The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPresentations 1 Comprehensive Plan Then and Now 1997 - 2005 :� ITY OF COLLEGE STATIO !Innis.&D,c1.o atSmmaf �" . . . Demographics • Population: 80,254 —30%growth since 1997 —4%average annual growth • Housing growth —31%growth since 1997 • Student growth —A&M enrollment has increased only 1 percent annually since 1995 — Fall enrollments at the Blinn College Bryan Campus have increased 31%for the period of 1999-2004 The City's 2015 population was projected to be between 86,200 and 127,000. . Goals and Objectives � 4053 zte • Provide for: — Land Use — Housing — Community Appearance — Economic Development — Transportation — Parks and Recreation — Utilities • Action-oriented • Most completed or in progress Based,in part,on a public input process "during 1994,1995 and 1996..." 1 Land Use Plan • Development pattern shifts • Annexations • ETJ development pressure • Platting activity up 150%since 1997 • Infrastructure/CCN issues • Potential airport expansion • Redevelopment • Need for clear policy guidance —Grow south or east/west or maximize infill/redevelopment opportunities The City Limits of College Station have expanded 24%. sem, Parks/Open Space t - • Recreation, Park and Open Space Master Plan adopted 1997 —City Council direction to revise every 3 yrs. —Update adopted 2002 • Greenways Master Plan adopted in 1999 —Update in progress If the population is projected to double over the next 20 years,'there will need to be a parallel increase in park and open space development" Thoroughfare Plan • New TxDOT access management manual • Need to integrate new/proposed projects: — SH 40(new) — Texas Avenue(widening) — SH 6(new grade separations) — FM 60(widening) — FM 2154(widening) • Updated through SAP/Comp Plan Amend • Rapid growth in south College Station/ETJ • Implementation generally development driven • Strong correlation to land use planning "With few roadways to handle the increasing traffic, most of the burden is handled by SH 6,Texas Avenue and Wellborn Road" 2 Water/Wastewater • ETJ Development Pressure • Annexation 2002 • CCN Issues • Competing objectives: extension vs. upsizing to accommodate greater density • Water/wastewater master plan update underway now "College Station's ability to serve areas with infrastructure and utilities will determine its ability to grow." Urban Design Plan 40. • Streetscape Plan (1992) • Sought to address the following areas: —Core Area —East Bypass —Texas Avenue —Wellborn Road ...proposed"roadway enhancements by establishing landscaping,edge treatment and setback standards for major corridors" .. � . Implementation • Identified numerous CIP project needs • Suggested necessary revisions to zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations • Suggested methods for updates to the Plan • "City may consider a 'major tune-up' of the Plan somewhere near its tenth anniversary." "A Comprehensive Plan can be the most important document a community can have," 3 Small Area Plans • Wolf Pen Creek, 1998 • Northgate Plan,2003 • East Bypass Study,2000 • Annex Area#1 Plan, • Eastgate Neighborhood 2003 Plan, 2001 • South CS T-fare, • 30/60 Plan,2001 2003 • Greens Prairie/Rock • F&B Plan,2003 Prairie Plan,2002 • Arrington/SH 6, • Whites Crk T-fare,2002 2003 • Southside Traffic • East CS T-fare,2004 Calming,2003 Series of amendments,small area plans have addressed approximately 36%of City. _: Other changes •• Bush Library opening • Hotel rooms up 25% this year • Research Valley Partnership • Larger CS/B MSA • Aging population, increased retirees "A Comprehensive Plan can be the most Important document a community can hetes." 4 Annexation Policy Discussion w�ti+,,,,In,Uluu1»J : Workshop Item #3 in Joint Session Citi Council / Planning & Zoning Commission 5 June 22, 2006 Objectives ► Review annexation history ► Review annexation policy ► SWOT Analysis \ �},t, ,1 Conditions „c Stek direction m = 1 \/ Annexation ► Purpose • To provide urbanizing areas with municipal services and to exercise regulatory authority necessary to protect public health and safety. • Means of ensuring that residents and business outside a city's oiiliiiibm corporate limits who benefit from access to the city's facilities and /� services share the tax burden associated with constructing and %" maintaining those facilities and services. 1. Imposition of land use controls may also be used as a growth ■ management technique to implement a comprehensive plan. yuni11,1„\�,;,.� Annexation History ► Annexation Plan 1999 50 ► Recent Annexations 45 11 40 • City Initiated in 2002 1 35 • //Petition in 2004 W 30 1 1 \ 1, MIMI 11111II11'1///////�///�� ` `UG25 1 ' y 2 111111r1 1 0 1 1 %� = EIMIMII 1111 15 11111 151MINg 1111 ,,\ : uiiuiI ,,�� 1938 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 ppIIIII11111 2 Annexation Trends: 1980 - 2002 1980: 15,367 acres College Station has doubled 2000:30,219 acres in size over the last 20 years to reach 30,219 acres. ti ��s,� a(St3:;10 years: Over the last 10 years,the NI City has annexed 14,852 '‘'' ' Annexed 14,852 acres. In that same time period,only 4,273 acres of the City were developed. Developed 4,273 5 1 Current Vacant Land = 11,215 ac (2003) Pre-College Station cit 4,,,,, . A IA of 3 1 1938-1940 1r 1941-1950 ,,,;41 ,› - ,A 7,,,I 4 1951-1960 • 1961-1970 • • • 5 , . / V 1971-1980 4 lye,. e I, °‘ 1981-1990 4,0:t.• 41041 , . 4,, .10. 4 • - it.. * e •4 e e * 4k 1 6 1991-2000 4 i 141100 N. . *, 4 'S.s. .4 ; v ' '' 414 I ' ( , die4k A V s 4% Nilp 2001-2003 4 till 4 0' 0 ‘r ‘. k ili 4% ‘c 4.,& lir IV '% -...,„ wi 7 / SWOT Analysis ►Strengths ►Weaknesses ►Opportunities ►Threats ) _117,..) V I', SWOT Analysis ► City of College Station • Strengths ►High development standards ►Property values ►Steady job creation / economic growth ,,,thuIl/lr- ►Good bond rating 1..Reasonable property tax rate t ■ Weaknesses ►CIP Pressures ►Limited water service area Still extending infrastructure i/I/uu/7nlluf+\`tt` 8 SWOT Analysis ► Possible annexed areas ■ Opportunities Land use control ►Building codes / inspections / code enforcement , 1J0I10",' Gateway Issues Threats .Additional CIP pressure Property tax burden ►,,dditional costs to bear `1 f 1171 I I I,111141ti11�`\`\\\, Annexation Policy Issues Annexation Plan unchanged since adoption in 1999 ►CCN Issues ►Utility extension policy dot '�'`fl�i exceptions granted recently " \ ott‘ pitipulation, density pressure increasing - '] • ision regulations ill-equipped 9 Annexation Plan "No areas identified for annexation" ► If amended to include an area, inherit significant obligations ► May annex exempt areas, process petitions 14,'without amending plan Annexation Policy Issues Annexation Plan unchanged since adoption in 1999 • CCN Issues ►Utility extension policy k.\,,,a� ''"' `�" c,-exceptions granted recently of Ovulation, density pressure increasing -440 LTJ txsion regulations ill-equipped `,, , .; 10 / College Station Water CCN x4/ ;< Z' Hsi` V • '''. '' t111111ftlUt1 k.:4',.;;;:;4-7,4144;:p.5:::!:11'!.:11--i'-'4- r r� �' ��,1 t.. '�� • si "� 4�:J "°.--61:, �+ - � Irl_L '',47' • Et . ir_H::::::7---c- f d� r 5) ''' dim.:_ 'r+i . 7//WAr/lll Il111q' College Station Proposed Sewer CCN a y m ceuege stauo ! 5 a � Proposed Addition 3: ' Y For Wastewater CCN 29 June 2005 k. * r Ni'r T 1 ,,"111111lil 111 ,_ ' ,,,c) . * . * caw Pa soo ms pm vw .s 11111Nwawat us mama - \��......-v St.Ibn.TY]]43 __ .�I 4 CdMg. i/�allfrnlhlll�� 11 Annexation Policy Issues • Annexation tion Plan unchanged since adoption in ► CCN Issues ► Utility extension policy • Established an annexation policy and program to incorporate affected areas in a manner that sufficiently addresses planning and development issues for the extended utility systems. exceptions granted recently ots, poj5ulation, density pressure increasing in the LTJ « • - •n regulations ill-equipped L. • Annexation Policy ► Annexation Plan unchanged since adoption in ► 999 CCN Issues ► Utility extension policy ► Sewer exceptions granted recently • Indian Lakes • Las Palomas, Oakland Ridge, and Great Oaks • Creek Meadow ► Lots, population, density pressure increasing in the ►Subdasion regulations ill-equipped 12 Annexation Policy Annexation Plan unchanged since auuption in 1999 ►CCN Issues ►Vi itty extension policy rev exceptions granted recently ► Lots, population, density pressure increasing , z3 the ETJ 4bdIvIsion regulations ill-equipped Y/I/1/NIIII Population Growth 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 —4--Cay \\‘\ 0 1111 60,000 : _ Total 40.000 20,000 — 00 O•' O7' OO ON Op Os O OO Oma' ,�O ,�. ,��. <b NR '1, rye ryO ,yO ryO ryO ,yO �O ryO rt, rtO rt. r1O ,O ryO ryO ryO 13 Platting Trends 98 240 259 128 Mii ME I■ III 93 44 62 \tottiothiatiVii, FM "Y 6 190317 i \ \\\\\ ■ ❑ 71r1,l,III`lk•-% College Station ETJ i/- ..� EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (ETJ) OECEMBER 2004 'a;I MMORERCI 10(1111111,111, - i ` :'. c.<A i�� .L ai —Y)--y_' / \ . 4r«.j \,, •,.. ,moi r ( ' . s -,'------ 14 Annexation Policy ► Annexation Plan unchanged since adoption in 1999 ► CCN Issues ► Utility extension policy ,v4,, r,exceptions granted recently yri tsulation, density pressure increasing in the - ,Subdivision regulations ill-equipped T Lot size, street width, maintenance, inspections 7/h/h1 Ih1I Ii''''\ Other Considerations ► Land Use Control ► Gateway Issues ► School district boundaries ► Increased platting without parkland dedication \,, "b' i elation benefits from City services rf '' pglice protection . .,• •-.•Y'donuts" Odin legislative environment 15 Land Use Control ► "Donut" ► City Cemetery ► Proximity to airport ► Gateway issues ► Non-residential r.; architectural standards C, ,,oma /47/911111111eo`\ Land Use Control ► Conflicting land use density / intensity ,. ,- : ► Lack of zoning ____81 16 Gateway Issues ► SH 30 from Huntsville ► SH 6 from Navasota 1 Houston ► FM 60 from Austin ► FM 2154 from Houston Gateway Issues ► SH 30 from Huntsville ► SH 6 from Navasota / Houston ► FM 60 from Austin �,,,a,«t� � ,� ► FM 2154 from Houston 17 Gateway Issues ► SH 30 from Huntsville : ► SH 6 from Navasota / Houston ► FM 60 from Austin ► FM 2154 from Houston '0 r3 A r rye. Gateway Issues ► SH 30 from Huntsville - - ► SH 6 from Navasota / Houston ► FM 60 from Austin ► FM 2154 from Houston 18 / V Other Considerations ► Land Use Control ► Gateway Issues ► School district boundaries ► Increased platting without parkland dedication ,,,\�1 11 $/ ulation benefits from City services Y r police protection - . . .- donuts" ' 1 - in legislative environment /�11,if tI I Alli!\\\\`\4z� School District Boundaries . '1 l 40‘,; lotliiilrft t3° fi_ 1‘1%. • f_ '1i1 • Z� ■ ei 19 Other Considerations ► Land Use Controi ► Gateway Issues ► School district boundaries ► Increased platting without parkland dedication ► ETJ population benefits from City services ► Fire / police protection ► Address "donuts" ► Uncertain legislative environment ► ETJ expands to 5 miles with 100K population Possible Scenarios ► Upon demand - by petition ► Moderate — focus only on exempt areas Aggressive — maximize ability to annex each year _8 20 Options A. Do nothing at this time B. Do nothing pending the outcome and direction arising from the Comprehensive Plan update c. Direct staff to propose one or more annexation ,,,,t , . areas that are "exempt" D. Oirectstaff to propose amendments to the 3- year Annexation Plan Direct staff to propose a combination of the latter two options ii//aur«iq«� �" � 21