Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Review -zoeTh2ci, L PA —Victoria at WDF (08-00500212 Questions: when is Victoria going through, what is building on property (2001), what did Crowley master plan show for this property? 4- C ouz S4A:F6 P -, rc��-tc� REQUEST: Single-Family Residential Medium Density and Floodplains & Streams to Regional Retail, Office, and Residential Attached SCALE: my'\ 31.19 acres LOCATION: A - •• -- ' - , -- - = - = he northeast corner of William D. Fitch Parkway and its future intersection with Victoria Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Start recommends denial. c.-' " 1 Q c I "'; a tiv ( , 'l r he Comprehensive Plan was amended in this area in 2001 with the South College Station Thoroughfare Plan Update. The amendment included several thoroughfare re-alignments and altered the proposed land uses in the area. The amendments that specifically affected this tract include: • The future extension of Victoria Avenue intersecting with William D. Fitch Parkway with a grade separated intersection, • The addition of Castlerock Parkway, which will terminate at Victoria Avenue, and • The addition of Regional Retail land use designation on several tracts along William D. Fitch Parkway, including the vacant tract located directly west of the subject property, across the future extension of Victoria Avenue. The Land Use Plan was amended in this area to respond to the amended Thoroughfare Plan. And while William D. Fitch Parkway was not constructed at the time that the property was designated as Single-Family Medium Density on the Land Use Plan, it can be assumed that the land uses and thoroughfares were proposed in order to support one another. \ Staff have several criteria that we examine when reviewing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. 1. Changed or changing conditions in the area- Staff reviewed this area and did not find significant changed conditions in the area since adoption of the current Comp Plan. To clarify-there have been a significant number of changes in the areas, but the development that has occurred has been in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, because of this, is not considered a changed condition, as it was anticipated by the Plan. <— I will quickly run through several of the changes in the area - Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the area has experienced development of primarily single-family residential subdivisions, including Castlegate, Castlerock, Reatta Meadows, and the extension of the Shenandoah Subdivision. 1 - 0.1* toirtriv" f. Planning&Zoning Commission • A�� '!tipr_, Page 1 of 2 October 16,2008 William D. Fitch Parkway (State Highway 40) was completed in 2006 to the south of this tract, creating its street frontage. Castlerock Subdivision began development to the east of the adjacent floodplain in 2007, extending Castlerock Parkway to the subject property. In 2007, City Council approved a Land Use Plan Amendment and rezoning for office uses on approximately 3.6 acres just to the east of the adjacent floodplain on the perimeter of the Castlerock Subdivsion. 2. Compatibility with the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan: (talk through each 4esia___�natinnL The requested Residential Attached land use designsr lon Is in en e ` exclusively multi-family residential developments, with densities ranging from 10-20 dwelling v-- --). units per acre. These areas are generally developed as apartment complexes or duplex subdivisions. It has been the City's policy to locate multi-family zoning districts within one mile of Texas A&M University. Areas closer to the University allow residents the option of biking or walking to campus and retail services, and generally have access to the University bus system. p - The Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the Regional Retail land use V`� �. "�� designation is to provide for areas permitting regional scale development of tax-generating Ldl j developments such as retail centers, service commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally dependent on good access to highways and major arterials. It has been the City's policy to focus this type of development at major intersections. The proposed location of the Regional Retail designation is at the intersection of William D. Fitch Parkway and the future extension of Victoria Avenue. This intersection is proposed to have a grade separation in the future. The Regional Retail designation is proposed to be separated from the existing Single-Family Medium Density designation to the north by the extension of Castlerock Parkway, a minor collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. 4-' The proposed Office designation is intended for areas permitting medium-scale development of tax-generating developments such as office parks, corporate offices, and office lease space. These uses are usually dependent on good access to highways and local arterials. The proposed Office land use would take access to Castlerock Parkway, a minor collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. Office uses are generally compatible with the proposed adjacent Regional Retail and Residential Attached land uses. 1`4' ) , 4. i"" The proposal includes reclassification of a significant amount of floodplain to Regional Retail F �. and Office. The Comprehensive Plan states that the 100-year floodplain, as defined by the "\, Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA), and other additional areas reserved for ,'rs. ' open space, be designated as Floodplains &Streams. In this area, no additional areas �', �` have been identified for open space. The floodplain on this property, as well as the adjacent floodplain on the property to the east, provides for a natural buffer. V YS AFF)RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial due to a lack of changed conditions in the area and incompatibility with the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan. Gam. "ii\ i P aiki s ' LAA '. ' ,..11 i ...i ,.## r i 1 Planning&Zoning Commission Page 2 of 2 October 16,2008 Transportation Analysis - Joe Guerra, AICP General Comment: Based on the limited information available at this time, and the amendment to the comp plan, roadways in the Thoroughfare Plan and along the subject area Victoria Ave, and Castle Rock Parkway should remain as is in there present roadway classification. More detailed information will be needed to analyze the proposed land use impacts to Castle Rock Parkway and Victoria Ave. • Victoria Ave - major collector with capacity of 5,000 - 10,000 VPD (Bryan College Station Unified (BCSU) design standards) • Castle Rock Parkway - minor collector 500 - 5000 VPD (BCSU design standards) • SH 40 Major Arterial Below is the analysis: Existing conditions: Tract 1 - 11.456 Acres S.F. Residential Medium Density Tract 2 - 8.280 Acres, of that 6.543 Acres S.F. Residential Medium Density and 1.737 Acres in Floodplain Tract 3 - 5.627 Acres, of that 4.162 Acres S.F. Residential Medium Density and 1.465 acres in Floodplain Tract 4 - 5.827 acres, of that 5.772 Acres S.F. Residential Medium Density and 0.055 Acres in Floodplain Remaining Acreage = 122.03 and was not used in the analysis because frontage to all roadways was not visible on land use map. Based on UDO S.F. Residential Medium Density = 3-6 dwelling units per acre. 6 dwelling units will be used in analysis. Based on the land use map, Tract 1 trip distribution will be divided in two. Half of the trip generation will be accessing Victoria Ave and half will be accessing Castle Rock Parkway. Tract 2 will be accessing SH 40 Tract 3 and 4 will be accessing Castle Rock Parkway. Tract 1: 11.456 Acres X 6 dwelling units = 69 units will be divided in half. Tract 2: 6.543 Acres X 6 dwelling units = 40 units Tract 3: 4.162 Acres X 6 dwelling units = 25 units Tract 4: 5.772 Acres X 6 dwelling units = 35 units Victoria Ave. trip generation analysis: Tract 1: 34.5 units X 9.57 avg. trips per unit (ITE manual) = 330.165 Vehicles per Day (VPD). For the existing conditions Tract 1 tip generation is well below the 10,000 VPD capacity threshold. SH40 trip generation analysis: Tract 2: 40 units X 9.57 avg. trips per unit (ITE manual) = 382.8 VPD. Tract 2 will only generate and additional 382.8 trips per day to SH 40. Castle Rock Parkway trip generation analysis: Tract 1: 34.5 units X 9.57 avg. trips per unit (ITE manual) = 330.165 Tract 3 and 4: 60 units X 9.57 avg. trips per unit (ITE Manual) = 574.2 VPD. For the existing conditions Tract 1, 3 & 4 trip generation are well below the 5,000 VPD threshold. Proposed Land Use Based on the proposed land use "retail regional" a traffic analysis could not be performed. A specific land use (i.e. discount superstore, supermarket, etc.) is required to generate trip generation data. This would apply to Tract 1 and Tract 2. Tract 3 - 5.627 Acres Office can be analyzed through general assumptions. Based on limited details the assumption will be that the whole acreage will be office space. Tract 3 will be accessing Castle Rock Parkway: 5.627 acres X 43,560 = 245,112.12 sqft 1.49 average trip generation rate (ITE manual) per 1000 sqft of office GFA 1.49 X 245,112.12 / 1000 = 365.12 VPD Tract 3 VPD generated for its proposed land use is well under the threshold for Castle Rock Parkway 5000 VPD. Tract 4 Residential attached will also be accessing Castle Rock Parkway: 5.772 Acres X 6 dwelling units = 35 units 35 units X 9.57 avg. trips per unit (ITE manual) = 334.95 VPD Tract 4 VPD generated for its proposed land use is also well under the threshold for Castle rock Parkway. Combined Tract 3 and 4 are well under the threshold for Castle Rock Parkway. Remaining Acreage = 122.03 and was not used in the analysis because frontage to all roadways was not visible on land use map. Design Applications: Victoria Ave: based on the BCSU design standards for Victoria Ave, a major collector a ROW width of 80' is required and should be depicted on land use map. Proposed radius C2 on ROW is compliant. Proposed radius curve Cl should be a minimum of 38.5' (pavement radius return of 25' and remaining distance to ROW line 13.5'). • Castle Rock Parkway: based on the BCSU design standards for Castle Rock Parkway a minor collector a ROW width of 60' is required and should be depicted on land use plan. Proposed radius C4 on ROW is compliant. It would be advisable to put in a minimum curve radius of 430' at the centerline of future roadway and the northeast corner of Tract 3 and the southeast corner of Tract 4. Proposed radius C2 on ROW is compliant. Proposed radius curve Cl should be a minimum of 36' (pavement radius return of 25' and remaining distance to ROW line 11').