The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/22/2010 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents Agenda 3 No. 2a - Minutes Workshop Minutes November 10, 2010 7 Regular Minutes November 10, 2010 14 No. 2b - Emerald Ridge Estates Subdivision – Sanitary Sewer City Participation Request Coversheet revised 22 Ordinance 23 Request Letter 24 No. 2c - Asset Forfeiture Audit Reporting Form Coversheet revised 26 FY 2010 Asset Forfeiture Report 27 No. 2d - Law Enforcement Handbill Exemption Coversheet revised 34 Modified Ordinance 35 Burglary of Vehicle Report Card 37 No. 2e - Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)Memorandum of Understanding Coversheet revised 38 Memorandum of Understanding 40 No. 2f - Authorization to Disburse Incentive Funding for Texas Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS) Coversheet revised 47 Attachment 1 - TAMU Statement of Compliance 48 Attachment 2 - Annual Certification - Supporting Documentation Form 49 No. 2g - Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP) Coversheet revised 56 No. 2h - Construction Contract #11-021 for New Playground in Wolf Pen Creek Park Coversheet revised 57 1 - Resolution Signed WPC Playground 58 2 - Bid Tab #11-11 59 3 - Playground Plan 60 No. 2i - Municipal Irrigation Water Use Report Coversheet revised 61 Water Use Report Nov 10 62 No. 2j - BVSWMA, Inc Landfill Disposal and Compost Expenditures Coversheet revised 66 No. 2k - Contract Administration Procedures Coversheet revised 67 Resolution 68 No. 2L - Interlocal Agreement for On-Line Bidding 1 Coversheet revised 69 Interlocal Agreement 70 No. 2m - Interlocal Agreement with Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. Coversheet revised 76 Interlocal Agreement 77 No. 2n - Authorize Brazos County Appraisal District Expenditures Coversheet revised 82 No. 2o - Arts Council of Brazos Valley O&M Funding Agreements Coversheet revised 83 No. 2p - Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP-LETPA) Coversheet revised 84 Item 1 - Scott & White Rezoning Coversheet revised 85 Background 94 Maps 96 P&Z Minutes 98 Concept Plan 101 Proposed Land Uses 123 Ordinance 128 Item 2 - Scott & White Healthcare Real Estate Contract and Conveyance Coversheet revised 168 Attachment 1 - Real Estate Contract between the City and the RVP 169 Item 3 - Scott & White Healthcare Economic Development Agreement Coversheet revised 183 Item 4 - UDO Amendment - Subdivision Regulations Coversheet revised 184 Item 5 - Appointment to Various Boards & Committees Coversheet revised 185 2 Mayor Council members Nancy Berry Jess Fields Mayor Pro Tem Dennis Maloney John Crompton Katy-Marie Lyles City Manager Dave Ruesink Glenn Brown Jana McMillan Agenda College Station City Council Regular Meeting Monday, November 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Consider absence request. Police Department: v Recognition of Accreditation Manager, Tim Adams, Communications Manager, Zeta Fail and Criminal Investigations Lieutenant Lesley Hicks for their work towards the Police Department receiving re- accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) v Recognition of Lieutenant Chuck Fleeger as the AMBER Alert Coordinator of the Year Parks & Recreation Department: v Recognition of following awards · Texas Amateur Athletic Federation Gold Member City Award · James Farrell American Softball Association Award of Excellence · American Softball Association Complex of the Year for Veterans Park Softball Complex Hear Visitors: A citizen may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted Agenda. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. This form should be completed and delivered to the City Secretary by 5:30 pm. Please limit remarks to three minutes. A timer alarm will sound after 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda. Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager. Comments should not personally attack other speakers, Council or staff. Consent Agenda Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a consent or regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. The Mayor will recognize individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining for remarks. 3 City Council Regular Meeting Page 2 Monday, November 22, 2010 2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which consists of ministerial or "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the consent agenda by majority vote of the Council. a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for November 10, 2010 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting. b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion for City participation providing sanitary sewer improvements in the Emerald Ridge Estates Subdivision being made per City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements, Section 8.5, Responsibility for Payment for Installation Costs, Oversized Participation for a total requested City participation of $39,489.00. c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of the FY 2010 Chapter 59 Asset Forfeiture Audit reporting form for the College Station Police Department. d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding amending Chapter 4, section F (1), “Business Regulations”, of the code of ordinances of the City of College Station, which would exempt the City of College Station for the purpose of distributing public safety handbills. e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding participation in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the College Station Police Department (CSPD) for the purpose of establishing a task force known as ATF TASK FORCE. f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion authorizing the payment of an economic development incentive in the total amount of $250,000 to Texas A&M University’s Texas Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS). g. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution accepting from the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program Sub- recipient of $55,880.53, naming a City staff member as manager of those grant funds, and approving the 2010 City of College Station Equipment List for purchase. h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution awarding the bid and approval of a construction contract (Contract Number #11-021) with Marek Brothers Construction, Inc., for installation of a new Playground and rubberized surfacing in Wolf Pen Creek Park. The installation amount is $38,079 and the total project amount is $57,689.91. i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the monthly report on irrigation water use at City of College Station facilities and properties. j. Presentation, possible action and discussion to authorize expenditure of funds to BVSWMA, Inc in FY'11 for landfill disposal and compost expenditures estimated to be $1,401,175. k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to change contract routing procedures and revise certain provisions of City standard contracts. l. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Interlocal Agreement between the City of College Station and Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. (BVSWMA) for On-Line Bidding Services. 4 City Council Regular Meeting Page 3 Monday, November 22, 2010 m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Interlocal Agreement for cooperative purchasing activities between the City of College Station and Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. (BVSWMA). n. Presentation, possible action and discussion to authorize the FY 11 expenditures for the Brazos County Appraisal District in the amount of $240,671 pursuant to the Property Tax Code 6.06D. o. Presentation, possible action and discussion on two (2) operations and maintenance funding agreements between the City of College Station and the Arts Council of Brazos Valley for the 1st Quarter of FY11 (October 1 – December 31) totaling $41,000. p. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution accepting from the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program Sub- recipient of $59,318.92, naming a City staff member as manager of those grant funds, and approving the 2010 City of College Station Equipment List (SHSP-LETPA) for purchase. Regular Agenda Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. The Mayor will recognize you to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining for remarks. Individuals who wish to address the City Council on an item posted as a public hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s announcement to open the public hearing. The Mayor will recognize individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer alarm will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude remarks. After a public hearing is closed, there shall be no additional public comments. If Council needs additional information from the general public, some limited comments may be allowed at the discretion of the Mayor. If an individual does not wish to address the City Council, but still wishes to be recorded in the official minutes as being in support or opposition to an agenda item, the individual may complete the registration form provided in the lobby by providing the name, address, and comments about a city related subject. These comments will be referred to the City Council and City Manager. 1. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, specifically rezoning 97.932 acres from A-O Agricultural Open, C-1 General Commercial, C-2 Commercial Industrial, and R-4 Multi-Family to PDD Planned Development District for 4005 State Highway 6, generally located southeast of the intersection of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. 2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a real estate contract and the conveyance of approximately 30 acres of property between the College Station Independent School District, the City, the Research Valley Partnership and Scott & White Healthcare. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Economic Development Agreement between teh City and Scott & White Healthcare. 5 City Council Regular Meeting Page 4 Monday, November 22, 2010 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding future updates to the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance – Sections 3 and 8 (Subdivision Regulations). 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding selection of applicants to various Boards and Committees. CITIZEN MEMBERSHIP Zoning Board of Adjustment (correction to alternate) COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Audit Committee 6. Adjourn. If litigation issues arise to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held. APPROVED: ________________________________ City Manager Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be held on the Monday, November 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this 19th day of November, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. ________________________________ City Secretary I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on November 19, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: __________________________ by ________________________. Dated this _____day of ________________, 2010 By______________________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____day of ________________, 2010. ______________________________ Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: ___________ The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov . Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. 6 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP CITY OF COLLEGE STATION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: Nancy Berry Council: John Crompton Jess Fields Dennis Maloney Katy-Marie Lyles Jana McMillan Dave Ruesink City Staff: Glenn Brown, City Manager David Neeley, Assistant City Manager Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager Carla Robinson, Interim City Attorney Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum present, the Workshop of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842. 1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda. Item 2e was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Item 2e: David Schmitz, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, explained that playground equipment was being installed in Zone 7 because it was the only facility into which improvements can be placed. It is also the only park in the area that does not have a play unit. The play unit has a 15-20 year life span. The money comes from the parkland funds for Zone 7. 7 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 2 2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion approving a resolution to canvass the results of the Special Election held on November 2, 2010. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted six (6) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt the resolution canvassing the Special Election. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Oath of Office administered to newly elected Councilmember, with presentation of Certificate of Election. Judge Spillane administered the oath of office to Jana McMillan, newly elected Councilmember, Place 5. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning approval to solicit construction bids for the Wolf Pen Creek Water Feature and Festival Area Project, and the role of the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee after the construction of these improvements are complete. James Massey, chair of the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, reported on the Wolf Pen Creek Park expansion. He presented the 1998 master plan for historical perspective, and stated the committee is trying to stay true to citizen input. Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects, reminded the Council about the TIF that was used for redevelopment and community infrastructure. The TIF is bounded by Harvey Road, State Highway 6, Colgate and Texas. Participants with College Station in the TIF included Brazos County and CSISD. The TIF was modified and some area was removed. He reported the 1989 adjusted base value was $18.5 million. The 2010 property value in the corridor is $129 million, resulting in $579,000 in property taxes. The project goals include: 1) finalize the concept of the water feature; 2) identify facilities and amenities to be included in the festival area; 3) ensure that the festival area and water feature fit cohesively into the existing attractions and facilities; 4) provide pedestrian connectivity; and 5) ensure that the parking and vehicular circulation is complementary to the events. James Massey presented site plan illustrating the plaza with an interactive water feature, a shade arbor and seating. He reiterated that the quality of life has improved and the drainage has maintained. Chuck Gilman stated the project budget was $3.5 million, including a construction estimate of $2.9 million. They have pared this down somewhat to a base budget of $2.78 million. Operating and maintenance expenses are estimated at $170,000 per year, with $105,000 for the general operations of the festival area and $64,500 for the water feature. Scheduled interactive use for the water feature is expected to be March – October. The show mode schedule is two weekends per month and TAMU football game weekends. The project schedule has the bid advertisement in December; awarding the contract in January 2011; beginning construction in March; and completing construction in October 2011. 8 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 3 MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Crompton and a second by Councilmember Maloney, the City Council voted five (5) for and two (2) opposed, with Councilmembers Fields and McMillan voting against, to proceed with soliciting construction bids. The motion carried. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to continue the committee, meeting quarterly and recruiting new members as needed. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding basic public purchasing policies, procedures and statutes. Cheryl Turney, Assistant Finance Director, explained the purchasing policy which is an intricate web of state law, local law and internal procedures. Statutory requirements are found in Local Government Code (LGC) Chapter 252 Contracting for Cities, LGC Chapter 271 Alternative Procurement Methods, Government Code (GC) Chapter 791 Interlocal Cooperation Act, GC Chapter 2251 Prompt Payment Act, GC Chapter 2253 Bonding Requirement, and GC Chapter 2254 Professional Services Procurement Act. An invitation to bid is a formal written document that requests from bidders a firm price and delivery in response to the City’s specifications, terms and conditions. A Request for Proposal (RFP) is a formal written document requesting firms to make an offer for services to the City. A Request for Qualification (RFQ) is a formal written document used when soliciting providers of architectural, engineering or land surveying services. A quote is an informal written or verbal solicitation, and a change order occurs when changes in specifications are necessary after the performance of work has begun. The City has several interlocal agreements for cooperative purchasing with TAMU, Bryan, Brazos County, Buy Board, HGAC, etc. A RFP is used for high tech procurement, personal services, consulting services, etc. A RFQ is used primarily for architect and engineering services. The bid process includes the bid package, advertisement, posting, a pre-bid conference, and any possible addendums. The approval process includes the receipt of bids, preparation of contract documents, City Manager approval for contracts of a certain amount, and Council approval for contract over a certain amount. Change orders for administrative changes (changes less than $3,000) can be approved by the City Manage. Changes over $3,000 and less than $25,000 require additional administrative approval. Council approval is required for changes greater than $25,000 or changes of 5% for professional services. Ms. Turney stated she was seeking direction from the Council to: 1) authorize the City Manager to execute the contract for contracts greater than $50,000 that have been approved by the Council when it is a standard form of agreement; 2) allowing the City Manager to authorize changes in professional services that do not cause the contract to exceed $50,000; 3) change the payment bond threshold to $50,000; and 4) authorize the City Manager to determine alternative procurement methods. 9 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 4 MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract (when it is a standard form of agreement) for contracts greater than $50,000 that have been approved by the Council. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Mayor Berry, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, allowing the City Manager to authorize changes in professional services that do not cause the contract to exceed $50,000. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember Ruesink, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to change the payment bond threshold to $50,000. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Ruesink and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, authorizing the City Manager to determine alternative procurement methods. The motion carried unanimously. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the general roles of the Research Valley Partnership and the City in economic development activities. This item was postponed to another meeting. 7. Council Calendar · November 11 Lecture: The Korean War and 60 Year ROK/USA Alliance at George Bush Library-Auditorium, 1000 George Bush Drive at 12:00 p.m. · November 11 Dedication of the Korean War Memorial on the Lynn Stuart Pathway, Veterans Park, 4:00 p.m. · November 11 Reading of the Names at the Veterans Memorial, Adams Plaza, Veterans Park, 6:00 p.m. · November 11 Veterans Memorial Day Ceremony at the American Pavilion, Veterans Park, 7:00 p.m. · November 13 Brazos Valley Worldfest at the Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater at 10:00 a.m. · November 16 Economic Outlook Luncheon at Miramont Country Club-Bryan, 11:30 a.m. · November 16 Council Transportation Committee Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 p.m. · November 17 BVSWMA Inc. Board Meeting at COB Municipal Building - Room 305, 11:00 a.m. · November 17 2010 Exploring History Lunch Lecture Series at CS Conference Center, 11:30 a.m. · November 18 Business After Hours - Holiday Lighting - City of Bryan at 5:30 p.m. · November 18 Planning & Zoning Meeting in Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. 10 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 5 · November 22 Council Workshop/Regular Meeting in Council Chambers at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. · November 23 B/CS Chamber-Annual Ag Breakfast at Brazos County Expo Center, 7:00 a.m. · November 25 City Offices Closed – HOLIDAY · November 26 City Offices Closed - HOLIDAY There was no discussion on the Council calendar. 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: a Council 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. Mayor Berry proposed an item to set a date for a mid-year retreat to review the strategic plan. Councilmember Lyles requested an item about a student representative from the Student Senate. Councilmember Fields requested an item on road maintenance since the transportation user fee failed. Mayor Berry requested a future agenda item on a sunset provision for committees. 9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, BVSWMA, BVWACS. Cemetery Committee, Code Review Committee, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Mayor’s Council on Physical Fitness, Mayor’s Development Forum, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Signature Event Task Force, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Transportation Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Zoning Board of Adjustments. There were no meeting reports. 10. Executive Session In accordance with the Texas Government Code §551.071-Consultation with Attorney, §551.072-Deliberation Regarding Real Property, and §551.074-Personnel, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to: 11 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 6 A. Consultation with Attorney to seek advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation; to wit: · City of Bryan’s application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in Westside/Highway 60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and certify City of Bryan · City of Bryan suit filed against College Station, Legal issues and advise on Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency contract, on proposed methane gas contract · Water CCN / 2002 Annexation / Wellborn Water Supply Corporation · Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn McIlhaney, and Ben White · Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et al · Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Merrill B. Consultation with Attorney to seek legal advice; to wit: · Discussion of Legal Issues Regarding: Wellborn Incorporation Request · Contemplated Litigation, Legal remedies available to abate weeds, rubbish, brush and other unsanitary matter from a lot in the College Hills residential area. · Legal issues of purchase and lease back to Arts Council C. Deliberation Regarding Real Property: to wit: · Shake's lease at Chimney Hill property D. Deliberation on the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer; to wit: · City Manager The Executive Session adjourned at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010. No action was required from Executive Session. 11. Adjournment MOTION: There being no objection, Mayor Berry adjourned the workshop of the College Station City Council at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010. ________________________ Nancy Berry, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary 12 WKSHP111010 Minutes Page 7 13 RM111010 Minutes Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § Present: Nancy Berry Council: John Crompton Jess Fields Dennis Maloney Katy-Marie Lyles Jana McMillan Dave Ruesink City Staff: Glenn Brown, City Manager David Neeley, Assistant City Manager Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager Carla Robinson, Interim City Attorney Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum present, the Regular Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to order by Mayor Nancy Berry at 7:09 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77842. 1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, consider absence request. · Citizen Comments Micah Flippen, 1003 Hemingway, reported that he owns a stone quarry. If someone were hit in the head by one of his stones and was offered Advil, that person would take it. But would we want it already in our water? There is a drug already in the tap water; it is a drug called fluoride. Recent research says that fluoride is not good, and there is a connection between fluoride and bone cancer. There is a serious risk in causing cancer in people. In 2006 the American Dental 14 RM111010 Minutes Page 2 Association advised parents that the fluoride levels were not safe for infants. If we simply stop fluoridation nationwide, we can prevent cancer for 250,000. Neither Bryan, Wellborn, Austin, and other cities, put fluoride in their water. 80% of Europe is not fluoridated. Michael Giyanani, 912 Crystal Dove, spoke regarding neighborhood streets. They are only allowed to park on one side of the street; this is unjust to homeowners who cannot park in front of their homes. The roads are built too narrowly, and wider streets will increase property value. Dr. Leigh Turner, 3301 Triple Bed, spoke against the Wellborn annexation. She disagrees this is necessary for College Station’s growth. 39% of the land in College Station is not developed and not fulfilling its tax potential. The projection is that it will take 30-40 years to build out. If Wellborn incorporates, then it will not affect College Station’s growth. They want to vote. Decisions are being made by people that do not represent Wellborn or understand Wellborn. Bonita Simpson, 15097 Royder, recited Psalms, “God hates all workers of iniquity”. What the City is doing is pure evil and morally wrong. She asked to be allowed to vote on the incorporation of Wellborn, Texas. Her grandparents are buried in the historical cemetery. She finished with a quote, “The wicked will not go unpunished”. Elizabeth Terry, 5344 Stousland, stated that she understood from the Mayor that Wellborn had the right to self-determination and even signed the petition. She asked what happened to change her mind. The Council said they had a problem with the map. She is not married to the map; the map is negotiable. If the Council is concerned with Wellborn, then how can they consider annexation of the very heart and soul of Wellborn? The Post Office cannot remain if they are annexed. She asked the Council to not absorb Wellborn into College Station like the Shilo community. She noted that overlays don’t protect people’s rights; they control what people can do on their own property. She stated that a dictatorship refers to autocratic, absolute rule. She asked the Council to veto annexation and give the Wellborn citizens the constitutional right to decide what is best for their community. Charles Terry, 5344 Stousland, reported that he homeschooled his children with conservative principles. If Wellborn is annexed, his children will not be able to ride on the rural streets, and their way of life will not be there anymore. A petition signed by 1,500 constituents was lawful and viable. That is why Harvey Cargill left so abruptly. He stated that the Council is thumbing its nose at its constituents, and the electorate will return the government to government by the people and for the people. Margie Boyd, 5245 Straub, noted that the Council says annexing Wellborn is for the good of College Station. She asked how does the Council know that? How does the Council know the wishes of the people without their vote? She asked the Council to make sure it is representing all of the citizens of College Station. Jane Cohen, 3655 McCullough, stated that Wellborn is asking for the right to vote on their own future. Citizen for Wellborn followed the Local Government Code requirements by presenting a petition. They had no response to that petition. She is still awaiting results of an open records request. There was also an initiative petition signed by College Station residents. A suit was 15 RM111010 Minutes Page 3 filed in an attempt to have this issue decided, and they hoped it would be on the November 2 ballot. She asked the Council to not penalize Wellborn for following the law. The Mayor met with a Wellborn individual and drew lines for a map. She met with the Mayor on Sunday, and now this is on the agenda. She reported that Mayor White had said that Wellborn would not be annexed for another twenty years. It is not even in the annexation plan until later. She understood Wellborn might have to compromise on the map to vote on incorporation. She requested the Council to either vote against annexation or table the item to allow time for more negotiation. Wellborn wants to be good neighbors. Carol Fountain, 14380 Cheyenne, said all she is asking for is the right to vote. Being in ETJ, her constitutional right to vote has been taken away. She has been disenfranchised because of where she lives. She asked the Council to let her decide her own fate. Fred Bouse, 811 Plum Hollow, reported he purchased land in Wellborn many years ago and lived there 25 years in his own private park. Those were the best years of their lives. He sold part of the land to his son so the family could enjoy that same lifestyle. If annexation is carried out, then College Station regulations like 150’ lots with 30’rooftops will apply in Wellborn. They will have to satisfy College Station restrictions if they want to build. These regulations are not appropriate for a rural area. It is inconceivable that the City wants to ruin the lifestyle of a 150-year old community. Annexation is being forced on residents without a vote. 1,500 College Station residents also wanted Wellborn to vote. As a College Station citizen, he finds it appalling that the City won’t allow its own citizens to vote. Lynn Ruoff, 3733 McCullough, reported she moved from College Station to Wellborn for a rural lifestyle. Some made a conscious decision to live in College Station. She asked how would we react if Bryan wanted to annex us? The difference is that Bryan does not have the right to annex College Station like College Station does for Wellborn. A legal right does not make it moral. Dale Holecek, 13922 IGN Road, said he doesn’t want annexation for two reasons. He referenced Aspen Heights and stated that he was told the City had no control over it after it was mapped. College Station is pursuing unbridled growth doesn’t have the tools to control it which further decreases property values. He asked the Council to consider that unbridled growth and the lack of tools to control growth, as evidenced, by Aspen Heights, affect the property devaluation of area residents. Linda Hale, 4042 Cody, reported that 72 years ago a new town was incorporated at College Station. During those years, there may have been disputes, but they have to be worked through. During this time, the Wellborn community has experienced renewal and growth. If it right for College Station to incorporate 72 years ago, then why can’t Wellborn incorporate today. Why can’t we share a border with one another. The Council sees this as an easy and expedient course, but it is not morally right. Wellborn is a community, and descendants of the original citizens live there today. She asked the Council to allow residents a say to remain rural or be annexed and to have a voice. Rick Young, 5250 Hidden Acres, presented the proposed map and stated the idea was College Station was trying to expand too fast. He reported he has been in a lawsuit the past three - five 16 RM111010 Minutes Page 4 years because of flooding from the development that has been allowed to proceed. The new administration doesn’t deal with the issues; they just grab more land. There is sewage across the property and TCEQ violations. When TCEQ investigated, they discovered sewage in the creek. He asked the Council to close that plant down, and give his property back. He asked the Council to not try to steal more from Wellborn residents. Greg Taylor, 15796 IGN Road, asked the Council, as they consider the Wellborn issue, to remember the veterans from Wellborn that have given much to protect our rights such as freedom, democracy and the right to vote. How can the City consider not allowing Wellborn to vote on incorporation or unilaterally annex the area? This action was not trumpeted from the rooftops, and the article was buried on page five. When d zoning changes are proposed, notices are prominently posted for anyone to see, but not in the ETJ when appropriating property. No notice has been posted in the area of this action tonight. What is so important for College Station that the basic right to vote is disregarded? Karen Hall, 5918 Hwy 21 East, noted that moral issues have been raised regarding the Wellborn annexation. The City has a legal responsibility for services if it annexes the area. If annexed, full municipal services, including sewer, must be in place within two-and-a-half years of annexation. There must be a service plan. She plans to submit an open records request to see how much these services will cost College Station citizens to service the area. She warned against becoming the Leona Helmsley of local law. If the City decides to annex, she asked hat we please honor the oath to follow the state laws regarding services. Becky Pruitt, 501 Hereford, remarked there is a different aspect of the community that benefits from federal funds and referenced the George Bush Library. She noted there was an election for him. CONSENT AGENDA 2a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for August 17 & 18, 2010 Special Budget Workshop Meetings and October 25, 2010 Workshop and Regular Council Meeting. 2b. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a resolution authorizing staff to award professional services contract #11-044 with Prime Controls in the amount of $72,430.00 for Professional Services Rehabilitating Water Wells 1, 2, 3, & 5 Motor Control Centers. 2c. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the renewal agreement for outsourcing the printing and mailing of Utility bills, late notices and inserts for an estimated annual expenditure of $230,000 to Xpedient Mail. 2d. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a bid award for the annual agreement for various electrical items and electric meters to be stored in inventory as follows: Techline $567,959.50; TEC $101,774.50; TransAmerican Power Products, Inc. $85,550.00; 17 RM111010 Minutes Page 5 KBS $51,880.50; Stuart C. Irby $23,735.60 and HD Supply $3,425.00. Total estimated annual expenditure is $834,334.10. 2e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution awarding the bid and approval of a construction contract (Contract Number #11-035) with Orion Construction in the amount of $51,690.00 for a new Playground at John Crompton Park. 2f. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the third and final reading of a franchise agreement amendment with Texas Commercial Waste to add the collection of food waste for the purpose of recycling to its agreement. 2g. Presentation, possible action and discussion on the third and final reading of a franchise agreement with Liquid Environmental Solutions for the collection of food waste for the purpose of recycling. 2h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a deductive change order to the Construction Contract 09-307 with Doughtie Construction Company, Inc. for a credit in the amount of $38,592.00, for the construction services of Areas 5 & 6 Utilities & Lift Station. 2i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion renewing the Annual Contract for Janitorial services for all City offices for an annual expenditure of $198,343.44. 2j. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to the design contract (Contract No.07-263) with Mitchell and Morgan in the amount of $4,240.00 for the Nantucket Gravity Sewer Line project. 2k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a participation agreement between the City of College Station and the Estate of Gary Seaback for the extension of Victoria Avenue to William D. Fitch Parkway. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried unanimously. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, specifically rezoning 3.957 acres from A-O Agricultural Open and P-MUD Planning Mixed Use District to PDD Planned Development District for hotel, multi-family, office, and general commercial uses, for 1502 Texas Avenue South, generally located on the west side of Texas Avenue South, south of Milliff Road. At approximately 8:55 p.m. Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. 18 RM111010 Minutes Page 6 Lloyd Smith, 1609 Armisted, reported that Redmond Terrace Acres is a historical part of College Station. However, it has narrow streets with parking on both sides and becomes one-way traffic. His research says streets need to be 31’ to get a fire truck through. Several years ago, the residents signed a petition and went through negotiations. They agreed they have no problem with the development if there are concessions for traffic, such as making Milliff one way. The redevelopment of Redmond redirected a huge amount of traffic back through the neighborhood. They want to preserve the neighborhood and want to make it safe; currently there are no sidewalks, and it has narrow streets. He reiterated they want to see Milliff changed to a one-way street. He noted the Comprehensive Plan says the City will protect the neighborhoods. Jason McAllister, 636 San Mario Court, spoke on the viability and long term success of the development. The retail space as shown is a very viable project. This location is in center of a defined retail corridor. However, the setback requirement and relocating parking to the rear takes that viability away. Customers are about convenience, and the tenants are about location. He opined that the owner could rent in the $19-$22 range with parking requested. The stabilization period is projected at 18 months, given the location. Bob Sanders, 214 Redmond, believes the neighborhood supports this project. The developer needs to decide on the parking location, not the City. Vernie Bodden, 4402 Edinburgh Place, stated that a tremendous amount of money has been invested in this tract. If they lose the access point, it will affect their ability to acquire respectable tenants. Texas Avenue frontage has marketability. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Lyles and a second by Councilmember Fields, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve the PDD, including a four-foot buffer for parking and two access points on Texas Avenue. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Crompton and a second by Councilmember Maloney, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to make Milliff one-way from Redmond to the bridge. The motion carried unanimously. 2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding selection of applicants to various Citizen Boards and Committees. The following appointments were made: Cemetery Committee: Dick Birdwell, Weldon Kruger (Chair), Shaundell Feast, Sara Mirza, Randy Matson, Bahman Yazdani Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Frank Cox, Richard Dabney (Chair), Oran Mikeal, Arthur Pinto 19 RM111010 Minutes Page 7 Design Review Board: Katy Jackson, Jason Kinard, Alan King, Bill Mather, Steven Schloss, Scott Shafer (Chair) Historic Preservation Committee: Patricia Cleere, Linda Harvell, Susan Irza (Chair), Elizabeth Vastano Medical Corridor Advisory Committee: John Anderson, Rodney Bailey, Bobby Bains, James Battenhorst, Carol Bode, Sharon Bond, Patricia Cleere, Ruth Cohen, Angela Clendenin, Alcia Dorsey, Eleanor Ebanks, Chuck Ellison, Ed Hard, Anne Hazen, Rajesh Harry Kissoon, Shane Lechler, James Mason, Nick McGuire, Jim Morgan, Timothy Ottinger, Doug Phillips, Sheila Rinard, Marsha Sanford, Juli Schulz, Jon Turton, Kirsten Walker, Ben White, Don Young. The committee will elect the chair. BVSWMA, Inc. Board of Directors: Mayor Nancy Berry Zoning Board of Adjustment: move Jim Davis up to committee, Paul Marvin as alternate 3. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, specifically rezoning 1.04 acres from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial generally located at 2270 Greens Prairie Road West. At approximately 9:35 p.m. Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:38 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Fields and a second by Councilmember Lyles, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, specifically rezoning 1.04 acres from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial generally located at 2270 Greens Prairie Road West. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion approving an ordinance vacating and abandoning a 5,666 square foot, 20-foot wide public utility easement, which is located on Lots 3 & 4 of the Valley Park Center Subdivision according to the plat recorded in Volume 7675, Page 282 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. At approximately 9:40 p.m. Mayor Berry opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:41 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Maloney and a second by Councilmember Fields, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to adopt the ordinance vacating and abandoning a 5,666 square foot, 20-foot wide public utility easement, which is located on Lots 3 & 4 of the Valley Park Center Subdivision according to the plat recorded in Volume 7675, Page 282 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. The motion carried unanimously. 20 RM111010 Minutes Page 8 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding annexation of portions of the College Station ETJ, southwest of the City limits including properties located on the west and east sides of FM2154, generally referred to as the Wellborn area. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Crompton and a second by Councilmember Maloney, the City Council voted five (5) for and two (2) opposed, with Councilmembers Fields and McMillan voting against, to initiate annexation proceedings for the Wellborn area as defined by the map provided by the City Manager. The motion carried. Executive Session In accordance with the Texas Government §551.074-Personnel, the College Station City Council convened into Executive Session at 10:35 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 in order to continue discussing matters pertaining to: · Deliberation on the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer; to wit: Council self-evaluation · The Executive Session adjourned at 10:54 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010. No action was required from Executive Session. 6. Adjournment. MOTION: There being no further business, Mayor Berry adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 10:56 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2010. ________________________ Nancy Berry, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary 21 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2b Emerald Ridge Estates Subdivision – Sanitary Sewer City Participation Request To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion for City participation providing sanitary sewer improvements in the Emerald Ridge Estates Subdivision being made per City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements, Section 8.5, Responsibility for Payment for Installation Costs, Oversized Participation for a total requested City participation of $39,489.00. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval. Summary: Improvements to the wastewater collection system in the vicinity of Emerald Parkway and Bent Oak Drive are required to satisfy a TCEQ directive. Several years ago, a sewer manhole at this intersection experienced chronic overflows during heavy rain, and this was resolved by operational changes at the treatment plant that reduced the back pressure in this line. However, the sewer lines in this area must be relocated to completely resolve the problem, and a Capital Improvement Project was initiated to address those requirements. Subsequently, the proposed development of Emerald Ridge Estates Subdivision provided the opportunity to participate with the developer in replacing and rerouting the existing 21 & 24 inch sanitary sewer mains. On August 24, 2010, the City entered into a participation agreement with Emerald Ridge Estates to participate in the installation of a 24 inch sanitary sewer line to replace an existing 21 inch sanitary sewer line through Phase I of Emerald Ridge Estates in an amount not to exceed $284,482.86. The City’s portion of the participation was less than this not to exceed amount and therefore the City desires to enter into an additional participation agreement in an amount not to exceed $39,489.00 to replace an additional 277 feet of 24 inch sanitary sewer line. This City Participation Agreement is mutually beneficial, and will resolve a TCEQ directive, so staff recommends approval. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $39,489.00 are budgeted for this project in the Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Ordinance approving City Participation Agreement 3. Request Letter 4. Participation Agreement on file in the City Secretary’s Office 22 23 24 2 5 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2c Asset Forfeiture Audit Reporting Form To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the approval of the FY 2010 Chapter 59 Asset Forfeiture Audit reporting form for the College Station Police Department. Relationship to Strategic Goals: I. Financially Sustainable City providing response to Core Services and Infrastructure. Recommendation(s): Acceptance of report Summary: All law enforcement agencies who receive proceeds or property under Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedures- Forfeiture of Contraband, shall account for the seizure, forfeiture, receipt, and specific expenditure of all such proceeds and property in an audit, which is to be performed annually by the commissioners court or governing body of a municipality, as appropriate. The annual period of the audit for a law enforcement agency is the fiscal year of the municipality. The audit shall be completed on a form provided by the attorney general. Certified copies of the audit shall be delivered by the law enforcement agency to the comptroller's office and the attorney general not later than the 60th day after the date on which the annual period that is the subject of the audit ends. This audit and subsequent report did not reveal any areas of concern and is submitted as an administrative requirement by the State. Budget & Financial Summary: Separate Seizure Fund. No impact upon General Fund. Attachments: 1. FY 2010 Chapter 59 Asset Forfeiture Report by Law Enforcement Agency 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2d Law Enforcement Handbill Exemption To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding amending Chapter 4, section F (1), “Business Regulations”, of the code of ordinances of the City of College Station, which would exempt the City of College Station for the purpose of distributing public safety handbills. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core Services and Infrastructure. Recommendation(s): Passage of the ordinance modification. Summary: The College Station Police Department is continually searching for innovative ways to educate citizens about burglary prevention. The department has created a “Burglary of Vehicle Report Card” as a tool to assist in this education process. Officers plan to patrol highly populated parking lots and neighborhoods within the city, especially those known to have higher vehicle burglary rates and identify “at risk” vehicles. The Burglary of Vehicle Report Card will be completed by officers for each car observed and marked as “Pass” or “Fail”. Every card contains burglary prevention tips that will help citizens protect their personal property, as well as contact information for the College Station Police Department’s Crime Prevention Division. This program will increase police presence in target rich environments and give citizens appropriate feedback in regards to protecting their belongings. Those citizens that have “passed” will know that they are applying best practices, and those who have “failed” will be given instant educational tips to remedy the identified problem. In order for officers to disseminate handbills an exemption must be adopted to the current city ordinance, which currently prohibits this action. Budget & Financial Summary: None. We will use the department’s existing printing budget. Attachments: 1. Chapter 4 “Business Regulations”, Section 1(F) entitled “Exemptions”. 2. Proposed Burglary of Vehicle Report Card 34 35 36 LICENSE PLATE NUMBER: ____________________________ DATE/TIME: _______________________________________ LOCATION: ________________________________________ ATTENDING OFFICER:________________________________ PASS FAIL YOUR VEHICLE HAS FAILED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Want to keep thieves from stealing items from your car? If so, then leave it in the same condition as when it rolled off the factory floor. Leave nothing inside except the factory parts and this includes im- portant papers often left in glove boxes, like vehicle titles, registration receipts, and identifying docu- ments containing a social security number, driver license, or a credit card number. If you must leave belongings, hide them from sight, close the windows, lock the doors, and take the keys. Never park in unattended parking lots or poorly lit areas. When you return, note any changes in your car’s appearance that might signal it has been bro- ken into. Here are a few tips on how to avoid be- coming a victim of auto burglary: Hide your valuables - Items in view make your car a target. Lock your car - Many vehicles that are burglarized had the doors left unlocked. Take your keys - Do not let the crooks take your car and be- longings because your car is left unlocked. Park in well lit or heavily traveled areas - Burglars do not like witnesses. Do not make it easy for them to seal your prop- erty. Be aware of suspicious persons - If you see someone who appears nervous, is pulling vehicle door handles, looking in windows, or bumping into vehicles (checking for alarms), call CSPD immediately. 37 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2e Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Memorandum of Understanding To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding participation in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the College Station Police Department (CSPD) for the purpose of establishing a task force known as ATF TASK FORCE. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core Services and Infrastructure. Recommendation(s): Acceptance of the MOU. Summary: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has agreements with Bomb Units across the State of Texas in an effort to respond to incidents where bomb technicians are required. The ATF is searching for agencies within Texas to expand their coverage of the state. With this agreement the AFT will supply equipment, reimbursement for training and overtime to local agencies for their participation. Over half of these agencies have accredited bomb units. The College Station Police Department’s bomb unit has been accredited for ten years and has been in existence for fourteen years. The bomb unit currently responds to all explosive incidents within the Brazos Valley seven county areas. Potential benefits for the College Station Police Department: · Bomb Unit Equipment · Access to Federal resources · Reimbursement for specialized training · Reimbursement of overtime for Task Force call outs and assignments Benefits for the ATF: · Wider state coverage, north of the Houston area · Access to three more bomb technicians · Access to more equipment (robot etc.) If approved, two of our three bomb technicians would be sworn in as special Federal US Marshals to have federal jurisdiction when operating for the ATF. Our third bomb technician is currently assigned the JJTF and already has federal jurisdiction. If approved, the police department would agree to supply the ATF with bomb technicians when called upon. These bomb technicians would travel and operate under the ATF responding to emergency incidents, protection details, and explosive detection for large events. Typically, ATF teams-up with larger agencies such as the Houston, Amarillo, Austin Police Departments. These larger agencies usually respond to more incidents because their bomb units are much larger. In reality, the College Station Police Department’s bomb unit may not be called into action as much because of its size and proximity to these larger agencies. Budget & Financial Summary: None 38 Attachments: 1. Memorandum of Understanding 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 November 22, 2009 Consent Agenda Item No. 2f Authorization to Disburse Incentive Funding for Texas Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS) To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion and possible action authorizing the payment of an economic development incentive in the total amount of $250,000 to Texas A&M University’s Texas Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS). Recommendation(s): In fulfillment of the City’s contractual obligation, staff recommends approval of the second of five (5) annual payments of $250,000 to Texas A&M University for performance in 2009-2010. Summary: On, December 14, 2006 the City Council unanimously approved a resolution in support of a five (5) year, $1.25 million incentive for the development of TIPS by Texas A&M University. In return for the City’s investment, TIPS was to provide an investment of at least $40,000,000 in real and personal property and construct an 112,000 square foot facility and maintain 12,000 gross square feet of life science business accelerator offices. Additionally, TIPS committed to create new jobs within TIPS each year for the term of the agreement. TIPS hired 13 new employees in Fiscal Year 2010 and maintained 26 total employees, not including student workers. Other details regarding TIPS’ performance in Fiscal Year 2010 are included in the Annual Certification – Supporting Documentation form, which is attached. Budget & Financial Summary: The cost of the City’s portion of the total incentive package provided to TIPS is $1.25 million over the life (five (5) years) of the agreement. The incentive offering also includes payments from the City of Bryan, $84,000 annually, and Brazos County, $166,000 annually. Both are also for a five (5) year period. The City’s 2010 payment of $250,000 is budgeted and will be expended from the City’s Economic Development Fund. Attachments: TAMU Statement of Compliance Annual Certification – Supporting Documentation Form 47 S T A T E M E N T O F C O M P L I A N C E W I T H E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T A G R E E M E N T B E T W E E N T E X A S A & M U N I V E R S I T Y A N D T H E R E S E A R C H V A L L E Y P A R T N E R S H I P C o m p a n y N a m e : T e x a s A & M U n i v e r s i t y D a t e o f A g r e e m e n t : O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 E x p e n d i t u r e R e p o r t : P r o v i d e a t ” . n a n c i a l r e p o r t d e t a i l i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n . P r o j e c t B u i l d i n g : P r o v i d e t h e a m o u n t o f i n c u b a t o r o f f i c e s p a c e a n d w e t l a b s s p a c e f o r t e n a n t s i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h R V P . J o b s : P r o v i d e t h e n u m b e r o f n e w j o b s c r e a t e d w i t h i n T I P S . A d v i s o r y B o a r d M e m b e r s h i p : P r o v i d e t h e R V P a p p o i n t m e n t o f a m e m b e r t o T A M U E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t A d v i s o r y B o a r d . C o o p e r a t i o n : P r o v i d e t h e s u m m a r y o f h o w T I P S a n d R V P a r e w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r t o a t t r a c t t e c h n o l o g y b a s e d c o m p a n i e s a s t e n a n t s i n t h e i n c u b a t o r s p a c e . C o n t r a c t s : P r o v i d e t h e n u m b e r o f n e w c o m p a n i e s c o n t r a c t e d t h a t w i l l b r i n g n e w m o n i e s t o C o l l e g e S t a t i o n . T e x a s A & M U n i v e r s i t y a c t i n g b y a n d t h r o u g h i t s d u l y a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ( t h e “ O w n e r ” ) , h e r e b y c e r t i f i e s a n y i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e P r o p e r t y , a s c a l l e d f o r i n t h e a b o v e r e f e r e n c e d A g r e e m e n t , h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d c o n s t r u c t e d p u r s u a n t t o s a i d a g r e e m e n t . O w n e r f u r t h e r c e r t i f i e s t h a t i t i s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h e v e r y o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e t e r m o f s a i d A g r e e m e n t . S i g n e d t h i s 2 9 t h d a y o f O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 X A & U . B Y : . . t ~ _ _ _ T i t l e : S e n i o r A s s o c i a t ~ ‘ i c e P r e s i d e n t f o r R e s e a r c h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 4 8 Economic Development Agr,ement between Texas A&M University and The Resea~ch Valley Partnership, Inc. I Annual Certificatio~ • Supporting Documentation I Sep~ember 10,2010 Expenditure Report The prior year contribution by RVP w4s utilized by the Texas A&M Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS) in support or TIPS operational personnel salaries (82%), TIPS equipment (13%), and TIPS operation~l and maintenance expenses (5%). For the prior eleven (11) month period, TIPS has ndt received funding in grants, gifts, appropriations or otherwise, in excess of $1O,OOO,OOOi for use in paying start-up expenses (excluding project specific equipment, imaging equipment, and equipment leases) for the operation of TIPS. Project Building The TIPS facility includes a large labJratOry hospital, vivarium, pasture and two barns for long-term holding of ruminant hoor stock, administrative space for TIPS and the Office of Technology Commercializat.on (OTC), incubator space and an in vivo research imaging core suitable for larger labora/tory animal species. The incubator space includes nine office spaces, eleven lab spaces, ~s well as shared spaces combining for over 12,000 square feet. In the past year, GCON ard Dr. Duncan Maitland's company DEP Shape Memory have been incubator space tenants. I During Fiscal Year 2010, TIPS had 2J employees (excluding student workers) of which half were new personnel within TIPS' I TAMU has complied with all federal and state laws, including but not limited to Section 503 and 504 of the rehabilitation Act Pf 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and will not discriminate on the basis ofrace, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or military serv~ce in its employment policies or other programs. Advisory Board Membership I The Institute for Innovative TherapeUjtics, the TAMUS-Ievel entity that encompasses TIPS, TIGM and NCTM, has been a~proached about establishing an advisory board that will include RVP representation to nqt only provide guidance to TIPS, but also the broader enterprises in the IIT. It is a~ticipated that this board will be an excellent I I Page I of3 49 interface for the basic and applied sCieJce programs as well as the commercial activities of the IIT components. Cooperation . TIPS and RVP are working together albng with the TAMUS Office of Te9hnology and Commercialization (OTC) and TAMU /Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR) to attract technology based companies ~s tenants in the incubator space. Seminars continue to promote the TIPS facility. fIPS senior personnel have been meeting with one to two companies per week on proposed sponsored research to be conducted at TAMU Not all of these industry initi1tives tum into TIPS research projects; some are directed to other University areas of sp~cialty. TIPS attended the BIO conference as a partner with RVP, and TIPS is also pat/! of the Bio-Corridor initiative with RVP. The RVP has provided assistance with direft action in the creation of the incubator application form, and also participates rs an incubator committee member. Contracts / TIPS conducted a variety of industry, academic and Department of Defense sponsored projects during the past year, the first tear of occupancy in the new TIPS facility. Work has been completed or is in pro~ress for the following: • Cyberonics ! • Department ofDefense (DArurA) -SBL DARPA -Fracture Putty i• • DARPA -Deep Vascular occlhsion Device (with Siemens) • HAART • Repair Technologies • On-Track Imaging (BTF) Nanomedical • • Texas Biochemicals i • Scott & White -Renal Stenosis • Scott & White -Carotid Aneniism • Salient Pharmaceuticals I I • Sironics • 4-Web Spine Proposals/protocols are in the develoJment stage for the following: • Therapheresis • ARA -Low Level Blast • Blanco Page 2 on 50 • UTHSCA • T AMHSC Temple • Radikal Therapeutics Ltd. I• Micromed CV, Inc. • Micrus Endovascular Corp. I • Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Insti:tute • VetRx I • Swansea The GLP research and imaging capabiLies of TIPS continue to draw inquiries and create opportunities for research collaborati04s and industry partnerships. Collaborations are being formed in the following initiatives: cancer, imaging device/methodology, nanomedicine, pediatric devices, devic~ development and emergency medicine. Page 3 of3 51 TEXAS A&M INSTITUTE FOR PRECLINICAL STUDIES Theresa Fossum, DVM, MS, PhD, . Director, Texas A&M Institute for i,..,n_'rll'Jlr-. Studies i Director, Michael E. DeBakey Institute I Tom and Joan Read Chair in Veterinary Srgery Four Facts on TIPS i • TIPS (Texas A&M Institute for Preclinic~ Studies) provides the opportunity for large aral GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) and tr slational research studies with unique access to e . pertise in all major medical and scientific ~isciplines including surgery, biomedical eqgineering, advanced imaging, pathology, radiOlOgy, interventional cardiology, neurology animal behavior, chemistry, and electrical engine ring . • The TIPS state-of-the-art 112,000 sq. ift. facility includes a 3T MRI with interventional ~pabilities, a 128 slice PETjCf (second placed in th world), a fixed cardiac catheterization lab. digital radiography, 3D echocardiography, an~ vascular ultrasound capabilities. TIPS' large animfll hospital includes a GLP compliant clinical ~patholOgy laboratory, four surgical laboratorie, pre-op, recovery and intensive care suites de. igned for large animals. Animal housing is availaqle for 240 large animals and additional long ter:k holding space is available with barn and pasture jIPPOrt. TIPS houses the Office of ..echnology Commercialization which promotes ani industry friendly environment to facilitate c~mercial ization and industry partnerships. Incub~tor space with wet and dry lab support facilities is 3jVailable. A 140 seat auditorium with full AV surgical suite connection is available for training and industry support. • TIPS' unique resources and collaboration with the TAMU College of Veterinary Medicine facilitates the inclusion of animals with naturally occurring disease as viable research models. This vast, largely untapped research resource provides unique opportunities to develop new therapeutics in the fields of oncology, cardiology, immunology, endocrinology and array of genetic disorders common to humans and companion animals. • TIPS will provide a unique ability to translate promising discoveries into products by shortening the pathway to FDA approval and making the translational process m01"e cost effective. 52 About TIPS and Its Vision • TIPS is an outgrowth of the succelfS of the Michael E. DeBakey Institute (If(lDI) at Texas A&M University which wasl initially funded by a federal initiative. The first project completed under the MDI was the I DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device (VAD). While the DeBakey group originators had the engineering expertise to develop the V AD, they did nOl have the expertise to design the animal studies or dtrry them out. After intensive efforts and a steep learning curve, the A&M group was able to implant the device and maintain the test animals fo~ 90 days. The device is now in clinical trails in the U1S. Other business groups began to requJ help in design and executing of their anim~ studies because of the broad wealth of expertise in all aspects of animal surgery, medicine, ~athology, behavior and husbandry available at Texas A&M. These companies wanted not only ~reclinical animal work performed here at A&M, lthey also wanted GLP studies required for FDA a~proval to be performed within the Texas A&M/MDi network. With support from Dr. DeBakey and tlhe federal initiative, an external consultant was: hired to evaluate the GLP potential and A&rj1 system support that would be needed to acco~lish that goal. Through University commitment of 47.1 M, 6 M commitment from the state Emerging Technology Funds, 1.5 M from TXDOT for road construction, 4 M Governor's loan and a 2.5 M contribJtion from the local community for support of incubator space in the TIPS building, TIPS became a r ality. To assure successful GLP /FDA (21 CFR, Part 58) compliance, the external consultant ecame a permanent hire, and a GLP support syste was put in place that incorporates Independe t Quality Assurance within the Office of the Vice i President for Research and reports up to I Research Compliance. I • The institute is uniquely posit~oned to perform preclinical developmJnt and testing of d}'ugs and devices le~ding to human clinical trails. Faculty and situdents in the Texas A&M Health Science Center ~nd Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medirne and Biomedical Sciences, Dwight Look College of Engineering and Mays Business School are developing partnerships with major medical centers throughout the world to provide research and support services complementing institute activity. • The TIPS mission: To expedite the process and increase the success of development of new therapies to treat and prevent human and animal disease through seamless integration of all aspects of product development and to prepare students to become scientific leaders through active participation in the product development life cycle. • The TIPS vision: To be a leader in translational research providing comprehensive preclinical research services through an interdisciplinary approach resulting in improved effectiveness and efficiency in drug and device development from bench top to bedside. • A variety of research endeavors and support mechanisms are available at TAMU. These include, cardiovascular sciences/Michael E. DeBakey Institute, Texas A&M Institute for Genomic Medicine, reproductive biology, neuroscience research, bio-defense and emerging infectious disease studies, environmental medicine/ toxicology, Mays School of Business, the Integrative Center for Homeland Security and the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease. 53 • • Recent and ongoing projects includk DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project rAgency) sponsored research into hemorrhagi~ shock, fracture repair and deep vascular occlusion; ventricular assist devices, aneurysm rePtir, drug eluting and bioresorbable stents, bone reg neration therapies, anti-obesity therapies, stem cel, therapy, and endosurgica1 device development and testing. • Through TIPS, the opportuAity to incorporate companion anima*" into clinical trials ofnew drugs and devices that may improve and save lives ofboth humans and animals is a reality. This is Pt'icularly significant post the sequencing of c mpanion animal and human genomes and identi cation of genes common to both. For example, spqntaneous tumors in companion animals are suitab1e models of human cancer. The relatively high in~dence of some cancers, large body size, shorter. Ffe span, availability of pedigree informati0n and commonality of life style and environmen~al factors between companion animals and human~'provides a population which is more analogous t the real life situation. A recent Department 0 Defense funded study at a leading veterinary school, has found that the pre-neoplasia mammary IJsions are virtually identical, microscopically, in i'ogs and women. Feline mammary carcinoma sows age incidence, histopathology and pattern of . etastasis similar to human breast cancer. Oste~sarcoma, melanoma, leukemia/lymphoma, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autoimmune and ~ndOCrine disorders to name a few, are maladies hared by humans and their animal companions. P t owners are extremely receptive to implementing new therapies in an attempt to improve the qC'aHty and longevity of their pets' lives. Amazingly to some, these owners' compliance rate for medic follow ups and medication administration exceeds human I patient clinical trial expectations. . • TIPS partnership in Molecular Oncology and Imaging. TIPS is developing unique partnerships with industry to allow rapid identification of molecular targets in animals that will translate to improved human therapy. Molecular imaging techniques developed at TIPS will accelerate the determination of candidate drugs and the migration to human models. It will also broaden the diagnostic and therapeutic indications for companies with new therapeutics or biologics and improve the efficient management of animal resources. • The unique location of a GLP based institute at a mqjor university with both veterinary and medical schools, business and engineering colleges and an upcoming GMP laboratory, offers industry based research unparalleled opportunities. Contact Information Texas A&M Institute for Preclinical Studies 800 Raymond Stotzer Parkway. Suite 2060 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4478 P. 979.847.TIPS or 979.845.3374 F.979.845.6522 http://tips.tamu.edu tfossum@tamu,edu 54 .. . Bob Malaise From: Charlene Miller [Cmiller@ta~u.edU] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 5:07 PM To: Bob Malaise , Cc: Lee Schultz Subject: Research Valley Partnership -Annual Report Bob, As requested, the payroll information Total payroll amount for TIPS employees in the past year is $605,785. hired in the past year is $134,260.04Total fringe benefit amount for These totals account for 13 new Please let me know if additional required. Thank you, Charlene Charlene Miller Assistant Vice President Texas A&M Research Services cmiller@tamu.edu 2701 General Services Complex 750 Agronomy Road 1260 TAMU College Station, TX 77843 Tel. 979.862.6450 Fax. 979.862.4593 1 55 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2g Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP) To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Robert Alley, Fire Chief Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution accepting from the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program Sub-recipient of $55,880.53, naming a City staff member as manager of those grant funds, and approving the 2010 City of College Station Equipment List for purchase. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends acceptance of the grant from Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), and recommends the emergency management coordinator be designated as the "Grant Manager" for administration of this grant. It is also recommended that the attached 2010 City of College Station Equipment List be approved for purchase. Summary: The City of College Station has been awarded the Homeland Security program grant of $55,880.53 through TDEM. The funding will be used by city departments to purchase equipment that will enhance our response capabilities to terrorist threats or catastrophic events. $45,990.00 will be used to purchase Personal Protective equipment and $9,890.53 will be used to purchase communication software and equipment for the hazardous materials detection system. Attached is the equipment list for the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program which funds are to be expended. The period of performance of this agreement shall end on July 31, 2012. Budget & Financial Summary: This is an equipment grant and the City of College Station has no matching funds committed. Dependent upon equipment requested future budgets might include requests for O&M for equipment obtained. Attachments: These items are on file in the City Secretary’s office for review. 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program Notice of Sub-recipient Award – 10-SR 15976-01 2010 SHSP Grant Equipment List (SHSP).xlsx Resolution Number:___________ 56 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2h Construction Contract #11-021 for New Playground in Wolf Pen Creek Park To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: David Schmitz, Interim Director, Parks and Recreation Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution awarding the bid and approval of a construction contract (Contract Number #11-021) with Marek Brothers Construction, Inc., for installation of a new Playground and rubberized surfacing in Wolf Pen Creek Park. The installation amount is $38,079 and the total project amount is $57,689.91. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution and award of the construction contract with Marek Brothers Construction Inc., for installation of a new Playground and rubberized surfacing in Wolf Pen Creek Park, in the amount of $38,079.00 and forty-five (45) construction days. The total project amount of $57,689.91 consists of $19,610.45 for City-furnished materials, previously purchased through a Buyboard purchasing cooperative contract, plus the contract amount payable to Marek Brothers Construction, Inc. Summary: This project will replace the existing playground unit in Wolf Pen Creek Park. The current unit is in need of repairs and replacement parts are no longer available. The current rubber surfacing is failing and needs to be replaced. These are both safety issues that will addressed by this replacement. Budget & Financial Summary: Eight (8) sealed, competitive bids were received and opened on November 4, 2010. The bid summary is attached. Funds are available and budgeted from Zone 3 Parkland Dedication. Attachments: 1) Resolution 2) Bid Number 11-11 Tabulation 3) Playground Plan 4) Construction Contract 11-021 (This contract will be available in the City Secretary’s Office.) 57 58 Ci t y o f C o l l e g e S t a t i o n - P u r c h a s i n g D i v i s i o n Bi d T a b u l a t i o n f o r # 1 1 - 1 1 "W o l f P e n C r e e k P a r k P l a y g r o u n d R e p l a c e m e n t " Op e n D a t e : N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 1 0 @ 2 : 0 0 p . m . IT E M Q T Y U N I T D E S C R I P T I O N U N I T P R I C E TO T A L PR I C E U N I T P R I C E TO T A L PR I C E U N I T P R I C E TO T A L PR I C E U N I T P R I C E TO T A L PR I C E U N I T P R I C E TOTAL PRICE U N I T P R I C E TOTAL PRICE U N I T P R I C E TOTAL PRICE U N I T P R I C E TOTAL PRICE 1 1 8 5 0 S F C o n c r e t e B a s e , C u r b & F o o t i n g s $5 . 4 1 $ 1 0 , 0 0 8 . 5 0 $ 6 . 4 1 $ 1 1 , 85 8 . 5 0 $ 6 . 7 5 $ 1 2 , 4 8 7 . 5 0 $ 4 . 80 $ 8 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 $ 4 . 3 8 $ 8 , 1 0 3 . 00 $ 1 6 . 0 0 $ 2 9 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 . 0 0 $11,100.00 $ 9 . 0 0 $ 1 6 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 2 1 L S R e m o v a l o f E x i s t i n g C o n c r e t e C u r b a n d P l a y g r o u n d $3 , 1 0 6 . 8 8 $ 3 , 1 0 6 . 8 8 $ 1 , 4 8 0 . 00 $ 1 , 4 8 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 9 8 7 . 5 0 $ 5 , 9 8 7 . 50 $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 8 3 0 . 00 $ 1 , 8 3 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 8 0 0 . 00 $ 4 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3,000.00 $ 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 1 L S I n s t a l l a t i o n o f C i t y - p r o v i d e d P l a y g r o u n d E q u i p m e n t $5 , 5 2 2 . 0 0 $ 5 , 5 2 2 . 0 0 $ 4 , 50 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 50 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 300.00 $ 7 , 3 0 0 . 0 0 $ 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 8 , 000.00 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 4 1 L S C o s t o f C i t y - p r o v i d e d P l a y g r o u n d E q u i p m e n t $1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 45 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 61 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $19,610.45 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 610.45 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 .45 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 610.45 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 5 1 L S P r o v i d e & I n s t a l l R u b b e r S u r f a c e $1 9 , 4 4 2 . 0 8 $ 1 9 , 4 4 2 . 0 8 $ 2 5 , 5 0 4 . 89 $ 2 5 , 5 0 4 . 8 9 $ 2 2 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 2 , 80 0 . 0 0 $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $28,600.00 $ 2 8 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 1 0 0 . 00 $ 7 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 7 , 450.00 $ 3 7 , 4 5 0 . 0 0 9Dudley Construction, Ltd.(College Station, TX)$19,610.45 $71,100.00 $90,710.45 9 9 9Four Seasons Development Co, Inc.(Houston, TX)$19,610.45 $56,600.00 $76,210.45 9 9 9Follis-Cole Construction (Franklin, TX)$19,610.45 $49,500.00 $69,110.45 9 9 OC C C o n s t r u c t i o n C o r p . Wade Contractors, Inc.(Kingwood, TX)$19,610.45 $45,833.00 $65,443.45 9 9 9 Su b t o t a l C i t y F u r n i s h e d M a t e r i a l s Su b t o t a l C o n t r a c t o r F u r n i s h e d M a t e r i a l s & L a b o r Gr a n d T o t a l f o r W o l f P e n C r e e k P a r k P l a y g r o un d R e p l a c e m e n t $1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $3 8 , 0 7 9 . 4 6 $1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $4 3 , 3 4 3 . 3 9 9 9 Ez e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n L L C (B u f f a l o , T X ) $5 7 , 6 8 9 . 9 1 $ 6 2 , 9 5 3 . 8 4 $6 7 , 3 8 5 . 4 5 $ 6 4 , 4 9 0 . 4 5 9999 Ma r e k B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . »B i d d e r m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e t o t a l f o r B i d I t e m 1 a s $ 1 0 , 0 0 8 . 0 0 , t h e s u b t o t a l f o r C o n t r a c t o r F u r n i s h e d M a t e r i a l & L a b o r a s $ 3 8 , 0 7 8 .9 2 a n d t h e G r a n d T o t a l a s $ 5 7 , 6 8 9 . 4 1 . T h e h i g h l i g h t e d t o t a l s a b o v e a r e c o r r e c t . NO T E S : Ce r t i f i c a t i o n o f B i d Ma r e k B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n , In c . (C o l l e g e S t a t i o n , T X ) OC C C o n s t r u c t i o n C o r p . (C o l l e g e S t a t i o n , T X ) Bi d B o n d 9 Ac k n o w l e d g e d A d d e n d u m s 9 9 Ca s h i e r ' s C h e c k # 1 0 0 4 1 4 5 1 Or i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n (B r y a n , T X ) 9 9 $1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $ 1 9 , 6 1 0 . 4 5 $4 7 , 7 7 5 . 0 0 $ 4 4 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 Wa d e C o n t r a c t o r s »B i d d e r m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e G r a n d T o t a l a s $ 6 5 , 4 4 3 . 0 0 . T h e h i g h l i g h t e d t o t a l a b o v e i s c o r r e c t . Fo l l i s - C o l e C o n s t r u c t i o n , L L C »B i d d e r m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e t o t a l f o r B i d I t e m 1 a s $ 3 0 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 , t h e s u b t o t a l f o r C o n t r a c t o r F u r n i s h e d M a t e r i a l & L a b o r a s $ 1 5 , 4 2 2 .0 0 a n d t h e G r a n d T o t a l a s $ 8 5 , 5 3 2 . 4 5 . T h e h i g h l i g h t e d t o t a l s a b o v e a r e c o r r e c t . p »B i d d e r m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e t o t a l f o r B i d I t e m 1 a s $ 1 1 , 8 5 5 . 2 0 , t h e s u b t o t a l f o r C o n t r a c t o r F u r n i s h e d M a t e r i a l & L a b o r a s $ 4 3 , 3 4 0 .0 9 a n d t h e G r a n d T o t a l a s $ 6 2 , 9 5 0 . 5 4 . T h e h i g h l i g h t e d t o t a l s a b o v e a r e c o r r e c t . Pa g e 1 o f 1 59 6 0 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2i Municipal Irrigation Water Use Report To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Dave Coleman, Director of Water Services Department Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the monthly report on irrigation water use at City of College Station facilities and properties. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1 - Spending taxpayer money efficiently Recommendation: Receive the report and provide direction as appropriate. Summary: This report is presented to promote water conservation in City operations. The report contains water usage for irrigation of City facilities, neighborhood parks, athletic fields, and other irrigated areas such as street medians, including: · Total in FY 2009 vs. Actual for previous 12 months; · Budgeted for last month vs. Actual for last month The monthly water budgets (targets) were derived using the Texas Landscape Irrigation Auditing and Scheduling Software developed by the Irrigation Technology Center. The software uses the amount of irrigated acreage, historical weather data, as well as soil and vegetation characteristics to produce a site specific water budget. Water usage in the month of October 2010 was much higher than budgeted. The model predicts that we will get several inches of rain in October, and normally by now we would have turned off many of the irrigation systems for the season. However, we only got one quarter inch of rain the whole month, and we are over 8 inches of rain behind what’s normal for the year. For comparison, the prior August budgets are shown below, to indicate that given the dry weather, water usage was at a reasonable level. The monthly usage numbers for October, in thousand gallons, are: Category Used in Oct 2010 Oct Budget AUG Budget Parks & Fields 7,816 234 15,215 City Facilities 1,181 32 2,023 Other Areas 1,550 6 377 We did experience significant leaks at three locations (that have been repaired), and these leaks contributed to the high usage, but the vast majority of the high usage was caused directly by the warm and very dry weather. Details are in the attached report. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachment: Water Use Report – October 2010 61 62 63 64 65 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2j BVSWMA, Inc Landfill Disposal and Compost Expenditures To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion to authorize expenditure of funds to BVSWMA, Inc in FY'11 for landfill disposal and compost expenditures estimated to be $1,401,175. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1. Spending taxpayer money efficiently Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the BVSWMA, Inc landfill disposal and compost expenditures. Summary: Landfill disposal and compost services provided by Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. (BVSWMA) are available from one source and thereby exempt from competitive bidding in accordance with LGC 252.022 (a) (7) (c) gas, water, and other utility service. These expenditures are for the landfill disposal fees that are included primarily in the Sanitation Fund for the daily disposal of garbage at the landfill. Since BVSWMA, Inc is now a separate entity from the City of College Station, it is necessary to for the City Council to approve the expenditure of funds over $50,000 for landfill and compost services. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are either available and budgeted in the various funds of the City for fiscal year 2011, or if necessary, will be made available by proposing an appropriate budget amendment or contingency transfer. Most of the funds for this expenditure ($1,322,185) are budgeted in the Sanitation Fund. Attachments: None 66 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2k Contract Administration Procedures To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to change contract routing procedures and revise certain provisions of City standard contracts. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1. Spending taxpayer money efficiently Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution as presented. Summary: Pursuant to the direction from Council after the Basic Public Purchasing presentation on November 10, 2010, staff is proposing some changes to our contract routing procedures and to certain provisions in our standard contracts: 1) Staff is proposing to streamline the contract routing process for contracts greater than $50,000 that require Council approval. We are recommending that the contract resolution which is signed by Legal, the Mayor and the City Secretary, and approved by Council, would authorize the City Manager to execute the contract(s). 2) In 2003, City Council approved Standard Contract documents for Construction Services and Architectural & Engineering Professional Services. Current language in the City’s Standard Form of Professional Services Agreement requires change orders in excess of five percent (5%) to be approved by City Council regardless of the original amount of the contract. Staff is proposing that the Council authorize the City Manager to approve change orders for these contracts as long as the change does not cause the contract to exceed $50,000. Any change causing the contract to exceed $50,000 would require Council approval. 3) Additionally, legislation for the payment bond threshold changed in 2009. Payment Bonds are now required for public works contracts over $50,000 whereas prior to 2009 it was $25,000. Staff is recommending that we change our Standard Form of Construction Agreement to reflect the revised statutes found in the Texas Government Code 2253.021. 4) And finally, staff recommends the Council delegate to the City Manager the authority to determine the alternative procurement method that provides the best value for the City pursuant to Local Government Code 271.112. Budget & Financial Summary: None. Attachments: Resolution 67 68 NEW COVERSHEET FORMAT EXAMPLE 1 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2L Interlocal Agreement for On-Line Bidding To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Interlocal Agreement between the City of College Station and Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. (BVSWMA) for On-Line Bidding Services. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1. Spending taxpayer money efficiently Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement. Summary: In February, 2004, the City of College Station launched the on-line bidding system as part of the new website unveiling. This online bidding system was designed to allow other agencies in the area to use the system for centralized vendor maintenance and centralized e-procurement functions. It includes automatic notification to registered vendors for bid postings, addendums, bid tabulations and bid awards. Now that BVSWMA is a separate entity, they will need to enter into an interlocal agreement with City of College Station to be able to use the system. Budget & Financial Summary: The City of College Station has already paid for the system design and implementation. However, the Interlocal Agreement allows for the creation of a “Users Group” consisting of all participating agencies to share in the cost of mutually agreed upon enhancements to the system. There is no financial impact to allow BVSWMA to participate in our On Line Bidding System at this time. Attachments: Interlocal Agreement with BVSWMA for On Line Bidding 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2m Interlocal Agreement with Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Interlocal Agreement for cooperative purchasing activities between the City of College Station and Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc. (BVSWMA). Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.1. Spending taxpayer money efficiently Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement. Summary: This agreement would authorize the City of College Station and BVSWMA to jointly prepare bids and proposals for the purchase of goods and services. It would also allow us to piggyback on each others bids and contracts when in our best interest. Budget & Financial Summary: No expenses will be incurred to approve the Interlocal Agreement. Future savings may be realized through economies of scale in administrative, advertising and other purchasing costs. Attachments: Interlocal Agreement with BVSWMA 76 77 78 79 80 81 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2n Authorize Brazos County Appraisal District Expenditures To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion to authorize the FY 11 expenditures for the Brazos County Appraisal District in the amount of $240,671 pursuant to the Property Tax Code 6.06D Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the expenditures in the amount of $240,671 to the Brazos County Appraisal District. Summary: Chapter 6.01 of the Property Tax Code calls for an appraisal district to be established in each county. The district is responsible for appraising property in the district for ad valorem taxes purposes of each taxing unit that imposes ad valorem taxes in the district. Chapter 6.06 (d) stipulates how the funding is allocated: “each taxing unit participating in the district is allocated a portion of the amount of the budget equal to the proportion that the total dollar amount of property taxes imposed in the district by the unit for the tax year in which the budget proposals is prepared bears to the sum of the total amount of property taxes imposed in the district by each participating unit for that year.” Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are available and budgeted in the General Fund, Finance Administration Budget. Payments are made in four equal payments made at the end of each calendar quarter. Attachments: None 82 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2o Arts Council of Brazos Valley O&M Funding Agreements To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on two (2) operations and maintenance funding agreements between the City of College Station and the Arts Council of Brazos Valley for the 1st Quarter of FY11 (October 1 – December 31) totaling $41,000. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the funding agreements. Summary: As part of the 2010-2011 budget process the City Council approved operations and maintenance funding for the Arts Council of Brazos Valley in the amount of $164,000. These agreements are for the FY 11 1st Quarter of Operations and Maintenance funding for the Arts Council of Brazos Valley. These agreements are for operations and maintenance funding of $41,000 for the 1st Quarter of FY11, from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. Of this amount, $18,750 is from the General Fund for operations and maintenance of the Arts Council. $22,250 is from the Hotel Tax fund for operations and maintenance associated with the administration of Hotel Tax funds. This item is for the consideration of the 2 funding agreements. It is anticipated that the remainder of the funding for FY 11 will be brought back for approval in the near future once issues related to the Arts Council building are successfully resolved. Budget & Financial Summary: The funds for this agreement are budgeted and available in the 2010-2011 General Fund budget in the amount of $75,000 and the Hotel Tax Fund budget in the amount of $89,000. Attachments: 1. Arts Council of Brazos Valley 1st Quarter General Fund Funding Agreement (available in City Secretary’s Office) 2. Arts Council of Brazos Valley 1st Quarter Hotel Tax Fund O&M Funding Agreement (available in City Secretary’s Office) 83 November 22, 2010 Consent Agenda Item No. 2p Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP-LETPA) To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Robert Alley, Fire Chief Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the approval of a resolution accepting from the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program Sub-recipient of $59,318.92, naming a City staff member as manager of those grant funds, and approving the 2010 City of College Station Equipment List (SHSP-LETPA) for purchase. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends acceptance of the grant from Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), and recommends the emergency management coordinator be designated as the "Grant Manager" for administration of this grant. It is also recommended that the attached 2010 City of College Station Equipment List (SHSP-LETPA) be approved for purchase. Summary: The City of College Station has been awarded the Homeland Security program grant of $59,318.92 through TDEM. The funding will be used by city departments to purchase equipment that will enhance our response capabilities to terrorist threats or catastrophic events. $37,500 will be used to purchase a Bomb trailer, $7,660 to purchase Bomb Unit Equipment, and $14,168.92 to purchase Bomb Squad Equipment. Attached is the equipment list for the 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP-LETPA) which funds are to be expended. The period of performance of this agreement shall end on July 31, 2012. Budget & Financial Summary: This is an equipment grant and the City of College Station has no matching funds committed. Dependent upon equipment requested future budgets might include requests for O&M for equipment obtained. Attachments: These items are on file in the City Secretary’s Office for review. 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program Notice of Sub-recipient Award – 10-SR 15976-01 2010 State Homeland Security Grant Equipment List (SHSP-LETPA).xlsx Resolution Number:___________________ 84 November 22, 2010 Regular Agenda Item No. 1 Scott & White Rezoning To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, specifically rezoning 97.932 acres from A-O Agricultural Open, C-1 General Commercial, C-2 Commercial Industrial, and R-4 Multi-Family to PDD Planned Development District for 4005 State Highway 6, generally located southeast of the intersection of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, and Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their November 4, 2010 meeting and voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the rezoning request. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation included several conditions related to land use, transportation, and infrastructure that were agreed with by the applicant and are now included in the rezoning request. Staff also recommended approval of the rezoning request. Summary: The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for zoning map amendments: REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: · The majority of Tracts 2, 3, and portions of Tract 1 are designated as Suburban Commercial, which is generally for concentrations of commercial activities that cater primarily to nearby residents versus the larger community or region. According to the Comprehensive Plan, design of structures in these areas should be compatible in size, roof type and pitch, architecture, and lot coverage with single-family residential uses. The proposal in this area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · The frontage along Earl Rudder Freeway (including Tracts 6, 7, and portions of Tract 1) is designated as General Commercial. The General Commercial designation is for concentrations of commercial activities that cater to both nearby residents and to the larger community or region. It is preferred that development in these areas be concentrated in nodes instead of developed in strips. The proposal in this area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · The eastern portion of the property, including Tracts 4, 5, and portions of Tract 1, is designated as General Suburban. General Suburban is for areas that generally consist of high-density single-family, but may also be used for neighborhood commercial and office in growth areas. This portion of the property does fall into Growth Area III. Growth Area III states that neighborhood commercial and office activities are appropriate in this area as an element of a planned development and shall incorporate specific design criteria 85 including, but not limited to, minimum open spaces, floor-to-area ratios, and bufferyards. This area will be more restrictive than Suburban Commercial (described above), and so should also take into consideration the design of structures to ensure that they are compatible in size, roof type and pitch, architecture, and lot coverage with single-family residential uses. The proposal in this area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · The subject property is also located within the Spring Creek District (Medical Corridor) – a special planning area that at some point in the future will be studied in further detail. The focus of the Spring Creek District Plan should be linking current and future medical facilities into a cohesive district. 2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood: The proposed PDD includes a hospital campus at the heart of the property with periphery retail and office uses. As such, the proposed zoning is generally compatible with the commercially zoned property located to the west. The property to the north, across Rock Prairie Road, is largely zoned A-O Agricultural Open and is undeveloped. At the entrance to the Woodcreek Subdivision, the Riviera Day Spa is zoned and developed as light commercial. The northeast corner of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6 is developed as the Plazas at Rock Prairie shopping center. The proposed PDD designation is compatible with the commercial development in the area. If periphery tracts are developed with appropriate scale, architectural features, limited land uses, and appropriate traffic management, as proposed, the development may be compatible with the larger neighborhood to the north. Previously, representatives of nearby neighborhoods have voiced concerns about proposed commercial developments in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods. The primary concerns have focused on a potential lack of compatibility of the land uses and an increase in traffic congestion in the area. The proposal includes approximately 100 acres that is in the area of influence of a number of neighborhoods. 3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The subject property is approximately 100 acres and under common ownership. There are several land use and character designations on the property (as described above) that generally allow for general commercial and neighborhood commercial type zoning. The requested PDD includes uses that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates as being suitable for this area over the 20-year Plan horizon. This has been identified by the Fire Department as an area that is located within the 2.5 -mile ladder truck response area, and with the opening of the Barron Road overpass, is now located in an approximately 1.5 -mile engine response area (the ISO engine response recommendation). Utility and transportation infrastructure do not currently exist to serve the development of the entire property. The PDD zoning allows for the development of the property to be phased in such a way that it will not exceed the capacity of the utility or roadway infrastructure at any given time. The general suitability of the land for development, including a discussion of the availability of water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure is included in Review Criteria #6. No FEMA floodplain exists on the property. 4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: A portion of the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. In this area, the A-O 86 district is used as a holding zone for property that is projected in the Comprehensive Plan for conversion to more intensive urban use at such time as the need for the uses is present and when it is possible to adequately serve development with necessary infrastructure and public services. While the permitted uses in A-O, including low density residential, agricultural or open space uses, are generally compatible with residential development, not all agricultural uses may be appropriate on the property due to its location and the level of development that has occurred in the area. Generally, the uses permitted in the A-O district are less intense, generate less traffic, and have lower utility demands than the proposed PDD uses. A-O uses generally have fewer service, infrastructure and facility needs. The property is generally suitable for A-O uses. A portion of the property is zoned C-2 Commercial Industrial. Commercial Industrial is a district that is designed to provide a location for businesses offering goods and services to a limited segment of the general public. The uses permitted in this district generally serve other commercial and industrial enterprises, and because of this, are not as reliant on high-visibility site locations. The portion of the property zoned C-2 does not have frontage on a public street. The property is generally suitable for C-2 uses. A portion of the property is zoned C-1 General Commercial. General Commercial is a district that is designed to provide goods and services to the general public and visitors. The uses permitted in this district are generally dependant on good access and visibility. The portions of the property zoned C-1 have frontage on Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6. The property is generally suitable for C-1 uses. A large portion of the subject property is zoned R-4 Multi-Family Residential. This portion of the subject property contains an active oil well that would need to be considered with any residential development plans. The property is generally suitable for R-4 uses. 5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: The existing zoning allows the property to be marketed for residential and agricultural uses, general commercial, commercial industrial, and multi-family development. A market analysis of the subject property has not been provided to the City; however, the existing A-O, C-1 General Commercial, and C-2 districts permit a mix of agricultural, residential, commercial, office, institutional, and light industrial uses, which are consistent with other uses found along the east side of the Bypass. Some of the property is zoned R-4 Multi-Family and was platted in anticipation of a multi-family development in 2008 by the property owner. While, in general, this area of the City is not anticipated to develop as multi-family housing (based on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Character Map for the area), it can be assumed that the existing R-4 zoning on this portion of the property may still be viable from a market perspective, based on past development actions by the property owner. In general, multi-family housing in College Station has very high occupancy rates, further indicating the strength of this market opportunity. 6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There are existing water lines along State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road that can adequately provide water to this area. Required Water Master Plan lines also affect this property and will need to be designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of the property. This 87 includes the potential for Scott & White to provide a small parcel of land that will be used in the future by the City to construct a water tower. Required Sewer Master Plan lines also affect this property, and will need to be designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of the property. This property is currently planned to gravity flow to the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to the south; however, the infrastructure, including sewer collection lines, is not yet in place to support this. To provide timely sewer service to the Hospital, Clinic, and all adjoining parcels, the City and Scott & White are in discussions to create a development agreement whereby the City will construct a sewage lift station on the south side of the Scott & White property that will pump the sewage to the south, along State Highway 6, to empty into the existing Spring Creek trunk line. The property is surrounded by State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. State Highway 6 is classified on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan as Freeway/Expressway and Rock Prairie Road is classified as a 4-Lane Major Arterial in this area, although it is currently constructed to a rural collector standard. Site development includes the construction of a 4-Lane Major Collector (Lakeway Drive), three 2-Lane Major Collectors (Medical Avenue, Healing Way, and Scott & White Drive), and a system of private drives. The collector roadways will include bike lanes and sidewalks to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements through the site. Access to the property will be from Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6. Driveways are proposed to be limited to the public and private street network proposed with this PDD. No additional driveways will be permitted on Rock Prairie Road or State Highway 6 Frontage Road. College Station’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires the development and submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to help inform the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on the question of Rezoning. In accordance with this requirement, the applicant submitted a TIA that complies with the requirements outlined in the UDO. The TIA has been provided as a supporting document to this report. Observations and comments are as follows: 1. The Concept Plan includes the construction of all required thoroughfares, based on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Right-turn deceleration lanes will be required, per the UDO, for the access points on the State Highway 6 Frontage Road at Lakeway Drive and Scott and White Drive, and will comply with TxDOT standards. Right-turn deceleration lanes will be required for access points on Rock Prairie Road at Scott and White Drive and the private driveway across from Stonebrook Drive. All deceleration lanes will comply with ASSHTO standards. A right-turn deceleration is required by the UDO for any development that generates 25 trips ingress in the peak hour for roadways in excess of 40 mph and any development that generates 50 trips ingress in the peak hour for roadways below 40 mph. 3. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) calls for a left-turn bay westbound to the site on Rock Prairie Road and Stonebrook Drive. This area along Rock Prairie Road will have to be widened to accommodate the left-turn bay. 4. The TIA reflects the operational improvements to Longmire and Rock Prairie Road by the opening of the Barron Road overpass at State Highway 6, shifting 45% of the traffic on Rock Prairie Road to Barron Road. Staff agrees, based on the findings in the TIA, that no upgrades are needed to Rock Prairie Road 88 west of State Highway 6 for the development of the hospital, medical clinic, and 5,419 VPD equivalents (150,000 sq. ft. of additional Medical, Dental Office land use trips generated). However, any trips generated beyond the trips assigned to Tract 1 and the trips equivalent, as described above, will require another TIA or amending of the TIA. Furthermore, the intersection at Longmire and Rock Prairie Road will need operational improvements if trips are generated above the 5,419 VPD equivalents. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN The Concept Plan includes specific details for the development of Tract 1 – the hospital site and the location of all public and private roads to be developed in the first phase. For all other Tracts (2-7), land uses only are proposed. Prior to any site plan or development of Tracts 2-7, a detailed revised Concept Plan will be required to be approved by the City Council through a standard PDD rezoning process. Purpose & Intent Statement The applicant has stated the purpose and intent of this Planned Development to be for development of a “Hospital, Medical Clinic, Medical Office, and future development.” Land Use The proposed land uses for each tract are included as an attachment to this report and are consistent with the Community Character and Land Use designations contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Access Driveway locations limited to those shown on the Concept Plan for Tracts 1 and 4, and exclude any further driveway access to Rock Prairie Road or State Highway 6. Architectural Design The applicant has proposed that for structures on Tracts 2, 3, 5, and the first 400 feet from Rock Prairie Road on Tract 4, the buildings architecture, styles, and facades of the structures will be similar to and consist of similar materials of those present in the neighborhoods located across Rock Prairie Road. The roof pitch is proposed at 4:12. Additionally, architectural standards for Tract 4 and along Rock Prairie Road will relate to the "first layer" of buildings off of Rock Prairie Road, regardless of the distance from Rock Prairie Road. The architectural and height limitations in this PDD were included to create the desired character along the Rock Prairie corridor in that area. The Hospital buildings will meet all minimum ordinance requirements besides those granted as meritorious modifications. The applicant has provided the following information related to the architectural design on Tract 1 – the hospital building: Exterior materials of the front elevation's two-story base will include stone, brick and glass. The addition of architectural metal panels will complete the material pallet for the upper three floors. A strong vertical motif is developed with the stone pillars along the two-story lobby/waiting concourse. The stone pillars are six feet wide and occur along the concourse on 15-foot centers. The space between the pillars is recessed 18 inches and in-filled with glass curtain wall providing a regular pattern of articulation along the two-story base. The extension of the Gift Shop, Entry Vestibule and Chapel outward along the concourse will provide additional articulation elements. On the upper three floors the windows will protrude outward from the building three feet continuing the articulation of the façade of the building. 89 Lighting The proposal includes restrictions on site lighting such that Tracts 2-5 will be limited to a maximum mounting height of 12 feet and Tracts 1, 6, and 7 will be limited to a maximum mounting height of 30 feet. The proposal provides for a more residential scale of lighting on the tracts identified as either General Suburban or Suburban Commercial and allows for the higher intensity commercial areas to use a type of lighting more appropriate to a general commercial development. Drainage & Stormwater The proposal includes a wet pond on site for increased water quality. The applicant has provided the following information regarding the wet pond: This best management practice (BMP) will treat the entire site of Tract 1 for water quality and provide approximately 93% total suspended solids (TCC) removal efficiency. In addition to provide water quality, the pond will also detain the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100- year storm events. The pond will also serve as an aesthetic landscape feature and serve as the main focal point as you enter the site. Stormwater run-off from the developed portions of the site will be collected in roof drains, area inlet and curb inlets. The captured stormwater will be conveyed in below-grade storm sewer conduit to the earth-wall wet pond providing both detention and water quality. The wet pond will also serve as a source of landscape irrigation water, ensuring the re-use of the stormwater at least once. Base Zoning and Meritorious Modifications The applicant proposes to utilize C-1 General Commercial as the base, underlying zoning district for standards not identified in the PDD. At the time of site plan and plat, the project will need to meet all applicable site, architectural and platting standards required by the Unified Development Ordinance except where meritorious modifications are granted with the PDD zoning. The applicant has requested the following meritorious modifications: 1. Section 7.2.I “Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required” of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant has proposed the following modified parking requirements: Use Unit Spaces/Unit UDO Requirement Day Care Center 250 s.f. 0.8 1 Hospital Bed 2 As determined by the Administrator Medical or Dental Clinic < 20,000 s.f. 200 s.f. 0.8 1 Office Building 250 s.f. 0.875 1 In addition, any use not specifically listed shall refer to the Unified Development Ordinance and may be reduced by 20%. The applicant states that the proposed modification will reduce the amount of impervious cover on site. 2. Section 7.2.C “Dimensions & Access” of “Off-Street Parking Standards” The applicant has proposed a minimum parking space size of not less than nine feet by eighteen feet six inches (9’x18.5’). The Unified Development Ordinance requires a minimum parking space size of nine feet by twenty feet (9’x20’), but allows for a length as little as eighteen feet (18’) if the space abuts a four-foot landscaped island or a six- 90 foot sidewalk. The applicant states that the proposed modification allows for safe parking lot movements while reducing the impervious cover. 3. Section 5.4 “Non-Residential Dimensional Standards” of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is proposing the following setbacks for Tracts 1-7: Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 6 Tract 7 Min. Lot Area None None None None None None None Min. Lot Width N/A 24’ 24’ 24’ 24’ 24’ 24’ Min. Lot Depth N/A 100’ 100’ 100’ 100’ 100’ 100’ Min. Front Setback 50’ 35’ 35’ 35’ 24’ 35’ 35’ Min. Side Setback 50’ 15’ 15’ (A)(B) (A)(B) (A)(B) (A)(B) Min. S.S. Setback 25’ 25’ 25’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ Min. Rear Setback 25’ 25’ 25’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ Max. Height 6 stories (96’) 2 stories (30’) 2 stories (30’) 4 stories (50’) (D) 2 stories (30’) (C) 4 stories (50’) 4 stories (50’) C – Single- Family Height /Setback applies. D – Buildings located on Tract 4 shall be limited to a maximum of 2 stories from Rock Prairie Road to a depth of 400 feet. Beyond the 400 feet heights may rise to 3 stories and buildings adjacent to Tract 1 shall be allowed to be up to 4 stories. 4. Section 7.3.C.7 “Geometric Design of Driveway Access” of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is proposing a modification to this section that would more clearly allow for medians within driveways. The Unified Development Ordinance requires commercial drives to be a minimum of 24 feet and a maximum of 36 feet in width. The applicant is proposing that the total pavement width (minus the median) be permitted to range between 24 and 36 feet. At the time of site plan, all drives will be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and meet minimum sight distance requirements. The applicant states that the purpose of the added medians would be to add landscaping and reduce the heat island effect of pavement. 5. Section 7.4 “Signs” of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that a special sign package be permitted for Tract 1, the hospital property. The proposal includes 29 signs that, due to their size, are considered freestanding signs. In addition, the applicant is requesting to utilize their corporate logo flag alongside the Country and State flags. Generally, corporate flags are permitted in lieu of a freestanding sign. The applicant has stated that the modifications provide for much needed directional signage for patients and emergency vehicles to locate their appropriate entrances. To offset this request, the applicant has proposed that each tract (Tracts 2-7) be permitted only one freestanding sign and that the maximum height is 16 feet (relating to the height of the primary sign for the hospital tract). All other sign standards will be those of the C-1 General Commercial zoning district, with the exception that freestanding signs will not be permitted on Tracts 4 and 5, and roof signs will not be permitted on Tracts 2-5. 91 6. Section 7.9 B.3 “Building Materials” of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is proposing to use 30% high grade architectural metal on the hospital structure on Tract 1. The Unified Development Ordinance restricts the use of metal to 20% of a façade. To offset this request, the applicant has proposed to limit metal on other structures to a maximum of 15%. In addition, each tract will have to meet the highest architectural standards of the Unified Development Ordinance, architectural standards for building plots over 150,000 square feet of building area (regardless of the building sizes constructed). 7. Section 7.9.E.3 “ Additional Standards for 50,000 s.f. or Greater” “Landscaping” of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that trees required to be planted in tree wells within a sidewalk along primary facades be permitted to be planted in landscape areas instead. 8. Section 7.9.F.4 “Additional Standards for 150,000 s.f. or Greater of the Unified Development Ordinance The applicant is requesting that parking screening berms not be required for parking areas located beyond 100 feet from the public right-of-way if the area between the parking and the right-of-way remains as open space. The parking will be required to be screened using another method such as landscaping to screen the parking. 9. Table V “Streets and Alleys” of the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines The applicant proposes a 2-lane Major Collector right-of-way width of 60 feet (Scott & White Drive, Medical Avenue, Healing Way). Generally, 2-Lane Major Collectors are required a right-of-way width of 77 feet with bike lanes. The 4-Lane Major Collector (Lakeway) is proposed to have a right-of-way of 80 feet. Generally, 4-Lane Major Collectors are required a right-of-way width of 99 -101 feet with bike lanes. The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria for PDD Concept Plans: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area: The Concept Plan provides for a hospital development at the core of the property with supporting uses along the periphery, such as medical office and retail. Development of tracts located along the periphery of the site along Rock Prairie Road are proposed to have increased aesthetic requirements, and will have a scale and elements / materials similar and complementary to the neighborhoods to the north. Driveways to Rock Prairie Road and the Frontage Road are limited to those shown on the Concept Plan; all other drives will take access to roadways proposed within the development. 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section: The Concept Plan reflects the Community Character and Land Use designations included in the Comprehensive Plan. Along Rock Prairie Road and along the eastern portion of the site, the Comprehensive Plan describes future development as General Suburban and Suburban Commercial, calling for development that is compatible and complementary to existing residential areas. The proposal includes elements that complement the surrounding neighborhoods, such as increased aesthetic requirements, reduced scale, pitched roofs, and materials complementary to the neighborhoods to the north along Rock Prairie Road, as well as pedestrian scale lighting and increased open space throughout the 92 development. 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development: The abutting properties are largely vacant, but are shown for future General Commercial, Natural Areas – Reserved, and General Suburban uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Tracts abutting areas shown for General Suburban have included increased standards to complement and be compatible with future residential development. Along the eastern property line the land is zoned A-P Administrative Professional and could be developed for uses such as personal service and office. The proposed development is similar to these uses and will be complementary. Properties located along State Highway 6 Frontage Road are shown for General Commercial. The Concept Plan includes uses similar (though slightly restricted) to General Commercial zoning and includes increased aesthetic requirements. 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners association: No dwelling units are proposed. 5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities: None proposed. 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: Besides the requested meritorious modifications, the proposed development will meet all City requirements, and in some cases, exceed requirements. 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area: The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis, as required by the Unified Development Ordinance. Based on the findings of the TIA, development will be phased so that the roadways can adequately absorb the traffic. Site development includes the construction of a 4-Lane Major Collector (Lakeway Drive), three 2-Lane Major Collectors (Medical Avenue, Healing Way, and Scott & White Drive), and a system of private drives. The collector roadways will include bike lanes and sidewalks to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements through the site. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Background Information 2. Aerial & Small Area Map (SAM) 3. Draft Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes (November 4, 2010) 4. Scott & White Proposal, including Concept Plan 5. List of Proposed Land Uses 6. Ordinance 93 BACKGROUND The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Wilshire HOA Sandstone HOA Foxfire HOA Amberlake HOA Chadwick HOA Stonebridge HOA Stonebridge Court HOA Property owner notices mailed: 19 Contacts in support: None as of date of staff report Contacts in opposition: Two as of date of staff report. Concerns related to retail and office on periphery of tract and related traffic. Inquiry contacts: Three as of date of staff report ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North Suburban Commercial and Restricted Suburban across Rock Prairie Road (Major Arterial) A-O Agricultural- Open, C-3 Light Commercial, C-1 General Commercial across Rock Prairie Road (Major Arterial) Vacant, Riviera Day Spa, Plazas at Rock Prairie shopping center across Rock Prairie Road (Major Arterial) South General Commercial and Natural Areas – Reserved A-O Agricultural Open Rural, Vacant East General Suburban in Growth Area III and General Commercial A-O Agricultural- Open, A-P Administrative Professional Rural, Vacant West General Commercial and Freeway C-1 General Commercial Vacant and State Highway 6 94 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: 1977 and 1983 Zoning: Annexed as A-O Agricultural-Open. A-O to C-2 Commercial Industrial in 1986; C-2 to R-5 Apartment/Medium Density in 1994; and R-5 renamed to R-4 Multi-Family in 2003. Portions of the property along the State Highway 6 Frontage Road and along Rock Prairie Road near its intersection with State Highway 6 were zoned C-1 General Commercial in 2009. Rezoning of approximately 44 acres to C-1 General Commercial was denied in 2009. Final Plat: A portion of the property was platted as Rock Prairie Heights in 2008 Site development: Largely vacant, with an on-site oil well 95 96 97 November 4, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 4, 2010, 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Hugh Stearns and Doug Slack COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jodi Warner and Bo Miles CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Prochazka, Matt Robinson, Joe Guerra, Erika Bridges, Carol Cotter, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Lance Simms, Bob Cowell, Carla Robinson, Kerry Mullins, and Brittany Caldwell Regular Agenda 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a Rezoning for 97.932 acres located at 4005 State Highway 6, at the southeast corner of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6, from A-O Agricultural Open, R-4 Multi-Family, C-1 General Commercial, and C-2 Commercial Industrial to PDD Planned Development District. Case #10-00500189 (JP) Senior Planner Prochazka presented the Rezoning and recommended approval with the following conditions: · Tracts 2-7 will require approved revised Concept Plans prior to site plan approval or the issuance of permits for development of the property. · Tracts 2-7 will need to provide proof of adequate public facilities, including sewer service, prior to approval of revised Concept Plans on those tracts. · An additional Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required with Concept Plans for Tracts 2-7. · Development resulting in the additional allocated trips, as described in the staff report, be limited to Tracts 6 or 7. No additional trips shall be generated by development on Tracts 2, 3, 4, or 5 without the development of a revised TIA and associated improvements on Rock Prairie Road. · If the Spring Creek District Plan is completed prior to revised Concept Plans being approved for Tracts 2-7, those Concept Plans will need to be in compliance with the district plan. · The identified height and architectural standards for Tract 4 and along Rock Prairie Road should extend a minimum of 500 feet from Rock Prairie Road and should relate 98 November 4, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 to the "first layer" of buildings off of Rock Prairie Road, regardless of the distance from Rock Prairie Road. · At the time of site plan, all drives are designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and meet minimum sight distance requirements. · Tract 2 should not include drive-thru restaurants as a permitted use on the portion not currently zoned C-1. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Rezoning. John Cunningham, Scott & White Healthcare, stated that a portion of the facility on University Drive would remain open initially and the size and layout of the new development would be similar to the facility in Temple. Joel Bock, P.E., Jacobs, addressed the Commission regarding the wet pond and how it would function. Shawn Massock, Jacobs, stated that the tree wells within the sidewalk are proposed to be removed because of safety issues. He stated that there would be landscaping and trees to provide shading on the sidewalk. He also proposed the following change to one of the conditions recommended by Staff: · The identified height and architectural standards for Tract 4 and along Rock Prairie Road should extend a minimum of 400 feet from Rock Prairie Road and should relate to the "first layer" of buildings off of Rock Prairie Road, regardless of the distance from Rock Prairie Road. In addition, the structures should be a maximum of 4 stories on the west portion of Tract 4 beyond 400 feet and a maximum of 3 stories on the east portion of Tract 4 beyond 400 feet. Scott Liles, Scott & White Healthcare, stated that he had met with the neighboring property owners and they were comfortable with the Concept Plan that had been submitted to the City. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Rezoning. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Brian Perry, 3600 Rock Prairie Road, had concerns about a lack of connectivity to his property and wanted Medical Avenue to abut his property to create street frontage. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding Mr. Perry’s land. Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning with the conditions recommended by Staff except for the following change proposed by the applicant: 99 November 4, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 · The identified height and architectural standards for Tract 4 and along Rock Prairie Road should extend a minimum of 400 feet from Rock Prairie Road and should relate to the "first layer" of buildings off of Rock Prairie Road, regardless of the distance from Rock Prairie Road. In addition, the structures should be a maximum of 4 stories on the west portion of Tract 4 beyond 400 feet and a maximum of 3 stories on the east portion of Tract 4 beyond 400 feet. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). Commissioner Stearns stated that he would like to see drive-thru restaurants restricted. The Commission stated that they would like for the issues between Mr. Perry and Scott & White Healthcare resolved. 100 Planned Development District Submitted to: Prepared for: 2401 South 31st Street Temple, Texas 76508 August 25, 2010 Revised: October 11, 2010 October 25, 2010 October 28, 2010 November 12, 2010 Prepared by: 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746 101 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tract 1 A new, 330,000-square-foot (SF), five-story (plus mechanical penthouse), freestanding, 143-bed acute care Scott & White Hospital at College Station and a 10,000-square-foot (SF) Central Utility Plant (CUP) is planned at the Southeast intersection of Rock Prairie and Highway 6. The proposed Hospital tract (Tract 1) will encompass approximately 38.9-acres of the 97.9-acre site. A separate 150,000-square-foot (SF), five-story, Clinic building is planned to be constructed adjacent to the Hospital. The future Clinic will connect to the Hospital northwest corner of the first level only. The facility will have five use-categorized entries to the facility including a main entrance for visitors, a staff entry, a delivery entrance, an ambulance Emergency Department (ED) entrance and a walk-in ED entrance. There will be a circulation drive around the Hospital and clinic that will provide access from these primary entry points. Much of the required parking, 880 spaces (two per bed and four per 1,000 SF of clinic) will be inside of the circulation drive with minimal crossing of driveways. The Hospital will be designed to accommodate expansion at a later date; a one-story expansion at the east side; a two-story expansion at the south side; and a three-story addition at the west end. In addition, a future clinic and/or medical office building is proposed for up to five stories east of the clinic. This future square footage will be approximately 350,000 square feet. The bed units will be provide for: Intensive Care (ICU) providing continuous observation of high acuity patients; Neonatal Intensive Care (NICU) providing that same level of care for infants; Post Partum Unit; Intermediate Care Unit (IMCU); and Medical/Surgical (M/S) Unit. Patient rooms will be private and there will be a minimum of one isolation room per unit and two for every 24 beds in M/S. The Hospital will contain required ancillary and support departments. The ED will contain exam rooms and treatment bays. Imaging will contain treatment modalities required for an acute care facility, including general radiology, CT and MRI. Space is allocated in the Hospital for a PET scanner. At opening this modality will be provided with a mobile unit. Along with eight operating rooms in the Surgical Department there will be cardiac catheterization labs, endoscopic procedure rooms and a procedure center for EEG’s and EKG’s. Laboratory and pharmacy space will be provided to support patient needs. The hospital will contain a full-service kitchen to support the patients, staff and visitors and a dining room. The design will include kitchen and support equipment. Administrative services and an Education/ Conference Center will also be included. The 10,000 SF CUP will be in a separate structure adjacent to the Hospital. Exterior materials of the front elevation’s 2-story base will include stone, brick and glass. The addition of architectural metal panels will complete the material pallet for the upper three floors. A strong vertical motif is developed with the stone pillars along 2 story lobby/waiting concourse. The stone pillars are 6 ft wide and occur along the concourse on 15 ft centers. The space between the pillars is recessed 18” and in-filled with glass curtain wall providing a regular pattern of articulation along the 2 story base. The extension of the Gift Shop, Entry Vestibule and Chapel outward along the concourse will provide additional articulation elements. On the upper three floors the windows will protrude outward from the building 3 ft continuing the articulation of the façade of the building. The 30-foot horizontal module and the 16-foot floor-to-floor height allows for windows and door openings to work well with standard masonry dimensions at all levels. At the building base, the openings are recessed into the brick and stone. The 2-story lobby/waiting area will be the focal point for public interaction, with clinical patient areas designed to have animated features and varying heights working within the vertical and horizontal module. 102 Canopies will be simple horizontal elements with a metal panel fascia, serving as an icon that becomes recognizable at the public entries. This element will float over the length of the lobby area. Outdoor areas will include the healing garden and exterior waiting areas, featuring trellises to provide sun protection. Tracts 2-7 These tracts will be available for future development and entitled by this PDD and will require approved revised Concept Plans prior to site plan approval or the issuance of permits for development of the property. • Tracts 2-7 will need to provide proof of adequate public facilities, including sewer service, prior to approval of revised Concept Plans on those tracts. • An additional Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required with Concept Plans for Tracts 2-7. • Development resulting in the additional allocated trips, as described in the staff report, be limited to Tracts 6 or 7. No additional trips shall be generated by development on Tracts 2, 3, 4, or 5 without the development of a revised TIA and associated improvements on Rock Prairie Road. • If the Spring Creek District Plan is completed prior to revised Concept Plans being approved for Tracts 2-7, those Concept Plans will need to be in compliance with the district plan. CIVIL/ SITE The development of this site will be subject to the rules and regulations established by the City of College Station except as amended here in this PDD; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR); Rockford Energy, due to their lease rights of the existing oil well at the northeast corner of the site; Bryan Texas Utilities (BTU), College Station Electric (CS Electric) and Atmos Energy. This project site is comprised of numerous existing tracts and an existing oil well within the site. The site has an existing road, Old Rock Prairie, which will be removed, and overhead electric lines running through the middle that will be relocated. It is covered with natural grass vegetation and has three buildings that will be demolished. No portion of the site is within existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. The site topography falls from north to south with average slopes on the range of two percent to four percent. The soils and geotechnical site conditions have been described in a geotechnical report previously prepared. A revised geotechnical report and pavement recommendations will be prepared by Terracon who has been retained by the Owner. Future neighbors include the residential subdivision to the north and undeveloped property to the east, neither of which currently have a direct connection to the proposed project. Zoning Current zoning will be changed to Planned Development District (PDD) utilizing a base zoning of C-1 (general commercial). The PDD zoning ordinance will be written to support variances to the base zoning of C-1 for a building height maximum of six stories, landscape, signage, lighting, thoroughfare plan and parking. Thoroughfare Plan and Access Access to the site will be provided from two existing roads, Rock Prairie Road and the northbound Highway 6 frontage road, as well as four proposed roads as required by the City’s Thoroughfare Plan: Medical Avenue, Scott & White Drive, Healing Way, and Lakeway Drive as this site is within part of the City’s Thoroughfare Plan. Parking Parking for the new development will be provided on surface parking lots. The main circulation drives will be heavy duty concrete or asphalt pavement and the parking areas will be light duty concrete or asphalt pavement. Driveways from public streets, loading areas, ambulance drives, service courts and paved areas under canopies will be concrete or asphalt pavement. At the time of site plan, all drives 103 are designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and meet minimum sight distance requirements. Stormwater Stormwater runoff from these developed portions of the site will be collected in roof drains, area inlets and curb inlets. The captured stormwater will be conveyed in below-grade storm sewer conduit to an earth-wall wet pond providing both detention and water quality. Detention is required in the City and providing water quality will be an added benefit to the environment. The wet pond will also serve as a source of landscape irrigation water thus ensuring re-use of the stormwater at least once. Wastewater Service Wastewater will be collected from the site through a system of gravity lines leading to a lift station, which will pump to an existing on-site manhole. The City has verified limited existing capacity for wastewater service to this site. The City is currently undertaking wastewater studies to master plan wastewater service for the entire system in this region. Water Service Initial meetings with City engineers have dictated the design of the water system, which is sized to serve the site with a looping water line around both the Hospital and Clinic. Proper placement of fire hydrants will meet the fire protection requirements necessary for this project. The fire lanes of at least 23 feet (face of curb) in width and parking lot radii of 25 feet will be provided to give adequate access to the new facilities. AS this site is part of a City Water Master Plan an 18 inch waterline will be installed along the Highway 6 frontage Road. Electric Service Routed across the site is Old Rock Prairie and overhead electric lines. The existing road will be abandoned but the overhead electric lines will be relocated. Both CS Electric and BTU have lines that must be relocated to the frontage road of Highway 6. Natural Gas Service This site is served by Atmos Energy. A new service line will be extended to the site along the frontage road of Highway 6. From this service line, a feed will be extended to serve the Hospital and clinic and a feed will be extended to the CUP. Telecommunications Service This site is served by Suddenlink and all components to serve this site will be installed to their standards. LANDSCAPE The design focus for the project will be to provide landscaped entries, landscape areas defining parking areas, and islands within the parking lots with shade trees and lining pedestrian isles. In addition, irrigation may be provided through the collection of rainwater harvesting and air conditioning condensation collection and distributed in best management practices for irrigation system to reduce water costs. Project design elements include planting a Texas vernacular landscape utilizing native and adaptive native plant material, the use of indigenous hardscape materials, such as Austin Stone and decomposed granite. Other hardscape materials will be proposed, such as concrete or concrete pavers, cast stone planters of various sizes to display seasonal color, water features (either self contained pumping system or pool design), and tree grates for planting trees in pavement. These materials will create shaded walkways, benches for the exterior of the building, arbors in the courtyards and moveable tables and chairs to provide seating for the courtyard spaces. At least two proposed courtyard spaces located adjacent to the proposed Hospital building are being planned at easily accessible locations for patients, their families and staff. The courtyards will be designed to address the needs of this special user group and pedestrian flow patterns. The main areas of this design focus include a healing garden and outdoor waiting plazas. 104 WAYFINDING A complete wayfinding package will be developed to meet Scott & White standards. Exterior sign types include, but not limited to, an illuminated entry monument, secondary monument, primary hospital building mounted identification, building top identification logo, emergency identification on building, vehicular and pedestrian directional signage, and parking lot identification. Interior sign types include, but not limited to, information kiosk, mission statement, building directory host, directionals, room identification, room numbers, restroom identification, interpretative services sign, elevator fire evacuation and stair identification. 105 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development of this site will be subject to the rules and regulations established by the City of College Station for the C-1 Base Zoning except as amended here: Article 5. District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards 5.3 Non-Residential Zoning Districts B. General Commercial (C-1) This district is designed to provide locations for general commercial purposes, that is, retail sales and service uses that function to serve the entire community and its visitors. 5.4 Non-Residential Dimensional Standards The following table establishes dimensional standards that shall be applied within the Non-Residential Zoning Districts, unless otherwise identified in this UDO: Non-Residential Zoning Districts Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 6 Tract 7 Min. Lot Area None None None None None None None Min. Lot Width N/A 24' 24' 24’ 24’ 24’ 24’ Min. Lot Depth N/A 100' 100' 100’ 100’ 100’ 100’ Min. Front Setback 50' 35' 35' 35’ 24’ 35’ 35’ Min. Side Setback 50’ 15’ 15’ (A)(B) (A)(B) (A)(B) (A)(B) Min. St. Side Setback 25' 25' 25' 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ Min. Rear Setback 25' 25' 25' 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ Max. Height 6 Stories (96 feet) 2 Stories (30 feet) 2 Stories (30 feet) 4 Stories (50 feet) (D) 2 Stories (C) 4 Stories (50 feet) 4 Stories (50 feet) Notes: (A) A minimum side setback of 7.5 feet shall be required for each building or group of contiguous buildings. (B) Lot line construction on interior lots with no side yard or setback is allowed only where the building is covered by fire protection on the site or separated by a dedicated public right-of-way or easement of at least 15 feet in width. (C) See Section 7.1.H, Height. (below) (D) Buildings located on Tract 4 shall be limited to a maximum of 2 stories from Rock Prairie Road to a depth of 400 feet. Beyond the 400 feet heights may rise to 3 stories and buildings adjacent to Tract 1 shall be allowed to be up to 4 stories. 5.5 Planned Districts (P-MUD and PDD) A. The Planned Mixed-Use District (P-MUD) and the Planned Development District (PDD) are intended to provide such flexibility and performance criteria which produce: 1. A maximum choice in the type of environment for working and living available to the public; 2. Open space and recreation areas; 3. A pattern of development which preserves trees, outstanding natural topography and geologic features, and prevents soil erosion; 4. A creative approach to the use of land and related physical development; 5. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets, thereby lowering development costs; 6. An environment of stable character in harmony with surrounding development; and 106 7. A more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other sections or districts in this UDO. C. Planned Development District (PDD) The purpose of the Planned Development District is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. If this necessitates varying from certain standards, the proposed development should demonstrate community benefits. The PDD is appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects the specific commercial, residential, or mix of uses proposed in the PDD. A PDD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land utilization not permitted by other zoning districts. While greater flexibility is given to allow special conditions or restrictions that would not otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are established to insure against misuse of increased flexibility. Article 6. Use Regulations 6.2 Types of Use C. Use Table Except where otherwise specifically provided herein, regulations governing the use of land and structures with the various zoning districts and classifications of planned developments are hereby established as shown in the following Use Table. 1. Permitted Uses A “P” indicates that a use is allowed by right in the respective district. Such uses are subject to all other applicable regulations of this UDO. 2. Permitted Uses Subject to Specific Standards A “P*” indicates a use that will be permitted, provided that the use meets the provisions in Section 6.3, Specific Use Standards. Such uses are also subject to all other applicable regulations of this UDO. 3. Conditional Uses A “C” indicates a use that is allowed only where a conditional use permit is approved by the City Council. The Council may require that the use meet the additional standards enumerated in Section 6.2, Specific Use Standards. Conditional uses are subject to all other applicable regulations of this UDO. USE TABLE Non-Residential Districts Specific Uses Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 6 Tract 7 RESIDENTIAL Boarding & Rooming House Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home P P P P P P P Dormitory Duplex Fraternity / Sorority Manufactured Home Multi-Family Multi-Family built prior to January 2002 Single-Family Detached Townhouse PUBLIC, CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL Educational Facility, College & University P P P P P P P Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction P P P P P P P 107 Educational Facility, Outdoor Instruction P P Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary P P P P P P Educational Facility, Tutoring P P P P Educational Facility, Vocational / Trade P P P P P Governmental Facilities P P P P P P Health Care, Hospitals P P Health Care, Medical Clinics P P P P P P P Parks P P P P P P Places of Worship P P P P P P COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RETAIL Agricultural Use, Barn or Stable for Private Stock Agricultural Use, Farm or Pasturage Agricultural Use, Farm Product Processing Animal Care Facility, Indoor P P P P P P Animal Care Facility, Outdoor Art Studio / Gallery P P P P P P Car Wash P* P* Commercial Garden / Greenhouse / Landscape Maint. P* P* Commercial Amusements C C P* P* Conference / Convention Center P Country Club P Day Care, Commercial P P P P P P Drive-in / thru window P*# P*+ P*+ P* P P Dry Cleaners & Laundry P* P* P* P P Fraternal Lodge P Fuel Sales P* P* Funeral Homes Golf Course or Driving Range Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor P# P+ P+ P P Health Club / Sports Facility, Outdoor P Hotels P P Night Club, Bar or Tavern C C Offices P P P P P P P Parking as a Primary Use C P Personal Service Shop P P P P P P Printing / Copy Shop P P P P P P Radio / TV Station / Studios P P P P Restaurants P P P P Retail Sales - Single P P 108 Tenant over 50,000 SF Retail Sales and Service P* P* P* P* P* Retail Sales and Service – Alcohol P* P* P* P* P* Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) Shooting Range, Indoor Theater P P Retail Sales, Manufactured Homes Storage, Self Service P Vehicular Sales, Rental, Repair and Service P* Wholesales / Services Bulk Storage Tanks / Cold Storage Plant Industrial, Light Industrial, Heavy Recycling Facility – Large Salvage Yard Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory P P P P P P P Storage, Outdoor - Equipment or Materials Truck Stop / Freight or Trucking Terminal Utility P* P* P* P* P* P* Warehousing / Distribution Waste Services Wireless Telecommunication Facilities – Intermediate P* P* P* P* P* P* P* Wireless Telecommunication Facilities – Major C C C C Wireless Telecommunication Facilities – Unregulated P P P P P P 1 Multi-family residential uses located in stories or floors above retail commercial uses are permitted by right. ** District with Supplemental Standards (Refer to Article 5). + Drive-in / thru windows shall be limited to not include restaurants and Health clubs are limited to 20,000 s.f. # Health clubs are limited to 20,000 s.f. and Drive-in / thru windows shall be limited to only the area identified as C-1 Zoning. 6.4 Accessory Uses A. Accessory Uses Accessory uses are allowed with permitted, established primary structures and uses subject to the following: 1. The use or structure is subordinate to and serves a primary use or principal structure; 2. The accessory use shall be subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the primary use served; 3. The accessory use shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of occupants of the primary use served; 4. The accessory use shall be located within the same zoning district as the primary use is permitted; and 109 5. Accessory uses located in residential districts shall not be used for commercial purposes other than permitted home occupations. B. Accessory Structures 1. No accessory structure shall be erected in any required setback area. Excluded from this requirement is any portable storage building or structure if the Building Official has determined that it does not require a Building Permit. 2. On lots with approved rear access all setbacks shall be measured from the nearest boundary of the access easement or alley. On all other lots rear setbacks shall be measured from the rear property line. In no event shall more than 30 percent of the rear yard area (that portion of the yard between the rear setback line of the principal structure and the rear property line) be covered with accessory buildings, structures, or uses. 3. The following restrictions shall apply to accessory buildings, structures, or uses other than garages, carports, and living quarters for family or servants: a. A minimum rear setback of 15 feet; and, b. A maximum building eave height of eight feet (8’). Article 7. General Development Standards 7.1 General Provisions D. Required Yards (Setbacks) 3. Features Allowed Within Required Yards The following features may be located within a required yard but may be subject to additional regulations applied herein: o. Signage as indicated on the Proposed Signage Plan Exhibit. H. Height 1. Building Height Building height refers to the vertical distance measured from the finished grade, or the base flood elevation where applicable, and the following points: a. The average height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, hip, or gambrel roof; b. The highest point of a mansard roof; or c. The highest point of the coping of a flat roof. 2. Single Family Protection a. With the exception of Tract 1, no multi-family or nonresidential structure shall be located nearer to any property line adjacent to or across the street from a single-family use or townhouse development than a horizontal distance (B to C) of twice the vertical distance (height, A to B) of the structure as illustrated in the graphic below. b. No additional multi-family or non-residential structures shall penetrate an imaginary line, illustrated by the inclined plane in the graphic above, connecting points A and C. c. Calculation of the height limits shall be to the highest point of the structure. Equipment such as satellite dishes and heating and air conditioning units may be installed on top of buildings provided that they are screened from horizontal view and included in the height limitations. d. Unless otherwise stated in this PDD, the height limitations herein shall not apply to any of the following: 110 1) Utility structures such as elevated water storage tanks and electrical transmission lines; 2) Architectural elements such as flagpoles, belfries, cupolas, spires, domes, monuments, chimneys, bulkheads, elevators, or chimney flues; or any other similar structure extending above the roof of any building where such structure does not occupy more than 33 percent of the area of the roof; or 3) Residential radio/television receiving antennas. 3. Maximum Building Heights a. Tract 1: 6 stories (96 feet) b. Tract 2: 2 stories (30 feet) c. Tract 3: 2 stories (30 feet) d. Tract 4: 4 stories (50 feet); Buildings located on Tract 4 shall be limited to a maximum of 2 stories from Rock Prairie Road to a depth of 400 feet. Beyond the 400 feet heights may rise to 3 stories and buildings adjacent to tract 1 shall be allowed to be up to 4 stories. e. Tract 5: per UDO A-P zoning requirements. f. Tract 6: 4 stories (50 feet) g. Tract 7: 4 stories (50 feet) 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards B. Off-Street Parking Spaces Required 2. Where off-street parking facilities are provided in excess of the minimum amounts specified by this Section, or when off-street parking facilities are provided but not required, said off- street parking facilities shall comply with the minimum requirements for parking and maneuvering space as specified in this Section. C. Dimensions and Access This Section applies to any development or redevelopment of uses other than single-family residential, duplexes, or townhouses unless otherwise noted. 1. Each off-street parking space for automobiles shall have an area of not less than nine by eighteen feet six inches (9’ x 18’-6”) and each stall shall be striped. This standard shall apply for off-street parking for all uses. 2. An 18-foot paved space (90 degree only) may be utilized where the space abuts a landscaped island with a minimum depth of four feet (4’). An 18-foot space may also be used when adjacent to a sidewalk provided that the minimum width of the sidewalk is six feet. 5. All parking spaces, aisles, and modules shall meet the minimum requirements, as shown in the following table. All dimensions are measured from wall to wall, or stripe to stripe. PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS A B C D E F Angle (degrees) Width of stall Depth of stall 90° to aisle Width of aisle Width of stall parallel to aisle Module width One way Two way One way Two way All Tracts 90 9 feet 18.5 feet 23.0 feet 23.0 feet 9.0 feet 60 60 E. Interior Islands 1. All interior islands shall be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area. 2. For every fifteen (15) interior parking spaces, 180 square feet of landscaping must be provided somewhere in the interior rows of the parking lot. Interior island areas may be grouped and configured as desired provided that circulation aisles remain clear and the minimum island area is not less than 180 square feet. Interior islands may have sidewalks through them. I. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required 8. When the developer of a large-scale development can demonstrate that such development will require fewer parking spaces than required by the standards of this Section, the Administrator may permit a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the 111 development. Such a reduction in parking spaces shall be justified through the development of a parking study prepared by a professional engineer or transportation planner and submitted to the Administrator. The balance of the land necessary to meet these requirements shall be held in reserve as an undeveloped area, to meet any future needs generated by an expansion of the business, a change in land use, or underestimated parking demand; MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Use Unit Spaces/ Unit Plus Spaces For: Day Care Center 250 s.f. .8 Hospital As determined by the Administrator 2/Bed Medical or Dental Clinic < 20,000 s.f. 200 s.f. .8 Office Building 250 s.f. .875 “s.f.” = square footage. * All unpaved spaces shall be shown on site plan and organized for efficient traffic circulation using wheel stops and other appropriate measures as required by the Administrator. ** No more than 25% of any shopping center square footage shall be utilized for intense uses (uses that, individually, have a parking requirement greater than 1:250 in C-1 or C-3 and 1:350 in C-2) unless additional parking is provided in accordance with the above requirements for that square footage of such uses in excess of 25%. ***Any allowed uses not listed above shall refer to the City’s UDO for parking requirements and may be reduced by 20%. K. Alternative Parking Plans 2. Applicability Applicants who wish to provide fewer or more off-street parking spaces than allowed above shall be required to secure approval of an Alternative Parking Plan, in accordance with the standards of this Section. The Administrator may require that an Alternative Parking Plan be submitted in cases where the Administrator deems the listed standard to be inappropriate based on the unique nature of the use or in cases where the applicable standard is unclear. 7.3 Access Management and Circulation C. Driveway Access Location and Design 2. Location of Driveway Access Driveway locations shall be as shown on the PDD Concept Site Plan for Tract 1 & 4. 7. Geometric Design of Driveway Access e. The maximum width of commercial driveway approaches for two-way operation shall not exceed thirty-six feet (36’) of pavement, except that the Administrator may issue permits for driveway approaches greater than thirty-six feet (36’) in width on major streets to handle special traffic conditions. The minimum width of commercial and multi- family driveway approaches for two-way operation shall be not less than twenty-four feet (24‘) of pavement. 112 7.4 Signs C. Summary of Permitted Signs The following signs are permitted in the relevant zoning districts of the City: Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 6 Tract 7 Apartment/Condominium/ Manufactured Home Park Identification Signs Area Identification/ Subdivision Signs X X X X X X X Attached Signs X X X X X X X Commercial Banners X X X X X X Development Signs X X X X X X X Directional Traffic Control Signs X X X X X X X Freestanding Signs X X X X X Home Occupation Signs Low Profile Signs X X X X X X X Non-Commercial Signs X X X X X X Real Estate, Finance, and Construction Signs X X X X X X X Roof Signs X X X D. Prohibited Signs The following signs shall be prohibited in the City of College Station: 3. Inflated signs, pennants, tethered balloons, and/or any gas filled objects for advertisement, decoration, or otherwise, except as permitted in Section 7.4.P, Grand Opening Signs and Section 7.4.U, Special Event Signs. 5. Excluding the flags of any country, state, city, or school, are prohibited in residential zones and on any residentially-developed property (except when flags are used as subdivision signs). F. Sign Standards The following table summarizes the sign standards for the City of College Station: Sign Type Maximum Area (s.f.)* Maximum Height (ft.) Setback From ROW (ft.) Number Allowed Tract 1 Tracts 2-7 Tract 1 Tracts 2-7 Tract 1 Tracts 2-7 Tract 1 Tracts 2-7 Area Identification Signs As p e r P r e l i m i n a r y S i t e S i g n Lo c a t i o n s P l a n pe r U D O As p e r P r e l i m i n a r y S i t e S i g n Lo c a t i o n s P l a n 16 f e e t . As p e r P r e l i m i n a r y S i t e S i g n Lo c a t i o n s P l a n pe r U D O As p e r P r e l i m i n a r y S i t e S i g n Lo c a t i o n s P l a n pe r U D O Attached Signs Development Signs Residential /Collector Street Arterial Street Freeway (As designated on Thoroughfare Plan) Directional Traffic Control Signs Freestanding Signs 113 Low Profile Signs (In lieu of permitted Freestanding Sign) Real Estate, Finance, and Construction Signs Up to 150-foot frontage Greater than 150-foot frontage Roof Signs * Except as provided for in Section 7.4.N.10, Freestanding Commercial Signs. ** The area of a sign is the area enclosed by the minimum imaginary rectangle or vertical and horizontal lines that fully contains all extremities (as shown in the illustration below), exclusive of supports. G. Area Identification and Subdivision Signs 1. Area Identification Signs shall be permitted upon private property in any zone to identify multiple-lot subdivisions of 10 to 50 acres in size and subject to the requirements set forth in Section 7.4.F, Sign Standards above. Area Identification Signs may also be used within a large subdivision to identify distinct areas within that subdivision, subject to the requirements in Section 7.4.F, Sign Standards above. 114 3. Both Area Identification and Subdivision Signs must be located on the premises as identified by a preliminary or master preliminary plat of the subdivision. Subdivision Signs will be permitted only at major intersections on the perimeter of the subdivision (intersection of two collector or larger streets). At each intersection either one or two Subdivision Signs may be permitted so long as the total area of the signs does not exceed 150 square feet. Flags may be utilized in place of a Subdivision Identification Sign, but the overall height shall not exceed 20 feet and 25 square feet in area in a residential zone and 35 feet in height and 100 square feet in area in industrial or commercial districts. L. Directional Traffic Control Sign 1. Directional Traffic Control Signs may be utilized as traffic control devices in off-street parking areas subject to the requirements set forth in Section 7.4.F, Sign Standards above. 2. For multiple lots sharing an access easement to public right-of-way, there shall be only one directional sign located at the curb cut. 3. Logo or copy shall be less than 50% of the sign area. 4. No Directional Traffic Control Sign shall be permitted within or upon the right-of-way of any public street unless its construction, design, and location have been approved by the City Traffic Engineer. M. Flags 1. One freestanding corporate flag per premise, not to exceed 35 feet in height or 100 square feet in area, is allowed in multi-family, commercial, and industrial districts. 2. Flags used solely for decoration and not containing any copy or logo and located only in multi-family, commercial, and industrial districts or developments are allowed without a permit. In multi-family developments, such flags will be restricted to 16 square feet in area. In all permitted zoning districts such flags will be restricted to 30 feet in height, and the number shall be restricted to no more than 6 flags per building plot. N. Freestanding Commercial Signs 1. Any development with over 75 linear feet of frontage will be allowed one Freestanding Commercial Sign. All Freestanding Commercial Signs shall meet the following standards: a. Allowable Area Allowable Area For Freestanding Signs Frontage (Feet) Maximum Area (s.f.) Tract 1 Tracts 2-5 0-75 As p e r C o n c e p t u a l S i t e Si g n L o c a t i o n P l a n Pe r U D O 76-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 501-550 551-600+ d. Allowable Height 1) The allowable height of a Freestanding Commercial Sign is determined by measuring the distance from the closest point of the sign to the curb or pavement edge and dividing this distance by two. No Freestanding Commercial Sign shall exceed 35 feet in height. 2) For the purposes of this Section, height of a sign shall be measured from the elevation of the curb or pavement edge. 115 3) For the purposes of this Section, the distance from curb shall be measured in feet from the back of curb or pavement edge to the nearest part of the sign. 5. A premise with more than 150 feet of frontage shall be allowed to use one Freestanding Commercial Sign or any number of Low Profile Signs as long as there is a minimum separation between signs of 150 feet. In lieu of one Low Profile Sign every 150 feet, hospital uses may have one low profile sign located at each driveway. 7. No more than one Freestanding Commercial Sign shall be allowed on any premises except when the site meets one of the following sets of criteria: a. The building plot, as recognized on an approved Plat or Site Plan, must be 25 acres or more in area with at least 1,000 feet of continuous unsubdivided frontage on any major arterial street or higher (as classified on the Thoroughfare Plan) toward which one additional Freestanding Commercial Sign may be displayed (see diagram below); or b. The Building plot, as recognized on an approved Plat or Site Plan, must be 15 acres or more in area with at least 600 feet of continuous unsubdivided frontage on any major arterial street or higher (as classified on the Thoroughfare Plan) and the site must have additional frontage on a street classified as a minor arterial or greater on the Thoroughfare Plan, toward which the additional Freestanding Commercial Sign may be displayed. T. Roof Signs 1. Signs mounted to the structural roof shall be regulated as Freestanding Commercial Signs. 7.5 Landscaping and Tree Protection C. Landscaping Requirements 1. The landscaping requirements shall be determined on a point basis as follows: a. Minimum Landscape Points required: 30 points per 1,000 square feet of site area; 1) Tract 1 requires 50,874 points [(1,695,791/1000 * 30] 2) Tracts 2-7 per UDO6 has no required landscaping 6. All new plantings must be irrigated. An irrigation system shall be designed so that it does not negatively impact existing trees and natural areas. Soaker hose and drip irrigation system designs shall be permitted. D. Streetscape Requirements 1. The streetscaping requirements shall be determined along all major arterials, freeways, and expressways as follows: a. Within 50 feet of the property line along the street, one canopy tree for every 25 linear feet of frontage shall be installed. Two non-canopy trees may be substituted for each one canopy tree; 1) Tract 1: Rock Prairie frontage requires 4 canopy trees (102 l.f./25) 2) Tracts 2-7: Per UDO b. Canopy and non-canopy trees must be selected from the College Station Streetscape Plant List and may be grouped as desired; and c. One existing tree (minimum four-inch caliper) may be substituted for a new tree. Existing trees must be of acceptable health, as determined by the Administrator. 2. The streetscaping requirements shall be determined along all other roadways by the following: a. Within 50 feet of the property line along the street, one canopy tree for every 32 feet of frontage shall be installed. Two non-canopy trees may be substituted for one canopy tree; 1) Tract 1: Medical Avenue frontage requires 25 canopy trees (799 l.f./32) Scott & White Drive frontage requires 27canopy trees (867 l.f. /32) 116 Lakeway Drive frontage requires 26 canopy trees (828 l.f./32) Healing Way frontage requires 29 canopy trees (914 l.f./32) 2) Tracts 2-7: Per UDO b. Canopy and non-canopy trees must be selected from the Administrator's Streetscape Plant List and may be grouped as desired; and c. One existing tree (minimum four-inch caliper) may be substituted for a new tree. Existing trees must be of acceptable health, as determined by the Administrator. 3. Three hundred additional landscape points shall be required for every 50 linear feet of frontage on a right-of-way. Driveway openings, visibility triangles, and other traffic control areas may be subtracted from total frontage. The additional landscape points can be dispersed throughout the site. a. Tract 1 requires an additional 21,060 points [(3,510 l.f./50) * 300] b. Tracts 2-7 per UDO 7.9 Non-Residential Architectural Standards B. Standards for All Non-Residential Structures The following table summarizes the Non-Residential Architectural Standards for the City of College Station: 3. Building Materials 5) Stainless steel, chrome, standing seam metal and premium grade architectural metal may be used as an architectural accent and shall not cover greater than thirty percent (30%) of any façade for Tract 1 and 15% for Tracts 2-7. For Tracts all of 2-3 & 5, and within 400 feet of Rock Prairie Road of tract 4 the building architecture, styles and façades of the structures will be similar to and consist of similar materials as those present in the subdivisions across Rock Prairie Road (Stonebrook, etc), The pitch will be a minimum of 4:12, or as approved by the City's design review board. D. Additional Standards for 20,000 S.F. or Greater In addition to the standards set out in Section 7.9.B, the following shall apply to any single building or combinations of buildings of 20,000 gross square feet in area, whether connected or not, but determined to be a single building plot. E. Additional Standards for 50,000 S.F. or Greater In addition to the standards set out in this Section 7.9.B and 7.9.D, the following shall apply to any single building or combinations of buildings of 50,000 gross square feet in area or greater, whether connected or not, but determined to be a single building plot. 3. Landscaping These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements established in Section 7.5 Landscaping and Tree Protection. a. The minimum required landscape points for a site shall be double (2 x minimum landscape points) of that required for developments of less than 50,000 gross square feet in area. The minimum allowable tree size is two inch (2”) caliper. Streetscape point requirements remain the same and shall count toward the landscape point requirement. 1) Tract 1 requires a total 122,808 points (50,874*2 + 21,060) 2) Tracts 2-7 per UDO b. Trees are required along fifteen percent (15%) of the linear front of any façade facing a public right-of-way and shall include a minimum of one (1) canopy tree for every required six feet (6’) in length. Non-canopy trees may be substituted in the tree wells provided that the number required shall be doubled. This landscaping shall count toward the overall landscape requirement. Trees may be at grade or may be raised a maximum of thirty inches (30”) in height, so long as the soil is continuous with the soil at grade. If the trees are located within interior 117 parking islands, then the islands shall not count toward the required interior parking islands as described in Section 7.2.E Interior Islands. F. Additional Standards for 150,000 S.F. or Greater In addition to the standards set out in Sections 7.9.B, 7.9.D, and 7.9.E, the following shall apply to any single building or combinations of buildings of 150,000 gross square feet in area or greater, whether connected or not but determined to be a single building plot. 3. The minimum allowable tree size is two and one half inches (2.5”) caliper. 4. All parking areas must be screened from the public right-of-way using berms without exception for parking areas within 100 feet of the public right of way. Parking areas beyond 100 feet from the public right of way may choose to not provide berms so long as the area between the right of way and parking is open space area. 7.10 Outdoor Lighting Standards It is recognized that no design can eliminate all ambient light from being reflected or otherwise being visible from any given development; however, the following requirements shall be followed to the fullest extent possible in order to limit nuisances associated with lighting and resulting glare. All lighting within each Tract shall meet the requirements of this Section. A. Site Lighting Design Requirements 1. Fixture (luminaire) The light source shall not project below an opaque housing. No fixture shall directly project light horizontally. 2. Light Source (lamp) Only incandescent, florescent, metal halide, mercury vapor, or color corrected high pressure sodium may be used. The same type must be used for the same or similar types of lighting on any one site throughout any master-planned development. 3. Mounting Fixtures shall be mounted in such a manner that the projected cone of light does not cross any property line. a. Tracts 2 thru 5 shall be limited to a maximum mounting height of 12 feet. b. Tracts 1, 6 & 7 shall be limited to a maximum mounting height of 30 feet. B. Specific Lighting Requirements 1. Façade and flagpole lighting must be directed only toward the façade or flag and shall not interfere with the night-visibility on nearby thoroughfares or shine directly at any adjacent residential use. 2. All lighting fixtures incorporated into non-enclosed structures (i.e., gas pump canopies, car washes, etc.) shall be fully recessed into the underside of such structures. 7.12 Traffic Impact Analyses A TIA has been submitted for the Proposed PDD Concept Plan, and was prepared according to the methodology approved by the City. Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements 8.2 General Requirements and Minimum Standards of Design A. Urban Standards 17. Drainage All drainage shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines and the Bryan/College Station Unified Technical Specifications, Chapter 13 Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance and all applicable state and federal requirements. 118 Even though the City of College Station does not have a water quality requirement, we will still be providing water quality via a Wet Pond. This best management practice (BMP) will treat the entire site of Tract 1 for water quality and provide approximately 93% total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiency. In addition to providing water quality the pond will also detain the 2, 10, 25, and 100 year storm events. The pond will also serve as an aesthetic landscape feature, and serve as the main focal point as you enter the site. Site Design Minimum Standards for Commercial and Multi-Family Projects Sign Standards Sign Visibility As per Preliminary Site Sign Locations Plan for Tract 1. Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, 2009, Streets and Alleys Table V • Minor Collectors (Scott & White Drive, Medical Avenue, Healing Way) Right-of-Way width shall be 60 feet. • Major Collector (Lakeway Drive) Right-of-Way width shall be 80 feet. 119 120 Scott & White Hospital :: Central Texas Environmental Graphics Program Prepared for: Jacobs Issue: PDD Documentation Date: Oct 11, 2010 Scale: NTS GJankedesignv: 512 329 8343 f: 512 329 6195 a: 1100 W. 6th St., Austin, TX 78703 © Jankedesign Inc. 2010 All Rights Reserved Preliminary Site Sign Locations 1.0 Preliminary 11 Oct 2010 Site Plan: NTS Note: Building footprint and sign locations shown are preliminary (Estimated) Sign Type Size Qty. Square Ft per location Total sq. ft. Primary Identification 16'h × 10'w 3 160 sq. ft. ea. 320 sq. ft. Secondary Identification 9'- 9"h × 6'- 6"w 4 63 sq. ft. ea. 252 sq. ft. Tertiary Identification 9'- 3"h × 4'- 3"w 1 40 sq. ft. ea. 160 sq. ft. Vehicular Directional 5'- 3"h × 4'- 9"w 4 25 sq. ft. ea. 225 sq. ft. Hospital Building Identification 4'- 0"h x 48’ Letters Logo and Name & 10' × 10' logo 3 600 sq. ft.± ea. 1200 sq. ft. Hospital Building Logo 10' × 10' logo 1 100 sq. ft. ea. 100 sq. ft. Hospital Emergency Identification 1’-6”h x 20’ letters 1 30 sq. ft. ea. 30 sq. ft. Clinic & Future Building Identification 2’-0”h x 18’ letters 6 36 sq. ft. ea. 108 sq. ft. Vehicular Directional 5'- 3"h × 4'- 9"w 17 25 sq. ft. 550 sq. ft. (Less visible from Public Right of Way) 121 Scott & White Hospital :: Central Texas Environmental Graphics Program Notes: 1. Clinic Building Identification example not shown. 2. Wayfinding messages and project name to vary. Issue: PPD Documentation Date: Oct 11, 2010 Scale: N/A GJankedesignv: 512 329 8343 f: 512 329 6195 a: 1100 W. 6th St., Austin, TX 78703 © Jankedesign Inc. 2010 All Rights Reserved Scott & White Signage Examples 2.0 Hospital Building Identification 4'- 0" Cap. Ht. Letters – 192 sq. ft. (estimated) Hospital Building Logo 10' × 10' – 100 sq. ft. (estimated) Primary Identification Sign 16'h × 10'w – 160 sq. ft. Secondary Identification Sign 9'- 9"h × 6'- 6"w – 63 sq. ft. Tertiary Identification Sign 9'- 3"h × 4'- 3"w – 40 sq. ft. Vehicular Directional Sign 5'- 3"h × 4'- 9"w – 25 sq. ft. Signage Examples Preliminary 11 OctY 2010 122 Proposed Land Uses Tract 1: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Outdoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Vocational / Trade · Health Care, Hospitals · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Offices · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* Tract 2: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary · Government Facilities · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Parks · Places of Worship · Animal Care Facility, Indoor · Art Studio / Gallery · Commercial Amusements (C) · Daycare, Commercial · Drive-in / thru window*# · Dry Cleaners & Laundry* · Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor*# · Offices · Personal Service Shop · Printing / Copy Shop · Restaurants · Retail Sales & Service* · Retail Sales & Service – Alcohol* · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Utility * · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated Tract 3: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary 123 · Government Facilities · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Parks · Places of Worship · Animal Care Facility, Indoor · Art Studio / Gallery · Commercial Amusements (C) · Daycare, Commercial · Drive-in / thru window*+ · Dry Cleaners & Laundry* · Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor+ · Offices · Personal Service Shop · Printing / Copy Shop · Restaurants · Retail Sales & Service* · Retail Sales & Service – Alcohol* · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Utility * · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated Tract 4: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary · Educational Facility, Tutoring · Educational Facility, Vocational / Trade · Government Facilities · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Parks · Places of Worship · Animal Care Facility, Indoor · Art Studio / Gallery · Daycare, Commercial · Drive-in / thru window*+ · Dry Cleaners & Laundry* · Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor+ · Offices · Personal Service Shop · Printing / Copy Shop · Radio / TV Station / Studios · Retail Sales & Service* · Retail Sales & Service – Alcohol* · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Utility * 124 · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Major (C) · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated Tract 5: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary · Educational Facility, Tutoring · Educational Facility, Vocational / Trade · Government Facilities · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Parks · Places of Worship · Animal Care Facility, Indoor · Art Studio / Gallery · Daycare, Commercial · Drive-in / thru window* · Offices · Parking as Primary Use (C) · Personal Service Shop · Printing / Copy Shop · Radio / TV Station / Studios · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Utility * · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Major (C) · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated Tract 6: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Outdoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary · Educational Facility, Tutoring · Educational Facility, Vocational / Trade · Government Facilities · Health Care, Hospitals · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Parks · Places of Worship · Animal Care Facility, Indoor · Art Studio / Gallery 125 · Car Wash * · Commercial Garden / Greenhouse / Landscape Maint.* · Commercial Amusements* · Conference / Convention Center · Country Club · Daycare, Commercial · Drive-in / thru window · Dry Cleaners & Laundry · Fraternal Lodge · Fuel Sales* · Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor+ · Health Club / Sports Facility, Outdoor · Hotels · Night Club. Bar or Tavern (C) · Offices · Parking as Primary Use · Personal Service Shop · Printing / Copy Shop · Radio / TV Station / Studios · Restaurants · Retail Sales – Single Tenant over 50,000 SF · Retail Sales & Service* · Retail Sales & Service – Alcohol* · Theater · Storage, Self Service · Vehicular Sales, Rental, Repair and Service* · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Utility * · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Major (C) · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated Tract 7: · Extended Care Facility / Convalescent / Nursing Home · Educational Facility, College & University · Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction · Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary · Educational Facility, Tutoring · Educational Facility, Vocational / Trade · Government Facilities · Health Care, Medical Clinics · Parks · Places of Worship · Animal Care Facility, Indoor · Art Studio / Gallery · Car Wash * · Commercial Garden / Greenhouse / Landscape Maint.* 126 · Commercial Amusements* · Daycare, Commercial · Drive-in / thru window* · Dry Cleaners & Laundry · Fuel Sales* · Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor+ · Hotels · Night Club. Bar or Tavern (C) · Offices · Personal Service Shop · Printing / Copy Shop · Radio / TV Station / Studios · Restaurants · Retail Sales – Single Tenant over 50,000 SF · Retail Sales & Service* · Retail Sales & Service – Alcohol* · Theater · Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory · Utility * · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Major (C) · Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated * Land Use with Supplemental Standards (Refer to Article 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance) + Drive-in / thru windows shall be limited to not include restaurants and Health clubs are limited to 20,000 s.f. # Health Clubs are limited to 20,000 square feet and Restaurant Drive-Thru permitted only on portion of Tract 2 previously zoned C-1 General Commercial (C) Conditional Use Permit 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 10 Health Club / Sports Facility, Indoor+ Hotels Night Club. Bar or Tavern (C) Offices Personal Service Shop Printing / Copy Shop Radio / TV Station / Studios Restaurants Retail Sales – Single Tenant over 50,000 SF Retail Sales & Service* Retail Sales & Service – Alcohol* Theater Scientific Testing / Research Laboratory Utility * Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Intermediate* Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Major (C) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities- Unregulated * Land Use with Supplemental Standards (Refer to Article 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance) + Drive-in / thru windows shall be limited to not include restaurants and Health clubs are limited to 20,000 s.f. # Health Clubs are limited to 20,000 square feet and Restaurant Drive-Thru permitted only on portion of Tract 2 previously zoned C-1 General Commercial (C) Conditional Use Permit Access Driveway locations limited to those shown on the Concept Plan for Tracts 1 and 4, and exclude any further driveway access to Rock Prairie Road or State Highway 6, except where an existing access easement is located on Tract 2 providing cross access with the adjacent property owner. All access points will have to meet any conditions required by a revised Transportation Impact Analysis. Architectural Design Structures on Tracts 2, 3, 5, and the first 400 feet from Rock Prairie Road on Tract 4, the buildings architecture, styles, and facades of the structures will be similar to and consist of similar materials of those present in the neighborhoods located across Rock Prairie Road. The roof pitch is 4:12. The architectural standards for Tract 4 and along Rock Prairie Road extend a minimum of 400 feet from Rock Prairie Road and relate to the "first layer" of buildings off of Rock Prairie Road, regardless of the distance from Rock Prairie Road. The architectural and height limitations in this PDD are included to create the desired character along the Rock Prairie corridor in that area. The Hospital buildings will meet all minimum ordinance requirements besides those granted as meritorious modifications. The following information relates to the architectural design on Tract 1 – the hospital building: Exterior materials of the front elevation's two-story base will include stone, brick and glass. The addition of architectural metal panels will complete the material pallet for the upper three floors. A strong vertical motif is developed with the stone pillars along the two-story lobby/waiting concourse. The stone pillars are six feet wide and occur along the concourse on 15-foot centers. The space between the pillars is recessed 18 inches and in-filled with glass curtain wall providing a regular pattern of articulation along the two-story base. The extension of the Gift Shop, Entry Vestibule and Chapel outward a long the concourse will provide additional articulation elements. On the upper three floors the windows will protrude outward from the building three feet continuing the articulation of the façade of the building. 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 November 22, 2010 Regular Agenda Item No. 2 Scott & White Healthcare Real Estate Contract and Conveyance To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a real estate contract and the conveyance of approximately 30 acres of property between the College Station Independent School District, the City, the Research Valley Partnership and Scott & White Healthcare. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal III.1 Promote knowledge-based businesses. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that Council approve the conveyance of the 30 acre parcel of property to the Research Valley Partnership for ultimate transfer to Scott & White Healthcare. Summary: On October 1, 2010, the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) approved selling 30 acres of property located at Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6 to the City of College Station. Furthermore, the City Council approved the real estate contract on October 6, 2010 and ultimately received the property on November 17, 2010. The area in and around the property, known as the Thomas Carruthers League, Abstract No. 9, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, has been generally identified as a part of the City’s Medical Corridor and the ultimate acquisition and development of the subject property by Scott & White Healthcare will result in the construction of a new hospital, medical clinic, and other medically related facilities. Upon the City Council’s approval of the real estate contract to convey the property to the RVP as considered under this item, the RVP will accept the land and committed to enter into a real estate contract to convey the property to Scott & White Healthcare at the RVP Board of Directors meeting on November 17, 2010. Scott & White healthcare will be the end developers of the referenced property. Budget & Financial Summary: The net effect of this transaction is budget neutral as the purchase and sale of the property, in the amount of $4,020,000, is to be paid entirely by Scott & White Healthcare. Attachments: 1) Real Estate Contract between the City and the RVP 168 REALESTATECO~IRACT THIS CONTRACT OF SALE ("Contract" andlor "Agreement") is made by and between the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, situated in Brazos County, Texas ("Seller" or the "City"), and the RESEARCH VALLEY PARTNERSHIP, a Texas non-profit corporation ("Buyer" or "RVP"), upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, RECITALS A. Whereas, the City is currently under contract with the College Station Independent School District ("CSISD") dated ,2010, to purchase approximately thirty (30,00) acres of real property situated on Rock Prairie Road, east of Texas Highway 6 South, in College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and more particularly described in Article I below (the 'Property"); and B, Whereas, the City has identified the geographic area in and around the Property as an area of the City that would be appropriately developed as a hospital or medical care corridor ("Medical Corridor); and C, Whereas, the City desires that the Property be acquired and developed as a part of the Medical Corridor; and D, Whereas, the City wants to have the Property developed pursuant to a contract with RVP; and E, Whereas, RVP is prepared to facilitate the acquisition and development of the Property as a part of the Medical Corridor, and is prepared to do so by selling the Property to Scott & White Healthcare ('S&W"), for the construction of a hospital and other related medical facilities and office complexes; and F, Whereas, the City has determined that the ultimate acquisition and development of the Property through RVP and by S&W will serve a public purpose and significantly advance the Medical Corridor concept in the City of College Station; and G, Whereas, pursuant to Section 272,001 of the TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, without follOWing the notice and bidding procedures of Section 272,001, the City may convey the Property to the RVP, an independent foundation, to facilitate the development of the Medical Corridor; and H, Whereas, in furtherance of the above described public purpose, RVP will transfer the Property to S&W for the development and construction of a hospital and related medical facilities and office complexes; and L Whereas, these Recitals accurately express the intent of the Buyer and the Seller, and as such, these Recitals are intended to be incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, and on the basis of the permitted procedures described in these Recitals, the Buyer and Seller agree as follows: ARTICLE I PURCHASE AND SALE Page 1 of 13 169 1.1 Upon closing the Real Estate Contract referenced in Recital A above, Seller agrees to sell and convey and BUYER agrees to purchase the following interests in property being all that certain 30.00 acre tract or parcel of land, lying and being situated in the Thomas Carruthers League, Abstract No, 9, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and being the same property described in that certain Warranty Deed dated March 8, 1988, from Grantor First Republicbank A&M to Grantee College Station Independent School District and being recorded at Volume 1033, Page 534, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas and being more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof hereinafter referred to as the "Property", 1.2 This Contract by Seller to sell the Property is subject to approval by the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas; such approval indicated by signature of Seller's representative to this Contract. 1.3 This Contract by Buyer to purchase the Property is subject to approval by the Board of Directors of the RVP; such approval indicated by signature of Buyer's representative to this Contract. 1.4 Seller will not insure title to the Buyer. However, title will be insured, at CSISD's expense, upon Buyer's conveyance and closing of the Property to S&W. 1.5 The City wil not provide a survey, but S&W, at its expense, will provide a survey of the Property, The field notes description, as prepared by the surveyor, shall be substituted for the description attached to this Contract and shall be used in the Special Warranty Deed. 1.6 Buyer and Seller are tax-exempt entities and as such are not subject to rollback or other taxes, 1.7 The sale of the Property shall be made by a Special Warranty Deed from Seller to Buyer in the form prepared by Seller attached hereto as Exhibit "B," ARTICLE II PURCHASE PRICE 2.1 The purchase price for the Property shall be the sum of Four Million Twenty Thousand and 00/100ths Dollars ($4,020,000.00), The purchase price shall be payable in full at closing. ARTICLE III REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER 3.1 Seller hereby represents and warrants to Buyer as follows: (a) Seller has the full right, power, and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Contract. (b) (c) Seller is not a "foreign person" within the meaning of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, Sections 1445 and 7701 (I.e., Seller is not non-resident aliens, foreign corporations, foreign partnerships, foreign trusts or foreign estates as those terms are defined in the Code and regulations promulgated thereunder), (d) To the best of Seller's knowledge, there are no unpaid charges, debts, liabilities, claims or obligations arising from any construction, occupancy, ownership, use or operation of the Property, or the business operated thereon, if any, which could give rise to any mechanic's or materialmen's or other statutory lien against the Property, or any part thereof, or for which Buyer will be responsible. (e) The Property shall be sold to Buyer subject to the following provisions, each of which shall survive closing and shall be incorporated into the speCial warranty deed: Page 2 of 13 170 As a material part of the consideration for this Contract, Seller and Buyer agree that Buyer is taking the Property "AS IS" with any and all latent and patent defects and that there is no warranty by Seller that the Property has a particular financial value or is fit for a particular purpose. Buyer acknowledges and stipulates that Buyer is not relying on any representation, statement, or other assertion with respect to the Property condition but is relying on Buyer's examination of the Property. Buyer takes the Property with the express understanding and stipulation that there are no express or implied warranties. Buyer hereby acknowledges that Buyer is purchasing the Property, and the Property is hereby conveyed to Buyer "AS IS," 'WHERE IS" and "WITH ALL FAULTS", and specifically and expressly without any warranties, representations, or guarantees, either express or implied, of any kind, nature, or type whatsoever from or on behalf of Seller, except for those expressly set forth herein as a warranty under this Contract. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has not relied, and is not relying, on any information, document, sales brochures, or other literature, maps or sketches, projection, pro forma, statement, representation, guarantee, or warranty (whether express or implied, or oral or written, or material or immaterial) that may have been given by, or made by, or on behalf of Seller. Seller has not, does not, and will not with respect to the Property, make any warranties or representations, express or implied, or arising by operation of law, including, but in no way limited to, any warranty of condition, merchantability, habitability, or fitness for a particular use, or with respect to the value, profitability or marketability of the Property. ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF BUYER 4.1 Buyer represents and warrants to Seller as of the effective date and as of the closing date that: (a) Buyer has the full right, power, and authority to purchase the Property from Seller as provided in this Contract and to carry out Buyer's obligations under this Contract, and all requisite action necessary to authorize Buyer to enter into this Contract and to carry out Buyer's obligations hereunder has been obtained or on or before closing will have been taken. ARTICLE V CLOSING 5.1 The closing shall be held at Brazos County Abstract Company within ninety (90) calendar days from the execution and tender of this Contract by Buyer, at such time and date as Seller and Buyer may agree upon (the "closing date"). The City Attorney is authorized to extend the time for closing. 5.2 At the closing, Seller shall: (a) Deliver to Buyer the duly executed and acknowledged Special Warranty Deed prepared by Seller conveying good and marketable title in the Property, free and clear of any and all liens, encumbrances, except for the Reviewable Matters and subject to the Buyer's election to terminate this Contract in the event Buyer disapproves of any Reviewable Matter, which objection is to be cured by Seller on or prior to the closing as provided by Article I of this Contract. (b) Deliver possession of the Property to Buyer. Page 3 of 13 171 ARTICLE VI CONVEYANCE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE 7.1 The Property is one of several adjacent properties as described in Exhibit "e" attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Adjacent Properties")." It is the express intent of the Seller to convey the Property to Buyer for the purpose of advancing the public purpose of developing the Medical Corridor. Accordingly, the Seller's obligations under this Contract are contingent upon the Buyer entering into a contract to convey the Property to S&W in a simultaneous, or near simultaneous transaction. Further ft is the express intent of the Seller to convey the Property only on the condition that S&W is able to acquire and to close on Adjacent Properties. In furtherance of this contingency, and for the consideration expressed, the Buyer has agreed to the termination provisions set for in Article VII that follows. ARTICLE VII TERMINATION 8.1 In consideration of Five Dollars ($5.00) paid by Seller to Buyer, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged here, the Seller may terminate this Contract at any time prior to Closing. In tihe event that Seller terminates this Contract, Buyer shall be entilled to retain the independent consideration. ARTICLE VIII MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 Survival of Covenants: Any of the representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements of the parties, as well as any rights and benefits of the parties, pertaining to the period of time following the closing date, shall survive the closing and shall not be merged by deed or otherwise be extinguished. 9.2 Notice: Any notice required or permitted to be delivered by this Contract shall be deemed received when sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Seller or Buyer, as the case may be, at the addresses set forth below: SELLER: City Manager City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 With a Copy to: City Attorney City of College Station 11 01 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 BUYER: Research Valley Partnership 1500 Research Parkway, Suite 270 College Station, Texas 77845 9.3 Texas Law to Apply: This Contract shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties created by this Contract are to be performed in Srazos County, Texas. Page 4 of 13 172 9.4 Parties Bound: This Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns. The persons executing this Contract do so in their capacities as set forth below and in no other capacity whatsoever, and such persons shall have no personal liability for executing this Contract in a representative capacity. All such liability is limited to the principal for which they execute this document as a representative. 9.5 Invalid Provision: In case anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Contract shall for any reason be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Contract, and this Contract shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in the Contract. In lieu of such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision, there shall be added automatically as part of this Contract a provision as similar in terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and be legal, valid and enforceable. 9.6 Construction: The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel, if any, have reviewed and revised this Contract and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Contract or any amendments or exhibits hereto. 9.7 Prior Agreements Superseded: This Contract embodies the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting subject malter within and may only be amended or supplemented by an instrument in writing executed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 9.B Time of Essence: Time is of the essence to this Contract. 9.9 Gender: Words of any gender used in this Contract shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and words in the singular number shall be held to include the plural, and vice versa, unless the context requires otherwise. 9.10 Multiple Counterparts: This Contract may be executed in a number of identical counterparts. If so executed, each of the counterparts shall, collectively, constitute but one agreement. In making proof of this Contract it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one counterpart. 9.11 Memorandum of Contract: Upon request of either party, both parties shall promptly execute a memorandum of this agreement suitable for filing of record. 9.12 List of Exhibits: The Exhibits attached to and incorporated into this Contract are as follows: A. Legal Description of the Property; B. Form of Special Warranty Deed; and C. List of Adjacent Properties. EXECUTED on this the ___ day of ________, 2010. BUYER: SELLER: RESEARCH VALLEY PARTNERSHIP CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Stephen Holditch Mayor Chairman Date:_______ Page 5 of 13 173 ATTEST: City Secretary Date:_______ APPROVED: City Manager Chief Financial Attorney Page 6 of 13 174 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS § This instrument was acknowledge before me on the __day of , 2010, by Nancy Berry, as Mayor of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, on behalf of said municipality. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the STATE OF TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS § § ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF BRAZOS § This instrument was acknowledge before me on the __ day of , 2010, by Stephen Holditch, as Chairman of the Board of the Research Valley Partnership, a Texas non-profit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the STATE OF TEXAS Page 7 of 13 175 Exhibit "A" Being all that certain 30.00 acre tract or parcel of land, lying and being situated in the THOMAS CARRUTHERS LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO.9, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and being a portion of the 53.23 acre remainder of that same 54.99 acre tract conveyed from Robert Welch, Trustee, to RepublicBank A & M, as described by deed recorded in Volume 948, page 79B, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 30.00 acre tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 112' iron rod found marking the northeast corner of said 54.99 acre tract and the northwest corner of a 25.74 acre tract conveyed from E. Ridley Briggs, et ai, to William H. Clayton, et ux, as described by deed recorded in Volume 241, page 72 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas and lying in the south right-of-way line 01 Rock Prairie Road; THENCE SOD' 01' 12' E lor a distance of 1054.76 leet with the common line between said 54.99 acre tract and said 25.74 acre tract to a 3/4" iron rod found lor corner at the base of a fence post; THENCE S 53' 25' 33' W for a distance of 929.00 leet with said common line to a 112" iron rod found marking the south corner of said 54.99 acre tract and the west corner 01 said 25.74 acre tract and lying in the northeast line of a called 4.84 acre tract conveyed Irom Ida Mae Lee to Claude E. Dubois, et ux, as described by deed recorded in Volume 590, page 24, 01 the Deed Records 01 Brazos County, Texas. Said northeast line being also the northeast line of a 103 acre tract conveyed from L. V. Williams, et UX, to L. T. Lee, et UX, as described by deed recorded in Volume 138, page 543 01 the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas; THENCE N 44° 4B' 27" W lor a dislance of 484.22 leel with the line of said 53.23 acre tract to a 112" iron rod set lor angle point; THENCE N 45' 49' 42' W lor a distance of 244.31 leet with said line to a 1/2' iron rod set lor corner; THENCE N 44' 10' 18" E for a distance of 650.03 feet across said 53.23 acre tract to a 1/2' iron rod set for angle point; THENCE N 05° 57' 00" E for a distance 01708.59 feel across said 53.23 acre tracllo a 1/2" iron rod set for corner, and lying in the south right-ol-way line of Rock Prairie Road; THENCE S 84° 03' 00' E for a distance of 737.90 feel with said righi-ai-way line to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 30.00 acres of land, more or less. Page 8 of 13 176 Exhibit "9' Form of Special Warranty Deed NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Dale: ________, 2010 Grantor: City of College Station, Texas 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Brazos County, Texas 77842 Grantee: Research Valley Partnership 1500 Research Parkway Suite 270 College Station, Brazos County, Texas 77845 Consideration: Ten and No/l00 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable conSideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor. Property (including any improvements): Being all that certain 30.00 acre tract or parcel of land, lying and being situated in the THOMAS CARRUTHERS LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO.9, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and being a portion of the 53.23 acre remainder of that same 54.99 acre tract conveyed from Robert Welch, Trustee, to RepublicBank A & M, as described by deed recorded in Volume 948, page 798, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 30.00 acre tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 112" iron rod found marking the northeast corner of said 54.99 acre tract and the northwest corner of a 25.74 acre tract conveyed from E. Ridley Briggs, et ai, to William H. Clayton, et ux, as described by deed recorded in Volume 241, page 72 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas and lying in the south right-of-way line of Rock Prairie Road; THENCE S 00" 01' 12" E for a distance of 1054.76 feet with the common line between said 54.99 acre tracl and said 25.74 acre tract to a 3/4" iron rod found for corner at the base of a fence post; THENCE S 53" 25' 33" W for a distance of 929.00 feet with said common line to a 1/2" iron rod found marking the south corner of said 54.99 acre tract and the west corner of said 25.74 acre tract and lying in the northeast line of a called 4.84 acre tract conveyed from Ida Mae Lee to Claude E. Dubois, et ux, as described by deed recorded in Volume 590, page 24, of Ihe Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. Said northeast line being also the northeast line of a 103 Page 9 of 13 177 acre tract conveyed from L. V. Williams, et UX, to L. T. Lee, et UX, as described by deed recorded in Volume 138, page 543 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas; THENCE N 44° 48' 27" W for a distance of 484.22 feet with the line of said 53.23 acre tract to a 112" iron rod set for angle point; THENCE N 45' 49' 42" W for a distance of 244.31 feet with said line to a 112' iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 44° 10' 18' E for a distance of 650.03 feet across said 53.23 acre tract to a 112" iron rod set for angle point; THENCE N 05" 57' DO" E for a distance of 708.59 feet across said 53.23 acre tract to a 112' iron rod set for comer, and lying in the south right-of-way line of Rock Prairie Road; THENCE S 84' 03' DO" E for a distance of 737.90 feet with said right-of-way line to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 30.00 acres of land, more or less. Reservations from Conveyance: None Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty: 1. REA Easement from C.F. Goen to the City of Bryan, dated April 30, 1937, recorded in Volume 98, page 325, Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. 2. Utility Easement from Joe A Ferreri to The City of College Station, dated October 10, 1983, recorded in Volume 613, page 524, Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, and as shown on survey plat prepared by Mark R. Paulson, Registered Public Surveyor, State of Texas No. 2099, dated February 1988. 3. Discrepancy between the property line and the existing fence along the southwest side of the property as shown on survey plat prepared by Mark R. Paulson, Registered Public Surveyor, state of Texas No. 2099, dated February 1988. 4. Royalty Deed from W.T. Franklin to Irene Franklin, et ai, dated April 8, 1963, recorded in Volume 228, page 357, Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. 5. Oil and gas Lease from Joe A Ferreri to Chaparral Minerals, Inc., dated October 10, 1977, recorded in Volume 29, page 285, O&GL Records of Brazos County, Texas; as ratified by instruments recorded in Volume 754, page 716, Volume 756, page 759, Volume 760, page 211, and Volume 762, page 615, Official Records of Brazos County, Texas. Grantor, for the Consideration and subject to the Reservations from Conveyance and the Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty, grants, sells, and conveys to Grantee the Property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any way belonging, to have and to hold it to Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors, and assigns forever. Grantor binds Grantor and Grantor's heirs and successors to warrant and forever defend all and singular the Property to Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors, and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof when the claim is Page 10 of 13 178 by, through, or under Grantor but not otherwise, except as to the Reservations from Conveyance and the Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty. AS A MATERIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THIS DEED, GRANTOR AND GRANTEE AGREE THAT GRANTEE IS TAKING THE PROPERTY "AS IS" WITH ANY AND ALL LATENT AND PATENT DEFECTS AND THAT THERE IS NO WARRANTY BY GRANTOR THAT THE PROPERTY HAS A PARTICULAR FINANCIAL VALUE OR IS FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. GRANTEE ACKNOWLEDGES AND STIPULATES THAT GRANTEE IS NOT RELYING ON ANY REPRESENTATION, STATEMENT, OR OTHER ASSERTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY CONDITION BUT IS RELYING ON GRANTEE'S EXAMINATION OF THE PROPERTY. GRANTEE TAKES THE PROPERTY WITH THE EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING AND STIPULATION THAT THERE ARE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES EXCEPT FOR LIMITED WARRANTIES OF TITLE SET FORTH IN THIS DEED. THE RISK OF LIABILITY OR EXPENSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, EVEN IF ARISING FROM EVENTS BEFORE THE DATE OF THIS DEED, WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF GRANTEE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WERE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN AS OF THE DATE OF THIS DEED. GRANTEE INDEMNIFIES, HOLDS HARMLESS, AND RELEASES GRANTOR FROM LIABILITY FOR ANY LATENT DEFECTS AND FROM ANY LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING LIABILITY UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA), THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA), THE TEXAS SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, OR THE TEXAS WATER CODE. GRANTEE INDEMNIFIES, HOLDS HARMLESS, AND RELEASES GRANTOR FROM ANY LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY ARISING AS THE RESULT OF GRANTOR'S OWN NEGLIGENCE OR THE NEGLIGENCE OF GRANTOR'S REPRESENTATIVES. GRANTEE INDEMNIFIES, HOLDS HARMLESS, AND RELEASES GRANTOR FROM ANY LIABILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY ARISING AS THE RESULT OF THEORIES OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY, OR UNDER NEW LAWS OR CHANGES TO EXISTING LAWS ENACTED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS DEED THAT WOULD OTHERWISE IMPOSE ON GRANTORS IN THIS TYPE OF TRANSACTION NEW LIABILITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. When the context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural. GRANTOR: City of College Station Nancy Berry, Mayor Page 11 of 13 179 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BRAZOS § This instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of , 2010, on behalf of the City of College Station, a Texas Home-Rule Municipality, on behalf of said municipality, Prepared by: Legal Department City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Notary Public, State of Texas After Recording Return To: Legal Department City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Page 12of13 180 Exhibit "C" Adjacent Properties Page 13 of 13 181 I I 182 November 22, 2010 Regular Agenda Item No. 3 Scott & White Healthcare Economic Development Agreement To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Economic Development Agreement between the City and Scott & White Healthcare Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal III.1 Promote knowledge-based businesses. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that Council receive a presentation on a proposed Economic Development Agreement and then consider action to approve it. Summary: Earlier this year, Scott & White Healthcare entered into discussions with the City regarding the long-term development of a new full service hospital and medical complex to be located in the City’s identified “Medical Corridor” and generally located on the south east corner of Texas Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. In order to secure this important project, the City has been working diligently to negotiate a development incentive package agreeable to both parties. The specific terms and conditions of the proposed performance-based agreement will be presented to the City Council at the meeting. Budget & Financial Summary: Specific costs, and anticipated return on investment will be identified at the meeting. Attachments: None 183 November 10, 2010 Regular Agenda Item No. 4 UDO Amendment (Subdivision Regulations) Discussion To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding future updates to the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance – Sections 3 and 8 (Subdivision Regulations) Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially Sustainable City Providing Response to Core Services and Infrastructure, Neighborhood Integrity, and Diverse Growing Economy, Improving Multi-modal Transportation, and Green Sustainable City Recommendation(s): The information presented is for information purposes, staff is not seeking any specific action from Council at this meeting. Future meetings and public hearings will be conducted where specific action is sought. Summary: For a number of years, the City staff has worked with the City Council, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and various stakeholder groups to update and revise the regulations regarding the subdivision and development of land. The most recent approach has been to divide the update into a series of phases. The first phase was completed nearly two years ago and involved moving the subdivision regulations into the UDO and updating the regulations due to changes in state law. Further revisions are needed to update the regulations to contemporary practices, to implement the adopted comprehensive plan, and to further the legal sufficiency of the regulations. These revisions will be accomplished in Phase II. Future phases will continue to modernize the regulations and respond to stakeholder concerns and community needs. The purpose of this presentation will be to provide Council with further detail on Phase II of this update and to explain the process that will be used to present the revisions for consideration and action by the Council. No action is required at this time. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: N/A 184 November 22, 2010 Regular Agenda Item No. 5 Appointment to Various Boards and Committees To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding selection of applicants to various Boards and Committees. CITIZEN MEMBERSHIP Zoning Board of Adjustment (correction to alternate) COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP Audit Committee Attachments: N/A 185