Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/2020 - Regular Agenda Packet - Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee AGENDA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 2, 2020, 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting via Zoom By Computer: https://zoom.us/j/99128170717?pwd=a3J3bFlzN0xXQ3BKaGl2NzFjVVduZz09 By Phone: 888-475-4499 US and enter Webinar ID: 991 2817 0717 and Password: 037769 A quorum of the College Station City Council or the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission may or may not be present at this meeting. 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. • August 11, 2020 3. Presentation and discussion of the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission joint workshop held August 28, 2020. 4. Presentation and discussion of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. 5. Presentation and discussion outlining next steps in the Evaluation process. 6. Adjourn. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on August 28, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_________________________________ City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder With an Openly Carried Handgun. “Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly” Codigo Penal §30.07. Trespasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre” MINUTES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 6:00 PM Virtual meeting via Zoom COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Bochner, Brad Brimley, Clint Cooper, Elizabeth Cunha, Shana Elliott, Joe Guerra, Lisa Halperin, Linda Harvell, Dennis Maloney, John Nichols, Jeremy Osborne, and Julie Schultz COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Buckley CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager and Interim Director of Planning and Development Services Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Transportation Planning Coordinator Jason Schubert, Long Range Planning Administrator Alyssa Halle-Schramm, and Staff Assistant Robin Macias 1. Call the meeting to order. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. • July 13, 2020 • July 14, 2020 There were no changes made to the minutes. 3. Presentation and discussion of public input from the virtual Community Choices Workshop. Planning Next consultant Michael Curtis gave a presentation regarding the input from the Community Choices Workshop. He stated that there were 347* unique participants and over 1,900 data points. Not every participant responded to every question and about half of the participants completed the exit questionnaire. The participants skewed to older and more educated demographics who are mostly long term residents. This is qualitative data that illustrates thoughts from those citizens who self-selected to participate. The data is not meant to be extrapolated to represent all citizens of College Station. The online workshops functioned as a virtual focus group, collecting thoughts and ideas from those who participated. *Upon further analysis after the CPEC meeting, Planning Next revised the participant count to conservatively estimate that 200 unique individuals participated in the online workshops. The 1,900 data point number is correct. Activity 1 All potential changes were generally supported. While the activity was meant to illustrate examples of land use changes, the open ended feedback showed that participants focused on the specific property shown. Concerns are addressed under each heading below. Theme 1 Example 1: Introduce a new Neighborhood Center category Those who did not support the change had concerns about density and loss of open space in this specific location. Theme 1 Example 2: Introduce a new Neighborhood Center category The participants felt commercial uses were more appropriate in this location and it is not suitable for a walkable site. There was also concern that this example would bring multifamily. Theme 2 Example 1 & 2: Introduce a new Mixed Residential category There was concern that the mixed residential would encourage low quality housing, student housing or higher density development and traffic concerns. Theme 3 Example 1: Re-evaluate Suburban and General Commercial locations There was concern that new development would increase traffic. A mixing of uses such as neighborhood center should be considered at this location. Theme 3 Example 2: Re-evaluate Suburban and General Commercial locations The participants felt the existing commercial is sufficient. There were concerns about traffic and drainage with new development. Theme 4: Update the Natural Areas boundary There was concern regarding loss of open space or flooding caused by reducing limitations on development. Activity 2 – Scenarios The number of responses per area varied. While all participants for each scenario selected their preferred scenario, only approximately 60% of people indicated which scenario the City should not encourage. Scenario 1 – Post Oak Mall area There was strong support for the alternative scenario. Others support a major retail center. There was concern about feasibility of mixed use. Scenario 2 – Harvey Rd. (across from the mall) There was a slight majority of support for the alternative scenario. There was concern about the loss of affordable housing or feasibility of mixed use. Scenario 3 – University Drive east of Texas Ave. There was a slight majority of support for the alternative scenario. There was also support for walkable mixed use. Others were concerned about high density, displacement or support of a hybrid Scenario 4 – Texas Ave. (east of Texas A&M) There was no clear majority, but the most support was for the anticipated scenario. There were concerns with the alternative scenario regarding the removal of neighborhood conservation for mixed residential and the removal of parks and open space. Scenario 5 – George Bush Dr. and Wellborn Rd. Area There was no clear majority of support. There were concerns that the Southside Area Neighborhood Plan has not been realized yet. There was concern regarding the uncertainty of the TxDOT project at the George Bush Dr. and Wellborn Rd. intersection. There were some hybrid ideas offered. Scenario 6 – George Bush Drive across from Texas A&M Campus There was strong support for the existing scenario. There was the least amount of support for the alternative scenario. Most participants saw little benefit from the alternative or anticipated scenarios. There were concerns from the committee regarding the amount of participants from the workshop and the older demographics of the participants. Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm explained that we received feedback from a younger demographic in the fall workshops. There was concern regarding how the data is analyzed. The committee felt we should dive deeper into the responses from the participants. The committee would also like more information regarding how the participants answered the questions and which question they chose not to answer. Planning Next consultant Michael Curtis explained there will be more data in the appendices. What locations should be the focus for future area planning? The committee felt Post Oak Mall area would be a good area to focus on. Some committee members felt all six areas would be good for future study and planning. Some committee members felt Scenario Area Six should not be studied. The committee felt it would be beneficial for them to prioritize the scenarios and be able to suggest other areas. Planning Next consultant Jamie Greene suggested sending a survey out to the committee for them to rank the six areas and suggest other areas they feel are important. Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that she will work on getting this survey out to the committee. 4. Presentation and discussion of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report working draft. Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave a presentation regarding revisions that have been made to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report working draft. She stated the following items have been added or revised in the working draft: 1. Changing conditions with updated COVID references 2. A summary of the public workshops will be added and the verbatim comments included in the appendices 3. The feedback received from the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee tonight will be added 4. There have been specific chapter edits which were previously discussed Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave a presentation regarding revised items from specific chapters. Chapter 4 Economic Development summary – added wording to support & retain existing businesses Chapter 5 The Parks & Recreation Department did not want to make changes in regards to programming. Many of the parks programs change often so it would be better to not be specific at the Comprehensive Plan level. Chapter 7 7.4 – NEW – continue to build resiliency in municipal operations and services 7.5 – NEW – continue using business intelligence, data analytics and data visualization Chapter 9 9.1 – NEW – Establish University/City annual agenda 9.3 – REVISED – Formalize ongoing collaborations and establish planning coordination task force with Texas A&M University 5. Presentation and discussion outlining next steps in the Evaluation process. Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave a presentation regarding the next steps. • The joint City Council and P&Z meeting will be August 28th via Zoom • The next CPEC meeting is September 2nd • The Evaluation and Appraisal Report is tentatively scheduled for P&Z on September 17th and City Council on September 24th 6. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.