Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2010 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission(*0Fq" CITY 01 C01.1.1-:G1 STATION MINUTES Hon7PPLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting December 2, 2010,,6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Jodi Warner, Bo Miles, Hugh Stearns and Doug Slack COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Katy-Marie Lyles CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jason Schubert, Lauren Hovde, Matthew Hilgemeier, Joe Guerra, Josh Norton, Erika Bridges, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Lance Simms, Bob Cowell, Adam Falco, Kerry Mullins, and Brittany Caldwell Call the meeting to order. Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. There was no discussion. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Commission on the status of items within the 2010 P&Z Plan of Work (see attached) and development of the 2011 P&Z Plan of Work. (JS) Senior Planner Schubert gave an update regarding the 2010 and 2011 P&Z Plan of Work. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding both documents. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding amendments to the general processes and standards of the UDO subdivision regulations. (JS) Senior Planner Schubert presented the amendments to the general processes and standards of the UDO subdivision regulations. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendments. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2010 Existing Conditions Report. (MH) December 2, 2010 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 This item will be heard at a later date due to time constraints. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following item: • A rezoning for 97.932 acres located at 4005 State Highway 6, at the southeast corner of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6, from A-O Agricultural Open, R-4 Multi- Family, C-1 General Commercial, and C-2 Commercial Industrial to PDD Planned Development District. The Commission heard this item on 4 November and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the item with a slight modification to one of staffs recommendations. The City Council heard this item on 22 November and voted 6-0 to approve the request with conditions related to connectivity to adjacent properties. Director Cowell reviewed the above-referenced item that had been heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. • December 9, 2010- City Council Meeting -Council Chambers - 7:00 p.m. December 16, 2010 - P&Z Meeting - Council Chambers - Workshop 6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. Director Bob Cowell reviewed the upcoming meeting dates for the Planning & Zoning Commission. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Transportation Summit. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, Council Transportation Committee, Joint Parks/Planning and Zoning Subcommittee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Platting Requirements and Standards Subcommittee, Neighborhood Plan Stakeholder Resource Team, Code Coordination Subcommittee, and Mayor's Development Forum. Chairman Shafer stated that there was a Design Review Board meeting being held on December 10. Commissioner Stearns gave an update regarding the Joint Parks/Planning and Zoning Subcommittee. 9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Warner stated that Bill Eisele with Texas A&M University was willing to come speak to the Commission about transportation issues. December 2, 2010 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 10. Adjourn. Commissioner Stearns motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). Meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Approv Scott Nlafirman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: Brittan Cap wel , Admin. Support Specialist Planning and Development Services December 2, 2010 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 0-1-N- car MINUTES Home ol'It',, `x'Ao;Af PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 2, 2010, 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Jodi Warner, Bo Miles, Hugh Stearns and Doug Slack COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Katy-Marie Lyles CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jason Schubert, Lauren Hovde, Carol Cotter, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Lance Simms, Bob Cowell, Dave Coleman, Fred Surovik, Adam Falco, Kerry Mullins, and Brittany Caldwell 1. Call meeting to order. Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Hear Citizens. None 3. Consent Aizenda. 3.1 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Preliminary Plat of the Tower Point Subdivision consisting of 34 lots on 128.17 acres located at 961 William D. Fitch Parkway, generally located at the intersection of State Highway 6 and William D. Fitch Parkway. Case #10-00500234 (LH) 3.2 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Final Plat of Tower Point Phase 8A consisting of two lots on 2.14 acres located at 911 and 917 William D. Fitch Parkway, generally located at the intersection of State Highway 6 and William D. Fitch Parkway. Case 910-00500208 (LH) Commissioner Stearns motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items 3.1 and 3.2. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 Remular Agenda 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 5. Presentation and discussion regarding land use and capital improvements information underlying the potential calculation of citywide water and wastewater impact fees. (DC) The Commission convened as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. Water Services Director Coleman introduced Tony Bagwell with HDR Engineering and said that he would be presenting the item. He stated that this item was to familiarize the Committee with some specifics of water and wastewater impact fees. Mr. Bagwell presented the item regarding land use and capital improvements information underlying the potential calculation of citywide water and wastewater impact fees. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the impact fees. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee adjourned. The Planning & Zoning Commission reconvened. 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a Rezoning for 2716 Barron Road of 3.49 acres from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single-Family Residential, generally located between the Sonoma and Edelweiss Subdivisions. Case #10-00500118 (LH) Staff Planner Hovde presented the Rezoning and recommended approval. Commissioner Ashfield asked if the development would be taking access off of Hofburg Drive or Barron Road. Jeff Robertson, McClure and Browne, stated that most of the drawings show access coming off of Hofburg Drive, but that the layout has not been finalized. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stearns motioned to approve the Rezoning. Commission Slack seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 2 Development Review Bodies, Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures, Section 3.3 Plat Review, Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards, Section 7.1 General Provisions, Article 8 Subdivision Design and Improvements, and Section 11.2 Defined Terms, related to subdivision regulation standards and processes. Case # 10-00500219 (JS) Senior Planner Schubert presented the amendment to the subdivision regulation standards and stated that the process amendments would be considered at a future meeting. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendments. Commissioner Miles expressed concern about the increase in sidewalk widths. Commissioner Stearns commented that he would like to see a continuous sidewalk along cul-de-sacs and a time limit needs to be put on the option to defer sidewalks for single- family lots. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas, stated that she was concerned about "suitability of land and change" being removed from the intent statement. She also expressed concern about not requiring sidewalks along the bulb of a cul-de-sac, increasing the number of lots on a cul-de-sac from 24 to 30, and having the option to defer construction of a sidewalk until the time of single-family home construction. She stated that there needs to be a timeline as to when the sidewalks need to be built. She also commented that underground oil and gas lines need to be checked before development begins due to safety concerns. There was general discussion regarding the intent statement. City Engineer Gibbs stated that oil and gas pipelines are regulated by the Railroad Commission. Dixon Clements, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association, questioned why there was a third street connection required for 200 lots. He stated that 200 homes is not that many homes. He expressed concern about sidewalks being required on both sides of all streets and the increase in width of sidewalks. He said that additional cost being added to the builder will be passed on to the home buyer. Robert Rose, 3201 Walnut Creek Court, Bryan, Texas, stated that most homebuyers want sidewalks and bike lanes. He expressed concern about the change in block length from 800 feet to 900 feet for suburban and commercial areas. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendments. December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Ashfield motioned to amend the proposed ordinance stating that the requirement that 200 or more lots require a third street connection be a discretionary item that may be required by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner Miles seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). Commissioner Slack motioned to amend the proposed ordinance stating that sidewalks be required around the bulb of cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (6-1). Commissioner Miles was in opposition. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the option to defer sidewalks along single-family lots until the time of home construction. Commissioner Ashfield motioned to amend the deferral option to build sidewalks along single-family lots so that the timeline stipulated with the surety or bond that is required on the developer is within a one year period. Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend approval of the ordinance with the condition that the three amendments, as approved by the Commission, were included. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to Section 7.4, Signs, and Section 11.2, Defined Terms, of the Unified Development Ordinance, expanding the use of attached signs to include signage attached to site lighting poles. Case #10-00500069 (LS) Assistant Director Simms presented the amendment regarding expanding the use of attached signs to include signage attached to site lighting. Chairman Shafer and Commissioner Hall expressed concern about maintenance issues when the signs are constructed of cloth or canvas. Commissioner Hall suggested having a timeline as to how long the signs can stay up. Katy-Marie Lyles, City Council Member, explained to the Commission the City Council's reasoning behind possibly wanting to make the sign regulations less restrictive when allowing signs attached to site lighting poles. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas, stated that she is concerned about the maintenance issues and said that the signs could be distracting. Commissioner Hall expressed concern about having Code Enforcement enforce the maintenance of signage on light poles. He said that he felt that they have plenty of other codes to enforce. December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Stearns stated that there needs to be more restrictions. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slack motioned to recommend denial of the amendment. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was discussion amongst the Commission regarding a Special Workshop Meeting on December 13, to discuss citywide water and wastewater impact fees and the annexation process. The Commission decided on Monday, December 13, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 10. Adjourn. Commissioner Warner motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Stearns seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Approv 0io'llc Scott irman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: k t --a; Uiau Brittany C well, Admin. Support Specialist Planning and Development Services December 2, 2010 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 ir PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -GUEST GIS ER MEETING DATE JY A~ { L1 I t~ NAME 4DDFXSS S. 4. 5. 6. - 24. 25. Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees - DRAFT - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of College Station From: Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and HDR Engineering, Inc. Date: December 16, 2010 Re: Land Use and Capital Improvements Information Underlying Possible Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the City of College Station 1.0 Background An impact fee is a one-time, up-front payment made by new development or redevelopment made to a utility (or city) to help offset the cost of providing infrastructure to service that growth. As a result, the utility "rate base" supports less of those costs of growth which helps avoid rate increases due to that capital funding. In other words, an impact fee helps make growth better pay for itself, so that existing rate-payers do not carry the full burden of funding those improvements. The City of College Station currently charges water and sewer impact fees in four, relatively small, non-contiguous portions of the City (see Figure 1). Thus, only a small portion of new development or redevelopment across the City contributes fee proceeds toward offsetting the costs of utility infrastructure needed to provide them service. As a result, the current limited application of the fee tool does not have much effect in reducing capital costs for growth paid for through the rates, and an inequitable situation has resulted where some pay the fee and many do not. The City's Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) also acts as the City's Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) for impact fees, a required advisory body called for in the applicable governing statute of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Among other things, the CIAC is tasked by the statute and City Council to review for reasonableness the land use and planning information that underlie the forecast of utility service demand, an assessment of adequacy of current capacity and identification of existing excess capacity, and development and costing of a water and wastewater capital improvement program (CIPs) to meet future needs within a 10-year planning horizon (2011-2020). City of College Station, Texas 1 Hiq Figure 1 Areas of College Station Where Water and Sewer Impact Fees are Currently Levied Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees The weighted average cost of this existing excess utility capacity and future utility needs is the initial cost basis underlying the fee calculation. Further adjustments to this weighted average cost are then made to determine the maximum impact fee that could be charged. As the City does not currently have impact fees in large portions of its municipal jurisdiction, this consideration of citywide impact fees is being viewed as a "first time" adoption, which under statutory provisions, requires a two-step public review process. As embodied in this Technical Memorandum, the CIAC has reviewed the land use and capital planning information underlying the fee calculations, and hereby report that information to City Council and provide our opinion that this report is reasonable and useful information. The next step required by State law is for City Council to set a Public Hearing date and provide for 30-day advance newspaper notice to seek public comment on the planning and CIP data. Subsequent to the receipt of public comment and closing of the 1St Public Hearing, the CIAC may then make any relevant adjustments to the underlying planning data and proceed to the calculation of the maximum water and wastewater fee amounts that could be charged. This results in a final CIAC report to City Council, which is then the basis for setting a date and providing notice for a second public hearing on the maximum potential fee amount and what amount, equal to or lesser than the maximum, might be adopted as the applicable fees. Again, this Technical Memorandum constitutes the CIAC's first report to City Council on its opinion of the reasonableness of the land use assumptions, resulting service demands, and capital improvements project and cost information that will be used to later determine the maximum impact fee amounts. City of College Station, Texas 2 f DR Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 2.0 Utility Fee Application Area In consultation with staff, the potential impact fee service area (i.e. the area where impact fees would be charged if City utility service is provided) was identified as the City's existing and proposed state-certificated water and wastewater service boundaries within the City limits, as shown in the figure below. There are some limited areas within the City where some utility service is supplied by other providers. Only the applicable City-provided service fee would be charged in these joint service areas. Existing and Proposed act Fee Im p Service Area BRYAN r~ v Legend \ WaterCCN' ~ Wastewater CCN ' \ ~ Q City Limits \ \ \\~r ~ VA v m +av, ~ 'Impact Fee Service Area \ a COLLEGE: yti STATION,. - =M tchell VAS ~A \ ~R~ k P as-y~R~ \ M ! X¢-a\ V\ V zr \k , VA 0 1 2 S ~V 6vV MEF Miles ("M OF(OLLF.GE11~%F1(1\ November 2010 City of College Station, Texas 3 fill Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Table 1 provides an estimate of the current land uses and forecast of future land use patterns within the impact fee service area. The current land use information was compiled from the Brazos County Central Appraisal District's parcel file for the area within the City's existing and proposed water and wastewater CCNs within the City limits. As indicated, the overall area encompasses 18,396 acres for the Water CCN and 22,276 acres for the Sewer CCN within the City limits and is about 60% to 65% developed. Residential land uses comprise about 45% to 46% of the area and commercial/institutional land uses representing about 18% to 19% of the total area. TABLE 1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 2020 4cres' % Water Service Area Residential 8,543 46.4% 10,031 54.5% Commercial 3,432 18.7% 3,680 20.0% Instititional 3 0.0% 6 0.0% Unde,,eloped 6,419 34.9% 4,680 25.4% Total Land Use Acreage 18,396 100.0% 18,396 100.0% Wastewater Service Area Residential 10,058 45.2% 12,492 56.1% Commercial 3,551 15.9% 4,506 20.2% Instititional 248 1.1%► 742 3.3% Unde\,eloped 8,420 37.8%► 5,929 26.6% Total Land Use Acreage 22,276 100.0% 22,276 106.3% gallons per acre per day Reflects unit water use of: 1,100 Residential 1,056 Residential 1,200 Non-Residential 1,152 Non-Residential gallons per acre per day Reflects unit wastewater use of: 660 Residential 634 Residential 720 Non-Residential 691 Non-Residential Future land uses were derived from the City's Comprehensive Plan and represents the ultimate designated land uses at build-out identified in the Plan. Since the area contained within the impact fee service area is within the City limits, it is assumed that much of the development of this area will occur within the next ten year planning horizon, although redevelopment and intensification will continue to occur over time. So by the year 2020, it is assumed that approximately 85% of the impact fee service will be developed with residential land uses expected to total about 55% of the area and commercial and institutional uses about 20% to 23% of the impact fee service area by that time. City of College Station, Texas 4 1 LR Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY A typical single family residential house in College Station is issued a 3/" inlet-diameter water meter. For our planning purposes, this is considered to be one Living Unit Equivalent (1 LUE). The American Water Works Association (AWWA) tests various water meter types and sizes to determine their maximum continuous rated flow capability. The higher flow rates for larger water meters can be stated in terms of a LUE multiple of the flow capability of the smaller standard residential meter. For this reason, the LUE concept is a useful tool for being able to apply a base impact fee amount for one LUE to service requests of varying meter sizes. Table 2 indicates the number of current water and wastewater utility connections by water meter size, the LUE conversion factor for each meter size, and the number of equivalent LUEs for the meters. TABLE 2 SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Living Units Equivale Number of Number of (LUEs) Meters LUEs Meter Size per Meter (a) in 2010 (b) in 2010 WATER 5/8" 0.67 - - 3/4" 1.00 20,805 20,805 1" 1.67 970 1,617 1.5" 3.33 529 1,763 2" 5.33 539 2,875 3" 10.67 128 1,365 4" 16.67 32 533 6" 33.33 5 167 8" 106.67 - 10" 166.67 Total Water 23,008 29,125 WASTEWATER 5/8" 0.67 - - 3/4" 1.00 27,465 27,465 1.67 978 1,630 3.33 533 1,778 2" 5.33 543 2,898 3" 10.67 129 1,376 4" 16.67 32 538 6" 33.33 5 168 8" 106.67 - - 10" 166.67 - - Total Wastewater 29,686 35,853 (a) Derived from AWWA C700-C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 5/8" meter (b) Source: City of College Station., November 2010. City of College Station, Texas 5 1UR Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Tables 3 and 4 summarize the City's current and projected water and wastewater service demands within the impact fee service area and existing utility capacity by type of facility. The projected growth of the utility system and service demand reflect an average of about 200 new LUEs per year. The forecasts only include growth on land within the utility CCNs within the city limits. They also reflect an average growth rate over 10 years, a portion of which in the near- term is being affected by the economic slow-down. The forecasts also include average day and peak day water conservation savings anticipated to be realized by the year 2020. As indicated in Tables 3 and 4, the current and future level of utility demand differs between water and/or wastewater service, due to the differing service area configurations and the difference between water use and wastewater return flows. For instance, some developments in the City use municipal wastewater service, but not water. The number of wastewater service connections should exceed that of water connections due to other water utility providers' certificated service areas somewhat limiting the growth of the City's future water service area. Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the utility systems. Please note that the existing capacity numbers in Tables 3 and 4 are held constant from 2011 to 2020, to demonstrate what the shortfalls would be if no capacity increases were made. If a deficit is shown for existing or future conditions, this typically implies the need for a capacity expansion of some kind somewhere in the service area. However in this simple mathematical presentation, the presence of a surplus of capacity does not, in and of itself, imply that adequate service capability exists at every location within the service area. Sometimes, the available excess capacity is not in the right geographical location to provide adequate service to the area in need, and new facility improvements are still required. As can be seen in Table 3 and 4 with the anticipated growth of the City, service demand is expected to exceed the existing capacity of the City's current water supply, treatment and pumping facilities by the year 2020, such that additional infrastructure improvements are needed. Also some new water transmission mains are needed to provide additional service capability to certain locations within the City. City of College Station, Texas 6 hUR Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees TABLE 3 EST. WATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Supply Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd) 26.9 26.9 Est. Service Demand 26.6 28.1 Excess (Deficiency) 0.3 (1.2) Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) * 29,418 29,418 Est. Service Demand 29,125 31,125 Excess (Deficiency) 293 (1,707) Treatment Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd) 31.7 313 Est. Service Demand 29.9 31.6 Excess (Deficiency) 1.8 0.1 Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) * 30,854 30,854 Est. Service Demand 29,125 31,125 Excess (Deficiency) 1,728 (271) Pumping Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd) 31.7 31.7 Est. Service Demand 39.9 42.1 Excess (Deficiency) (8.2) (10.4) Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs)' 23,140 28,219 Est. Service Demand 29,125 31,125 Excess (Deficiency) (5,985) (2,906) Ground Storage Existing 2011 Capacity (mg) 8.0 8.0 Est. Service Demand 6.8 7.3 Excess (Deficiency) 1.2 0.7 Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs)' 34,188 34,188 Est. Service Demand 29,125 31,125 Excess (Deficiency) 5,063 3,063 Elevated Storage Existing 2011 Capacity (mg) 5.0 5.0 Est. Service Demand 4.3 4.6 Excess (Deficiency) 0.7 0.4 Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs) * 34,014 34,014 Est. Service Demand 29,125 31,125 Excess (Deficiency) 4,888 2,889 Transmission Existing 2011 Capacity (mgd) 85.1 85.1 Est. Service Demand 39.9 42.1 Excess (Deficiency) 45.2 43.0 Existing 2011 Capacity (LUEs)' 62,160 62,160 Est. Service Demand 29,125 31,125 Excess (Deficiency) 33,035 31,035 ` Assume a conversion factor of : 913 748 gpd/LUE for water supply 1,027 842 gpd/LUE for treatment 1,369 1,123 gpd/LUE for pumping 234 234 gals/LUE for ground storage 147 147 gals/LUE for elevated storage 1,369 1,123 gpd/LUE for transmission City of College Station, Texas 7 MR Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees City of College Station, Texas 8 h'R Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 5.0 INDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS There is adequate existing ground and elevated water storage to meet the future 10-year demand. However, given the prospective growth facing the City in the next ten years, additional water infrastructure capacity is needed for water supply, treatment (chlorination), pumping, and transmission pipelines. Also, two new major water transmission mains are identified to provide additional service capacity to certain locations within the City. Since it is very difficult to forecast where and when developer requests for new "approach" mains may arise, an allowance was also made for miscellaneous transmission mains. With this included in the approved CIP, the City will have the flexibility to use available impact fee proceeds for oversizing of the approach mains, where needed, so as to not unintentionally delay the development project's approval because of lack of oversizing funding. College Station will also need capacity improvements to its wastewater system, including: [to be provided in the Wastewater Supplement in one week] For wastewater pumping and interceptors, each project was separately examined as to whether it added to overall system capacity. Similar to water, an allowance for miscellaneous interceptor lines was also included in the calculation of the wastewater fee to assist in funding unexpected oversizing of approach mains. As allowed in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, the impact fee may consider both existing excess capacity and facility improvements to be funded within a future 10-year planning horizon. Existing and future water and wastewater utility facilities that accomplish these service capacity goals are identified in Tables 5 and 6 (Table 6 for wastewater facilities will be provided in a supplement to this report in another week), along with their cost, capacity, unit cost, and allocation of existing and projected demand to these facilities. Existing facilities were valued using data from the City's fixed assets model. New facilities, their sizing, timing, and costs were identified by the City staff and the City's consulting engineer. Costs for new facilities were projected to the anticipated date of construction. A weighted unit cost of service per LUE) is then calculated by facility type, based on the proportionate share of use of existing excess capacity and new facility capacity by the growth anticipated over the ten year planning period. As indicated at the bottom of Tables 5 and 6, the weighted average capital cost of service for water is $3,675 per Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) and $ per LUE for wastewater. These numbers represent the weighted capital cost of a new utility connection, considering both existing excess capacity and new capacity costs needed to meet that growth. City of College Station, Texas 9 i_ ~ Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees TABLE 5 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INVENTORY AND COSTING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION WATER SUPPLY EXISTING FACILITIES peak day mgd Existing Supply $ 23,933,716 28.850 29,418 29,125 293 - 29,418 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 23,933,716 26.850 29,418 $ 814 29,125 293 - 29,418 FUTURE FACILITIES Wells #8, #9, and #10 $ 27,545,225 9180 10,716 1,707 91009 10,716 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 27,545,225 9.780 10,716 $ 2,571 1,707 91009 10,716 TOTAL WATER SUPPLY $ 51,478,941 36.630 40,134 29,125 2,000 9,009 40,134 AV ERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 2,313 WATER TREATMENT EXISTING FACILITIES peak day mgd Existing Chlorination $ 105.481 31.680 30,854 29,125 1,728 30,854 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 105,481 31.680 30,854 $ 3 29,125 1,728 - 30,854 FUTURE FACILITIES Expanded Sandy Point Road Chlorination $ 1,698,964 10.080 9,817 $ 173 - 271 9,546 9,817 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 1,698,964 10.080 9,817 $ 173 271 9,546 9,817 TOTAL WATER TREATMENT $ 1,804,445 41.760 40,671 29,125 2,000 9,546 40,871 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 26 WATER PUMPING EXISTING FACILITIES peak hour mgd $ 6,416,278 31.680 28,219 28,219 28,219 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 6,416,278 31.680 28,219 $ 227 28,219 - - 28,219 FUTURE FACILITIES Expand Dowling Road Pump Station $ 2,650,000 10 080 8,979 907 2,000 6,072 8,979 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 2,650,000 10.080 8,979 $ 295 907 2,000 6,072 8,979 TOTAL WATER PUMPING $ 9,066,278 41.760 37,197 _ 29,125 2,000 6,072 37,197 AV ERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 295 GROUND STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES mg Existing GS Tanks $ 6,210,086 8.000 34,188 29,125 2,000 3,063 34,188 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 6,210,086 8.000 34,188 $ 182 29,125 2,000 3,063 34,188 FUTURE FACILITIES Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $ 6,210,086 8.000 34,188 29,125 2,000 3,063 34,188 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 182 ELEVATED STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES mg Existing ES Tanks $ 3,409,446 5.000 34,014 29,125 1,385 3,503 34,014 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 3,409,446 5.000 34,014 $ 100 29,125 1,385 3,503 34,014 FUTURE FACILITIES n.a. - Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE $ 3,409,446 5.000 34,014 29,125 1,385 3,503 34,014 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 100 TRANSMISSION EXISTING FACILITIES peak lour mgd Existing Transmission $ 47,673,987 85.100 02,160 29,125 1,333 31,702 62,160 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 47,673,987 85.100 62,160 $ 767 29,125 1,333 31,702 62,160 FUTURE FACILITIES' 24" Pipeline along Old Welborn and WDF $ 4,653,000 18" Pipline along Texas Avenue $ 1.757,250 Misc. Transmission Lines $ 2,500,000 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 8,910,250 16.420 11,994 $ 743 067 11,327 11,994 TOTAL TRANSMISSION $ 56,584,237 101.520 74,154 29,125 2,000 43,029 74,154 AVERAGE COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 759 WATER TOTAL $ 128,553,432 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE _ $ 3,675 City of College Station, Texas 10 1 Lq Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees [Table 6 to be provided in the Wastewater Supplement in one week] City of College Station, Texas 11 Faq Consideration of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees The land use, planning, and capital improvements data presented previously in this Technical Memorandum constitutes the information required by statute to be first considered by the Advisory Committee and provided to Council for a V t Public Hearing. It may be amended based on comments received. It should be emphasized that these weighted capital costs per LUE quoted above do not yet represent the calculated maximum impact fees. The statute also requires that future contributions for capital made by new customers through monthly rate payments be considered in sizing the maximum potential impact fees. The land use and capital improvements information, contained in this Memorandum, will be later coupled with the "rate credit" consideration, calculation of the maximum impact fees, and other policy considerations into a subsequent final Advisory Committee report to the City Council, which will be the basis for the 2nd Public Hearing to be called by Council. Council may elect to take ordinance action after the closing of the 2nd Public Hearing. City of College Station, Texas 12 FM DRAFT OUTLINE Article 3. Development Review Procedures 3.1 General Approval Procedures A. Conformity with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the Comprehensive Plan B. Preapplication Conference C. Application Forms and Fees D. Application Deadline E. Application Completeness F. Standards of Review G. Required Public Notice H. Simultaneous Processing of Applications I. Expiration of Applications, Permits, and Projects Appeals K. Figure and Flow Charts 3.3 Plat Review A. Applicability 1. Subdivision Plat Required a. Applicability b. Types of Subdivision Filings C. Exemptions from Subdivision Plat Requirement 2. Development Plat Required a. Applicability b. Exemptions from Development Plat Requirement B. Determination of Plat Applicability C. Application Requirements 1. Preapplication Conference 2. A complete application 3. Applications shall comply with and/or show the following information: a. Preliminary Plans b. Final Plats and Other Plats to be Recorded D. Filing of Plat Article 3 Development Review Procedures Section 3.3 Plat Review E. Review Procedure 1. Preliminary Plan Review a. Review and Recommendation by Administrator b. Review and Recommendation by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board C. Review and Action by Planning and Zoning Commission d. Effect of Approval 2. Amendments to an Approved Preliminary Plan a. Minor Amendments b. Major Amendments C. Amendment Determinations d. Retaining Previous Approval 3. Final Plat, Replat, Vacating Plat, and Development Plat Review a. Review and Recommendation by Administrator b. Review and Recommendation by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board C. Review and Action by Planning and Zoning Commission d. Recordation 4. Minor Plat and Amending Plat Review a. Review and Action by Administrator b. Recordation F. Waivers G. Platting in Planned Development Districts (PDD and P-MUD) H. Platting in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 1. Failure to Obtain Plat Approval 1. If plat approval is not properly secured: 2. Council Action O Summary of Proposed Substantive Changes to Subdivision Regulations Process • Standards of Review Section (Section 3.1.F Standards of Review) Modernization effort. Add section that states applicants are to make a claim of vesting on an application. • Expire Inactive Applications (Section 3.1.1.1 Expiration of Inactive Applications) Modernization effort. Applications that become inactive (no response to staff review comments within 90 days) are expired. • Expire Old Approved Permits (Section 3.1.1.2.b Expiration of Approved Permits) Modernization effort. Add 2-year expiration to applications that have been approved but did not have an expiration at the time they were approved. • Development Exaction Appeal Process (Section 3.113 Appeals from Development Exaction Requirements) Legal effort. Add process for requests that appeal rough proportionality of required development exactions. • Preliminary Plats to Preliminary Plans (Section 3.3 Plat Review) Legal effort. Preliminary plats are not required by the state but are locally created; change terminology to preliminary plan so that they are not subject to same plat requirements of state law. • Plat Determination Requests (Section 3.3.13 Determination of Plat Applicability) Legal effort. Add process for requests regarding the applicability of plat requirements on a property. • Preliminary Plan Expiration (Section 3.3.E.1.d.3) Developer flexibility. Allow a Final Plat to extend the expiration of a Preliminary Plan by 2 years instead of the existing 1 year extension. • Amendments to Preliminary Plan (Section 3.3.E.2 Amendments to an Approved Preliminary Plan) Developer flexibility. Add section that allows defined minor revisions to an approved Preliminary Plan without necessitating the submission and approval of a new Preliminary Plan application. • Timing of Required Public Infrastructure (Section 3.3.E.3 Final Plat, Replat, Vacating Plat, and Development Plat Review) Legal effort. Require a plat's public infrastructure to be constructed and accepted by the City or guarantee provided for it to be approved by the Commission. • Final Plat and Development Plat Review Requirements (Section 3.3.E.3 Final Plat, Replat, Vacating Plat, and Development Plat Review) Modernization effort. Add separate review criteria section for Final Plats and consolidate Development Plats review process into Final Plats.