Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes£,, i MINUTES Planning & .Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS -April 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Smith, Garner, Lightfoot and Lane. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:. Commissioners Gribou and Hall. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan and Planning Technician.Thomas. (Councilman Crouch was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the Commission meeting of March 28, 1996. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the Commission minutes from the meeting of March 28, 1996. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the joint meeting with the City Council of March 28, 1996. Commissioner Garner moved to approve. the minutes from the joint meeting with the City Council of March 28, 1996. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from. the Commission meeting of April 4, 1996. Commissioner Smith moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from the meeting of April 4, 1996. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation and discussion of the mandatory Impact Fee Report update.. As the designated Advisory Committee, comments must be forwarded to the City Council regarding.. the report. (96-808 Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the Impact Fee Report update for sanitary sewer service area "92-01", located north of Graham Road between Wellborn Road and State Highway 6. This area consists of approximately 53O acres of agricultural,: industrial, low density residential and institutional uses. The total number of acres in the sanitary sewer service area has .decreased by 24 .acres between 1992 and 1996 due to the proposed changes in the sewer discharge. directions.. The area north of Rock Prairie Road in Edelweiss Estates is proposed to :discharge. to another sewer .area and can no longer be .included in the sanitary sewer service area "92-O1". Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained. that the land use. assumptions are based on the City's Comprehensive. Land Use Plan, the Edelweiss Estates Master. Plan and the history of development in this area over the past six~years. Projecting ahe average growth over the last seven years to the next ten year period (2006) would result in approximately 600 .new single family dwelling units to this service area. As Edelweiss Estates is presently proposed,. it will add 428 new units, while the area east of Schaffer Road will add 340 new units. Both areas have been estimated at 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Assuming that the average rate of growth will rise again within the next ten year period, it is anticipated that the total 768 dwelling units wily build. out in the next ten years. It is also anticipated that all of the multi-family acreage will build out between .1996 and 2006. Due to a change in zoning; the number of medium density residential acres :anticipated has decreased from. the 1992 projection. In addition, the density at which the current .medium density development is occurring, is well below that originally projected in the 1992 report.. It is' not anticipated that the amount of proposed commercial acreage in the service`area will build out within the ten year period from 996 to 2006. In addition, the industrial frontage within the service area, along the south side of Graham Road .and east of .Schaffer, is more likely to develop between 2006 and 2016. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated .that the Capital Improvement Plan for sanitary sewer service area "92-01" was developed using the land use assumptions for the service ;area. Originally, it .consisted of three phases: Phase one has. been constructed .since the impact fee ordinance was .adopted in 1992. It extended, a gravity sanitary sewerline from 'Graham Road on the southeasterly corner of the service -area northerly along the North Fork. of Lick Creek to Schaffer Road, where it now serves part of the Van Reit property_and then westerly along Graham Road: to Wellborn Road where it .serves properties on both sides of Graham Road, west of Schaffer Road: The actual project cost for this phase was . $365,000, Phase two begins where phase one intersects Schaffer Road and will extend a sewerline northerly along. Schaffer to connect to the Family Tree. lift station and will remove the list station from service. This phase will serve a part of the developing Edelweiss Estates property, the undeveloped part of the ' Westchester Park Subdivision and: provide capacity for growth in the developed areas and schools. The preliminary .estimated project cost is $1:38,000. The estimated costs related to the dismantling of the existing lift station. represent approximately 4% of the cost of this:phase and is not eligible for cost recovery through impact fees. Phase three consists of .extending a sewerline from. the existing line in Graham Road at Schaffer westerly along the. south side. of Graham Road for a distance of approximately 19Q0 feet: It will serve an undeveloped 400 foot depth of property which fronts on the south side of Graham Road. The preliminary cost estimate is $152,000.. The total estimated. cost of these sanitary sewer .improvements o serve this service area is $655,000. These costs include engineering and design, land acquisitions, constnzction and project management- costs. Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that the costs subject to impact fees are proportioned by the ration of new living unit equivalents (LUE's) to the total,living equivalents served. Both the number of new and"total living equivalents served has decreased significantly since 1992. This is due in part to the decreased acreage of .medium density residential. property projected to be developed, the decreased density at-which the medium density property already under construction. will develop,:. and the decrease in total service area by' 24 acres. This means there are .less units among which to divide the capital improvement cost. In the area of cost recovery,. the .estimated cost of ahe capital improvements has increased over the last four years. The total capital cost of the three phase sewer project has risen from $543,000 to $655,000. Some. of this cost increase has' been. due to general inflation in construction costs that have occurred recently. The original cost estimate for phase one was $315,000 while the total ,constructed cost. was $365,000, an increase in project cost of 13%. all construction costs have been re-estimated for this' 1996 update. Inflationary figures are not .typically found in impact fee calculations, as the mandatory land use and capital-.improvement plan update is designed to allow you to compensate for these variables.. Phase two's eligible costs have been increased since' 1992.. Although some of the costs that will be incurred with phase two are not .recoverable, such as: the removal of the existing lift station, there is more-eligible cost in phase two than originally estimated. The revised impact fees, once the changes in land use projections and capital costs have been calculated, show the maximum impact fee to increase by approximately $1 ~ 0.00 per LUE. P & Z Minutes Ap~•il 18, 1996 Page 2 of 4 The Commission had no comments on the land use assumptions since it is based on current development information and approved master plan. The Commission also agreed with the capital improvement. plan as submitted. The City Council will have to decide if the increased costs will be paid for by the developer or by the citizens as a whole. Commissioner Smith suggested that staff include: an additional slide for the City Council presentation which explains how the different factors increased the impact fee per unit. He also stated that staff did an excellent job on the report and the executive summary was especially helpful. Commissioner Lane stated that did not have a problem with the overall concept of the residents paying for the. sanitary .sewer instead of .the entire city; .however, the process is extremely tedious and requires constant maintenance. He questioned .the effectiveness of collecting the. impact fees considering the associated staff costs versus the amount of money that is collected. He questioned that if in the long run, .the process is even worth he amount of staff time required to monitor, update and implement the program. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Amendment. to the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the platting process and the responsibilities. of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. (96-.806) City Planner Kee presented the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations and .stated that the following changes are included the. amendment: -- Generally take the. City Council out of the plat review process and give the Commission plat. review and approval/denal .authority. -- Give the City Engineer authority for the approval of minor and amending plats. -- Better defines and explains a master development plan and a master preliminary plat. =- Removes the requirement for impact studies except when an applicant is requesting oversize participation. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that. the amendment was directed by the City Council at a joint Commission and Council meeting. where the development review process was discussed and staff suggested this amendment as a way to streamline the platting process. This ordinance amendment- is scheduled to proceed to the City Council on May 9, .1996 with comments-from the Commission. Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff .regarding. any established. criteria that the City Engineer may follow when he decides. to take a plat to the Commission. He .stated that that section of the ordinance sounds like the City Engineer has theauthority to not approve a plat for any reason even if he does. not want to make the decision. There should be checks and balances incorporated into the process. City Planner Kee stated that the City Engineer mustpresent the plat to the Commission if he does not feel comfortable. The only reason he could not approve a plat is if a variance is involved or the plat did not meet the technical requirements of the ordinance. -She stated that she could add the City Planner to that section of the ordinance so that both the City .Engineer and City Planner. would have approval authority of a plat. Commissioner Smith moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the platting process. with the .comments made by the Commission and proposed by staff. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). P & Z Minutes Ap~~il 18, 1996 Page 3 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF COLLEGE. STATION, TEXAS. WHEREAS, on June 11, 1992, the City Council appointed the City's Planning and Zoning Commission, as the "Advisory Committee" in .Resolution No. 6- 11-92-1.10; and WHEREAS, as required by Section 395.058 of the Texas Local Government Code (formerly S.B. 336), the commission includes at least one representative of the real estate, development or building industry who is not an employee or oiI•icial of a political subdivision or governmental entity; and WHEREAS,. the Advisory Committee has reviewed the City's Land Use Assumptions capital improvements plan; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee filed written comments on the amended Land Use. Assumptions Capital Improvements Plan for Service Area "92-01" on June 4, 1996; and WHEREAS, pursuant. to the Texas Local Government Code Section 3.95.0515., a public hearing .was held on June 13, 1996, at 7:.00 P.M. which consolidated the hearings for the consideration of the amended land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and adopted both plans and set an amended impact fee simultaneously; and WI~REAS, information about the land use assumptions plan and capital improvements plan was made available to the. public on May, 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, all public notice and hearing requirements of Section 395.0515. were met,. and no objection was filed by the public to the consolidation of hearings to consider land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fees; .and WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements. Plan was prepared based on data contained in the Land Use Assumptions, attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,. TEXAS,. that the updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan for Impact Fees, as .set out in Exhibit A entitled "Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan, Sanitary Sewer Service Area 92-01" is adopted by the City of College Station, Texas.. PASSED and APPROVED this ,day of , Approved: LARRY RINGER, MAYOR ATTEST: City .Secretary Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Veronica J.B.:Morgan, Asst. City. Engineer For Council Meeting Of: June 13 1996. Director Approval: Executive.. Member Approval ' Ends Statements /Strategic Issues: #3 -Health & Public Safety and #5 - Quality Service (Sharing the cost. of growth) Item: Public Hearing and Consideration: of the Revised Land Use Assumptions and Capital improvement Plan for Sanitary Sewer Service Area "92-01 ", the impact fee area currently designated in the Graham Road area. Item Summary: Thais is the mandatory update of the Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan for the impact fee area along Graham Road.. The City is required to update these items or find .that no updates are required every 3 years in an impact fee area. The land use assumptions have changed in the area over the last 3 years. The basic changes are: 1. A decrease in overall service area, 2. A decrease in acreage that will develop as medium density residential, 3. A decrease in the number of units that current medium density is developing (medium densi#y in the area is developing as assisted and minimal-assisted care facilities, which are developing at densities that are-very tow.) The Capital. Improvements Plan has changed slightly, and is being updated as Phase I is now complete. Cost estimates have been updated. and the recoverable costs for Phase Il is higher than originally anticipated. These changes increased the maximum impact fee per. Living unit equivalent to $289.77. Council has the option to set the fee anywhere between $0 and $289.77. Action on setting the fee may be taken with the adoption of these updates.. If action is not #alcen with this item, it must be taken within 30 days of the public hearing. The Planning &Zonng Commission acting. as the Impact Fee Advisory Committee reviewed these updates and their comments are attached. Financial Summary: N/A Staff Recommendation: See attached report. City Attorney Recommendation: N/A Council Action Desired: Adopt the amendments and set a new impact fee. Supporting Materials: 1. Land Use Assumptions & Capital Improvement Plan Update for Sanitary Sewer Service Area "92-01" 2. P&Z Minutes 3. Resolution.