The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024/10/14 Workshop Session 09:30 AM FILED FOR RECORD DATE /0 AT c2'O3 O'CLOCK T a M KAREN MCQUEEN � , BRAZ COU CLERK , s x 111 By Ad'pJ7wGw— f Via` BRAZOS COUNTY YAN, 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: October 14, 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 second 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. oP yy •.0,. 'N . rY`Of. �4k The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court Workshop Session held October 14, 2024, have been examined and are approved in open Court this the 5th day of November 2024,in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. Duane Peters Steve Aldrich County Judge Commissioner, Precinct 1 w- 44je-e StPtft4t---- Chuck Konderla Nancy Berry Commissioner, Precinct 2 Commissioner, Precinct 3 Wanda J. Watson Commissioner, Precinct 4 Attest: AtaAfin,.. (aOA Karen McQueen t ` g(or ,-05.County Clerk U� Co 1 twat, I , )ski�: t )�i�ffl f t ),4M?*.5 MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 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 Tuesday, October 14, 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 second draft of the Brazos County Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report by Freese and Nichols, Inc. Judge Peters called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and invited Freese-Nichols Project Manager Daniel Harrison to begin the presentation. Mr. Harrison presented an updated 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 presented the findings and proposed solutions for each priority improvement. Commissioner Aldrich questioned whether it was prudent to wait until after the next legislative session to begin revising the I nterlocal Agreements • with the cities. Mr. Harrison recommended that the County wait until such time to revise those agreements however, he encouraged the Court to continue moving forward with the Subdivision Regulations update. At 10:37 a.m. the County Judge announced a ten minute recess of the workshop. At 10:48 a.m.the meeting reconvened and Mr. Harrison went on to address the additions that have been made to the Diagnostic Report since the first Commissioners Court workshop on September 5, 2024. Upon further discussion, Commissioner Konderla requested that a final stakeholder meeting be scheduled to ensure the best end product prior to the adoption of the new Subdivision Regulations. A copy of the presentation and diagnostic report is attached. 3. Adjourn Pg of BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT \ DAYOF Diroour , 20 pi °I ; SO 1/PM, 03 alop V,SciOn Name Organization (PLEASE PRINT) (PLEASE PRINT)COvAll CCafiran (\t en in. �/�-. �� f 1 t000/1 U1,4- UbU(t 1eaytil 43,91/4_ Cxwo(N. U06" STfm✓rDii J7 4IIe-)4 t e € aria/ ,4j c,J?o)s 5/7ne-c, e se ithcledS eNvw Qt6eM ADIcAARDIs /.ems 6r e #9A x)T AomcL 9 TS Nay& V +sev► A63 Tri,x,r-Wes f?it ti r i A/E'k {R 1 ii41 C O v e t o,ft h.E-1 Pg oZof_ BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT 44DAY OF Oct , 20‘722f 9,30 AM/PM, workshop ssiG? Name Organization (PLEASE PRINT) (PLEASE PRINT) 1?NLLC,11L6S Via -' �- O Pe?-ckeY1C—A---0' 1641"‘"J'l R.3' eA-k) al, x ,/ int/teiz„ 6igV6 /j- � . /MN 6rktivc, Lo Ce( °Le— a 0.g n. Brazos County, Texas Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report Draft October 3, 2024 0 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 InterlocalAgreements(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. 9 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. 10 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 5) 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 October 3,2024 • Table of Contents Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report Introduction :- • • -. " = ProjectOvewiew.: .. .:_:. :; .. -- The."Diagnostic Report::focuses on the phase'of-.Brazos: County's potential: Subdivision- • ::-.-: ' :• ••:-R•egulation rewrite process.It reflects County staff,elected officials inctudfngtheCounty-:•." .:•- - Judge,.staff•members ofthe:Cities:of Bryan and College Station, and members of the development community.:The report provides en analysis of the:County's current Subdivision Regulations•and . • • : ' •' suggests options-to consider duringfuture:• hases to revise 'or'rewrite the'existing Subdivision.. ... : Regulations. ... . • ::- • • "' The report:defines issues::arising.:out of the County's.current codes-:and., practices against.the : backdrop of state:law.changes and development pressures in Brazos County.-It includes an outline:: ' . -- :.. : of proposed rec:ommendations on how.th"e:-County's procedures and regulatiions:can be more" - ._- effective ;and•:user-friendly' It also'includes opportunities the County_:can pursue given limited "" .. bud gets,•resources,and staff capacity," -- ."- .- . •• : Overall Process :.. . , . -The*assessment of the existing regulations place in four-steps: 1. .:Identifying and investigating issues arising fromthe use of`Subdivision Regulations:based`on --a-review of the.regulations and.interviews with"County stakeholders::' • :::..2. Preparing an.initial issues identification summary,: :. :-. .= - "" " '"•- 3. "Refining issues and developing and realistic'soi.utions -• ••'• - " 4. :-Preparing the final.diagnosticreport • ::. - • • : '-..County staff's input was particularlycritiealto this process, aS"it allowed the'Consultant Team to:.. .::. • •• hearfirsthand.what'was:working.and what was.not:regarding the County's development activity: • ". ". .- Commentsw.ere tracked and compared throughout the process to help narrow down specific_ -topics :• for detailed'review within the existing regulations and codes. •• :-DRAFT October 3,2024..:-:'••... :. ::.:..: ... Page:1 •::.....:"•... •• -• .•• •• ' Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report""" ' "' "' "' ' .•• •• •. Introduction .. Key_Com onents.of th-e"Dia-"nosti:c�Re •-ort::: - .. :: P 9 P ' - - - The-sections of the diagnostic addressing each.section and subsection of the County's:Subdivision-" -• - • Regulations include the.following components: - • :.Priority Findings and Actions:These findings may affect multiple:sections of the:County's" Subdivision Regulations and..address- .processes and '-procedures••related=-ta• "" -- • -• development::':These priorities": the issues-the Commissioner's.'Court'should 3r,.3:-,' 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"sectio.n or.regulation:if a.: .. • ••• - -section•is not listed,it is:assumed there were no•findings that require consideration:: :, - -o• : Issues Identified:Each 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 disaMLiiguated to describe'Who the observation-originated from.`:--:-::: -•::- - - o`::Proposed Solutions:Following the issue-description,this report•provides analysis-- .- • and-recommendations•section that discussespo.ssiblestepsorstrategiestheCounty:,: ,::..: •• ••• 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 • administering the code rather than a.Code update,.-: .... .:.. ..:. • Adopted:Plans and::Policies -• , Bryan/College Station MPO:`T ; oroug a•re•Concept- .: :::.. • • • .: In->June•2'017,:the.Bryan/College Station Metropolitan'Planning-Organiiation.-(BCSMPO°or•MPO).. •-• • '•-• • :• :"•adopted the 2050 Thoroughfare Concept as a guiding docurnent.forfuture right-of-way acquisition i:n>,-, •:•, - "' ` th'e'Coun •..• The' Thorou hfare :Concept several 'rural `and urban "higlivvay alignments,'"" including inner and outer loops•around Bryan and:College Station and:the future Interstate:Highway :: 14'corridorthatwill eventually be constructed west of its current terminus at Interstate:Highway 35•.:: - - As the platting authority'for,unincorporated portions:of,the-MPO's planning:area Brazos County is - ••• - • responsible:•for securingrright-of-way for future"=:corridors during--the:.platting process: .The • -• Thoroughfare Concept states'that"only roads considered-arterial or above shown";this is• •• :.;;":'' ... ;• ;:"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 Conce tonl de is:: p : y p' is future arteraalroads,the County has no plan it.can use to reference the location • - ' of future collectorsand may be Limited_or challenged on the ability to require right-of-way for future:•- •; • ••• - collector roads.perArtiele 7,Section•C.5 that are vital.to•the-County-'s-transportatiori'network and -- mobility:goals: :,. .:;:; . .- :•:-Paget :. :.. "i :. : _ :• ::• DR:AFfOctober3,2024::: . i•"..: ' ::::•: •"" " Adopted:Plans:and Policies •• .:..-: •'' • ..- •• ::-.•: --. ' Subdivision Regulations'Diagnostic Report • " • •• 'T.- ` = 0 0 BC MPO THOROUGHFARE CONCEPT i ... '. • ' •• - . . . : . . rr ..f. • 1 Inch=3 miles: :'.[' .,, ,r�' .'�(.'a\.u° 'r'1_ ,�I: - 77 '� tiff- '-`•i- i .-i;T i j 3 r d i S "'+ ry-• .. .. i / -- ... • rrrt '. °�^! �4 :.;kP;t . ),: t -" .. .. .. {4 .� / 1' ,' ....,,ems�..j..+.,,• v o-' k '. • s .. y ,a ti !/fia t' „.. r'�1,�, 'r1 '" ter f 4 ' .• Y ,•CP r • ,.,, �•�„! • '. • .. �` , a \•�� a p"u•a •°_°•• _. P :ems„'fit.,;::+.' / <•:'=,`,_' • 1 V• . \ (t r E • .. .. t, r "N ¢.Z./ i 6 T'M_}y� �,)'1.S, • �i �y', �'t • f ... - : .•. r''�i "' 0�.: d• ::k .b t ' (e ��r•� 1 {,l• ` 'xt • .,��.� r>.r•: . &` .l'j c ,*}, r� i ' b ''' a, st,1.1 #;�s j:r I , :. :.. • l ...�� •,fir f' 7�-ti '':,YY� ri �? r. .4 fA�» t t—'-.'J w • .f �I � • Iq ;,�r • .. ... .... • .yam : a, _ .. 75 0 4 x iK h • .d" .i ,;/r f \ l t w' s . iaaca•romanwro.,nae cd.cEvr. `• _ is _i . • • oI.'....,xy'y.anv. ...ti. t _ / S4' , }=-"• 7 i,. > .,.`.�, 4 :� .. ,,y, 2 -f4,.•,..,t...41 a ( C... ' • • • `;� was,.,r., 4 • -,� ' c�: ., t°1..' `.i ce "'I•`) I. 'I' • " " "' " " .:F.igure 1 2. 50BCSNIPO:Fhoroughfare ce Concept • • : DRAFT October 3,2024:• ;• ... .... Page:3••: •..:'-... -•• - - Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report. • • " ::''" '• - ' -- -' ::'.-Adopted Piens.and Policies ' ` • • •.. - :: .. ... . Interlocal Agreements. . . ... ..• :: .. ::...: ... . . . .. -- ' -- .. Brazos'County has entered into-Interlocal•A reements(ILAs both with-the Cityof Bryan and the City. .. ' '- :;.of:.College Station•to .divide. platting-;authority. The main,concerns with :these -iLAs are their - ' '' inconsistency with the 'County's,Subdivision.Regulations" and-their incomplete•execution::The . agreement's:give exclusive::platting.authority to:the:City of Bryan and:the.City of College-Station, including their extraterritorial jurisdiction-:(ETJ). However; in.:practice, plat applications are being ... :.. : submitted to both.th'eCities and the County for a roval.:As a.result,these applications are shared : . between the,Cities and the County,which also leads to interpretation:a.n.d.approval issues:- . The:Cities serve.atthe:first point of contactfor subdivision plats in the ETJ and have the.ability to:: ._ --•::'review applications-quickly. For examp(e,.the City of Bryan usually completes plat reviews in three ::- • business days However,the.Coun is not ableto com p fete the reviews in"the same amount of time -y . ty p :•• ., due to limited:staff, and.resources.:Nevertheless,Brazos County.. is interested in haying fuh*cplatting, .. •• -•- authority in the ETJ:since it oversees all infrastructure.Furthermore there is also.confusion regarding ....: . .. - the County's and'Cities':roles.and•responsibilities: The:County expects:all;applications•.in•.ETJs:to • .. follow:its-.standards. But the•.Cities commonly"review civil plans:•in-the."ETJ despite the lack of -• -•. inspection or maintenance responsibilities.;: .. These I[As.were established in.the 1.990s:•They have riot b' ' - een`u da'tedand.donot:refle'ctthe.Coun.. � pCounty . _.. Subdivision:Regulations updated in-2016. Currently, application reviews.are based on;the.stricter - ' • standard between the:regulations-from the:Cities�orthe County:.There is a need to,clearly'define• - ' :- -:•which standards the-Brazos County Engineering Design:Guideline, the Bryan/College Station.:•:••_-. Unified:Design Guidelines,or either City's regulations,is a pplied to subdivision:applications to - minimizeconfusion. Brazos County Engineering Design Guidelines:: . = : -: Based on stakeholder.feedback, these,engineering guidelines-are incomplete_or:.do not provide:..- .:: • -- •• supportsufficient to-the:Subdivision--Regulations,creating confusion as to.the applicability of the ••--: - : Subdivision Regulations, Brazos:County Engineering Design.Guidelines.(BCEDG), city standards(in - ' "• •- the ETJ);and Bryan/College Station"Unified:Design Guidelines-(see:below):A'key-issue:of'the.BCEDG -- ::-. . ' '-• :- ::-is its.inconsistency.with:the Bryan/College:Station Unified:Design.Guidelines:The BCEDG references -'• ••• * the'Bryan/college Station-guidelines in various:'sections; however,:the:Cities' guidelines'are:-not - ... . ... interchangeable with-the::BCEDG: The County::should maintain:•consistency among'.th0-•two : regulations. -•- . - Bryan/College_Station Unified Design Guidelines.- "" ... . •.. -'. •-• • Commonly referred tows-"BCS'.,the.Bryan%College Station Unified"Design Guidelines(BCSUDG).are . : - regional::standards intended.to.'Consistently apply:design standards::.for urban infrastructure, : - including streets,.dranagedrinkin water, wasteter:Theyoutline the standards:accepted.by- -- :: ;-:w - both Cities to provide with clear directions when designing infrastructure:The regulations::•:, : - were created-to maintain the safety and quality:of Life:of all users in:the Bryan and College Station • area,including within the Cities'ETJs.The regulations pre applied by both-Cities and are;referenced - ' ' in the Brazos CountyEn meerin Desi n Guidelines. " ' ' '` ;. .,.Page 4 •DRAFT October 3,2024•:-:•- - ••• •• -- - ' Adopted:Plans:and Policies " ,. •• :::.•: •". - ...Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report ... .. . .•• .. •• • •-• .. ... .. ... .. Priority Findings.:and Actions" .• " 1 : , Comprehensively update the Subdivision Regulations : : ..After.::a: comprehensive: :reviiew• of .the' existing. Subdivision- Regulations, as- well':as " conversations with `users.-of the existing;'Subdivision Regulations -and development - - takeholders within the County,notable issues were found with the Subdivision'Regulations:. These include.organizational:issues;:such as topics:that'are divided over multiple sections•,. :.:.::•'::• ;.information that is duplicated in multiple sections,and significant use of technical language •• • -.thatis:moreappropriate-inadesignmanual • • •- -- •.- - •• - •-- - • - Content within.'the Subdivision:Regulations should:.also.be updated:to:reflect changes in.:;" •" ' • •"state.law,the re platting rocess, ri ht-of-wa' acce tance, andplattingexce tions.Finall , p g:P g : .. -Y. p ... .. P Y :. .... ...: .•the••Subdivision Regulations would;.benefit.from '.• .•, .. greater-use•of••visual.aids, such as flow • charts,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.th'e-ordinance:itself; it is • recommended:that the Subdivision:Regulations:be.comprehensively.updated consistent;.. •-' : . ' with.the reconirnendationsfoundinSection.4.ofthisCodeDiagnosti.c.:•- ••: • : •:'2.- 1.. Revise-ILAs.with the Cities of College;Station and.Bryan. :.While Brazos County:has:adopted ILAs-with:the two major.cities,:feedback from-both'the • County and Cities:of Bryan and College Station indicates thatthe actual.practice"s'ofthe three :": ': - entities do•not-reflect the procedures outlined in.the•ILAs. Plats in the:ETJs.:of both Cities`:•:-".- -•continue to go through a::hybrid approval'process that involves'both:the County:and Cities .' '. ' tv; reviewinplats and infrastructure and sendin g them to respective:commissions foe fOe appeoval. • • This practice h:as:resulted in'uncertainty and.different'din. elines for and approval:. •::• ... . ..: Because:the process applies_to:the'subdivision.requirements that.are.mor-e'strenuous,the ::. -" :.C.ognty is placed in•the:position of havingto,a•.. :.. .:,. . . pprove infrastructure it may not.be able to ': :. maintain. .. .. ... .. •.. . . . • :.. : :.•; Changes:to-annexation law since:the;ILAswereadopted have also reduced.the likelihood of. ': '.`--•:•. . •"cities annexingterritoryin the future.If lay a areas of the Eli are Likely"to remain under COUtay -"maintenance,the.ILAs should be'•jointly updated to improve"process efficiency:This•would. ensure that.the-County reviews and approves plats.in:ETJ areas without:agreements for:.. . -" "•' .. ,annexation'orcity infrastructure development:In addition;.the infrastructure constructed in ' these.areas would be required to meet County;.rather than city;:standards and no:jurisdiction •- ••• •• " would.be tasked.With reviewing or::held-responsible-for;plans that'it.would:not-ultimately"• -- ... approve or maintain. :. ::.DRA.T October 3,2024:.: •" : •" . • :: •• `.`-. Page:S':'.': " ' Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report "' ' " " ."• •• ::Priority Findings•and Actions ' ' • 3. ' .-Adopt-a'County Thoroughfare Plan or addendum:to the MPO::;: : • - .. : Thoroughfare•Conce t • Currently;, Article.7, Section;-C of the Subdivision.:Regulations requires•that collector • q roadways be constructed according to the BCSMPO Thoroughfare Plan Concept-and defers : ::to th:at.Plan to identify the location of future:arterial and collector road locations,`However, • • ` the current adopted BCSMPO:Plan (dated June 27, 2017) addresses arterial roadways and , freeways:.and does not include=.locations,of future .collector roads..The:County.should : •:. • consider one of the:fo-llowing options to:align:thetext of the Subdivision.Regulations.wiith the :. Thoroughfare.Concept:..: : : . . -.. .. : ... .. .. . ... .. .. . .. • .. ••:-•-Optiori•#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 -way and construction'o f future collector:roadways that:are aligned with the. • MPO's.Plan and future.interstate corridors: ro ected to traverse B:razos:Coun .. .-. .. •• • '-• :•Option#2:Collaborate.with the MPO to d'evelo •-p develops unified update of Thoroughfare. .. . . .. Concept-so that it aligns with the County's•Subdivision Regulations•and effectively: • - •' provides the County:with a plan for the future network: - : -• -- ••• • ••• • Option=#3: Update the:text:of Article 7, Section=C:5 to reference the:Same roadway:: '' :: :.. . typesaisted'in the Thoroughfare Concept:.Notethatthe suitability•of:this option to..: :.. ••::• provide for an adequate County:roadway'network depends:upon whether the arterial roadways-shown ion•the Thoroughfare Concept,particularly-the-minor Arterials,can.- .. - adequately function a.s:collector roadways-in-the network hierarchy shown on 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 roadwaysahown-on •-- :.. : ..: : the ThoroughfareConcept.... .. :.. : • 4. - :-Clearly define the applicability of,separate-but=:related .. :•: standards.and documents:: • • • .The Subdivision Regulations are currently unclear and inconsistent about'which.standards " ' :•and`documents apply and.how they should:be administered':To resolve this lack of clarity and inconsistency,the Subdivision Regulations should list in tabularforinat which standards :;• • ., govern certain aspects of development outside of;the:E71:.This table should clearly indicate which:processes adhereto the Subdivision:•Regulations;-the= BCEDG, or the B.CUDG :.(commonly known as"BCS")• .: .. .. - • ' . .. ..: • This organized"a •will help' developers and: officials uickl . identify the":": .:'-.. -•applicable standards and ensure proper compliance with the:approp'riate regulations, :: .: ':"Page •: • ... : :: • :: : ••DR.AFTOctober3,2024:: :.:: •... - •- •• '•' ' Priority Findings and Actions' •• •• ::•.•. "' • • :•• '•" " •"Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report ' 5. .Revise•BCEDG:as a:companion documentto:the:Subdivision-- ::Regulations. • : . • :• The BCEDGhave.been in use:for several years but their;effectiveness has been•undermined .-by-inconsistent enforcement. This has.created issues with.cro'ss-referencing, .particularly ::when•the Subdivision Re ulations cite.•sections of the en gineerih standards that:do.not g., g: : iy : . • exist.Afull.updete to the BCEDG should be conducted wIien 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:regarding:utilities in County._-= -- - --- :.right-of-way. ::.-: ::::' : : - `:•..,.• :- Currently; the'.Subdivision Regulations prohibit:the,•Location or placing:of•.underground=:•.-=_--:,- .•utilities'in County right-of=away.The requirerrierit"not only applies to new utilities,but in:some = . :;cases has required the:moving of existing infrastructure outside the.right-of-way,-including • ' • infrastructure intended for future.,use'such as water lines.This requirement:and resultant -- :.. : :• process has contributed to significant Lead times ..when:County_roads are constructed or :. ::. .::. • :.widened. :.':.. .::. : • • • The County should consider-reaso_nable administrative_'exceptions to right-of-way utility -: .. ... restrictions:and:allow flexibility-:'in cases where:strict adherence may:lead:to 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.. .. ... .. consider:-building in flexibility:.to::the requirement..to:.extend roadways-:to:the limits of-.. .::,': ..: • '•• '• subdivisions to minimize:unnecessary•expenses:and disruptions:; -.: --• •• •••• - "' ... ` -•.-• : 7. Include a legalprocess to estabtishvestingand-fair.notice. • - - . • . :•claims. • •- The current Subdivision Rego(all ons:do not contain:adequate language addressing when:a..- :'. development�application is.considered a.`.`permit"•underTLGC.Chapter245:The mechanism .: :.for.establishing a Permit.(Usually a plat)'should follow Chapter_ 245. and provide adequate -language and•flexibili t for the.Count -to-determii: y ne whexher a development has been-vested : . : -- -• under certain rights and regulations-and which standards apply to the development.Another• .-•.--:-. .Chapter 245 issue is the:expiration of approved plats and plans'that have not been.filed:or completed The regulations should clearly distin uish between..developments�that:pre . dormant•or inactive and those ibif have experienced-:delays but continue:to meet the. Chapter 245:005 definition of.`.`.progress".. •• ' :• :'DRAFTOctober3,2024.'•: :• •• - Page-7•:':"i•.... • -- -• - Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report •' .• ••• ..:Priority Findings end Actions - 8. .-Consolidate all language governing processes and procedures -: --The-current Subdivision Regulations have. different processes and procedures-developers. .. - mustfollow,but:these are spread,throughout the docurr ent, making*difficult to locate all::- -•• " • " relevant information:To improve efficiency and clarity,the County should create a centralized '-- :-approval authority:list.• _and.incorporate process aids such es-flow-charts. and tables to streamline theprocess. . - ... - ... - County staff indicated that exceptions to platting might be`misapplied,=with some applicants :, going through. a variance. process that -.may hot be:supported by State Law under.'the •- • consanguinity clause inTLGCChapter232.00"15.To:prevent abuse of the exceptionsprocess,• •• --" ' "' the County should also establish'an.a lication:for:a:•plat waiver or:exemption. Example: •Williamson CoUntyreqUirea`an affidavit and copy of deeds for each property. -- = 9 Improve and'streamline the process.to construct:and inspect::- . .. : in fastructure.: :.. Several problems were noted;with the construction and:inspection process,with comments:.. _::. • . originating from ty;staff `and the.-development community_.issues noted •include Coun - difficulty ensuring that roadways are constructed to.County standards,difficulty resolving all ' . " : .. • outstanding deficiencies from:the inspection process(even, or particularly,:with punch list- items nearthe acceptance)and' permittingan. sdin ection of improvementsthat link ":" ' ;: • to infrastructure such as driveway approaches culverts.-..: • • "In some cases;:resolvirig these:issues:m'ay involve introducing greater.flexib.ili into•desi n •• : -. tY g specifications or construction toaccountfor different scenarios.The process of construction: ' . '"' " .•and :acceptance may also :need to be-revised, - evised to ensure that'sufficient access is-:being provi ded before site::;construction occurs;;and that ;responsibility for :completing .. - :- - improvements.isclearlyassigned..Lastly the pointatwhichacceptanceof,right-of-Way and: ' :- :.. : ::" road infrastructure occurs should be:specified"to prevent-the Countyfromnassumingcontrol ...or. Maintenance of:.improvements, and. .being required:,to..provide access";to. :those .. .- - improvements,:before completion . " - - As with many counties in Texas;.Brazos County:is-limited in its abilityito deploy staff to. "!,,: erform improvement ins pections. The-Coun should further investi' ate the use of:thi"rd- :.P... .:.. P P ty . g •- : : a" inspectors rovements'and rivate`construction(per-FLOCCha Ater. .. :: : ' P ttY P " p P lP " A 233)as par-t.offuture updates to the Subdivision Regulations. DRAF70ctober3,2024':':":"•... •• •• •" " •• - Priority Findings.and-Actions •• : """ " .'' • ::"..: .. -Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report ' ' - .. -• ... . 1.0.� .-Revise'how the County'distinguishes-between rural and urban::.-, ..-' _: ::developlment;types� ' - . To ensure:'that..,_development:;standards accurately..: .reflect current;•-ownership and _•maintenance realities,•the:County should revise the specific criteria used to differentiate ::between urban andrureti:developmenttypes:`The-distinction,should.be updated,to=include -- . the re uirernentthat concrete streets.must be su :: orted b. q pp lied- agreementorseparateentity • . :... : such as a.municipal:utility.district.(MUD),_a_municipal.management district(MMD),a public .. ... .... :.improvement district:(PID) or a developirient.agreement giving.a city the ability to`annex the ••area for maintenance;•External.districts-(e:g: :-MUD,. MMD,- PID) can..recoup the`cost-of: .: • infrastructure and improvement.Maintenance through:=tax assessments levied directly on:;:.- -..• homes-and-commercial entities-within the district's boundaries:-: -' ::- : 1:1::- Clarify:.Countydrainag:e.requirements:and expectations: .. :` .The`_current Subdivision Regulations are:•unclear.on what.the proper requirements and •' expectations'of the County are when:it comes to drainage management:To ensure effective .. drainage management for roads designated for County maintenance,it is recommended that ,drainage solutions, such as ditches,-swales;::or detention facilities, be implemented on rvate;property, p p .p.rty. Culvert pipes.and drivevvays'Should.remain as pnvatefacilities•within the.. 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 owner to recover the;costs • ---- Cif the se actions. -12. ..study and improve:the regulation"of floodplains`and..othelr ;: :: .,: .-drainage:infrastructur�e•_to address adverse-impacts caused by :-•:._ new development. :: ::::.: :.During interviews With the County and Cities..of Bryan and College;Station.,certain.residential ... -: --developmentswere identified es being:subject to flooding despite.bei�ngconstructed recently. •- . under the-current Subdivision:Regulations. To effectively manage drainage and flooding concerns'iri the area.;it is:recomrriended:that_the County pursue funding for comprehensive ` ::floodp e' tu.lain studiesrin rural.areas. These should focus''on..evaluating creeks-and tributariesto determine their capacity for sufficientdischarge.Assessingthese.concerns will: - -• :.. : facilitate the identification of properties that may be:.exempt from detention;requirements. : .: -: -. :;dueto:their ability to-adequately manage-runoff . = . .. - Additionally• ,the_Countymay.consider participating in creating a drainage district per Texas• " �'::: • : ; Water Code::Chapter 56.•Drainage districts are:special:.districts created:"to.control and ' -'supervise the construction and maintenance-of canals, drains,ditches, levees; and other :.drainage improvements-needed to protect pu.blic-health or establish a public benefit or Utility Im rovements:are generallyf-unded.throu h the issuance of bonds and subsequent le' in -. ..• . . p glevying ;. .. . of..taxes:• ••Coordination:. between 'local.. property--:owners,.: municipalities, and._ the • :-Commissiioners Court is,essential for--the creation and :ongoing administration.of..any •• .. ... .drainage distri.ctandassociated improvements:' .- -• ".. -: .4 ... ., •• . DRAFT October3,2024.: Pa e 9 • -- -- -•" Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report: : " ::Priority Findings and Actions- , - 1.3: Consolidate'and clarify County participation-ins infrastructure::- construction and:oversizin : Stakeholder Interviewsrevealed that.many existing County roads are notbeirig-upgraded to': -: -. County standards. during;-'development; resulting in large:;amounts of traffic utilizing inadequate gravel.roeds -'.The Subdivision Regulations should .establish clear and'non-- contradictory :language that.,describes the. expectation of County participation in .. : infrastructure"oversizin during :pcivate development:The participation-language should""b"e :-specific enough to" assign.responsibility. to the developer .to construct its';share of • • - • : improvements but flexible:enough:not to-bind:the..County;to an exact.cost.share for each ...project 14.:` Distinguish between•County=maintained;improvernents`and 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.be the responsibility of another entity,such ad -Homeowners .Association'(HOA),:.sh.ould be outlinedao.assi n the ro er res onsibili and reve, . the g P P ;... .1? ty p " County from.taking�over maintenance of facilities that:primarily benefit,private property:L : ,.. 15 : Establish a preferred form of'fiscal security'for construction. It is recommended that the County'establish a preferred form of fiscal.security centered : - :'..- around.recording of:a final;plat-Under this system,preliminary acceptance"of construction `workwill be required prior to the approval of 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) but should"be spelled out clearlyto not subject the Countyto an elongated construction and inspection period in which "the developer has.little'incentive tofinish infrastructureimproverrents._" ._ - .. Additionally,in 2019,the Texas Legislature passed legislation(HB 31.67)to:allow.an applicant -:to not:file"a preliminary plat or construction plans if the applicant.decides, at:thejrrown- " :.. : :.":-• '.discretion;to,submit a final:platwith.either a.bond'or financial guarantee in lieu of:a bond for :.. . _ : • the proper construction of the.roads and streets in.and,drainage-requirements for the ._ ..,;.—• " subdivision:"The:"alternative lat-`a roval rocess.•authorized.b. HB`3167 should.:.be -' " P pp . - P. . Y. established with'all necessary processes and procedures. Page,10 = " •:'DRAPE October 3,2024; •,°'_' • •" ... ' PriorityFindingsandActions" ::-. : " " -'Subdivision Regulations-Diagnostic Report Individual Section •Fin in•gs:an Solutions :..: '-'. - • ._ . 1, Overall Findings --:1.1 :': Uniformly,refer'ence all applicable regulations. : : ::Issue Identified The Subdivision.Re ulations refer to external regulations.across various Articles and . . sections, resulting in unclear applicability and enforcement. Namely,:references .. . ... .' ••• -often switch-between the BCEDO and the,BCSUDG:At the time of_this writing,the. •• •--: BCSUDG is currently:being revised; references:to these standards;:as appropriate;:: >•.- should be reviewed for continui_ .with:on ongoing rev[ . .. ... .. ty g g •- • ••• •• - -•• Additionally,references to alt other applicable County ordinances are.inconsistentor.. . -• ••• missing.:References to:these external regulations, such as the•County's Floodplain::...:: Ordinance,should be available clearly'and concisely.:- -• ::-.•- ... ::Proposed Solutions) .. .. ... .. :.. : .. . :A:•:Include consistent:end references: •at.the beginning'of;each-Article to : •... - provide the:reader and staff•withclearexpectations•andapplicability: - = B. Review all.references to the:BCEDG and BCSUDG to confirm the intended : standards are present;desirable,and•enforceable by County staff. ... •C: 'Ensure,that.all•references.to-external'regulations.are-accompanied-.by. ".as •• '--: ::- amended"Nand "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-law:.. . ... . - ... . ... .Issue'Ideritified .:. .. .. - ::While the TLGC:restricts the extent.to'which counties:may:regulate land uses and design;;;there are a few,use-specific standards'and restrictions:the County is -" : ' .. ,.- .authorized to regulate.- Chapter•-2.33..(.County: Regulation .of-Housing and Other • •••: - Structures);.Chapter234(County.Regulation of Businesses and Occupations),:and " " ' - ' -.: Chapter..243 (Muniicipal-•and County`Authority-:to Regulate Sexually 'Oriented: • . .. ••' Business)grant Brazos County with use-specific regulations not currently accounted :..- " �- :•for in the Subdivision Regulations: -' .. :. .. -.- - '-The 86`h. Legislature adopted.Section 232.110 of the TLGC- in.2019,.allowing:the . = ' County-to require developers.to bear a po.rtion:of`the costs of County.infrastructure::•.•:,•.: -• •• ::_.-improvements.associated'with•development.-This provision-was *hot found in.the • • • '`" '- •`:•-••••'-.-Subdivision Regulations. Proposed Solution(s)..::. . :. :.. . . •' A. Adopt the usespecific regulations-afforded by Chapter• s 233, 234/and 243.of = '~• .. .the T.LGC•irito:the.Subdivision`Regulations.and.establish a permitting process .. :.. .:.. ..• :.. for ease of review:an.d:enforcement... ... -:-DRA,FTOctober3,2024:• ;-. .::' ... .. ........... Page •::•.•- •• •. •: •: • Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report': . .- : - , -• - ' - ... Individual Section Findings and Solutions ' • .. ••• • --• - •' •• :_ •B: Addpt.Section:232.1.10`into the'Subdivision Regulations,- iincluding•.defining • - • . 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•fiegulations'.Appendices•include content"related,to application - checklists,forms; and-content(Appendices.A,:D C, and G),fees.(Appendix B), and':.. .:'. ' ... other regulatory-information.Application_:content and•requirements ere best located • - -::•"- in a separate document or manual:for:ease of alteration and"distribution.:• , >=.•. - Likewise; 'various-design..criiteria and inspection processes.:are::codified in the:.. .••. . - - ." "Subdivision Regulations (Example:.Article•.11, Section B)..This information::is.-best •• : -:: - located in external desi n criteria manuals e g ( .g.,the:BGERG or BCSUDG)for:ease of alteration and"ada "tabili ... . •... :. .. ... .Proposed Solution(s)-. . -..: ::• '•-• • . . .. .. - '":' -"" A. Establish:a centralized docurrient.with all application:.requirements"and"fees, such as a Brazos County Unified Development Handbook: • •• ' :B.: :Create explicit references to external a" lication documents in the Subdivision .- Regulations,includin._. .,.,, g provisions that applications must be made correctlyand• ' "" .. .holistically per external documents to be.considered complete.. ••- C,-.Relocate and reference design criteria; infrastructure.:;and inspection .:, •:: "' -' ' procedures:toexternalpolicydocuments: -- - 1.4. Revis�e:the regulation's':hierarcliy:and:provide cla:rity:for . : :: sections.andso sections: . - ..: - --- :;Issue Identified- .. ... . ... The:hierarch of" rovisions..is inconsistentlyapplied throughout..For.example,Articie%: :..: .:.:• Y p. .. applied 1 follows the. .1:,A.1.a. hierarchy, .while Article 3, :includes a 1.A.i;.'hierarchy. ••- " ••-: ::Additionally;section'andsubsection•headings.inconsistently:includetopicheadings,... .. •- ••• providing the user little context to the section's content. Proposed Solutions) .A'•. •E•st•ablish 'a -consi• st•ent: hierarch y .across: all Articles":in the Subdivision: • :" ":":Regulations,and s"eci the section's"content brieflyin each headingtitle:- . . : . ::.. .• ::-Article- 01.::•.-::"... . Section A:" ... Subsection::• ..(1) :. ... Item` a." . . . ... ubitem i.'.. : ..: . . . .• " • •:•Pa'ge12 : ":" ... ;. ::.•.:•. DRAFT.October3,2024`:•:••i'•... " •• •• -" Individual Section:Findings and Solutions: " " " • .••• -• .:..•: """ ' '"Subdivision Regulatioris'Diagnostic Report" ' -- - - . 1.5:: ;."Utilize neutral:pronouns:For:people and:individuals. • "' Issue.Identified Gender-s ecific terms ' e:" p ( , g:,: his/her, hisj, 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.sh'all be accompanied'by a letter of:credit surety agreement"signed by the:.. Developer or his:agent." Gender-specific terms result in.inconsistencies between - .: • - .:- regulatory rylan language and real-life aPPl.cation. • . . . • Proposed"Solution s " A. Utilize neutral e:pronouns '( g;. they/their) . or eliminate when; possible s:a ent' or`desi nee:._ when referringto s ecific individuals and ("developer. g g... ) .. :.P - - officials. . :1::6: •• Include additional diagrams:and imagery:and:review for:'-::. ':: • legibility. .. issue Identified.:"..•- . • . -'" "The Subdivision Regulations do-not rely _ • heavily -on diagrams or': imagery to . • :•:: illustrate requirements orprocesses In • general graphics-:are. preferred. when: , : illustrating measurement requirements . ?. :. :.. . and •:a application.. -..: rocedures. " -• Additionally 'some graphics used:in the paw ; -- - Subdivision -Regulations, like the •Lot -- -- :_ :Types'definition graphic, are-blurry and a- . .. " Me,iaaa eel _ . : . .a ..: illegible . • Figure 2.:Example Graphic(Sight Triangle) •Proposed Solutions) . :A. :Implement additional flow charts 'and:procedural graphics;•when possible':::.' •- (Example:Article 10). . B. Review existing graphics for consistency with updated r--egulationsand:legibility... . . C.. Cross-reference"images within the Subdivision Regulations,where applicable.': .::.-• • • '"DRAFTOctober3,2024:•': .,, ':" ':." ... ' Page 13-:":"•;" .. • •- ". •• ' . Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report"' ' "' " •• :: . : '•" ' '- Individual Section Findings and Solutions " "' --1.7 :::-Reference state law verbatim,where applicable.' :: - . ... :.. ; ,.: :: ... . ::Issue.ldentified.: ': :.. TLGC::references are..Made,-throughout:the•Subdivision Regulations, however,.::-::::•:--,:- ... references are often abbreviated.from: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 rovided:(Example:Article 2;definition of'Re lat" . ... _ :.Proposed:Solution(s).... ...::.:. ... • = ._ _. :A.: 'Align definitions:and-other terminology with theTLGC,where=possible to prevent :: : _ conflicts. .... - • . - •• B. _Reference the'TLGC verbatim;-paiticularly.regarding platting procedures'and .. ::•.approval timelines:..::. :.. .:.. -- •-• :-.-: 'C. Include- hYPerlinks to 'specific::TLGC'sections"when:referenced.,(Example:" hops://saatutes aso:ca itol.tex : Y% /LGA Docs /htnG:232 015,htm#232.0 :'links ... .. .... .. directly to Chapter 232;Secti0n•232.00T5:Exceptions to Plat Requirement). :.1:8: .• _Review language choice:Fo.r brevity and:clarity. _. . ... . Issueldentified : _• r At times,the lan ua a choice throw houtthe Subdivision.Re gulations is len th and• g. g g... g...y .-. : = = --: 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 .. .,.. ... • •'- . t across al. . adminiser laudiences..." ... :.. : -... ::ProposedSoh tion(s) :.. : :: ... :A.:•:Revise language"choice:to favor fewer,more:conventional-language rather than-: : •:•••. " lengthy-technical"alternatives-(Example: Definition:of-a cut-de-sac,-"A"street :: havingbut one 1 outlet... • ••• , • - • .1.9: ::-Reorganize•or.:.consolidate-similar content:._ : •• .. • -- - ...Issue•Identified'- `• .-- ' Several Articles and Sectionsthroughoutthe Subdivision Regulations address similar. : - -• content, causing-:difficulty in:-•determining all the,,necessary and_-applicable •- •• --- - ::regulations•related to a-topic.".Forexample,.Article.12'is related.to.but disconnected" - : from material in Articles:l0 and 11,making it difficult to know ifth'e reader is receiving::-.-::-.• • •- ::•....: • :::--allrelevant information about construction and"acceptance.-: = • - - Proposed Solutions) . 'A.:-:Consolidate the Subdivision Regulations_by topic, generally'grouped by (1)` -: --... ' general provisions and authority, (2) subdivision:::types, processes,::and -.: :.. standards,.:(3) development'and_:construction.applications, processes, :and .: standards (4)relief . rocedures,and"5 definitions. ' ' . .::page14 DRAFT October 3,2024 ': • :• •- "' ' Individual Section:Findings and Solutions: " " " """ .••: ••• :: •: -' 'Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report . . - • • .. . .• : -• - • •• •B: Cross-reference-applicable-Articles and Sections when referenced across the • • • -- .:.. • -- •::-.: Subdivision Regulations for easeof.reference.:. ::•- - - ' - 1.10..: .Update regulations For consistency With recent changes to:...: - - . . . .. :_ • ;•::. _ state aw..:• :. .:. .._. Issue•Identified : Recent legisletures have drastically,changed the dynamic between counties and their ` "' cities, mainly-related to ETis and voluntary annexations.-Additionally,-mandatory.. -- - approval:timelines have-been imposed for':platting applications:and.other permits:;. .:'..' -- ::., 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 Solution(s)- ... ::. .:... :.. •• •• :: A. Revise the.County's ILAs:within'all ETJs to affirm.the:applicable Subdivision . :.. . . -: Regulations and•.expectations should property owners-.voluritarily remove. -: - •• .-. •. -themselvesfromthecities'subdivisiion 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::•.•': ' .. . ... .: • .. . :••: 2 The .. .. .. ..•. ... .. . . .. • . :": DRAFT October ::• ... : •. . : : : -... Page 1S'::."i•-,-. ... - Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report' : --: ••••• Individual Section Findings and Solutions ' - -• . .. General"Provisioins:(Article.1) .2.1 EstabLish dear authority for different-County•officials and"' .: bod:ies.. :. :.. .:;. _. :.. . .. . ::- Issue Identified:. :.. ::.. No centralized location within the Subdivision Regulations identifiesall County staff,-:,. _ . : •. .officials,�or bodies.and their respective approval authorities.This-Leads'to,confusion when determining the proper approval procedures for different application:types: • ' ' Proposed:Solution(s)- . -; ' -- " ::-.-: 'A: Develop a matrix or.graphic (refer to Figure 3):that_lists'all'Cob nty approval " .. -- •• • bodies(such:as the County Engineer, inspector,:Clerk,,Commissioners•Court, .. 'ortheirrepresentatives).andspecifies:theapplicationsoractions:for Which they:: - :. :are: fir,responsible providing recommendations,making decisions,or handling appeals. •,. = : ;APPLICATION TYPE :." • :.,- DECISION-MAKER ••• • ..: REFERENCE .•: .. • SUBDIVISION PLATS : ':Preliminary:Plat ComtnissionersCourt_ . -,' 104,$„1 • Final Plat ::. ::- Commissioners Court' •: - •S$C::Sr3:. : • • ...Amending.Plat Commissioners Court, : Sec.: .4 • • •• • • • • • • •• ••• •Prat Vacation- ::, -: "" Commissioners.Court;:.••: _$S::::Sep" ••• . .. . . _. Re rat.. ... , ::: . •• ::-:-::... . ••.-: `CommissionersCourt- •-. •:Sec:Saf.: :: ... • p :._ ;Subdivision:Waiver•.;... : Commissioners Court ... ::Sec 6_]__.. ._ - :Construction Plans., $ec...4: , •, ,;• •�;�"Commisso ers Court'•-•' . .:. . alive n "Engineering ReprEserit" Commissforiors Court" Subdivision Proportionality.•:•.'. " .Sec.;4,J..4. .• Engineerlpg.Representative" ", :.. .:.. - •. :"" .::.' Subdivision;P-roportionalityAppeal:"'::. .,..":CommissronersCpurt_ ` - _Sec_4_�:.': .. Figure3:Approva1:MatrixExampte • Pe:9e16 DRAFT October3,2024''-':'.:• ... -- -: ''. individualSection:Findings end Solutions-: •"' ' " • ::• .'. ' -.Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report ' - :: Definitions of"Ter-ms"(Article:2)- " .. ... .... . .. . . ""3.1 ::Distribute term interpr:etation.s.tatements"to their respective "" definitions. : - :.. .:.. .. ::. .:;. Issue identified:;.: :,. .:.. :.. . . :.. .::. : At the beginning of Article2;specific rules bf.interpretation are provided that are more:.. ... •• " .. .pertinent:within .their•respective definitions:---For example,-terms like-."person:' :. : -- "structure,":and"lot"should be defined outside of the rules of interpretation.-::" Proposed'Solution(s)'•• -• "A: Relocate term-specific content to their respective•definitions"elsewhere:in the " "' Article(e.g.;'"$tructure"within"Building"). 3.2.:::.Clarifythe source For undeFined•terms., _- =- '= ,. . ' :.. : :: ... . ::Issue:Identified,: ":: . Article: 2:states that"words:not specifically:defined in Article.2::shall take their : :_ ; common dictionary meaning;"however"common dictionary"is not specified:and is ` . = .•opento interpretation. Pro used Solutions • - A. Reference.the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary,.1:1t:•Edition, as amended; for clarity defining undefined terms in•the.Subdivisiori Regulations." "'" "' :-3:3- •:= ReFerence:applicable agencies and regulations when defining . • terms:governed.byexternalb"odies.:=:.. Issue lderitified .. ` :• ••Several definitions"are provided that ate otherwise governed"and specified by external bodies:or regulations;.such:es the Federal.Emergency Management Agency(FEMA); ". - Texas Commission on-Environmental.Quality(TCEQ),.and:.theTexas 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 e.p ( g:;: 1U0.-yearfloodplairi ),•and ensure that definitions align with FEMA's interpretations and definitions. --- :B:":Reference the TCEQ.end TAC in definitions;related to on-Site sanita sewer facilities(",., F)(e.g., Aerobic On-site WastewaterSy§tem"). " • OSS :, ::•DRAFT October 3,2024:. : Page 17":":":•' ... • •• Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report". .•• •• "' ' "•" Individual Section Findings and Solutions " " • ..3.4, : Revise terms:with modifi.ers:to be grouped with sub=bu:llets:• :.. -._: ..For more specificity. :.. . Issue-Identified • _ - Specific related definitions are separated alphabetically.but include a modifier 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. ; Solu Proposed tion(s) " = .: A. •Restructure definitions with a parent term orphrase(e,g.,•"Plat"):to•group the. ... •:-:definitions alphabetically. .. t.. .. ,. :. Plat Amending:- :•• -: . A plat filed for.one or more of the following purposes(See TLGC Section 232.011j: . .. a.:-To correct.an error in a course or distance shown on the preceding plat;.. ' •- • •b. To add a course.or distance that was omittedon the preceding plat; ' • •- • ---• '6. To correct.art 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 previously approved plat,including lot numbers, ••• •• •- •: acreage,,street.nameS,and identification of adJacent:reCarded plats;or .- -• - • - ' f. _,To correct an error in courses and distances of lot lines between two adjacent lots if: . • '- - i.- Bath lot owners Join in the application for amending the plat; .. '- ' : •i - . ii. Neither lotis•abolished; ... • -lit, The amendment does ndt attempt to'remove recorded covenants or restrictions;and- .- ' .iv,. 'The amendment does not have a material adverse effect on the ro ertY rights.ofthe•other owners of the properly .-. that is the-subject of the plat. Plot:'Final". The legal record of land,including:a subdivision,prepared from actual field measurements and staking of identifiable points by e . • " " . "' " Suiv or to a location referenced tire comer.The Final Plat'also establishes and recordsiots,tight-Of-Way,and easements: ' ' ' " eY Y . :Plat Preliminary - '• " A scaled planning document that lays out the boundary,roadways,lots,topography,and infrastructure ina'proposed subdivision . .:. : '... and that:provides the County with a.basis for reviewing construction plans and the Final Plat(see,$¢ction 3.Qi,Q)- :.. .:. : :.. ' .. :.. .::.i:Figure 4.Examp(e.of.Grouping Definitions'by Modifiers 3,5. DeFine,"City." :. . :._ .: : Issue Identified. : The tern-:"City" is used' throughout the:•Subdivision Regulations;:•however, no• • i - definition.is provided.: • • • . -- . ••• - - . :.. Proposed Solutions) :• .::• ' : A. Define "City" potentially as "one of the. incorporated municipalities whose. ' ••• • 'corporate.limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction is.located within Brazos County, • •• • Texas° • ' :.. ,:: .. : :. : . :,. .:.. Page 18 DR:AFT,October 3,2024 •... - - -- -•• • IndividualSection:Findings and Solutions: -• ••- ::- -•- • 'Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report - -' : " - " 3.6.:::"Consider•removing the term::"Cancellation-Plat:f' - - :: ::": ... ::issue.identified.. ':: .. The:term:"Cancellation.Plat"is not identified;in theTLGC. • •:;•.: ProposedSolution(s) • . ;A.., Revise the term_"Cancellation Plat"to;"Vacating Plat"for_consistency with the:_. ... "' - - "plat vacation provisions..authorized'by:Section.,232.0095 :and.Sections 212.013414;and 015oftheTLGC. . ... 3.7,:...Evaluate.use-based terms 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..the:County's '" -' power to regulate uses outside incorporated city limits.:•:::: •"-. . . Proposed Solution(s)- ::' .. ._' .. :-••.:, ' A. Transition subdivision types..arkay from use-specific:. distinctions•"in-.favor of design-based dillerentiation(e.g.,:lots.less"then.one:acre)." -. - .. . ... ..B:.. Consolidate subdivision types where...repetition is noted:-(Example: the:.. . • • ' definition-of:"Industrial Subdivision":is identical'to"Commercial Subdivision"): . ' • 3.8. Remove unnecessary:specificity to.minimize potential -. ... ::::"conflicts.:. .: ..._.. . .. ".. .. ... .. :,lssue.Identified.: . : • .. : Several definitions include,unnecessary specificity that may lead-to conflicts in the `: future. For:•example, the definitions: of "Commissioners- Court" and_ "County -' .: ::Commissii"oner"include specifics on the:number.of Commissioners on.the Courts" ••• : . Other definitions include:regulatory language;,including"Flag Lot".•an• d. Freeboard:•• . • ' : Regulating design- :criteria within,the'term's meaningrather than the a ropriiate Article may:create'conflicts with.enforcement and references. . ... Proposed.Solution(s) ::.:..• ••... - A. Remove.unhecessary specificity.from the definitions.': • - • • 3.9.;. .Clarifythe term:. County. .. ::. .. : : : :: .. ::Issue Identified;:•_.. - : . . . ... .. . - The:definition of "County":states that "all references in these'.:Regulations to the::"."::-.' • • •' -' .:::•'County''shall .mean..Brazos..County;': however,.•references to other surrounding counties maybe necessary in the Subdivision Regulations: Poposed Solution(s):::. ::'DRAFT October 3,2024:..: _. : . , .... Page 1:9':': :" • •• ••- ' - SubdivisionRegulationsDiagnosticReport"' •• • ' •' .-• -- ::-.•: ' -- IndividualSectionFindingsandSolutioris " -" - ... - '• ' • - -- 'A: Include-the:phrase"unless.otherwisespecified"in•the.definition:of`County:" • :. ': •... 3.10. Clarify:the ownersh.ip:and maintenance of public'and:-private - - Facilities,_utili:ties, roads,:-and:spaces. '= .• Issue Identified " ' .- .. - :: Specific definitions referencing public:and private improvements'do not reiterate-the.. ' :- .. ..respective respective maintenance responsibilities..This may lead to.m an isunderstdings orthe use of the'definition to defend-County maintenance of private infrastructure." . .• •• • ... .. . .. ... .Proposed Solution(s)., . ... ' ' ' - A. Specify:iri. the "Common. Area":•definition that.areas are not:,owned'or maintained bythe•Courity. ' •-• • ` ... . •B: •Specify.in the."Private Subdivision'definition that the County-does not own,or - -••: :: maintain private facilities 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.• .' ... . ... . m'th .. Public Road, definition that not'all roads are available for all . ,. forms'of.travel and that.a'public;road does not:equate directly to:a-"County Road:' " .3:1:1::;Reframe:.the terms "Daughter' and "Parent Tract." : :.. .:., Issue•Identified :.. .:.. The terms "Daughter" and "Parent are unconventional and may_.result in --= ::inconsistencies•With surrounding jurisdictions. ... .. --- - • Proposed.Solutions "' "" A. Transition•the terms "Daughter." and "Parent::Tract" to "Remainder" -and •"D,riginal Tract;"respectively: 3:1�2.: Reference:the,interlocal"agreements in"the:definition of':': .• . .. Ext•raterriitorial-J-ur`iSdiction (ETJ).". :: .; :: . Issue Identified :: : - -•• •- -- = ::The definition-of"Extraterritorial•Jurisdiction (ETJ)"does•not refer:to,any interlocal _. . agreement(ILA). . " •- '::•Proposed Solutions) -• ••• A. ••When'defining or-describing the till,-refer any ILAs with•applicable•cities:, -- ::•.•• :.. Consider the followingadditional language'..."Please note that:the boundaries':•:"••;-•.•• - and applicable regulationswithin:eachExtraterritorialJ.urisdictionintheCounty = are governed by-the interlocal agreement(ILA)activewith each applicable city." . :. ;.Page.20 :. ::.:..:. ... .. :.: • :•DR:AFf.october3,,2024`:': "- -- •- -• •••• •• Individual-Section:Findings and Solutions: •• : "' • 'Subdivision Regulations`Diagnostic Report • '•' " "" • - .. ...•" .. ` .3.13:: Revise the definition of.. Minimum"Requirements." • _ . - • : :•Issue.Identified ... .. . In:the:definition of"Minimum"Requirements ';the first sentence is:self-referential.. : Additionally;the second sentence.vaguelysuggeststhat minimum requirements may = :not be the minimum if the gountybelieves.thereare.particular circumstances.This, ,• may.not be a defined term but instead addressed.in the context of individual sections.:.. .: :: Proposed Solutions) "" - -- - A. -Revise'or-remove the. .definition of "Minimum"Requirements"-to remove- • . .. :.. .:.. . ::-:ambiguity. "" ' "" " 3.1"4:`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. :: ` . . . . . "-Proposed Solution(s) " " A- .Remove:the"Peak Hour"definition-and address anytechnical requirements in . :.. . .- ":.. the Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA)section.of the Subdivision Regulations. • • • : -MS.::Revise the.definition.of:"RegUlations." = . : "' .. Issue;ldentified : . •" .- . ..•• .. :: Equating"Regulations"with the SubdiivisionRegulations.istoobroad,asthetext.may ... . ... .. . .... regularly.reference other sets.of regulations: .. ... .... : : .. ... .Proposed"Solution(s).. . •..: ":: - ... . ... .. A. Remove"Regulations"from the:defined terms or.ad:d"unless otherwise.stated" . .... .. ... .. - to.th-e description. .: ' ••. :B.: :provide a"Subdiviion Regulations"definition. •.. . •- 3.16. Distinguish and define.different:t• ypes of Right:oF Way." Issue Identified :::: .: .. "The definition of"Right of Way".does not distinguish between'other.acquisition types,. .. - •-: includ• in• g prescriptive,rights-of-way or reservation easements., Proposed Selutior((s) "" : " " . - A. Distinguish between dedication of roads via"plat and County acquisition' from:- " '••" ".r:prescriptive rights-of-wayor reservation:easements. :. .:•DRAFT October 3,2024:-::. : :. . .... Page 21':•:' :' •• •- ••- " 'Subdivision RegulationsDiagnosticReport """ "" - ' - IndividualSectionFindingsandSolutions " `"" :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.ot Arterials."Conventionally, roads that provide . : •• •: •• : :.connections between two Collectors.are-also considered-Collectors.., ,. •• - • • • • . - . . Proposed.Solution(s). .- . • A. Revise.:the;definition of "Arterial Roads" to:exclude connections. between . . .. Collectors:. . :B. :Review the definitions:of roadway:classifications for consistency with the :.: MPO'sThoroughfare Plan...: " ` . 3.18. Reorganize "Urba'n".and "Rural" roadway designations. Issue Identified::.' - The definition of roadway classifications establishes the road hie rarchy.(e.g.,Arterial,. : : Collector,Local) and..design:.specifications: (eg.;•Urban and Rural).::It is unclear., . - however, if.the.-Urban and Rural roadway specifications apply to all:.roadway ... . ... .classifications. ... . : . ..- .. . P o .osed 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 : DRAFTOctob er 3,2024 : _ Individual Section:FindingsandSolutions: ' " "-. " .•SubdivisionRegulations-DiagnosticReport ' ." ...- : 4. General Subdivision Requirements and-Exceptions (Article 3): : : . . . :: :..:.• :•4:1• Evaluate tlie-effectiveness of enforcing pfatting.exceptions: . ••- - :. •- . :. ---.. Issue:ideritified - - . . . : :- •Brazos County: staff has-experienced: issues with .uniformly applying::platting • exceptions,particularly related to the family exception outlined in:Section 232.0015- :: :..:.- . of theTLGC. Article 3;•Section B of the Subdivision Regulations:does not outline . :straightforward process or timeline for-filing platting exceptions. . Proposed:Solution(s) :: : :: .. . . .. .... . .. .... . .. • • .... . :A. Evaluate the effectiveness of.enforcing the-platting. .:•:..:.. -- determine whether supplemental items, such as:a=flow chart or exemptions :summary table,are:needed. -B:.:Cla.rify that the "family clause" exemption.doesn't just:apply to agricultural •-:: -: - .... . .. .... . ...- land. . . .:::: : :: ... . :. C. Quote-the:exemption language:stated in Section232,0015oftheTLGCverbatim • . in this section. •- • .. • • .. -.. ' D.=:Establish a.straightforward procedure,potentially including a:signed affidavit to. - be filed:with the County, • property owners follow to verify. a platting •exemption•is per.missible.:. .. _.... ;..:. • - - -- . E.: :Reorganize applicable requirements for:exempted property(Article 3, Section. : :. - : • • . C)into a butleted list and restatethem.as applicable to:all properties,whether . platting is re wired;order the section before the•exemptions section: . • ..- :.DRAFT October 3,20244:: Page 23 • • • •• Subdivision Regulation's Diagnostic Report. .. .... . • -< . •.IndividualSectien Findings and Solutions .. .•... . . .. ::•••:• _ • 5. General•Platting•Procedure-(Article.4)..: . :- •' ::: : •• •• - 5.1:: Reorganize.the platting.pro-cedures.Arti'cle. .: -- •- ". ' '. . '.' • isue•Identified , • . • • ":':..The general procedures do:not-start off with a geheral purpose or.applicability - section;:.creating uncertainty 'regarding the Article's application:'Additionally, the ` ' Article. is:structured in:a..way that skips..b:etween different.:plan.and plat types, : : •::• : potentially leading•to the reader missing information or,applicable requirements: ' Proposed Solution(s)•:. : .. . .• .• . - •- .. ... .- -A: .Restructure.this Article"to-flow.from- general..purpose-and:applicability-:to • '• - separete-.processes sect • ions.-with subsections:for.-different plat•types.and purpose statements: :a:•:Consolidate subdivision,procedures 'and:-steps into one procedures article',.:- ... " rather,than across Articles-3",4-,5;:and 6 of the Subdivision Regulations:' :.. :-: : C. Establish a plat "Approval..Procedures" section:tp:identify proper.filing and -• . ••. •. - ...•...... recording processes,based on different plat types. :.5.2 -'::Consider.shortening_the.application expiration date. :... .., - •..: Issue-Identified • Subdivision.Regulations Article..4,:Section A.5.h states:that "an application:shalt -•• ••' ::expirefive:(5)years'afterthe:date'ofthe:Applicationifthe•projectbecomesdormant,.• •• -:• .. ... • - as defined by the Texas:Local Government Code;as amended:":Section 245.005 of::-.-:: -: the TLGC states that"a-regulatory agency may enact an ordinance,rule;or regulation '- •:. •..that places arl expiration date of-notfess than two ears:on an individual ermit•if no progress,has been made toward completion of the project." • • - ::•.-Proposed Solution(s).. . ... ... . ... .. .. . ... .. ' . •• = A. Co nsider:reducing the.expiration:•timeline-for:.an:application.to two:years in. ._ • accordance with the.TLGC. ' . .- ::...: •B: ..Define what:qualifies-as"progress[made]toward completion of the project,".as • '- stated.in theTLGC,to aid in determining a dormant project. . .. •. -.• .. C. -Establish a formal notification process for.dormantprojects-fortransparency• .. • and-enforceabitity-of application expiration dates. " ;'::': ••5.3•: : Establi:sh.ad.ministralive.flexibil.ity-Fo:r-app•licati-on-extensions. .-:- .. ... .issue-Identified .... .. ... . ..: :.::. . . . :Article 4,Section,A:.S:n grants the Commissioners Court.the:authority to_authorize a ..-. sin le six month extension to unfiled final p lats This may causeproceduralproblems : byrequiring Court.action dueto limited meetingtimes, _.. .. . '" ":'•' :'•..ProposedSolution(s) • :A.:•_Rather than a.•::single extension•':being available,:• consider providing :•.' • .. ... .. .. .. ... .. - " administrativeflexibili and-Courtap'appellateto--rantextensions:.•: '-' • '- .. . . tY . . . .. PP authority; g :. ::.Page 24 •DRAFT October 3,2024•`:- -... '" - individual Section:Findings and Solutions: ••'. ' . .. .. ::•-•: ••'' . '•Subdivision Regulations'Diagnostic Report • - • .5.4; : :Establish the alternative platting process authorized by House • - -- : ' :: :..:. Bill 3167::' :::: ::. • Issue.ldentified = ' - :In 2019,the.Texas Legislature passed.legislation (HB 31.67)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' in and_ drainage . requirements for the subdivision'.-HB 3167 allows an.applicant to receive.approvel of .. a final'plat before any construction plans.are:designed or infrastructire is built or. -. may plat inspected. However,:the:-recording of the::fin al p only;.occur after the .. ; -subdivision's infrastructure is built and inspected.Notably,.any final plat approved ' • ..:. through-the. HS s3167 approval -process will. need to••meet all the:'applicable requirements of the County's Subdivision Regulations. - .. • • • - - -The alternative-approval process fora Final Plat as established by HB 3167,-.is not : • :- :..: referenced :in::the.Subdivision :Regulations, posing .procedural issues:should an .. a pplicent:pursue this alternative. : - -.Proposed Solutions) ' '- - ::- : • •- ..... A. •Establish the'alternative plat'approval process.authoriied by:HB 31�67::••`: ' '• . B. :Establish clear process: graphics illustrating the different.plat review and. : •. approval-processes. .... . .. • APPLICANT SCHEDULES A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING '- " ' •' "' •'Adding streets,drainage improvement,or constructing . " :: a multiphase development? • • • ... . .. . .. ... :. :.:. .Yes:•:: - . .... . .. No OPTION 1 OPTION 2 FINAL PLAT OR OTHER PLAT STANDARD PLATTING ALTERNATIVE PLATTING TYPE SUBMITTAL AND -' -'-" PROCESS PROCESS PER H8 31fi7 •• - - - .- APPROVAL "" .. e Streetnames'ar approved with. - -. ..... the •--- - .... .. -- PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 .... plat .. .. ... • - - FINAL PLAT .. :. .. :. .. SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL :• •- • .'"-• Prelimina street names are .. -� - rY.. -: the applicant must submit : - .. 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 "" 9•• ' °Maar 917 addressin are- ' . -' assigned after the final plat has Street names are.approved with .. . been recorded .. 'the final plat. . .. "' • •••• • •• ' Figure 5.Exempla of HB 3167A(ternative Plat Approval Graphic • "" ' • :.DRAFT October 3,202'4:: • : Page 25 -•• • -' . "Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report. ' .... . . : :: : : -IndividuaLSectionFindingsandSolutions • • . ..6.• • Plan/Plat'Types:(Article 5) • . -:::: : , .. : ..No:significerit•recommendations'to Article 5.were'made. • Subdivision Categories and Re. uirements Article 6 ' ° :. :: - . . No-significant recommendations to Article 6:were made. ;•, :• • . -8 :: Minimum:Standards of Design (Article:7) :: - -8,1;; • valuate•flow-rate-standards:for fire protection. -• Issueadentified . `The;availability of proper•flow rates for fire protection has been'an issue in the past, -particularly Within-the ETJs of the Cities-of Bryan and Colle• ge Station. Local.water providers;.. sometimes struggle-"to: maintain•„consistent pressure,..resulting :in inconsistencies with fire protection services in new subdivisions:. :. ' . 'The BCSUDG includes provisions related to fire-flow rates; and Section 232409:of :• ' :.':.... the TLGC identifies:additional fire:=suppression requirements for subdivisions not .. .... servedh fire hydrants..•. , . -- Y: Y. . Proposed Solution(s) . .-... • - • A. ,Evaluate.exceptions;•to•-the- BCSUDG.fire-flow-Standards•and••align'to 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. " • •� - " : "' • •- :8,2 : • ,Clarify the::ri.ght-of wa dedication and acceptanceprocess:_. ... _ • : Issue,-Identified -• . . • ,: .• - ' ' :Article 7,Section,2 states that street"dedication to the public,shall be accomplished •• : by a.certification:o•n the_.plat_dedicating the_Right=of-Way to .the..public•forever;" _.., : :. - - .: :. however,there is no specified.-process for accepting the right-of-way.dedication. :. .....• .. .. . :Per Attorney.General Opinion JM-200:(1984), the mere•filirig and filing and approval .,. ". :: :.-:.• of a subdivision":plat showing:•streets :to be dedicated:.does not constitute.an :: ;. ::. acceptance."(citing Commissioners Court.v..Fronk:Jester Dev.Co., 199:S.W.2d 1004 . •• .... . .(Tex:Civ:•App.--Dallas1947;:writ ref'd n.re.)). :.::-. . • Proposed Solutions) .. : • - .• A:: :Establish a process for accepting right-of-way dedication.illustrated on a plat,.: : • • •:::: : - including:a'separate.oider fromahe;Commissioner Court: :,Page26 . : :. : •;: •. : :. :. ,.. .. :• :DRAFT October 3,2024 •••• - • • IndMdualSection:FindinsandSolutions. . ••- • -. Subdivision:RegulatiorisDiaghosticReport :-•• .-.. : .. :'8:3 Clarify requirements of.street alignment continuation Issueadentified -- - -- •Article 7,Section:C.5.f states that`'when:land is subdivided into larger.parcels rather .. .--. . .. than:ordinary building lots; such Parcels shall be arranged'so.as:to:allow for the: .:.::: : :: -- o p enin of future Streets:and'logical further.Subdivisions:'Thisprovision does not . :account for land subdivisions that:;May be exempt by:TL'GC Section.232:0015. : . Likewise,"ordinary"'and"logical'-'are.not defined and-are - ective. Pro osed:Solution s . •. .' :: A. Revise to specify when street alignment and stub outs to adjacent property:are _ .required(e:g:,"when.abutting'unplatted.property") - - . .. .... -•• 13.: :Clarify or remove.the terms"ordinary"and"logical"to.prevent'subjectivity. • - - ' 8:4:''• Eva.lu:ate'the'"Adequate'Str�eet'Access"•provisions:.:: : .. ..... - IssueIdentified • : '- _ .• Article 7,Section'C:37.b states that_"any:plat or any portion of a plat which�is:part of '. .. a Phased:Subdivision having more than one-hundred fifty(150),Dwelling Units or a- :::: :: • combination of Lots and:Dwelling Units in excess;ofone hundred fifty(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,particularlyin residential development patterns;with'smaller lots. Proposed Solutions) :••-- _. A. :Consider decreasing the:secondary ingress and egress requirement threshold- "' ' .. -- .:-:..:•• . from 150 lots to:30 to 50 lots. .... . .- ' . • .. 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, leading to unimproved roadways servicing : :. :• : -: • • • : • • •• • -•- • -hor et.and commercial'development:: :: ' ••-- • -• .... . .. .. Proposed.Solufion(s) ..:. . . .. . ` . .. .....• . i4:.:Establish a policy:for:improving abutting;rights-of-way.and:service roads to development,. potentially' -implementing traffic"`:c'ounts as a' threshold :• .:•:..:.• . mechanism:.• : : :..;.. .:.::.:.. : ..•:..: • ..•• :.DRAFT October 3,2024:: .:•• . : ..:. . :• Page 27 •••• • • • '-Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report. ` ..`.. • - -•-- - .. ....IndividualSection Findings and.Solutions PCL XL error Subsystem: KERNEL Error: InsufificientMemory Operator: Readlmage Position: 25158