ ßÜÑÐÌÛÜ ðëóîèóðç Ú×ÙËÎÛ êòê Û¨¿³°´» ±º Ý±²¬®¿·²»¼ Î·¹¸¬ó±ºóÉ¿§ Ü»½··±² Ó¿¬®·¨ ÙÑßÔô ÍÌÎßÌÛÙ×ÛÍô ßÒÜ ßÝÌ×ÑÒÍ ·³°®±ª»¼ ³±¾·´·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿ ¿º»ô »ºº·½·»²¬ô Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±² ¬®·ª» º±® ¿²¼ ©»´´ó½±²²»½¬»¼ ³«´¬·ó³±¼¿´ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² §¬»³ ¼»·¹²»¼ ¬± ¾» »²·¬·ª» ¬± ¬¸» «®®±«²¼·²¹ ´¿²¼ «» ò Ú·ª» ¬®¿¬»¹·» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ¬± °®±¹®» ¬±©¿®¼ ¬¸· ¹±¿´ò Û¿½¸ ¬®¿¬»¹§ ¸¿ ¿ »®·» ±º ¿½¬·±² ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ¼»·¹²»¼ ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬®¿¬»¹§ò Í¬®¿¬»¹§ ïæ Ü»ª»´±°ô ·³°´»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·²ô ¬¸®±«¹¸ ®»¹«´¿® ®»ª·»©ô ¿ ³«´¬·ó³±¼¿´ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² °´¿² ¬¸¿¬ «°°±®¬ ¬¸» °´¿²²»¼ ¹®±©¬¸ ¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °¿¬¬»®²ò Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿²ò ß¼±°¬ ¿²¼ ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿²ò Ú«¬«®» Ð´¿²²·²¹ò ß³»²¼ ¬¸» Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿² ¿ ²»½»¿®§ ¿ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ô ¼·¬®·½¬ô ½±®®·¼±®ô ¿²¼ ³¿¬»® °´¿² ¿®» ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò Ð®±¶»½¬ Ð®±¹®¿³³·²¹ò Ó¿·²¬¿·² ¿²¼ ¿³»²¼ ¿ ²»½»¿®§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ª¿®·±« °®±¹®¿³ øÞ®§¿²óÝ±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±² Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿² Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ñ®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±² Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ Ð®±¹®¿³ô Ý¿°·¬¿´ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ Ð®±¹®¿³ô »¬½ò÷ «»¼ ¬± º«²¼ °®±¶»½¬ò îè êóïè | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 Continue to collect and monitor transportation Monitor Trends. data including vehicle miles traveled, traffic counts, levels of service, transit ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle facility usage, crashes. Amend as necessary, the various Context Sensitive Solutions. tools used to implement the Thoroughfare Plan to ensure context sensitive solutions are employed. These include the Unified Development Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station Unified Design Guidelines, and the City’s project development process. Reduce and manage traffic congestion. Strategy 2: Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare Thoroughfare Plan. Plan. Continue to collect and monitor transportation Monitor Trends. data including vehicle miles traveled, traffic counts, levels of service, transit ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle facility usage, crashes. Promote access management strategies Access Management. where appropriate to preserve modal efficiency throughout the thoroughfare system. . Install a state-of-the-art Traffic Control Technology computerized traffic control system including signal synchronization. . Develop and implement a travel Travel Demand Management demand management program including real-time traffic information, traffic incident alerts, ridesharing programs, promotion of flexible work schedules, and encouragement of dense mixed-use development. . Continue enhancements and Intersection Improvements upgrades at intersections to improve multi-modal efficiency. Develop and implement context sensitive transportation Strategy 3: solutions. Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare Thoroughfare Plan. Plan. Amend the Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as Future Planning. neighborhood, district, corridor, and master plans are adopted by the City. Amend, as necessary, the various Context Sensitive Solutions. tools used to implement the Thoroughfare Plan to ensure context sensitive solutions are employed. These include the Unified Development Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station Unified Design Guidelines, and the City’s project development process. Amend and implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning. bicycle and pedestrian system master plans. îç 6-19 Transortation p| ADOPTED 05-28-09 Pursue opportunities with the current transit providers to Transit. expand and enhance transit services within and between activity centers and dense residential areas, concentrations of student housing, etc. Maintain and amend as necessary the Project Programming. City’s various programs (Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program, and Capital Improvements Program) used to fund projects. Adopt and implement the context Primary Mobility Corridors. sensitive approach identified in this Plan for identified primary mobility corridors. Adopt and implement the context Rehabilitation Projects. sensitive approach identified in this Plan for rehabilitation projects located within established neighborhoods or districts. Adopt and implement a Right-of-way Constrained Projects. context sensitive approach and decision matrix for City projects where the available right-of-way is constrained. Promote and invest in alternative transportation options. Strategy 4: Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare Thoroughfare Plan. Plan. Amend the Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as Future Planning. neighborhood, district, corridor, and master plans are adopted by the City. Amend, as necessary, the various Context Sensitive Solutions. tools used to implement the Thoroughfare Plan to ensure context sensitive solutions are employed. These include the Unified Development Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station Unified Design Guidelines, and the City’s project development process. Amend and implement the bicycle and Bicycle and Pedestrian. pedestrian system master plans. Pursue opportunities with the current transit providers to Transit. expand and enhance transit services within and between activity centers and dense residential areas, and concentrations of student housing. Maintain and amend as necessary the Project Programming. City’s various programs (Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program, and Capital Improvements Program) used to fund projects. Continue to participate in the Texas High Speed Commuter Rail. Rail Initiative and similar efforts to bring commuter rail services to the City. íð 6-20 | Transportation ADOPTED 05-28-09 Balance changes in land use with the capabilities of the Strategy 5: transportation system. Adopt and implement Use of Future Land Use & Character Map. the Future Land Use & Character map contained in this Plan. Continue to evaluate the Land Use and Development Review. capacity of the existing and proposed transportation system in Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning requests, and site plan reviews. Require traffic impact analyses for all Traffic Impact Analysis. development proposals anticipated to generate significant volumes of traffic. Continue to collect and monitor transportation Monitor Trends. data including vehicle miles traveled, traffic counts, levels of service, transit ridership, and bicycle and pedestrian facility usage, crashes. íï 6-21 Article 8 SubdivisionDesignandImprovements 8.2.G.Blocks. 1. Blocksforsingle-family,duplex,andtownhouselotsshallbeplattedtoprovidetwo(2)tiersof lotswith a utilityeasementoralleybetweenthem. A singletieroflotsmaybeusedifthelots backupto a thoroughfare,railroad,orfloodplain. 2. Inordertoprovide a publicstreetnetworkthatiscomplimentarytotheThoroughfarePlanand thatensuresuniform access andcirculationtoareasintendedforsimilarland use contexts, block lengthshallnot exceed thefollowingdimensionsbasedontheland use designationonthe FutureLand Use andCharacterMapintheadoptedComprehensivePlaninwhichtheblockis located: a.Sixhundred sixty (660)feetinUrbanandUrbanMixedUsedesignations; b.Ninehundred(900)feetinGeneralSuburban,SuburbanCommercial,andGeneral Commercialdesignations; c. Onethousandtwohundred(1,200)feetin Restricted SuburbanandBusinessPark designations;and d.Onethousandfivehundred(1,500)feetinEstateandRuraldesignations. 3.If a platisnotboundedby a publicthroughstreetorotherqualifyingbreaktoblocklengththen theblocklengthmeasurementshallcontinuetoextendeachwaybeyondtheplatalongthe publicthroughstreetuntil thenearestintersectingthroughstreetorqualifyingbreaktotheblock isreached. 4. Blockperimetershallnot exceed thefollowingdimensionsbasedontheland use designation providedintheadoptedComprehensivePlan: a.Onethousandsixhundred (1,600)feetinUrbanMixedUsedesignations;and b.Twothousand(2,000)feetinUrbandesignations. 5. Inlieuof a publicstreet,non-residentialandmulti-familydevelopmentsmayoptto construct a PublicWayto satisfy blocklengthandblockperimeterrequirementswhenthePublicWay connectstwo(2)publicstreets.Theplatshalldedicate a public access easementthatcoversthe entirewidthoftheprivatedriveandsidewalksforthePublicWay.Theprivatedriveand sidewalksmaybe constructed withthedevelopmentoftheproperty. A PublicWayshallnot substitutefor a thoroughfareidentifiedontheCity'sThoroughfarePlan. 6.Blocklengthorblockperimetershallnotrequire a newstreet,PublicWay,or Access Wayto enterthefaceof a blockwhen thesurroundingareaoftheblockissubdivided so that a through movementisnotpossibleor a newblockcannotbecreated. 8.2.E.Streets. 1.StreetsontheThoroughfarePlan. Where a subdivisionencompassesorisadjacentto a thoroughfare,asshownonthe ThoroughfarePlanoftheCity,thethoroughfareshallbeconstructedandincludedinthe íî subdivisionplattomaintaincontinuityintheapproximatelocationasshown,andofthetype indicated. 2.RelationtoAdjoiningStreetSystem. a. Wherethereisan existing streetadjacenttoorthroughtheareatobesubdivided,the necessarystreetintersectionstothe existing streetshallbeconstructed. b. Existing andplannedstreetsandPublicWaysinadjacentoradjoiningareasshallbe continuedinalignmenttherewith. c. Whenlandissubdividedintolargerparcelsratherthanordinarybuildinglots, such parcelsshallbearranged so astoallowfortheopeningoffuturestreetsandlogical furthersubdivisions. 3. StreetProjections. a. Whereadjoiningareasarenotplatted,thesubdivisionshallprovidestreetprojectionsto such areasbyprojecting a publicstreet: 1) Ineachcardinaldirectionaroundtheproposedsubdivision; 2)Atintervalsnofewerthanthemaximumblocklength alongtheperimeterboundaryof thesubdivision;and 3)Toprovidestreetconnectionorstreetfrontagetolandlockedtractsthatdonot otherwisehavefrontageto a publicstreet. b. Inlieuof a publicstreet, a PublicWaymaysatisfy a requiredstreetprojectionwhenthe PublicWayisprojectedtofuturenon-residentialormulti-familydevelopmentandcanbe continuedthroughthatdevelopmentto a publicstreet. 4. AdequateStreetAccess. a. One(1)externalstreetconnectionisrequiredfor a streetservingasroadway access for thirty(30)orfewerlots. b. Whentherearemorethanthirty(30)lotstobeservedbyexternalstreetconnections, a minimumoftwo(2)streetconnectionstoexternalpavedpublicstreetsshallberequired. TheCommissionmayallow a RemoteEmergency Access wheredevelopmentphasing orconstraintsofthelandpreventtheprovisionof a second streetconnection. Notwithstandingtheforegoing,two(2)streetconnectionstoexternalpavedpublicstreets shallberequiredwhenonehundred(100)ormorelotsareserved. c. Three(3)streetconnectionstoexternalpavedpublicstreetsmayberequiredbythe Commissionwhentwohundred(200)ormorelotsareserved. d. Wheremorethanone(1)externalstreetconnectionisrequired,atleastone(1)external streetconnectionshallnotbelocatedover a potentialhazard such as a high-pressure gaslineor a creekwheretheonehundred-yearfloodplainovertopsthestreet,regardless ofitsclassification. 5. Intersections. InadditiontotheB/CSUnifiedDesignGuidelines,proposedstreetandalleyintersections shallmeettheminimumspacingandrequirementsofthe Access Managementand Circulation section in Article 7 GeneralDevelopmentStandardsofthisUDO. 6.Dead-EndStreets. íí Dead-endstreetsshallbeprohibitedexceptshortstubstopermitfutureextension. Temporaryturnaroundsshallberequiredforstubsinlengthofmorethanone-hundred(100) feetorthedepthofone(1)lot,whicheveris less. 7. Culs-de-Sac. a. The maximumlengthof a cul-de-sac isbasedonthelandusedesignationontheFuture Land Use andCharacterMapintheadoptedComprehensivePlaninwhichthe cul-de- sac islocated.Thelengthof a cul-de-sacismeasuredalongthecenterlineofthe cul-de- sac streetfromthecenterofthebulbtotheedgeofthenearestintersectingthrough streetright-of-way.Culs-de-sac shallnot exceedthefollowinglengths: 1) Fourhundredfifty(450)feetinGeneralSuburban,SuburbanCommercial,and GeneralCommercial designations; 2) Sixhundred(600)feetinRestrictedSuburbanandBusinessParkdesignations;and 3) Sevenhundredfifty(750)feetinEstateandRuraldesignations. b. Culs-de-sac arenotpermittedintheUrbanandUrbanMixedUsedesignationsunless theproposedsubdivisionissurroundedbyplattedpropertyandwhere a throughstreetis notpossible. c. Regardlessoflength,culs-de-sac shallhavenomorethanthirty(30)lots. 8. GeometricStandards,StreetDesignCriteria. a.Streetsandalleysshallbedesignedand constructed inaccordancewiththeB/CS UnifiedDesignGuidelines. b.RuralResidentialsubdivisionstreetsmaybe constructed toeitherruralstreetstandards orurbancurbandgutterstandardsexceptthatthoroughfaresthatcontinuebeyondthe boundaryof a RuralResidentialsubdivisiontoanurbanoneshallbe constructed to urbancurbandgutterstandards. 9.ExistingSubstandardStreetRight-ofWay. a. Wheneveran existing right-of-wayiswithinoradjacentto a proposedsubdivisionand such right-of-waywidthissubstandard,theadditionalwidthforthestreetshallbe dedicated.Fordevelopmentoccurringononlyone(1) side of such a roadway,the amountdedicatedshallgenerallyequalone-half(½)ofthedeficiencyinwidthbasedon theclassificationandtypeofstreet,asmeasuredfromtheexistingcenterlineoftheright- of-way.Iftheparcel(s)ontheoppositesideoftheright-of-waypreviouslydedicated a portion,theproposedplatshalldedicatetheremainingwidth.Iftheoppositesideofthe right-of-wayhas a permanentconstraintsuchas a railroadright-of-wayorconservation easement,thefullwidthofthedeficiencymayberequired. b. TheAdministratormayreduce,increase,oreliminatetheamountofright-of-way dedicationbasedondesignconsiderations, existing land uses, existingdevelopmenton adjacentproperties,anddimensionsofthe proposedsubdivisionorplat. c. Notwithstandingtheforegoing,additionalright-of-waydedicationisnotrequiredfor AmendingPlats. 10.StreetNamesandAddresses. íì a.Proposedstreetsthatareextensionsof existing streetsshallbearthenameofthe existing street,unlessotherwiserecommended by theAdministrator. b.Newstreetsshallbenamedtoprevent conflict orconfusionwithidenticalorsimilar namesintheCity,BrazosCounty911district,ortheCity'sExtraterritorialJurisdiction (ETJ). c. Streetsshallnotbenamedafteranylivingperson. d. A proposedstreetnamemaybedisapprovedifittoocloselyapproximatesphonetically thenameofanexistingstreet,istoodifficulttopronounce,orcarriesundesirable meaningsorconnotations. e. StreetaddressesshallbeassignedbytheAdministrator. Section8.2.JAccessWays. 1. Existing andplanned Access Waysinadjacentoradjoiningareasshallbecontinuedin alignmenttherewith. 2.InBlockfacesoverninehundred(900)feetinlength,an Access Wayshallextendacrossthe widthoftheblocknearthecenteroftheblock. 3.Toprovideadditionalpedestrianandbicyclecirculation,an Access Wayshallberequiredon a cul-de-sac streettoconnect to existing orplannedfacilitiesinthevicinity such as schools, parks, transit stops, andmulti-usepaths. 4.An Access Waymayberequiredtoprovideadditionalpedestrianandbicycle circulation within a subdivision,betweensubdivisions,betweenculs-de-sac, ortoprovide access to schools, parks, shoppingcenters,multi-usepaths,transportation,andothercommunityfacilitiesinthevicinity. 5.Ifan Access Wayisgreaterthanthreehundred(300)feetinlengththenanadditional access ointtothe Access Wayshallbeprovided. Section11.2Definitions AccessWay:An Access Way consists of a minimumfifteen-footwidepublic access easementor publicright-of-way. A minimumfive-footsidewalkshallbe constructed inthecenterofthe Access Way, exceptwherethe Access Wayprovidesconnectionto a multi-usepath, a minimumeight-foot sidewalkshallbeprovided. Block: A tractorparcelofdesignatedassuchon a dulyrecordedplat.Blocksaresurroundedby streetsor a combinationofstreetsandotherphysicalobstructionssuchas a railroador100-year floodplain. BlockLength: A measurementofthelineardistanceoflandalong a Blockfacethatisboundedon bothendsbypublicthroughstreetsorby a combinationof a publicthroughstreet,PublicWay, railroad,oronehundred-yearfloodplain.Assuch,gatedstreets,privatestreets, culs-de-sac, alleys, privatedriveways,or Access WaysdonotdividelandintoseparateBlockfaces. íë BlockPerimeter: A measurementofthelinear distance oflandaroundtheoutsideedgeof a block, whichis a totaloftheBlockfacesforeachblock.Formeasurement,thepointoforiginandendpoint arethesamelocation. PublicWay: A PublicWayprovides circulation andthroughmovementsimilarto a publicstreetbut is a privatelymaintaineddrive,constructedtocertainstreetstandards,andgrantedunrestricted access via a publicaccesseasement.Thedriveshallbedesignedtothegeometricdesign, constructionstandards,anddrivewayspacingof a CommercialStreetaccordingtothe Bryan/CollegeStationUnifiedDesignGuidelineswiththefollowingmodifications. A PublicWayshall have a minimumpavementstructure constructed toCity'sfirelanestandards, a minimumdrivewidth oftwenty-four(24)feetback-to-backwhennoparkingisprovided,and a minimumhorizontalcurve radiusoftwohundred(200)feet.Nohead-inparkingispermittedbutparallelparkingisallowedifthe driveiswidenedanadditionalten(10)feetforeachrowofparallelparkingprovided.Parkingonthe drivemaycounttowardtheminimumoff-streetparkingrequirementsofthisUDO.Five-foot sidewalksshallbeprovidedoneachsideofthedriveandplaced a minimumthree(3)feetfromthe backofcurb.Thepublic access easementshallbe a minimumofforty(40)feetinwidthorwiderto incorporatetheentirewidthofthepavement section andsidewalksoneachside. íê Brittany Caldwell From:Craig and Jean Hall [candjhall@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, July 05, 2012 5:59 PM To:Brittany Caldwell P&Z Mtg Subject: ¸°Ä Ä Ç 1 íé Ó×ÒËÌÛÍ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ú ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ É±®µ¸±° Ó»»¬·²¹ Ö«´§ ëô îðïîô êæðð °ò³ò Ý·¬§ Ø¿´´ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Bo Miles, Jodi Warner, and James Benham COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jim Ross and Jerome Rektorik CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell,Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Jennifer Prochazka, Matt Robinson, Morgan Hester, Teresa Rogers, Erika Bridges, Danielle Singh, Joe Guerra, Adam Falco, Braxton Bragg, Randall Heye, Brittany Caldwell, and Christina Raeshler 1.Call the meeting to order. Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2.Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding Consent Agenda Item 4.4. Staff Planner Hester stated that there would be a condition on Regular Agenda Item 7 that was not included in the staff report. The condition is that a note would need to be included on the Plat stating that any structure that encroaches a setback be removed. 3.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items within the 2012 (JS) P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). Executive Director Cowell gave an update on the 2012 P&Z Plan of Work. 4.Presentation and discussion regarding an update on the Wayfinding Program for (RH) Bryan/College Station. Economic Development Analyst Heye gave an update on the Wayfinding Program for the Bryan/College Station area. There was general discussion amongst the Comission regarding the Wayfinding Program. 5.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the Economic (RH) Development Master Plan. July 5, 2012 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 íè Economic Development Analyst Heye gave an update on the Economic Development Master Plan. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Plan. 6.Presentation, possible action,and discussion regarding an update on the following item: A zoning request from A-0 Agricultural-Open and A-P Administrative Professional to C-1 General Commercial for a 0.85 acre tract located at 111 North Dowling Road, near the intersection of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Wellborn Road. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 17 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on June 14 and voted 6-0 to approve the rezoning request. There was no discussion. 7.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. Tuesday, July 10, 2012 ~ Southside Neighborhood Plan Open House ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Thursday, July 12, 2012 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Thursday, July 19, 2012 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Chairman Ashfield reviewed the upcoming meeting dates for the Planning & Zoning Commission. 8.Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Joint Parks / Planning & Zoning Subcommittee, Neighborhood Plan Stakeholder Resource Team, BioCorridor Committee, Lick Creek Nature Center Task Force, Zoning District Subcommittee, Joint Task Force on Neighborhood Parking Issues, and Wellborn District Plan Resource Team. Commissioner Warner gave an update on the Joint Parks / Planning & Zoning Subcommittee and the Joint Task Force on Neighborhood Parking Issues. 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. Commissioner Benham asked when the block length item would be brought to the Commission. Executive Director Cowell said that the item is scheduled for the meeting on July 19. July 5, 2012 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 íç 10.Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Mike Ashfield, Chairman Brittany Caldwell, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services July 5, 2012 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 ìð Ó×ÒËÌÛÍ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ú ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ Î»¹«´¿® Ó»»¬·²¹ Ö«´§ ëô îðïîô éæðð °ò³ò Ý·¬§ Ø¿´´ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Bo Miles, Jodi Warner, and James Benham COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jim Ross and Jerome Rektorik CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cowell,Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Jennifer Prochazka, Matt Robinson, Morgan Hester, Teresa Rogers, Erika Bridges, Danielle Singh, Joe Guerra, Adam Falco,Braxton Bragg, Randall Heye, Brittany Caldwell, and Christina Raeshler Call meeting to order 1. Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Hear Citizens 3. No one spoke. Consent Agenda 4. 4.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on Absence Requests from meetings. Jerome Rektorik ~ July 5, 2012 Jim Ross ~ July 5, 2012 4.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. June 21, 2012 ~ Workshop June 21, 2012 ~ Regular 4.3Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Saddle Creek consisting of 14 residential lots on approximately 19.8 acres located at 5449 Prairie Dawn Trail, generally located west of Duck Haven Subdivision, Case # 12-00500102 (TR) Jurisdiction (ETJ). July 5, 2012 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 ìï 4.4Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Castlegate II Section 202 consisting of 38 single-family lots on approximately 11.9 acres generally located near Greens Prairie Road west of the Castlegate Subdivision. Case # 12-00500105 (MR) Commissioner Benham motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items 4.1 4.4. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Regular Agenda 5.Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a waiver request to Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.2.K and presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for BVCOC Subdivision consisting of one lot on approximately 5acres located at 13979 Wellborn Road, generally located south of the Case # 12-00500106 (TR) Southern Trace Subdivision. Staff Planner Rogers presented the waiver request to not construct sidewalks and recommended approval of the Final Plat if the waiver request was approved. She said that the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board recommended approval of the waiver request. Commissioner Miles motioned to approve the waiver request. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Commissioner Miles motioned to approve the Final Plat. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 7.Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a waiver request to Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.2.H.2 ing within Older Residential Subdivisions, and public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for West Park Addition Lots 27R, 28R, 29R, and 30R, Block 9 being a Replat of West Park Addition, 25 feet of Lot 26, Lots 27, 28, and 29 and 25 feet of Lot 30, Block 9 consisting of four R-1 Single-Family Residential lots on Case # 12-00500113 approximately 0.7 acres located at 201 and 205 Grove Street. (MTH) Staff Planner Hester presented the waiver request to lot size and lot width and recommended approval of the Replat if the waiver requests were approved and with the condition that a note be included on the plat stating that any structure that encroaches a setback be removed. Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing. July 5, 2012 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 ìî Sharon Menn, 200 Grove Street, College Station, Texas, asked the applicant questions regarding the type of structure he would be building. The applicant stated that he may not be the person building the structures, but he would assume that the appearance would stay in line with the rest of the neighborhood. Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing. Commissioner Warner motioned to approve the waiver requests. Commissioner Miles seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Commissioner Warner motioned to approve the Replat with the condition that a note be included on the plat stating that any structure that encroaches a setback be removed. Commissioner Miles seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 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. Commissioner Miles inquired when the BioCorridor item would be brought to the Commission. Executive Director Cowell stated that the item is scheduled to be heard at the July 19 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 9.Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Mike Ashfield, Chairman Brittany Caldwell, Admin. Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services July 5, 2012 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 ìí FINAL PLAT for Great Oaks Ph 1A 11-00500193 SCALE: 3 lots on 3.95 acres LOCATION: 11712 Great Oaks Drive ZONING: A-OR Rural ResidentialSubdivision APPLICANT: Indivisa Corporation PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approvalof the Final Plat. Planning & Zoning CommissionPage 1 of 3 July 19, 2012 ìì Planning & Zoning CommissionPage 2 of 3 July 19, 2012 ìë DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: March 2008 Zoning: A-O Agricultural Open upon annexationin March 2008 A-ORRural ResidentialSubdivision in May 2008 Preliminary Plat: The Preliminary Plat was approved in January 2011. Site Development: Vacant COMMENTS Parkland Dedication: This development was Master Planned in the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdictionprior to parkland dedication requirements and thereforeno parkland dedication is required. Greenways: No greenway dedication is proposed or required. Pedestrian Connectivity: At the time when Great Oaks was master planned, the tract was located in the ETJ; therefore, no sidewalks are proposed or required. Bicycle Connectivity: At the time when Great Oaks was master planned, the tract was located in the ETJ; therefore, no bicycle facilities are proposed or required. Impact Fees: N/A REVIEW CRITERIA Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The Final Plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Requirements of the Unified Development Ordinanceand approved Preliminary Plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1.Application 2.Copy of Final Plat(provided in packet) Planning & Zoning CommissionPage 3 of 3 July 19, 2012 ìê ìé ìè ìç ëð ëï ëî 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM July 13, 2012 TO:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Donald E. Harmon, Jr., PE, PMP Assistant Director Public WorksDepartment Capital Improvements Program Recommendation SUBJECT: On an annual basis, the City of College Station prepares a five-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The CIP is presented for City Council review as part of the annual budget process. The program consolidates all anticipated capital needs for which funding authorization exists. With oversightof the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed CIP. The proposed CIPwill be presented at the meeting. ëì 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM July 13, 2012 TO:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: David Schmitz, Director Parks & Recreation Department Ordinance Amendment to UDO Section 8.7 Requirements for Park Land SUBJECT: Dedication Regarding Park LandDedication Fees Compared to previous revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance parkcalculations differ due to the census bureau only conducting a short form census and not being able to provide independent single family and multi-family person per household numbers. An overall person per household number was provided. Thus the calculations for single family and multifamily are the same in each; Neighborhood Park Land (fee in lieu), Community Park Land (fee in lieu) and Neighborhood Park Development. The proposed Community Park Development fees were derived from giving developers a 75% discount on the single family community park development cost. The multi-family community park development fee was calculated using 50% of the community park development cost. The calculations reflect the new neighborhood and community park standards. Within the standards Neighborhood Parks have less intense development and Community Parks support more intense activity. Overall fees went down, with single family seeing the most significant decrease. Attachments 1.Park Land Dedication Fee Calculations and Comparisonof Existing and Proposed Fees 2.Red-line of Appendix I in UDO Section 8.7 Requirements for Park Land Dedication ëë Ý·¬§ ±º Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±² Ð¿®µ Ô¿²¼ Ü»¼·½¿¬·±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ð®±°±»¼ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µÝ¿´½«´¿¬·±² Í¬¿®¬·²¹ Ð±·²¬æ îðïî °±°«´¿¬·±²å çêôêðí íìêòîê ¿½®» ±º ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ çêôêðíñíìêòîê ã ï ¿½®» ±º ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ °»® îéç °»±°´» Ô¿²¼ Ü±²¿¬·±²æ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ó îéç °»±°´»ñ îòíèñÐÐØ ã ïïé Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ °»® ¿½®» ±º ¼±²¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼ º±® ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ó îéç °»±°´»ñîòíè ÐÐØ ã ïïéÜ©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ °»® ¿½®» ±º ¼±²¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼ º±® ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ Ô¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²æ üíîôðððñ¿½®»ñïïé Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ ã üîéì Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ô¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±² Ý±¬ñÜ©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ üíîôðððñ¿½®»ñïïé Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ ã üîéì Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ô¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±² Ý±¬ñÜ©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬æ Ñ²» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ »®ª» îôíðð °»±°´» øçêôêðí °±°ò ñ ìî ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ ã îôíðð °»±°´»÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¬ üíëðôðððñîôíðð ãüïëîòðð °»® °»®±² ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¬ üïëîòðð È îòíè ÐÐØ ã üíêïòéê ã üíêîòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¬ üíëðôðððñîôíðð ãüïëîòðð °»® °»®±² ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¬ üïëîòðð È îòíè ÐÐØ ã üíêïòéê ã üíêîòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ì±¬¿´ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ð¿®µ´¿²¼ Ü»¼·½¿¬·±² Ú»» °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬æ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ú»»ã üîéì øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üíêîòðð øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãüêíêòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ú»»ã üîéì øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üíêîòðð øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãüêíêòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ô¿¬ ®»ª·»¼ ðéóîðïî ëê Ý·¬§ ±º Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±² Ð¿®µ Ô¿²¼ Ü»¼·½¿¬·±² Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ð®±°±»¼ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ý¿´½«´¿¬·±² Í¬¿®¬·²¹ Ð±·²¬æ îðïî °±°«´¿¬·±²å çêôêðí íïêòíï ¿½®» ±º ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ øè ¬±¬¿´ °¿®µ÷ çêôêðíñíïêòíï ã ï ¿½®» ±º ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ °»® íðë °»±°´» Ô¿²¼ Ü±²¿¬·±²æ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ó íðë °»±°´»ñ îòíèñÐÐØ ã ïîè Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ °»® ¿½®» ±º ¼±²¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼ º±® ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ó íðë °»±°´»ñîòíè ÐÐØ ã ïîè Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ °»® ¿½®» ±º ¼±²¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼ º±® ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ Ô¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²æ üíîôðððñ¿½®»ñïîè Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ ã üîëð Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ô¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±² Ý±¬ñÜ©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ üíîôðððñ¿½®»ñïîè Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ ã üîëð Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ô¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±² Ý±¬ñÜ©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬æ Ñ²» ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ »®ª» °»±°´» ïîôðéë øçêôêðí °±°ò ñ è ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ ã ïîôðéë °»±°´»÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¬ üïôçððôðððñïîôðéë ãüïëéòíë °»® °»®±² ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¬ øüéôêððôððð Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¬ ¿ª»®¿¹» È éëû ¼·½±«²¬÷ üïëéòíëòðð È îòíè ÐÐØ ã üíéìòìç ã üíéëòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¬ üíôèððôðððñïîôðéë ãüíïìòéð °»® °»®±² ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¬ øüéôêððôððð Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¬ ¿ª»®¿¹» È ëðû ¼·½±«²¬÷ üíïìòéð È îòíè ÐÐØ ã üéìèòçç ã üéëðòðð°»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ì±¬¿´ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ð¿®µ´¿²¼ Ü»¼·½¿¬·±² Ú»» °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬æ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ú»»ã üîëð øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üíéëøÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãü êîëòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ú»»ã üîëð øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üéëð øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãüïôðððòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ô¿¬ ®»ª·»¼ ðéóîðïî ëé Ý±³°¿®·±²æ Ý«®®»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» øîððç÷ ÊÍ Ð®±°±»¼ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» øîðïî÷ Ý«®®»²¬ Ð®±°±»¼ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ô¿²¼ øº»» ·² ´·»«÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ øÍÚ÷ ü íïì ü îéì Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ øÓÚ÷ ü îëê ü îéì Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ô¿²¼ øº»» ·² ´·»«÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ øÍÚ÷ ü íðë ü îëð Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ øÓÚ÷ ü îìè ü îëð Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ øÍÚ÷ ü éêì ü íêî Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ øÓÚ÷ ü êîî ü íêî Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ øÍÚ÷ ü êíè ü íéë Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ øÓÚ÷ ü ëîð ü éëð ÍËÓÓßÎÇ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ú»» üîéì øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üíêîòðð øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãüêíêòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ú»»ã üîëð øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üíéë øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãü êîëòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ Ú»» üîéì øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üíêîòðð øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãüêíêòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ó«´¬· Ú¿³·´§ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ Ú»»ã üîëð øÔ¿²¼ ß½¯«··¬·±²÷ õ üéëð øÐ¿®µ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬÷ ãüïôðððòðð °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ý«®®»²¬ Ð®±°±»¼ Ì±¬¿´Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ øÍÚ÷üîôðîïüïôîêï Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ øÓÚ÷ üïôêìê üïôêíê ÐßÎÕÔßÒÜ ÌÑÌßÔ ýÐ¿®µý¿½®»ý¿½®»ñïððð °±°ò Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ ìî íìêòîê íòëè Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ è íïêòíï íòîé Î»¹·±²¿´ Ð¿®µ î êêëòëì êòèç øÊ»¬»®¿² Ð¿®µô Ô·½µ Ý®»»µ Ð¿®µ÷ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ÌÑÌßÔ ëî ïôíîèòïï ïíòéë ø¿ ±º ïóïóîðïî÷ Ô¿¬ ®»ª·»¼ ðéóîðïî ëè ß®¬·½´» èò Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ¿²¼ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ èòéÎ»¯«·®»³»²¬ º±® Ð¿®µ Ô¿²¼ Ü»¼·½¿¬·±² ßÐÐÛÒÜ×È × ÐßÎÕ ÔßÒÜ ÜÛÜ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÚÛÛÍ Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¿²¼ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ ßò ßòÜ»¼·½¿¬·±² Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ º±® Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ Ð¿®µ ïò Ô¿²¼ ¼»¼·½¿¬·±² °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ Ñ²» øï÷ ß½®» °»® ïðî ïïé ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ Ñ²» øï÷ ß½®» °»® ïîë ïïé ÜË îò Ú»» ·² ´·»« ±º ´¿²¼ ¼»¼·½¿¬·±² °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ üíïì îéì °»® ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ üîëê îéì °»® ÜË Ð¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ º»» °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ íò Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ üéêì íêî °»® ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ üêîî íêî °»® ÜË Ì±¬¿´ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ °¿®µ º»» °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ ìò Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ üïôðéèêíê °»® ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ üèéè êíê °»® ÜË Þò Ü»¼·½¿¬·±² Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ º±® Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ð¿®µ ïò Ô¿²¼ ¼»¼·½¿¬·±² °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ Ñ²» øï÷ ß½®» °»® ïðë ïîè ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ Ñ²» øï÷ ß½®» °»® ïîç ïîè ÜË îò Ú»» ·² ´·»« ±º ´¿²¼ ¼»¼·½¿¬·±² °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ üíðë îëð °»® ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ üîìè îëð °»® ÜË Ð¿®µ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ º»» °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ íò Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ üêíè íéë °»® ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ üëîð éëð °»® ÜË Ì±¬¿´ ½±³³«²·¬§ °¿®µ º»» °»® Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ øÜË÷ ìò Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§æ üçìí êîë °»® ÜË Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§æ üéêè ïôððð °»® ÜË ëç 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM July 13, 2012 TO:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner Ordinance AmendmenttoUDO Section 8.2.K Sidewalks SUBJECT: The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council in May 2009. It contains a vision statement that served as a guide in the development of the plan and a basis for policy going forward. This vision statement has also been incorporated into the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 as the Community Vision. Portions of the vision statement are applicable when considering policy and ordinance requirementsregarding sidewalks. The applicable statements include: Increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station citizens through a well planned and constructed inter-modal transportation system. Developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities, infrastructure and services which ensure our City is cohesive and well connected. In addition, the City Council has established “Improve Multi Modal Transportation” as one of the five goalsin their Strategic Plan. When revisions to the subdivision regulations wereadoptedby City Council in January 2011, anumber of various standards and procedures were amended. Included in these revisions were changes to sidewalksrequirements. It is important to note that the applicability of when a sidewalk is required is contained in the subdivision regulations in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) while the standards and specific details for sidewalk width, placement, and construction arecontained in the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines adopted jointly with the City of Bryan. As background, prior to the revisions in January 2011, the ordinance required sidewalks to be placed on both sides of all thoroughfares, on one side of residential streets, and were not required on cul-de-sacs unless a pedestrian Access Way was provided through êð the end of the cul-de-sac. With the adoption of the revisions, the standard increased to implementthe Comprehensive Plan and adopted goals by requiring sidewalks on both sides ofall streets, includingresidential streets and cul-de-sacs. When considering these revisions duringtheirpublic hearing, the Planning andZoning Commission recommended that a sidewalk also be required around the bulbof a cul-de-sac. As part of the revisions, several exemptions were addedfor rural roadways and existing residential streets unless planned on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Master Plan and more options were provide to permit the use of the sidewalk fund in lieu of sidewalk construction. Over the last year, City management and staff have held regular meetings with the local home builders association and other development interests. The purpose of these meetings has been to discuss issues related to standards and practices inthe development process. During these discussions, several items were identified related to current sidewalk requirements: Developer’s request: Not require sidewalks around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; Require sidewalks only on oneside(not bothsides) of residential and cul-de-sac streets; and Reduce the width of sidewalks: onresidential streetsfrom 5 feet to 4 feet; o onthoroughfaressidewalks not located at the back of curbfrom 6 feet to o 5 feet;and on thoroughfare sidewalks located at the back of curb from 8 feet to 6 feet o with the brick paver inlay along the back of curbnot being required. Staff has reviewed the existing ordinance and hasdiscussed and negotiated through some of therequested items. Staff recommendation: Remove the requirement for a sidewalk around the bulb of a cul-de-sac. This requirement was not proposed by staff with the revised ordinance, does not provide a substantial pedestrian facility,and would match the City of Bryan’s current requirement. A sidewalk, however,would still be required in this area when a pedestrian Access Way is located out the end a cul-de-sac; Reduce the width of sidewalks on thoroughfares from 6 feet to 5 feet when a existing striped bike lane has beenprovided on the street. This reduction in width recognizes that some of the needfor the larger sidewalkfacility is being accommodated with bike lane and that the bike lane also helps serve as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicular traffic; and Remove the option to construct thoroughfare sidewalks back of curb on new streets. This would help implement the Comprehensive Plan which depicts street cross sections with sidewalks located away from the back of curb to provide additional roadside buffer between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Sidewalks may be located at back of curb where specific design considerations warrant or conflictsexist. Based on recent action of the Planning & Zoning Commission, remove the requirement for sidewalks along streets classified as Freeway/ Expressway on Home of Texas A&M University êï the City’s Thoroughfare Plan. The current requirement exempts sidewalks along Freeways that do not have frontage roads though require them when a frontage road exists. A multi-use path would still be required along Freeways in the locations shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. Staff does not support the request to not require sidewalks on both sides of all applicable streets as this does not further the City’s adopted goalsto increase mobility and improve multi modal transportation facilities. Staff also does not support the reduction of the residential and cul-de-sac street sidewalk from 5 feet to 4 feet as adherence to ADA requirements becomes problematicand sidewalks become too narrow. Where the clear pathof a sidewalk is less than 5 feet in width, a landing area that is 5 feet by 5 feet is required at least every 200 feet. This may be difficult to comply with this requirement with multiple driveways and various lot layouts. In addition, a 5-foot width provides a more superior facility for mobility for pedestrians to walk beside and past one another. In revising and clarifying the standards, staff also proposes to allow the sidewalk fund option to beutilized when a multi-use path facility is located along or within their proposed development. The aboverevisionsand removal of the requirement for asidewalk around the bulb of a cul-de-sac and along Freeways/Expressways are revisionsto the UDO that require recommendations by the Bicycle,Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission and then final action by City Council. Other potential revisions to sidewalk width and placement are a policy discussion that willresult in revisions to the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines that will be done administratively by staff in the future through a joint effort betweenengineering staff of the City of College Station and the City of Bryan. The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board considered these revisions at nd their July 2 meeting and recommended approval of the revisions as proposed by staff with the condition that a sidewalk be wrapped around the bulb of a cul-de-sac when the cul-de-sac is longer than 200 feet. After apublic hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this item is tentatively scheduled for final th consideration by City Council at their Regular meeting on August 9. Attachments nd 1. Draft Minutes for July 2Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board 2.Red-line of UDO Section8.2.K Sidewalks Home of Texas A&M University êî ÜÎßÚÌ Ó×ÒËÌÛÍ Þ×ÝÇÝÔÛô ÐÛÜÛÍÌÎ×ßÒô ßÒÜ ÙÎÛÛÒÉßÇÍ ßÜÊ×ÍÑÎÇ ÞÑßÎÜ Ó±²¼¿§ô Ö«´§ îô îðïî íæðð ÐÓ Ý·¬§ Ø¿´´ Ý±«²½·´ Ý¸¿³¾»® ïïðï Ì»¨¿ ßª»²«» Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿ô ééèìð ÓÛÓÞÛÎÍ ÐÎÛÍÛÒÌæ ô Ý¸¿·®³¿² Þ´¿²½¸» Þ®·½µÊ·½»óÝ¸¿·®³¿² Í¸»®®§ Û´´·±²ô Ù®»¹ Í¬·´»ô Ö¿³» Þ¿¬»²¸±®¬ô Ü¿ª·¼ Î«»´´ô ¿²¼ Ó¿®½§ Ø¿´¬»®³¿²óÝ±¨ ÓÛÓÞÛÎÍ ßÞÍÛÒÌæ Ö»ºº Ç±«²¹ Ê×Í×ÌÑÎÍ ÐÎÛÍÛÒÌæ Ò±²» ÍÌßÚÚ ÐÎÛÍÛÒÌæ Ù®»»²©¿§ Ð®±¹®¿³ Ó¿²¿¹»® Ê»²»¿ Ù¿®¦¿ô Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ü·®»½¬±® Þ±¾ Ý±©»´´ô ß·¬¿²¬ Ü·®»½¬±® Ó±´´§ Ø·¬½¸½±½µå Ð®·²½·°¿´ Ð´¿²²»® Ö»²²·º»® Ð®±½¸¿¦µ¿ô Í»²·±® Ð´¿²²»® Ó¿¬¬ Î±¾·²±²ô Í¬¿ºº Ð´¿²²»® Ì»®»¿ Î±¹»® ¿²¼ Þ±¿®¼ Í»½®»¬¿®§ Õ®·¬»² Ø»¶²§ ßÙÛÒÜß ×ÌÛÓ ÒÑò ïæ Ý¿´´ ¬± Ñ®¼»®ò Ý¸¿·®³¿² Þ®·½µ ½¿´´»¼ ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ¬± ±®¼»® ¿¬ íæððò ßÙÛÒÜß ×ÌÛÓ ÒÑò êæ ø×¬»³ ©¿ ¸»¿®¼ ¾»º±®» ¿¹»²¼¿ ·¬»³ Ò±ò ë÷ Ð®»»²¬¿¬·±²ô °±·¾´» ¿½¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ¼·½«·±² ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ·¼»©¿´µ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿²¼ Þ®§¿²ñÝ±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±² Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»·¹² Ù«·¼»´·²»ò Ü·®»½¬±® Þ±¾ Ý±©»´´ ¼·½«»¼ ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò Ì¸»®» ©¿ ¹»²»®¿´ ¼·½«·±²ò Ó¿®½§ Ø¿´¬»®³¿²óÝ±¨ ´»º¬ ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ò Ü¿ª·¼ Î«»´´ °®±°±»¼ ¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬¿¬·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» ¾» ·¼»©¿´µ ±² ¿´´ ¬®»»¬ ±² ¾±¬¸ ·¼» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ·¼»©¿´µ ¸±«´¼ ©®¿° ¿®±«²¼ ¬¸» ¾«´¾ ±º ¿ ½«´ó¼»ó¿½ ©¸»² ·¬ · ´±²¹»® ¬¸¿² îðð º»»¬ò ´¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©¿ ³¿¼» ¾§ Ö¿³» Þ¿¬»²¸±®¬ ¿²¼ »½±²¼»¼ ¾§ Ü¿ª·¼ Î«»´´ò Ì¸» ³±¬·±² ©¿ ¿°°®±ª»¼ øëóð÷ò ßÙÛÒÜß ×ÌÛÓ ÒÑò çæ ß¼¶±«®²ò Ì¸» ³»»¬·²¹ ¿¼¶±«®²»¼ ¿¬ ëæíé °ò³ò êí ß®¬·½´» èò Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ¿²¼ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ ß®¬·½´» èò Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ¿²¼ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ èòîÙ»²»®¿´ Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ ¿²¼ Ó·²·³«³ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ ±º Ü»·¹² º±® Í«¾¼·ª··±² ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ô·³·¬ ÕòÍ·¼»©¿´µ ïòÐ±´·½§ Í·¼»©¿´µ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿²¼ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ± ¿ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿ ¿º» ¿²¼ »ºº»½¬·ª» ³»¿² ±º ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² º±® ²±²óª»¸·½«´¿® ¬®¿ºº·½ò îòÎ»¯«·®»¼ Í·¼»©¿´µ ¿ò Í·¼»©¿´µ ¸¿´´ ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼ ±² ¾±¬¸ ·¼» ±º ¿´´ ¬®»»¬ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½«´ó¼»ó¿½ô »¨½»°¬ ¿ º±´´±© ±® ¿ °®±ª·¼»¼ »´»©¸»®» ·² ¬¸· ËÜÑò ¾ò É¸»®» ¿ ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ · ¸±©² ¿´±²¹ ¿ ¬®»»¬ ±² ¬¸» Þ·½§½´»ô Ð»¼»¬®·¿²ô ¿²¼ Ù®»»²©¿§ Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿²ô ¬¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ³¿§ ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ò íòÍ·¼»©¿´µ Û¨½»°¬·±² Í·¼»©¿´µ ¿®» ²±¬ ®»¯«·®»¼æ ¿ò ß®±«²¼ ¬¸» ¾«´¾ ±º ¿ ½«´ó¼»ó¿½ «²´» ¿² ß½½» É¿§ · °®±ª·¼»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ½«´ó¼»ó¿½å ¿ò¾ò ß´±²¹ ¿ ¬®»»¬ ½´¿·º·»¼ ±² ¬¸» Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿² ¿ ¿ Ú®»»©¿§ñÛ¨°®»©¿§ ¬¸¿¬ ¼±» ²±¬ ¸¿ª» º®±²¬¿¹» ®±¿¼ò Í·¼»©¿´µô ¸±©»ª»®ô ¸¿´´ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿´±²¹ º®±²¬¿¹» ®±¿¼ ±º ¿ Ú®»»©¿§ñÛ¨°®»©¿§å ¾ò½ò ß´±²¹ ¬®»»¬ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ±² ¬¸» Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿² ©·¬¸ ¿² Û¬¿¬»ñÎ«®¿´ ½±²¬»¨¬å ½ò¼ò ß´±²¹ ²»© ±® »¨·¬·²¹ ¬®»»¬ ©·¬¸·² ¿ Î«®¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ «¾¼·ª··±² ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ®«®¿´ »½¬·±²å ±® ¼ò»ò ß´±²¹ »¨·¬·²¹ ´±½¿´ñ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¬®»»¬ «²´» ·¼»©¿´µ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» Þ·½§½´»ô Ð»¼»¬®·¿²ô ¿²¼ Ù®»»²©¿§ Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² ±® ·² ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ô ¼·¬®·½¬ô ±® ½±®®·¼±® °´¿²ò ìòÍ¬¿²¼¿®¼ Í·¼»©¿´µ ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½®·¬»®·¿æ ¿ò Ì¸» ûúêèÏÔ×ÔØÙùØÊÔÖÏöÈÔÙØÑÔÏØÊ ¿²¼ ¿´´ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬¿¬» ¿²¼ º»¼»®¿´ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬å ¾ò Ý±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ³·²·³«³ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ²»½»¿®§ ¬± ³»»¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ²±²ó ª»¸·½«´¿® ¬®¿ºº·½ ¼»³¿²¼ ·² ¬¸» ¿®»¿å ½ò Í·¼»©¿´µ ¸¿´´ ³¿·²¬¿·² ¿ ³·²·³«³ ½´»¿® ©·¼¬¸ ¿ »¬ º±®¬¸ ·² ¬¸» ûúê èÏÔ×ÔØÙùØÊÔÖÏöÈÔÙØÑÔÏØÊ å ¿²¼ ¼ò ß´´ ·¼»©¿´µ ¸¿´´ ¬»®³·²¿¬» ·²¬± ¬®»»¬ ±® ¼®·ª»©¿§ ©·¬¸ ¿³¾«´¿¬±®§ ®¿³°ò ëòÌ·³·²¹ ±º Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Û¨½»°¬ ¿ »¬ º±®¬¸ ¾»´±©ô ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»¼ ·¼»©¿´µ ³«¬ ¾» ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ½±²½«®®»²¬´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬®»»¬ô ±® ·º ¬¸» ¬®»»¬ · ¿´®»¿¼§ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ °®·±® ¬± ¿½½»°¬¿²½» ±º ¿´´ °«¾´·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ò ¿òÎ»·¼»²¬·¿´ Í«¾¼·ª··±² ß¬ ¬¸» ¬·³» ±º º·²¿´ °´¿¬ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» «¾¼·ª·¼»® ³¿§ ±°¬ ¬± ¼»º»® ¬¸» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ±² ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¬®»»¬ ¿´±²¹ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ô ¼«°´»¨ô ±® èóï êì Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ðìñîêñîðïî Ý·¬§ ±º Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿ ß®¬·½´» èò Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ¿²¼ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬±©²¸±«» ´±¬ º±® «° ¬± ±²» §»¿® º®±³ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» º·²¿´ °´¿¬ ©¸»² ¬¸» «¾¼·ª·¼»® °®±ª·¼» ¿ ¾±²¼ ±® «®»¬§ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ Í»½¬·±² èòê Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²ô Ù«¿®¿²¬»» ±º Ð»®º±®³¿²½»ô ¿²¼ ß½½»°¬¿²½» ±º Ð«¾´·½ ×²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ò Ì¸» «¾¼·ª·¼»® ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» ¿ ·¼»©¿´µ °´¿² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» º·²¿´ °´¿¬ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¼±½«³»²¬ ¿²¼ ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ¸¿´´ ½±³°´§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸· °´¿²ò Ò±¬©·¬¸¬¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸» º±®»¹±·²¹ô ¬¸· °®±ª··±² ¼±» ²±¬ ¿´´±© ¬¸» ¼»º»®³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸±®±«¹¸º¿®»ô ·¼»©¿´µ ®¿³° ¿¬ ¿´´ ¬®»»¬ ·²¬»®»½¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ·¼»©¿´µ ¿´±²¹ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¬®»»¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¿ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ´±¬ «½¸ ¿ ¿´±²¹ ¿ ½±³³±² ¿®»¿ô ½®»»µ ½®±·²¹ô ±® °¿®µò Ñ¬¸»® °»¼»¬®·¿² º¿½·´·¬·» «½¸ ¿ ß½½» É¿§ ¿²¼ ³«´¬·ó «» °¿¬¸ ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¿³» ¬·³» ¿ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» ±º ¬¸» °´¿¬ò ¾òÚ»» ·² Ô·»« ±º Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Ú»» ·² Ô·»« ï÷ Û¨½»°¬ º±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ´±½¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸¹¿¬» ¦±²·²¹ ¼·¬®·½¬ô ¿ ¼»ª»´±°»® ³¿§ ®»¯«»¬ ¬± °¿§ ¿ º»» ·² ´·»« ±º ½±²¬®«½¬·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ·¼»©¿´µø÷ ±® ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸®»¯«·®»¼ ·² ¬¸· Í»½¬·±² «°±² ¿°°®±ª¿´ ¾§ ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Æ±²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ¿ »¬ º±®¬¸ ¾»´±©ò ß³±«²¬ ±º Ú»» î÷ Ì¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º º»» ·² ´·»« ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¸¿´´ ¾» ¿ «²·¬ ½±¬ ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Û²¹·²»»® ¾¿»¼ «°±² ½«®®»²¬ »¬·³¿¬»¼ ½±¬ò Ì¸» «²·¬ ½±¬ º»» ¸¿´´ ¾» µ»°¬ ±² º·´» ·² ¬¸» Ñºº·½» ±º Ð´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Í»®ª·½» ¿²¼ ³¿¼» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» °«¾·½ «°±² ®»¯«»¬ò Ì¸» «²·¬ ½±¬ º»» ½¿´½«´¿¬·±² ¸¿´´ ¾» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¿¬ ´»¿¬ ¿²²«¿´´§ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Û²¹·²»»® ¿²¼ ¿¼¶«¬»¼ ¿ ²»½»¿®§ò Ý®·¬»®·¿ ¬± ß´´±© Ú»» ·² Ô·»« í÷ Ì¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Æ±²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ³¿§ ¿«¬¸±®·¦» ¿ º»» ·² ´·»« ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ±® ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ©¸»² ·¬ ¼»¬»®³·²» ¬¸¿¬ ±²» ±® ³±®» ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±² »¨·¬æ ß² ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» °»¼»¬®·¿² ©¿§ ±® ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ ¸¿ ¾»»² ±® ©·´´ ¾» ø¿÷ °®±ª·¼»¼ ±«¬·¼» ¬¸» ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§å Ì¸» °®»»²½» ±º «²·¯«» ±® «²««¿´ ¬±°±¹®¿°¸·½ô ª»¹»¬¿¬·ª»ô ±® ø¾÷ ±¬¸»® ²¿¬«®¿´ ½±²¼·¬·±² »¨·¬ ± ¬¸¿¬ ¬®·½¬ ¿¼¸»®»²½» ¬± ¬¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ¸»®»·² · ²±¬ °¸§·½¿´´§ º»¿·¾´» ±® · ²±¬ ·² µ»»°·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °«®°±» ¿²¼ ¹±¿´ ±º ¬¸· ËÜÑ ±® ¬¸» ß ½¿°·¬¿´ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ °®±¶»½¬ · ·³³·²»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ©·´´ ·²½´«¼» ø½÷ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ·¼»©¿´µò ×³³·²»²¬ ¸¿´´ ³»¿² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ · º«²¼»¼ ±® °®±¶»½¬»¼ ¬± ½±³³»²½» ©·¬¸·² ¬©»´ª» øïî÷ ³±²¬¸å Û¨·¬·²¹ ¬®»»¬ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¬± ®«®¿´ »½¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ²±¬ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ø¼÷ ±² ¬¸» Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿² ©·¬¸ ¿² Û¬¿¬»ñÎ«®¿´ ½±²¬»¨¬å É¸»² ¿ ·¼»©¿´µ · ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿´±²¹ ¿ ¬®»»¬ ©¸»®» ¿ ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ ø»÷ · ¸±©² ±² ¬¸» Þ·½§½´»ô Ð»¼»¬®·¿²ô Ù®»»²©¿§ Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿²å Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ · ©·¬¸·² ¿² ±´¼»® ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ øº÷ «¾¼·ª··±² ³»»¬·²¹ ¬¸» ½®·¬»®·¿ ·² Í»½¬·±² èòîòØòî Ð´¿¬¬·²¹ ¿²¼ Î»°´¿¬¬·²¹ ©·¬¸·² Ñ´¼»® Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Í«¾¼·ª··±² ±º ¬¸· ËÜÑå ±® Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±²¬¿·² º®±²¬¿¹» ±² ¿ Ú®»»©¿§ñ ø¹÷ Û¨°®»©¿§ ¿ ¼»·¹²¿¬»¼ ¾§ Ó¿° êòêô Ì¸±®±«¹¸º¿®» Ð´¿²ó ò Ë» ±º Ú»» ì÷ èóî êë Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ðìñîêñîðïî Ý·¬§ ±º Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿ ß®¬·½´» èò Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ¿²¼ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ Ì¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¸»®»¾§ »¬¿¾´·¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ¦±²» ¿ ¸±© ·² ¬¸» ³¿° ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¿ Ú·¹«®» ï ±º ¬¸· »½¬·±² ¿²¼ ©¸·½¸ ³¿° ¸¿´´ ¾» µ»°¬ ·² ¬¸» Ñºº·½» ±º Ð´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Í»®ª·½» ¿²¼ ³¿¼» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ «°±² ®»¯«»¬ò Ú»» ½±´´»½¬»¼ ·² ´·»« ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ±® ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¸¿´´ ¾» »¨°»²¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ¦±²» ©·¬¸·² ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ · ´±½¿¬»¼ò Ú»» ½±´´»½¬»¼ ·² ´·»« ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¸¿´´ ¾» «»¼ ±²´§ º±® ½±²¬®«½¬·±²ô ®»½±²¬®«½¬·±²ô ±® ´¿²¼ ¿½¯«··¬·±² ½±¬ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ·¼»©¿´µô ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ²±²óª»¸·½«´¿® ©¿§ò Ú·¹«®» ï Í·¼»©¿´µ Æ±²» Ó¿° Î»·³¾«®»³»²¬ ë÷ Ì¸» Ý·¬§ ³¿§ô º®±³ ¬·³»ó¬±ó¬·³»ô ¿½¯«·®» ´¿²¼ º±® ·¼»©¿´µ ±® ³¿µ» ·¼»©¿´µ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¿½¬«¿´ ±® °±¬»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ×º ¬¸· ±½½«®ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ³¿§ ®»¯«·®» «¾»¯«»²¬ ·¼»©¿´µ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±² ¬± ¾» ¿ º»» ®¿¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ®»·³¾«®» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ º±® ¬¸» ½±¬ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿½¯«··¬·±² ±® ½±²¬®«½¬·±²ò Ú»» Ü«» ê÷ Ú»» °¿·¼ °«®«¿²¬ ¬± ¬¸· Í»½¬·±² ¸¿´´ ¾» ®»³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©¸»² ¬¸» ¹«¿®¿²¬»» ±º ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º °«¾´·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ º±® ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ · ¼«» ±® «°±² ½±³³»²½»³»²¬ ±º ½±²¬®«½¬·±²ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® ±½½«® º·®¬ò Í°»½·¿´ Ú«²¼å Î·¹¸¬ ¬± Î»º«²¼ é÷ èóí êê Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ðìñîêñîðïî Ý·¬§ ±º Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿ ß®¬·½´» èò Í«¾¼·ª··±² Ü»·¹² ¿²¼ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ ß´´ º»» ®»½»·ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ·² ´·»« ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ±® ³«´¬·ó«» °¿¬¸ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¸¿´´ ¾» ¼»°±·¬»¼ ·² ¿ º«²¼ ®»º»®»²½»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ·¼»©¿´µ ¦±²» ¬± ©¸·½¸ ·¬ ®»´¿¬»ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿´´ ¿½½±«²¬ º±® ¿´´ º»» ·² ´·»« ±º ·¼»©¿´µ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² °¿·¼ «²¼»® ¬¸· Í»½¬·±² ©·¬¸ ®»º»®»²½» ¬± ¬¸» ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·²ª±´ª»¼ò ß²§ º»» °¿·¼ º±® «½¸ °«®°±» ³«¬ ¾» »¨°»²¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©·¬¸·² »ª»² øé÷ §»¿® º®±³ ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ®»½»·ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò Í«½¸ º«²¼ ¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¬± ¾» °»²¬ ±² ¿ º·®¬ó·²ô º·®¬ó ±«¬ ¾¿·ò ×º ²±¬ ± »¨°»²¼»¼ô ¬¸» ´¿²¼±©²»® ±º ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ ±² ¬¸» »¨°·®¿¬·±² ±º «½¸ °»®·±¼ ¸¿´´ ¾» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ¿ °®±®¿¬»¼ ®»º«²¼ ±º «½¸ «³ò Ì¸» ±©²»® ±º «½¸ °®±°»®¬§ ³«¬ ®»¯«»¬ ¿ ®»º«²¼ ©·¬¸·² ±²» øï÷ §»¿® ±º »²¬·¬´»³»²¬ô ·² ©®·¬·²¹ô ±® «½¸ ®»º«²¼ ©·´´ ¾» ¾¿®®»¼ò èóì êé Ë²·º·»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ðìñîêñîðïî Ý·¬§ ±º Ý±´´»¹» Í¬¿¬·±²ô Ì»¨¿