CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21. 2011 ~ 7:00 p.m.

Law Enforcement Center - 1601 East Main Street

1. Call to Order.

2. Pledge of Allegiance.

3.

4.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discuss and consider park pool repairs.

Discuss and consider changes to city ordinances relating to sidewalk requirements and escrow/ deposit requirements for curbing and sidewalks.

5. Discussion of future agenda items.

NEW BUSINESS 6. Consider approving 2012 Holiday Schedule.

7. Consider appointments to Gillespie County Health Board. (Olfers)

8. Consider setting special meeting date (s) .

COMMENTS

9. Public Comment.

10. Council Comment.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Council reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as authorized by Texas Government Code Sections 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney), 551.072 (Deliberations about Real Property), 551.073 (Deliberations about Gifts and Donations), 551.074 (Personnel Matters), 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices) and 551 .086 (Economic Development).

ADIOURNMENT

Page Ref.

Pp 1-2

Pp 3-24

Pg25

Pp 26-27

MEMO

To: Gary Neffendorf, City Manager From: Jimmy Alexander, Director of Parks & Recreation Date: 9/27/11 Subject: Park Pool

I have attached the pool surface evaluation report that was done by Progressive Commercial Aquatics Inc., following an inspection done by them along with myself, and the Park Maintenance Superintendant. We are all in agreement that the pool needs resurfacing in order to be in operation next summer. The potential solutions range in price from $24,880 to $62,220. I recommend the standard Marcite Plaster finish for $53,089 since the painted finish only gets us one year, and we may need this finish to last two seasons.

In addition to the re-surfacing there are several other items that will need to be addressed before next season. They include deck & depth markers, replace wooden seat boards on exterior seat wall, and various plumbing repairs. The estimate for these items is $7,000.

Please forward this information to the City Council for their consideration.

City of fredericksburG

126 West Main Street . Fredericksburg, TX 78624. Phone: 830-997-7521 • Fax: 830-997-1861

~ -¥ ,..~ ,~b .,. Progressive

o Commercial Aquatics, Inc. o

September 8, 20 II

City of Fredericksburg Attn: Jimmy Alexander

RE: Pool Surface Evaluation Ladybird Park

On September 7, 2011 a walk-through evaluation of the pool surface was conducted. The current fiberglass surface is older than 15 years, and exhibited signs of fatigue. There was significant delamination and cracking of the surface. In addition to the cracking and delamination, the surface top coat has worn off exposing the fibers in the fiberglass throughout the entire surface; this is what we refer to as "blooming".

In 20 I 0, Progressive Commercial Aquatics, Inc. removed approximately 200-300 square feet of delaminated or cracked fiberglass. The surface below the patches was then roughed up and a cementious plaster material was applied. The patches have remained intact after one year of use. Currently there are 500 or more square feet of pool surface that would require patching. The extent of the delamination is hard to estimate without knowing how much material will be easily removed near each of the cracks and hollow spots.

Potential Hazards to the Public • Cuts from sharp or jagged edges • Ingestion of fiberglass fibers • Inhalation of fiberglass fibers • Skin irritation caused by fiberglass fibers

Potential Solutions • Remove entire fiberglass surface and apply a new plaster finish • Standard Marcite Plaster: $53,089.00 • Quartz Aggregate Finish: $62,220.00 • Remove visibly delaminated or hollow portions of the fiberglass surface, smooth

out rough edges with grinder; paint the entire pool with epoxy paint to cover exposed fibers. Cost: $24,880.00

Jimmy, please realize that the paint option will get you through the summer next year and that is probably it. You are probably going to repeat the prep and paint process again in 20\3. If you know that the renovation and reconstruction of the pool is going to take place the end of20 12, then the paint is a good option. If not, I would consider the plaster or the quartz.

'BUllY, Zach Lowy

15616 Schmidt Loop Manor, Texas 78653 (512) 278-0801 Fax (512) 278-0804 Website: www.Droaauatic.com E-Mail: z lowy@hotmail .com

Curbing and Sidewalk Deposits at 9130111

Curbing Deposits

Date Name Address

Waight,A J Acorn & Travis 9/111997 Treibs, Kenneth E. Austin & N. Mesquite

121111998 Schiithuis, John S Milam close to Ufer 911/1999 US Wireless Cable

10116/2000 Dietel, Randal E Hill SI (Rainey Threadgill property) 10/812001 George Weirich, Inc S Adams · 7.9 acre tract

1011212001 Dr Lester Keyser Addn N UanoiE Mulberry· Lot 212 11 n12001 Rogers, Howard 502 E Schubert

91912004 Brown, Gilda 30S S Lee 5/612005 Lebleu Const 503 & 505 Bluebonnet St

9/291200S Hartmann, Stanley 40S E Travis 9127/2006 Segner. Thomas 320 & 324 Morning Glory Or 4/19/2007 Rogers, Howard 318 & 320 WParkSt 3/18/2008 Vaughan, James H 212 E Schubert & 302 N Lincoln

S/S/2008 Harris, Joan 116 W Park 9/17/2008 Cupper, Carol 904 & 906 E Austin

10110/2008 Vllhite, E L 402 & 404 Frederick 2/2612009 Kneese & Sons 149 FM 2093 2/27/2009 My Own Chef 721 Brehmer Lane 3/1112009 Bobo, Tim 2257 St Hwy 16 412012009 Hart Builders 404 Fulton & 420 S Milam

86/112011 Grange Development LLC S11 & S13 E Schubert

Sidewalk Deposits

2126/2009 Kneese & Sons 149 FM 2039 • Drive Ramps 2126/2009 Kneese & Sons 149 FM 2093 • Sidewalks 3110/2009 My Own Chef 721 Brehmer Ln • Sidewalk 311 1/2009 Bobo,11m 2257 St Hwy 16 4/20/2009 Hart Buiiders 420 S Milam· Driveway Ramp 6/10/2009 Brisbin, Bill 208 & 210 N Washington

215/2010 Fredericksburg LLC Windcrest Dr. 314/2010 Nagel, Don W. San Antonio

7/28/2010 Immel, Scott Milam I Live Oak 11/1212010 RPS Partnership 1426 US Highway 290 East 11/12/2010 RPS Partnership 1420 US Highway 290 East

1/2112011 Hoffman Haus E. San Antonio I Creek 5t. 4/1512011 Fredericksburg Enterprises 500 S Washington·Holiday Inn Express

A · Retain: Curb installed except oak tree portion · if tree dies, will curb that section B • Project not finished · driveway left uncurbed

Amount

$ 657.S0 1,BOO.00

950.00 2,100.00

SOO.OO 7,755.00

268.50 1,057 .50

328 .50 1,125.00

180.00 2,439.00

234.00 2,052.00

909.00 3,420.00 5,291 .20 2,01 4.00 2,100.00 3,952.00 1,240.00

100.00

$ 40,473.20

3,300.00 S,200.00 7,420.00

$ 9,914.00 1,050.00 3,006.00 1,650.00 3,003.00 1,149.00 3,964.60 7,S49.BO 9,437.50

14,020.00

$ 70,663.90

Original $1,842.50· Used $1, 18S.00

Resubdivision plat P·01 26 B Original $1 ,267.50· Used $999.00· Resubdivsion plat P·0125

Resubciivision plat P"()130 Original $2,983.S0 . Used $2,655.00 Resubdivision plat P·OSOB

A Original $900.00 • Used $720.00· Resubdivision plat P-0520 Resubdivision plat P"()625

B Original $1 ,530.00 · Used $1,296.00. Resubdivision plat P·0702

Resubdivision plat P·0808 Resubdivision plat P·0724 Original $8,S31.20· Used $3,240.00 Hilda's Restaurant

Coretell Pavilion· Laird Lawrence Resubdivision plat P·0906 Resubdivision plat P·1009

Hilda's Restaurant Hilda's Restaurant

Coretell Pavillion· Laird Lawrence Resubdivision plat P·0906 Resubdivision plat P·0909 Original $34,916.00· Used $33,266.00· Bond Oman Resubdivision plat P1004 Resubciivision plat P·0917 Original $6,960.00 • Used $S,81 1.00 Resubdivision plat P·0929, Lot 1 BB·RR·AR· Baron's Creek Shopping Center Resubdivision plat P·0929, Lot 1 BB·RR·BR· Baron's Creek Shopping Center Resubdivision plat P·0830 Resubdivision plat P·1 018 • Driveways, handicap ramps & curbs

Sidewalk Discussion

Outline of Attachments:

I. Memo to P&Z and City Council concerning Joint Worksession on Feb. 3, 2010

2. Minutes from September 9,2009 P&Z Meeting (Discussion Only)

3. Minutes from October 14,2009 P&Z Meeting (Action to recommend approval)

4. Memo from Staff, summarizing proposed ordinance changes with P&Z and Staff recommendation)

5. Minutes from October 19, 2009 City Council Meeting (Action to deny request)

6. Minutes of Feb. 3,2010 Joint P&Z and City Council Worksession

7. Draft of Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance changes recommended by Staff and theP&Z.

8. Current Sidewalk regulations from the Subdivision Ordinance.

9. Brief summary of area cities sidewalk requirements.

10. Sections of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to sidewalks, pedestrian routes and bicycle routes.

11. Copy of the Transportation Element (Chapter 6) of the Comprehensive Plan.

Development Services

Memo To:

From:

Date:

Re:

City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission

Brian Jordan, AICP ~

January 27, 2010

Joint Worksession - Discussion of Sidewalk Requirements

Following an appeal made by the SPCA in August, 2009, the Council asked staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to evaluate our current regulations regarding sidewalks. In September, 2009, the Commission and Staff discussed sidewalks (minutes attached) and it was generally felt that sidewalks were important and should be implemented as part of new development. Following this discussion, staff researched a number of other communities as a means of comparison. Staff prepared a new set of guidelines for sidewalks and basically established that sidewalks would be required as part of all development, whether residential or commercial. An escrow provision was added in which an applicant could apply under certain circumstances allowing a payment for sidewalks rather than actual construction.

In October, 2009 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the revised sidewalks regulations to the City Council. Also in October, 2009, the Council considered the new regulations and voted to deny the proposal. Minutes of each meeting are attached. It was decided at this time that there should be further discussion with the Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and staff on how to handle the sidewalk issue.

The purpose of the February 3, 2009 joint meeting will be to discuss new guidelines for sidewalks. Your thoughts on where sidewalks should be required, when they should be installed, whether or not there should be an option for payment in lieu of construction, variance or appeal options and who should consider, or any other comments will be appreciated. Following the direction from this meeting, staff will prepare the necessary ordinance amendments.

1 ®

DISCUSSIONS - SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

SIDEWALK REGULATIONS Brian Jordan noted in light of the recent SPCA appeal to the City Council, the Council has asked the Staff and Planning & Zoning Commission to look at the current sidewalk provisions. Mr. Jordan summarized what the current provisions are and noted there has been a transition where development occurred in the past, adjacent to a state roadway where there is a clitch and no curb, each situation would be evaluated to determine if a sidewalk was required even though the orclinance required installation. Mr. Jordan noted that has now changed and sidewalks are a requirement. In adclition, Mr. Jordan stated the city has allowed a payment of escrow funds instead of requiring the sidewalk to be constructed with the project. Mr. Jordan commented the SPCA had an objection to putting escrow money into something that wasn't completely tidy. Mr. Jordan also commented there have been a couple projects that paid into an escrow account, those being Hilda's and the Hill Country Veterinarian Clinic, which were similar in nature to the SPCA's situation. Mr. Jordan remarked he looked at other cities to see what they are doing as far as sidewalk requirements. He also noted when the city adopted their Comprehensive Plan one of the important issues to the citizens was that sidewalks be provided. Mr. Jordan stated the city wants to keep the option of escrowing funds. Mr. Jordan noted there are some provisions regarcling escrow funds that are common to all the orclinances he has looked at and those are that there is a specific time frame to hold the money, specifically 10 years, the dollar amount collected is based on future costs, and there is an interest provision that if money is paid into an interest account, one-half of the interest earned will be returned at completion. Mr. Jordan noted Staffs opinion is there should be sidewalks in all parts of town.

Charlie Kiehne commented sidewalks are a big improvement to our community. There followed cliscussion and opinions of the Commission members. Guenther Maenius noted he agreed that sidewalks are an improvement to the community. Jim Jarreau suggested we fine tune the escrow process. Craig Wallendorf, Director of Public Works, noted escrows should only be allowed if it is a Capital Improvements Project or if there is an issue with TXDOT. Mr. Jarreau stated the orclinance from New Braunfels has the verbiage escrows will be allowed if deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning Commission. John Klein commented sidewalks need to be considered when there is a commercial builcling permit requested. Mr. Jordan stated the Commission will be considering the new orclinance provisions at the next Planning and Zoning meeting.

OCTOBER 14. 2009

PUBLIC HEARING (Z-0909) BY THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIDEWALK REOUIREMENTS - Jason Helfrich moved to open public hearing Z-0908 by the City of Fredericksburg to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to sidewalk requirements. Guenther Maenius seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Brian Jordan, Director of Development Services, presented the application. Mr. Jordan distributed a more current draft of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Jordan noted the proposal is an amendment to both the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance because currently the sidewalk provisions are in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Jordan commented an amendment has been included which will tie sidewalk requirements back to approval of a site plan, either by Planning and Zoning Commission or administratively. Mr. Jordan noted the purpose of updating the regulations is because there has been some confusion in the interpretation and trying to apply the rules from the subdivision regulations. Mr. Jordan noted the regulations are easier to interpret in the city where there is not a state highway, but commented development is happening along highways and there needed to be some clarification. Mr. Jordan noted, in general, sidewalks will now be required adjacent to all development, whether residential or commercial. In residential areas they will be required on both sides of local streets, on both sides of collector streets, and if the property is adjacent to a major thoroughfare or highway, perimeter sidewalks will also be required. In any multi-family project, such as apartments or condominiums, sidewalks will be required along all of the streets that join that development. Internal sidewalks will be required to tie out to the public sidewalk. In non-residential zoning districts, sidewalks will be required on all streets adjoining non-residential development. Mr. Jordan stated there are some exemptions which are all lots located in a residential area that are platted as of November 1, 2009 and lots in unplatted subdivisions, located in R-1 or R-1A zoning districts . Mr. Jordan noted the location of the sidewalk hasn't changed and they should be located in the ROW and where an adequate ROW doesn't exist, an easement will be required. Mr. Jordan stated the required width of a sidewalk in residential areas is 5 feet and on streets that are 60 foot wide or wider and in all non-residential areas the sidewalk width will need to be 6 feet. Mr. Jordan noted an alternate pedestrian plan has been included in the proposed ordinance, but there are different opinions among Staff if it should be, and there is a requirement the plan will be subject to Planning and Zoning approval. Mr. Jordan also noted this draft has a provision that would entitle an applicant to apply to pay escrow in lieu of constructing sidewalks if certain criteria are met. Mr. Jordan explained there is a provision, with a ten year time frame, for the owner to get the funds back as well as 1/2 of the earned interest. Mr. Jordan commented the only appeal will be to the Board of Adjustments and it must be based on a hardship. Mr. Jordan stated the intent of the new ordinance is to tidy up what was in place and follow through with the comprehensive plan, which proposes to have sidewalks in more locations around town.

PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Lusk, Secretary of the SPCA Board, questioned if the proposed ordinance is the same as one of the ones they researched from other cities. Mr. Jordan noted the ordinance is a combination of all the different city's sidewalk ordinances he looked at and is not exactly common to one city. Mr. Jordan also stated the provision most common to all the different ordinances is the escrow provision. Ms. Lusk then asked where the escrow money goes to. Mr. Jordan stated it will go into a separate account that is earmarked for that purpose. Ms. Lusk asked if that was stated in the ordinance and Mr. Jordan noted it does not state that specifically but they can make a reference in the ordinance. Ms. Lusk then

asked if the money is just sitting in an account and the city is not using it, why only one-half of the interest would go back to the owner. Mr. Jordan noted the other one-half would serve as an administrative fee.

Tim Dooley asked if a developer puts up escrow funds and later decides to build the sidewalk does he have the option to do that. Pat McGowan, City Attorney, stated that would be up to City Council because there will not be a provision in the ordinance regarding that situation.

John Klein moved to close public hearing Z-0908. Charlie Kiehne seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion carned.

John Klein asked if sidewalks will be required to be put in no matter the size of the building being constructed and gave as an example if the fairgrounds built a storage building they would be required to put in sidewalks. Mr. Jordan noted that is how the ordinance is written now. Charlie Kiehne commented we need to have a beginning and this is a beginning. He also stated sidewalks are a critical part of our community. Janice Menking stated there needs to be more housekeeping done on the escrow topic and language clarifying an audit is being kept. Ms. Menking also commented it should be stated who will determine the amount of escrow to be collected. Mr. Jordan noted the ordinance stated the City Manager has to approve the amount so that requirement is covered.

Charlie Kiehne moved to approve Z-0908 and Section 7.550 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to sidewalks which states:

"Sidewalks shall be required in accordance with the provisions established in Section 34-14 of the Subdivision Ordinance for all development requiring Site Plan approval as defined in Section 7.111 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, Sidewalks per Section 34-14 shall be required where a building permit is required and Site Plan is not required" as well as the following conditions:

1) Sidewalks shall be required in platted and unplatted single family residential areas zoned R-1 and R-1A

2) Language shall be added regarding the deposit of escrow funds which states compliance with rules and regulations of what escrow should be and how it will be handled and that it will be subject to an audit.

Guenther Maenius seconded the motion. All voted in favor with the exception of J ohn Klein who abstained because he did not feel ready to support the ordinance request.

®

Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission

From: Brian Jordan, AICP

Date: October 15, 2009

Development Services

Re: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to Sidewalks requirements, Z-090B

The attached provisions for sidewalks are intended to make clear where and when sidewalks are required in the City of Fredericksburg. First of all, Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance has been amended to require the construction of sidewalks in accordance with the new provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance whenever a Site Plan is required as ouWned in Section 7.111. In addition, where a S~e Plan is not required, said provisions will be applicable as part of the building permit.

A new Section 34-14, Q has been drafted to replace the sidewalk section of the Subdivision Ordinance. Basically, the new provisions establish criteria requiring sidewalks in single family residential, multi-family residential and non-residential districts (see attached). An exemption section is also provided where al l subdivisions platted prior to adoption of this ordinance, and tracts within existing non-platted residential neighborhoods, are not required to install sidewalks. Sidewalks are to be located within the public right-of-way, unless inadequate ROW is available or grade requirements prohibit the standard location, in which case a private easement shall be necessary. Sidewalk width shall be a minimum of 5', except on streets containing 60' or greater right-of-way width and in non-residential areas they shall be 6'.

Section 34-14, R has been created to establish escrow policies and procedures. Basically, where a sidewalk would be required and there are unusual circumstances that would present undue hardships or that would impede public infrastructure coordination or timing, the owner may petition the City to allow the payment into escrow. Provisions for the escrow amount, the termination of escrow and refunds are also established.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Commission held a public hearing on October 14 to consider these amendments. They recommended approval of the changes by a vote of 5-0, with one abstention. Three members of the Commission were absent from the meeting. Conditions of the approval included a clarification within the Exception Section applying to Minor Plats involving "single-family" residential subdivisions, and a provision that the escrow deposits are subject to an annual audit.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval

Excerpt from October 19, 2009 City Council minutes:

PUBLIC HEARING: (#Z-0908) BY THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIDEWALK REOUIREMENTS - It was moved by Council Member Jeffers, seconded by Council Member Pedtegon, to recess the regular session and open a public hearing on Request # Z-0908 by the City of Fredericksburg to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to sidewalk requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Council heard the following comments: Chris Ward (SPCA) stated that a Promissory Note or a Letter of Credit would be a better option than escrow; Mark Peterson (HCMH) echoed comments of Mr. Ward and questioned whether or not sidewalks were really required in areas that far from town; Tim Dooley referred to an email sent to council earlier and asked that they look at variance provisions and suggested the item be sent back to P&Z for review; and Graham Pearson stated that the appeal process should give everyone the opportunity to succeed. With no further comments from the public, it was moved by Council Member Jeffers, seconded by Council Member Musselman, do adjourn the public hearing and reconvene the regular session. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

REOUEST # Z-0908 - Following a lengthy discussion, it was moved by Council Member Jeffers, seconded by Council Member Pedtegon, to deny Request # Z-0908 as presented. The vote was as follows: AYE: Hoover, Musselman, Jeffers, and Pedregon. NAY: None. Motion carried.

(Note: Council Member MacWithey was absent)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GILLESPIE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 2010 5:30PM

On this the 3'" day of February, 2010, City Council of the CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG convened in special session at the Law E nforcement Center, with the following members present to constitute a quorum:

ABSENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

JERYL HOOVER - MAYOR KEVIN MACWITHEY - COUNCIL MEMBER TOM MUSSELMAN - COUNCIL MEMBER JEFF JEFFERS - COUNCIL MEMBER DA VID PEDREGON - COUNCIL MEMBER

NONE

GARY NEFFENDORF - CITY MANAGER BRIAN JORDAN - DIR. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG WALLENDORF - D .P.W.U.

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM.

JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:

SIDEWALK REGULATION DISCUSSION - In a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission, Council reviewed a draft of the proposed changes to the subdivision ordinance relating to streets and sidewalks. Comments were received from Tim Dooley, Graham Pearson, Mark Morin, Vicky Bonewitz and Tommy Segner.

With no further business, Council Member Jeffers made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 PM. Council Member Musselman seconded the motion. Motion carried.

PASSED AND APPROVED this the 5'h day of April, 2010.

SHELLEY BRITTON, CITY SECRETARY

* * * * *

STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GILLESPIE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

* *

JERYL HOOVER, MAYOR

* * * * * *

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 2010 8:00AM

On this the 9'h day of February, 2010, City Council of the CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG convened in special session at City Hall, with the following members present to constitute a quorum:

®

SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE

38-14: Streets and Sidewalks

Q. Sidewalks: The following sidewalk guidelines shall apply.

1. Residential Districts (Single family, duplex, townhomes):

Sidewalks adjacent to, within or along the property of the applicant shall be installed as follows:

a. On both sides of all local neighborhood streets. Sidewalks may be constructed at the time a home is built on the lot or may be constructed by the developer as part of the subdivision construction, but shall be complete before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any improvement.

b. On both sides of interior collector streets (as defined in the Future Thoroughfare Plan of the Comprehensive Plan), and are to be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements.

c. On the residential subdivision side of all collectors major thoroughfares, arterials and state highways. Said sidewalks are to be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements.

Delineation of streets shall be in accordance with the definitions or depictions thereof found in the Future Thoroughfare Plan, as the same may be amended from time to time.

2. Multi-Family Residential Districts (apartments and condominiums), Sidewalks adjacent to, within or along the property of the applicant shall be installed as follows:

a. On all perimeter streets (local, collector, arterial, major thoroughfare, state highway) adjacent to all multi-family developments.

b. On both sides of any interior public streets. c. Sidewalks shall be constructed as part of the development and shall be

completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO). d. Interior walks within the development shall be connected to the public

sidewalk.

3. Non-residential Districts - Sidewalks shall be installed as follows:

a. On all perimeter streets adjacent to proposed development. b. Properties with multiple street frontages shall provide sidewalks on all

streets.

®

4. Exceptions:

a. Lots within single-family residential subdivisions platted prior to November I, 2009 or located in a Minor Plat creating lots in areas where there are no existing sidewalks.

b. Lots within existing unplatted residential subdivisions, or on lots where homes are demolished and new homes constructed in areas where there are no existing sidewalks.

c. In any zone when an alternative pedestrian access plan is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission

5. Location:

a. Sidewalks shall be located within the street right-of-way where adequate space is available. Where adequate right-of-way is not available to accommodate the standard sidewalk, or where grade requirements prohibit the standard location, a pedestrian access easement shall be provided.

b. Sidewalks shall be positioned I ' inside the street right-of-way. Deviations from this standard location may be granted by the City Engineer.

6. Width:

a. Sidewalks within a residential subdivision on local residential streets shall be minimum of 5' in width.

b. Sidewalks on all perimeter streets (60' right-of-way or greater) adjoining a residential neighborhood and all sidewalks in non-residential developments shall be a minimum of 6' in width.

7. Alternative Pedestrian Access Plan: Rather than providing sidewalks on both sides of all streets within a residential subdivision or along a perimeter street, an applicant may present for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission an alternate plan showing pedestrian access within and to destinations outside the subdivision such as schools, shopping areas or other points of interest. Approval of such a plan is within the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the event the same is not approved, sidewalks consistent with the requirements of this section shall be required.

R. Escrow policies and procedures:

I. Request for Escrow: Whenever this ordinance requires a property owner to construct a street, sidewalk or other type of public improvement, the owner may petition the City Council for such owner to construct said improvement at a later date if there are unusual circumstances, such as a timing issue due to pending roadway improvements by another agency such as TXDOT or Gillespie County, that would present undue hardships or that would impede public infrastructure coordination or timing. The City Council shall review the particular

@

circumstances involved (a traffic or pedestrian impact analysis may be required to facilitate the City Council's deliberations on the matter,) and shall determine, at its sole discretion, whether or not provision of escrow deposits will be acceptable in lieu of the property owner's obligation to construct the street, thoroughfare or sidewalk as otherwise required by this ordinance.

2. Escrow Deposit with the City: Whenever the City Council agrees to accept escrow deposits in lieu of construction by the owner of the property under this ordinance, the property owner or developer shall deposit in escrow with the city an amount equal to his or her share of the costs of design, construction, permits, reviews approvals, inspections, any additional land acquisition, and an appropriate (and realistic) inflation factor to ensure that the actual "future dollar" costs will be covered when actual construction occurs in the future . Such amount shall be reviewed and approved by the city manager (or designee), and shall be paid prior to final approval for construction of engineering plans by the city engineer. The obligations and responsibilities of the property owner shall become those of the property owner's transferees, successors and assigns; and the liability therefore shall be joint and several. Escrow deposits made with the City under this section shall be subject to an annual audit.

3. Determination of escrow amount: The amount of escrow shall be determined by using the maximum comparable "turnkey" bid price of construction of the improvements (including design, permits, reviews and approvals, inspections and any additional land acquisition that may be needed). Such determination of the escrow amount shall be made as of the time the escrow is due hereunder, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the city manager (or designee and the city engineer.

4. Termination of escrow: Escrows or portions of escrowed amounts, which have been placed with the city under this section and which have been held for a period of ten years from the date of such payment or agreement, in the event that the city has not authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for construction of such street, sidewalk or public improvement for which the escrow was made, shall, upon written request, be returned to the property owner along with one-half of its accrued interest, if any, the City not being under any obligation to see to the accrual of the same. Such return does not remove any obligation of the property owner for construction of the required facilities if a building permit has not been issued on the subject property or if a new building permit is applied for.

5. Refund: If any street, sidewalk or public improvement for which escrow is deposited is constructed by a party other than the city or is reconstructed by another governmental authority at no cost to the city, the escrowed funds and accrued interest shall be refunded to the property owner or applicant who originally paid the escrow amount after completion and acceptance of the public improvements. In the event that a portion of the cost is borne by the city and the other portion of the cost by another party or governmental authority, the

difference between the property owner's actual proportionate cost and the escrowed funds, including accrued interest, if any, the City not being under any obligation to see to the accrual of the same, shall be refunded after completion and acceptance of the improvements.

6. With regard to any refunds, the City will pay the same to the original depositor of the funds except upon receipt by the City of an assignment and indemnity in a form acceptable to the City signed by the original depositor of such funds.

ZONING ORDINANCE

Section 7.550 Sidewalks

Sidewalks shall be required in accordance with the provisions established in Section 34-14 of the Subdivision Ordinance for all development requiring Site Plan approval as defined in Section 7.1 I I of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, Sidewalks per Section 34-14 shall be required where a building permit is required and Site Plan is not required.

9.1300: STREETS AND SIDEWALKS

Q. Sidewalks. The following guidelines shall apply in determining sidewalk locations.

I. Sidewalks shall be installed as follows:

a. The entire frontage on the subdivision side, or sides, of all major thoroughfares or arterial streets. b. On both sides of any street that serves as an approach to a school, bus stop, shopping center or focal point of the community, for a distance of six hundred (600) feet from such school, shopping center or focal point along all contiguous rights of way. c. Where density exceeds six (6) dwelling units per gross acre. d. On at least one side of all marginal access streets. e. As deemed necessary by the City Planning and Zoning Commission in approving a preliminary pial for commercial, industrial, public grounds, and multi-family dwelling areas.

2. Sidewalks shall be installed at the expense of the developer in accordance with the following requirements:

a. No sidewalk shall be required until a lot is improved (upon completion of construction) but at the time such improvements are constructed, a sidewalk complying with the provisions herein shall be provided at the front of such lot and along the street side of comer lots. b. All sidewalks shall be not less than five (5) feet in width, and four (4) inches in depth, and of concrete construction in accordance with City specifications. c. Sidewalks shall be as nearly parallel to the street as possible.

Kerrville:

• Required in all commercial tracts • Required in all single and two-family subdivisions • Some exemptions along SH 27, and pre-existing schools, universities and

hospitals. • Administrative waiver can be granted by City Engineer in specific cases, with an

appeal of this decision to City Council • No mention of escrow • Sidewalks covered in Subdivision Ordinance

New Braunfels:

• Required along all major thoroughfares and arterial streets • Required on both sides of local and collector streets • Required as deemed necessary by the P &Z • Escrow option available subject to P&Z approval • Escrow has 10 year limitation, amount based on "future" costs • Sidewalks covered in Subdivision Ordinance

Marble Falls:

• Required on both sides of residential and collector streets within a residential subdivision

• Required within all non-residential developments • Required along all perimeter arterials in residential and non-residential

development • Escrow option available subject to City Council approval. • Escrow has 10 year limitation, amount based on "future" costs • Sidewalks covered in Subdivision Ordinance

San Marcos:

• Required in all subdivisions, except where lots exceed I acre • Escrow option available subject to City Council approval • Escrow has 10 year limitation, amount based on "future" costs • Sidewalks covered in Subdivision Ordinance

Georgetown:

• Required on both sides of all streets with 50' right-of-way width or greater • No mention of escrow. • Sidewalks covered in Unified Development Code

The following is a list of Sections within the Comprehensive Plan where sidewalks, pedestrian routes and bicycle routes are discussed.

Chapter 2, Guiding Principles for the Comprehensive Plan, Subsection 10- Mobility (page. 2.8)

Chapter 3, Livability Element, Subsection A - Housing and Neighborhoods (Page 3.1), and Policy 6.1 and 7.1 (Page 3.4)

Chapter 4, Land Use Element, Policy 26.1 (page 4.9), Policy 31.6 (Page 4.22)

Chapter 6, Transportation Element, Subsection B-Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility (pages 6.1-6.3)

Chapter 6, Transportation Element, Subsection F-Mobility Goals and Policies, Policy 34.1 and 34.2 (page 6.8), Goal 35, Policy 35.1 , 35.2,35.3 and 35.4 (pages 6.8 and 6.9)

Chapter 7, Parks and Recreation Element, Goal 39, Policy 39.1,39.2, 39.3 and 39.4 (Page 7.1)

Chapter 7, Parks and Recreation Element, Subsection E-Needs Assessment and Identification (page 7.8)

Chapter 8, Plan Implementation, Subsection B - Subdivision Regulations (Page 8.5)

Chapter 8, Plan Implementation, Subsection E - Capital Improvements Program (Page 8.1 0)

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

6. Transportation Element

A Transportation Sljstem Components

The transportation system should provide mobility for people traveling within Fredericksburg and from Fredericksburg to other designations, regardless of the mode of travel they choose. It should also meet the needs for movement of goods and products to and from businesses in this community. Since Fredericksburg is an important hub where several state highways connect, the transportation system should address the demands of trips that start and end outside the Fredericksburg community. Finally, the transportation system that meets these mobility needs must also be supportive of the community's other goals, including economic development and urban design.

Three major concepts guide this Transportation Element. First, the mobility of people should be the first concern, not necessarily the movement of automobiles. Second, residents and businesses should have choices in the way they make their trips. Third, the transportation system should be integrated with the community's land use planning and design. The facilities should be designed to be sensitive to their context - the neighborhoods, business areas or open spaces through which they run . These concepts are reflected in the Transportation Goals and Policies, as well as the analysis below.

The transportation element is organized by travel mode, from pedestrian and bicycle, through automobile and public transportation, to trucks and air transportation. For each mode, sections address capacity of the system, type of transportation facilities and the context-sensitive design issues that support their integration with other aspects of this Comprehensive Plan. All mobility goals and policies are grouped together following the analysis. The Thoroughfare Plan map, functional classifications and street cross-sections complete this Element.

B. Pedestrian and BiCIJde Mobilitlj

Fredericksburg is fortunate to have a downtown area that is very walkable. It retains the historic character and street grid of a downtown developed when most trips were made on foot. This is an important asset in planning for the mobility needs of future residents and businesses.

1 S\jstem Capacitl,J and Facilities

Fredericksburg's transportation strategy should maximize the number of local trips that are taken on foot

Page 6.1 City of Fredericksbure Comprehensive PIon

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

"- ':;. , .• ~

or bicycle. In highly walkable areas, the City should design and build public improvements that make walking safe, easy and appealing. The most obvious highly walkable area today is the existing center of the community (defined as those areas included in the Historic District, Downtown or Uptown areas). As the community continues to develop, each of the four Focus Areas described in the Land Use Element should be designed to be highly walkable areas. Walking and bicycling in these areas support a lively urban environment. There is an additional benefit because walking and bicycling reduce the number of trips taken by automobile, thus reducing traffic congestion and parking demands.

Outside these highly walkable areas, a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes should provide access to and through neighborhoods and to other major destinations. This network will include sidewalks in some areas, paths along creeks in others,

and deSignated lanes within street rights of way in other areas. The critical issues in designing this network are the ease of connection, ability to reach desirable destinat ions and safety for the bicyclist, walker and motorists in their vicinity.

2. CoJ1~DSitiveDesIgn

The surrounding environment is a very important determinant of whether people will choose to walk or bicycle. In the highly walkable areas (existing and future), sidewalks should be located where the pedestrians will pass interesting locations such as shops, restaurants, museums, or natural areas. Street furniture, periodic areas of shade and way-finding signage should make the walking experience a positive one. The relationship to adjacent vehicle lanes, driveways and parking areas should protect the pedestrian's safety.

P"Ile 6.2 City of frederick.sbure Comprehen,j"" PI""

For the most part, these concepts are already reflected in the pedestrian environment of downtown Fredericksburg. They should guide the design of future walkable areas as well.

The larger bike/pedestrian network must address a variety of contexts. In neighborhoods, the network must be clearly marked so users can find their way and so automobiles in adjacent lanes will respect the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Where the network travels through natural areas, the design of paths should reflect this setting rather than using the same design as in more

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

urban locations. For the long-distance portions of the network, routes will likely be located within a state highway right-of-way. Here the safety of the walker or cyclist is the paramount concern, as this context is dominated by cars and trucks traveling at high speeds.

C. Automobile and Public Transporudion MohilihJ

Travel in Fredericksburg today, as in the rest of the United States, is predominantly by automobile. In most cases, these automobiles have a single occupant. While projections for future travel demand continue the dominance of single-occupancy vehicles as the travel mode of choice, many cities are working to accommodate automobile travel while addressing congestion and its impacts in new ways.

Fredericksburg's automobile travel includes trips made by local residents, trips made by visitors to the community and trips traveling through Fredericksburg. The public transportation choices today are rather limited.

1 S~stem Capacih} and Facilities The Texas Transportation Institute (TT1)'s analysis of roadway performance for Fredericksburg in 2003 identified a number of roads that have undesirable traffic flow in 2000 and projected for 2020. Further research is needed to evaluate the traffic volumes and capacities on roadways with the Land Use Element and the mobility approach recommended in this Transportation Element. However, several of these recommendations should help reduce congestion, particularly in the downtown area. The recommendations here focus on steps to increase roadway capacity. Elsewhere in this Element, recommendations to solve congestion include action to increase non-automobile trips, to improve way-finding to parking areas and to support public transportation within central Fredericksburg.

The thoroughfare map contained in this element includes several key roadway connections that will add capacity and relieve the pressures on existing roadway segments. These include several arterial connections that do not exist today:

.. A route in the east between U.S. 290 and State Highway 16;

.. Completion of the Friendship Lane arterial connection between U.S. 290 and S.H. 16 on the south;

PageG.3 City of Preder;cksburg Comprehens;ve Plan

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

o An arterial connection between F.M. 2093 and U.S. 290 in the west, mostly on the Kerr Road alignment; and

o Continuation of this arterial from U.S. 290 to U.S. 87 on the north.

New collector connections will also add capacity to the system and provide alternatives for the traffic that now must drive on Main Street through downtown. These improvements are recommended for the near-term.

2. The loop Hlghwc.lj 4lId Southwest Hill Countrq Drive The loop road that has been proposed for many years is also included in the Thoroughfare Plan. This road would provid~ a by-pass located even further from the center of Fredericksburg. At this point, the funding, t iming and feasibility of this road are unclear. State and county resources are needed to complete this facility.

While the loop road may provide an ultimate solution to congestion, it is unlikely to be a solution in the short- or mid-term future . In addition to this loop road, the Transportation Element recommends a "Southwest Hill Country Drive" that begins to address some of these issues prior to its construction. The arterial connection noted above from FM 2093 to U.S. 290 uses an existing roadway alignment, though it may require additional right of way. The connection from U.S. 290 to U.S. 87 would reqUire right-of-way for a new alignment. Those connections, combined with Friendship Lane, can provide a through traffic alternative more quickly than creation of the loop highway. This set of arterial routes would become the "Southwest Hill Country Drive".

This plan recommends that sufficient right-of-way should be acquired along these alignments to allow this arterial connection to be built here at some point in the future. When they are in place, the City of Fredericksburg should seek to have the Texas Department of Transportation designate this circular route as the truck route, instead of Main Street. This would significantly reduce congestion in Downtown and would be far more compatible with its surrounding context.

3. Public Tr4l1Sp<>ri4tioD

The public transportation that is currently available in Fredericksburg includes buses and taxis that take people to San Antonio or other destinations. The community is probably not large enough to support an extensive bus system. There is one area where public transportation can help address community concerns - travel within the CBD area. A 'Center City Shuttle' system is suggested for this area. Such a system would use small buses or rubber-tired trolleys, ideally with a unique design such as the Dillo Trolleys in Austin . These shuttles could follow a circular route along Main, Austin and San Antonio streets. It would allow visitors to park in one parking area and reach all the shops and destinations throughout the CBD without the need for a long walk or repeated searches for parking spaces. This could reduce the volume of traffic on Main Street, particularly during popular tourist events, because visitors would only have to park once instead of seeking several different parking spaces in the course of a

Pege6.4 .:., ... ~. "~.

City of Fredericksbure COlnprehe.';ve Plan

Chapter 6: Transportat ion Element

day. The shuttle would benefit local residents as well. Initially, it might run only on weekends and during special events. Over t ime, it might become a regular means of travel on weekdays and might extend its service to destinations such as the University Center and Gillespie County Airport. There may be operational and logistical issues with the creation of th is service, so the Comprehensive Plan recommends a feas ibility study to investigate these further. If the results are positive, this new part of the transportation system should help meet travel needs, reduce congestion, and support efforts to extend the retail area of the CBO beyond the 'Golden Block'.

4. Parking Within the central core of the city, the lack of parking was frequently noted as a concern of residents and business owners. While there is parking available on the street throughout the CBO and in lots near facilities like the Visitors Center, the demands during peak times make it difficult for people to find parking easily. Action to address these concerns is important for the retail businesses in this area, for the public amenities and offices here and for the residents in surrounding neighborhoods. Four recommendations guide the Transportation Element's approach to parking.

First, Fredericksburg should update its analysis of needs for short-term and long-term parking to determine how much additional short-term parking is needed in close proximity to businesses on and near Main Street. This evaluation should consider the potential role of the 'Center City Shuttle' in reducing the amount of parking needed in close proximity to key retail areas. Other strategies to encourage non-automobile trips should also be considered in projecting the amount of parking space needed.

Based on that update, the management of parking resources should distinguish the needs of short- and long-term parkers. The parking management plan should include use ofthe 'Center City Shuttle' to take people from the Visitors Center parking lot (and others in similar locations) directly to prime retail and public destinations, thus allow those lots to be more fully utilized.

Additional off-street parking lots may be needed; if so, they should be located on the edges of the CBO where they can serve parking needs without disturbing the urban fabric of Main Street. These lots should be landscaped or otherwise buffered so they do not negatively impact residential uses nearby.

Finally, a way-finding and signage program for the CBO should be a part of the parking management plan. Since the traffic and parking demand during peak days is created by visitors to Fredericksburg, these

P"Ile 65 City of Fredericksburg COInprehensive Plan

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

drivers may not be aware of parking located beyond Main Street. Clear signage directing visitors to and from parking areas is essential if these visitors are to use such parking areas. This signage should help reduce congestion as well, because it will reduce the number of vehicles traveling repeatedly up and down Main Street in search of a vacant on-street parking space.

5. Context-Sensitive Design The design of roadways must address their surroundings. In this plan, the design standards for each type of roadway include consideration of these issues. The cross-sections found later in this document illustrate the general design for each type of roadway.

This plan includes one street designation on the Thoroughfare Map that is specifically intended to address context-sensitive design. The major roadways in Downtown, Uptown and the Historic District are designated as "Civic Streets". These streets are the center of the public realm in the core of the city. While they should also move traffic, their design must be compatible with the adjacent shops and parks and they must enhance pedestrian safety.

D. Truck Mohilitq

Trucks rumble through Fredericksburg at most hours of the day and night. Some have destinations in the city, such as the cattle auction. Many are simply traveling through town to destinations further away on the state highway system. The TTl study reports that trucks account for I I to 14% of the traffic on most central roadway segments. Reducing truck traffic in these areas will strengthen the community character and economic appeal of the CBD. It may benefit the trucks as well, if they can use routes through Fredericksburg that are less congested and have fewer traffic lights.

1 Sgstem Capacihj and facilities As noted above, this plan recommends creation of an arterial 'Southwest Hill Country Drive' route that could be designated as a truck route. This concept will require discussion with TXDOT; a detailed traffic study of truck traffic is recommended to refine this approach.

Poae6.6 Cihj o£ Frederick.bure Comprehen.ive PI""

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

2. Context-Sensitive Design

Heavy truck traffic is generally not compatible with a lively urban activity center such as a thriving downtown. These conflicts are evident on Fredericksburg's Main Street and in the comments from community members about concerns affecting quality of life. Since Main Street is also a designated highway, there is a built-in conflict between two objectives. When the recommended 'Southwest Hill Country Drive' is completed, it should become the designated route for through truck traffic. The City will need to work with TXDOT to determine whether other steps should also be considered, such as limitations on trucks in downtown.

Since Southwest Hill Country Drive travels through area that is mostly vacant today, Fredericksburg has the opportunity to design the roadway to serve through traffic needs, including those of trucks, and to plan adjacent development to minimize the negative impacts from this traffic. The Future Land Use Map designates much of this area for rural and agricultural uses . With larger agricultural holdings, it is possible to locate homes or other sensitive uses away from the future roadway. Other areas, mainly along Kerr Road, are planned for Low Density Residential. DeSign gUidelines, subdivision review and other tools should be used to site new homes so they are not impacted by the proposed road. Since many of these properties are still fairly large, clustering of development would allow a buffer (fence, landscape, berming or other) between the road and new homes.

As plans for Southwest Hill Country Drive proceed, the land uses along its northernmost stretch (from Live Oak north across U.S. 290 and up to U.S. 87) may need more detailed evaluation to ensure compatibility. Similar studies will be needed for the proposed alignments of the loop highway between U.S. 290 and State Highway 16.

E Aviation Mohuihj

Air travel is an important component of mobility today for some business travelers, residents and visitors; it also plays a major role in the shipment of goods and materials. The Gillespie County Airport's Master Plan has projected a significant increase in aviation operations over time. Meeting these mobility needs will provide value for Fredericksburg residents as well as offering a marketing advantage for economic development and an amenity for tourism.

1 Sljstem Capacitlj and Facilities Gillespie County's Airport Master Plan has determined that a runway extension is needed to meet these projected demands. The selected alignment extends to the southeast and crosses the current route of Highway 16. Land use and infrastructure planning in this area must be coordinated with the Airport's plans and facility improvement projects.

P"lle 6.7 City 01 fredericksbure Comprehensive Plan

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

2. Context~Sensitive Design

The Land Use Element recommends an Airport Focus Area so more detailed deSigns can be developed for these uses. The land uses shown on the Future Land Use Map include an employment center designation to the southeast of the airport, in one of the areas where a runway extension is proposed. Though this approach would require a change to S.H. 16, it may be the best way to address future aviation needs. The Employment Center designation would include land uses that could locate near an airport; in fact, they would probably benefit from this proximity.

Other aspects of context-sensitive design for the airport involve the existing Lady Bird Johnson Park and Golf Course and the homes that are already nearby. Changes to the airport's design and operations should seek to reduce noise, safety and environmental impact to these neighboring uses.

F. MohilitlJ Goals & Policies

GOAL 34: A range of mobility choices available to Fredericksburg residents, business emproyees and visitors.

Policy 34.1 . The City should plan and invest to support a full range of transportation choices for the community, including walking, bicycling, public transportation and travel by automobile.

Policy 34.2. When transportation projects are deSigned, they should prOVide for non-vehicular travel as well as automobile travel.

Policy 34.3. The City, Gillespie County, the Chamber of Commerce and the EDC should evaluate the feasibility of a 'center city shuttle' system and implement the study's recommendations.

GOAL 35: A networl( of sidewalks, trails, paths and designated lanes that allows residents to wall< or bicycle within neighborhoods, to and within the Central Business District and to other key locations.

Policy 35. 1. The transportation system for Fredericksburg should include a network of designated routes for non-motorized travel. Public investments should support construction of these routes and related infrastructure such as benches, signage and bike racks.

PoliC)'-.35.2. Planning, zoning and subdivision requirements for new residential developments should include a connected network of sidewalks, paths and/or bike routes so residents can travel within their neighborhoods on foot or bicycle. Designs should minimize the impacts of off-street parking and vehicular traffic.

P~e6.8 Citq of Predericksbure Comprehensive PI""

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

Policy 35.3. Planning, zoning and subdivision requirements for non-residential uses, particularly for large projects, should include design that facil itates non-automobile travel as well as auto travel and parking.

Policy 35.4. In highly walkable areas of Fredericksburg, design requirements and development incentives should support pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as well as automobile infrastructure. These areas include the Central Business District (Downtown and Uptown), the Historic District and the four Focus Areas defined in the Land Use Element.

GOAL 36: A street system and related facilities that provide adequate capacity for vehicular traffic (cars, public transportation and trucks) in Fredericksburg and that is compatible with its surroundings.

Policy 36. 1. The major roadways in Fredericksburg (those defined as collectors, arterials or civic streets) should be planned and built to meet projected transportation needs.

Policy 36.2. This Transportation Element should serve as the gUide for public investment and private development of transportation infrastructure.

Policy 36.3. Investments in transportation facilities should be made where they will be most cost-effective, including the use of transportation demand management and transportation system management approaches.

Policy 36.4. Context-sensitive design should be used to ensure that new transportation infrastructure is compatible with the Fredericksburg community and its natural setting.

Policy 36.5 . The City should prepare a coordinated plan to address needs for short- and long­term parking in the Central Business District and Historic District, using a range of strategies to provide parking that is convenient to destinations and is compatible with these districts' urban scale and character.

GOAL 37: Aviation facilities to support Fredericksburg's population and business development.

Policy 37.1 . Gillespie County should expand the Airport as necessary to serve the aviation demands of the Fredericksburg community.

Policy 37.2. The City and EDC should work with Gillespie County to design and build aviation improvements that maximize benefits to the community and minimize impacts on adjacent uses.

P"Ile6.9 City 01 Fredericksbura Comprehensive Plan

Chapter 6: Transportation Element

GOAl.. 38: Adequate levels of transportation facilities and services available to existing development zn~ to new development when it is occupied.

Policy 38. I. The City should implement its adequate service provisions for all modes of transportation service in the community. (see Goal 26)

Policy 38.2. Public bond programs, impact fees and other financing tools should be used to help fund transportation infrastructure for existing and new development.

G Thorough.{are Plan Map

The Thoroughfare Plan Map in Figure 10 depicts the network of streets that provides mobility for Fredericksburg's residents, businesses and visitors . It uses the set of functional classifications described below. It should be used to direct public capital investment and the design and construction of transportation infrastructure as part of new private development.

1. f&cilltfa£or Vehicular Travel The street network used by automobiles and public transportation includes roadways of various sizes and design. This network is based upon a classification system that recognizes that every roadway within the City has a classification according to either its size or function. Thoroughfare types, as discussed in the following sections, include freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. Their functions can be differentiated by comparing their general ability to provide mobility with their ability to provide access to various locations. The illustration below graphically depicts these functional differences.

Local Street> Collector Streets Arterials

POde 6.10

I I

Property Access Function

City 01 Fredericksbure Comprehensive PJ=

FuNcnONAL ClAssIFICATION SYs7E.{

Highways

Access