Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2008 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission~l•r~ Ol~• ~O[:i~r•.r:~ ST~~rlc~rt #'~rrurxu,~+ t§'Cks~rr~prnrnt S~rrrrirr.~ MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday, Tune 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Davis, Harold Strong, Marsha Sanford, Glenn Schroeder and Noel Bauman COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman John Nichols CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planners Crissy Hartl, Lauren Hovde and Matt Robinson, Graduate Civil Engineer Erika Bridges, Acting Development Engineer Carol Cotter, City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Director Bob Cowell, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Carrie McHugh and Staff Assistant Brittany Caldwell Call Meeting to Order. Acting Chairman Davis called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Hear Citizens. Paul Greer, 9100 Waterford Drive, stated that he hopes that the City will go through with the Tree Preservation policy. 3. Consent Agenda 3.1 Consideration, discussion and possible action on Absence Requests from meetings. • Harold Strong ~ May 15, 2008 ~ Workshop & Regular • John Nichols ~ June 5, 2008 ~ Workshop & Regular 3.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. • May 1, 2008 Workshop • May 1, 2008 Regular June 5, 2008 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 • May 15, 2008 ~ Workshop • May 15, 2008 ~ Regular 3.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Creek Meadows Subdivision, Section 4, Phase 2A consisting of Common Area and Right-of--Way for Creek Meadows Boulevard on 1.626 acres for the property located at 3659 Greens Prairie Trail generally located between Greens Prairie Trail and Greens Prairie Road West. Case #08-00500093 (LB) Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve items 3.1-3.3. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). Regular Agenda 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of Lot 14R of the Frank Visoski Subdivision, being a replat of Lots 13, 14 and portions of Lots 1, 5 and 15 of the Frank Visoski Subdivision, consisting of 0.449 acres located at 200 University Drive. Case #08-00500091 (JP) Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the replat and recommended approval. Acting Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Acting Chairman Bill Davis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schroeder motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner Bauman seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of Variance Requests to Section 13-C, Lot Width, and Section 6-D.4, Form and Content of the Subdivision Regulations, and public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of Lots 9-A and 9-B, Block 2 and H.O.A. Lot 1-R, Block 12, being a Replat of Lot 9, Block 2 and H.O.A. Lot 1, Block 12 of the Resubdivision of Indian Lakes, Phase I, consisting of three lots on 79.661 acres, generally located at the southern end of Arapaho Drive in the City's Extra- Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Case #08-00500096 (JP) Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the variance requests to the lot width and drawing scale and recommended approval of the replat should the variances be approved. Commissioner Bauman asked how far Arapaho Ridge Drive would have to be extended to give the appropriate frontage on the lots. June 5, 2008 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Acting Chairman Bill Davis opened the public hearing. Travis Martinek, Clarke and Wyndham, stated that approximately 50-foot to 100-foot of Arapaho Ridge Drive would have to be extended. He said that physical constraints led them to ask for the lot width variance. Acting Chairman Davis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bauman expressed concern about not extending Arapaho Ridge Drive. Commissioner Schroeder motioned to approve the variances. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (4-1). Commissioner Bauman was in opposition. Commissioner Schroeder motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed (4-1). Commissioner Bauman was in opposition. 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding recommendations made by the 2008 Capital Improvement Program Citizens Advisory Committee to the College Station City Council regarding future capital improvement projects for the City of College Station. (CH/MS) Brian Bochner, Appointed CIP Chairman, presented the recommendations made by the 2008 Capital Improvement Program Citizens Advisory Committee. There was general discussion regarding the Committee's CIP list. Acting Chairman Davis opened the public hearing. Tom Woodfin, 3215 Innsbruck Circle, College Station, Texas; Jonathan Coopersmith, 1811 Shadowwood, College Station, Texas; Jean Marie Linhart, 3011 Durango Street, College Station, Texas; Paul Greer, 9100 Waterford Drive, College Station, Texas; Derek Dictson, 723 Plum Hollow, College Station. These citizens expressed concern about the Community Center and said that they were strongly in support of the SH 6-Rock Prairie Road interchange. Acting Chairman Davis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bauman stated that the Rock Prairie Road West widening, Rock Prairie Road Interchange and University Drive Pedestrian improvements are very important. He said that the Community Center should be considered separately from the Capital Improvement Projects on the 2008 General Obligation Bond. Commissioner Schroeder stated that Roadway Impact Fees could help fund some of the street projects on the list. Commissioner Bauman motioned to forward the CIP Committee's report to City Council, along with the CIP list provided by the Planning & Zoning Commission June 5, 2008 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 and the minority report provided by two of the CIP Committee members. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). 8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. None 9. Adjourn. Commissioner Strong motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motioned passed (5-0). Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Approved: Bill Davis, Actin Chairman g Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: I Brittany Cal ell, Staff Assistant Planning and Development Services June 5, 2008 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Zoning Commission Members From: David R. Hart Julie Schultz Parviz Vessali Date: May 2,8,_2008__ _ ~~~~~ ~ Subject: An Alternative View on 2008 CIP Process and Outcomes As members of the 2008 CIP Citizens Advisory Committee, we wish to present an alternative set of recommendations to those approved by a vote of the entire committee, along with a rationale for why our minority viewpoint is worthy of consideration. Concerns about the CIP Process The following shortcomings should be noted in how the CIP committee was formed, charged, and conducted its business. 1. Input from citizen meetings and listening sessions was not given its appropriate weight. Fully 75% of the 252 respondents completing the web-based survey of CIP priorities chose "transportation" as the number-one priority for capital spending, and 52% chose roads and streets as the one area most in need of improvement. 2. Removal of the Rock Prairie/Hwy 6 interchange, the city's most congested location, from consideration was specious at best. The project consistently rated in the top ten in our scoring process. In addition, TxDOT, COCS Public Works, and the MPO all rated it as a critical infrastructure need for our community. When the issue of TxDOT funding difficulties was raised, a senior engineer from the local TxDOT district office, Bob Appleton, appeared before our committee. Mr. Appleton stated that TxDOT is currently short of funding and cannot program this improvement right now. However, he did say that the City could enter into an agreement with TxDOT whereby the City would front-end the cost of the improvement and then recover the cost of TxDOT's share over time, in a manner that the City and TxDOT could agree on (probably using what TxDOT calls pass-though tolling). Mr. Appleton said that no one from the City has yet approached TxDOT about this possibility. Because of the funding uncertainty and the high cost of the combined project, a faction of the committee continued to press for its removal from consideration, in order to "make room" for the senior community center and other lower-rated items. The removal of the Rock Prairie interchange from the basic package, even though it rated highly, creates an obvious safety and welfare issue for the city if this project can then not be started within a five- to seven-year timeframe. 3.Other communities use private giving and grants to fund significant portions of public facilities like community centers and libraries. For this year's CIP election, no consideration was given to alternative funding sources for any of the recreational facilities projects, particularly the senior/community center and the library expansion. Both of these could likely be funded in whole or to a large extent via grants, private donations, legislative earmarks, and matching funds. 4. The project prioritization followed the skewed demographics of the committee compared to our city as a whole. Although citizens age 55 and up comprise only 11% of our population as of 2007, the committee had approximately 20 members, or 66%, in that age group. The age group from 25 to 55 years of age comprises 38% of our population, but only about 30% of the committee members. Only one or two ethnic minorities participated on our committee. In addition, fully one-half of the committee members either are or were TAMU or TAMUS employees, while only seven members of the committee can reasonably claim to be business owners, managers, or employees of commercial enterprises. Again, this does not reflect the diversity of the city as a whole. Another important aspect to consider is that of 30 members on the committee, we had four former council members, 4 members of the parks and recreation advisory board, two members of the Library committee, and at least three members of the Senior Advisory Committee. Thus, this was a group that already had a heavily vested interest in several of the most expensive projects on the list. Finally, more than one-half (21 of 30) committee members reside in just three neighborhood areas, Southside, Eastside, and Pebble Creek . Unfortunately, these factors all contributed to a homogeneity of opinion sufficient to garner a majority vote. It came as no surprise when a inordinate number of parks and facilities projects ranked high in contrast with the citizen input that ranked transportation as most needing improvement. This, in turn, caused the deliberative and decision-making processes to suffer. Recommendations .Place the Rock Prairie/State Highway 6 interchange back on the prioritized list in its ranked position as the seventh-highest ranking project. .Limit the list considered by voters to a maximum of $60 MM over five years, as originally directed by Council, or the dollar amount allowed by our current tax rate, taking the senior tax freeze, interest, and inflation costs into consideration. .Bring the major recreational facilities projects that provide the least "bang for the buck"; i.e., serve small segments of the population at a large capital cost (senior/community center, library expansion) to the voters for separate consideration, with funding contingent upon a private fundraising effort to provide at least half of the funding for these projects, coordinated by a City staff member and citizen committee(s) whose focus would be private fundraising and grant writing. .Use prioritized implementation of the comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, and more detailed specialty plans, as the basis for selecting capital improvements. Consider separating the funding process for future capital improvements from the prioritization process. A set spending limit, such as that issued to our committee, leads to machinations by some members to ensure that their "pet projects" remain under the limit amount, to the detriment of the safety, welfare, and quality of life for all citizens. 2 .Change the selection process for future citizen committees to achieve more balance and diversity across several criteria, including age, ethnicity, occupation, place of residence, gender, and economic status. Consider a smaller committee with more specific representation of all sectors of the community. .Increase COCS outreach efforts to more consistently educate and engage under-represented segments of the population. City of College Station -Planning and Zoning Meeting -June 5t~ 2008 Prepared By: Noel C. Bauman -Planning and Zoning Commissioner Proposal #1: Alternative Capital Improvement Project (CIP) List, prepared by P&Z In an effort to best appropriate the proposed $60M in 2008 General Obligation Bond funds to those Capital Improvement Projects of highest need, namely Safety and Infrastructure, Public Facility Expansion, and Parks & Recreation, the following prioritized Capital Improvement Project list has been prepared by the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission as an alternative to the list provided by the CIP Citizen's Action Committee. Safe & Infrastructure $44.6M Project Number Project Rank Pro'ect Title Estimated Cost $ Cumulative Total Cost $ 200 1 Fire Station #6 6,000,00 6,000,000 105 2 Jones-Butler Phase 1 2,650,000 8,650,00 121 3 Traffic Si nals 3,000,000 11,650,00 110 5 Victoria Avenue 2,200,000 13,850,00 102 ** Rock Prairie Interchan e U rade - TxDOT 'urisdiction 11,000,000 24,850,00 101 ** Rock Prairie Widenin to Normand - Ci 'urisdiction 3,500,00 28,350,00 103 9 Barron Road Widenin Phase 2 10,100,00 38,450,00 117 14 Sidewalks 300,000 38,750,000 106 20 niversi Dr Pedestrian I rovements Phase 2 - 5 5,848,000 44,598,000 ** Although listed as two projects, both projects need to be constructed at the same time to function properly. The aze listed s azatel here because TxDOT has 'urisdiction over ro'ect 102. Public Facility Expansion ($9M) Project Number Project Rank Pro'ect Title Estimated Cost $ Cumulative Total Cost $ 409 7 Lincoln Center Addition 3,060,00 47,658,000 303 10 Libr Ex ansion 6,000,000 53,658,00 Parks & Recreation $6.4 Project Number Project Rank Pro'ect Title Estimated Cost $ Cumulative Total Cost $ 405 4 Creekview Nei boyhood Park 500,000 54,158,00 403 6 ei hborhood Pazk I rovements 860,000 55,018,00 401 8 Central Park I rovements 800,000 55,818,00 122 11 Hike Bike Trail Co letion 1,000,0 56,818,00 407 12 Lick Creek Pazk Trail Com letion 100,00 56,918,000 404 15 Skate Park 800,000 57,718,000 406 23 Purchase Parkland -Southwood 800,000 58,518,00 411 27 Southwood Park I rovements 550,000 59,068,000 408 19 ei hborhood Parks Revolvin Fund 1,000,000 60,068,000 At just over $60M, it is felt that this list is consistent with previous City Council directives, while providing the best value for taxpayer dollars, and addressing the majority of the city's immediate safety, infrastructure, facility, and recreational needs. Proposal #2: Community Center Due to the recent changes in scope and mission of the proposed Community Center project, the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that this project be considered separately from the other Capital Improvement Projects on the 2008 General Obligation Bond issue. P&Z further recommends that the City Council better define this project by taking the following steps: • Direct staff to hold a series of public input meetings to: o Better understand the overall citizen interest in a "Community" Center o Gather specific input for scope, features, and amenities for this facility o Refine and present the project cost estimates (previously estimated at $7.6M) to reflect this new input, and to account for likely future cost increases. • Determine the role to of this project/facility in relationship to other existing facilities, including: o College Station Conference Center o Lincoln Center (with proposed improvements) • Assuming the City Council determines that there is sufficient public support for the project, present this project as a separate line item on the voting ballot. o This item should not be considered as part of the $60M identified for the 2008 General Obligation Bond issue and, thus, will require a separate funding source. Proposal #3: City Hall Due to the fact that the proposed new City Hall project was removed from consideration of the Capital Improvement Project (CIl') Citizen Action Committee (CAC) as part of the 2008 General Obligation Bond issue, the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that this project continue to be pursued separately from other Capital Improvement Projects. P&Z further recommends that the City Council better define this project by taking the following steps: • Direct staff to hold at least one (1) public input meeting to: o Better understand the overall citizen interest in a new City Hall o Refine and present the project cost estimates (previously estimated at $30.6M) to reflect any proposed changes in scope, and to account for likely future cost increases • Identify and itemize the level of completeness anticipated for this project cost, including: o Complete structure (exterior and interior) per current architectural standards o Internal office facilities (including partitions, desks, chairs, wiring, etc.) o Equipment and supplies (e.g. computers, servers, • Identify which staff departments will be consolidated into the new facility o Explain which current facilities will be closed as a result of the new City Hall and the proposed use of the existing City Hall and those other buildings • Assuming the City Council determines that there is sufficient public support for the project, present this project as a separate line item on the voting ballot. o This item should not be considered as part of the $60M identified for the 2008 General Obligation Bond issue and, thus, will require a separate funding source. Appendix A: Summary of Projects Excluded from the Proposed P&Z CIP List Since the city only has the ability to absorb just so much debt without raising taxes, some items on the potential CIP list will inevitably be left of the proposed list for City Council and taxpayer consideration. Below is the list of those items excluded the proposed P&Z CIP list, with a brief explanation as to why they were not included. Projects Excluded from the Pro osed P&Z CIP List Project Project Estimated Cumulative Number Rank Project Title Cost $ Total Cost $ 104/111 13 Barron Road East(104)/Lakeway Drive (111) 11,550,00 11,550,00 OTE: While Barron Road East and Lakeway Drive will eventually be required to facilitate better traffic flow on the east side of Hwy 6, this project can likely be delayed until further development occurs in that area, for hich costs could potentially be offset by proposed Roadway Impact Fees, which suggests that growth must pay for itself. 402 16 East Dist Maintenance Shop Replacement 990,000 12,540,000 OTE: Although the current shop may indeed be in need of repair, the proposed cost of the replacement seems excessive for a storage facility. Exclusion from the list may well provide opportunity for city staff to find less expensive ways of replacing this facility. 302 17 Community Center 7,619,0 20,159,000 OTE: Asa "Community" Center, this project is not well defined at this time. It started out originally as a Senior Center. Later, it was repositioned as a Senior/Community Center. Then, it was finally proposed as just a Community Center. There have been no proposed changes to the design or cost, despite the apparent changes in its scope and mission. This item should not be considered until after these issues are resolved, and until after a decision is made about the future of the existing Conference Center. 116 18 Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail 3,867,000 24,026,00 OTE: This extensive Hike and Bike Trail project may eventually add great value to the community, but it ust be considered as the Barron/Hwy6 Overpass and Barron Road East (#104) projects move forward. 414 21 Lick Creek Park Nature Center 1,500,000 25,526,000 OTE: Though this project may add some future educational value to the community, it does not rate among e highest priority projects at this time. 100 22 Rock Prairie Road East 6,000,000 31,526,000 OTE: Rock Prairie Road East will be a key development effort in future, as development occurs in that direction. However, this may best be pursued using the proposed Roadway Impact Fees, which suggests that growth pay for itself. 119 24 Oversize Participation 1,000,000 32,526,000 OTE: Though Oversize Participation has been advantageous in certain circumstances, this issue could be considered during the CPAC effort to update proposed Land Uses and the Thoroughfare Plan. 118 25 Future Right of Way Acquisition 2,000,000 34,526,000 OTE: Since Right-of--Way Acquisition is likely to occur in developing areas of city, the proposed Roadway Impact Fees may best address this issue. 410 26 Purchase Community Parkland SW CS 1,250,000 35,776,000 OTE: Although purchasing future Community Parkland in the SW region of the city may seem cost-effective, arkland can also be acquired via land dedication during development projects. .• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Executive Summary The Proposed Priority Street Projects and Alternative Funding Mechanisms report is presented to Council for consideration and direction to the City Manager for implementation. The report recommends specific priority street projects for consideration and provides several alternative funding mechanisms to finance the ambitious program. The recommended program totals $99,535,792 (August 2007 dollars). The recommended projects represent Priority 1 and Priority 2 projects from the $122.3 million list previously presented to Council. The recommendations are a result of numerous discussions, analysis, and evaluation by the Transportation Strategy Group appointed by the City Manager. The Transportation Strategy Group used the following parameters to develop the recommended Priority Street Projects: * Examined the as built existing street system network to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies; * Examined areas of growth and development in the community in need of transportation facility improvements; * Examined the existing Thoroughfare Plan to identify planned roadways; and * Examined the recommendations from the East College Station Transportation Study for inclusion in the program. After the initial analysis, The Transportation Strategy Group identified specific projects based on the following criteria: a. City of College Station projects. The proposed program focuses on City of College Station street facilities with the exception of the Rock Prairie and State Highway 6 interchange and University Drive pedestrian improvements. b. Corridor Development. Entire street corridors were evaluated. This resulted in the recommendation of major corridors for inclusion in the proposed program. c. Connectivity. Areas of the community lacking connectivity were identified. Projects were identified to improve overall connectivity in the community. Page 1 1 d. Multi-modal. The project scope definition for each project considers multi-modal components -pedestrian, biking, etc. The subsequent cost estimates provide necessary funding to accommodate multi-modal design concepts. e. Hike-bike-greenway project. The proposed program identifies a prototypical hike- bike trail to be constructed in connection with the Spring Creek greenway. This project proposes to build an interactive hike-bike trail beginning at Westfield Park and terminating at Lick Creek Park. One of the challenges in developing the proposed program is evaluating the transportation system in the absence of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Team compensated for the absence of the completed comprehensive plan by using a rigorous methodology to evaluate system needs and recommendations from the completed East College Station Transportation Study. Taken as a whole, the proposed program focuses on major corridor development, improving connectivity, and addresses inefficiencies in the system. The vast majority of the proposed projects would be required irrespective of a completed Comprehensive Plan update. In fact, in our judgment, the projects would be required as a foundational piece to implement the comprehensive plan. Alternative Financing Mechanisms The size and scope of the proposed program will require robust funding authority. A tool box of financing options to maximize available funding to support the implementation of the program has been identified for Council consideration. The Team identified five possible financing mechanisms and recommended the application of the various alternative financing tools for each project. The financing mechanisms are as follows: General Obligation Bonds. This is our traditional financing vehicle for road projects. Bonds are issued, with voter approval, to finance on a long term basis the cost to construct a roadway. A portion of the property tax is used to pay the bonded indebtedness. We recommend $27,401,400 in General Obligation funded projects. Transportation User Fee. This is a fee levied through our utility billing system to pay transportation system improvements. We presented the fee concept in January 2007 and suggested $10 per residential utility customer and a sliding commercial fee with a maximum of $140 month. It is estimated the fee will generate $4.7 million annually. We recommend $14, 401,400 in Transportation User Fee funded projects. Road Impact Fees. State statues permit the City to levy impact fees to partially reimburse the City for construction of roadways identified on the Thoroughfare Plan. Statues require several actions: l) a detailed engineering study as a predicate to setting impact fees; b) the City must pay its proportional share of the cost of the project; c) each development project within a 5 mile radius (maximum) would pay a portion of the cost of the street project. This financing tool is only viable for street projects where there is sufficient undeveloped land in the impact fee area. We recommend $32,305,623 in impact fee roads. Page 2 Street Assessment. The City has used street assessments as a important tool in the past. In recent years it has not been as widely used for various reasons. Street assessments are levied based on the City being able to demonstrate enhanced value to the adjoining property. It is a viable tool for use in specific circumstances. We recommend $6,630,284 in street assessment projects. Transportation TIF. In the last legislative session, the Texas Legislature authorized the creation of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones for transportation purposes. TIREZ or TIF had been available for economic development purposes. Other than providing authority to create TIF for transportation, the process and requirement to create a Transportation TIF is essentially the same. This is a viable tool for unique transportation projects in which there is a substantial commercial development potential. We recommend $19, 100,000 in TIF funded projects. Council Direction and Action The Council is requested to provide specific direction to the City Manager as follows: 1) Authorize the list of recommended Priority Street Projects or as may be amended by Council as the basis for planning and presentation to the Citizens Advisory Committee for the November 2008 Bond Election. 2) Authorize the City Manager to bring back for formal consideration three alternative financing mechanisms a. Transportation User Fee b. Street Impact Fees c. Transportation Tax Increment Financing The development of specific formal proposals for each of the forgoing alternative financing mechanisms will require several months to develop. Prior to formal presentation to Council, we propose to implement a Citizen Engagement plan to obtain comments and input from stakeholders. The Engagement Plan will include both face to face meetings as well as interactive web based means to communicate with stakeholders. Page 3 Corridor Development Three primary east-west corridors have been identified for development in the recommended program. The three corridors were identified based on traffic volumes, inefficiencies of the current corridor, and projected growth within the corridor. Rock Prairie Road * Rock Prairie West widening (SH 6 to Normand) $1,750,000 * Rock Prairie / SH 6 Interchange Upgrade 11,000,000 * Rock Prairie West Widening 8,100,000 Barron Road * Barron Road West Widening Phase 2 $10,100,000 * Barron Road East 16,250,000 University Drive (FM 60) * University Drive Pedestrian Improvements $5,848,485 * University Drive (FM 60) Widening R-O-W 501,400 Connectivity A total of nine projects were identified to improve connectivity in our transportation system. The nine projects were identified based on traffic volumes, access, inefficiencies of the transportation system, projected growth and development, and Thoroughfare Plan recommendations. * Jones -Butler Phase 1 $2,650,000 * Holleman Drive West 2,430,284 * Eagle Avenue 2,000,000 * Pebble Creek Parkway North 7,850,000 * Victoria Avenue 2,200,000 * . Lakeway Drive 14,300,000 * Dartmouth Drive Extension 1,755,623 * F&B Road 1,500,000 * Switch Station Road 1,000,000 Hike -Bike -Greenway The proposed program recommends the development and construction of a prototypical Hike- Bike trail in conjunction with the Spring Creek Greenway. This project is proposed to set the standard for future trail development in the community while providing for multi-modal component of our transportation system. * Spring Creek Hike Bike Trail $3,500,000 Other Projects The proposed program includes other elements required to support the overall transportation system. * Sidewalks (various locations) $300,000 Page 4 Oversize Participation Traffic Signals $1,000,000 3,000,000 Innovation Programs Two project funding projects have been included to improve our ability to deliver street projects in a timely fashion. It is recommended that a portion of Transportation User fee be used to provide advanced funding to design street projects and acquire right of way for approved projects. Because of the timing of projects to be implemented over the five year funding period, we will be able to develop plans and acquire right of way in advance of funding becoming available for a project. Once funding is made available, the design and right of way acquisition funds will be replenished. This innovative approach will permit us to reduce the lead time to begin construction by as much as three years. Future Right of Way Acquisition $2,000,000 Future Street Design 500,000 Page 5 cc m rn ca a v v .,.., 0 QI d+ a .~' .ry iO a d a~i V ~i I N ~i O1 r C C LL r l0 111 44 H O Z ~~`~~~a~_~~_Q~_Q~QQ~~~QQ_~Q~ ` '~ ` ` ` Y ~ ~ V V CJ ~ ~ U V O O w C_ C_ m O O O O O O _~ O O m ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ y C C tq C N N N N N N N C lL C ~ ~ C E ll C Il C C C C LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O O ~- y O O O O O O H ~ H m ~ m ~ u~ ~i m v~ ° m ° m m m m > > > > N N O Q O N N O N a O a 0 O O O~ M M M `"' (9 E C7 ~' ~ ~ (9 ~ E U E C7 C7 C7 C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'cb moo 'ob 'ab 'ob 'aL 'fib 'ob reb ;~ 'ob 'eb :ob ;fib ;fib '~, '~e7b '~, ;gin 'r~~n '~ ~ x x ~ x ~ ~ 5c x ~ x x x x x x ~'" ~ 'r' "" ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ G O O O O CM O O C O O C O O N O O O O O O 00 00 O O O O O N O O O O O O O O Q1 O O O O O O ~ N O O O O ~f tD O O O O O O O O ~ O O O C O O 00 O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O ~ O ~ O O ~~ ~ M O M O O O O O O O O O O O O M r I~ O ~ N O OD ~ O a0 N M O h ~ O ll') M O O ~ O t0 f0 r ~- O CO N ~ N N f~ N V ~ ~ r' M N r M ~ r r r r f0 Yy d 'O O ~ ~ O N ~ N ~ = O ~ C d •O, Z d0' ~ N O N N ~ O > d' Y ~ N S = v ~ ~ :~ w L ? N ~ c a ~ ~ ~ m p c ~ ? v~ = d ~ w ° ° ~ a~i `°' o aXi ° ~ ~e ° ~ q? v o O ~ Y .~-. ~ L C .O ~ O ~ M ~ Y p ~ «~ O O N ~~~ ~~ m ~ c~ o~ m~ ao U Q v J~ a d N Cp d Cp p~o ~ O ~' V' Y tD N Cp O O O O O 'O =~= N O~ m= O O=~ 7 2 ~ R N c06 N f0 'm ~ rn ~ cn c7 U z z cn cn ~ cn u. ~ cn ~ > > > > > N N (6 L a o~ v ~ rn o °- ~ ~ N i a > - '~ C O e m s E o ~ o Y t a z ~- m m ~ ~ c ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ a°i ~ Q o w ~ • , N ° ~ W c • •° ~ ~ ~° v in m ~ N ~ ~ d O) d ~ ~ o Y ~ m U ~ _ ~p ,= N w c ~ c o o ~~ 0 ~ ~ > O v~ d ° ° o _ v ~ ~ N ~ ° Y n. n. o o N ~ ~ d d •~ ~ O ~ .~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 0 o m m a~ > ' ?~ m a ~ g ° o m CO .~ ~ $ ° a a~ ~ > > > > > ~ ~ o ~ ~ c o ~ o = w a 5 J ~ m LL o u cn N : cn -~ O LL H a ~ m m ~ ~n . O N M ~ ~ CO I~ O O O N M V ~ CO I~ O O O O r O r O r O r O r O O r r O r O r O r r r r ~ ~ r r ~ ~- ~ r r r r r N r N r a ~ ~ LL ~ € b6 o. •~ ;~, O c ~ L J cD ~ ~Q •p ~ V• Q N ~ ~ O yy C • N J ~ H O - ~ fC E O C o ~ fn ~ CO ,~ ' C ~ ~ '= m p ~ $ a 2 t i m o i o m V ~ 4 R J ~ ~ a n o d ~ •~ cp O d o O o ~ a~ ~ ,~ c o 0 ~ v~ u~ v, v, o d ~ aci °1 ~, o co °v co ~ o cc a ~!.: ~i' aci o 0 • 0 • o • cc ~ c0°v _ v ~i X 2 2 2 d co ~' 2 ~ _ o •° m m m m 2 0 ~ ~ C7 F- to to to ~ > fn m U ~ > > > > (~ a' LL O O UU O . C YO U C N N a N N ~ N N ~j C N ~ yy ~j U ~ N A N N a 8 3 3 a ~ ¢ y ~ g a ~ C r C O •(0 O O Y m N f0 > r Y_ m N C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ f A . a ~ O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O % , O . O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 ~ O O O O O t(•) O O M M i 0 O O O O O O O O O O O OD O O O O O 00 O O N N ~ ~. O O O d: O O O O V: O O O ~f O O O O O ~ O O CO tD +r `~ O O O O O O O O O O OC O O O O O d0 O O tp LL) R O ll) O O M O O O O O O O ~ ~ O O O O O ~ O ' 1q h O M C ~~ ~ Gp ~ to 00 O ~ C7 ~ _ O ~ ~ ~ O O O O O N c ~ ' G - 'i O CV ~ t~ ~ M t~ .- OD ~ t[) N M ~ CO d M fA W ~ $ d O b0 "~ r~ v .~ a a ~o a N ~+ O v a~ ~., ~t ~ ~ ` ~. ~ N i kE L ~ p Y m ~ m fi d •7 LL O N ' ,NNc -.; E C C c a~ 0 3 m ~ ~; c w in ~ T g _rn c Yc ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ V Y ~ O ~ .-'.~ vi ~ C• N p y Ill N rn ~ ~ E a~ a~ ~ '~ ~ C m > o L L7 ~' m p ~ U fn (~ Y N •N •~ ~- >., ~. •~ LL' N (n (n ~ Y ~ iC O E .~ t o ~ ~ a~i •~ n. ~ o ~' 0 0 0 c ~ o > > ~ ~ o m m ~ o a ~~ m~ LL LL d fn (n fn H '. d' Q' H _'.':~N Q' LL O H LL N.-; '' m J ~ 1•- ~. Z •:a M tl) V' N O ~ Cp h 1. N O ~`,..~ CO r- M O '- O _~ M ` o o h .- o ~~ o 0 0 0 ~~ o ~L ~- ~- r r r r _ r. a L N N L L L L L L .*~ N y ~ ~ L t L L ~ L L .F+ r. L L ~ ~ ~ 01 ~ a1 'fit ',. L L L L O) _O _O O) - L O) O ~. o~ 2 2 2= 2 2 rn rn 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 p '~' 2 2 N N N N N N ~i' 2 2 2 2 N N N N ~ f 2 N N °- ~,; :~ ~~ ,; „a "~ r ~,. ;. ~: , m a ~ _ ~ ~ N f0 wQ .C ~ 'p C ~ Q ~ o o- c ,~ a °O. ~ p 3 ~ Z Z (n 0 0 0 U U U N N NN U U CJ `o o `o 'm ~ 'm ~ ~ ~ ° o ° ° ° o o o o ~ o ° ~ rn o N O O N ~ O O O O ~ O M M ~ N O ( t N N N CO O O N C N >N > N N ~ ~ ~ E ~ c ~ L° d > m rn ~ ~ = vi a m rn ~ ~ r~ w 0 0 0 m rn a L L L _rn rn _rn _ _ _ N N N Impact Fee Implementation Sheet Contract Negotiations Staff & Committee make recommendations concerning policy issues a v • Consultant Develop Land Use Assumption Staff & Committee to Review Land Use Assumptions a_ d v ~ _ w ~ a • Consultant Develop Unit Usage, Demand Forecast ~ J ~ • Consultant Develop CIP • Council Adopts 1st Public Hearing by Resolution J • Land Use, CIP information made available to Public, Certified Notices mailed (a,b) • Staff places newspaper Notices of Land Use, CIP Hearing (c) • Council Conducts Land Use /CIP Hearing, Adopts Assumptions and CIP • Staff provides debt info to consultant ~ • Consultant develops Fees, Draft Report, and Ordinance ~ p • City Attorney reviews Ordinance ~ ~ • Staff & Committee review Final Fee Report and Ordinance LL Rf • Council adopts 2"d Public Hearing Order by Resolution • CIP /FEE information made available to Public, Certified Notices mailed (a,b) • Staff places newspaper Notice of Fee Hearing (c) • Advisory Committee submits written comments (d) • Council conducts Fee Hearing, passes Ordinance (e) • Advisory Committee's Semi-Annual Report to City Council • Send Compliance Letter to Attorney General (f) • Begin collecting fees -One year Grand-Fathering period after adoption for existing platted lots • Five year Update to LUA and CIP (as above) Notes: (a) Data must be made available to the public no later than published notice of public hearing (b) Certified Mail notices must be made at least 30 days prior to the hearing (c) Must occur no sooner than 60 days and no later than 30 days prior to hearing (d) Must occur no later than five working days prior to hearing (e) Must occur within 30 days of second hearing (not as an emergency measure) (f) Must be submitted before the end of each fiscal year ~1 i PLANNING ~Pc .~C~NIN~ C011~MISSICJN G~.~ST .~'~rGISR ~l~lE~7"I1VG DAT~'.,.~ Lu'l.t, ~. C~g 1. ~~~~~~ V~~ I 2. ~AUI~ CT~(~ 4. ~. s. 7. 8. 9. 10. I1. 12. 13. I4. 15. ADDS (30~ $Qvo~. Woo~,t 7 __~._. q 1 0~ Gc~ a-fe`-~ ~ d ~ ~ a-- ~e.~C ~.sT ~y (~ o 1 7~ l .~, 1.U b a 1 U G t~1 ~t~}"-ems ~ ~ ~ ~z< < U~1~-e, 7 ©S~ 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. ~ 23. 24. 2g. i.~~ ~'~N - CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ CITIZEN SPEAKERS FORM Date of Meeting: ~ ' ' 1 _~ City Council Agenda Item No. Hear Visitors: '~ Registration Time: ~? '~ S` Z Name ~", u ~ ~ ~ -e. Address: ~ c Gn `~afi£c'Co< ~ ~ - C ~ ~ ~ x ', Street City State Phone Number: _ ~1 E-Mail Address (optional): Citizen Comments: (c,~ r ~ ° „ ~ ~. ~~ Registration for City Council Meetings Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting - ~~..~~~. ~~ Agenda Item No. Name --~-2,PM ~c~f ~~- ~ -n,~l~y~- Address ~Ol~ ~ a a inG.d ~ ~ ,~~~G If speaking for an organization, Name of organizations Speaker's official~capacity: ' Subject on which person wishes to speak: Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding' officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~ ~ ~~1 - Agenda Item No. Name - ~ ~~- Address ~Z >'l~ L. ~~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: - ~ ' Speaker's official capacity: ~ C~~ Li~i Subject on which person wishes to speak: . Please remember to step to the- podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. r ' ~~ Registration dorm (For persons who.wish to address the Commission) Date of Meetin s _ Agenda Item No. Name J o^'.` ~i' ,:. ~ b ~ '•-'~, I Address l ~ f ~ i~ tr ~ t If speaking for an organization, ' a Name of organization: ,~ ,Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ,, Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name .and residence before beginning your presentation. ~If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE. FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES.