Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Commission & Parks & Recreation Board CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 7, 1996 7:00 P.M. • r~ U COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Gribou, Smith, Hall, Lightfoot and Garner. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Lane. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gay and Members Manson, Anderson and Reynolds. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Taggart, DeOtte and Harding. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brymer, Director of Economic & Development Services Ash, Assistant Director of Economic & Development Services Callaway, Parks & Recreation Director Beachy, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation Ploeger, City Planner Kee, City Engineer Laza, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Planning Technician Thomas, Transportation Planner Hard, Parks Staff Assistant George, Staff Planner Dunn, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Transportation Technician Hester and Water/Wastewater Division Manager Riley. (Councilmen Crouch and McIlhaney were in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order. Commission Chairman Hawthorne called the joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board to order and informed the audience that after the present~ition and discussion amongst the Commissioners and Board Members, there will be a brief question anal answer session. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2:Presentation by Ilellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum concerning the City's Comprehensive Plan including the Parks and Open Space Plan, Transportation Plan and Land Use Plan. Joe Pobiner of Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum (HOK), Rod Kelly of Barton-Aschmann and Rob McKay of CDM and Associates presented the following four major components of the plan: (1) LAND USE PLAN: • Mr. Pobiner stated that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the City will be given Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan models to use as the City grows. He stated that the population of College Station could possibly double over the next twenty years. Much of the growth should take place to the south and along University Drive near the airport. The major factor that could change this growth is any change in Texas A&M University. No one knows the plans for the University over the next twenty years. All we know is that enrollment is capped and there are no plans to expand. If this is the case, there needs to be other industries in the area such as industrial type uses near the airport and race track. Mr. Pobiner concluded that he sees the character of the community changing from a University driven economy to include other diverse economies. (2) THOROUGHFARE PLAN: Rod Kelly of Barton-Aschmann presented the results of the modeling done utilizing the draft :Land Use Plan. He explained that they first looked at the draft Land Use Plan and the existing Thoroughfare Plan to determine how it might fit in with the context of the new plan. Essentially, overlaying the existing adopted Thoroughfare Plan and modifying it primarily in the undeveloped areas. This became a base of reference to develop other ideas and concepts. Mr. Kelly stated that they then looked at some of the problems and issues throughout the City that have been identified with respect to transportation. They then began to shape the Thoroughfare Plan to address specific locational or area problems. For example, the need for anorth-south access between the residential areas and the University campus and relieving traffic from Texas Avenue and Wellborn Road without disrupting existing neighborhoods. He • stated that information was obtained from the Texas Highway Department concerning the Wellborn Road Corridor Study including the various options being considered that were plugged :into their analysis. With all of this information, they began to analyze alternatives to the Thoroughfare Plan and predicting the amount of traffic that will be generated from the land uses in the area. This information is converted into trips per day and this also shows where the trips are going. Mr. Kelly stated that the model output consisted of generating volumes and operating conditions projected to be on the thoroughfare system in the future. The first model projections that show traffic volumes has been completed. The secondary output of this model is a look at the operating conditions of the roadway including what traffic congestion to expect with certain volumes of traffic. Texas Avenue, iniversity Drive and some portions of Wellborn Road are showing levels of congestion that are probably greater than what is desirable. Mr. Kelly informed the audience that over the next few weeks, they will be taking a look at these undesirable operating conditions and refining the model to add capacity in other areas or suggest future physical changes to address these problems. Mr. Kelly concluded that they will also look at possibly scaling down roadways where future projections show that it is needed. Once this process is complete, a preferred Thoroughfare Plan will be submitted for review and adoption by the City. (3) PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN: Joe Pobiner of HOK presented the following recommendations of the National Recreation and Park • Association for "core" park land to be provided in communities: P & Z /Pa~•ks Mi~rutes Febr•z~ary 7, 1996 Pcrge 2 of 7 • Type Desirable Size Acf°es/1000 Pop'l Mini-Park 1 acre or less .2S - .S acres Neighborhood Park 1 S + acres 1.0 - 2.0 acres Community Park 2S + acres S.0 - 10.0 acres Regional Park 200 + acres S.0 - 10.0 acres -- "Core" park land can be described as the minimum amount of developable park. land provided in a community. This park land should be located outside of flood plains, but may include some natural features such as water bodies. -- Mini-Parks are parks that range from one to two acres in size and typically provide picnic areas, playgrounds and seating. Lions and Windwood Parks are examples of existing Mini-Parks in College Station. Many of the school playgrounds located in College Station also function as Mini-Parks. -- Neighborhood parks serve a larger population than Mini-Parks. In addition to the activities available in Mini-Parks, Neighborhood Parks may also include areas for more intense recreational activities such as field games, court games and swimming. The majority of College Station's existing parks fall within the standards of Neighborhood Parks. -- Community Parks serve many neighborhoods. In addition to the activities available in Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks may also include athletic complexes, large swimming pools, community centers and nature preserves. -- Regional Parks serve entire cities or regions. Activities available in Regional Parks may include picnicking, swimming, camping and trail use. Lick Creek park :is an undeveloped, S 1 S acre regional park located within the City. Mr. Pobiner presented the following recommendations regarding the Parks & Open Space Plan: (1) Provide approximately 10.5 acres of park land for every 1000 people. (The City is fairly close to this figure now at roughly 7 acres per 1000 people.) (2) The "improved" portions of the parks including ball fields, concession stands, e~:c. be adjacent to the flood plain but not in the flood plain. C7 (3) Opportunity for a large regional park of approximately 200 acres. Currently the Parks and Recreation Board is looking for a large softball facility that could possibly be located in either zones 9 or 10 so that they are fairly centrally located as the City grows to the south. A park in this location could also take advantage of the existing major roadways in the area. P & Z /Parks Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 3 of (4) Opportunity of the co-development of parks. The City and School District could work together in the future to co-develop a playground so that the total area may be a little larger and qualify for aMini-Park. • Mr. Pobiner concluded that parks are the only type of land use that the City can actively plan and provide. General locations of future park sites have been identified that can be acquired through dedication or cash in lieu of dedication that can be escrowed to purchase the land. (4) WATER & SEWER UTILITY PLAN: Mike McKay, the Project Manager with CDM and Associates informed the audience that the preferred Land Use Plan drives everything concerning the Utility Plan. He explained that they take elements such as population density and land use types to plug into their distribution model to see the impact, including cost, on the water and sanitary sewer system. Mr. McKay stated that they are looking at utility improvements through the year 2020 that the City can use as a guide for the Capital Improvement Program. The existing water system is in great shape; however, it will require many improvements to maintain that condition. Areas of concern are in the Northgate area and the Highway 60 area. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion amongst the Commission, Board and Consultants. Commissioner Hall expressed concern of the impacts of a large softball facility near sine;le family development. Many softball tournaments continue throughout the night and such elements as traffic, noise and lights may not be compatible with residential development. He also stated that the proposed facility will be located away from retail businesses and hotels/motels which would increase thE~ need for north-south traffic movement in this area. Commissioner Hall suggested working with the Iniversity • and possibly utilize the Texas Instruments property along Harvey Road. Mr. Pobiner stated that such elements as light orientation and topography can be considered in designing such a park facility to help mitigate these negative impacts. Cities all over the state are wrestling with similar issues such as midnight basketball. For the most part, HOK is recommending a facility in the Lick Creek area south of town because there is a tremendous opportunity to utilize the flood plain and creek ways as a buffer. The plan will not actually select a specific location; however, HOK will provide location criteria and recommendations that the City staff can utilize to locale various park sites. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern with the assumption that the University will rem~rin at the existing level. This assumption is critical in planning especially with the north-south corridors. Mr. Pobiner stated that the Plan itself is a process and gives staff the opportunity to revisit the elements on an annual or bi-annual basis to make changes as the community grows. There are many opportunities that the City may benefit from in the future that we are not aware of today. In this case, the process is more important than the product so that when the plan is reviewed, the changes can be included in the plan. Commissioner Gribou stated that he wants to make sure that there is enough flexibility built irr with the north-south thoroughfares so that we do not have problems if certain elements change such as the • University. P & Z/Parks Minutes Febr~urny 7, 1996 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Kelly stated that there are several options available such as changing the land use to help mitigate • the impacts of a changing community or University. The transportation models will be available for staff to utilize to see what the impacts will be on traffic demand, identify deficiencies arrd look at alternatives. In many cases, you do not have much flexibility to add new roadways in developed areas. Much of the flexibility is in the new areas of town and acquiring enough right-of--way to allow for the potential to expand or modify them to increase capacity. Mr. Manson stated that at previous meetings there were questions concerning possible growth to the south due to people commuting to Houston. Has that been addressed as part of the Plan? Mr. Pobiner stated that there is a potential for that type of growth; however, it will probably Trot happen within the next ten to fifteen years. He stated that he would expect more tele-commuting where people may only commute to Houston one to three days a week and on the remaining days communicate via computer. In the twenty year time frame of the Plan, there should not be a strong influence of Houston based traffic. Typically, the maximum amount of time that someone will commute is forty-five minutes. The City should encourage those types of industries closer to College Station rather than driving to Houston. Commissioner Hall suggested that the consultants also examine the employee traffic of the University and not just the student traffic. The University could probably provide information about where the employees are coming from every day both inside and outside of the city limits. This type of information could help the City in working with the University as far as time schedulf;s for the employees exiting and entering campus. • Mr. Kelly agreed and stated that through their discussions with the Universit ,the facult , stlydents and Y Y employees are coming from everywhere and not just from one particular area. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Questions and comments from the audience concerning the Plan. Commission Chairman opened the meeting to questions and comments from the public. The following concerns/comments were voiced by the audience: (1) How much more will be done with the Parks and Open Space Plan? Mr. Pobiner stated that they have already gone beyond the scope of services. The final product will not show actual detailed designs of specific parks. However, there will be recommendations made for location criteria to be ~rsed by the Parks & Recreation Board and City staff. (2) The City currently has six community parks in existence and the proposal shows thf; need for twenty additional parks which suggests that the City is badly under parked at this time or the proposal is overly ambitious. Where is the criteria coming from and have you looked at the relationship of the mini parks and thoroughfares? • P & Z /Parks Mir7rrtes February 7, 1996 Page ~ of Mr. Pobiner stated that the community, neighborhood and mini parks are located so that children will not have to cross major thoroughfrnes and still be serviced 1a~ith ,major roadways. College Station has not necessarily followed the standard of comnrtrnity artd • neighborhood parks. Overall, the proposal is roughly 10. S acres per 1000 population. (3) Many people of the community think that the City's current level of parks service is adequate. Rather than have twenty community parks, the City has the opportunity to do something exciting and develop large regional parks and not ball complexes necessarily. For example, look at the New York and Minneapolis park systems where they built large, natural resource parks which cost the cities nothing. There are studies that show residential properties built around natural parks are higher in value because they're desirable places to live. The incremental property taxes which the City receives pay for the cost of the parks over periods of 12 to 20 years. An example in College Station is Pebble Creek and their use of the golf course throughout the development. The City should invest in major linear natural preserves of 150 to 200 acres now and not wait until development occurs. Mr. Pobiner agr°eed that the linear parks are high amenities such as golf corn~ses, zoos, etc. which create desn°able rn•eas. The Parks and Open Space Plan takes advantage of the areas in arrd around the flood plain that could be used to expand and create such linear park systems. One opportunity of creating a linear park is to look at where several park zones come together and combine the parks so that a larger park can be developed. Mr. Pobiner stated that their scope of ser7~ices did riot allow them to go into that level of detail; however, the City staff can use this it for°nration to further enhance the Plarr. (4) Alternatives in acquiring park land should be explored instead of a fee in lieu or a • mandatory dedication. Many fast growth areas have moved to impact fees to covf;r the whole cost of the development of the park rather than just the land. (5) How much detail will be provided as part of the Thoroughfare Plan? Mr. Kelly stated that they will develop a plan map tivhich will designate the thoroughfare cross sections for each of the facilities in the plan. All residential and collector streets will not be identified. (6) In such areas as Carter's Creek, the City cannot plan the necessary treatment or improvements in College Station without taking into consideration Brazos County and the City of Bryan. Specific recommendations should be made regarding this particular area especially in defining what can go in an area where there is flood plain. Mr. McKay stated that they provided staff with a scope of services cortcerrnng another study for the entire City and looking at the upstream and downstream impacts. Such drainage issues will need to be addressed to determine how it will impact the Comprehensive Plan. The current scope of services does not encompass such an in depth study of d~°airtage. Mr. McKay explained that the particular land use does riot have as much of an impact as the rnzrotart of irrrperviorrs cover and hoiv it is oriented on the site. There may be the need for afollow-rrp study once the Comprehensive Plan is complete. • P & Z /Par°ks Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 6 of Councilman Crouch explained that when the City Council ranked the issues for 1996 for next year's budget, the nrrnrber ttvo issue is the ra'icrirrage utility district inrplenrerrtativn and • issue nrrnrber twenty-three is a county tii~ide drainage Plarr. Staff is czn~rently F~rrltirrg together action plans orr each issue. (7) Expressed concern with the employment assumptions and where the proposed 00,000 people are going to work. More specific information should be provided about the employment densities. (8) The Plan should also concentrate on alternative forms of transportation including bikes, pedestrian ways, bus systems, etc. and be encouraged as part of the Thoroughfare Plari. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (10 - 0). • ATTES / ~, ~; 1 Plan ing Technician, Natalie Thomas APP- ED: Chairman, Kyle Hawthorne ~~ _~~~~, APPROVE ~', ~- 5`~ Chairman, Ron y ATTEST: ~~ ~`~,D,~ ~~ ~ Staff:A~'sistant, Bridget~e~George C, / C~ P & Z /Parks Minrrles February 7, 1996 Page 7 of