HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/2016 - Workshop Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionCITN�OFCOLLEGE S .,VrION
Hance aj'Tesm A�rll the verihy"
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop Meeting
September 1, 2016 5:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Jerome Rektorik, Johnny Burns Jodi Warner, Barry Moore and
Jim Ross
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Casey Oldham
IFAC MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Hellriegel, Randy French
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Blanche Brick, Steve Aldrich
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Kelly Templin, Chuck Gilman, Jeff Kersten, Donald Harmon, Lance Simms,
Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Natalie Ruiz, Carol Cotter, Danielle Singh, Kevin Ferrer, Mark Bombek,
Jessica Bullock, Jenifer Paz, Jennifer Prochazka, Rachel Lazo, Madison Thomas, Tiffany Cousins, Timothy
Horn, Mary Ann Powell, Lauren Basey and Kristen Hejny
1. Call the meeting to order.
Chairperson Kee Called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Roadway Impact Fee Advisory Committee
reviewing and making a recommendation on the Maximum Calculated Roadway Impact Fees.
This item was heard after Workshop Agenda Item #3.
City Engineer Gibbs and Jeff Whitacre, Consultant, presented this item to the IFAC.
IFAC Member Hellriegel asked if the Maximum Calculated Fee, is a product of state law, or Staff
recommendation.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that the Maximum Calculated Fee is based on state law allowance.
IFAC Member French asked for a clarification on a "vehicle mile".
Jeff Whitacre, Kimley Horn, responded that a vehicle mile is the product of a calculation of trip length
times the number of trips based on one peak hour. Mr. Whitacre also stated that the calculations are
calibrated to individual cities based upon data provided from the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO).
IFAC Member Hellriegel asked if the benchmark city numbers are the assessed impact fee, or the
maximum fee.
Mr. Whitacre stated that these numbers are the assessed fee.
September 1, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6
IFAC Member French asked if the benchmark cities presented were the only cities utilizing Roadway
Impact Fees.
Mr. Whitacre stated that there are approximately 50 cities in Texas that have enacted the Roadway
Impact Fees.
Chairperson Kee asked if the benchmark cities used the Roadway Impact Fees for both residential and
non-residential developments, or were any land use categories exempt.
Mr. Whitacre responded that the Impact Fees/vehicle mile can be set to specific land uses.
Commissioner Rektorik asked if the impact fee can be changed by City Council after adoption.
Mr. Whitacre stated that the fee cannot go above the maximum and that with a public hearing and
through the impact fee process, the fee can be changed/updated, however, an evaluation of the fee is
required every five years.
Mr. Whitacre stated that developments that build public infrastructure receive credit for the dollars they
spend toward an arterial road or collector road and could potentially not pay an impact fee. Developers
who are not building infrastructure would pay impact fees.
IFAC Member French asked if a developer paying into an Oversize Participation Agreement would be
exempt from the Roadway Impact Fee.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that the credit toward the impact fees would be another way/means to "over
participate".
IFAC Member French asked if the Impact Fees would be paid on the developers end or at building
permit.
Mr. Whitacre responded that the fee would be paid at building permit.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that any impact credit would be assessed at platting.
Commissioner Moore asked if the credits were pro -rated or up to the developer on how the credits are
used.
Mr. Whitacre stated that it is recommended for credits to be tied to the land.
Mr. Whitacre stated that Staff is looking for feedback/comments to present to City Council on impact
fee collection rates.
Commissioner Ross stated that he believes it would be counter -intuitive to charge a fee to corporations
or business moving to College Station. He also stated that he would like to hear thoughts and input from
an Economic Development standpoint.
Director of Economic Development Ruiz stated that Staff tried to strike a balance between generating
needed revenue and not discouraging businesses from locating in College Station. She stated that non-
residential impact fees are lower and they have discussed providing exemptions, different ways of
funding through incentives, or development agreements.
September 1, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6
Commissioner Ross asked if growing businesses are accustomed to paying impact fees when beginning
in a new town.
Director of Economic Development Ruiz stated that businesses are accustomed to the fees, however,
they are usually waived.
Commissioner Rektorik asked if companies or corporations looking to move into the area evaluate the
economic advantages of operating in that area.
Director of Economic Development Ruiz stated that yes, they do an evaluation on the economic
advantages including overall cost, taxes, and impact fees.
Commissioner Ross asked if there are any specific areas that will be exempted from the impact fees.
Director of Economic Development Ruiz stated that staff have discussed identifying specific land uses
for setting impact fee at $0, but a conclusion has not been made.
Chairperson Kee asked if this exemption determination would have to be made before the November
10°i City Council meeting.
City Engineer Gibbs confirmed that any exempt areas would need to be identified before the November
1011 City Council meeting. Mr. Gibbs also stated that if the IFAC has areas of concern on exempting
specific land uses, they can make such a recommendation in comments that will be presented to City
Council.
Commissioner Rektorik clarified that neither the City of Bryan nor Brazos County have Roadway Impact
Fees at this time.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that neither the City of Bryan, or Brazos County have an impact fee, but
Wellborn Special Utility District has a water impact fee.
Commissioner Warner stated that the City of Bryan has a transportation user fee.
Commissioner Rektorik, asked if the City of College Station is looking into creating a transportation fee.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that the City of College Station is currently evaluating a transportation fee
only for maintenance.
Commissioner Warner asked if Texas A&M University (TAMU) would incur a fee.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that the fee would not apply to most TAMU projects, but it would be case
specific.
Commissioner Warner asked if it is known where residential arterials are currently deficient.
Mr. Whitacre stated that the impact fee would help fund expansion on roadways, not existing
deficiencies to roadways.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that the impact fee is charging for the increase of capacity in roadways
September 1, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6
Commissioner Warner stated that she does not feel comfortable in adding a fee to new developments in
the City. Ms. Warner also stated that adding fees to commercial developments will inhibit commercial
developments building in new residential areas.
City Engineer Gibbs reiterated the example fees Staff is recommending. He also stated that the same fee
is being proposed across all four impact fee areas. Mr. Gibbs also stated that Staff was recommending
fee amounts that they believed the market could sustain, and keep the City competitive.
IFAC Member Hellriegel asked if, within a benchmark basis, are the fees that are recommended by Staff
lower than those of the benchmark cities.
City Engineer Gibbs stated that the recommended fees are lower than benchmark cities and the fees are
an important funding source for the budget and transportation city.
Commissioner Moore stated his concerns for putting an impact fee on any land use that will result in
basic jobs. He also stated his concerns for additional hurdles for new businesses planning to develop in
College Station, and that he is opposed to Roadway Impact Fees for commercial developments.
IFAC Member French stated that he is opposed to Roadway Impact Fees on both commercial and single-
family developments. Mr. French suggested utilizing a usage tax to help with funding.
Commissioner Warner stated her concerns for adding a Roadway Impact Fee on single-family homes,
causing more one acre lots. Ms. Warner was concerned about pushing single-family developments into
the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
City Engineer Gibbs addressed concerns for higher impact fees throughout the City, stating that Staff is
recommending the fees be flat across all four impact fee areas.
Commissioner Ross stated his concerns for implementing a Roadway Impact Fee before an evaluation
on raising tax rates.
Commissioner Burns stated his agreement with Commissioner Ross citing concerns for low tax rates
and comparisons to benchmark cities who are already implementing Roadway Impact Fees.
IFAC Member Hellriegel stated his support of raising taxes and utility fees.
Commissioner Rektorik stated his concerns for implementing Roadway Impact Fees before evaluating
higher tax and utility rates.
Chairperson Kee stated that all funding sources should be considered. Ms. Kee also stated that she does
not like the idea of the impact fees affecting the job creators, but a waiver process and an Economic
Development evaluation will help the process. She also stated that she does not feel comfortable with
recommending a Roadway Impact Fee amount, but does believe this is something that should be
evaluated.
Mr. Whitacre stated that the Impact Fees are to be reviewed every six months, and Staff is looking for a
starting rate, so some of the data that is not presented will be presented at the six month reviews.
Commissioner Warner asked for a list of other towns that are utilizing Roadway Impact Fees.
September 1, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6
Mr. Whitacre responded that towns such as Baytown and Houston are currently implementing fees,
Galveston and Fulshear are evaluating roadway impact fees.
IFAC Member French stated that the City needs a mechanism for better streets. He also stated that an
Impact Fee would be counterproductive, and does not support the Roadway Impact Fee.
IFAC Member Heliriegel stated that he will make his comments in writing to Staff.
Commissioner Ross stated that the City is not using the tools they have available. He also stated that the
City should attempt to the raise tax rate before implementing Impact Fees.
Commissioner Warner stated that she does not support the proposed Roadway Impact Fee.
Commissioner Burns stated that the city should implement a consumption fee and does not support a
Roadway Impact Fee.
Commissioner Moore stated again that he is opposed to any additional hurdles applied to new
developments. Mr. Moore also stated that a tax increase should be implemented first.
Commissioner Rektorik stated that the City should by raising the tax rate or implement a transportation
fee and does not support a Roadway Impact Fee.
3. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
Workshop Agenda Item #3 was heard before Workshop Agenda Item #2.
There was general discussion regarding Regular Agenda Item #12.
4. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City.
New Development Link: www.esix.gov/newdev
There was no discussion.
5. Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff.
*Final Plat — Minor Plat — Cottages of College Station Phase 3 — Case #FP2016-000021 (Bombek)
*Final Plat — Minor Plat — WC Boyett Estates Partition Block 18 Lot 3R — Case #FP2012-500156 (Paz)
There was no discussion.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the status of items within the 2016 P&Z Plan of
Work.
There was no discussion.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a recommendation on the Planning & Zoning
Commission's appointments to the BioCorridor Board.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission.
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend Commissioner Burns be appointed to the
BioCorridor Board. Chairperson Kee seconded the motion, motion was approved (6-0).
September 1, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings:
*Thursday, September 8, 2016 — City Council Meeting — Council Chambers — Workshop 4:30 p.m. and
Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison—Oldham)
*Thursday, September 15, 2016 — P&Z Meeting — Council Chambers — Workshop 6:00 p.m. and
Regular 7:00 p.m.
Chairperson Kee reviewed upcoming meetings for the Planning & Zoning Commission.
9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items:
*A Rezoning for approximately 23 acres located on Horseback Drive from R Rural to RS Restricted
Suburban and NAP Natural Areas Preserved. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on
August 4, 2016, and voted (5-0) to recommend approval. City Council heard this item on August 25,
2016, and voted (7-0) to approve the request.
*A Comprehensive Plan Amendment for approximately 14.35 acres located at 2501 Earl Rudder
Freeway South from Business Park to General Commercial. The Planning & Zoning Commission
heard this item on August 4, 2016, and toted (4-0-1) to recommend approval. City Council heard this
item on August 25, 2016, and voted (7-0) to approve the request.
*A Rezoning for approximately 14.35 acres located at 2501 Earl Rudder Freeway South from M -I
Light Industrial to M-1 Light Industrial and GC General Commercial. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard this item on August 4, 2016, and toted (4-0-1) to recommend approval. City
Council heard this item on August 25, 2016, and voted (7-0) to approve the request.
There was no discussion.
10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Bio
Corridor Board.
There was no discussion.
11. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the
subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
There was no discussion.
12. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
Jane Kte!P
Planning &
Chairman
.e Commission
A est:
ris en Hejny, A min. Sup rt pecialist
Planning & Development Ser ' es
September 1, 2016 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6
(*hr""
C.IT1' c» C<na_ecl�.Srnrtra
Plou,e of )cmn AU'rLl U�rinrrsiry"
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
September 1, 2016, 7:30 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jane Kee, Jerome Rektorik, Johnny Burns, Jodi Warner, Barry Moore
and Jim Ross
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Casey Oldham
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Aldrich, Blanche Brick
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lance Simms, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Natalie Ruiz, Carol Cotter, Erika
Bridges, Mark Bombek, Jessica Bullock, Jenifer Paz, Rachel Lazo, Madison Thomas, Tiffany Cousins,
Timothy Horn, Mary Ann Powell, Lauren Basey and Kristen Hejny
1. Call Meeting to Order
Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Hear Citizens
4. Consent Agenda
4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes.
*August 4, 2016 Workshop
*August 4, 2016 Regular
*August 18, 2016 Workshop
*August 18, 2016 Regular
4.2 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Development Plat for Majestic Oaks
Subdivision consisting of one residential lot on approximately 3.757 acres located at 5701 Straub
Road, and generally located west of the intersection of Straub Road and Thousand Oaks Road in
the College Station Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Case #DVPL2016-000003
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to approve Consent Agenda Item 4.1-4.2. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
September 1, 2016 P&L Regular Meeting Minutes Page I of 5
Regular Agenda
5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by
Commission Action.
No items were removed.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding waiver requests to Unified Development
Section 12-8.3.E.6 `Dead -End Streets' and Section 12-8.3.G `Blocks;' and presentation, possible
action, and discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for the Science Park consisting of three lots and
one common area on approximately 53.8 acres located at 2501 Earl Rudder Freeway South,
generally located north of North Forest Parkway and south of Raintree Drive, ease of Earl Rudder
Freeway South. Case #PP2016-000013
Economic Development Director Ruiz presented the waiver requests and Final Plat to the
Commission, and recommended approval.
Chairperson Kee asked if the dead end streets, in question, would be extended in the future
Director Ruiz stated that the streets would remain dead-end streets.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to approve the waiver requests and Final Plat stating that
there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict
application of the provisions of Sections 12-8.3.E.6 `Dead -End Streets' and Section 12-8.3.G
`Blocks', will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and the waivers are
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for The Science Park consisting
of three lots and one common area on approximately 53.8 acres located at 2501 Earl Rudder Freeway
South, generally located north of North Forest Parkway and south of Raintree Drive, east of Earl
Rudder Freeway South. Case #FPCO2016-000016
Director of Economic Development Ruiz presented the Final Plat to the Commission, and
recommended approval.
There was no discussion.
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to approve of the Final Plat as presented by staff.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, motion was approved (6-0).
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a discretionary item to the Unified
Development Ordinance Section 12-8.3.K.5.b `Fee in Lieu of Construction' and Presentation,
possible action, and discussion regarding a Preliminary Plan for Waterford Heights Subdivision
consisting of four commercial, one rural, one common area and 54 single-family lots on
approximately 25.47 acres located at 4201 Rock Prairie Road, generally located at the northeast
corner of Rock Prairie Road and Bird Pond Road. Case #PP2016-000012
September 1, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5
Senior Planner Paz presented the discretionary item regarding sidewalks, and Preliminary Plan to
the Commission, and recommended approval.
Commissioner Moore asked if there was a timeline on the realignment of Bird Pond Road.
Senior Planner Paz stated that there is no time line, there will be Right -of -Way dedication with Phase
Three.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission.
Commissioner Rcktorik motioned to approve the discretionary item of a fee in lieu of
construction for the sidewalks along Rock Prairie Road, stating that existing streets
constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an
Estate/Rural context, and Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Burns seconded the motion,
motion passed (6-0).
9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a waiver request to Unified Development
Section 12-8.3.H.l.g "Lots" and a public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion
regarding a Final Plat for College Park Subdivision Lot 5R1 & Lot 5R2, Block 21 being a replat of
College Park Subdivision Lot 5, Block 21 and .05 acre portion of College Park Subdivision (Vol.
38, Pg. 602) consisting of two lots on approximately one acre located at 301 Dexter Drive, generally
located at the southeast corner of Dexter Drive and Newton Road. Case #FPMU2016-000001
Senior Planner Bullock presented the waiver request and Final Plat to the Commission, and
recommended approval.
Chairperson Kee asked if this waiver is granted, will it act like a Zoning Board of Adjustments
(ZBA) variance and be attached to the land.
Senior Planner Bullock stated that this waiver is only to allow the property to be platted, any
additional variances would have to go through the ZBA.
Applicant Veronica Morgan, 3204 Earl Rudder Freeway South, College Station, was available to
answer questions from the Commission.
Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
Chairperson Kee closed the public meeting.
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to recommend approval of the waiver request as stated by
staff, meeting all waiver criteria, and Final Plat. Commissioner Burns seconded the motion,
motion passed (6-0).
10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Emerald Point
Subdivision lots 1-6 being a replat of Agency Records Control, INC. Subdivision Lot IA consisting
of six lots on approximately 17.6 acres located at 3001 Earl Rudder Freeway South, College Station,
September 1, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5
Texas generally located at the intersection of Emerald Parkway and Earl Rudder Freeway South
frontage road. Case #FPCO2015-000010
Senior Planner Bombek presented the Final Plat to the Commission and recommended approval.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission.
Chairperson Kee opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
Chairperson Kee closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ross motioned to approve the Final Plat. Commissioner Rektorik seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Warner asked if lot six were to be developed, would it have to follow the residential
buffering and protection requirements.
Senior Planner Bombek stated that, yes, it would still follow residential protection guidelines.
The motion passed (6-0).
11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an ordinance amending
Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 12-4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundaries from
R Rural to SC Suburban Commercial for approximately three acres being situated in the Andrew
McMahon survey, A-167, Brazos County, Texas, being comprised of all of a called 2.00 acre tract,
referred to as Tract 1, described in a deed dated January 4, 1993, from Darrell L. Ambler to Wellborn
Water Supply Corporation, and recorded in Volume 1685, Page 10, all of a called 0.334 acre Tract,
referred to as Tract 10, described in a deed executed October 18, 2000, from Wellborn Water Supply
Corporation to Wellborn Special Utility District, and recorded in Volume 3991, Page 197, all of a
called 0.46 acre tract as described in a deed dated August 18, 2006, from Boyd Mitchael Vincent,
Administrator to Wellborn Special Utility District, and recorded in Volume 7536, Page 292, and a
50 foot strip as a described in a deed dated August 19, 2015, from Peach Creek Rental, Ltd. To
Wellborn Special Utility District, and recorded in volume 12895, page 216, deed records, Brazos
County, Texas, to which references are hereby made to for any and all purposes. Said tracts further
being apart of the Benjamin Graham Subdivision, of record in Volume 12, Page 394, the referenced
2.00 acre tract being Lot 9A in the Benjamin Graham Subdivision, of record in Volume 1985, Page
195, and the 50 foot strip being a part of Lot 4A in the resubdivision of Blocks D & E of the Benjamin
Graham Subdivision, of record in Volume 2463, Page 329, deed records, Brazos County, Texas,
generally located at 3998 Greens Prairie Road West, more generally located at 3998 Greens Prairie
Road West, more generally located at the northeast intersection of Greens Prairie Road West and
Live Oak Street. Case #REZ2016-000024 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the
September 22, 2016 City Council meeting — subject to change)
This item was removed from the agenda and was not heard at this meeting.
September 1, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5
12. Presentation, possible action, and discussing regarding a Comprehensive Plan Reapplication request
for Harvey Mitchell Parkway Campus Housing Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Located at 404
Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, generally located at the corner of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South
and Raymond Stotzer Parkway. Case #CPA2016-000001
Staff Planner Thomas presented the reapplication request to the Commission.
Commissioner Rektorik asked for clarification on the reasoning behind the reapplication request.
There was further discussion amongst the Commission.
Commissioner Rektorik motioned to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Reapplication Request citing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances
relevant to the issue and/or facts considered during review of the application that might
reasonably affect the decision -malting body's application of the relevant review standards to
the development proposed in the application based on the differing presentations presented to
P&Z and City Council. Commissioner Burns seconded the motion.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission.
The motion passed (5-1), with Commissioner Ross voting against the motion.
13. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or
the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to
place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
There was no discussion.
14. Adjourn
The meeting adjourne at 8:31 p.m.
App ve
Jane e cting Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Attest:
II iislen ejny, Admin S p pecialist
Planning &Development es
September 1, 2016 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5