Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/09/05 Workshop Session 9:30 AM FILED FOR RECORD z DATE r3-p26 47" „vs, �' =° r AT I: 00 O'CLOCK d M 4 " " KAREN MCQUEEN �� �or 9, ' B O UTY ERK BRAZOS COUNTY BRYAN, TEXAS NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA WORKSHOP SESSION BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION AS FOLLOWS: MEETING DATE: September 5, 2024 MEETING TIME: 9:30AM MEETING PLACE: Brazos County Administration Building, 200 S. Texas Avenue, Suite 106, Bryan,TX 77803 1. Call to Order 2. Presentation and discussion of the first draft of the Brazos County Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report by Freese and Nichols, Inc. 3. Adjourn The Brazos County Administration Building,200 S.Texas Avenue,Suite 106,Bryan,TX77803 is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.Any request for sign interpretive services must be made two working days before the meeting.To make arrangements,please call(979)361-4102. _ . .. . . . , E C_ The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court Workshop Session held September 5, 2024, have been examined and are approved in open Court this the 1st day of October 2024, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. '--- 7/47/ Duane Peters Steve Aldrich County Judge Commissioner, Precinct 1 __.------='---------- ...„....---- ------ Ilit\crav\-- Chuck Konderla Nancy Berry Commissioner, Precinct 2 Commissioner, Precinct 3 Wanda J. Watso Commissioner, P ecinct 4 Attest: 4, Karen McQueen County Clerk VF . ,IF *:I %. A', MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT WORKSHOP SESSION 1. Call to Order A workshop session of the Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, Texas was held in the Brazos County Commissioners Courtroom in the Administration Building, 200 South Texas Avenue, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 5, 2024 with the following members of the Court present: Duane Peters, County Judge, Presiding; Steve Aldrich, Commissioner of Precinct 1; Chuck Konderla, Commissioner of Precinct 2; Nancy Berry, Commissioner of Precinct 3; Wanda J. Watson, Commissioner of Precinct 4; Karen McQueen, County Clerk,Absent. The attached sheets contain the names of the citizens and officials that were in attendance. 2. Presentation and discussion of the first draft of the Brazos County Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report by Freese and Nichols, Inc. Judge Peters called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. and invited Freese-Nichols Project Manager Daniel Harrison to begin the presentation. Mr. Harrison presented a diagnostic report regarding the County's Subdivision Regulations based largely on feedback received from interviews with stakeholders. The report indicated fifteen areas of priority improvements including comprehensively updating the Subdivision Regulations, revising I nterlocal Agreements with the cities, adopting a County Thoroughfare Plan and clarifying County policy regarding utilities in the County right-of-way. Mr. Harrison additionally presented the findings and solutions for the individual sections within the regulations. He stated that they would like to receive comments and feedback from the Court by September 13, 2024, in order to prepare a new draft of the regulations and confirm a date in October for the final workshop to solidify the document. The Court entered into discussion on potential legislative updates regarding Extra- Territorial Jurisdictions (ETJ's)and the impact that may have on the Subdivision Regulations. The Court then thanked Freese-Nichols staff members for their hard work on this project. The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 a.m. A copy of the presentation is attached. 3. Adjourn xtivy • y• • ''' . . . . ,,,, 44101likto tr 4Stp). ''\'' , 100,—'. , . . i:4} .-44r of j .` fifi.. 4 of i .„„.... , ___.........., ..�„2,° -` ,`"„0. 04 `. alit 144 4.y. , \ '.... • , ja . z � :� r ( �� Tiv)..A, . :,,,,'� . • B ra zo s Cou n t Te xa S ,,,,,,,,,,, . ..,.4..,..v.,- .',Ottexf***Tit` 4 �raa •' ... .. .. ,,it,....„74.1410::,..44,10„.• .*41,...,_„ .41;t4p„ Subdiv is ion Regulations Diagnost i c , ... . ,n `..,--,,,,,,•, ;.„„..,.. p. �;j,,- Commissioners Court Workshop #1 Sept. 5, 2024 �, y.. R .'�� � � fi} i dd / Iv iFJ. �- " •41141x iii .' �, ~fin, S ( r/�. * ,d �i+qZ art x r9 e `� J F c) ‹0''S.t'".,e's,.'*m.. ". =, rs'r Y�, ,kcto;.-e a{ez ; t y 'Ash 2 j *' �,.YSTAT�I"1N. -= vt f (, Z t .&. ,.. . ...,,:- :...:ItteTY1,.'kK- .,,, ` 1. .t Project Team ... , /, . ,.. , , . - _ . ... ... . , 3; ,. .. . , itil„. ,,,,: . P , - 4 -A� ' . cli, _ . , . deb l .7, 2 ,,,4 _ ,,....... , . , . , �, �.s �� \ _ ."k, fr Daniel Harrison\__ Iv ' David Jones Connor Roberts Project Manager Project Planner Project Planner Today's Agenda Project Overview and Process 15 Priority Findings s and Actions Individual Section Findings and Actions Wrap-up and Next Steps Project Overview & Process Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Commissioners Court Workshop #1 I Sept. 5, 2024 Project Timeline September 5 & June 2024 July 24, 2024 August 2024 October 10, 2024 October 2024 November 7, 2024 0. 0 . . . . . pi ■ ■ ■ . . ■ . . . . ■ ■ . . . ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 . . • IX* ■ ■> PROJECT KICK-OFF STAKEHOLDER DRAFT DIAGNOSTIC COMMISSIONERS COURT REVISE DIAGNOSTIC FINALIZE AND MEETINGS INTERVIEWS REPORT WORKSHOPS REPORT SUBMIT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT stakeholder Interviews: July23, 2024 • Brazos County Staff o „„, • City of College Station '" ,,..,,,,,,.;. . • City of Bryan TiVSj { • Commi•ssioners Court . z - -�, • Development/EngineeringCommunity ; - `= - ' � „ `- _412/ ./7' . / •---: z Table of Contents Document Structure Table of Contents „ Introduction . 1 Projecr Overview Ovtrall Process . Adopted Plans and Politics 2 rho i/Coilee Stdfthn MIPO Thorouenfare Concept 2 erfocal AgreeM.nr4(ILA v) 4 • I ntroduction Brazos County Engine nng Design Gladefules(BGEDO) 4 Bryan/College Station Ure6ecjDeAgs Cu/dear-tea(BCSUDG) 4 Priority Findings and Actions 5 1. Comprehensively update the Subdivision Regulations . 5 2 Revise irserlocot Agreements ji LAs) ith the Cade,of College Station and Bryan 5 • Adopted Plans and Policies 3 Adopt a County rhorougl fare Pius or tad dendu fn to the MIPO Thoroughfare Concept _ 4 Clearly define the e ppiicebilith of separate but related standards end documents 6 5 revise Frig neenng S.andards(BC EDG)son companion dorument to the Subd v s on Regulet ons 7 6 Express and clarity Counti policy regarding utilities in County right of way 7 7 Include e legal process to establish Jesting and fair notho claims 7 8 Consolidate all language governing processes arid procodlane 8 9 Improve and streamline the process to cOnstruct and Inspect infra strubtu re 8 10 Re nee hoe the County d sting u sh es between rural and urban de)eloPrnent types _ S • Priority Findings and Actions „ Clardy Count dramege requirements and exoectet ons _ II 12 Study and improve regulation of floodplap ns to address new development in the floodpis n 9 13 Consolidate and clarity Ocunty p.rticipation in infrastrUcturc construction and oversizi tg 9 14 Distinguish between Cohnly tit aintain m ed imprements and RCA maintained improvement 10 15.,Establish a preferred form of fiscal security for construction 10 ridinldudlSetionFlndigeabdSdtottdns......... ...., 11 • Individual Section Findings and 2 General Provisions fArt ole 1) 16 3 Deitnit ons of Terms(Article 2) 17 4 General Subdivision Requirements and Eacept ons(Article 3) 23 Solutions 5 General Ratting Procedure(Article 4) — 24 6 Plan/Plat Types(Article 5) , _ 26 7 Sirlacit.is on Categories end Requirements(Article 6) 26 8 Minimum Standards oi Des gn(Ai tide 7) 26 9. Pr vete Subdi ns o ns(Art cle 8) 29 10 Traffic Impacts(Ai tick 9) 29 11 Financial Responsibilities and Gun rantees(Amele 10) . 40 12 Construction and Main Mt Ince(Article 11) _ 30 13.Final Con Struchon Approval and tlairftnnanna Acceptance of infrestructure(An de 12) 41 Priority Findings and Actions (15) Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Commissioners Court Workshop #1 I Sept. 5, 2024 Pg. 5 Stakeholder feedback.. Priority Finding and Action: # 1 • Comprehensively update the Subdivision Regulations. "The document is not very o Organize topics over multiple sections and ensure user-friendly. Folks looking at just replatting or something information is not duplicated. simple are struggling to use it. It could use some graphics o Update content to reflect changes in state law, the and easy processes to digest." replatting process, right-of-way acceptance, and platting exceptions. o Incorporate the use of flowcharts, tables, and diagrams. Pg. 5 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: #2 "The ILAs with the cities are out of sync.We have our own application and fees.We ask people to submit • Revise Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) with the Cities of to the County but they also submit to the Cities.The ILAs say the College Station and Bryan. Cities should process the plats but we don't do that and it makes it o Update ILAs to streamline process efficiency for County very inefficient." review and approval of plats in areas of the Eli without annexation or City infrastructure agreements. o Ensure that infrastructure constructed in these areas is required to meet County, rather than City, standards. "The ILAs need to be clarified to say whose regulations apply where in the ETJ." Pg. 6 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: #3 • Adopt a County Thoroughfare Plan or addendum to the MPO Thoroughfare Concept. "The MPO adopted a Thoroughfare o Option #1 : Develop a County Thoroughfare Plan with the MPO to Plan for arterials and highways, include collector roadways that align with the MPO Plan and and College Station tied into it by future interstate corridors. adding collectors.That leads to problems with the County not o Option #2: Work with the MPO to create a unified update of the requiring our right-of-way in the Thoroughfare Concept to align it with the County's Subdivision ETJ." Regulations. o Option #3: Amend Article 7, Section C.5 to match roadway types in the Thoroughfare Concept and ensure minor arterials can function as collectors. o Option #4: Revise the BCDEG or Subdivision Regulations to include design standards for collector roads and ensure they align with arterial roadways in the Thoroughfare Concept. Pg. 6 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: #4 • Clearly define the applicability of separate-but- related standards and documents. "We require development permits for unplatted lots;for a while,the o Outline in tabular format which standards govern certain message wasn't getting communicated.The City and aspects of development outside of the ETJ. County call similar things different names (simplified plat vs. minor plat). It's hard to always tell what o Clearly show which processes follow the subdivision the stricter standard is." regulations, the BCEDG, or the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines. Pg. 7 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: #5 • Revise Engineering Standards (BCEDG) as a companion document to the Subdivision "Routinely,the subregs reference Regulations. engineering guidelines that are nonexistent.There's constant o Conduct a full update of the BCEDG alongside subdivision disagreement about what needs to be done.Testing, inspections,and regulations to ensure consistency, address enforcement standards are not there even though the subregs rely onthem." issues, and eliminate cross-referencing errors. Pg. 7 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action.• #6 • Express and clarify County policy regarding utilities in County right-of-way. "If 50'has to go to 70',the County rules now say that you have to o Consider allowing administrative exceptions to utilities in move everything including . the right-of-way to reduce relocation costs and conflicts overhead utilities and water lines. In some cases,the utilities are with developers. very close to the new right-of-way and it's very hard to get it done." o Allow flexibility for extending roadways in cases where natural boundaries or other factors make such extensions infeasible to minimize unnecessary expenses and disruptions. Pg. 7 PriorityFinding and Action: #7 • Include a legal process to establish vesting and fair notice claims. o Update the subdivision regulations to clearly define when a development application constitutes a "permit" under TLGC Chapter 245. o Clarify regulations on the expiration of approved but unified plats and plans, distinguishing between dormant developments and those with delays while meeting Chapter 245.005's "progress" definition. Pg. 8, Stakeholder feedback... YFindingPriorit and Action: #8 ® Consolidate all language governing processes and procedures. "Day to day, I see conflicts between County standards and o Centralize an approval authority list and incorporate triggers for plats that don't align process aids such as flowcharts and tables to streamline with our regulations.Some little nuances tend to confuse people the process. and delay the process and cause dysfunction." o The County should establish an application for a plat waiver or exemption to prevent abuse of the exceptions process. Pg. 8 Stakeholder feedback..: YFinding •Priorit and Action: #9 • Improve and streamline the process to construct and inspect infrastructure. "There's a lot of development using gravel roads and the County o Revise design specifications and construction procedures has to come behind them and improve the road. Our regulations to ensure roadways meet County standards and clarify don't provide good tools for responsibilities for completing improvements. requiring improvements with the development when it uses o Specify the point at which of right-of-way and road deficient roads for access." infrastructure occurs to avoid County control or maintenance of improvements before completion. o Explore using 3rd party inspectors for infrastructure improvements. Pg. 8 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: # 10 Revise how the County distinguishes between rural and urban development types. "In the MUD districts,the County o Revise the specific criteria used to differentiate between owns concrete/CG roads but will urban and rural development types to ensure that never maintain them. It's not clear what the maintenance breakdown development standards accurately reflect current is in the subregs." ownership and maintenance realities. o Include the requirement that concrete streets must be supported by either a municipal utility district (MUD), municipal management district (MMD), or a development agreement to allow the City to annex the area for maintenance. Pg. 9 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: # 11 • Clarify County drainage requirements and expectations. "The County doesn't have a o Implement drainage solutions, such as ditches, swales, or drainage ordinance and you're detention facilities on private property. never sure when detention is or isn't required." o Maintain culvert pipes and driveways as private facilities • within the right-of-way, with the County reserving the right to clear blockages or make repairs and potentially place liens on property owners for recovery of costs. Pg. 9 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: # 12 "There are lots of areas with insufficient flood studies.The real problem is whether those - • Study and improve regulation of flood p la i n.s to floodplain areas are in an address new development in the floodplain. easement or a separate lot. p p Those may need to be codified within the Countysubregs:" o Pursue funding for comprehensive floodplain studies in rural areas to manage drainage and flooding concerns effectively. "Only 25% of our budget is for roads and Precinct 2 has the most flooding and road miles...The County needs a process where we can maybe require a flood study or a more robust process." Pg. 9 Stakeholder feedback:... PriorityFinding and Action: # 13 • Consolidate and clarify County participation in • "There's a lot of development infrastructure construction and oversizing. using gravel roads and the County has to come behind o Establish clear and non-contradictory language that them and improve the road. describes the County's participation in upgrading and Our regulations don't provide good tools for requiring oversizing roads during development. improvements with the development when it uses deficient roads for access." Pg. 10 Stakeholder feedback... PriorityFinding and Action: # 14 • Distinguish between County-maintained improvements and HOA-maintained improvements. "There will be more high- o Clarify maintenance responsibilities that fall on the density development in the County, and the County needs County and those that a private or other public entity to figure out how to put in should maintain to prevent the County from taking over rules for accepting and maintenance of facilities that primarily benefit private maintain those roads." property. Pg. 10 Stakeholder Feedback..: PriorityFinding and Action: # 15 "Homes and other structures • Establish a preferred form of fiscal security for are being built be before public improvements are construction. accepted." o Require preliminary acceptance of construction before final plat approval and full acceptance before recording. o Establish procedures for the alternative plat approval process authorized by HB 3167. "Developers want County to take over infrastructure more quickly before it's completed." Individual Section Findings and Actions Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Commissioners Court Workshop #1 I Sept. 5, 2024 Pg. 11 Overall Findings • 1 .1 . Uniformly reference all applicable regulations. • 1 .2. Regulate subdivision design and uses to the fullest extent authorized by state law. • 1 .3. Relocate the Appendices and other technical requirements to separate documents. • 1 .4. Revise the regulations' hierarchy and provide clarity for sections and subsections. • 1 .5. Utilize neutral pronouns for people and individuals. Pg. 12 Overall Findings • 1 .6. Include additional diagrams for imagery and review for legibility. • 1 .7. Reference state law verbatim, where applicable. • 1 .8. Review language choice for brevity and clarity. • 1 .9. Reorganize or consolidate similar content. • 1 .10. Update regulations for consistency with recent changes to state law. Pg. 17 Article 1 : General Provisions • 2. 1 . Establish clear authority for different County officials and bodies. APPLICATION TYPE DECISION-MAKER SECTION REFERENCE SUBDIVISION PLATS Preliminary Plat . 'Commissioners Court Zez.11 • Final Plat Commissioners Court $ec,.1.3 Amending Plat •• • • • •• Commissioners Court g.eg..1.4: • • Plat Vacation Commissioners Court 2.ec..3.5. Replat Commissioners Court Seg,_ ,6 • Subdivision Waiver Commissioners Court S.ec..4..1. Commissioners Court Construction,Plans '• •Engineering Representative'• Sec_4,2 Subdivision Proportionality Commissioners Court Sec,.4.•.1..4 Engineering Representative Subdivision Proportionality Appeal ..•• Commissioners Court.. .' S.ec,6 2 Figure 3.Approval Matrix Example Pg. 17 Article 2: Definitions of Terms • 3. 1 . Distribute term interpretation statements to their respective definitions. • 3.2. Clarify the source for undefined terms. • 3.3. Reference applicable agencies and regulations when defining terms governed by external bodies. • 3.4. Revise terms with modifiers to be grouped with sub-bullets for more specificity. Pg. 18 Article 2: Definitions of Terms • 3.5. Define "City." • 3.6. Consider removing the term "Cancellation Plat." • 3.7. Evaluate use-based terms for legality and efficiency. • 3.8. Remove unnecessary specificity to minimize potential conflicts. • 3.9. Clarify the term "County." Pg. 20 Article 2: Definitions of Terms • 3. 10. Clarify the ownership and maintenance of public and private facilities, utilities, roads, and spaces. • 3. 11 . Reframe the terms "Daughter" and "Parent Tract." • 3. 12. Reference the interlocal agreements in the definition of "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)." • 3. 13. Revise the definition of "Minimum Requirements." Pg. 21 Article 2: Definitions of Terms • 3. 14. Remove the definition of " Peak Hour." • 3. 15. Revise the definition of " Regulations." • 3. 16. Distinguish and define different types of " Right-of-Way." • 3. 17. Revise the definition of "Arterial Roads." • 3. 18. Reorganize "Urban" and " Rural" roadway designations. Pg. 23 Article 3: General Subdivision Requirements and Exceptions • 4. 1 . Evaluate the effectiveness of enforcing platting exceptions. Pg. 24 Article 4: General Platting Procedure • 5. 1 . Reorganize the platting procedures Article. • 5.2. Consider shortening the application expiration date. • 5.3. Establish administrative flexibility for application extensions. • 5.4. Establish the alternative platting process authorized by House Bill 3167. Pg. 26 Article 5: Plan/Plat Types • No significant recommendations to Article 5 were made. Pg. 26 Article 6: Subdivision Categories and Requirements • No significant recommendations to Article 6 were made. Pg. 27 Article 7: Minimum Standards of Design • 8. 1 . Evaluate flow-rate standards for fire protection. • 8.2. Clarify the right-of-way dedication and acceptance process. • 8.3. Clarify requirements of street alignment continuation. • 8.4. Evaluate the "Adequate Street Access" provisions. Pg. 28 Article 7: Minimum Standards of Design • 8.5. Clarify boundary road improvement requirements. • 8.6. Consider new cul-de-sacs as private street improvements. • 8.7. Address driveway timing and installation issues. • 8.8. Clarify applicable drainage flood control requirements. Pg. 28 Article 8: Private Subdivisions • 9. 1 . Clarify the applicable design, inspection, and acceptance requirements for private infrastructure and maintenance. Pg. 28 Article 9: Traffic Impacts • 10. 1 . Ensure the County is not overextending resources regarding subdivision maintenance and design . Pg. 29 Article 10: Financial Responsibilities and Guarantees • 11 . 1 . Review fiscal surety methods for desirability and effectiveness. Pg, 29 Article 11 : Construction and Maintenance • 12. 1 . Clarify the utilities and improvements permitted within County rights-of-way. Pg. 31 Article 12: Final Construction Approval and Maintenance Acceptance of Infrastructure • 13. 1 . Clearly identify any penalty for missing advanced notice deadlines for surety periods. P-WraPStepsu & Next Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Commissioners Court Workshop #1 I Sept. 5, 2024 Project Timeline September 5 & June 2024 July 24, 2024 August 2024 October 10, 2024 October 2024 November 7,2024 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Fl ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ED/ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I:YX`�i, ■ ■, PROJECT KICK-OFF STAKEHOLDER DRAFT DIAGNOSTIC COMMISSIONERS COURT REVISE DIAGNOSTIC FINALIZE MEETINGS INTERVIEWS REPORT WORKSHOPS REPORT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT IL • 416,..,- .4•%IR •'.::, ' 4...0 ,,r_._ . .. , ...:..";14:, .:..,,,,,;--:::,,,,,:;„,,,,-..„:„.-?...i.,:le....ifir7:44.4.2.6.-147:11,4„::,:difil..,,,,,,,,' '''.._ 4:::-4 __i"7.';'1:! . :: . it -:: k Ts:4::.:-,1,,.„ 6.4:1WW4;.:. '..:.'47,0,:t\_''': ''r 1 2:.:, .:. ... ke • E 1 ; w dt c, `%r � 5 � 0 aura , +"C�°� � ,a"�, � 1111. , Y i k. �>, ` `3A �• Ire .�)u�i�e u G „ ..Sly I ank o U ', N., ... tf:',./.03.$:;,-.1..,,,,,,-,-•:%-,,,,,,...'s:+ ,..1,,,,'1„4-.',. Q 6`.J 1 s� y.K•f • � � �• 1� 5i'[O LL E�r 'B a �i ^ ♦ �� • ✓ ' .. STATI7 Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic • �111C,� �`�• ° �;' � t Commissioners Court Workshop #1 Sept. 5, 2024 . ;:" } 7 wl A. , r`✓i . .yf' c'T;I • 1.,.'- r 0 Brazos County, Texas Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report Draft August 22, 2024 n Table of Contents Table of Contents ii Introduction 1 • Project Overview 1 Overall Process - 1 Key Components of the Diagnostic Report 2 Adopted Plans and Policies 2 Bryan/College Station MPO Thoroughfare Concept 2 lnterlocal Agreements(ILAs) 4 Brazos County Engineering Design Guidelines(BCEDG) 4 Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines(BCSUDG) 4 Priority Findings and Actions 5 1. Comprehensively update the Subdivision Regulations 5 2. Revise Interlocal Agreements(ILAs)with the Cities of College Station and Bryan. 5 3. Adopt a County Thoroughfare Plan or addendum to the MPO Thoroughfare Concept. 6 4. Clearly define the applicability of separate-but-related standards and documents 6 5. Revise Engineering Standards(BCEDG)as a companion document to the Subdivision Regulations 7 • 6. Express and clarify County policy regarding utilities in County right-of-way. 7 7. Include a legal process to establish vesting and fair notice claims 7 8. Consolidate all language governing processes and procedures. 8 9. Improve and streamline the process to construct and inspect infrastructure. 8 10. Revise how the County distinguishes between rural and urban development types. 8 11. Clarify County drainage requirements and expectations. 9 12. Study and improve regulation of floodplains to address new development in the floodplain 9 13. Consolidate and clarify County participation in infrastructure construction and oversizing. 9 14. Distinguish between County-maintained improvements and HOA-maintained improvements. 10 15. Establish a preferred form of fiscal security for construction. 10 Individual Section Findings and Solutions 11 1. Overall Findings 11 2. General Provisions(Article 1) 16 3. Definitions of Terms(Article 2) 17 4. General Subdivision Requirements and Exceptions(Article 3) 23 5. General Platting Procedure(Article 4) 24 6. Plan/Plat Types(Article S) 26 7. Subdivision Categories and Requirements(Article 6) 26 8. Minimum Standards of Design(Article 7) 26 9. Private Subdivisions(Article 8) 29 10. Traffic Impacts(Article 9) 29 11. Financial Responsibilities and Guarantees(Article 10) 30 12. Construction and Maintenance(Article 11) 30 13. Final Construction Approval and Maintenance Acceptance of Infrastructure(Article 12) 31 Page ii DRAFT August 22,2024 Table of Contents Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report Introduction • Project=Overview. The •Diagnostic Report:focuses on the••initial phase of Brazos: bounty's:. potential: Subdivision •' -' Regulation rewrite process.It reflects_input from County staff,:elected officials,-including the County:.::: :..:., -" :- " Judge,.staff members Of the.Cities:of College Station and Bryan,and.members of the development -. communi -- The report rovides.an analysis of the:County's current subdivision regulations and tY: P. p . .y.. .. • suggests options to consider duringfuture phases to reviser`or rewrite the exiSting Subdivision :. Regulations... .. :. .... _ : . . .. •. .. ... .. . : . The report'defines issues:arising.out of the Coun 's. current codes'and.practices a ainstthe 'backdrop of State-Lawchanges and development pressures in•Brazos County..It includes an outline.• -• :: ., of proposed recommendations on how.the:-County's procedures and regulations:can be more- effective and user-friendly.It also includes opportunities the County can pursue to limited-resources, -staff-capacity,and efficiency.: .- • ' .. -•-' .. . . .. -: . • :. . '.._ Overall-Process..:P..rocess :: ::: -•::,. •- .:The assessment of the existing regulations:took place in four:steps: • _Identifying and investigating issues arising from the use of:current listed documents and . .. '.subdivision regulations based on a.review of the regulations and:interviews with County ... stakeholders;'. .' • .Preparingan initial issues identification summery; - .:'. . .. ... • :-Refining issues and developing creative:and realistic solutions,and•... -. Preparing the final diagnostic-report.; - • -: • County staff's-input was particularly critical'to this.process,.as it gave:the Consultant Team;the - opportunity.to, hear firsthand what was working:and what was"not'•regarding the:County's . development activity:Comments were tracked and compared throughout the process:to help narrow • ',. .' down specific topics for:detailed review within the existing regulations and codes':`..: :.- .. :' ••::DRAFT August 22,2024,.-... Pagel :: '- ' Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report .. .Introduction ' "' ;t. ...•.. Key.Com onents-ofthe Diagnosticnostic-Report.. : �::.: .The sections of the diagnostic addressing each-section'and subsection'of the Countys subdivision -•• -- : ' --- :regulations include the following components; • :.Priority Findings and Actions:These findings may affect multiple:sections of the County's =•Subdivision .Regulations and address- external processes and procedures related -to development.-:These priorities-encompass the issues the Commissioners. Court should-: :. ,address as soon as possible-to ensure consistent and defensible enforcement of.the- :Subdivision Regulations --... : Individual•Section Findings and:Solutions: :. : •'"'. -' --o ::Findings.by Section: These are usually limited to one•section-or JegUlation.:If a 'section-is not listed,it isassumed there were no findings that require consideration. .. -:•: o- . issues Identified:-Bach issue includes a brief description of-the issue,relevant code references, and observations from County staff:and the Consultant:Team,though it - .•:.- is,not necessarily disambiguated to describe who the observation originated from. : :: .::'•:: : - -o. :Proposed Solutions:Followingthe issue description,this report provides:an analysis -• • • •- and.recommendations-section that discusses possible steps or strategies the County: - = -- .May employ to address the issue.This may include code amendments:but may also.• - . = ::-.. include policy:guidance if the identified issue can be addressed through.changes in ad ministering the code rather than anode update.-: . - . .A-: opted.Plans and- Policies-- - . : . .. - Bryan/College Station MPOThoroughfare Concept - : . --• .. ... .In jyrie 2017;the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning.Organization (BCSMPO or-MPO) .. - .. • .. : : ::adopted the 2050 Thoroughfare Concept as a guiding document for future right-of-way acquisition inn :.-:: ,' •: .. the-County..:The"Thoroughfare :Concept-depicts•several 'rural and urban -highway alignments,' - including inner and outer lo'ops'around.Bryan and:College Station and the future Interstate:Highway - . '14-corridorthat will eventually be constructed west of its currentterminus at Interstate:Highway 35... As the platting authority for unincorporated portions.of the-MPO's planning area,-Brazos County is:: .. responsible:.for securing:right-of-way for future• corridors during.:the: platting process: The 'Thoroughfare Concept states that"only roads considered arterial or above-are:sh,own";this is - s. notable because.:there are several:references in the:Subdivision Regulations to County::=:.. :: collectors that defer to segments shown on the'Thoroughfare-Concept. If the Thoroughfare - ' •• .Concept only'depicts future aiterialroads,the County has no plan it can use:to reference the location ..: : :.-:,.of:future collectors.and may be limited:or challenged on the ability to require right-of=way for future;. .:: -: :' : •- collector roads.per Article 7, Section C.5 that are-vital-to•the•County's:transportation'network and • -... :.. .:.. mobilitygoale. .. .. •:.Page 2 .. ... .... _. .. _ .•. . . _.-_ . . :DRAFT August 22,2 •::: .. •• -: - Adopted Plans:and Policies •• . .:• "• . -•• .:•.•: .Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report•• ••• • .. • • •�i•.%2050.BCS MPO THOROUGHFARE CONCEPT.. z i i. .: . •,- '. :•.. 1Inth Sales •";: J\\ - ' ;,r':: . . P'4—.-..4—ts-_,•,';ii-.-,t".,,, i�.L.-•.•._1.-.-----.f. 1--•-.-:,:1.-,.1i•..--..,.....„._,_z,', . . : •:,:•,..'...-..,:--.•--..;'\:,2. .:„..,..,.,,-....r._,,-,,,,,,..,1.\,4.,„,,-. . .. : " -"•• ." - . .:,, -, ,• _ .,,,,,, .... ,,,•,,,,.:„, .• •,.., I ,...... L'ii I 'I.:::.-- ' `. e `` ,- r, ,fry •w .,a -•- '_-_., • ' \ Y � , 41-a r ? 4 r�1 rah' '> . c"1 i r_ /f••-. .. :. .. ,H '...�sr Yc y, d ,. ';ts L,ice "',r -.».j fl':ti .. .. . ; .. S•7p ✓'` 'Y. _ it rYi' , ��j° - EI•lti ` yam. n r � r •`�v�-• ,S. -, �, 3'♦ '' ' -4 uy• 4tr; ' -i.4� 1--.../'rr-8a-I ", -. .. :.. .: .`:, .\. , y- a'Tilt ���1 k ,x 7° 1`. .. •. .: ••.i !. e f t +�. n'{� ,.1.4) ' 1 t .;i+";•s Jr+"-i. di'`.��e��"'..';f •r.'�\� ..• • .. �=` 1/4y h.`" by sue: r. �7P4,,' ""Y�, t . g.'�;! 1.4�;1 \\ �,,j-, i' �' �yi` � �p .T r ` • ar, • t'i • • • .. .. .... ,.- / A w tee' 3 ,,.. .--y .:..r—.• t">,+d4,4 1 ��•• r+..,.,-:.- ..: .. .. • :.- F e•.. .rr z " 4` . .i.x l r /' z® ,° 6 L"'4p t,D i - ._r ail • . • y� '• `•p p,7 x:.-'� 'c'f y `, ��' \ �^etIDtzf ;rrdf a�`e , �'jy/ +1' -J. I_; :I • _ j Y1n 5J ', ..4 �Z_ - - ... • 1 nV •.. . t• i \a r a: Yftt..3 irr,w'�q' v .:,0 �• , S\ y�C.s f =: ..f'." • .... a1 • +� a 'el �T" ' § ; y, :Ice ` k£ _ 4.y. '.I 1k A1 .. .. . , . • w r i� pk if -RI. "". ,.41 t' rlK°r i ` L4 c f. 1` ' �P ,.r' rF4a ti.. A...• , 1 voyya ,�../:.. qqq sv,� �r {. ,,•.,,,t. ,ciR t... v • , • . s .. .. ... ti .. '1,r. Fy$1 �N�\(.5 ,4.4 r Yha!�'4 '� F'4.:4 `'7 `, t',yZa4S '4�T't .'u k` hi r ! .. .. - p FiP' A '" mil' _.' _ r 4 ,. ,. • .. D • • . e r� ' f � .. r' y i * �yf y h`, _ � t . . ... .. .. .. - ` p z am- , �'�� " � Y` c a • t• c. .. r ° T'i v: - - ; � • .\.,/r k o�•N� ti< 7 x,'�i,';. F .r., ,. a't t�,� `s• .. .. ... .i \ / • ... —• gym.:.. ,4; , .f - } - i .. • •MfDBq,dOTIpORgItUIIAI,E WMGIyf .• MF' r? {{ 3 �. 4q{' • •. %...4.cat4xlvN1 L,.�I'1]Y afAy • ` Jr—� -'(w,cm - •:.'' I ;': I -,yam'gyp,, !K , l nm y- • - . -. ..Figure.1.2056.8CSMPO:ThoroughfareConcept - .• --' DRAi=fAugust22,2024. •• •" age: • -- - . Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report : - : Adopted Plans and Policies • •:::-.-, lnterlocal Agreements (ILAs�•::: • :: -. Brazos'County has entered into'Interlocal-Agreementsboth with,the City of Bryan-and the-City of -- ` •- :::College Station to.divide platting authority:The main issues of these interlocal agreements are their -- . inconsistency:'with'the County's,'Subdivision".Regulations 'and••not being fully executed :.:The - -_ agreements;give exclusive platting authority to the Cityof.Bryan and City:of College Station,:including • : their ETJ.However-,-the County requires applications submitted to:both the City and,theCounty.Asa. -.: - ••• :result,these applications are shared::between the cities and the:County,which leads to other. .::- issues: .'-"The:Cities serve.as the first point of contact-for subdivision plats in•the ETJ,who would review the.. - _. .:'application quickly;:For example,the Cityof Bryan usually.completes plat reviews in three business . days. However,'the County.is.not able to complete the reviews in the.sarme'amount of time due'to "liimited•staff'and resources:Still,•Brazos County has an interest in the full platting authority in the ... ., • • :--::.as it is in charge of all.infrastructure.Furthermore,there is:also.confusion regarding..the-County's and:.. .: .: �- • .- cities'roles and responsibilities..The-County'expects all applications in ETJ-to-follow its standards:" But the cities:commonly review:civil plans in the,ETJ-•despite the lack=of�inspection or maintenance : responsibi[ities.. :. These interlocal agreements were.established in the 1.990s:They'have not been updated and'do not•• ••- reflectthe County Subdivision;Regulations updated.in 2016.Currently,application reviews'are.based ••on:the'stricter'standard:__There"isa need.to•.clearly define_which:standard, the.Brazos County -• -' _. .'" _- :Engineering Design-Guideline, the.Bryan/College Station--Unified Design Guidelines, or the' ;•` -.::. '- ' - City's.regulations,is applied to subdivision applications to minimizeconfusiion .-. ••-- ;: Brazos County:`En ineerin Design.Guidelines: BCEDG . " Engineering 9 . . . .. " Based::on:stekeholder feedback,•:these documents: are incom lete:or.:do•not rovide sufficient ".support to the Subdivision Regulations,.creating confusion:as.to the applicability of,the•subdivision° :- - regulations,BCEDG,'ci standards inthe Eby,and,B . an/Colle aStationUnified Design Guidelines• : (see below):A key issue of-the.BCEDG is its inconsistency"with the Bryan%College Station.Unified -Design`Guidelines:The:BCED-GIreferences the Bryan/College Station guidelines in various sections;. :-• -:-.-: ;,,, . however,-the guidelines are not interchangeable with the BCEDG.TheCountgsf ouldmaintain';',•:•--•.•, "' "" -" consistency:among the two regulations. .. .. . • • '- -' Bryan/College Stati•on U• nified Design=Guidelines�(BCSUDG• _.: • ,Commonlyreferred to as,"BC�S:,;these are regional standards intended to consistently app'ly.design • ": ;standards for urban,infrastructure,including streets,drainage,:drinking water,:and wastewater.They_,. .. • outline the acceptable standards,by both cities to provide engineers-with-clear•directions when .` _. = designing infrastructure.The:regulations were created to maintain the safety and qualityof:life Hof all -' ' ' -users in:the Bryan and College Station area;.includingwithin.the cities'''extraterritorial:jurisdictions °(Eli),-The regulations.a re.applied by both cities and are referenced,in the Brazos County Engineering :•.: • Design•Guidelines. . . ..,.Pa ge4 :,.'.__ : • : : DR,4FFAugust 22;2024':::' ` .... •• •• Adopted Plans:and Policies . : Subdivision Regulations`Diagno, Report • ....: Priority Findings::an. Actions .. .: - - .: ... . 1. • comprehensively u datet e Su .v. i on Reguati®ns .A comprehensive review of the existing subdivision•regulations,as well as conversations:with•• • • • •. -- . several-users of the existing subdivision regulations and development stakeholders within ' the County,'iit was found that-the.subdivision regulations contain significant:issues. These -:- include organizational issues, :such:as topics that=.are divided over. multiple sections,- :: :.information that is duplicated in multiple•sectiions,and significant'use of technical language ... .. .. .that is-more.appropriate•in a design manual:.. _ .. •.: Content within:the subdivision regulations should also_be updated to reflect changes in state. •..:•-_:• . ::law,:the replatting•process,'right-of-way:acceptance, and platting:exceptions.:Finally;:the . ••subdivision-regulations•would benefit.from:greater use_of visual aids, such-as-flowcharts, .., ,. .. •• • tables,and.diagrams. • Given the need for multiple updates to-each:Major section-of the subdivision regulations, : . :.along with issues;related•-to the layout.-and:-organization•. .of.the. ordinance:itself; it' is .: • recommended:that the subdivision regulations be:comprehensively updated-consistent with . :. •• .. th.e.recommendations.foundin-Section4of.this.CodeDiagnostic. .. .. -- -- - ::- '•. Revise-Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) with the Cities of-College 2ollege :- :'Station and Bryan .:.. . . • --. .- While Brazos County has adopted ILAs with thetwo major cities,feedback from both County -• • and City:staff.indicates that the actual practices:of:the three entities.does not reflect the.:'.".: --procedures outlined in the lLAs.Plats in the ETJs of both cities continue to gothrough a h�brid :-approval process that involves both County.and City reviewing plats-and infrastructure and sending them:.to respective.•commissions for :approval. This practice-•has resulted in.: ..' uncertain and different timelinesfo'r review and ap proval.royal.Because the rocess applies the : subdivision requirements that are more strenuous, the County.-isplaced in the position of "' ••• • having to approve:infrastructure it-may not be able to maintain. -- ' • • - • - •• ... • Changes:to-annexation taw since•the=ILAs were adopted have also,reduced the likelihood of• •-• :.cities annexingterritory in.the future.If large areas of the Eli are.likelyto remain under County . ... .. :•maintenance, the.IlAs should be-jointly updated to improve process efficiency so that the ••• .. •• . • County reviews and approves plats in:areas of the ET1 that do not have an agreement to annex •or build City infrastructure:This would,ensure.that the infrastructure constructed in these • ••. : areas-is required to meet,County, rather than:City, standards:and.that no jurisdiction. is .: reviewingor responsible for plans that:it will not ultirrietely-approve or maintain: ' . ::DRAFT August 22,2024-.. ..... .. .. •.• .. .. ... .. Page:S..- - . Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report . '• " • -•- -: -•• .:.Priority Findings and Actions`• 3. Adopt"aCountyThoroughfare Plaor addendum:to thMPO: . • • Thoroughfare•Conce t . . .. Currently; Article 7, Section•C:5 •of the subdivision :regulations requires that collector:::.• .-roadways be constructed according-to the• Bryan College :Station MPO..(BCSMPO) Thoroughfare Plan Concept.and defers toe-that Plan to identifythe'Location of future.arterial • and collector road Locations However,the current.adopted BCSMPO Plan"(published June. . : : . " 27,2017)"addresses arterial roadways and_freeways:and"doesn't include:locations of future.: •. • •:: •.collector roads.The Countyshould consider one of the following:options to align the:text of the-Subdivision-Regulations-with the.Thoroughfare Concept:" - -" .• . •••• ::•Option#1;The County could•develop:its•own thoroughfare"plan in cooperation with " ' - • :••::the MPO that includes collector roadways, giving the:County the ability to:require . right-of-way and construction of future collector:roadways that are aligned with the MP.O's•.Plan and future,interstate corridors:planned"to run throughBraios County. :. .: ": " • ':Option#2:Workwiththe MPO.to create a unified update of the Thoroughfare Concept ,. •• sOthatif and the County's Subdivision Regulations are in alignment:end adequately•: • . • :. provide the County with'aPlanforfuturenetwork. " • • .. .. •" • Option,#3: Update the text"of Article 7, Section:C:5 to reference the same roadway- : • -•• • types.listed in the Thoroughfare Concept.:.Note:that the suitability.of:this option to.:':..: • i provide for an ade uate Countyroadwa network de ends u on whether the arterial :.. :: P 4 .. .. Y P ... ...• P - - ' - :roadways"shown on the Thoroughfare Concept, particularly the Minor Arterials, can "_ :- -. ` - adequately function as collector roadways in the network hierarchy shown in the ••. - ' - " Thoroughfare Concept.- • ' • "'• .. " " " ". . • Option-#4 Update the design standards in the BCEDG or•Subdivision:Regulations to "" .. provide adequate guidance on the minimum:section width arid;profile of collector : roads as well.as the required spacing and relationship to arterial roadways shown"on • .:the ThoroughfareConcept. .. - .. . .. .. .. • • 4. :-Clearly define the-applicability of separate-but-related standards and documents:. y . . .. .. • - :'• The subdivision regulations currentl lack clari and consistenc re ardingthe applicability. . - -. :"ofi the standards and;documents to which'..it refers and on"which administration ofad ministratiOn-of the _ .• regulations 'relies: To avoid this issue; it is recommended that the subdivision regulations. • "•- outline in tabular.format which standards govern certain aspects of development outside of.: "•:. -"the extraterritorial urisdction ETJ It should-be clearlyshown which processes followthe .. ... .... .. ..:. • • : •subdivision regulations,the BCEDG,.orthe Bryan/College Station Unified.Design Guidelines ." -•• :. • (BCUDG,:but commonly referred to as"BCS") .. • g•'This:organized approach will help dev elo ers and County.officials quickly identi the • ' .. - - • applicable standards and ensure preper.Odtribliance with the appropriatere ulations. " :` -::Page6 : : "DRAFT August 22,2024•:••-:' •• Priority Findings and Actions" . : -•- . Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report " " - Revise Ertigineering Stan ar s BCEDG as a-companion • ::document to the:Subdivision Regulations. :: ::':::: -::- • - The BCEDG have been in use for:several years,but their has been undermined'- - by-inconsistent enforcement. This has.created:issues with cross-referencing particularly - when the subdivisio:n_regulations cite sections of.the engineering standards that do not exist. - .: ••: •• It is recommended that a full update to-the BCEDG:should be conducted when the. - subdivision'regulations are.updated-so that.all necessary:standards are:accounted:for and.: :• .' :'are-not duplicated between the two documents. '- • "' -• -•: 6. ,-Express�and•clariFy�County policy.regardng utilities inCounty.-: - • - - .-.- ----:= ;-right-of-way. :. .. : ::. . - •• Currently;the subdivision.regulations'prohibit the location or placing of-Underground utilities :f:-- • - . .•in•County right-of-way:The requirement not only applies to new utilities, but in some ca•ses- : ::•. .., .. hasI:required the `me oving:;of existing:infrastructure outsid : y, .the:right-of-waincluding • infrastructure intended for future use such as water lines.This re uirement and resultant. q :• -• •..• process has contributed to.significant lead times when:County roads:are.constructed,or•• • • • :.widened. •.. .. . - The County should consider reasonable administrative-exceptions to utilities:in the right-of- way restrictions and allow for.flexibility in cases where.adherence to these.restrictions may result in'significant relocation costs or conflicts with developers.Additionally,in cases where • .. a•natural boundary or other considerations make future extension-of roadways infeasible,the ... .. ._ -• • County should Considerbuilding_in.flexibility to the requirement to extend:roadways to the:.- " limits of subdivisions to minimize unnecessaryexpenses and disruptions. . " •.- - •. . .7. Include.a legal process-to establish vesting-and.Fair:notice ... = ° -. ::. .:.. .-claims, :::. ::. - . . : :. The current subdivision regulations,do not contain:adequate language:addressin ". g when :a: .: • -• - development-•application.is considered a." m perit-under Texas .Local-Government•Code•• :-Chapter 245.The mechanism for establishing a.permit(usually a•plat)should follow:Chapter • :;-; •• • -245.-and provide-a language:and flexibility for the County to determine whether a ::-.-: .. .., • - -- d • evelopment-has.been vested'under-certain rights:and.regulations and:which standards ::;--•.- a'-�ly:to the develo ment:.Another 245 issue:is the expiratio.n'of:a ' roved .and..plans PP.Y P. PP 'platsP •;.• that:have not been:filed;:or:completed.:The'regulations should.clearly distinguish;between developments:that are or inactive and those-that have experienced delays but, •• -: .•. : continue:to:meet:the Chapter 245,005'definition,of"-progress"._._ , :. ::- .. •: .•• - :pRAFf August 22,2024:..:..... ••• . .. Subdivision Regulations biagnostic Report-. " •'' " - ••• -:-.•: .- :Priority Findings and Actions' 8. Consolidate:all language governing:processes and procedures:': ... .. :. :The current-subdivision•-regulations have"different processes•endr'procedures developers - :. .. :,.••- must foil*,but•these are spread throughout the:document, making it difficult to locate all:::. . "•• • relevant information.To improve efficiency-and_clarity,it is recommended'that the-County '•" ' • ". _ centralize an approval,authority list and incorporate process:aids such as flowcharts-and -= ': ••tables to.streamline'the process::- "` - •- •• ••• County Staff ndicated.that.exceptions-toplattttingmight•be°misapplied,:withsomeapplicants-• going through a v • ariance';process'that';may" not be supported;by State Law under..:the - *consan uini `-. g ty;clau§e.in TLGC-232.0015.To•Prevent- of the exceptions process, the. •. County should'•also establish an':application for la:plat.waiver or exemption Example:,,':_::'•..: : •: :•Williamson County.requires=an affidavit-and•copy of deeds for each property. : ::-: 9Improveandsreamlnehe process toconstructandinspect , :,:• •: t : . . .- : infrastructure.=:;: : :.. ... _..: Several problems were noted:with the construction and inspection process,with comments';- •• • • ,ori originating from County g g ty:-staff and the development community:,Issues noted include` difficulty ensuring that roadways are constructed to Countystandards,difficulty resolving,all •• • •• - outstanding'deficiencies fr'om:the inspection process(even,or particularly,•wi'th punch•list ,. • items near the pointof acceptancej.and permitting and;inspection of improvements that link:;:.•. • •. • - .- • to infrastructure such•as driveway approaches:and culverts.,• :. • ,- `- --•'In some cases,:resolvingth`ese issues;may involve introducing greater-flexibility hito•design •• • • „ =- specificationsorconstructiontoaccount for different-scenarios.The processoofconstruction`::,•:: - ,-and_acceptance may also-need•to be:revised:id ensure that:sufficient-abbess'it:beini ••• •• '" •- .•: _• ;:provided before Site:::construction occurs.;_and that :responsibility for .completing :• • improvements,isclearl assigned.,Lastl ,the point;et which acceptance ofright-of-wayand; ::••: ' -. road infrastructure occurs.should-be:specified to prevent the County from assuming control • :• - :.or. _maintenance of:,iry improvements and. ,being required:.to .provide access':to.;those ` :.. .. -: improvements,; re•comple tionbefore :, -• - :. ,:`',.: As with many�counties,in Texas;.Brazos County:is;Limited in its abilitiito,` to.deploy staff .";..:. • ,.• :•perform improvement inspections.The County should furtherinvestigatethe use;of•3"':party •inspectors. for_.infrastructure• improvements.and private construction--(per..Texas-Local• -..'-• :,-,;...:;.;; - Government,Code Chapter 2331 as:part of future updatesto the subdivision regulations. :- •1.0... Revise-how:the.County distinguishes:between rural and'urban - .,. - ::-; - development types. :.To:'ensure that development standards:::accurately reflect current ownership -and - maintenance`re_alities, the County:should revise-the•specific criteria used to:differentiate, •!" ;:• between•urban and rural development types.The distinction should be.updated to.include.. •..: :•the•requirementthat concrete streets must be supported by:either,a municipal utility district •,. MUD Municipal.mans ement district MMD , or a develo•ment-a•agreement ivin the ( ) P. : g ( ):.. P g g. .. g City ... • :::.•:; ` the ability to annex the area for maintenance. • : : _, ..,,Page 8 -.. :DRAFT August 22,2024`,';: Priority Findings and Actions ,-:-.:•:••• . -••:- •- -, •-• •:••-: " ., :•SubdivisionRegulationsDiagnosticReport`' • :• •• .- 11.- .•Clarify County drainage requirements'and expectations. ' The-current..subdivision• regulations.are-'unclear on.what-the ro er requirements and ... ,. .. :. .. • expectations of the County are wherrit comes to drainage management:To_ensure effective :: ' drainage management for roads designated for County maintenance.;itis recommended that' --drainage solutions, such as ditches, swales, or detention facilities, be implemented on .. " " private property.:Culvert pipes and drivewa s should-remain as private facilities within the. ' -: P p •: ' PP Y .. right-of-way, however,the County:should reserve the:right to clear any blockages or make::=:;;: ::- :. repairs.In such cases,the County may place alien on the property ownerto recoverthe costs - -. . :.oftheseactions. -. .. .. 12. : Study and improvelregulation.of floodplains to address new::: - .. ., development in the floodplain. -During interviews with County-and city staff,certain residential developments were identified ' as being subject to flooding despite being constructed recently:underthe current subdivision regulations.-To::effectively manage:drainage and flooding concerns in:the area, it is. . . ,. recommended:that the County Pursue funding for.comprehensivefloodplain studies in rural:: ::: -;. - 'areas::These studies.should focus on evaluating creeks and.tributaries to determine their capacity for suficientdischarge..Assessingtheseconcerns will facilitate the identificationof :. :. properties that May be exempt detention re uirements due to theirabilii" to adequately : .- ... . Y P a ... ty :.. .:`. - • .manage runoff. •• • 13... Consolidate:and clarify:County participation in infrastructure :.construction and;oversizing: ': • _. Stakeholder interviews revealed-that-many existing Comity roads are nottbeing upgraded to - County standards during development, resulting: in; large amounts.:of,traffic utilizing inadequate gravel_:roads :The subdivision .regulations should :establish clear and :non- contradictorylanguagethat describes the County's participation-in upgrading and oversizing , roads during development to eliminate any gray ar-eas..The participation-language should be .. - .. .specific enough to assign -responsibility- to,the developer to construct its share :Of - improvements but flexible not to:bind the County to an.exact cost share:for each .. .. project. .. .. . : DRAFT August 22,2024: Page-9 ::• ,. Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report. ' =- :Priority Findings and Actions - i14 Distinguish betweeCountymantaed impro•veentsndin :. :. '... HOA:maintained_improvements ::" The subdivision:regulations should'clarify maintenance-responsibilities•that fall on the-:: . - County and those that'should•be maintained by a private or other;public entity.Clarification : on:which improvements May the•responsibility of another.entity,.such as a Homeown•ers Association (HOA), should be'outlined.to assign the proper responsibility.and prevent the: :- - . County from taking over maintenance of facilities that primarily benefit-private property. -. : • • ::15.' Establish a preferred form of fiscal security for construction. - . It is:recommended:that the County establishes a preferred form.,of fiscal security centered - : around:recording.of a'finalplat:Under,thissystem.,preliminary•acceptance of.constructon -. work will be required prior to the a final plat.Full acceptance.should be required .prior- to. filing'-or recording the' final plat. Alternative methods;:may be::used._in certain "•circumstances(such as smaller projects Or commercial projects)7but should be spelled out • clearlyto'noteubjeetthe.Countyto•an elongated construction and inspection period in which the developer has little incentive•to�finish infrastructure improvements. "`::.,: Additionally,in 2019-,the Texas Legislature:passed legislation 3167)to allow an:applicant - to notfile.a- relimine'� p. ry plat.or-construction plans-if they applicant decides;at their own ' - discretion,to'submit a final: latwith either--a bond-or financialgguarantee in:lieu.of a bond for`•••: =-''... • P., :. ..: g the,proper construction-'of the roads.and`streets in and drainage requirements for;the subdivision. The alternative aPProval.::process authorized: by HB 3167 should be: established;with:all necessary processes and procedures • • • '•'-•;Page..10 - • DRAFT August 22,2024.::7 PriorityFindings and Actions" Subdivision Regulations'DiagnosticBeport" Individual Section Find• ings and Solutions .1, Overall Findiings .: •. .•. . . : .. .... . .. • : 1.1:: : :Uniformly reference all applicable regulations. Issue:Identified-''. . .. - .. - . . ,The Subdivision,Regulations refer to external regulations across various Articles and ' sections, resulting in unclear applicability and enforcement. Namely,:references often switch between the Brazos County Engineering Design Gu-idelines(BCEDG)and :: the B.ryan/College Station.Unified Design Guidelines (BCSUDG).:At the time of this :•:. g, y g Writing; the.BCSUDG-is currentl .being;revised;'referencesao these standards,;as • : .•appropriate;should be reviewed:for:continuitywith ongoing revisions. . Ad• ditionally,references to.all other applicable.County ordinances are inconsistent or•: - ' :missing:References to these external regulations,'suches.the Coun 's Flood lain '. -- _-Ordinance,should be available clearly and concisely;- ,.:, - . . Pro osed:Solutions - :: A. Include.consistent and clear:references at the beginning of each Article:to •- .-. .. :..:.. : provide the.reader and staff with:clear expectations.and applicabili ty.:. :.._. . B.:Review all references to the BCEDG-and.BCSUDG to confirm the intended - :: standards are.present desirable,.and enforceable by C Staff:. ounty sta . .- .... C. Ensure"that-all references to_external regulations:are accompanied-,by "as amended"-and."unless•otherwise stated":to .keep' references .evergreen-as : - - '" - regulations are adapted overtime. --. -. •- •- •- "• .. . : : - 1.:2: - Regulate subdivision design and uses to the fullest:extent-•- . ,. . . : : • : - :.: , authorized by state:l`aw. :. .. . issue Identified :•• While the:Texas Local Government Code(TLGC)restricts the extentto which counties • :: . : .may regulate land .uses:and design, there are a few use-specific'standards.and - . ": :restrictions:the:County is authorised to regulate. Chapter23$(County Regulation:of " ": HousingandN Other Structures);Chapter234 Coun Regulation of Businesses and Occupations),and Chapter243(Municipal and.CountyAuthorityto:Regulate Sexually. :•:.- - :: ' :Oriented Business):grant Brazos county:with use-specific regulations not.currently •' accounted for.in:the;Subdivision Regulations. • -- --- •• : •: The:86tb Legislature adopted-:Section 232.1..10 of:the TLGC in 2019,•:allowing*the •: County to require developers to,bear a'portion of the costs_of County infrastructure . ""• '"' . improvements_associated with'develo development. Thisprovision was not found in.the Subdivision Regulations. .::. - .. • ... .... . .::. : ••Proposed Solutions) .: :.... : :..: : A. Adopt the.use-specific,regulations afforded by-Chapters 233.,234,.end 24.3 of ., . .. ... - -- '...the TLGC into the Subdivision Regulations.and establish.a.permitting process' . :. •• .: :.,:.- .: for ease of.review and'enforcement.•. . ''-. . ..... - • .. ...:. .. :• ::DRAFT August 22,202'4- -: .." . Page tl• . .::. . •• Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report .. .:". : -- indiMidual:5ection Findings and Solutions " , _ . _.. .. , .. .. _ .. t.- _. ., ; .B: Adopt.Section 232:110'into the.Subdivision Regulations,°Including what Brazos.County considers"County infrastructure: Establish a process for -determining apportionment costs through the subdivision.process 1. 3: Relocate the-Appendices and:other technical:requirements to - . •: separate, standalone:documents. •• :: . Issue Identified : . . .. .. - --The Subdivision •Regulations':.Appendices include content.related:to application - checklists,forms, and.content(Appendices A,:D C, and G),.fees.(Appendix B), and - other regulato•ry=information.Application;content and requirements are best'located.. "- •- .. :.. . • in a separate document or manualfor:ease of alteration and.diistribution - - Likewise Various•design-:criteria and inspection-processes-'are::c_odified in the - - .Subdivision Regulations (Example:-Article 1•1' Section-B)....This-information-is:best•- ' . located in external design criteria manuals(e.g.,the;BCEDG or BCSUDG)•for.ease of • alteration and ads tabili • _ P tY • Proposed Solutions) ". A. Establish a'-centralized document.with all application,requirements'ard'lees, . - such as a Brazos CountyUnified Development Handbook ::: ' . °B..•:Create explicit referencesto external applicationdocumentsin the Subdivision :. Regulations,;'including provisions`that applications must be made correctly:and `:". ,..holistically-per external documents to be.considered complete... .:. - - • : C,:.Relocate and reference design criteria:-for infrastructure and inspection :; procedures to•external policy documents 1.4. Revise"the regulations' hierarchyar d:provide clarity- for • . ... :-.: sections.and.subsections. - .. .-. .. . .. ::lssue•Identified.. .. ._. :. The-hierarch of rovisions.is inconsistentl applied throughout For.example,Article Y P . .. Y PP 1 follows the. ,1•A.1.a. hierarchy, .while Article 3 ;includes a 1.A i --hierarchy. _ ., • Additiona ,-section lly and_subsection-headings.inconsistently�includetopic headings, :• providing the user little context to the section's'content. . Proposed Solution(s) .: - • :A.'-Establish a consistent hierarchy .across: all Articles:-in the Subdivision. "' .:°:Re ulations,and s-eci the section's-content brieflyin each heeding title: g. P... fY :.. .:.. ::Article 01:::. Section -.-• ,:;,"A: Subsection ' .:.(1). )tern-• ,a: •- :. :.. :.. :. S _ . _ ... . .. -- S ubitem i._: . - _ • :;Page,12- -DRAFT August 22,2024-; -... individual Section:Findings and Solutions: . •• . 'Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic.Report '" 1.5 Utilize neutral pronouns for-people and individuals: • Issue Identified • - Gender-specific terms -(e.g., his/her, his) :are used throughout the. Subdivision :• .. • Regulations when referring to individuals involved in the-development process. For example,Article 10, Section D.2.b states that"the offer of letter of credit in lieu of -, bond shall be accompanied by a letter of credit.surety agreement signed by the "' _ . -Developer or his. agent".Gender-specific terms result in inconsistencies between • . . : regulatory language and real-life application. Proposed Solution(s): .. :: A. Utilize neutral pronouns (e:g.;.::they/their) or eliminate when possible • ("developer's agent"or"designee")when referring to specific individuals and . . :: officials. 1= 6 Include additional diagrams and imagery and•review for:: :. legibility. _ • . Issue Identified The subdivision regulations do not rely ;- -. :. ,, t r a heavily: on diagrams. or imagery to ,;' A "b . • 'illustrate requirements or processes. In:: _, general, graphics are• preferred when- j ,id0 - illustrating measurement requirements � � and . . application . procedures. ` oxen 4: „ t .. . . Additionally, some graphics used in the. ; r ' r j Subdivision Regulations, .like the Lot A �'- a -• ' - ""'-- Types definition graphic, are: blurryand --, =-5--- ' ' YP g P �n,�v�o�,w5� . .illegible: Figure 2.Example Graphic(Sight Triangle) • Proposed Solution(s) A.- Implement additional: flow charts and procedural graphics when possible (Example:Article 10). - B. Review existing graphics for consistencywith updated regulations and legibility. . C. Cross-reference,images within the Subdivision Regulations,where applicable. DRAFT August 22,2024:: ::. -. Page 13. : :. . Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report .. ' " ' Individual Section Findings and Solutions '' . .: . : 1.7, :Reference state•law verbatim;where applicable. : :.... .:.._:.• issue.Identified - .. :..:.- . .. .. . -: .. ... Texas; .L;ocal Government ;:Code (TLGC): references are made:,throughout the :_:_ ..... - _. • ':" '`: : :Subdivision Regulations;however, references are often abbreviated front the actual language included in the statute.inconsistencies may result in conflicting provisions. - Likewise,there are a few:instances where references to the TLGC:are warranted but -: : :not provided(Example:Article 2;definition of"Replat").• - .: • Proposed.Solution(s). .::. . .. .. _ - -A.:•'Align definitions-and other terminology with the TLGC where:possible to prevent • :: conflicts.. -. :: .. . • - - 'B. Reference the:TOO verbatimparticularly:regarding.platting:procedures•and .... :.:.approval timelines.:: : .. • :: C.• include hyperlinks' to specific:TLGC'sections,when:referenced-(Example: .. ._. :. " : hops://statutes.capitoLtexas.gov/Docs/LG/htm/LG232:htm#232.OU-15: ::links . - .: - . directly to Chapter 232;Section 232:0015:.Exceptions to:Plat Requirement). :• . ':1:;8 :.. Review language choice:for brevity and:clarity. - :: :. ... :. :- - Issue•identified ',•.. .. :. At times,the language choice throughout the Subdivision Regulations is lengthy and - .• .• overly..technical (Example; Article:'10, Section A,6; use of the word"abeyance"). . .• :. '... :. Lengthier::and technical:text::results in a•more:"difficult document to read and'... :. .. .: : ...' . • .administer across all audiences.. . .: ..::' • ' .. .."' - " ' Proposed Solutions) . . A::•Revise language:choice.to favor fewer;more_conventional:language rather than . .: lengthy.technical alternatives r(Example: Definition:Of:a cul-de-sac,"A'street having but one'(1)outlet...").`. : - ' 'B. 'Capitalize all institutions;organizations,'and agencies,including cities. :1:9.::. `Reorganize:or•consolidate:similar content::.:-.. Issue.identified `_ 'SeveralArticles.and:Sectionsthroughout the Subdivision:Regulationsaddresssimilar . . - • :.... content, causing difficulty. in determining..all_the'necessary •applicable - .. • :. regulations related to-a topic. For example,Article 12 is related.to:but disconnected ' from material in Articles 10'and 11,making it difficult:to know:if the reader is receiving all relevant information about construction and acceptance.'• Pro osed:Solution s :: • •• :: : .. • A. Consolidate:the subdivision 'regulations by topic,: enerallgrouped :by 0) general :provisions end authority,authority, (2) subdivision types, processes, and standards, (3) development and construction applications, :processes, and :. .. -• •: :..:.• - standards,.(4)-relief procedures,.and(5)=definitions,;. : . ' ::Page'14 _ _' .. ":DRAFT August 22,2024 • • • ''Individual.Section.FindingsandSolutions . . :. :: .. . ,Subdivision.Regulations Diagnostic:Report : - B: Cross-reference applicable Articles and Sections when referenced across the -: Subdivision Regulations for.ease of reference. . :•:. .1.1:0..Update regulations For consistency with recent changes to . .. : state law. • : Issue.Identified • Recent legislatures have drastically changed the dynamic between counties and their - -•.. cities,mainly related to extraterritorial jurisdictions (EFi):and voluntary annexations. • .: . Additionally, mandatoty approval timelines have been unposed::for platting'.... :. applications and.otherpermits that differ from the County's adopted-processes. . Consistency.with:state regulations:is important to prevent unwanted development •outcomes:or accidental complacency related to application approvals .. .. .. . . . .Proposed Sotution(s) : .:. .... • :.• : A. Revise-the County's interlocal-agreements (ILA)::withiin all ETJs to -affirm the applicable subdivision regulations and expectations should property owners• ' voluntarily.removethemselves-frorntheycities'subdivision purview. •. :. :: B. Consider.establishing administrative approval for.:specific or all plat:types:as _permitted by Section 232.0022 of the TLGC._ •- ` .. • . •C :Adopt the state-mandated approval::timeline as established in Section. : : 232.0025 of the TLGC. " • • • • • ::DRAFT August 22,2024:: : : : Page 15 :::: .: .: . . -SubdiMision Regulations Diagnostic Report :. : • Individual-Section Findings and Solutions 2. General-Provisions (Artiicle l-�. •- - : : •• • .- •• • 2:1. Establish.cleat authority rot-different-County.officials and-- •" . .. ::. . • • bodies: . -issue Identified :. •• :. • -- No centralized location within:the Subdivision Regulations identifies all County staff,•..• •- . • .officials;-or bodies and their:respectiveapproval'authorities.Thisleads.toconfusion - - - :. "... .when determining the proper approval.procedures for.different application types. . Proposed.Solution(s)- - - .. . _ • .A: Create a.matrix or graphic see:Fi figure'3- that identifies all Coun approval • • ( g ) ty PP bodies.(e g.; County Engineer;:Inspector, Clerk;Commissioner Court; or:their - .. . •respective representatives) and the :applications or actioris-that they are. .. ::'responsibleforproviding.recommendations;acting on,ordeterminingappeals: • - :AP .P.LICATION TYPE -' ' ,: • • DECISION-MAKER SECTION .: .. '•REFERENCE,.• SUBDIVISION PLATS . •• :Preiirninary Plat •Commissioners Court - = •Sec,32- : Final Pig. : Commissioner Court;. les.,&??- •• - •- • -Amending Plat, Commissioners Court : •Sec..3:4- " ; •• . - Plat : - .-. • � - - Commissioners-Court; : :. • Re lat-- •- - •- m Comissioners.Court :Subdivision Waiver._ ••• : : .:••• Commissioners Court . ,_ . : .:.••.eq..4.9. : :..: ` : m missiones:CQu - •- . - ConstruconPlans • • • 3gc.?4.2._;_ :.. :,:.•Engineering Representstive ... •- •: .: ••. :Subdivision Proportionality-. - Sec•.4r.1,4 Commissioners Court • • • . : Engineering Representative .: : .:. • . :. ... Subdivision P.r oporEfonalityAppeaC ,. .. :Cominissoneis.Court'. Q :$, . ._ .•. : :: FlMure 3:ADDroval.Matrix Example. .': - ::Page 16 : ::. -: • : •:DRAFT August 22,2024 •: . - - -- Individual Section•Findings and Solutions :. : . - 'Siibdivision:Regulations Diagnostic:Report .• ' ' • Definitions'of•Terms-(Article 2) : '• - ....- -3. . • . : 3:1::-. Distribute term interpretation statements to their:respective. : .: definitions. :.: . : •issue Identified : • Atthe"beginningofArticle 2,specific rules of interpretation are provided:that are more• "- - -- • pertinent within their respective definitions:••For example,•terms•like person•, :. :"structure,"and"lot"should be defined outside of the rules of interpretation.. • Proposed Solution(s) : "' ' ." ' :: A:" Relocate term-specific content to their•respective.definitions-elsewhere-in the "" Article(e;g.;"Structure"within"Building"). . • :•3.2. : :Clarify the source For undefined terms.... . ::• : .. issue.Identified••:•• - . • :: Article.:,2.•states that:"words.not specifically:defined in Article:2-sFiall take their :,:;.: . •common dictionary.meaning,"however,"common dictionary"is not specified"and is • open to interpretation. • Proposed:Solution(s):• •-::: ': • . : ••: • A. Reference the;Merriam-Webster's:Dictionary;•1;1 ' :Edition, as amended,:for clarity when' undefined terms in the Subdivision Regulations "" • "" -•3:3 . :ReFerence•applicable agencies:and"regulations when defining • .. : .. term•s�governed:by-external"bodies.: : :: . . .. .... .::. : ••IssueIdentified:. : .- •.' . •. : . . . . " •• ::": .:.- Several definitions"are provided tiietere otherwise govei'ried and specified by-external :: bodies;or:regulations;such es the Federal•Emergency Management:Agency(FEMA),' : •' • .. . .Texas:Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ), and the�Texas-Administrative • :Code (TAC):-These:agencies and:regulations should:be•cited within appropriate - • definitions to prevent conflicts: " .Proposed.Solution(s) ' : ' • ::: ' A. Reference:FEMA in all flood-lain definitions a •:"1"00- ear flood lain" , and - • :ensure that definitions align with FEMA's interpretations and definitions. • : -B::Reference the TCEQ.and TAC in definitions related to ori-site:sanita •.. .. . .. ry.sewer .: :..:.- _ _. :. facilities.(OSSF)(e.g.,"Aerobic On�site Wastewater System"). . --- ::DRAFT August22,2024:: -: : : :::: : •: :::• " Page 17• :::: '- •• : Subdiiiision Regulations Diagnostic Report. .' """". " .. .::. : • •- -•--Individual•Section Firidingsand solutions . . •-• • :.3.4. : Revise terms with•modifiers•to be grouped•:with sub-bullets • For more specificity. Issue Identified . • Specific related definitions are separated alphabetically but include a mollifier that . • . could.be relocated•to group the terms. For example,the definition structure of"lot" • • • - , types groups all related terms;while the definitions of"plat"types do not. .Proposed Solution(s) . - . .. A. Restructure.. efinitions with a parent term or-phrase(e.g.;-"Plat")to group the. . . .• .. definitions alphabetically. : • .Plat Amending : : -: •• •• • A plat filed for one or more of the following purposes(See TLGC Section:232.011i: • • . •• a. To correct an error in a course or distance.shown on the preceding plat; : - - : • :b. To add a course.or distance that was omitted on the preceding plat; - - - - c. To correct an error in a real property description shown on the preceding plat; : • - -• - • d. To show the location or character of a monument that has been changed in location or character or that is shown incorrectly - • • as•to location or character on the•preceding plat; • - e. To correct any other type of scrivener or clerical•error or omission of the previouslyapproved plat,including lot numbers, •• . - • - •. -- acreage,street names;and identification of adjacent recorded plats;or.. • •. " .• • f. -To correct an error in courses and distances of lot lines between two adjacent lots if: • •• • - - - - . :. i. -Both lot owners join in the application for amending the plat; - . if. Neither lot is.abolished; • • Ili.: The amendment does not attempt to remove recorded covenants or restrictions;and • - - • - • • 'Iv..' :The-amendment does not have a material adverse effect on the.property rights,of the other owners of the.property - : - '-'- " that is the subject of•the plat. - 0 • • Plat Final, __ • The legal record of land,including a•sutidivisioh;prepared from actual field measurements and staking of identifiable points by'a " .• _..• - •Suiveyor to a location referenced to a survey corner.The Final Plat also establishes and records lots,right of-way,and easements. . . Plat Preliminary' " " :•" A scaled planning document that lays out the boundary,roadways,lots,topography,and infrastructure iri a proposed subdivision • and that provides the County with-a basis for•reviewing construction:plans and the Final Plat(see Se,cti n3.01.A). . - • . . .. . . .. .. .. Figure 4 Example of Grouping Definitions by Moth fters : 3.5. Define•"City." -.-. .. : . • - • Issue Identified . .. ; : 0 0 The term."City" is used •throughout the Subdivision Regulations; :however, no. - . definition is provided. . :. : . : • • • : .•• • Proposed Solutions) 0 - .A....Define "City" potentially as "one of the incorporated municipalities whose . i. . . . •• •.: corporate limits or•extraterritorial jurisdiction is located within:Brazos County, : •• •• •• • texas" • •:Page98 "" .- •- '.DRAFT August 22,2024 .: . :-. . - -Individual Section'Findings'and Solutions- .. •Subdivision:Regulatioris DiagnosticReport • .. .. : 3.6. : .Consider removing the term "CancellationfPlat. :- :::: : :: Issue.ldentifiad • . ' ' - - The term- Cancellation Plat" •,is.not identifiedin the TLGC. • : - :Proposed Solution(s) .;A., :Revise the term:"Cancellation Plat"to:"Va:cating Plat"for:consistency with the: , :: "plat vacation"- provisions authorized by-Section 232.0095 -and Sections - 212.013,.014,:and 015 of the TLGC.: =. .:. - _3.7. : .Evaluate,use-basedterms for. legality and efficiency. _:;. : :.. ' ::-:,..: • issue Identified.:.:.. : . The: .County separates:.:subdivision types:::using use-based :terminology (e.g.,. ,:_ '. . : :commercial;,industrial, residential).These terms may:conflict with theCounty's power to regulate:uses outside incorporated city Limits -. . Proposed:Solution(s) = _ :. 'A. Transition'subdivision types away_from use-specific distinctions in favor of • .: design-based differentiation'a .lots less than one acre). - ..... :: :- :. :: :B�..Consolidate subdivision types where. repetition is noted_:(Example: the' .. .: ` ': • ' definition,of`:`Industrial'Subdivision"•iis identical to"Commercial Subdivision .: 3.8. Remove unnecessary specificity-to• minimize potential • •, . . :conflicts . .. :•. : • . Issue,Identified..:. :. :. Several:definitions include unnecessary specificity that may lead to:conflicts in the :: :.,:.- : - - .future. For:example, the definitions :of-"Commissioners° Court" and."County - -: :• : Commissioner":include specifics on the number of Commissioners,on:the Court.: Other:definitions include regulatory language;:including"Flag Lot",-and;"Freeboard." ::: :: ... " ` •Re ulatin desig n-criteria within-the: term's meanin g g : gg rather than the appropriate • :..:. Article may.create.conflicts with enforcement and references. ...: . - :..: ::• :. ... :. _ Proposed:Solution(s):•• : :: - . . .. _ A. Remove:unnecessary specificity-from the definitions.. :: . . .. .. . 3.9 Clarify the term County.:• .:':..:.- : :.:.. .. ..... ::': .: Issue identified The:definition of "County"states that "all.references in these :Regulations to the. ' -- -::, : :"County" "shall.:::mean Braios 'Coun •"' surrounding- - -. :.- . ty,� .however, references to other -- ...counties may be.necessary in the Subdivision Regulations:: . ' Proposed.Solution(s)- ..._ :. : :. ,• A. include the;phrase unless:otherwise specified in:the definition of- County:•. - :- ;:DRAFTAugust 22,2024'; -. :_ : Page 19 ':': Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report ::. : •' - Individual-Section Findings and Solutions .. -' -. 310: Clarify the.ownership and:maintenance•of public and..private Facilities, utilities,.roads, and spaces: .= - :. '.. issue Identified:. :: ." - Specific:definitions referencing public and private improvements do not reiterate the. - -- -: ' •respective maintenance responsibilities.This maylead to misunderstandings or the :;.:...: :- use of the definition to defend County maintenance of private infrastructure - Proposed:Solution(s) -::: . .. . .. A.: Specify :in.-the-"Common Area"..definition- that.:.areas are 'not owned. or •: :..:. • . maintained:by:the County.- : :. • .. ::• : •- :B.. :Specify'tithe"Private Subdivision"definition that the-County:does not own or - :: maintain privatefacilities and improvements. . - C. Revise the term"Public Sanitary Sewer System"to"Sanitary Sewer System,":as ' the definition includes-both public and private:language. " 'D. 'Clarify in the "Public Road" definition that not all roads are available for all forms.of travel-and-that:a public road.does not a uate-directl to a "Coun Road." . q. . :- 3.11.,.Reframe the terms-.Daughter- and-- Parent Tract: - - _: :..:.• Issue Identified. . . .. - :.. The:terms-"Daughter", and "Parent Tract"..are:unconventional;and may result in : :: . :: - inconsistencies:with surrounding jurisdictions. .: : -- . • : :..:. ProposedSolution(s) .: :.. . ...•..• . A.;: Transition the terms.: •Daughter and .Parent Tract to::,Remainder and :;:,-,:.: : "Original Tract;"respectively. _... ' : :: •• '.:"-:.:. . ': 3.12. Reference'the interlocal agreements:in.the.definition of. ' "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.(ETJ):' Issue:Identified .. : : -- .::. : :The"definition of"Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)" does:not.refer-to any interlocal •- agreement(ILA).• :_ :. .. Proposed-Solution(s). ' :. :: . :.. - -• A. When:defining_or=describing-the ETJ, refer to any-iLAs with applicable cities. : ' ::':..:.• : Consider.the•following-additional-language "Please.note that the.boundaries -..and:applicable regulations within each Extr.aterritorialJurisdiction:inthe County-:: :: . . . `• -• - • are governed blithe interlocal agreement:(ILA)active with each applicable city. . -:Page20 =: :DRAFTAugust22,2024 : : ': -• - IridvidualSection:FindingsandSolutions. . .. . -- ..:. : . Subdivision>Regulation -DiagnoticRepor•t _•3.1.3::Revise the definition'of:"Minimum Requirements." 1: -- -• '.' Issue.identified -:• : : : -. • - In:'the definition of"Minimum:Requirements;":the',first sentence;is;self-referential: -- -•:- :Additionally'the second sentence•va' uel suggeststhat minimum requirements may : :..: not be the minimum if the Coun y believes there_are-part m are-particular circumstances:This _ .•• ty- • ••• maynot be a defined term but instead addressed.iin:the context of individual sections.• .. • : .. . . .. : :Proposed Solutions) : """ A. :Revise or••remove .the definition of "Minimum' Requirements"'to' remove - . ... :. :.:ambiguity : . . - ;: 3.14. Remove.the.definition:;of Peak:.Hour.: .. ' . .Issue-Identified, • -: : •_ .. - : ,•The definition:of"Peak Hour"is:overly technical and specific to one section of_the • Subdivision Regulations. : :: - - . ... . .. . .Pro'osed'Solution s P (. ) : A. Remove:the:"Peak Hour"-definition•and address arid technical requirements in ;.:the Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)section-of the Subdivision Regulations. .. .... .,. .. .. 3:1.5: Revise th•e•definition of"Regulations:" -. :;`:..::_ • = • Issue;Identified .. ..-•.• . • .Equating"Regulations"with the Subdivision Regulations:is too broad,as the text may regularly reference other sets of regulations. •:_; :: Proposed Solutions) . - . - A. Remove:;"Regulations" from:the. defined terms,:�or-add "unless:'otherwise •. • :stated"to the description. "'" B.:!-Provide a"Subdivi§ion:Regulations"definition. • . •• ' • • . :. •• 3.16. Distinguish and define.different types of"Right of;Way." . - -, .. . :.:. : :Issue Identified; : :: • • •' . - - The definition of"Right of Way".does not distinguish_between other acquisition types, • :• : : : including prescriptive:rights-of-way or reservation easements. :- . - •Proposed Solutions) : :A. •Distinguish between dedication�of roads:.via:plat and County acquisition from. •: - ;: :''prescriptive rights-of=way or reservation easements. ::DRAFT August 22,2024:: : . : .•- :•-.., - •: . Page 21- -- •• : Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report ... .::, . •- '' . ''Individual:Section Findings and Solutions •' .... . - .. . . 3.17::Revise the definition'of:"Arterial Roads:". .: :.::.• . -: :.-:. Issue-Identified..:.' . .: :. . . : .: :..:. . . • • The::definition of "Arterial•Roads" specifies,that they "connect one .Collector or •' ": Arterial with one or more Collectors-or:Arterials."Conventionally, roads that provide • connections between two Collectors are.also considered.Collectors. _ . - . . . - Proposed Solution s : A. Revise the definition of "Arterial :Roads" to:Occlude: connections between . . : :..:. :..:. .Collectors:.:. B.: :Review the definitions of roadway classifications for consistency with the : MPO's thoroughfare plan..• :. : - - " - • • : 3.18. Reorganize "Urban' and "Rural":roadway designations. ' :. :Issue Identified : - .. .. The definition of roadway classifications establishes the road hierarchy(e.g.,Arterial, • -- Collector,-Local) and.-design specifications:(e.g:,:Urban and. Rural). It is unclear,' ' however, if the Urban and Rural -roadway specifications::apply to all -roadway .. .. . classifications: : : ..... . . Proposed Solution s : A. Restructure the definitions:of-"Roads" to indicate when Urban and Rural :. 'applications are permissible(e.g.,"Urban Arterial"and"Rural Collector"). . Page 22 :::. : :: :DRAFT August 22,2024 - - • IridividualSection•Findings and Solutions ..Subdivision:Regulatioris Diagnostic:Report 4. General-Subdivision:-Requirements and Exceptions (Article.3)- : • • -- • -- . . : - :- -•4:1 Evaluate the"effectiveness.of enforcing.platting•exceptions.: :. Issuelderitified, Brazos County staff has ex erienced: issues with :uniformly applying:': pfattin . exceptions,particularly related to the family exception outlined in-Section 232.0015 - -- of the TLGC. Article B;-Section B of the Subdivision Regulations'does not outline-a . -: : • • straightforward:process or timeline:for filing platting exceptions. :: . • • .. ProposedSolution(s)• . • :• : : - . . .. -A:: Evaluate the effectiveness of-enforcing the-platting:exceptions section.and -: :~.•. - determine whether supplemental items, such as:a:flow chart or exemptions •• " " summary•t•ab• le,are needed ..• '• • .. • •B:::Clarify that thei"family-'clause" exemption.doesn't just:apply to agricultural land. :. . . .. .. ::• : .. -: :.. .- . -• ::-:. ..• : C. Quote the exemption languagestatëd in Section 232.0015 of the TLGCverbatim :: in this section. • .• D.•.Establisha.straightforwardprocedure,potentiallyincludingesignedaffidavitto • : be filed.with the County;.for property owners-to follow to verify• platting_a. .. ..: •. ._ _exemption•is•permissible.• •- ... •• : : - •E..•:Reor anize a licable-re uirements•for:ekem ted ro e . , . g PP q _ Article 3, Section : .. P P P rtY: . C)into a bulleted list and restate•them.as applicable to_ell properties,whether platting is required;order the"section before the exemptions section: • • ':• ••:DRAFTAugust22,2024:: •: .•: :. :::: -• Page23 : :: ': .. .::. : • ' Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report. -• • '• ' .. -• ••--• Individual Section Findl igs and Solutions - • .::: = .: 5. General PlattingProcedure (Article 4 -"- • . . . .. :. ;. .:•. . - "'5 1-.: Reorganize,the-platting'procedures.Article.:-. " • .. "" "•'• • .. • Issue=ideritified •' - - - • ':'• -'The general platting procedures do:not:start off with a general purpose or applicability :' . . .: sectio y n,=creating uncertaiht -regarding the Article's application:=Additionally, the. .: • Articte.is structured in:a:.way that skips••b:etween different.plan•and plat types; r. :,•:.- . :potentially leading'to the readermissinginformation:or-applicable requirements::: " = := Proposed:Solution(s) •- •.: .- " -. •A:; Restructure this Article-to flow:froim=general purpose.and•applicability..to . : - • separate.processes sections;-with subsections;for•different plat types and • -. - ..purpose statements::. ; •: •B:::Consolidate subdivision"procedures-andsteps into one procedures article•; : " . ": _ rather than across Articles 3,4;:5;and 6 of the Subdivision Regulations : :: - :: C. Esteblish'a•.plat "Approval'P.rocedures" section to identify proper filing_and ., •.•. recording processes ba•sed on different plat types. . 5:2::.- Considee:sho:r'tening the=application expiration date... :•. . • • " - Issueadentified :. '... . :Subdivision.Reguilations Article.4,..Section A.5.h states-that "an application:.shall :. '• ••-' ' •: : : • expire five.(5)years•after the date of the Application if the project becomes dormant, : • • -• -- • • as.defined by the Texas Local-Government.Code,es amended:'Section 245.005 of •-. ": , : :the TLGC states:that"a regulatory agency may enact an ordinance;rule,.or regulation "•• that places expiration date of.not:less:than two ears on an individual"permit if no - :. progress has been made towards completion ofithe project." :- - " • ::.... ... : •Proposed•Solution(s) . ' • A. Consider reducing the,expiration timeline for an' application to:two:years in " :. •...accordancewiththe7LGC. S. . ' • ' • - •- •B:= Define what ualifies-as" ro ress made towardcom letionofthe- ro'ect,"as '" .. . .. . .::. . q P.. g I l p P 1 ; .:. stated•in-the TLGC,to aid in.determining a dormant.project. ; •- - • • C. •Establish a formal notification process •d forormant projects:for transparency : • ' ::andenforceability of:application expiration:dates. . :: : :: • 5.3.... Establish administrative flexibility-for:applicati.on•extensions. , , .::. : -. • • : :..:. - • : . : ••Issue ldentified. . .. .• _: :,.:.. :. .. ..._ . :..:. .. ..... . • . ...•• Article 4,Section.A.t.n grants the Commissioners C.ourt:the authority to.authorize a .. . •• single six-month extension to unfiled final plats may cause:procedural problems. • • •• .: :..:,• • -. • .byrequiringCourt action due to limited meetngtimes. •. . .. ": •. •••. • " ' :;',....._.Proposed Solution(s) . .- .- -A.:-:Rather than a •:single- extension-"being available,:-consider providing ; -- ' " ' ...' ' '• administrative flexibility ty t and.Court:appellate authorio'grant extensions.: -" ' • ::Page'24 ': - • ':DRAFTAugust22,2024 ... ': .. .:•. : •• ' " individuaLSection-Findings and Solutions. " •' - ' " :. ::. : ." ' '' '"Subdivision:RegulatiorisDiagnostic:Reppit " " . - , 5.4. • :Establish the alternative platting'process authorized by House • : . • .. . I . . . .. Bill3167.: •• .• .. ... ' :. ... . . :. :..:.- . ' • Issue Identified : - ' • - : •In 2019, the Texas'Legislature passed legislation (HB 31.67j to allow an applicant to . • : not file.a preliminary plat or construction plans.if the applicant decides,at their•own ••_ :: discretion,to submit a final plat with either a bond.or financial guarantee in lieu of a : . .. bond for the proper construction:.of -the roads. and -streets iri •and,drainage - - - . _ • • • . .. • requirements for the subdivision:.HB 3.167 allows an ap•plicant to receive'approval of • a:final plat before any construction plans are:designed or infrastructure is built or. -•. .. inspected: However, -the. recording of the. final plat may. only'occur after the . - •: subdivision's•infrastructure is built and inspected. Notably,;any final plat•approved • • • . • • through the. HB 3167 approval process will need to••meet all the-applicable -• - : :. requirements of the County:'s Subdivision Regulations. :. . . :. ' - - The alternative approval process for a:Final Plat as'established by HB 3167,is not • .. . : . . referenced.in:the Subdivision Regulations, posing procedural issues •should an applicant pursue this alternative. • Proposed Solution(s) " " A. Establish the alternative plat approval process authorized by.F.I.B 3167. • . B. 'Establish clear process:' graphics illustrating the different' plat. review and : ' :' • • approval processes. . . . - • APPLICANT SCHEDULES A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING - . Adding streets,drainage'improvements,or constructing• • .. ... ., :. a multi-phase development? . . . .•Yes _ - No - - OPTION 1 OPTION 2 FINAL PLAT OR OTHER PLAT STANDARD PLATTING ALTERNATIVE PLAITING TYPE SUBMITTAL AND • - • - • PROCESS . PROCESS'PER HB 3167 APPROVAL • - _ Street:names are approved with 1 * PRELIMINARY PLAT T FINAL PLAT t ... lie.plat :.. SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL SUBMITTAL ANDAPPROVAL - Preliminary:street names are. - The applicant must'submit a: • PLAT IS RECORDED -' •approved with the : letter of credit or performance. WITH COUNTY CLERK .. ' : .' `.preliminary plat ' ' .' 'bond with the initial submittal. - • - ' .. of a final plat application Official 911 addressing are assigned after the final plat has :. '..: : :.. are approved . .. .. .. . .. ....Street names with been recorded . the final plat . :: ... 'of t Plat Figure 5.EXarrible o B 3767Alterna iVe a Approva(Graphi DRAFT August 22,2024: ' : . Page 25 •- 'Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report . •• . :. . . : • • • 'Individual Section Findings and Solutions • 6. : Plan .flat Types (Article 5) •. - - / •: :-. • .• •• - No significant recommendations to ArticLe 5 were made • • • 7. •Subdivision Categories and Requirements (Article 6) ; ,. .: •. - No Significant recommendations to Article 6 were made " . 8; .: Minimum'Standards of Design (Article"7) :: - :•8.1 : 'Evaluate:-flow-rate-staridards:for fire protection.-. • .: • : .. .: • Issue Identified•-:.- - .. .. .. ... . The.availability of proper:fiow rates for fire protection has been'an issue in the past. -: ••: - .particularly-within the ETJs of the cities:of Bryan and Co.11'ege Station. Local:water :.... Providers.,sometimes struggle• to:..maintain_. consistent •pressure,..resulting••in fire protection services in new subdivisions:.. :. "' ;inconsistencies with - ' :The BCSUDG includes provisions related to fire-flow rates, and Section 232.109:of :: :...:.• the TLGC identifies:additional fire:'supp:ression requirements for subdivisions not :: :- .: servedby.fire hydrants. " _ : .. - - : :Proposed Solution(s) - • .: .: - .A. .Evaluate: exceptions to••the•'BCSUDG fire-flow•standards .and..align-ter the ' .: :. .. :County's subdivision development types:.Consider exceptions-only for very •-:. . : .. rural development:" ..... .. • • .: : B. Consider. .formalizing stock: ponds as viable' fire protection measures."for .. :• . commercial development. ;.82.,;•- Clarify the right-of way dedication and..acceptance process: •: • .- -. Issue identified .• . • '. ' -Article 7,Section 2 states that street"dedication to the public.shall be accomplished -- •.: :-.:---by a certification:on the .plat-dedicating the•Right-of-Way to the,public-forever," :. however,there is no specified:process for acceptirigthe right-of-way:.dedication. -- ... :. :: _. ' - ••Per AttorneyGeneral Opinion JM-200:1984 ,"the mere thin •and film and approval •." • ' :: p ) g: g .. ..pp .. : :..:.• of a subdivision. lat showing:. :. p streets to be,dedioa'ted:.does.not constitute an •• :. : acceptance."(citing Commissioners Court v..Frank:Jester Dev.;Co.,•199:S.W.2d 1004 ... :: . • •• •••• • ex::Civ:A Dallas 1947.;:writ ref'd n.r.e. •. -••: .. ..... - - .: proposed Solutions) • : . . "A.:•!Este bush a process:for accepting right-of-way dedication.illustrated on a plat, .::: •. •- including a separate.order:frorn:the:Com Mies-loner Court. • -• ::Page 26 :::. : :::: •:DRAFT August 22,2024 :::: .. - -• ' • liidividual5ection.FindingsandSolutions-- ' '. . .' . .. .::: : -• . .-Subdivision:Regulat'i'ori 'Diagnostic:Reppit ' - : • . - - 8:3:� Clarify requirements of•street alignment continuation:' • Issue:ldentified . . • -• •• - - • :- •Article 7,Section1C.6.f states that'!when is subdivided into larger parcels rather • •• •• ••- than ordinary'building lots, such parcels:shall be arranged*so as:to•allow for the opening of future Streets'and logical further:Subdivisions"This provision does not •••• • :account for land :subdivisions:that:May be exempt by:TLGC Section-2320015. ' ;- : .:.- Likewise,"ordinary"and"logical"are not defined and.are.subjective. •. .• .. Proposed:Solution(s):. :::: :: :. :. :. '... :. :: A. Revise ta specify when street alignment and stub-.outs to adjacent property are .. . (' g:, when:abutting urip'latted.property ). • •• •-B.:-•Clarifyorremove.theterms"ordinary"a rid"logical"to prevent subjectivity. - • •• ::. : - 8.4 Evalu.ate•the"Adeq.uate.StreetAccess" provisio.ns::. : -- lssueaderitified .: :.. .. ..• ...• . •Article 7,Section"C:37.b states that`"anyplat or any portion.of a plat which�is:part of : :: a:Phased'Subdivision:having more than one-hundred fifty(150).Dvirelling Units or a. . co-rripination of Lots and:Dwelling Units in excess.of one hundred fiifry(150)shall have •a minimum•of two(2.)Access Points.-to an existing Public:Road." -' ' •• The threshold*of 150 residential lots.may:lead:to protection issues.due to the high. •:.: : .: • number of lots,particularly:in residential development patterns with'srrialler lots. -. :• -Proposed Solutions) • . "" :A. Consider decreasing:the:secondary ingress and egress requirement threshold -: - -- • : ••• -:•from150lotsto lath 50lots. . . • . . . :.- .: 8.5. Clarify boundary road .improvement.requirements: .• : :• • :Issue identified:: :: " ' ' . .....- Required improvements to-boundary and feeder roads•outlined in-Article 7,Section • " .... -- C:7:have been inconsistently enforced, leadin_g_•to. unimproved-roadways servicing*:-:. -- :: :- .::• : :homes and:commercial development.: • • :. -: : :.• . -: :....• Proposed.So .. lution . .(s) . . .• .: :..:. . . .: :..:.• . • :A.!::Establish a policy:for:improving abutting::rights-of-way:and:service roads to• : development,- potential) im lementin traffic.' :counts as a-- threshold ..p... .. v- --. p. . g ... mechanism.. . : : . . ".• ::DRAFT August 22,2024:: .. : : :-: Page 27. :::: .-: - -- . --Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report "'" ' .. ::. : • '. '. .Individual•Section Firidfrigs and Solutions . 8.6. Consider new cul-de-sacsas:private"st ' : street improvements = - ... :..:.. Issue.ldentified...:.• :. :. . Dead=end streets and.cul-de-sacs only serve:localized users rath"er-.than a broader • ": -Coup populous. Considerin ongoing maintenance costs,the dedication of these :. .:. :bounty g g .• g.. .. ... .. . . roadway types as private,infrastructure may: lessen-the.long-term cost burden for i. mnt aienance on the County - .. :Proposed Solutions) . " A. Consider requiring that all new cul-de-sacs and dead-end roads-to be:private • : . : .- . .. .. : .. ••-—.streets. : • .: 8:7: • Address driveway timing and installation issues. .::_ : :: ' . . Issue Identified. _ .. •' •.• ; .. : .•• - . ..... =:=: Home builders typically install residential driveways and culverts afterthe:reviewand . � • pp •• right-of-Way. cation to the• `� : ' -- a royal of the civil or construction plans but before dedication Coun Consequently; bounty inspection: of drivewa and culvert:connections ••: ty:. q . Y, ... ty P.. Y , to �. :.. . - :streets occurs post-installation,limiting the ability to:correct:design and:installeti:on . :....: . • :: ... problems.inthe:field. :..:. .. - Proposed:Solution(s): • . " .. ..... . : A. Consider requiring a third-party inspection report;during the installation:of .. .. •culverts'and driveways:to prevent:issues post:dedication•:and:right-of-way_ .. :- - ::acceptance by the . 8.8. ' Clarify applicable drainage and flood control requirements: -- - ' :: :. : •Issue Identified:. : ••• - ...:.- The Subdivision:Regulations cite both:the BCEDG and:BCS.UDG for stormwater and drainage improvements within subdivisions;-however,the BCEDGregulations are not ,. .. as robust as the .BCSUDG; 'resulting in potential floodplain'issue:'A centralized . . :- standard for'floodplain and drainage controls across;.jurisdictions wilt assist:in uniformity-andease of implementation ' • • Proposed Solution - ' : :_ : -' A. Adopt:consistent standards:for floodplain and drainage managerrfent:across - unincorporated areas of the County and:Within ETJs with cons.ideration to the. .: . .... .. ... .•'Gounty's review and:processing capabilities: :: •- • " - B. Consider: deferring floodplain:: and drainage .review within ETJs :to- the • • municipalities: . . • .• : • .. .C.••-Identify maintenance:gaps with detention•and retention•ponds to ensure the :.:. :- :. : .: County is not maintaining private:drainage infrastructure: - Individual Section-Findings a Rage: 28 •:DRAFT August 22,2024 g ndSolutions: Subdivision:RegulatlonsDiagnosticBeport • • • • • "9:• • :•Private Subdivisions (Article.8)••: : :: : : •• •• .• ".9:1-:'-. Clarify the applicable.design, inspection,-and acceptance :..: - . requirements for private infrastructure and maintenance. -• -- :• Issue Identified '- -." •• • •. •- Article:8,Section A requires that all privately.maintained streets in'Rural and Urban• " i " - •: :. Subdivisions be designed Nand constructed in• accordance.with •the County's ••: :..:.- .. - .. :. :standards for,publicly dedicated'streets and the BCSUDG--:for publicly.dedicated : . • "' -• '" • Streets,:respectively.The:County has•reported;pushbeck from the development : • :. community regarding the.design standards•arid -inspection processes for private :•:. :. :: : -street installations. • : :..:. :: :..:. Proposed.Solufiori(s) :. : • . .A.::"Consider adopting:a:singular standard:(BCEDG or BCSUDG).for all private :- -.: streets and establishing a third-party review process for private infrastructure. • - - B. Provide a•process for review:end approval of-an alternative roadway standard • •:. ' ..for private infrastructure;with consideration"'for public health;-safety, and the . " .. .::. : • •- .. longevity of,design and'construction•materials. :_• ,- -" • • - :• C. In instances where private,streets or infrastructure: are permitted. to-be •• _ constructed:.to an alternative standard, ensure that a process=is established. - :- •affirming that the•C:ounty:will not take over.maintenance responsibility until the . improvement is brought into compliance. - . . . - • .: . -• - :'10.•: Traffic:Impacts (Article'9) --1.0.1...Ensure the:County is not overextending•reso.urces regarding: .- subdivision maintenance and design: :: -- : .. • : 'Issue Identified:: • :: .. -' Article 9 establishes processes"for'determining:sufficient roadway:improvements •• •••• through traffic impact.analyses (TIA)and County test sharing in.some places,this :• • .::. : :Article potentially overextends'the County's.obligation to:participate or contribute t'o - :• maintenance or:roadway improvements •• ••• .. " Pro osed;Solution s A. Remove the-language in:Article- 9, Section B that states "the County:end Developer.share the res onsibili to identifyand"solve trans ortation:issues : :..:, P P ty P: ::. :: ;: • arising from land development:'This language leaves the Countyvulnerable to . • • • • ' • - -: disproportional costs of providing or upgrading roadway infrastructure. . • •• B. Clearly identify and define,cost-sharing policies,•not solely relying•on-TIAs:as "'" " " .. .the basis for'determining'road-improvements'•if an'existing.study or analysis .: • ••. :::exists or it can be demonstrated that a roadway is substandard. : • ::. : •: C.' The determination'of acceptable:service'Levels Is:split between the County • .: :-. Engineer::and Commissioners•.Court but doesn't:assign a methodology for 'determining cipation,prOportionality,oroversizing.' :; ':DRAFT August 22,2024: : .': :. :::: •:- :::. ' - Page 29 ::': Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report• .. .::. : •- ' .."Individual:Section Findings and Solutions PCL XL error Subsystem: KERNEL Error: InsufificientMemory Operator: Readlmage Position: 181288 Pgof_ BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT 5 DAY OF �-� , 20 QLI A PM, \004-VIo0 Name Organization (PLEASE PRINT) (PLEASE PRINT) LOQ/1411 pn04\ b3YVW. iovItt J vn - Lover ;fNG?--) cree��- 1 5 9fuIcL li,te_S CAv\A•or 0-09)?, r/ S fIAA{f t SO Lis a 0-,\F--- D A?1 X P f3 ( 1.-te(2Vi' vloN+P \<011i-Hli -[�-t/t_ s RA,r(A14 c�C�, - . � � t �