HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2011 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 2
No. 2 - Resolution to Hold First Public Hearing for
Water/Wastewater Impact Fees
Coversheet revised 5
Resolution 6
No. 3 - First Public Hearing and Technical Memorandum for
Water/Wastewater Impact Fees
Coversheet revised 7
Resolution 8
Tech Memo 9
Timeline 21
No. 4 - 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work
Coversheet revised 22
Plan of Work 23
No. 5 - Developer Identified UDO Amendments
Coversheet revised 28
Priority List 29
Brazos AIA Letter 31
P&Z Meeting minutes 34
No. 6 - UDO Amendment - Sign Ordinance
Coversheet revised 35
P&Z Meeting minutes 36
Ordinance 38
No. 7 - Animal Shelter Operations, Current and Future
Coversheet revised 41
1
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
Special Meeting
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Consider absence request.
Special Agenda
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.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to hold the first public hearing for
potential "system capacity" impact fees for Water and Wastewater.
3. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to approve the Technical
Memorandum for potential "system capacity" impact fees for Water and Wastewater.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of
Work.
5. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding developer-identified amendments to
the Unified Development Ordinance.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance amending Chapter 12, “Unified Development
Ordinance,” Section 7.4.I, “Attached Signs” and Section 11.2 “Defined Terms” of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas expanding the use of attached signs to include signage attached to site
lighting poles
2
City Council Special Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the status of the animal shelter and the
available options for Animal Control in 2011.
8. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek
advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or
attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a
litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the
City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation
subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any
final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
Litigation
a. 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
b. 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
c. Water CCN / 2002 Annexation / Wellborn Water Supply Corporation
d. Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn McIlhaney, and Ben
White
e. Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et al
f. Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Merrill
Legal Advice
a. Legal Issues Related to Wellborn Annexation
b. Legal Issues Related to Recall Petitions
c. Legal Issues of purchase and lease back to Arts Council
d. Legal advice regarding the attorney-client privilege
e. Discussion of Legal Issues Regarding: Creation of a Special Biocorridor District
Personnel {Gov’t Code Section 551.074}; possible action
The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or
dismissal of a public officer. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The
following public officer(s) may be discussed:
a. City Manager
9. 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 Tuesday, January 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
3
City Council Special Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Posted this 7th day of January, 2011 at 3:00 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 January 7, 2011 at 3:00 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 ________________, 2011 By______________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____day of ________________, 2011.
______________________________
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.
4
January 11, 2011
Special Agenda Item No. 2
Resolution to Hold First Public Hearing for Water/Wastewater Impact Fees
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Dave Coleman, Director of Water Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to
hold the first public hearing for potential “system capacity” impact fees for Water and
Wastewater.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially sustainable city providing response to core
services and infrastructure.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve this resolution.
Summary: On November 22, 2010 City Council directed staff to proceed with the required
analysis and public hearings for potential impact fees to increase system capacity of the
Water and Wastewater systems. Since that time, staff and our consultant, HDR Engineers,
have completed the study of the underlying land use assumptions and capital improvements
that form the basis for calculating the potential impact fees. These data are compiled in a
Technical Memorandum that has been reviewed by the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee (CIAC).
On December 16, 2010 the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission, acting in their
designated role as CIAC, forwarded the Technical Memorandum to City Council. As required
by State law, the next step is to hold a Public Hearing when Council considers approval of
the Tech Memo.
The attached resolution directs the public hearing to be held as previously ordered, with the
date to be January 11, 2010. This public hearing has been properly noticed in the local
newspaper. Since this resolution is required by State law, staff recommends approval.
Budget & Financial Summary: Not applicable
Attachment:
Resolution
5
6
January 11, 2011
Special Agenda Item No. 3
First Public Hearing and Technical Memorandum
for Water/Wastewater Impact Fees
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Dave Coleman, Director of Water Services
Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
a resolution to approve the Technical Memorandum for potential “system capacity” impact
fees for Water and Wastewater.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Financially sustainable city providing response to core
services and infrastructure.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve this resolution.
Summary: On November 22, 2010 City Council directed staff to proceed with the required
analysis and public hearings for potential system capacity impact fees for the Water and
Wastewater systems. Since that time, staff and our consultant, HDR Engineers, have
completed the study of the underlying land use assumptions and capital improvements that
form the basis for calculating the potential impact fees. These data are compiled in a
Technical Memorandum that has been reviewed by the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee (CIAC), and is attached.
On December 16, 2010 the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission, acting in their
designated role as CIAC, voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the Technical Memorandum
to City Council. (Commissioners Miles and Ashfield voted against.) The P&Z Chairman
allowed two representatives from the Home Builders Association to speak, and their
objections were focused on the possible Impact Fees themselves, rather than the land use
or capital improvement information in the Tech Memo.
As required by State law, to proceed with the Impact Fee study, City Council must pass the
attached resolution approving the Tech Memo. Since the land use and capital improvement
data in the Tech Memo are reasonable and have been verified by the CIAC, staff
recommends approval.
Please note that another public hearing will be held to discuss the impact fee
implementation, including the possible amounts and timing of fees. A timeline of future
events is attached, for your information.
Budget & Financial Summary: Not applicable
Attachment:
Resolution
Tech Memo
Timeline
7
8
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of College Station
From: Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and HDR Engineering, Inc.
Date: December 16, 2010
Re: Land Use and Capital Improvements Information Underlying Possible Water and
Wastewater Impact Fees for the City of College Station
1.0 Background
An impact fee is a one-time, up-front payment made by new development or redevelopment
made to a utility (or city) to help offset the cost of providing infrastructure to service that growth.
As a result, the utility “rate base” supports less of those costs of growth which helps avoid rate
increases due to that capital funding. In other words, an impact fee helps make growth better
pay for itself, so that existing rate-payers do not carry the full burden of funding those
improvements.
The City of College Station currently charges
water and sewer impact fees in four, relatively
small, non-contiguous portions of the City
(see Figure 1). Thus, only a small portion of
new development or redevelopment across
the City contributes fee proceeds toward
offsetting the costs of utility infrastructure
needed to provide them service. As a result,
the current limited application of the fee tool
does not have much effect in reducing capital
costs for growth paid for through the rates,
and an inequitable situation has resulted
where some pay the fee and many do not.
The City’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) also acts as the City’s Capital Improvements
Advisory Committee (CIAC) for impact fees, a required advisory body called for in the applicable
governing statute of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Among other things,
the CIAC is tasked by the statute and City Council to review for reasonableness the land use
and planning information that underlie the forecast of utility service demand, an assessment of
adequacy of current capacity and identification of existing excess capacity, and development
and costing of a water and wastewater capital improvement program (CIPs) to meet future
needs within a 10-year planning horizon (2011-2020).
Figure 1
Areas of College Station
Where Water and Sewer Impact Fees are Currently Levied
9
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 2
The weighted average cost of this existing excess utility capacity and future utility needs is the
initial cost basis underlying the fee calculation. Further adjustments to this weighted average
cost are then made to determine the maximum impact fee that could be charged.
As the City does not currently have impact fees in large portions of its municipal jurisdiction, this
consideration of citywide impact fees is being viewed as a “first time” adoption, which under
statutory provisions, requires a two-step public review process. As embodied in this Technical
Memorandum, the CIAC has reviewed the land use and capital planning information underlying
the fee calculations, and hereby report that information to City Council and provide our opinion
that this report is reasonable and useful information.
The next step required by State law is for City Council to set a Public Hearing date and provide
for 30-day advance newspaper notice to seek public comment on the planning and CIP data.
Subsequent to the receipt of public comment and closing of the 1st Public Hearing, the CIAC
may then make any relevant adjustments to the underlying planning data and proceed to the
calculation of the maximum water and wastewater fee amounts that could be charged. This
results in a final CIAC report to City Council, which is then the basis for setting a date and
providing notice for a second public hearing on the maximum potential fee amount and what
amount, equal to or lesser than the maximum, might be adopted as the applicable fees.
Again, this Technical Memorandum constitutes the CIAC’s first report to City Council on its
opinion of the reasonableness of the land use assumptions, resulting service demands, and
capital improvements project and cost information that will be used to later determine the
maximum impact fee amounts.
10
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 3
2.0 Utility Fee Application Area
In consultation with staff, the potential impact fee service area (i.e. the area where impact fees
would be charged if City utility service is provided) was identified as the City’s existing and
proposed state-certificated water and wastewater service boundaries within the City limits, as
shown in the figure below. There are some limited areas within the City where some utility
service is supplied by other providers. Only the applicable City-provided service fee would be
charged in these joint service areas.
11
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 4
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Table 1 provides an estimate of the current land uses and forecast of future land use patterns
within the impact fee service area. The current land use information was compiled from the
Brazos County Central Appraisal District’s parcel file for the area within the City’s existing and
proposed water and wastewater CCNs within the City limits. As indicated, the overall area
encompasses 18,396 acres for the Water CCN and 22,276 acres for the Sewer CCN within the
City limits and is about 60% to 65% developed. Residential land uses comprise about 45% to
46% of the area and commercial/institutional land uses representing about 18% to 19% of the
total area.
Future land uses were derived from the City’s Comprehensive Plan and represents the ultimate
designated land uses at build-out identified in the Plan. Since the area contained within the
impact fee service area is within the City limits, it is assumed that much of the development of
this area will occur within the next ten year planning horizon, although redevelopment and
intensification will continue to occur over time. So by the year 2020, it is assumed that
approximately 85% of the impact fee service will be developed with residential land uses
expected to total about 55% of the area and commercial and institutional uses about 20% to
23% of the impact fee service area by that time.
ITEM Acres %Acres*%
Water Service Area
Residential 8,543 46.4%10,031 54.5%
Commercial 3,432 18.7%3,680 20.0%
Instititional 3 0.0%6 0.0%
Undeveloped 6,419 34.9%4,680 25.4%
Total Land Use Acreage 18,396 100.0%18,396 100.0%
Wastewater Service Area
Residential 10,058 45.2%12,492 56.1%
Commercial 3,551 15.9%4,506 20.2%
Instititional 248 1.1%742 3.3%
Undeveloped 8,420 37.8%5,929 26.6%
Total Land Use Acreage 22,276 100.0%22,276 106.3%
Reflects unit water use of:1,100 Residential 1,056 Residential
1,200 Non-Residential 1,152 Non-Residential
Reflects unit wastewater use of:660 Residential 634 Residential
720 Non-Residential 691 Non-Residential
Current 2020
gallons per acre per day
gallons per acre per day
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
12
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 5
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
A typical single family residential house in College Station is issued a ¾” inlet-diameter water
meter. For our planning purposes, this is considered to be one Living Unit Equivalent (1 LUE).
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) tests various water meter types and sizes to
determine their maximum continuous rated flow capability. The higher flow rates for larger
water meters can be stated in terms of a LUE multiple of the flow capability of the smaller
standard residential meter. For this reason, the LUE concept is a useful tool for being able to
apply a base impact fee amount for one LUE to service requests of varying meter sizes.
Table 2 indicates the number of current water and wastewater utility connections by water meter
size, the LUE conversion factor for each meter size, and the number of equivalent LUEs for the
meters.
Living Units Equivalent Number of Number of
(LUEs)Meters LUEs
Meter Size per Meter (a) in 2010 (b) in 2010
WATER
5/8"0.67 - -
3/4"1.00 20,805 20,805
1"1.67 970 1,617
1.5"3.33 529 1,763
2"5.33 539 2,875
3"10.67 128 1,365
4"16.67 32 533
6"33.33 5 167
8"106.67 -
10"166.67 -
Total Water 23,008 29,125
WASTEWATER
5/8"0.67 - -
3/4"1.00 27,465 27,465
1"1.67 978 1,630
1.5"3.33 533 1,778
2"5.33 543 2,898
3"10.67 129 1,376
4"16.67 32 538
6"33.33 5 168
8"106.67 - -
10"166.67 - -
Total Wastewater 29,686 35,853
(a) Derived from AWWA C700-C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 5/8" meter.
(b) Source: City of College Station., November 2010.
TABLE 2
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
13
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 6
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the City’s current and projected water and wastewater service
demands within the impact fee service area and existing utility capacity by type of facility. The
projected growth of the utility system and service demand reflect an average of about 500 new
LUEs per year on the water system and 600 LUEs per year on the sewer system. They also
reflect an average growth rate over 10 years, a portion of which in the near-term is being
affected by the economic slow-down. The forecasts also reflect average day and peak day
water conservation savings anticipated to be realized by the year 2020.
As indicated in Tables 3 and 4, the current and future level of utility demand differs between
water and/or wastewater service, due to the differing service area configurations and the
difference between water use and wastewater return flows. For instance, some developments
in the City use municipal wastewater service, but not water. The number of wastewater service
connections should exceed that of water connections due to other water utility providers’
certificated service areas somewhat limiting the growth of the City’s future water service area.
Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the
utility systems. Please note that the existing capacity numbers in Tables 3 and 4 are held
constant from 2011 to 2020, to demonstrate what the shortfalls would be if no capacity
increases were made. If a deficit is shown for existing or future conditions, this typically implies
the need for a capacity expansion of some kind somewhere in the service area. However in this
simple mathematical presentation, the presence of a surplus of capacity does not, in and of
itself, imply that adequate service capability exists at every location within the service area.
Sometimes, the available excess capacity is not in the right geographical location to provide
adequate service to the area in need, and new facility improvements are still required.
14
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 7
Facilty Type 2011 2020
Supply
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)26.9 26.9
Est. Service Demand 26.5 28.5
Excess (Deficiency)0.3 (1.6)
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *29,505 32,183
Est. Service Demand 29,125 34,125
Excess (Deficiency)380 (1,942)
Treatment
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)31.7 31.7
Est. Service Demand 29.5 34.5
Excess (Deficiency)2.2 (2.9)
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *31,293 31,293
Est. Service Demand 29,125 34,125
Excess (Deficiency)2,168 (2,832)
Pumping
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)31.7 31.7
Est. Service Demand 38.4 41.3
Excess (Deficiency)(6.8) (9.6)
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *24,009 26,188
Est. Service Demand 29,125 34,125
Excess (Deficiency)(5,116) (7,937)
Ground Storage
Existing 2011 Capacity (mg)8.0 8.0
Est. Service Demand 6.8 7.6
Excess (Deficiency)1.2 0.4
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *34,188 35,987
Est. Service Demand 29,125 34,125
Excess (Deficiency)5,063 1,862
Elevated Storage
Existing 2011 Capacity (mg)5.0 5.0
Est. Service Demand 4.2 4.7
Excess (Deficiency)0.8 0.3
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *34,722 34,722
Est. Service Demand 29,125 34,125
Excess (Deficiency)5,597 597
Transmission
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)85.1 85.1
Est. Service Demand 38.4 41.3
Excess (Deficiency)46.7 43.8
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *64,494 64,494
Est. Service Demand 29,125 34,125
Excess (Deficiency)35,369 30,369
* Assume a conversion factor of :910 834 gpd/LUE for water supply
1,012 928 gpd/LUE for treatment
1,320 1,210 gpd/LUE for pumping
234 222 gals/LUE for ground storage
144 137 gals/LUE for elevated storage
1,320 1,210 gpd/LUE for transmission
TABLE 3
EST. WATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
15
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 8
Facilty Type 2011 2020
Treatment
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)11.5 11.5
Est. Service Demand 6.8 8.0
Excess (Deficiency)4.7 3.5
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *60,209 60,209
Est. Service Demand 35,853 41,853
Excess (Deficiency)24,356 18,356
Pumping
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)8.5 8.5
Est. Service Demand**2.1 4.8
Excess (Deficiency)6.4 3.7
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *14,834 14,834
Est. Service Demand 3,585 8,371
Excess (Deficiency)11,249 6,464
Interceptors
Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd)22.7 22.7
Est. Service Demand 20.5 24.0
Excess (Deficiency)2.2 (1.3)
Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) *39,651 39,651
Est. Service Demand 35,853 41,853
Excess (Deficiency)3,798 (2,202)
* Assume LUE conversion factor of :191 191 gpd/LUE for wastewater treatment
573 573 gpd/LUE for wastewater pumping
573 573 gpd/LUE for interceptors
**Assumes 10%20%of WW service demand pumped
TABLE 4
EST. WASTEWATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
16
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 9
5.0 INDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
There is adequate existing ground and elevated water storage to meet the future 10-year
demand. However, given the prospective growth facing the City in the next ten years, additional
water infrastructure capacity is needed for water supply, treatment (chlorination), pumping, and
transmission pipelines. Also, two new major water transmission mains are identified to provide
additional service capacity to certain locations within the City. Since it is difficult to forecast
where and when developer requests for new “approach” mains may arise, an allowance was
also made for miscellaneous transmission mains. With this included, the City will have the
flexibility to use impact fee proceeds, if available, for oversizing of approach mains, so as to not
unintentionally delay a project’s approval because of the lack of oversizing funding.
College Station will also need capacity improvements to its wastewater system, including an
increase in wastewater pumping capacity through upgrades to existing lift stations and
construction of new lift stations to serve newly developing areas. Similarly, various existing
interceptor lines will need to be upgraded as well as the extension of new lines into developing
areas. Similar to water, an allowance for miscellaneous interceptors was also included in the
calculation of the wastewater fee to assist in funding unexpected oversizing of approach mains.
As allowed in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, the impact fee may consider both
existing excess capacity and facility improvements to be funded within a future 10-year planning
horizon. Existing and future water and wastewater utility facilities that accomplish these service
capacity goals are identified in Tables 5 and 6, along with their cost, capacity, unit cost, and
allocation of existing and projected demand to these facilities.
Existing facilities were valued using data from the City’s fixed assets model. New facilities, their
sizing, timing, and costs were identified by the City staff and the City’s consulting engineer.
Costs for new facilities were projected to the expected date of construction. A weighted unit
cost of service is then calculated by facility type, based on a proportionate share of use of
existing excess capacity and new capacity by growth over the ten year planning period.
As indicated at the bottom of Tables 5 and 6, the weighted average capital cost of service for
water is $2,659 per Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) and $1,822 per LUE for wastewater or a total
of $4,481 per LUE for combined water and wastewater service. These numbers represent the
weighted capital cost of a new utility connection, considering both existing excess capacity and
new capacity costs needed to meet that growth. It should be emphasized that these weighted
capital costs per LUE quoted above do not yet represent the calculated maximum impact fees.
The statute also requires that future contributions for capital made by new customers through
monthly rate payments be considered in reducing the full capital cost amount..
17
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 10
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
WATER SUPPLY
EXISTING FACILITIES peak day mgd
Existing Supply 23,933,716$ 26.850 32,183 29,125 3,058 - 32,183
Subtotal Existing Facilities 23,933,716$ 26.850 32,183 744$ 29,125 3,058 - 32,183
FUTURE FACILITIES
Wells #8, #9, and #10 27,545,225$ 9.780 11,723 - 1,942 9,781 11,723
Subtotal Future Facilities 27,545,225$ 9.780 11,723 2,350$ - 1,942 9,781 11,723
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY 51,478,941$ 36.630 43,906 29,125 5,000 9,781 43,906
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =1,367$
WATER TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES peak day mgd
Existing Chlorination 105,481$ 31.680 31,293 29,125 2,168 - 31,293
Subtotal Existing Facilities 105,481$ 31.680 31,293 3$ 29,125 2,168 - 31,293
FUTURE FACILITIES
Expanded Sandy Point Road Chlorination 1,698,964$ 10.080 10,860 156$ - 2,832 8,028 10,860
Subtotal Future Facilities 1,698,964$ 10.080 10,860 156$ - 2,832 8,028 10,860
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT 1,804,445$ 41.760 42,153 29,125 5,000 8,028 42,153
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =90$
WATER PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES peak hour mgd
6,416,278$ 31.680 26,188 26,188 - 26,188
Subtotal Existing Facilities 6,416,278$ 31.680 26,188 245$ 26,188 - - 26,188
FUTURE FACILITIES
Expand Dowling Road Pump Station 2,650,000$ 10.080 8,333 2,937 5,000 395 8,333
Subtotal Future Facilities 2,650,000$ 10.080 8,333 318$ 2,937 5,000 395 8,333
TOTAL WATER PUMPING 9,066,278$ 41.760 34,520 29,125 5,000 395 34,520
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =318$
GROUND STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES mg
Existing GS Tanks 6,210,086$ 8.000 35,987 29,125 5,000 1,862 35,987
Subtotal Existing Facilities 6,210,086$ 8.000 35,987 173$ 29,125 5,000 1,862 35,987
FUTURE FACILITIES
n.a.-
Subtotal Future Facilities -$ - - -$ - - - -
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE 6,210,086$ 8.000 35,987 29,125 5,000 1,862 35,987
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =173$
ELEVATED STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES mg
Existing ES Tanks 3,409,446$ 5.000 34,722 29,125 5,000 597 34,722
Subtotal Existing Facilities 3,409,446$ 5.000 34,722 98$ 29,125 5,000 597 34,722
FUTURE FACILITIES
n.a.-
Subtotal Future Facilities -$ - - -$ - - - -
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE 3,409,446$ 5.000 34,722 29,125 5,000 597 34,722
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =98$
TRANSMISSION
EXISTING FACILITIES peak hour mgd
Existing Transmission 47,673,987$ 85.100 64,494 29,125 3,000 32,369 64,494
Subtotal Existing Facilities 47,673,987$ 85.100 70,347 678$ 29,125 3,000 38,222 70,347
FUTURE FACILITIES*
24" Pipeline along Old Welborn and WDF 4,653,000$
18" Pipline along Texas Avenue 1,757,250$
Misc. Transmission Lines 2,500,000$
Subtotal Future Facilities 8,910,250$ 22.820 17,294 515$ - 2,000 15,294 17,294
TOTAL TRANSMISSION 56,584,237$ 107.920 87,641 29,125 5,000 53,516 87,641
AVERAGE COST PER NEW LUE =613$
WATER TOTAL 128,553,432$
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =2,659$
TABLE 5
WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INVENTORY AND COSTING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs)
Capacity
18
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 11
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing WWTPs 27,026,657$ 11.500 60,209 449$ 35,853 6,000 18,356 60,209
Subtotal Existing Facilities 27,026,657$ 11.500 60,209 449$ 35,853 6,000 18,356 60,209
FUTURE FACILITIES
n.a.-
Subtotal Future Facilities -$ - - -$ - - - -
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT 27,026,657$ 11.500 60,209 35,853 6,000 18,356 60,209
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =449$
PUMPING 7.420
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Lift Stations 3,309,208$ 8.500 14,834 3,585 2,393 8,856
Subtotal Existing Facilities 3,309,208$ 8.500 14,834 223$ 3,585 2,393 8,856 14,834
FUTURE FACILITIES
Upgrade Existing Lift Stations 937,500$ 1.800 3,141 298$ 1,436 1,706
New Lift Stations 1,041,667$ 1.500 2,618 398$ 957 1,661
Subtotal Future Facilities 1,979,167$ 3.300 5,759 338$ - 2,393 3,367 5,759
TOTAL PUMPING 5,288,374$ 11.800 20,593 3,585 4,785 12,223 20,593
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =281$
INTERCEPTORS
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Interceptors 24,019,480$ 22.720 39,651 35,853 3,300 498 39,651
Subtotal Existing Facilities 24,019,480$ 22.720 39,651 606$ 35,853 3,300 498 39,651
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Line Segment 1-71 17,699,000$
Misc. Interceptor Lines 2,500,000$ 2,700
Subtotal Future Facilities 20,199,000$ 6.861 11,974 1,687$ - 2,700 9,274 11,974
TOTAL INTERCEPTORS 44,218,480$ 29.581 51,625 35,853 6,000 9,772 51,625
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =1,092$
WASTEWATER TOTAL 76,533,510$
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE =1,822$
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs)
Capacity
TABLE 6
19
Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
City of College Station, Texas 12
The land use, planning, and capital improvements data presented previously in this Technical
Memorandum constitutes the information required by statute to be first considered by the
Advisory Committee and provided to Council for a 1st Public Hearing. It may be amended based
on comments received.
The land use and capital improvements information, contained in this Memorandum, will be later
coupled with the “rate credit” consideration, calculation of the maximum impact fees, and other
policy considerations into a subsequent final Advisory Committee report to the City Council,
which will be the basis for the 2nd Public Hearing to be called by Council. Council may elect to
take ordinance action after the closing of the 2nd Public Hearing.
20
System Capacity Impact Fees for Water/WW: TIMELINE 20 Dec 2010
Jan 11: 4:00 City Council Workshop
· Adopt Resolution to hold first public hearing on Jan 11th
· Hold Public Hearing regarding the Tech Memo
· Adopt Resolution accepting Tech Memo (with any changes as directed)
Jan 20: P&Z Regular Session
· Review the draft Impact Fee Report, no action needed
· Impact Fee Report contains:
o Tech Memo,
o Rate Credit,
o Max Fee Calculation,
o Policy Considerations, &
o CIAC Recommendations
Jan 27: P&Z’s comments on Impact Fee Report are due to Staff
Jan 31: Staff gets "Final Draft" Report to P&Z for their review
Feb 3: P&Z Regular Session: Adopt the Impact Fee Report
Feb 10: City Council meeting, Consent or Regular
· Pass resolution to hold second public hearing on March 24th
Feb 16: Get ad to the Eagle for publication in Feb 22nd newspaper
Mar 8: Last day to submit for Legal Review, the Ordinance to enact Impact Fees
Mar 24: City Council Regular Session
· Second Public Hearing on Impact Fees
· First reading of Ordinance
· Adopt Ordinance (to be effective after second reading)
Apr 7: City Council Regular Session: Second reading and Ordinance goes into effect
21
January 11, 2010
Special Agenda Item No. 4
2011 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2011
Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work.
Recommendation: Staff recommends endorsement of the items contained within
the 2011 P&Z Plan of Work.
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Rules and Procedures
state that the Planning and Zoning Commission may adopt a Plan of Work. The Plan
of Work should consider future tasks for a prescribed period and be updated and
revised annually in coordination with the City Council Strategic Planning process.
Upon presentation of a draft Plan of Work by the Commission in a joint meeting with
the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission may
adopt the Plan by majority vote of the members present.
The Planning and Zoning Commission met in October in a mini-retreat in part
scheduled to begin developing its 2011 Plan of Work. As part of the development,
the Commission was given a limitation in the amount of items to pursue due to
estimated workload in which the Planning & Development Services staff would have
available to accomplishing the Plan of Work when considering the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan, Council initiated items, and other already programmed
items.
The Plan of Work format continues to align with the Department’s Strategic Business
Plan. Items are assigned within one of four categories: Community & Neighborhood
Planning, Data Collection & Analysis, Development Services, and Outreach &
Communications. Instead of previous efforts to have a mid-year review of the Plan
of Work, it is anticipated that the Plan of Work elements will be programmed on a
quarterly basis to be more responsive to the workflow and priorities of the
Commission.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is seeking input from the Council on the Plan of
Work and concurrence with the same.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. 2011 P&Z Plan of Work (draft)
22
Community & Neighborhood Planning
Comprehensive Plan Implementation
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: On-going
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Implementation
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: On-going
Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Neighborhood / Corridor / District Plans
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Neighborhood Integrity
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
DRAFT Planning & Zoning Commission 2011 Plan of Work
Council Initiative. Continue implementation of
Comprehensive Plan through completion of related
master plans and adoption of new zoning districts and
other revisions to implement the Plan.
Council Initiative. Formulation of neighborhood
integrity protection measures to implement the Strong
and Sustainable Neighborhoods initiative. Efforts
include exploration of rental inspection program and
high-density single family standards.
Council Initiative. Continue implementation through
the completion of tasks identified in the Plan.
Council Initiative. In association with the P&Z and
Park & Recreation Advisory Board subcommittees,
draft and consider Master Plan for adoption as part of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Initiative. Continuation of neighborhood and
community planning efforts including implementation
of the Central College Station Neighborhood Plan,
completion and implementation of the Eastgate
Neighborhood Plan, and other identified efforts.
Page 1 of 4 23
Annexation
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Research, Data Collection & Analysis
Parking Ordinance Update
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Annexation Process and Requirements
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Carters and Burton Creeks Water Quality
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Development Services
Subdivision Regulations
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Zoning Districts
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Council Initiative. Identify areas for potential
annexation as directed through the Comprehensive
Plan and consider voluntary annexation petitions.
Council Initiative. Revise Subdivision Regulations
within UDO to identify and address deficiencies in
current practices and standards. This includes an
evaluation of standards relating to connectivity, ETJ
development, inter-local agreement with the County,
phasing of developments and gated developments.
P&Z Initiative. Survey peer cities and evaluate
parking standards for different types of uses,
particularly standards for shopping centers.
P&Z Initiative. Review process and requirements of
state law regarding annexation of property into the
City limits.
Council Initiative. Create and adopt new zoning
districts to implement character and land use
designations identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
State Initiative. Update on development of TMDL
(total maximum daily load) Implementation Plan to
improve water quality in Carters and Burton Creeks.
Page 2 of 4 24
Impact Fees
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Riparian Areas
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Outreach and Communications
Community Education about Zoning Issues, Processes, etc
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: On-going
Outreach & Education via Channel 19 and Website
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: On-going
Pending Items
Affordability of Housing
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Density Control
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Council Initiative. Conduct analysis of implementing
city-wide transportation impact fees and other utility
impact fees. Item includes background on impact
fees and funding mechanisms.
P&Z Initiative. Discuss how housing affordability is
measured and provide information on affordability of
homes in the College Station and Bryan housing
markets.
P&DS Business Plan Initiative. Enhance the
availability and effectiveness of communication
planning information and activities on the City's cable
channel and website.
Council Initiative. Draft and consider riparian
protections actions.
P&DS Business Plan Initiative. Provide additional
methods and forums to disseminate planning
information, processes, and issues.
P&Z Initiative. Evaluate the implications that location
of density has on City services and quality of life.
Page 3 of 4 25
Detention Pond Aesthetics
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Neighborhood / Developer Engagement Process
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Neighborhood Fencing
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Non-residential Architecture Standards (NRA)
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Outdoor Storage of Hazardous Materials
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Sign Ordinance Review
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
Timeline on Land Use Plan
Summary:Project Dates:
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion: Not Scheduled
P&Z initiative. Develop fencing and landscaping
options for neighborhood perimeter fencing to reduce
the "canyon effect" along City streets.
P&Z Initiative. Review standards for detention pond
aesthetics and their incorporation into sites.
P&Z Initiative. Discussion of the public engagement
process for rezoning requests in proximity to
established neighborhoods.
P&Z Initiative. Review implementation of
Comprehensive Plan and implications on timing of
land use build out.
P&Z Initiative. Review existing sign requirements and
survey signage resulting from ordinance.
P&Z Initiative. Discuss requirements and policies
regarding the outdoor storage of hazardous material.
P&Z Initiative. Review existing NRA requirements in
relation to ordinance objectives and architecture
design principles.
Page 4 of 4 26
1st 2nd
Community & Neighborhood Planning
Comprehensive Implementation Council
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways MP Implementation Council
Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan Council
Neighborhood / Corridor / District Plans Council
Neighborhood Integrity Council
Annexation Council
Research, Data Collection & Analysis
Parking Ordinance P&Z
Annexation Process and Requirements P&Z
Carters and Burton Creeks Water Quality State
Development Services
Subdivision Regulations Council & P&Z
Zoning Districts Council
Impact Fees Council
Riparian Areas Council
Outreach & Communications
Outreach & Education via Channel 19 and Website Staff
Community Education about Zoning Issues, Process, etc Staff
Pending Items
Affordability of Housing P&Z
Density Control P&Z
Detention Pond Aesthetics P&Z
Neighborhood / Developer Engagement Process P&Z
Neighborhood Fencing P&Z
Non-residential Architecture Standards (NRA)P&Z
Outdoor Storage of Hazardous Materials P&Z
Sign Ordinance Review P&Z
Timeline on Land Use Plan P&Z
X - Anticipated Completion
ü - Item Completed
Anticipated Completion of 2011 P&Z Plan of Work Items
Items Initiated by:Quarter:On-Going
27
January 11, 2010
Special Agenda Item No. 5
Developer Identified UDO Amendments
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion
regarding developer identified amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council provide direction and clarification
on each of the items contained within the attached memo. In December, the
Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and discussed the ideas, conducted a public
hearing, and forwarded the item to Council for further discussion (see attached
minutes).
Summary: Nearly two years ago, the Mayor of College Station established the
Mayor’s Forum on Development for the purpose of engaging development interests
directly. To that end, the forum has met with the Mayor, a Council member, and
senior staff about every 3-4 months discussing a variety of topics including impact
fees, tax benefits of development, and the UDO. Most recently, the Mayor convened
a small sub-committee of this forum (also adding members from the legal and
engineering profession) with the explicit task of identifying the top 4-5 regulatory
requirements they feel inhibit development activities. This group met once and
identified the items listed in this memo as the top impediments and made
suggestions on the revision of these sections of the UDO.
Prior to this most recent effort, the local chapter of the American Institute of
Architects forwarded a letter to the Council (attached) outlining concerns they had
with the City’s current Non-Residential Architectural Standards along with
suggestions on revising the same. The Development Forum was provided a copy of
this letter and used it in formulating their recommendations. Comprehensive review
of the NRA requirements are beyond the scope of this current effort and are not
currently scheduled in the P&Z Commissions Plan of Work nor the City Council’s
Strategic Plan.
The items identified in this memo were later presented to the full Development
Forum and at a recent Seminar Supper attended by various neighborhood and
homeowner association representatives. The item is scheduled for a public hearing
so the Council may hear directly from those proposing the amendments as well as
from the general public. Staff is seeking comment from the Council on the items and
requesting the Council’s direction and clarification on each of the items. Actual UDO
amendments will only occur following Council direction and then only after public
hearings on the specific language.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Overview of prioritized items
2. Letter from Brazos AIA
3. P&Z Draft Meeting Minutes
28
1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
January 11, 2011
TO: Glenn Brown, City Manager
FROM: Robert S. Cowell, Jr., AICP, CNU-A, Director
SUBJECT: Developer Identified Amendments to the UDO
Item: Presentation, public hearing, possible action, and discussion regarding amendments to
the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance as requested by development
interests.
The priority items identified by the development interests are as follow:
1. Color palette - They feel it is too restrictive and that it should be expanded. Their
suggestion is that it identifies colors that are prohibited versus colors that are permitted.
2. Signs - They feel the sign regulations are too restrictive. Specifically, they feel the
colors, fonts, etc should not be regulated at all and that signs internal to the site should
not be regulated in the same way as signs visible from major thoroughfares. Their
suggestion is to eliminate any regulations on sign colors, fonts, etc. and at a minimum
define what signs are "visible" and thus have to meet regulations, prefer that signs
internal to a site only be limited by size and height.
3. NRA Architectural elements - They feel the requirements are too restrictive.
Specifically, they feel that smaller buildings should have fewer architectural element
requirements or no element requirements. Their suggestion is to have standards differ
based on the size of the building - for example a small outbuilding may be required to
have the same colors and materials as the principle building but not be required
to incorporate elements and a moderate size building would be required to have fewer
elements than a large building regardless of its inclusion in the same building plot.
4. Block length - They feel the current practices of what is allowed to break block length is
overly restrictive. Staff explained that some revisions on block length are forthcoming
including varying block sizes based on land use context. Their suggestion is that
"internal circulator drives" - that is drives that meet certain thoroughfare requirements
such as lane width, curvature, driveway spacing, etc. and that remain open to the public,
in good repair, and provide a relatively direct connection between public streets, be
permitted to break block length in multi-family and commercial projects. – NOTE: This
29
proposal is included in the staff’s recommendations for the revised Subdivision
Regulations -
5. Landscaping - They feel more needs to be done to permit water-conserving plants.
Staff explained that some revisions are already underway to address this in addition to
the existing incentives that already exist within the UDO. Their suggestion is that a cash
credit be provided by the City for those that take steps to reduce their water consumption
for landscaping. They also suggested that the UDO be revised to award more points for
native and drought tolerant plants and water-consumptive plantings be penalized (with
lower point awards).
Other items noted, but not forwarded as priorities include:
· fire lane minimum slope requirements (currently the fire code limits the slope that is
permitted on fire lanes)
· pad site regulations (currently there is no limit on pad sites, except on pad sites seeking
to qualify for additional signage)
· clarification and expansion of what constitutes a change between plats (staff is
addressing this in the current subdivision regulations update)
· relaxing the expiration timeframes for plat approvals (staff is addressing this in the
current subdivision regulations update)
· buffer requirements in mixed use developments (staff is addressing this in the revision of
the zoning districts to align with the comprehensive plan)
· sidewalk design (currently there is a requirement for a brick course between the curb
and sidewalk - staff is revising the location, design, etc. of sidewalks through the update
to the unified design manual)
· maximum deflection in utility lines (currently utility lines are permitted a maximum
deflection to prevent maintenance issues)
30
3
1
3
2
3
3
1. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding developer-
identified amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance. (BC) (Note: Final
action on this item is scheduled for the January 13, 2011 City Council Meeting –
subject to change)
Director Cowell presented the developer-identified amendments to the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
Kevin O’Neill, 1816-3 Brothers Boulevard, College Station, Texas, stated that the color
palette has worked well and needs to stay as it is currently.
Steven Schloss, 402 West Dexter Drive, College Station, Texas, stated that the color
palette is too restrictive and the design element requirements overly restrict flexibility
and creativity.
Sherry Ellison, 2708 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas, stated that plants are
needed that can survive in our climate, but we need to make sure the best plants are
being used. She also said that there needs to be a lot of public information meetings
regarding the color palette and design elements.
Veronica Morgan, 511 University Drive East Suite 204, College Station, Texas, said that
she would rather have a restrictive color palette that gives you colors that you cannot
use, rather than colors that you can use. She also said that providing architectural
features on smaller buildings does not make sense.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stearns commented that there should not be a color palette because there
needs to more color within the City.
Commissioner Miles said that there should be a color palette, but the current color
palette does have bland and flat colors which allows for no expression. He also said that
it is hard to include architectural elements on smaller buildings.
Commissioner Hall expressed concern about how a change to the color palette would
affect signage in the overlay districts. He said that overlay districts were created to
create a consistent appearance.
Chairman Shafer said that he was concerned about signage, but liked the idea of
providing more latitude when it comes to color.
There was no action taken on this item.
34
11 January 2011
Special Agenda Item No. 6
Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
Attached Signs
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an ordinance amending
Chapter 12, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 7.4.I, “Attached Signs” and Section
11.2 “Defined Terms” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas
expanding the use of attached signs to include signage attached to site lighting poles.
Recommendation(s): At their meeting on December 2, 2010, the Planning & Zoning
Commission unanimously recommended denial of the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff
recommends approval.
Summary: As part of the annual review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
there was discussion at City Council concerning relaxing the sign regulations to allow signs
attached to site lighting poles. Currently, signs are allowed to be attached to site lighting
poles in the Wolf Pen Creek area and banners are allowed to be attached to site lighting
poles when specifically authorized by a resolution approved by the City Council.
This proposed UDO amendment would expand the definition of attached signs to include
signage attached to site lighting poles on private property. Following is a summary of the
proposed changes by UDO Section:
· Attached Signs (Section 7.4.I): Language was added to establish area limitations
and mounting requirements for signs attached to site lighting poles.
· Definitions (Section 11.2): Language was added to expand the definition of an
attached sign to include signage attached to site lighting poles located on private
property.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Draft Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2010
2. Ordinance
35
December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
December 2, 2010, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Jodi
Warner, Bo Miles, Hugh Stearns and Doug Slack
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Katy-Marie Lyles
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jason Schubert, Lauren Hovde, Carol Cotter, Alan Gibbs, Molly
Hitchcock, Lance Simms, Bob Cowell, Dave Coleman, Fred Surovik, Adam Falco, Kerry
Mullins, and Brittany Caldwell
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
Section 7.4, Signs, and Section 11.2, Defined Terms, of the Unified Development
Ordinance, expanding the use of attached signs to include signage attached to site lighting
poles. Case #10-00500069 (LS)
Assistant Director Simms presented the amendment regarding expanding the use of
attached signs to include signage attached to site lighting.
Chairman Shafer and Commissioner Hall expressed concern about maintenance issues
when the signs are constructed of cloth or canvas. Commissioner Hall suggested having a
timeline as to how long the signs can stay up.
Katy-Marie Lyles, City Council Member, explained to the Commission the City
Council’s reasoning behind possibly wanting to make the sign regulations less restrictive
when allowing signs attached to site lighting poles.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas, stated that she is
concerned about the maintenance issues and said that the signs could be distracting.
Commissioner Hall expressed concern about having Code Enforcement enforce the
maintenance of signage on light poles. He said that he felt that they have plenty of other
codes to enforce.
36
December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2
Commissioner Stearns stated that there needs to be more restrictions.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend denial of the amendment.
Commissioner Hall seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
37
38
39
40
January 11, 2010
Special Meeting Item No. 7
Animal Shelter Operations, Current and Future
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the
status of the animal shelter and the available options for Animal Control in 2011.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.8 Evaluating Public Safety Needs. Goal I.1
Spending tax payer money efficiently.
Recommendation(s): Seeking Council Direction.
Summary: This will be a discussion as it relates to our current and future contracts with
the Brazos Animal Shelter. We will also provide an update as to the direction the City of
Bryan is moving towards as it relates to shelter operations for its Animal Control. Finally,
we will provide possible options available for the City of College Station’s animal shelter
needs as we move forward in 2011.
Staff is seeking Council Direction as to what option they wish the City to seek for our future
animal shelter needs.
Budget & Financial Summary: Unknown at this time.
Attachments: N/A
41