HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/2009 - Regular Agenda Packet - City CouncilMayor Council members
Ben White John Crompton
Mayor Pro Tem James Massey
Dennis Maloney
City Manager Katy-Marie Lyles
Glenn Brown Lawrence Stewart
David Ruesink
Agenda
College Station City Council
Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Consider absence request.
Presentation to 2009 National Champions, TAMU Men’s Golf Team.
Hear Visitors: A citizen may address the City Council on any item which does not appear on the posted
Agenda. Registration forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. This form should
be completed and delivered to the City Secretary by 6:30 pm. Please limit remarks to three minutes. A timer
alarm will sound after 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining to conclude your remarks. The City
Council will receive the information, ask staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda.
Topics of operational concerns shall be directed to the City Manager.
Consent Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a consent or regular agenda item not posted as a public
hearing shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. Registration
forms are available in the lobby and at the desk of the City Secretary. The Mayor will recognize individuals
who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address for
the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining for
remarks.
2. Presentation, possible action and discussion of consent agenda items which consists of ministerial or
"housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the consent agenda by majority vote of the
Council.
a. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of minutes for Council meeting held on Thursday, June 11,
2009.
b. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a request for additional funding to the Arts Council
of Brazos Valley for the cost of a forensic auditor.
c. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of renewal one for estimated annual
expenditures related to copying and printing services as follows: Copy Corner ($50,000); Office Max
($50,000); Tops Printing ($50,000); and Newman Printing ($50,000). Renewal period is May 1, 2009 thru
April 30, 2010.
1
City Council Regular Meeting Page 2
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On Behalf of the Citizens of College Station, Home of Texas A&M University, We will continue to Promote and Advance the
Community’s Quality of Life
d. Presentation, possible action and discussion on renewing the annual price agreement for the purchase of
oils, lubricants and antifreeze with Kolkhorst Petroleum Co., Inc. for an annual expenditure of $63,794.00.
This is the first of two renewal options that is to begin on June 30, 2009 and expires on June 29, 2010.
(Contract #08-121/Bid #08-61)
e. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a purchase order to DXI Industries for
the purchase of liquid chlorine for use in our public water supply. The amount of the purchase order is
$61,536.
f. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the award of an annual purchasing agreement for
anhydrous citric acid with Discount Industrial Supply, not to exceed $51,800 annually.
g. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to approve a settlement agreement with
Dr. Cliff Skiles regarding water permit applications with the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation
District.
h. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an inter-local agreement (ILA) with Brazos County and the
City of Bryan for the purpose of application and acceptance of a second allocation of the U.S. Department of
Justice, 2009 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG).
i. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to a change order to Contract #08-277 to Brazos Valley
Services in the amount of $428,938.50 for additional milling and overlaying services related to the College
Park/Breezy Heights Rehabilitation Project.
j. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order to Contract #08-273 in the amount
of $80,624.19 to Siemens for construction work associated with Police Department Renovations Project.
k. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Change Order No. 3 to the construction contract
with JCF Bridge & Concrete, Inc. (Contract No. 09-041) in the amount of $34,541.50 for the 2005 Bike
Loop Phase I – Longmire Improvements project.
l. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to grant a change order for Professional Services Contract
#04-176 in the amount of $161,569.20 to Edwards and Kelcey for additional design services related to Phase
II of the Barron Road Capacity Improvements Project.
m. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning a resolution to approve an Advance Funding
Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to construct the third and final
phase of the College Station Bike Loop under the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. The
estimated cost of the City’s participation is $312,552.
Regular Agenda
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on a regular agenda item not posted as a public hearing
shall register with the City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s reading of the agenda item. The Mayor will
recognize you to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and address
for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty seconds remaining
for remarks.
2
City Council Regular Meeting Page 3
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On Behalf of the Citizens of College Station, Home of Texas A&M University, We will continue to Promote and Advance the
Community’s Quality of Life
Individuals who wish to address the City Council on an item posted as a public hearing shall register with the
City Secretary prior to the Mayor’s announcement to open the public hearing. The Mayor will recognize
individuals who wish to come forward to speak for or against the item. The speaker will state their name and
address for the record and allowed three minutes. A timer alarm will sound at 2 1/2 minutes to signal thirty
seconds remaining to conclude remarks. After a public hearing is closed, there shall be no additional public
comments. If Council needs additional information from the general public, some limited comments may be
allowed at the discretion of the Mayor.
If an individual does not wish to address the City Council, but still wishes to be recorded in the official minutes
as being in support or opposition to an agenda item, the individual may complete the registration form provided
in the lobby by providing the name, address, and comments about a city related subject. These comments will
be referred to the City Council and City Manager.
1. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter
12, Unified Development Ordinance, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas changing the zoning district boundaries of an area consisting of 8.76
acres generally located along State Highway 6, southeast of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and
State Highway 6, from A-O Agricultural-Open to C-1 General Commercial.
2. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter
12, Unified Development Ordinance, Section 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of College Station, Texas changing the zoning district boundaries of an area consisting of 35.7
acres generally located along Rock Prairie Road, southeast of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and
State Highway 6, from A-O Agricultural-Open, C-2 Commercial Industrial, and R-4 Multi-Family to C-
1 General Commercial.
3. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion an ordinance amending City of College
Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 13: Flood Hazard Protection.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution approving a contract with Schenck
Builders, L.L.C. in an amount not to exceed $87,700.00 for the construction of a new, affordable, single-
family residence at 1022 Crested Point Drive using federal HOME Investment Partnership Grant
(HOME) funds.
5. Adjourn.
If litigation issues arise to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held.
APPROVED:
________________________________
City Manager
3
City Council Regular Meeting Page 4
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On Behalf of the Citizens of College Station, Home of Texas A&M University, We will continue to Promote and Advance the
Community’s Quality of Life
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be
held on the Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this 19th day of June, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.
E-Signed by Connie Hooks
VERIFY authenticity with ApproveIt
________________________________
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 June 19, 2009 at 2:00 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 ________________, 2009 By______________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____day of ________________, 2009.
______________________________
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
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2b
Arts Council Request for Additional Funding
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: City Manager’s Office
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a request
for additional funding to the Arts Council of Brazos Valley for the costs of a forensic
auditor.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends denying the request for additional funds.
Summary: The Arts Council of Brazos Valley incurred an expense of $26,832.00 in
hiring a forensic auditor in regards to the legal issues surrounding Dr. P. David
Romei. Although the outcome of the proceedings against Dr. Romei indicates that
the City of College Station will receive a portion of the funds it had directed towards
the ACBV back as restitution, no money is predicted to come to the City for at least
2-3 years since an appeal has been made.
The Arts Council has sent a letter requesting the city participate in the payment of
the Consulting firm used to perform this service. Staff recommends denying this
request. The Arts Council of Brazos Valley is a valuable asset to the community;
however, staff believes limited funds would be better used for other projects. The
City values its partnership with the Arts Council and appreciates their efforts within
our community, but staff does not recommend funding this request with other
projects pending.
Budget & Financial Summary: For the current fiscal year, the City of College
Station has $440,000 budgeted for the Arts Council of Brazos Valley. The City is
developing a financing plan to cover the cost and expenses of a proposed convention
center and funding from the Hotel Tax Fund makes up a significant portion of the
funding model. Staff does not recommend allocating any additional money from the
Hotel Tax Fund to the Arts Council for this request.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Arts Council requesting additional funding
5
AII.I-s COUNCIT.
.I Rii.\zo~ I[\I,I,~:J.
12 March 2009
Mayor Ben White
City Manager Glenn Brown
City Council Members
City of College Station
Cotege Station, TX 77841
HAND
MAR 1 6 2009
DELIVERED
Dear Mayor White, City Manager Brown, and Cound Members:
As pzrt of the recent legal issues relating to Dr. P. David Romei, our attorney,
Mr. Gaines West, at the urging of the Brazos County Disuict Attorney's Office,
hired a forensic auditor, Mr. Greg Shulke (Rimkus Consulting Group) on behdf
of the Arts Council of the Brazos Valley. The ACBV was responsible for all
costs and charges resulung &om Mr. Shulke's investigation of the Councit's
hand records. The bdhg for his services amounted to $26,832.00.
The primary reason that Mr. Shulke's services were needed was the intxicate
manipulation of ACBV financial records that occurred during Dr. Romei's
tenure as Executive Director of the Cound. While it was-apparent that there
were discrepancies in the records, how they occurred and what they involved
was not readily apparent Also important in the decision to hire Mr. Shulke was
the Council's belief that it was necessary to determine what had happened to a
large amount of City funds that had been designated for specific projects and
activities of the Arts Cound The ACBV recognized its responsibility to reveal
as much as possible about the use of the City fundmg. This could not have
been done without the assistance of the forensic auditor.
The outcome of the criminal proceedings against Dr. Romei indicates that the
City of College Station will receive a considerable portion of the funds it had
directed towards the ACBV back as restitution &om him. In hght of this, we
are requesting that the City of College Station participate in the payment for Mr.
Shulke's services. At this time Rimkus Consulting has been fully paid by the
West, Webb, Allbritton & Gentry law hnn and this payment has been
incorporated into the amount the ACBV currently owes the hrm. Any
assistance that the City can provide with the Rimkus Consulting bill will be
greatly appreciated, and more importantly allow the ACBV to once again be
more fully what an Arts Council should be and to once again provide service in
the realm of arts and culture to the City of College Station and its citizens.
We appreciate your consideration of this request and will be happy to meet with
you and/or provide any additional information you require. We look forward
to hearing &om you
Sincerely,
carol A. Wagner /
President
Mitchell Morehead
President-Elect
6
2=smm
SZsR. .===
-- ~. 2
K~MKUS
Consulting Group. Inc. -lam am. Em=* simt. P.O. BOX 4673
Z3M .Im HOUS'iON, TEXAS 7721 0
8B.N M (71 3)621-3550
FEDERAL ID: 76-0163936
WEST, WEBB, ALLBRIRON & GENTRY,P.C.
1515 EMERALD PLAZA
COWGE STATION, TX 77845
CONTACT: GA3lW.S WEST
File Numb. 0108574
Re: ARTS COUNCIL - COLLBOE STATION
ACCOUNT STATEMENT
Invoice
Date Invoice Imo&e Amowrt
Total Amount Bilied:
BILLS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT
PLEASE EEFIEENCE OUB PILE NUMBER AND INVOICE NUMBER ON CHECK
AND MA- PAYABLE TO:
RIMKUS CONSULTING GROUP
7
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2c
Copying and Printing Services
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of
renewal one for estimated annual expenditures related to copying and printing services as
follows: Copy Corner ($50,000); Office Max ($50,000); Tops Printing ($50,000); and
Newman Printing ($50,000). Renewal period is May 1, 2009 thru April 30, 2010.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of expenditures to Copy Corner
($50,000); Office Max ($50,000); Tops Printing ($50,000); and Newman Printing
($50,000).
Summary: Staff issued a Request for Information, followed by Request for Proposals in
2008. Specifications established three different categories which summarized the types of
printing and copying services the City typically uses. These categories with the
recommended vendors for award follow:
I. Category I - Digital Print and Copy
This category includes standard black/white copies/prints; standard color
copies/prints; some oversize black/white/color copies/prints; blueprints and finishing
services. A multiple award is recommended so departments may choose based on
pricing and convenience:
Copy Corner - $50,000
Office Max - $50,000
Tops Printing - $50,000
II. Category II - Offset Printing and High Volume Color Printing
This category includes City letterhead, pre-printed envelopes and business cards
Newman Printing - $50,000
III. Category III – Specialty Printing
This category includes a wide range of services including graphic design, maps,
calendars, annual reports, and multi-faceted informational packages. The City will
request quotes from pre-qualified firms for these type specialty services. Pre-
qualified firms are:
Insite Publishing
Newman Printing
Tops Printing
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are available and budgeted in each Department for
copying and printing services.
Attachments:
Renewals (4)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2d
Annual Price Agreement for Oils, Lubricants and Antifreeze
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Jeff Kersten, Chief Financial Officer
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on renewing the annual
price agreement for the purchase of oils, lubricants and antifreeze with Kolkhorst Petroleum
Co., Inc. for an annual expenditure of $63,794.00. This is the first of two renewal options
that is to begin on June 30, 2009 and expires on June 29, 2010. (Contract #08-121/Bid
#08-61)
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the renewal agreement with
Kolkhorst Petroleum Co., Inc. for an annual estimated expenditure totaling $63,794.00.
Summary: The initial agreement term was approved by City Council on June 12, 2008,
Item No. 7. This renewal does not include any price increases. Purchases will be made as
needed during the term of the agreement. The Fleet purchases are maintained in inventory
and expensed to departments as needed.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted and available in the Fleet
Maintenance and BVSWMA Funds.
Attachments: Signed renewal agreement letter.
20
...............................................................................
RENEWAL ACCEPTANCE
By signing herewith, I acknowledge and agree to renew contract #08- 12 1, for oils, lubricants and
antifreeze, in accordance with all terms and conditions previously agreed to and accepted.
I understand this renewal term will be for the period beginning June 30,2009 through June 29,
2010.
LKHORST PETROLEUM CO, INC.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
/
APPROVED:
City Manager
Chief Financial Officer
yld/0 2
ATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
21
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF G v i be s
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
-U?
This instrument was acknowledged on the 4 day of I 2009,
t
by 6rfi;on~. Zdvaqoto- in hisk capacity as \) 9 b i 54 ; bmtie CT)l of
)Lo\ li~ors+ Pe+ro Itur. G. , J,., a TEXAS Corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAU)S
Ide*-LC)&
Notarv Public in and for the
~'tate of Texas
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This instrument was acknowledged on the day of ,2009,
by , in his capacity as Mayor of the City of College Station, a Texas
home-rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas
22
Page 1 of 1
Lisa Davis - RE: Price Agreement - Oils, Lubri-ts & Antifreeze
From: "Joe Acosta"
To: "'Lisa Davis"'
Date: 6/5/2009 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: Price Agreement - Oils, Lubricants & Antifreeze
I spoke with Lisa about the bid I explained that most products that the city used were still priced fair and that I
would change the price of the antifreeze to 319.00 per drum. The price of crude per barrel is on the rise again
and we will see price of oil go back up this year as also with fuel prices.
From: Lisa Davis [mailto:Ldavis@cstx.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 04,2009 1:54 PM
To: joe@ kolkhorst.com
Subject: Price Agreement - Oils, Lubricants & Antifreeze
Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon regarding the renewal of the price agreement for oils,
lubricants & antifieeze. Please send a reply regarding the antifieeze and additional information that I
can provide to our City Council. Thanks again.
Lisa D. Davis, (--.P.M.
by..
City of College Station - Purchasing Dept.
1101 Texas Ave. -College Station, TX - 77840
/ Phone: 979-764-3558 - Fax: 979-764-3899
College Station- Home of Texas A&M University.
file://C:U>ocuments and Settings\ldavisLoca1 Settings\TempWgrpwise\4A294C 15City of ... 6/9/2009
23
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2e
Chlorine Purchase
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Coleman, Director, Water Services Department
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding approval of a
purchase order to DXI Industries for the purchase of liquid chlorine for use in our public
water supply. The amount of the purchase order is $61,536.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this purchase order.
Summary: Chlorine is added to our public water supply to ensure disinfection and meet
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requirements. Due to our inter-local
purchasing agreement with the City of Bryan, we were able to piggyback on their bid 08-
105. Staff considers the low bid of $512.80 per one ton cylinder to be very favorable to the
City of College Station.
Budget & Financial Summary: Water operating funds are budgeted and available.
Attachment:
Bid Tab
Renewal Acceptance
24
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
r
y
a
n
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Bi
d
T
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
#
0
8
-
1
0
5
An
n
u
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
f
o
r
L
i
q
u
i
d
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
e
IT
E
M
Q
T
Y
U
N
I
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
Un
i
t
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
U
n
i
t
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
1
1
7
5
e
a
On
e
(
1
)
t
o
n
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
s
o
f
ch
l
o
r
i
n
e
$5
7
8
.
0
0
$
1
0
1
,
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
5
1
2
.
8
0
$
8
9
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
2
1
1
5
e
a
15
0
p
o
u
n
d
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
s
o
f
ch
l
o
r
i
n
e
$9
5
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
9
2
5
.
0
0
$
7
0
.
5
0
$
8
,
1
0
7
.
5
0
To
t
a
l
B
a
s
e
B
i
d
IT
E
M
Q
T
Y
U
N
I
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
Un
i
t
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
U
n
i
t
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
1
1
2
0
Cy
l
i
n
d
er
s
On
e
(
1
)
t
o
n
c
y
l
i
n
d
e
r
s
o
f
ch
l
o
r
i
n
e
$5
7
8
.
0
0
$
6
9
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
$
5
1
2
.
8
0
$
6
1
,
5
3
6
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
B
a
s
e
B
i
d
A ti
v
i
a
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(S
a
i
n
t
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
,
L
A
)
DX
I
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
i
n
c
.
(H
o
u
s
t
o
n
,
T
x
)
$1
1
2
,
0
7
5
.
0
0
$
9
7
,
8
4
7
.
5
0
Y Y Y YYYNY
$6
9
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
$
6
1
,
5
3
6
.
0
0
NYYY
Y N Y
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Y -N o
a
dd
i
t i on
a
l i n f or
m
a
t
i on
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
r
y
a
n
Ad
d
e
n
d
u
m
#
1
A
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
De
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
Y
/
N
)
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
b
i
d
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
Y
/
N
)
Fe
l
o
n
y
C
o
n
v
i
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Al
l
b
i
d
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
r
e
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
b
i
d
t
a
b
s
h
e
e
t
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
a
b
i
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
e
d
a
s
an
y
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
c
c
e
p
t
s
s
u
c
h
b
i
d
a
s
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
v
e
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
b
i
d
d
e
r
up
o
n
a
w
a
r
d
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
.
#
o
f
C
o
p
i
e
s
(
1
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
)
Pr
o
m
p
t
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
:
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
(
Y
/
N
)
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
25
26
27
28
29
30
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2f
Annual Purchasing Agreement for Citric Acid
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Coleman, Director of Water Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the award of an
annual purchasing agreement for anhydrous citric acid with Discount Industrial Supply, not
to exceed $51,800 annually.
Recommendation: Staff recommends award of this annual purchasing agreement.
Summary: Anhydrous citric acid is a chemical used to clean the outer sleeves on the
ultraviolet disinfection systems at the Carters Creek and Lick Creek wastewater treatment
plants. Mixed with water and agitated with air, it safely cleans built up solids off of the
outside of the sleeves to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the disinfection
systems.
Invitation to bid #09-68 received a bid from one vendor. This invitation to bid was
advertised in the Eagle, and notices were e-mailed to vendors registered with the Brazos
Valley Online Bidding System. At least ten vendors downloaded the bid information, but
ultimately only Discount Industrial Supply submitted a bid. The City has purchased
anhydrous citric acid from Discount Industrial Supply in the past, and we have been pleased
with their product and service. The last several invoices show that we have been paying
$3.49 per pound for the citric acid, and this latest bid is at $2.59 per pound, so the City will
save money under the proposed purchase agreement. For these reasons, staff recommends
approval.
Budget & Financial Summary: Wastewater Operating funds are budgeted and available
for the anticipated amount of citric acid usage.
Attachment:
Bid Tab
31
City of College Station - Purchasing Department
Bid Tabulation for #09-68
"Annual Purchase of Citric Acid, Anhydrous"
Open Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 @ 2:00 p.m.
ITEM QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION
UNIT BID
AMOUNT
TOTAL BID
AMOUNT
1 20000 Lbs.
Citric Acid, Anhydrous (Food Grade)$2.59 $51,800.00
Prompt Payment Discount
Certification from bid package
Discount Industrial Supply
(Bryan, TX)
Procurement Card Payment Discount
9
0%
0%
Page 1 of 132
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2g
Settlement Agreement with Dr. Cliff Skiles
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Coleman, Director of Water Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a resolution to
approve a settlement agreement with Dr. Cliff Skiles regarding water permit applications
with the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution.
Summary: The City of College Station recently joined the City of Bryan and the Twin Oaks
power plant in protesting an application to the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation
District by Dr. Cliff Skiles, in which he requested 8,300 acre-feet per year of water from the
Simsboro aquifer. The issue was ordered into mediation by the Hearing Examiner, and the
mediation was held in Austin on Friday, June 5, 2009.
A mediated settlement agreement was reached on that Friday night, and the document is
provided as an Exhibit to the attached Resolution. Under the terms of this agreement,
Skiles Family Partnership will dismiss its pending application for an operating permit for
8,300 ac-ft of new Simsboro water. Skiles will get none of the new water requested. The
General Manager of the District will dismiss his request that the Family Partnership's historic
use permit be amended or revoked and Skiles will retain the right to use 20,481 ac-ft of
Simsboro water. Dr. Skiles will, however, get additional flexibility because this use will be
calculated on a four year rolling average basis, not to exceed 30,000 acre-feet in any given
year. Also, Dr. Skiles will withdraw his request for reconsideration of the City of Bryan's
historic use permits and will thereafter take no action seeking review or consideration of
historic use permits issued to Bryan, College Station, or Optim Energy (Twin Oaks).
Additionally, Dr. Skiles will take no action opposing College Station's pending application for
8,200 ac-ft of Simsboro water.
This agreement has been approved by the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District
Board of Directors, contingent on approval by the city councils of Bryan and College Station.
This settlement agreement is very good for all parties, including the City of College Station.
We will save the legal costs that would have been expended to continue the case, and the
agreed water permit amounts are fair and reasonable. Therefore, staff requests City
Council adopt the resolution to approve this settlement agreement with Dr. Skiles.
Budget & Financial Summary: No additional cost. This will end the cost of legal
representation with Mathews and Freeland in this matter.
Attachment:
Resolution
33
34
EXHIBIT A-1
35
EXHIBIT A-1
36
EXHIBIT A-1
37
EXHIBIT A-1
38
EXHIBIT A-2
39
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2h
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) - Second Allocation Inter-local Agreement
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Michael Ikner, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an inter-local
agreement (ILA) with Brazos County and the City of Bryan for the purpose of application
and acceptance of a second allocation of the U.S. Department of Justice, 2009 Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG).
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends Council approval.
Summary:
This Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program is the primary provider
of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions and fund all components of
the criminal justice system. JAG funded projects may address crime through the provision
of services directly to individuals and /or communities by improving the effectiveness and
efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes and procedures. The grant is authorized by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
College Station Police Department intends to utilize this funding for the purpose of
supporting local initiatives, technical assistance, training, equipment, supplies and
information technology projects in support of our community-oriented mission.
Budget & Financial Summary:
This is a second allocation of funding and again requires agencies to enter into an inter-local
agreement as a requirement of the grant application.
This 2009 JAG allocation for Brazos County is $97,706. This amount is based upon a
statutory, JAG formula that considers the jurisdiction’s share of the State’s population and
share of total reported part 1 violent crime statistics. College Station has lower part 1
violent crime reporting and therefore garners less of the total amount of funding.
Individual recommended allocations based on this formula and designated by the
Department of Justice are: Brazos County- $0; Bryan- $71,311; College Station- $26,395
for a total of $97,706. However, Brazos County has been certified as a disparate
jurisdiction. As such, all jurisdictions must enter into an Inter-Local Agreement to specify
an award distribution to each unit of local government in a manner that will address
disparity and must apply for funding jointly.
College Station and Bryan Police Departments have agreed to provide 15% of their
recommended funding to Brazos County Sheriff’s office in an effort to address disparity. As
such, the resulting allocation is as follows: Bryan- $60,615; College Station- $22,436 and
Brazos County- $14,655.
Bryan Police Department will again serve as the administering agency.
Attachments:
1.) Inter-local agreement
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2i
Change Order No. 1 for College Park-Breezy Heights Rehabilitation Project
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to a change order to
Contract #08-277 to Brazos Valley Services in the amount of $428,938.50 for additional
milling and overlaying services related to the College Park/Breezy Heights Rehabilitation
Project.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this change order to expand the
milling and overlaying program within the project boundaries and parts of the surrounding
area.
Summary: When the College Park/Breezy Heights Project was bid for construction, the
scope of work for the street improvements portion of the project was reduced for two
reasons - the neighborhood eliminated some streets from the scope, and staff eliminated
other streets due to concerns over rising construction costs. However, the mill and overlay
of some of the streets in the neighborhood in included in the current scope of work.
Between the beginning of the design phase and the bidding phase, the construction bidding
climate changed. As a result of this reduced scope of work, there is excess budget
remaining in the streets portion of the project funding. On April 9, 2009 staff delivered a
presentation to Council proposing to use a portion of these excess Street Funds to mill and
overlay other streets within the project boundaries and immediately adjacent to the project
boundaries that are need of repair. The streets discussed during that presentation include:
Luther: Fairview to Wellborn
Park Place: Fairview to Dexter
Bell: Hereford to Welsh
West Dexter: Ayrshire to Hereford
Montclair: Luther to cul-de-sac
Old Jersey: Fairview to terminus
Fairview: George Bush to Holleman
Hereford: Luther to Holleman
Guernsey: Fairview to West Dexter
Angus: Fairview to W. Dexter
Since the quantities for mill and overlay increased by more than 25% staff was able to
renegotiate the unit price for this work. Staff was able to negotiate a reduction from
$15.50/SY to $11.50/SY resulting in a savings of over $120,000. The additional design
drawings are now complete and the Construction Contractor is prepared to begin this
additional work.
Budget & Financial Summary: The original contract for construction services was
$4,116,581.28. This change order will increase the contract by 10.4% to a total of
$4,545,519.78. The current budget for the College Park-Breezy Heights Rehabilitation
project is $5,843,045. Funds in the amount of $4,776,558 have been expended or
committed to date, leaving a balance of $1,066,487 for this change order and future
expenses. The funding sources for this project include the Streets, Drainage, Water and
48
Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Funds. This change order will be applied to the
portion of the project funded by the Streets Capital Fund, which has a balance of $568,389.
Attachments:
1. Change Order
2. Location Map of the College Park Breezy Heights Rehabilitation Project with original
scope of road construction.
3. Location Map of the College Park-Breezy Heights Rehabilitation Project with milling
and overlaying expansion.
49
50
Av
e
F i d e l i ty S t
D
e
t
r
o
C
a
r
M
ary
e
m
St
S
uffolk A
v
eBurt S t
Ti
m
H
Dexter Dr
L u t h e r S t
N e w t o n R d
P a r k P l a c e
P a r k P l a c e
W
F
airvie
w
A
v
e
M
o
ntclair A
v
e
H
ereford St
T h o m a s S t
Dexter Dr WOld J e r s e y S t
G u e rn s e y S t
B e l l S t
W
els
h A
v
e
P a r k P l a c e
J
51
Av
e
F i d e l i ty S t
D
e
t
r
o
C
a
r
M
ary
e
m
St
S
uffolk A
v
eBurt S t
Ti
m
H
Dexter Dr
L u t h e r S t
N e w t o n R d
P a r k P l a c e
P a r k P l a c e
W
F
airvie
w
A
v
e
M
o
ntclair A
v
e
H
ereford St
T h o m a s S t
Dexter Dr WOld J e r s e y S t
G u e rn s e y S t
B e l l S t
W
els
h A
v
e
P a r k P l a c e
J
52
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2j
Project Number GG0402
Change Order No. 1 for the Police Department Renovations
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a change order
to Contract #08-273 in the amount of $80,624.19 to Siemens for construction work
associated with Police Department Renovations Project.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this item.
Summary: This change order expands the security programming for the PD Renovations
Project. The change order includes the placement of audio microphones in the front lobby
and the jail facility area near booking. The change order also allows for replacement of the
old intercom system. The intercom system was originally planned for replacement but was
removed from the original project scope due to budget concerns. During construction the
intercom system was found to be unsalvageable. The expansion of cameras in the jail area
is also part of this change order. A recent audit of the facilities by the Department of
Justice recommended this expansion. An alarm and camera system is also proposed for the
evidence room to increase security in this area. This change order also proposes to change
the jail door configuration to coincide with the new camera system to improve security in
this area, particularly for staff working with prisoner transfers. Finally, the change order
adds a camera power and servicing to the contract. This shall allow cameras that are being
reused to be more compatible with the new system and that all cameras will be powered off
the Siemens system and not off individual power sources as the prior system was set up.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds are budgeted in the amount of $3,686,000 are
budgeted for this project in the General Government Capital Improvement Projects Fund.
Funds in the amount of $3,158,751.10 have been expended or committed to date, leaving a
balance on $527,248.90 for this change order and future expenses.
Attachments:
1. Change Order No. 1
53
54
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2k
Change Order No. 3 to JCF Bridge & Concrete, Inc.
Construction Contract
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Change Order
No. 3 to the construction contract with JCF Bridge & Concrete, Inc. (Contract No. 09-041) in
the amount of $34,541.50 for the 2005 Bike Loop Phase I – Longmire Improvements
project.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of Change Order #3 to the JCF
Bridge & Concrete, Inc. contract in the amount of $34,541.50.
Summary: This change order includes reducing the grade of a driveway entrance. The
slope on the north side of the driveway increased from 5% to 20% after the curb line was
raised to accommodate an inlet box. To resolve this issue, the asphalt transition was
extended an additional 16' to reduce the slope on the north side down to 7%.
This change order also includes a Lime-Fly Ash mixture to chemically treat the existing
select fill and in-situ materials on FM 2818. Unforeseen site conditions, specifically,
moisture conditions in the subgrade beneath the proposed roadway, are preventing the
contractor from completing the subgrade preparation and placing the flexible base material.
A 2% lime 8% fly ash mix was recommended based on a Geotechnical investigation.
Budget & Financial Summary: Change order #3 will result in a net increase of 5.43%
of the original contract amount. Funds in the amount of $1,033,624 have been budgeted
for this project from the Streets Capital Improvement Projects Fund. Funds in the amount of
$742,672.48 have been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $290,951.52
for this change order and future expenses.
Attachments: 1.) Change Order #3
2.) JCF proposal
3.) Project Map
55
56
T e x a s A v e S
H
a
r
v
e
y
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
P
k
w
y
S
S o u t h w o o d D r
L o n g m i r e D r
B r o t h ers B lv d
B
r
o
t
h e r s B l v d N
A
i
r
l
i
n
e
D
r
A u s t i n A v e
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
D
r
H
a
w
k
T
r
e
e
D
r
H i l l s i d e D r
M o r g a n s L n
L a n g f o r d S t
T o d d T r l
B
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
A
n
g
e
l
i
n
a C i r
A n d e r s o n S t
L o n g m i r e D r
A
n
g
e
l
i
n
a
C
t
H i l l t o p D r
T e x a s -f r o n t a g e A v e S
S
u
m
m
i
t
S
t
A
u
g
u
s
t
i
n
e
C
t
R a y b u r n C t
L o n g m i r e C t
S a n d y C i rBrittain C t
1
i
n
c
h
e
q
u
a
l
s
5
0
0
f
e
e
t
20
0
5
B
i
k
e
L
o
o
p
P
h
a
s
e
I
-
-
Lo
n
g
m
i
r
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
57
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2L
Phase II Barron Road Capacity Improvements Project
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to grant a change order
for Professional Services Contract #04-176 in the amount of $161,569.20 to Edwards and
Kelcey for additional design services related to Phase II of the Barron Road Capacity
Improvements Project.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this Change Order.
Summary: This change order covers additional engineering design services for the Barron
Road Capacity Improvements Project. The phase limits of the project need to be revised
and re-annotated on the project sheets that will ultimately be used for the construction
plans. These changes are due to the change in construction phasing that resulted from
prolonged easement negotiations with other entities along portions of Barron Road. The
topographic and utility survey for the project needs to be updated due to several changes
along the project corridor including the construction of Fire Station 3, the completion of
State Highway 40, and the opening of new subdivisions. The analysis of drainage
associated with the Westfield subdivision and the detention pond for the subdivision needs
to be reanalyzed with updated flow data. Additionally, College Station Utilities has
requested infrastructure to be included in the project scope. The original contract did not
include bid assistance, construction administration or material testing for Phase II of the
project.
Budget & Financial Summary: The original contract amount for Professional Services
was $678,313.00. This change order increases the contract by $161,569.20 to a new total
of $839,882.20. Funds in the amount of $3,000,000 are budgeted in the Streets Capital
Improvement Projects Fund for the Barron Road Design and Capacity Improvements. These
funds are part of the 2003 General Obligation Bond funds. In addition, funds in the amount
of $100,000 are budgeted in the Water Capital Improvement Projects Fund and funds in the
amount of $100,000 are budgeted in the Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Fund for
the water and wastewater components of this project. Funds in the amount of
$2,620,034.22 have been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of
$579,965.78, which will cover this change order and any future expenses.
Attachments:
1. Change Order
2. Location Map of the Barron Road Capacity Improvements Project
58
59
60
June 25, 2009
Consent Agenda Item No. 2m
2005 Bike Loop Phase II – CS Bike Loop Completion
Advanced Funding Agreement
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Chuck Gilman, Director of Capital Projects
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning a resolution to
approve an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) to construct the third and final phase of the College Station Bike Loop under the
Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. The estimated cost of the City’s
participation is $312,552.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the resolution and AFA.
Summary: This AFA is required by TxDOT to complete the final portion of the College
Station Bike Loop project (Phase III), granted under the Statewide Transportation
Enhancement Program (STEP) because a portion of the improvements will be constructed in
the TxDOT right-of-way.
The total cost for this phase of the bike loop is estimated at $591,552. The overall project
was an 80/20 State/Local match, with a remaining balance of $279,000 in the STEP grant
after Phase I and Phase II. The estimated cost to the City is $312,552.
Phase I included on-street facilities (Bike Routes and Lanes), as well as providing sufficient
signs and markings to retrofit certain park paths to bring them up to the requirements of
the loop. Phase II included construction of 7,664 L.F. (1.45 miles) of off-street bike paths
through Central Park, Lemon Tree Park, and Bee Creek Park.
Phase III of the project will add 4,500 L.F. (0.85 miles) of a 10-ft wide concrete bike path.
It will connect with the terminus of Phase II in Bee Creek Park, continuing along the creek
maintenance shelf, and loop around the Arboretum area to connect to the existing bike path
in Bee Creek Park.
Budget & Financial Summary: Funds in the amount of $1,529,826 are budgeted for the
completion of the College Station Bike Loop project as part of the ST0530 ($327,202 – Bike
Loop project), ST9803 ($169,000 – Miscellaneous Bike Trails), and ST0521 ($1,033,624 –
Hike and Bike Trails project). Including the pending change order presented to Council
6/25/09, funds in the amount of $814,061.30 have been expended or committed to date,
leaving a balance of $715,764.70 for Phase III and future expenses.
Attachments:
1.) Advance Funding Agreement
2.) Resolution
3.) Project Map
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
June 25, 2009
Regular Agenda Item No. 1
Weingarten Rezoning (8.76 acre tract on State Highway 6)
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance, Section 4.2, “Official
Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas changing the
zoning district boundaries of an area consisting of 8.76 acres generally located along State
Highway 6, southeast of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6, from A-
O Agricultural-Open to C-1 General Commercial.
Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended
denial of the amendment (6-0) at their May 21st meeting. Staff also recommends denial.
Summary:
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The 2009 Comprehensive Plan primarily
designates the subject property as General Commercial on the Future Land Use and
Character Map. The stated purpose of the General Commercial designation is to provide
locations for concentrations of commercial activities that cater to both nearby residents
and to the larger community or region. Generally, these areas tend to be large in size
and located near the intersection of two regionally significant roads (arterials and
freeways). It is preferred that in such areas development be concentrated in nodes
rather than spread out in strips. Based on this description, the C-1 General Commercial
district, which is intended to allow general commercial uses such as retail sales and
services for the regional community, would be an appropriate zoning district to
implement the current Land Use Plan. C-3 Light Commercial, A-P Administrative
Professional, and PDD Planned Development District are also appropriate districts to
implement the Comprehensive Plan’s General Commercial designation
The 2009 Thoroughfare Plan designates this portion of Rock Prairie as a 4-Lane General
Suburban Boulevard. State Highway 6, a Freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan, is located
adjacent to the property to the west.
2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property
and with the character of the neighborhood: Generally, the C-1 General
Commercial zoning district allows for the development of retail sales and service uses
that function to serve the entire community and its visitors. As such, the proposed
zoning is generally compatible with the C-1 zoned property located adjacent to the
subject property along State Highway 6 that is currently undeveloped. Adjacent
properties to the south are largely zoned A-O Agriculture-Open, a holding zone placed
on the properties at the time of annexation. Adjacent property to the west was recently
rezoned C-1 General Commercial along the State Highway 6 Frontage Road.
Previously, representatives of nearby neighborhoods have voiced concerns about
proposed commercial developments in close proximity to existing residential
neighborhoods. The primary concerns have focused on a potential lack of compatibility
96
of the land uses and an increase in traffic congestion in the area. While the subject
property is not located adjacent to an existing neighborhood, it is part of a larger
development tract that is in the area of influence of a number of neighborhoods.
3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The
property is located along the State Highway 6 Frontage Road, south of the grade-
separated intersection with Rock Prairie Road, a 4-Lane General Suburban Boulevard on
the City’s Thoroughfare Plan. Rezoning the subject property to C-1 General Commercial
could allow it to be developed in conjunction with the approximately 26-acre C-1
property located at the corner of the intersection (and extending south along the
Frontage Road). In total, the development could include approximately 35 acres of land.
Additionally, C-1 zoning for another 35 acres has also been requested by the applicant.
If approved, the potential size of the general commercial development in this area could
exceed 70 acres in size.
This has been identified by the Fire Department as an area that is located within the 2.5
mile ladder truck response area, but is not located in a 1.5 mile engine response area.
In general, fire service facilities are lacking on the east side of the Bypass, resulting in
increased response times.
Utility and transportation infrastructure do not currently exist to serve a development of
this intensity. The general suitability of the land for development, including a discussion
of the availability of water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure is included in
Review Criteria #6. No FEMA floodplain exists on the property.
4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: A
portion of the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. In this area, the A-O
district is used as a holding zone for property that is projected in the Comprehensive
Plan for conversion to more intensive urban uses at such time as the need for the uses is
present and when it is possible to adequately serve development with necessary
infrastructure and public services. While the permitted uses in A-O, including low
density residential, agricultural or open space uses, are generally compatible with
residential development, not all agricultural uses may be appropriate on the property
due its location and the level of development that has occurred in the area. Generally,
the uses permitted in the A-O district are less intense, generate less traffic, and have
lower utility demands than C-1 uses. A-O uses generally have fewer service,
infrastructure and facility needs. The property is generally suitable for A-O uses.
This has been identified by the Fire Department as an area that is located within the 2.5
mile ladder truck response area, but is not located in a 1.5 mile engine response area.
In general, fire service facilities are lacking on the east side of the Bypass, resulting in
increased response times.
Utility and transportation infrastructure do not currently exist to serve a development of
this intensity. The general suitability of the land for development, including a discussion
of the availability of water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure is included in
Review Criteria #6. No FEMA floodplain exists on the property.
5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by
the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment:
The existing zoning allows the property to be marketed for residential and agricultural
97
uses. The proposed rezoning would generally allow for the property, in conjunction with
the adjacent 26-acre tract, to be marketed for large-scale retail development.
A market analysis of the subject property has not been provided to the City; however,
the existing A-O district permits agricultural, residential, and institutional uses, which
are consistent with other existing uses found along the east side of the Bypass.
6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There are existing water
lines along State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road that can adequately provide water to
this area. Required Water Master Plan lines also affect this property and will need to be
designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of the property.
There are existing 8” and 12” sanitary sewer lines near the State Highway 6 and Rock
Prairie Road intersection. Required Sewer Master Plan lines also affect this property,
and will need to be designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of the
property. Comprehensive Plan policies state that the City should approve development
only in areas that can be reliably and economically served within the City’s capabilities.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan promotes utility improvements and extensions to
promote infill and redevelopment versus expansion of the urbanized area.
The City is currently in the process of updating its utility master plans. This property is
currently planned to gravity flow to the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to the
south; however, the infrastructure, including sewer collection lines, is not yet in place to
support this. While the existing sanitary sewer lines in this area were not designed to
include capacity for this property, it may be possible for the property to be served by the
existing 8” line that sewers to the north (Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant). In
order to sewer to the sewershed to the north, an interim lift station would be required to
be constructed and maintained. A City owned and operated lift station would not be a
best value to City ratepayers because of future operation and maintenance concerns and
the inability to serve additional customers via gravity flows to the lift station. The most
preferred option for the development of the property is to be served by a gravity
sanitary sewer line, and not a lift station.
The property is surrounded by State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. State Highway 6
is classified on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan as Freeway/Expressway and Rock Prairie
Road is classified as a 4-lane General Suburban Boulevard, although it is currently
constructed to a rural street standard. Access to the property will be from Rock Prairie
Road.
College Station’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires the development and
submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to help inform the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council on the question of Rezoning. In accordance with this
requirement, the applicant submitted a TIA that complies with the requirements outlined
in Section 7.12.D.3 of the UDO (Zoning TIA Content) for the combined 44.6 acres
currently under consideration for rezoning to C-1 General Commercial.
The TIA concludes that the current system cannot operate at the minimum Level of
Service -LOS D- once the subject property is developed. In compliance with the
requirements of the UDO, the applicant has proposed to mitigate the impacts through
roadway improvements. However, some of the proposed mitigation techniques may not
be acceptable to the City, including a four-way signalized intersection at Stonebrook
Drive and Rock Prairie Road – a primary entrance to a single-family neighborhood. A
98
four-way intersection at this location was recently and intentionally removed from the
Thoroughfare Plan with the adoption of the East College Station Transportation Study.
Additionally, the proposed mitigation fails to address all of the service impacts
associated with the development. Further discussion of proposed mitigation can be
found at the end of this section.
Below is a summary of the findings of the TIA, including a comparison of the existing
Levels of Service in the area and the LOS after proposed mitigation measures are
constructed.
Intersection Level of Service
INTERSECTION EXISTING
LOS
MITIGATED
LOS
Rock Prairie at
Stonebrook
A C
Rock Prairie at
SH 6 Northbound FR
C D
Rock Prairie at
SH 6 Southbound FR
B D
Rock Prairie at Longmire
C D
Rock Prairie at
Rio Grande
B B
Rock Prairie at
Welsh
A B
Rock Prairie at
New Prvt Collector
C
New Prvt Collector at SH
6 Northbound FR
C
LOS is ranked from A to F, with A being the highest service level and F being the lowest.
In general, LOS D is considered the minimum LOS that is acceptable. The above chart
demonstrates that while meeting the minimum LOS (average of the intersection), most
of the intersections in the area experience a degradation in service (post-mitigation).
LOS of an intersection is determined by the movements contributing to that intersection.
Each traffic movement was analyzed and, in accordance with standard practices, an
average was taken for the intersection as a whole, regardless of whether one of the
traffic movements was below the acceptable LOS D. For example, if the through
movement was rated as an F and the right-turn movements and left-turn movements
were rated as an A and B, then the average LOS would be a B. Even though the
through lane was failing, the intersection as a whole appears to exceed the minimum
LOS required.
99
As one example, even after mitigation, the intersection of Rock Prairie Road at Longmire
Drive has several movements that will significantly degrade in service after mitigation.
Queue lengths (the length of autos waiting to enter the intersection) for the individual
traffic movements that were identified at unacceptable LOS were extensive. The
eastbound through movement queue length was 517 feet (21 vehicles) with a LOS E for
that traffic individual movement. However, the average LOS for the intersection as a
whole is shown to be a D.
Intersection: Rock Prairie Road at Longmire Drive
MOVEMENT EXISTING
LOS
MITIGATED
LOS
Eastbound Left
C C
Eastbound Through
B E
Westbound Left
C F
Westbound Through
B C
Northbound Left
D F
Northbound
Through
C D
Northbound Right
A A
Southbound Left
C E
Southbound
Through
D E
Southbound Right
A A
There are several other similar issues noted elsewhere in the TIA.
The proposed mitigation based on the findings of the TIA includes the following:
§ Construct a 4-lane collector road (backage road)
§ Construct a new eastbound lane on Rock Prairie Road from State Highway 6
Northbound Frontage Road to Stonebrook Drive (widening of Rock Prairie
Road by adding a lane)
§ Right-in and right-out only movements at intersection of new four-lane
private collector and Rock Prairie Road
§ Construct a four-way intersection at Rock Prairie Road and Stonebrook Drive
(proposed signalized access point to the development)
§ Construct a 150-foot right-turn lane at the eastbound lane to State Highway 6
southbound Frontage Road (at Rock Prairie and State Highway 6 southbound
Frontage Road). Modify pavement markings
§ Construct a 150-foot right-turn lane on State Highway 6 southbound Frontage
Road on to westbound Rock Prairie Road. Modify pavement markings on Rock
Prairie Road eastbound to provide one left-turn lane and two through lanes.
100
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Background Information
2. Aerial and Small Area Map (SAM)
3. Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 21, 2009
4. Ordinance
101
BACKGROUND
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: May 21, 2009
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: June 25, 2009
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s
Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing:
Wilshire HOA
Foxfire HOA
Chadwick HOA
Amberlake HOA
Shadow Crest HOA
Stonebridge HOA
Stonebridge Court HOA
Sandstone HOA
Property owner notices mailed: 3
Contacts in support: None as of date of staff report
Contacts in opposition: Approximately 10 nearby residents have expressed concerns
included traffic impact to the area, incompatible land uses, and
a degradation of quality of life for the nearby residential
neighborhoods.
Inquiry contacts: None as of date of staff report
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use
North General Suburban, Suburban
Commercial & General Commercial
R-4 Multi-family, A-O
Agricultural Open Rural, vacant
South General Commercial, Natural Areas
Reserved A-O Agricultural Open Rural, vacant
East General Suburban A-O Agricultural Open, A-P
Administrative Professional Rural, vacant
West General Commercial C-1 General Commercial Rural, vacant
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1983
Zoning: A-O Agricultural-Open upon annexation
Final Plat: Unplatted. Included in the Rock Prairie Market Place Master Plan (2008)
Site development: Vacant
102
103
104
May 21, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 21, 2009,
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John Nichols, Noel Bauman, Paul Greer, Doug Slack,
Winnie Garner, and Hugh Stearns
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Thomas Woodfin
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynn McIlhaney and John Crompton
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant City Engineer Josh
Norton, Senior Assistant City Engineer Carol Cotter, City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Greenways
Program Manager Venessa Garza, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Planning
Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Director Bob Cowell, Assistant Director Lance Simms, First
Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins, and Staff
Assistant Brittany Caldwell
Regular Agenda
5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O
Agricultural-Open to C-1 General Commercial for approximately 8.76 acres generally
located east of State Highway 6, approximately 2,600 feet south of the intersection of
State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Case #09-00500055 (JP)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the rezoning of 8.76 acres and 35.70 acres
and recommended denial of both.
Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing.
Brock Bailey, 1445 Ross Avenue Ste. 3800, Dallas, Texas, gave a brief history of the
site. He stated that C-1, General Commercial, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
He said that staff comments are focused on utilities rather than compatibility and if
Weingarten developed the property mitigation would be improved.
David Usari, Traffic Engineer, stated that if the property is rezoned and mitigation is
implemented the development would not have a significant impact on the roadway
system. He said that if the current zoning remains and there is no mitigation, the roadway
system will experience a significant and major traffic impact by 2011.
105
May 21, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2
Patricia Klein, 9214 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas; Melanie Burrel, 9100
Waterford Drive, College Station, Texas; Ann Hazen, 1309 Wilshire Court, College
Station, Texas; Gary Sorenson, 2405 Faulkner, College Station, Texas. Some of the
concerns of the citizens were traffic, safety, environmental impacts, and infrastructure not
being present.
Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing.
There was concern expressed by the Commissioners about the traffic that the
development would generate.
Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend denial of both rezonings.
Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O
Agricultural-Open, C-2 Commercial Industrial, and R-4 Multi-Family to C-1 General
Commercial for approximately 35.70 acres generally located southeast of the intersection
of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Case #09-00500056 (JP)
This item was presented with the previous rezoning.
106
107
108
109
110
June 25, 2009
Regular Agenda Item No. 2
Weingarten Rezoning (35.7 acre tract on Rock Prairie Road)
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
an Ordinance amending Chapter 12, Unified Development Ordinance, Section 4.2, “Official
Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas changing the
zoning district boundaries of an area consisting of 35.7 acres generally located along Rock
Prairie Road, southeast of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6, from
A-O Agricultural-Open, C-2 Commercial Industrial, and R-4 Multi-Family to C-1 General
Commercial.
Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended
denial of the amendment (6-0) at their May 21st meeting. Staff also recommends denial.
Summary:
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The 2009 Comprehensive Plan
designates the majority of the subject property as Suburban Commercial and the
remainder as General Commercial. The Suburban Commercial designation is stated to
be for commercial activity that caters primarily to nearby residents versus the larger
community or region. It continues by saying that “designated areas are generally small
in size and adjacent to major roads. Designs of structures in these areas are intended
to be compatible in size, roof type and pitch, architecture, and lot coverage with the
surrounding single-family uses.” Because of the intensity and scale of the uses
permitted in the C-1 General Commercial District, the requested rezoning is not in
compliance with the proposed Suburban Commercial designation for the property.
The stated purpose of the General Commercial designation is to provide locations for
concentrations of commercial activities that cater to both nearby residents and to the
larger community or region. Generally, these areas tend to be large in size and located
near the intersection of two regionally significant roads (arterials and freeways). It is
preferred that in such areas development be concentrated in nodes rather than spread
out in strips. Based on this description, the C-1 General Commercial district, which is
intended to allow general commercial uses such as retail sales and services for the
regional community, would be an appropriate zoning district to implement this portion of
the Plan. C-3 Light Commercial, A-P Administrative Professional, and PDD Planned
Development District are also appropriate districts to implement the Comprehensive
Plan’s General Commercial designation.
The 2009 Thoroughfare Plan designates this portion of Rock Prairie as a 4-Lane General
Suburban Boulevard. State Highway 6, a Freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan, is located
adjacent to the property to the west.
2. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property
and with the character of the neighborhood: Generally, the C-1 General
Commercial zoning district allows for the development of retail sales and service uses
111
that function to serve the entire community and its visitors. As such, the proposed
zoning is generally compatible with the commercially zoned property located to the west.
The property to the north, a across Rock Prairie Road, is largely zoned A-O Agricultural
Open and is undeveloped. At the entrance to the Woodcreek Subdivision, the Riviera
Day Spa is zoned and developed as light commercial. While the C-1 designation is
compatible with the light commercial in the area, it may not be compatible with the
larger neighborhood to the north. Previously, representatives of nearby neighborhoods
have voiced concerns about proposed commercial developments in close proximity to
existing residential neighborhoods. The primary concerns have focused on a potential
lack of compatibility of the land uses and an increase in traffic congestion in the area.
The subject property is part of a larger development tract (approximately 70 acres) that
is in the area of influence of a number of neighborhoods.
The property to the east is zoned A-O Agricultural-Open and is shown as Institutional on
the Land Use Plan. This property is owned by the College Station Independent School
District. At this time, there are no known development plans for the property.
3. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district that would be made applicable by the proposed amendment: The
property is located east of the grade-separated intersection of a freeway and a major
arterial roadway. Rezoning the subject property to C-1 General Commercial could allow
it to be developed in conjunction with the approximately 26-acre C-1 property located at
the corner of the intersection (and extending south along the Frontage Road). In total,
the development could include approximately 61 acres of land. Additionally, C-1 zoning
for another 8.7 acres has also been requested by the applicant. If approved, the
potential size of the general commercial development in this area could exceed 70 acres
in size.
This has been identified by the Fire Department as an area that is located within the 2.5
mile ladder truck response area, but is not located in a 1.5 mile engine response area.
In general, fire service facilities are lacking on the east side of the Bypass, resulting in
increased response times.
Utility and transportation infrastructure do not currently exist to serve a development of
this intensity. The general suitability of the land for development, including a discussion
of the availability of water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure is included in
Review Criteria #6. No FEMA floodplain exists on the property.
4. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the
district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment: A
portion of the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. In this area, the A-O
district is used as a holding zone for property that is projected in the Comprehensive
Plan for conversion to more intensive urban use at such time as the need for the uses is
present and when it is possible to adequately serve development with necessary
infrastructure and public services. While the permitted uses in A-O, including low
density residential, agricultural or open space uses, are generally compatible with
residential development, not all agricultural uses may be appropriate on the property
due to its location and the level of development that has occurred in the area. Generally,
the uses permitted in the A-O district are less intense, generate less traffic, and have
lower utility demands than C-1 uses. A-O uses generally have fewer service,
infrastructure and facility needs. The property is generally suitable for A-O uses.
112
Another portion of the property is zoned C-2 Commercial Industrial. Commercial
Industrial is a district that is designed to provide a location for businesses offering goods
and services to a limited segment of the general public. The uses permitted in this
district generally serve other commercial and industrial enterprises, and because of this,
are not as reliant on high-visibility site locations. The portion of the property zoned C-2
does not have frontage on a public street. Generally, the uses permitted in the C-2
district generate about half of the traffic of C-1 uses. The property is generally suitable
for C-2 uses.
A large portion of the subject property is zoned R-4 Multi-Family Residential. This
portion of the subject property contains an active oil well that would need to be
considered with any residential development plans. R-4 land uses generate
approximately a quarter of the traffic generated by C-1 uses. The property is generally
suitable for R-4 uses.
This has been identified by the Fire Department as an area that is located within the 2.5
mile ladder truck response area, but is not located in a 1.5 mile engine response area.
In general, fire service facilities are lacking on the east side of the Bypass, resulting in
increased response times.
Utility and transportation infrastructure do not currently exist to serve a development of
this intensity. The general suitability of the land for development, including a discussion
of the availability of water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure is included in
Review Criteria #6. No FEMA floodplain exists on the property.
5. Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by
the district applicable to the property at the time of the proposed amendment:
The existing zoning allows the property to be marketed for residential and agricultural
uses, commercial industrial development, and multi-family development. The proposed
rezoning would generally allow for the property, in conjunction with the adjacent 26-acre
tract, to be marketed for large-scale retail development.
A market analysis of the subject property has not been provided to the City; however,
the existing A-O and C-2 districts permit a mix of agricultural, residential, commercial,
office, institutional, and light industrial uses, which are consistent with other uses found
along the east side of the Bypass. The majority of the property is zoned R-4 Multi-Family
and was platted in anticipation of a multi-family development in 2008 by the property
owner. While, in general, this area of the City is not anticipated to develop as multi-
family housing (based on the proposed Land Use Plan for the area), it can be assumed
that the existing R-4 zoning on this portion of the property may still be viable from a
market perspective, based on recent development actions by the property owner. In
general, multi-family housing in College Station has very high occupancy rates, further
indicating the strength of this market opportunity.
6. Availability of water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation facilities
generally suitable and adequate for the proposed use: There are existing water
lines along State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road that can adequately provide water to
this area. Required Water Master Plan lines also affect this property and will need to be
designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of the property.
There are existing 8” and 12” sanitary sewer lines near the State Highway 6 and Rock
Prairie Road intersection. Required Sewer Master Plan lines also affect this property,
and will need to be designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of the
113
property. Comprehensive Plan policies state that the City should approve development
only in areas that can be reliably and economically served within the City’s capabilities.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan promotes utility improvements and extensions to
promote infill and redevelopment versus expansion of the urbanized area.
The City is currently in the process of updating its utility master plans. This property is
currently planned to gravity flow to the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to the
south; however, the infrastructure, including sewer collection lines, is not yet in place to
support this. While the existing sanitary sewer lines in this area were not designed to
include capacity for this property, it may be possible for the property to be served by the
existing 8” line that sewers to the north (Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant). In
order to sewer to the sewershed to the north, an interim lift station would be required to
be constructed and maintained. A City owned and operated lift station would not be a
best value to City ratepayers because of future operation and maintenance concerns and
the inability to serve additional customers via gravity flows to the lift station. The most
preferred option for the development of the property is to be served by a gravity
sanitary sewer line, and not a lift station.
The property is surrounded by State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. State Highway 6
is classified on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan as Freeway/Expressway and Rock Prairie
Road is classified as a 4-lane General Suburban Boulevard, although it is currently
constructed to a rural street standard. Access to the property will be from Rock Prairie
Road.
College Station’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires the development and
submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to help inform the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council on the question of Rezoning. In accordance with this
requirement, the applicant submitted a TIA that complies with the requirements outlined
in Section 7.12.D.3 of the UDO (Zoning TIA Content) for the combined 44.6 acres
currently under consideration for rezoning to C-1 General Commercial.
The TIA concludes that the current system cannot operate at the minimum Level of
Service -LOS D- once the subject property is developed. In compliance with the
requirements of the UDO, the applicant has proposed to mitigate the impacts through
roadway improvements. However, some of the proposed mitigation techniques may not
be acceptable to the City, including a four-way signalized intersection at Stonebrook
Drive and Rock Prairie Road – a primary entrance to a single-family neighborhood. A
four-way intersection at this location was recently and intentionally removed from the
Thoroughfare Plan with the adoption of the East College Station Transportation Study.
Additionally, the proposed mitigation fails to address all of the service impacts
associated with the development. Further discussion of proposed mitigation can be
found at the end of this section.
Below is a summary of the findings of the TIA, including a comparison of the existing
Levels of Service in the area and the LOS after proposed mitigation measures are
constructed.
Intersection Level of Service
INTERSECTION EXISTING
LOS
MITIGATED
LOS
Rock Prairie at
Stonebrook A C
114
Rock Prairie at
SH 6 Northbound FR
C D
Rock Prairie at
SH 6 Southbound FR
B D
Rock Prairie at Longmire
C D
Rock Prairie at
Rio Grande
B B
Rock Prairie at
Welsh
A B
Rock Prairie at
New Prvt Collector
C
New Prvt Collector at SH
6 Northbound FR
C
LOS is ranked from A to F, with A being the highest service level and F being the lowest.
In general, LOS D is considered the minimum LOS that is acceptable. The above chart
demonstrates that while meeting the minimum LOS (average of the intersection), most
of the intersections in the area experience a degradation in service (post-mitigation).
LOS of an intersection is determined by the movements contributing to that intersection.
Each traffic movement was analyzed and, in accordance with standard practices, an
average was taken for the intersection as a whole, regardless of whether one of the
traffic movements was below the acceptable LOS D. For example, if the through
movement was rated as an F and the right-turn movements and left-turn movements
were rated as an A and B, then the average LOS would be a B. Even though the
through lane was failing, the intersection as a whole appears to exceed the minimum
LOS required.
As one example, even after mitigation, the intersection of Rock Prairie Road at Longmire
Drive has several movements that will significantly degrade in service after mitigation.
Queue lengths (the length of autos waiting to enter the intersection) for the individual
traffic movements that were identified at unacceptable LOS were extensive. The
eastbound through movement queue length was 517 feet (21 vehicles) with a LOS E for
that traffic individual movement. However, the average LOS for the intersection as a
whole is shown to be a D.
Intersection: Rock Prairie Road at Longmire Drive
MOVEMENT EXISTING
LOS
MITIGATED
LOS
Eastbound Left
C C
Eastbound Through
B E
115
Westbound Left
C F
Westbound Through
B C
Northbound Left
D F
Northbound
Through
C D
Northbound Right
A A
Southbound Left
C E
Southbound
Through
D E
Southbound Right
A A
There are several other similar issues noted elsewhere in the TIA.
The proposed mitigation based on the findings of the TIA includes the following:
§ Construct a 4-lane collector road (backage road)
§ Construct a new eastbound lane on Rock Prairie Road from State Highway 6
Northbound Frontage Road to Stonebrook Drive (widening of Rock Prairie
Road by adding a lane)
§ Right-in and right-out only movements at intersection of new four-lane
private collector and Rock Prairie Road
§ Construct a four-way intersection at Rock Prairie Road and Stonebrook Drive
(proposed signalized access point to the development)
§ Construct a 150-foot right-turn lane at the eastbound lane to State Highway 6
southbound Frontage Road (at Rock Prairie and State Highway 6 southbound
Frontage Road). Modify pavement markings
§ Construct a 150-foot right-turn lane on State Highway 6 southbound Frontage
Road on to westbound Rock Prairie Road. Modify pavement markings on Rock
Prairie Road eastbound to provide one left-turn lane and two through lanes.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Background Information
2. Aerial and Small Area Map (SAM)
3. Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 21, 2009
4. Ordinance
116
BACKGROUND
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Commission Hearing Date: May 21, 2009
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: June 25, 2009
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College
Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public
hearing:
Wilshire HOA
Foxfire HOA
Chadwick HOA
Amberlake HOA
Shadow Crest HOA
Stonebridge HOA
Stonebridge Court HOA
Sandstone HOA
Property owner notices mailed: 7
Contacts in support: None as of date of staff report
Contacts in opposition: Approximately 10 nearby residents have expressed
concerns including traffic impact to the area,
incompatible land uses, and a degradation of quality of
life for the nearby residential neighborhoods.
Inquiry contacts: None as of date of staff report
ADJACENT LAND USES
Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use
North
(across Rock
Prairie Road)
Major Arterial (Suburban
Commercial & General
Suburban)
(A-O Agricultural
Open, C-3 Light
Commercial)
Rock Prairie Road
(Vacant, Riviera
Day Spa)
South General Commercial A-O Agricultural Open Rural, vacant
East General Suburban R-4 Multi-Family Rural, vacant
West General Commercial C-1 General
Commercial Rural, vacant
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1983 and 1995
Zoning: Annexed as A-O Agricultural-Open. A-O to C-2 Commercial
Industrial in 1986; C-2 to R-5 Apartment/Medium Density in 1994;
and R-5 renamed to R-4 Multi-Family in 2003
Final Plat: A portion of the property platted as Rock Prairie Heights in 2008
Site development: Largely vacant, with an on-site oil well
117
118
119
May 21, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 21, 2009,
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John Nichols, Noel Bauman, Paul Greer, Doug Slack,
Winnie Garner, and Hugh Stearns
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Thomas Woodfin
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynn McIlhaney and John Crompton
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant City Engineer Josh
Norton, Senior Assistant City Engineer Carol Cotter, City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Greenways
Program Manager Venessa Garza, Transportation Planning Coordinator Joe Guerra, Planning
Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Director Bob Cowell, Assistant Director Lance Simms, First
Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins, and Staff
Assistant Brittany Caldwell
Regular Agenda
5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O
Agricultural-Open to C-1 General Commercial for approximately 8.76 acres generally
located east of State Highway 6, approximately 2,600 feet south of the intersection of
State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Case #09-00500055 (JP)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the rezoning of 8.76 acres and 35.70 acres
and recommended denial of both.
Chairman Nichols opened the public hearing.
Brock Bailey, 1445 Ross Avenue Ste. 3800, Dallas, Texas, gave a brief history of the
site. He stated that C-1, General Commercial, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
He said that staff comments are focused on utilities rather than compatibility and if
Weingarten developed the property mitigation would be improved.
David Usari, Traffic Engineer, stated that if the property is rezoned and mitigation is
implemented the development would not have a significant impact on the roadway
system. He said that if the current zoning remains and there is no mitigation, the roadway
system will experience a significant and major traffic impact by 2011.
120
May 21, 2009 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2
Patricia Klein, 9214 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas; Melanie Burrel, 9100
Waterford Drive, College Station, Texas; Ann Hazen, 1309 Wilshire Court, College
Station, Texas; Gary Sorenson, 2405 Faulkner, College Station, Texas. Some of the
concerns of the citizens were traffic, safety, environmental impacts, and infrastructure not
being present.
Chairman Nichols closed the public hearing.
There was concern expressed by the Commissioners about the traffic that the
development would generate.
Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend denial of both rezonings.
Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning from A-O
Agricultural-Open, C-2 Commercial Industrial, and R-4 Multi-Family to C-1 General
Commercial for approximately 35.70 acres generally located southeast of the intersection
of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Case #09-00500056 (JP)
This item was presented with the previous rezoning.
121
122
123
124
125
126
June 25, 2009
Regular Agenda Item No. 3
Ch. 13 Flood Hazard Protection – No Adverse Impacts to Floodplain
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Mark Smith, Director of Public Works
Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion an
ordinance amending City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 13: Flood Hazard
Protection.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this ordinance amendment with
the primary benefit of enhanced flood hazard protection.
Summary: At the March 12, 2009 Regular Council Meeting, City Council directed staff to
conduct a third stakeholder meeting to seek additional input on the previous proposed
ordinance amendment, and then to bring the ordinance amendment back for Council
consideration. This stakeholder presentation and discussion session was well attended on
April 13, 2009 and a summary of the minutes and attendants is attached. The attached
current proposed ordinance amendment incorporates several of the significant stakeholder
comments. The following summarizes the ordinance amendment proposals:
(1) To restrict the following activities that would have an adverse impact on the
FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area or the Ultimate Base Floodplain area:
a. increased flood elevation,
b. increased Special Flood Hazard Area,
c. decreased conveyance capacity,
d. decreased storage volume, and
e. increased velocities;
(2) To exempt the above restrictions:
a. Where the adverse impact is wholly contained:
1. on the subject property,
2. on a property where its owner joins the associated development
permit application which causes, quantifies, and outlines the
adverse impact,
3. within a Private Drainage Easement which is specified to be
privately owned and maintained, and is recorded at the Brazos
County Court House, or
4. within the Public Right-of-Way;
b. For tracts platted prior to August 16, 2009 which is 120 days from
consideration at this meeting. So, subsequent Site Plans, Development
Permits, and Building Permits on grandfathered tracts would be exempt from
these proposed amendments.
(3) To require that approved mitigation such as excavation, must be properly
approved and occur prior to any approved encroachment or fill is placed in the
construction sequencing.
127
(4) To require an Engineer’s Certification of Compaction of fill in accordance with
FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 for proposed fill activities encroaching into the
FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area or the Ultimate Base Floodplain area;
(5) To quantify that Conditional Letters of Map are required for modification of any
watercourse where total of 300 feet reach or more of channelization or closing
within a culvert;
(6) To establish that the City Engineer is the Administrator of the Flood Hazard
Ordinance.
Lastly, similar to one of the exemptions above, the effective date for this ordinance has a
proposed 120 day effective date from adoption to further enable projects underway to not
be influenced.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Ordinance
2. Stakeholder Minutes Summary
128
O/group/legal/ordinance/amendmentform.doc
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, “FLOOD HAZARD PROTECTION”, OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS AS SET OUT BELOW; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1: That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance”, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be amended as set out in
Exhibits “A-G,” attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes.
PART 2: That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or
unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining
provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect.
PART 3: That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be
permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being a
penal ordinance, becomes effective one hundred and twenty (120) days after its
date of passage by the City Council, and as provided by Section 35 of the Charter
of the City of College Station.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this ______ day of _______________, 2009.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Secretary
APPROVED:
_______________________________
City Attorney
129
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “A”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection,” Section 3, “General Provisions and Applicability” of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting
Subsection E.(4).
130
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “B”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection,” Section 4-A, “Designation of Administrator” of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting said
section and substituting the following:
“SECTION 4: ADMINISTRATION.
A. DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
The City Engineer shall be the Administrator to implement, administer, and oversee the
provisions, terms, and conditions and requirements of this Chapter and shall maintain as his
guideline for administration the purposes of this Chapter.”
131
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 4
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “C”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection”, Section 5-C, “Revision or Amendment of Flood
Insurance Study”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby
amended, by replacing, as set out hereafter to read as follows:
C. REVISION OR AMENDMENT OR FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
Any revision or amendment to the Flood Insurance Study which is requested by a land owner in
the City shall be submitted to the designated Administrator of the Stormwater Management
Program in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Bryan/College Station Unified
Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and Technical Specifications. All requests for map
amendment or map revision must be approved by the Administrator in writing prior to their
submission to FEMA. If modification of any watercourse is involved where a total of 300 feet
reach or more is channelized or a closed within a culvert, an effective Conditional Letter of Map
Amendment shall be on file with the Administrator prior to any development or issuance of a
Development Permit. All submittals to FEMA shall be made at no cost to the City.
132
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 5
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “D”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection”, Section 5-E, “Special Provisions for Areas of
Special Flood Hazard”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby
amended, by replacing Section 5-E, as set out hereafter to read as follows:
“E. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
In all areas of Special Flood Hazard the following requirements shall apply:
(1) All new construction, any substantial improvement to a structure, and appurtenances
shall be securely anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement.
(Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11, 2007)
(2) All new construction, any substantial improvement to a structure, and appurtenances
shall be constructed in such a manner as to minimize flood damage and provide
adequate drainage; and, all electrical, heating, ventilation, pluming, and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located at least one foot
above the Base Flood Elevation so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating
within the components during conditions of flooding;” (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008)
(3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems, including but not limited to septic tanks
and drain fields, package treatment plants, etc., shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharges from the system into
flood waters;
(4) New and replacement water supply systems including wells, treatment plants, distribution
facilities, etc., shall be designed to prevent infiltration of flood waters into the system;
(5) Solid or liquid waste disposal sites or systems shall be designed and located to avoid
contamination from them during flooding and to avoid impairment of their operation
during times of flooding;
(6) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the lowest floor, including all utilities, ductwork and any basement, at an elevation
at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Certification that the applicable
standards have been satisfied shall be submitted to the Administrator, said certification
shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer or
registered public surveyor on the form provided by the Administrator;
(7) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or
other non-residential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including all utilities,
ductwork and basements, elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation, or
the structure with its attendant utility, ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities shall be
flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork, basement and sanitary
facilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below
the Base Flood Elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from
the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions. Certification that the applicable
standards have been satisfied shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered
professional engineer on the form provided by the Administrator;
133
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 6
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
(8) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the
lowest floor that are used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an
area other than a basement and that are subject to flooding shall be designed to
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry
and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by
a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following
minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than
one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be
provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices
provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters;
(9) In areas of special flood hazard where Base Flood Elevations have not been established,
Base Flood Elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other
proposed development, including manufactured home parks, which are greater than 50
lots or 5 acres, whichever is less.
(10) In A1-30, AH, and AE Zones [or areas of special hazard], all recreational vehicles to be
placed on a site must (i) be elevated and anchored; and (ii) be on the site for less than
180 consecutive days; and (iii) be fully licensed and highway ready.
(11) (a) Any new construction, substantial improvement to a structure or fill that encroaches
into the Special Flood Hazard Area shall be prohibited unless it can be demonstrated
that same will have no adverse impacts as set forth below. Certification of this shall be
required as approved by the Administrator based upon a submitted engineering report
that includes hydrologic and hydraulic analysis which conform to the requirements of this
Chapter and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and
Technical Specifications. All submitted information required herein shall bear the dated
seal and signature of a registered professional engineer:
(1) The engineering report shall demonstrate that such construction,
improvement or fill creating the encroachment does not, at any time, cause
any of the following upstream, within, near, adjacent, or downstream of such
encroachment:
a) An increase in the Base Flood Elevations. In the event that Base Flood
Elevations are not known at the time of submitting the information
required herein, Base Flood Elevations must be determined;
b) Creation of additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area;
c) A loss of conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard
Area that is not in the floodway and where the velocity of flow in the
Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second. Equal
conveyance modeling shall be utilized;
d) A loss of Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special
Flood Hazard Area that is beyond the floodway and conveyance area
where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than
one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth
herein. Acceptable compensation for the loss of storage volume
requires a demonstration of cuts and fills, must be mitigated on-site and
134
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 7
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
must demonstrate no net fill. In general, excavation within the Special
Flood Hazard Area and below the Base Flood Elevation is the only
acceptable method of mitigation of fill placed below the Base Flood
Elevation in the Special Flood Hazard Area; and
e) An increase in Base Flood velocities. In the event the Future Conditions
Flood data is known at the time of submittal, then the Future Conditions
modeling must be used in lieu of the Base Flood modeling.
(2) In meeting the requirements set forth in 11(a)(1) above, if fill is proposed a
Certification of Compaction of fill in accordance with FEMA Technical
Bulletin 10-01 must be submitted.
(3) The following are exempt from subparagraph (a)(1) above:
(a) Lots where the adverse impacts are wholly contained:
1. On the subject property or only impacting the subject property
and other property with same ownership,
2. On a property where its owner joins the associated development
permit application which causes, quantifies, and outlines the
adverse impact defined above,
3. Within a Private Drainage Easement which is specified to be
privately owned and maintained, and is recorded at the Brazos
County Court House, or
4. Within public Rights-of-Way provided other requirements for use
and encroachments within public Rights-of-Way as set forth
elsewhere in this Code of Ordinances are met; or
(b) Lots legally platted and recorded at Brazos County Court House prior to
the adoption of this ordinance, unless such plat is subsequently
replatted, vacated or otherwise altered. However, an amending plat
does not remove this exemption.
(12) For all new construction, substantial improvement to a structure, or fill located within
Floodways, the following provisions apply:
(1) A variance must be granted; and
(2) It must be demonstrated as certified by a professional engineer that such
construction, improvement or fill encroaching the Floodway does not
increase the Base Flood Elevation. Such certification shall bear the dated
seal and signature of the professional engineer.
(13) The following are exempt from both subparagraphs (11) and (12) above:
(a) Customary and incidental routine grounds maintenance, landscaping and
home gardening provided same (i) does not increase the Base Flood
Elevation; (ii) does not create Areas of Special Flood Hazard upstream,
within, nearby or downstream; and (iii) does not require a building permit,
zone change request, or variance from the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance;
135
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 8
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
(b) Temporary emergency repairs deemed necessary for the preservation of
life, health, or property provided a permanent repair be done as soon as
practicable; and provided that to the maximum degree deemed reasonable
and prudent by the City such repair is made and maintained so as to
minimize increasing water surface elevation and to minimize the creation of
additional Areas of Special Flood Hazards. Certification of this shall be
required on a form provided by the Administrator based upon a submitted
engineering report that includes hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, conforms
to the requirements of this Chapter and the Bryan/College Station Unified
Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and Technical Specifications, and
bears the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer; and
(c) Temporary excavation for the purpose of maintaining or repairing any public
street, public utility facility including service lines related thereto, or any
other public infrastructure provided such area of excavation is returned as
soon as practicable to its prior condition or better with respect to meeting the
requirements set forth in this Section.
(14) Approved mitigation such as excavation, must be properly approved and occur prior to
any approved encroachment or fill is placed in the construction sequencing.
136
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 9
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “E”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection”, Section 5-F, “Special Provisions for Manufactured
Homes in Areas of Special Flood Hazard”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College
Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by replacing Section 5-F, as set out hereafter to read as
follows:
“F. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IN AREAS OF
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
The following provisions are required in all Areas of Special Flood Hazard:
(1) No manufactured home shall be placed in a floodway;
(2) All manufactured homes shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral
movement and shall meet the following requirements:
(a) over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manu-
factured homes:
(b) on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less, one additional over-the-top
tie shall be provided approximately at the mid point;
(c) on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length, two additional over-the-top
ties shall be provided at intermediate locations;
(d) frame ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manufactured
home;
(e) on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less, four additional frame ties
shall be provided at intermediate locations;
(f) on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length, five additional frame ties shall
be provided at intermediate locations;
(g) all components of the anchoring system for manufactured homes shall be
capable of carrying a force of 4800 pounds without sustaining permanent
damage.
(3) For new manufactured home developments; expansions to existing manufactured home
developments; existing manufactured home developments where repair, reconstruction,
or improvement of the streets, utilities, or building pads exceeds half of the value of the
streets, utilities, and building pads before such repair, reconstruction or improvement;
and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home development; a
registered professional engineer or land surveyor shall certify that the following
applicable standards have been satisfied in a manner approved by the Administrator and
shall bear the dated seal and signature of such registered professional engineer or land
surveyor:
(a) That stands or lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on pilings such that the
lowest floor of the manufactured home will be one foot above the Base Flood
Elevation and the elevation of the center of the stand shall be no more than one
foot below the Base Flood Elevation.
137
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 10
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
(b) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler shall be provided.
(c) if a manufactured home is elevated on pilings:
(i) lots shall be large enough to permit steps;
(ii) piling foundations shall be placed in stable soil no more than ten feet
apart;
(iii) reinforcement shall be provided for pilings more than six feet above the
existing or finished ground level.”
138
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 11
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “F”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection”, Section 5, “Special Provisions”, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting Section 5-G,
“Special Provisions for Floodways” and by adding a new Section 5-G, “Special Provisions for
Areas of Shallow Flooding” as set out hereafter to read as follows:
“G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SHALLOW FLOODING
Located within the Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas des-
ignated as Areas of Shallow Flooding. These areas have special flood hazards associated with
base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the
pathway of flood waters is indeterminate and unpredictable; therefore, the following provisions
shall be required:
(1) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated at least one foot above the depth
number specified on the community's FIRM.
(2) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or
other non-residential structure shall:
(a) Have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated at least one foot above the
depth number specified on the community's FIRM; or
(b) The structure with its attendant utility and sanitary facilities shall be floodproofed
so that the structure and utility and sanitary facilities shall be watertight and
impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the Base Flood
Elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions. A registered professional engineer
shall certify that this standard has been satisfied in a manner approved by the
Administrator and shall bear the dated seal and signature of such registered
professional engineer.
(3) Adequate drainage paths to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed
structures shall be provided for all proposed structures on slopes in Zones AH or AO.”
139
ORDINANCE NO.__________________ Page 12
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Ordinance.doc 11/6/2008 1:18:30 PM
EXHIBIT “G”
That Chapter 13, “Flood Hazard Protection”, Section 5, “Special Provisions”, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting Section 5-H,
“Special Provisions for Areas of Shallow Flooding”.
140
No Adverse Impacts Stakeholder Meeting
Monday, April 13, 2009
11:30 am
Staff present: City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Sr. Assistant City Engineer
Carol Cotter, Graduate Civil Engineer Erika Bridges, Drainage Inspector
Donnie Willis, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Barbara Moore,
Director of Capital Projects Chuck Gilman, Greenways Program Manager
Venessa Garza, First Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Powell, Staff
Assistants Deborah Grace-Rosier, Brittany Caldwell, and Nicole Padilla
City Council Members present: John Crompton and David Ruesink
Stakeholders present: Veronica Morgan, Joel Mitchell, Chuck Ellison,
Hunter Goodwin, Dale Browne, Fred Paine, Paul Kaspar, Steven Davis,
Henry Wittner, Doris Watson, Parviz Vessali, Rebecca Riggs, Danielle
Singh, James Batenhorst, Kent Laza, Jeremy Peters, Ani Dutta, Jesse
Durden, Chris Harris, Kim Jacobs, Mike Davis, Chris Wilde, Brandon
Hilbrich, Ralph Wurbs, Jeff Robertson, and Steve Duncan
Presentation by Alan Gibbs discussing primary intent of meeting to
hear public feedback on No Adverse Impact draft ordinance as directed
by City Council at their March 12th meeting. Mr. Gibbs discussed the
five future floodplain initiatives that are under consideration: Speculative
Fill Policy, Riparian Buffer/Setback, Increased Free-Board, Future
Conditions Modeling, and Parallel Open Space between the creek and
developments. Current floodplain management initiatives he mentioned
as currently under way include: the Tree Preservation Ordinance,
Application to FEMA to become CRS Community, the Greenways Master
Plan, Drainage/Floodplain Management in the ETJ, Green College
Station, Parks Acquisition/Dedication, the Stormwater Management
Plan, the TPDES Committee membership, and FEMA Map Modernization.
To preface the discussion about the proposed ordinance, Mr. Gibbs
stated that by definition No Adverse Impact seeks to go beyond federal
and state minimum requirements and provide a higher level of protection
for citizens and prevent increased flooding presently and in the future.
He discussed the following changes which are proposed under the draft
ordinance:
141
· Restrict activities in the Special Flood Hazard Area so that: Flood
Elevation not increased, Special Flood Hazard Area not increased,
Conveyance Capacity should not be decreased, Storage Volume
should not be decreased, and Velocities should not be increased.
Exemptions include if negative impacts are contained on subject
property or within Public ROW and grandfathered for tracts platted
prior to 120 days after passage of the ordinance.
· Prohibiting removal of trees and vegetation for mitigation of
encroachments.
· Requirement of Engineer’s Certification of Compaction in
accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin.
· Mitigation constructed prior to other proposed site improvements.
· Clarify that CLOMRs are required for 300-ft channel or culvert
modification.
· Utilize Future Conditions Floodplain Model, if available, in lieu of
BFEs for Elevation Certificates and Minimum Finished Floor
Elevations.
· Defining what the Future Conditions elevation is and Mannings
Roughness Coefficient.
· Clarify that the City Engineer is the Flood Ordinance
Administrator.
Open forum:
Initial presentation brought about discussion regarding the wording of
the draft ordinance amendment and future conditions.
1. Comment regarding language used for grandfathered properties
which were platted 120 days prior to passage of the ordinance.
Chuck Ellison suggested that the phrase “prior to” be removed from the
draft ordinance if this really refers to tracts platted up to 120 days after
the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Gibbs indicated that he would verify
the language.
2. Question about encroachment in Future Conditions models.
Veronica Morgan expressed concern about the way the draft ordinance is
worded. Her understanding is that encroachment would not be
permitted on property currently outside the Special Flood Hazard area
but included in that area in the Future Conditions model. Mr. Gibbs
clarified stating that floodplain encroachment would still be permitted,
but would need to follow all ordinance requirements.
142
3. Question if Future Conditions models would account for site
specific or regional detention facilities.
Fred Paine questioned whether Future Conditions models without
construction of flood detention structures accounted for site specific or
regional detention.
Mr. Gibbs referenced a federal court ruling in which detention was left
out of their definition of Future Conditions based on a regional mitigation
effort. If there is only a “planned” regional detention facility, you cannot
take credit through the model for detention until it is actually built.
4. Question regarding how Future Conditions model would be
developed.
Rebecca Riggs asked how the City anticipated creating the Future
Conditions models for all of the local watersheds.
Alan Gibbs responded that it would most likely be done by individual
watershed or at least by tributary. He anticipates updating the
hydrology for future conditions and using the existing HEC-RAS models.
Ms. Morgan replied that hydrology and cross-sections would both need to
be updated to reflect current and future conditions since so much
development has occurred since they were developed.
Mr. Gibbs commented that the City may be able to OP more extensive
studies where LOMRs are already being prepared and it wouldn’t be
much additional work to model the remaining tributary.
Mr. Gibbs also mentioned that despite our detention policies, flows
within the channels continue to rise. Future Conditions modeling is a
way to address some of this increased flow.
5. Concern that increasing floodplain in areas due to Future
Conditions modeling, and not accounting for required detention
on the site, would in effect be “double dipping.”
Fred Paine said that most site development requires detention, and it
seems like “double dipping” to increase floodplain on sites but not
account for detention. Mr. Gibbs responded that H&H modeling does
not typically account for small commercial and residential detention and
proposed Future Conditions modeling would be consistent with that
practice.
Mr. Paine likened this concept to providing site detention under proposed
conditions because it is a requirement, but modeling the site without
143
taking it into account because detention may not work. Mr. Gibbs
indicated that the City is open to utilizing a more detailed model.
6. Concern that Future Conditions modeling for upstream
properties would increase floodplain on unrelated sites
downstream which would be “exaction” of property.
Chuck Ellison reiterated the concerns of Veronica Morgan and Fred
Paine asking why floodplain would be increased in a fully developed
model if post-development flows be equal to or less the pre-development
flows. He went on to state that increasing the floodplain downstream to
account for upstream development would be an illegal exaction of land.
Mr. Gibbs responded that in future conditions models, it would not make
sense to account for the benefits of regional detention which is not yet
built because it may not be built. Furthermore, not all properties require
detention and take flows back to pre-development rates. Some
properties lie in areas where detention is not required and it becomes a
timing issue with the rapid conveyance.
7. Comment that ordinance language should be changed to utilize
updated existing conditions rather than future conditions.
Veronica Morgan suggested that the language be changed in the
ordinance to not include Future Conditions. She said that the ordinance
could be reworded to reflect updated Existing Conditions and that would
alleviate concerns about how a Future Conditions model should be built.
Mr. Gibbs stated that the intent at this point was to collect comments
and possibly redraft the language. He also added that this method is
being used in communities across the state and nation, so he is
comfortable that it was not an exaction issue.
Mark Smith stated that the draft ordinance that was presented refers to
Future Conditions, but the ordinance would be operating under Existing
Conditions until the new model was adopted by Council. He said that
there would be separate discussions later regarding Future Conditions
design methodology. Mr. Smith indicated that this is only one part of the
No Adverse Impacts Toolkit, but it would benefit the community and
reduce flood risk.
8. Comment that new ordinance should not be adopted until Future
Conditions model is complete.
Chuck Ellison suggested that it may be better to amend the Flood Hazard
ordinance later after there the Future Conditions model is complete.
144
Mr. Smith agreed and reiterated that the Future Conditions model design
would be debated in the future and the ordinance would operate under
the Existing Conditions model.
Mr. Gibbs also agreed that the Future Conditions should probably be
removed from the Flood Ordinance until the model is ready.
9. Comment about use of Future Conditions model in other cities.
Veronica Morgan stated that Future Conditions models in other cities are
used as a basis for raising the BFE, etc. but do not preclude development
in the floodplain.
Mark Smith agreed and stated that the City has used a similar approach
as Future Conditions in the past with excess freeboard requirements. He
said he could also see using the Future Conditions model in bridge and
culvert design.
Alan Gibbs mentioned that the City of Plano is an example of a city with
a more stringent ordinance. They require that all Future Conditions
floodplain areas be dedicated to the City, which is more aggressive than
what is being proposed by the City of College Station. He also stated that
the City had considered proposing that developers to provide Future
Conditions models for the entire basin when a LOMR is being done, but
ultimately felt that it was too onerous.
10. Question about permitting removal of vegetation in a case
where channel improvements and mitigation are proposed.
Veronica Morgan proposed a scenario where a development is proposing
a floodplain encroachment but mitigating with upper bank improvements
(above the high water mark) and some additional storage volume. As the
ordinance reads, Ms. Morgan feels that this would be allowed although
she would be removing some vegetation.
Mr. Gibbs stated the ordinance was trying to keep people from clear-
cutting trees only as means to drop the n-value as their sole form of
mitigation. He suggested that language be included in the ordinance to
allow channel improvements and also stated that the ordinance was not
actually prohibiting trees from being removed.
Fred Paine mentioned that he submitted a LOMR and FEMA told him
reduce the “n” value to reflect the existing conditions on the site. Mr.
responded that a separate model could be submitted to the City in which
n-values were not reduced.
145
Ms. Morgan questioned how a bridge crossing and associated channel
improvements could be accomplished without removing trees. Mark
Smith responded that removing vegetation would be fine in that case
because you aren’t removing the vegetation for the purpose of lowering
the n-value. Mr. Smith stated that this regulation would go beyond
FEMA requirements. The City wants to achieve Zero Rise, but does not
want to sacrifice vegetation to do it. He said there are two objectives: to
not increase flood rise and less removal of vegetation in greenbelts in
College Station. Both objectives are related, but not necessarily hard-
wired together. Some trees will have to be removed when doing channel
improvements.
Fred Paine suggested that some sort of “Tree Protection Line” be required
that would prevent removal of trees beyond a certain point.
Mr. Gibbs clarified that this was not intended as a complete Tree
Ordinance, but currently there was a Tree Ordinance being drafted. He
added that there was language included in the ordinance that would
exempt rise occurring in the right-of-way.
Joel Mitchell commented that the language in the ordinance regarding
removal of vegetation to lower n-values was written backwards. He feels
that Zero Rise cannot be achieved without channel improvements, but
channel improvements cannot occur without removal of vegetation.
Mr. Gibbs agreed that the language needed to be clearer in establishing
the difference between removals of vegetation for channel improvements
and clear-cutting to reduce n-values. Mr. Mitchell offered to aide in
revising this language.
There seemed to be a consensus that some sort of riparian buffer (either
including the entire floodplain or 50-ft off of the centerline of the creek)
may be the best option.
11. Question concerning where LOMR would be required.
Mike Davis questioned when conditional LOMRs would be required and if
this applies to any channel or waterway upstream.
Alan Gibbs responded that currently Conditional LOMRs are only
required when a watercourse is modified and only applies to FEMA
Special Flood Hazard areas.
A suggestion was made that more specific wording be added to the
ordinance as to where this would be required. Mr. Gibbs stated that this
146
should only apply to Special Flood Hazard areas that should be applied
to the entire section of the ordinance without adding additional verbage.
Fred Paine asked if the ordinance would apply to areas that are
waterways but not currently considered FEMA Special Flood Hazard
zones or haven’t been studied. Mr. Gibbs said that the ordinance would
not apply to those areas as drafted.
12. Concern that incidental effects may occur on adjacent
property when altering floodplain.
Mike Davis raised the concern that any changes made to the floodplain
on one property would cause some sort of effect (i.e. increased velocity or
rise) on an adjacent property. What effects on an adjacent property
would be permitted?
Mr. Gibbs responded that FEMA considers Zero Rise as a 0.02-foot or
less rise (since it rounds to zero). The way the language in the ordinance
is drafted, the City would be able to use FEMA’s interpretation of Zero
Rise.
13. Concern that adjacent property owner may not want to plat in
order to allow improvements on their site.
Veronica Morgan stated that the language to allow purchase or easement
on an adjacent property owner’s land was not included in the ordinance.
She expressed concern that she would have a hard time proceeding with
development if she had to get adjacent property owners to plat as well.
Could an easement or something be permitted on the adjacent property?
Mr. Gibbs stated that language may be able to be added to allow the
adjacent property owner to be a co-applicant without triggering the
platting requirement. Ultimately, the items that trigger platting would be
a legal and planning issue.
Mark Smith commented that if easements were granted, it would be
preferred that they were granted between property owners rather than
from a property owner to the City. Ms. Morgan concurred.
14. Concern about the equitability of the ordinance.
Hunter Goodwin commented that the City is the primary developer
within the floodplain but would not have to follow the constraints of the
Flood Hazard and Tree Ordinances. He added that it would be costly for
a developer to remove trees in the floodplain and mitigate, but the City
would not incur costs for doing the same.
147
Alan Gibbs responded that the City would have to follow the same
regulations as the development community. Mark Smith added that the
City may have to look at transferring money into the Greenways Fund or
something similar to mitigate for its development in the floodplain.
Meeting closed 2:00pm.
Enclosures (2)
148
June 25, 2009
Regular Agenda Item No. 4
New Affordable Housing Construction Contract for 1022 Crested Point Drive
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Resolution
approving a contract with Schenck Builders, L.L.C. in an amount not to exceed $87,700.00
for the construction of a new, affordable, single-family residence at 1022 Crested Point
Drive using federal HOME Investment Partnership Grant (HOME) funds.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the Resolution awarding the contract
to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the City of College Station’s Bid Documents and
Contract Requirements, Schenck Builders, L.L.C. in an amount not to exceed $87,700.00.
Summary: In continuing to incorporate innovation and further grow the opportunities
available to our more economically-challenged residents, the Economic and Community
Development Department, in response to Council direction, has amended the City’s new
housing construction program to provide more geographically-diverse housing opportunities
in the community. Instead of building homes exclusively in more traditional lower-income
areas of the community, this new programming direction calls for the construction of
affordable housing in some of our newest subdivisions located in the southern part of the
community. This programming change will add a new aspect of economic diversity to some
of our newer neighborhoods and serve to further integrate hard-working, but economically-
disadvantaged, families into other areas of the city.
On Wednesday, April 8, 2009, four (4) bid proposals were received in response to Bid No.
09-50 for the construction of a new, single-family residence at 1022 Crested Point Drive. All
bids were considered. A copy of the bid tabulation for the project is attached for reference.
Sixteen (16) vendors requested bid packets and plans for this project during the bid period.
Once construction is complete, the resulting new home will be sold to an income-eligible
homebuyer meeting the City’s program requirements. Federal HOME grant funds will be
used to construct the dwelling and may also be used to provide down-payment assistance to
the buyer. This project will allow the City to obligate federal funds that must be reserved by
the end of this fiscal year.
NOTE: Per Down Payment Assistance (DAP) program requirements, a lien will be placed on
the property to keep the property from being leased or rented. The lien will ensure that the
property remains "owner-occupied" for the duration of the mortgage loan and will require
that the buyer repay the loan upon sale of the property.
Budget & Financial Summary: The total cost of the project is 143,050.00, which includes
the lot, construction of the home, oversight, and Down Payment Assistance (DAP). Funding
for this project will come entirely from the City's federal HOME funds, as allocated in the
current fiscal year's Economic and Community Development budget. HOME grant funds
may only be used for affordable housing projects and activities. With the exception of staff
program delivery costs, the majority of this project’s costs will be returned to the Economic
and Community Development budget when an eligible buyer ultimately purchases the
property.
149
Attachments:
1 - Resolution – 1022 Crested Point Drive
2 - Bid Tabulation – 1022 Crested Point Drive
3 - Project Location Map – 1022 Crested Point Drive
4 – Photo of Comparable Home Constructed by the City –1218 Carolina
150
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Bi
d
T
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
#
0
9
-
5
0
"N
e
w
H
o
m
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
2
2
C
r
e
s
t
e
d
Po
i
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
,
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
X
"
Op
e
n
D
a
t
e
:
W
e
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
A
p
r
i
l
8
,
2
0
0
9
@
2
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
Sc
h
e
n
c
k
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
s
Jamal Building Systems, Inc.Two Rivers Construction, LLCMarek Brothers Construction., Inc.
IT
E
M
Q
T
Y
U
N
I
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
B
I
D
AM
O
U
N
T
TOTAL BID AMOUNTTOTAL BID AMOUNTTOTAL BID AMOUNT
11
L
o
t
Ne
w
H
o
m
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
1
0
2
2
C
r
e
s
t
e
d
P
o
i
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
,
Co
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
e
x
a
s
$
8
7
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
1
,
7
3
5
.
0
0
$
1
2
6
,
8
7
0
.
0
0
$8
7
7
0
0
0
0
$114
5
0
0
0
0
$121
7
3
5
0
0
$126
8
7
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
B
i
d
A
m
o
u
n
t
$8
7
,70
0
.00
$114 ,500 .00 $121 ,735 .00 $126 ,870 .00 9999 9999
*T
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
D
a
y
s
t
o
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
0
Ac
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
1
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
b
i
d
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
To
t
a
l
Bi
d
Am
o
u
n
t
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
15
1
VIC
T
O
RIA A
V
E
N
E
W
P
O
R
T L
N
R
E
N
E
E L
N
B A R R O N R D
E A G L E A V E
M A R K H A M L N
C H E S A P E A K E L N
S
P
R
I
N
G
M
I
S
T
D
R
C R E S T E D P O I N T D R
W
IN
D
M
E
A
D
O
W
S D
R
T R A N Q U I L P A T H D R
D A N V I L L E L N
C O E B U R N C T
P U B L I C A L L E Y
T R E L L I S G A T E C T
T Y L E R C T
F A L L B R O O K L O O P
SPRING MIST DR
C O E B U R N D R
CROWN RIDGE CT
BRIDGEBERRY CT
Attachment 3: Location Map- 1022 Crested Point Drive
¹
152
153
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS APPROVING A
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City of College Station, Texas, solicited bids for the construction of a new,
single-family residence located at 1022 Crested Point Drive, College Station, Brazos County,
Texas; and
WHEREAS, the selection of Schenck Builders, LLC. is being recommended as the lowest
responsible bidder for the construction of the residence; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1: That the City Council hereby finds that Schenck Builders, LLC. is the lowest
responsible bidder.
PART 2: That the City Council hereby approves the contract with Schenck Builders, LLC.
in an amount not to exceed $87,700.00 for the labor and materials required for the
improvements related to the construction of the residence.
PART 3: That the funding for this Project shall be as budgeted from the College Station
Economic and Community Development Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, in an amount not
to exceed $87,700.00.
PART 4: That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage.
ADOPTED this day of , A.D. 2008.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Secretary Ben White, Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney
154