The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous~'" ~ \ ~~-1~-1'="=~~? 11 ~ vfJfl!••1 FROM I~~ALTCiN g: AS~O~; El•drRS TC~ ,!~~~':lad _ Membership Warehouse Club Trip Genercrtion Study BY LINDA OLSON PEHLKE '~e primary objective of the study ~ was to sarnp}e an adequate number of menil7ership warehouse club sites in I4fassachusetts to determine average trip maiiiiag characteristics based an several independent variables, for. a full range of appropriate time periods. Other trig generation studies of tlis land use that have been done to date were limited in the nttrnber of sites and time periods sampled< Data from the study seas used to develop average trip generation rates and equations for each. independent variable and time period. These new rates can be applied to proposed level- opment .scenarios far warehouse clubs in Massachusetts in order to predict likely traffic impacts from the develop- znent. AlI recommended ITE guidelines concerning trip generation studies were. adhered to in this study. Ttr~ ®e+~i~i~n to Study M~rn~er~h~~ VW~r~h~use ~~~~~ In recent years, there has be °n a surge in the development of member- ship warehouse clubs in Massachusetts. This type of merchandise retailing Conversion Factors Ta caavert from, to . multiply by sq ft ~z ` O.Q929 seems well suited to current ecvnamic conditions.. In addition, the car,.sumer market for this type of. retailing has,. until recently, remained untapped. `lery little data exists an the trip-making characteristics of this land use, because of its recent arrival on the nationals as well as local, retail market. As ware- house cubs are a unique form of retail- ing, existing trip generation studies of more traditional types of retailing are not likely to be applicable. The need for permitting and review of proposed. membership warehouse club develop- ments in New England pxomptedsnter- est }n and support of this study from the lVew England Chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Massachiusetts Environmental Policy Act office. befinition of Land Use Type For this study, membership ware- house clubs were defined as follows. The clubs require yearly membership, in return for which the member is offered high-quality goods at "ware- house" prices .(achieved thresugh bulk buying). The profitability of the clubs is derived primarily from high sales vol- umes, with very slim ittark-up margins, and from membership dues. 'The physi- cal structures are often described as hangar-like and offer little in the way of consumer frills, functioning grimarily an aself-service basis.. t"SOOds often are available in targe sizes or quantities only. The clubs strive to offer a wide range of items ranging from food, household goods, apparel and jewelry to automotive supplies and appli,~.~.:ces. However, the selection is substantially more limited than at traditional, fulE- line discount retailers. The clubs. often seek a site off an interstate, near a regional mall, on >~. large regiona} roadway facility, ~;pith goad visibility and goad market demo- graphics. Building sizes are typically between 100,Q0(1 square feet (sq ft) and 135,0(}t} sq ft, and the number cf emf~]ayees avera~.:s about 13f1, half cf ;v?:, .rt ,re full time, Site Selection A target sample size ;,f 10 site.;: •::~as initially set. Potential s+;= overe ides:`'. Pied tp, ;:~~,s~h phone s~s.r~, t~f ~.nown warehr,~use clubs. Field sc,€•~~~:ys o~ each site determined wheth~:: an adequate "cordon" could be establi~•hed around each. building to allow for a completeF and accurate count of all vehicle t?~iF+~, made to and from tlae site. I.n adCl?'ttr,, sit.e.s Fvere d~ ~.~?;c.d appropriate f:~>r. inkaezsian in the st-~acly if they fit the dt:fi- nitis:>st of a memi~erslrtp warehouse cluh in tfrrns of memb~-iship policies, sales pr~~;tices and types of gaod~= sc~1 i. `17tis selection process r7.roduced night sites t}sat fit the necessary criteria. Site Attribute Data Far each of the eight situ- the follow- ing a~ tribute data .vas ~aljtaic.~ed {where avail~.~le}: square .toestag~: of tl;?: build- ing, number of en~pla cr; !bc•th full- and part-time), hy~?.~ss of o•peratian, ]4 • 1Ti: JDURNA! * SEPTEMBER 1994 14~-1'-1'~'=~~ 11 ~ 37Af'I FR~J1~1 I~IALT[]f~l g: AS~[]C Ef*IGRS TO :. types of products sold, services avail- able, date the site first opened far busi- ness and membership criteria. For the purposes of this study, square footage of the building refers to the overall size. of the building foot- print. Because of the nature of this form of retailing, substantial additional st~r- age arwarehousing space is not required; therefore, the building foot- print size is roughly equivalent to the retail floor space available. For the employee:based trip generation rates and equations, the total number of employees for each site was. used. The ratio of full- to part-time employees did not vary .significantly among the. sites, with the split being about 50150. Hours of operation were comparable among the sites. Traf#ic Count llata The fallowing traffic counts were obtained for each site: ^ Seven-day, 24-hour, directional. ATR counts, summarized at 15- minute intervals. Each access drive to the site was counted. ^ Manual counts of entering and exit- ing vehicles at site driveways during the afternoon peak period. (3 to 6 p.m.) during a midweek. day. These. counts were taken simultaneously with the ATR counts and were used to verify the accuracy of the ATR counts. These counts also were used to determine the afternoon peak hoar of the adjacent street. ^ Vehiete classification counts .during the afternoon peak period. From the above-outlined traffic data, it was possible to determine 24- hour and morning and afternoon peak-hour volumes far weekdays, 24- hour and peak-hour volumes for Saturdays and Sundays, and the site driveway volume during the weekday afternoon peak of the adjacent street. Special I~iate on Morarin~ and Afternoon Peak Hours As defined in ITE's 7'ri~ (ien4ratton, the morning and after- noon peak hours of trips entering and exiting the site driveway (peak houz of the generator} do not necessarily correspond to the peak volume hour<, of the adjacent. street. In the case of our study. sites, the peal. morning hour of the generator was 11 a.m.-noan for each site. The afternoon. peak hour of the generator was more varsabte, with the following distribution: Site 1: 7 to S p.m.; Site 2: 1 to 2 p.m.; Site 3: noon to 1 p.m.; Site 4: 7 to 3,p.m.; Site 5; 7 to 8 p.m.; Site 6: 5 to Ei p:in.; Site 7: 3 to 4 p.rn.; Site 8: noan Ca 1 p.m: The after- noon peak hour of the adjacent street 7~4.~436 F . ~ ranged from 4:15 to 5;15 p.Jn-, to 5 to 6 p.m., with the majority of sites' adjacent street traffic peaking at 4;30 to 5:30 p.m. Tr'tp- Generation Rate Results Average trip rates, as well as a com- parison to the trip rates published in Sea What You Detect with AutoscDpe's flexible remote video ~ietecliDn. Jt's so effective thdl a single system can replace 10f! !Daps.., and it's ideal for IVHS and conventional applications. Autascope provides accurate data on traffic volume, speed, Qccupancy, headways, queue .lengths and vehicle classltiretiott for cDntroi, analysis and aatamatic surveillance at intersections and freeways. Today there are several hundred warkfi~g instailatiDns worldwide- Autoscape's innDVative tecrnolDgy makes itthe most flexible and proven cost effective method .far solving both ihterseetiDn and freeway traffic control and management problems. Call today for mere intarm~tion tln Rutoscape's Wide Area E7etection capabilities: Phone: 7'14-63~?-37'(3fI ar Fax: 714-630.6349 TM t?~dcle Area vx~a lfehlcte ~etectlon ~vstern r ~~~ awns GOnJTRQL PROL}tJGTS, JhJC. 33B6 ;:. LaPalma Ave. Anaheim, CA 92806-2856 l1SA 1TE J©URNAL * SEPTEMBER 1994 • 15 1~-1 ~-1'~±'~~t 11 ~ ;s9AM FROh=1 WALTOhI A~~CItu ENGI 1TE's Trip Generatian,r are. presented in Tables 1 through 4. Tables 1 and 2 contain the rates derived using square footage as the predictive variable, ~=bile Tables 3 and 4 report the rates derived using the number of employees as the predictive variable. Rates frotn the ITE Trip Generation manual are based on an extremely limited number of site surveys {one or, in some cases, two surveys). Square Footage Trip Generation Rates Square footage trip generation rates far the weekday time periods are presented in Table 1- Table 2 presents the week- end trip rates. As will be seen later, in the section on regres- sion equatidns; the predictive value of the square footage of a building, as it relates to the number of trips the facility will be likely to produce, is rather weak.. The square footage trip rates varied widely among the survey sites. For instance, for the 24-hour weekday, trip generation rates ranged from 25.44 to 63.83 per I,OU4 sq ft. Afternoon peak-hour trip rates also were found to be l~ighl_y variable, ranging from 2.53 to 6.44 per 1,000 sq ft. In one sense, this wide range may make the average rate mare useful. White perhaps not providing a particularly accurate trip rate .per 1,Q00 sq ft, the resulting trip genera- tion predictions wilt nonetheless represent a`midpoint in the range of passible trip-making levels for the various time periods. It shauld'be noted that the sizes of ware- S T ~~~ Next G~nerfian of F~eLd Pracsors introducing the rock•sotici SrnarWTGTM, an advanced traffic controller and Communications system far adaptive intersec- tion control, integrated corridor management, and other ATMS applications. ~. Easy to integrate ~ Open systems architecture e Modular platform • NEMA and 170 Compatible Flexible communications Smar1ATCY"" offers modern solutions for today's transportation management challenges, Cal! MATRIX at {$40} 848-2334 and ask for the Transportation SysterTis Division. MATRIX CAVporali0n i Raleigh, NC ~ t919) 231-ROOD • {SOp) $A8-233© TO '?b4349E~ P. G14 house clubs tend to cluster near 120,000 sq ft; therefore, when applying the study's rates to warehouse clubs of a similar size, the averaging of the rates derived from the study could compensate far the effects of variables other than square footage. The study's trip generation rates based on square footage were much lower than the rates published in ITE's Trip Generation- The square footage ITE rates were based an an evaluation of one site, the specific characteristics of which are not given. The ITE rate for the 24-hour average week- day per 1,000 sq ft is 78.02; the average rate from this study far the same time period is 44.20. For the afternoon peak hour, ITE's average rate is 9.67 trips per 1,000 sq ft; this study's, 4.36. Employee Trip Generation Rates Trig rates based an the number of employees at each site were developed for the full range of time periods and are .presented in Tables 3 and 4. These rags display much less variation between sites than the square footage rates and match the rates published in ITE's Trip Generation much more closely. It can be inferred from this data that, generally speaking, The number of employees at a site is a much snore accurate predictor of trip-making activity. This is most likely because the number of employees usually directly reflects the general level of business activity at a site. The sites' trip generation rates per employee for the 24- hour average. weekday time period ranged from a law of 24.59 to a high of 49.74, yielding an average trip rate of 31.76. The ITE trip rate per employee far this time period is 32.33. In the case of the employee trip generation rates, the ITE numbers are based on two survey sites. The weekend counts resulted in rates with. a slightly wider variation than the weekday rates. For instance, the Saturday 24-hour rates ranged from 31.59 to 72,56 per employee, while the Saturday peak-hour rates ranged from 2.82 to 9.10, The resulting Saturday average rates were 38.56 for 24 hours and 4.27 for the peak hour. The ITE rates for Saturday are 33.97 for 24 hours and 5.12 for the peak hour. Regression Analysis Resulfis Regression equations for each of the. time periods were developed far bath the square footage and employee vari- ables: In many cases, the best-fit equation resulting from the study data was determined to be inapprapri.ate far use, because of eitlxer an extremely low Idz value or a negative sloping equation line {in other wards, as the value of the independent variable increased, the number of trips did not necessarily increase}, Square Footage Trip Generation Equations The regression analysis outlined above and application of the iTE guidelines concerning the suitability of resulting equations resulted in no trip generation equations being deemed suitable for use with the square footage variable, This was not the case far the employee trip generation equa- tions. The equations develapecl using the employee variable are presented in Table 5. 16 . ITE .tOURNAL • SEPTEMBER 1994 1a-1~ 1'=~'~4 11 ~ 4aF11~1 FR~h~i I~ALT[]hl & ASf~~iC Ehd~~S TO 7~434g6 P. G15 i Table 1. Weekday Trip Rates per T,000 Square Feet Sit©# Sq. Ft, (Lh70"s) 24 Nr. In AM Peak Nour Out Total ~ _ fri PM Peak Navr Out Totat ~ PM Peak Nour Adjac. St. !n Out Toto! 1 ~ 113 ~ 62.50 2.21 2,04 4.26 3.35 3.09 6.44 .2.56 3.12 5:68 2 118 41.33 1.88 2,01 3.89 1.99 2.22 4.21 1.45 1.58 3,02 3 100 47.59 .2.41 1,77 4.18 2.21 2,54 4.75 1,8b 1.96 3.81 4 90 63,83 2,96 2.b0 5"56 3.14 3.04 6.27 2.45 2.73 5.18 5 135 25.44 0.$l 1.10 1,91 0.90 1.63 2.53 O.bB 1.2b 1,94 6 118 49.46 2.01 1,60 3b1 2.17 2,37 4,54 2.04 2.19 428 7 110 27.61 1.14 1.15 2.24 0.94 1.83 2.78 0.82 1.03 1.85 g 117 43.36 2.02 1.88. 3,90 2.21 1.93 4.15 2.09 1.74 3.83 Average 44.20 ' 1.87 1.73 3,61 2.06 2.29 4,36 1.71 1.92 3.62 ITE 78A2 3,42 .2.92 6:34 4.54 5.13 9,67 3.90 3.89 7,79 Table 2. Weekend Trip Rates per 1,000 Square Feef Site # Sq. Ft. (OQQ's) Scat. 24 Nr. Sun. 24 Hr, In Saturday Peak Nour but Totat !n Sunday Peak Hour Out Tataf 1 1 i3 72.68 46.15. 4,01. 3.$5 7.86 3.41 3.85 7,26 2 118 d8.80 31.82 2.90 3.18 6.08 3.02 3.26 b.28 3 100 61.28 32.21 3.12 3.59 4,71 2.75 3.68 6,42 4 90 75.12 42.01 3.44 3.83 7.27 3.56 4.02 7.58 5 135 36.81 17.17 128 2.70 3.94 1,30 1.94 3,24 b 118 54.86 30.76 2.84 2.84 b.68 3,68 . 2.29 5.97 7 110 40,24 22.23 2.75. 2.29 5A5 225 2.47 4.73 8 117 48;03. 26.71 3.02 2.6b 5.b8 2.94 2.19 5.13 Average 53.66 30.51 2.8b 3.08 5.95 2.82 2.90 5.71 1T8 82.43 61.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Possible Reasons for Lack of Correlation between Square Footage and Trig Making When the apparent lack of correla- tion between the square footage of a warehouse club and its trip generation characteristics'was discovered, several potential explanations were hypothe- sized. An examination of these follows. Differences from Other 1*orms of Retailing. Warehouse clubs area com- pletely new, unique form of retailing. Unlike traditional retailing, where the promotional display of goods plays a key sales role, warehouse retailing depends on the sale of goods. at dis- count prices. In the case of traditional retailing, shoppers often choose to go to larger establishments because the greater size is equated with the avail- ability of a greater variety of products. This is not the case with warehouse.. clubs, which market themselves based an a consistently available yet limited product line. These differences illus- trate the different degrees of sensitivity to building size of the two forms of retailing, indicating. that far warehouse clubs, floor space is not a key factor in determining sales volume. Membership Requirement. Memtser- ship levels are presumably key determi- nants of business activity levels at ware- house clubs. Being a member at a par- ticular club Evill determine which club a patron frequents. The decision to became a member of a specific .club is influenced by a number of factors, of which square footage of .facility is not necessarily a primary one. Sensitivity to Location. In general, warehouse clubs located near large pop- ulation centers, with ease of access, have a definite advantage. Warehouse clubs may appeal to a more limited seg- ment of the market area population than more traditional retailers. This niche marketing would make popula- tion density and market saturation especially significant factors in the suc- cess of a warehouse club. Therefore, the locatianal differences between our sites co tha firmation of the finding that square footage is not a strong indicator of busi- ness activity levels can be found in the fact that same warehouse clubs have apparently located in pre-existing struc- tures, as opposed to building a new structure, indicating a willingness to "make-da" with a particular structure's size. Perhaps the warehouse club can be flexible about floor space for several reasons. Additional floor space can be relatively inexpensive because of the na-frills characteristic of the club's inte- rior. Also, additional space would likely be used as storage space for greater quantities of product, which would have little if any impact on the club's opera- tion. The apparent willingness of some clubs to work with what is available instead of custom designing a new struc- ture indicates that square footage is not a very strong determining factor in the facility design or location of warehouse clubs and that other factors may play a more important role. uld be a mare stgntf2cant varrable Employee Trip Generation n the size differences. Equations Reuse ~f E,rasting Structures. Acon- Table 5 presents the trip generation 1TE J(71JRNAL ~ SEPTEMBER 1994 ~ 17 1Q-1~-1~+'~4 11 ~ 4~At~i FRat"I WALTON ~ ASSO~ Eh~iGRS TO ?S434SC, P. l~E~ ,~ Table 3. Weekday Trip Rates per Entpioyee Site ~` Employees 24 Nr. fn AM Peak' 1-four Out ~ ]"atilt In_ PM Peak Noun ~~Out ~` 7ota1 PA4 F~e~~k Naur Adjaa St, fn _, c7{.rt Total 1 ^ ' 206 ~ 34.29 1.21 - 1.12 233 1.84 l .b9 3.53 1.40 1.71 3,12 ' 2 116 42.04 1,91 2.Od 3.96 2.03 2.26 4.28 1.47 1.60 3,0 7 3 194 24.53 1.24 0,91 2.15 1.14 1,31 2.45 0.96 1.01 1.96 4 232 24.79 .1,15 1.01 2.16 1.22 1.19 2.44 0,95 1.06 2.01 5 130 26.42 0,85 1.14 1.98 0.93 l .b9 2.62. 0.71 ] .31 2,02 6 180 32,42 1.32 1.05 2,37 1.42 1.5b 2,9$ 1.37 1,44 2,81 7 61 49.79 2.05 2.08 4.13 1.b9 3.30 5.02 1.48 1,85 3.33 8 135 37.5$ 1.75 1.63 3,38 1,92 1.67 3.59 1,81 ?.51 3.32 Average 31.76 1,35 1.25 2.59 1.48 1.38 3.14 1.23 1.38 2.60 ITE 32,33 1,29 1.10 2.39 1.78 2.00 3.78 1.60 1.59 ____3.19 Table 4. Weekend. Trip Rates per Employee Site # Employees Sat 24 Nr. Sun 24 Nr, !n Saturday Peak Nour Out Total !n Sunday Peak !-four Out Total 1 206 39.87 25.32 2.20 2.11 4.31 1.87 2.11 3.98 2 llb 49.b4 32.37 295 3.23 6.18 3.07 3.32 6.39 3 194 31.59 16.60 1.61 1.85 3.46 1.4'~ .1.90 3.31 4 232 29.17 16.31 1.34 1.49 2.82 1.38 1.5b 2,94 5 130 38,23 17.83 1.33 2:81 4.14 1.35 2,02 3,37 6 180 35.97 20.17 1.86 1,86 3..72 2.41 1,50 3.91 7 61 72.56 40.08 4.97 . 4.13 9.10 4.07 4.46 8.52 $ 135 41.63 23.15 2.61 2.30 A.92 2.55 1.90 4.44 Average 38.58 21,93 2.06 2.21 4,27 2,02 208 4.11 iTE 33.97 24.$2 2.87 2.25. 5.12 2.63 1.98 4,61 equations developed for the employee variable. The number of employees, as one might assume, appears to be a fairly good predictor of business activity at warehouse clubs. This is in part due to the ability of management to scale' the ~vark force to match business levels. Thd RZ vaIues resulting from the regres- sion analysis range from .69 far the Saturday 24-hour equation to .28 for the Saturday peak-hour equation. Einaplo~~rttrent as a predictlo~e Variable "There are potential problems inher- ent in using employment far trip ger-ter- ation predictions. It is often difficult far either project proponents yr lunr~ devel- apment regulators to accurately esti- mate the nurpber of employees before. a store is built and operating. In addi- tion, because number of employees is not a fixed yr concrete attribute, regula- tors can have concerns about the accu- racy of employment-based trip genera- tion predictions and about future accountability should the predictions prove inaccurate: ~.OC1C~t1Sl01i This study adds .significantly to the body of knowledge. on the trip genera- tion characteristics of membership warehouse clubs. The .uniqueness of this form of retailing dictates that trip gen~ eratian rates specific to membership warehouse clubs be established. The sites included in this study provide a true sampling of the trip generation characteristics of warehouse clubs, in that they were carefully selected for likeness in product line and store aper~- tion characteristics; yet represent a diversity of corporate identities and lacational attributes. The study yielded trip generation rates for the square. footage .variable that are significantly lower than. these published in ITE's trip C~tteratinn (see Tables 1 through 4;fer comparison of rates), An informal survey of other warehouse club trip generation data colte.ction efforts supports this study's finding of lower rags. The xates devel- oped in this study for the employee variable, however, are much closer. to those published by ITE. Despite the lack of a strong correla- tion between the square footage of a facility and the. vehicle counts, the square footage rates developed in this study should prove useful. The poten- tial for a strong pt:sitive correlation between scluaxe footage and trip genez- ation may have been diminished by tltr. lack of significant variation in the sire of the warehouse club facilities includ- ed in the study. However, this same. feet increases the usefulness of the average trip generation rates devel- oped from these sites for the square footage variable, especially when applying the rates to sites of similar size, The sites surveyed for the study vary considerably in terms of factors other than square footage. The process of averaging used in creating the trip 18 • !TE J4URIVAL • SEPTEMBER 1994 1G-1^-1r~?'~~ 11 ~ 43Rh'1 FF~GM 1.JRLTGh~I g: R~G~ity ENGRv~ TG ?G~.~,4~6 F'. 87 ~ ~ ''' generation ratc.~ ensures that these other factors are at least partially acci?unted for. "1"he employee trip generation rates and ec~aations devr:loped it? this. study will provide an even greater degree of predictive confidence than the square footage rates if the number of employees (or pot::nt.ial employees} at a site. is known or can. be reliably esti- nxated. Surveying other operating warehouse stubs is a potentially useful method for estimating the 1skely entplayrnent levels ft?r a proposed site. A.ckraawlerlgmetats This ~turly was conducted by the Central Transportation Punning Staff,. which is the technical transpvrtatis~n planning staff to the Bastan Metropolitan Planning Jrganizativn. The Executive Office of Transportatign and .Construction of the Camman- weaith of Massachusetts commissioned the study, dvhich was performed `with Ttable 5. Trip Gertierafiion Equations far Emplayees v, - Relation Best-Fif ~~u°ativrl - r` 24-hour weekday trips /employee T - i 8.2~j{x; + 212t7.2~ .~2 24-hour Sclturday trips j employee ? = 17.2C3Cx) + 3348.E-? ,b9 24-hour Sunday trips /employee I = 10 39<r) a- }8G3.(~.t 4 i AM peak-hour trips j empioyee T - 3.24(x} +212J9 .51 FM peak-hour trips /employee L~~C~ = ..`i3 1rr{x) + 3.b3 bh PM peak-hour acJjacent st. trips / °mP{<~Yee Ln{T) _ .72. I r~tx} ~- 2.37 7C~ 5aturc3ay peak-hour trips (employee T = l.d^{'{) ~-;10.3,' .28 Sunday peak-hour ir;ps J employee t_n{T} - .471r~%~) + 3.r~4 5 funding support from the Fe~d.erai Highway Administr<rtion and the Massachusetts .Highway I)epartnrent. "I'he author wishes to extend special thanks to the warehouse club managers for their patience and cooperation dur- ing this study- Referen+ee ~!.. Insttt~ate Or TCanSp4r1.dC1UiI F'~rI~11lP1.1'S. 'T'rip Generation, Sth e.d. ~~'ashington. DC: Institute of ~t'ransportatior= Engineers, 1991. ~ ~.:~-: -~ f ~"~ ~~inda lJlrnrt ,l'elzfkL £s a prirtcfnul trunsF'ar•tatirrn plan- ner fvr the Central Trx~rs•pc~rtration l'lrzrirtirt~ Stair in 11aS et~l2f Y'ear'n Uj`L'r`)t^rlitrIc'.te pt'(JjeS.S1i?t!i.?J lar2Cl Lb5'8 aP4[?` irarspG~rrati+^M ~7lC1Pr,r?t."[,~°, e.rperienc•e. S+~SE' YP~I:(7%e u'. %litj~ filer' !fir-:"t. ?tz urhan ;~tctnr;r.g anti P. A. from r.'! university of :~1irhi~carr. f you'rz cackling a traffic man~,cement prttbiem s^:~ h CCTV invclvetl, it vtr{il ~ :.,; tv ca11 Cahn. vtfe have a nevi;, comb he>~si~re ira;fic Management Video Sysrerrts P1ana~erthat docut;terts muci3 of tY;e information you'11 read to plan arzd sg,ecify video canahifities. If's free far fife askic?r~, and if you don't ;ind e.rrr~~ihin~ yt,Lr net; in the pl<,>,r±er, =Ne'i! help yGU find i. As the leatlirsc) j~35i~t?er cif :.t~.~~c;r ~ ft;r trfltfilG Crlarla{.Ir'a'S?E''I`!l~ lsrt:3l. ~il~. he ~} i`ielpful ar'~d ~~altiablt~ party?er 'S frt??~ system concept to final irr 4t1~?entatan. St?rt t,k, ~, P raklir~n fnr UfIIIC C;17[74° Qf t11~ ITE JOURNAL ~ SEPTEMBER 1994 • 19 ,~ ,, ., __ I~ ~ n~_-~__------ .~. - ~ __ _ _ jZ~ ~.; ~n /1 f /. •t~ /~ 9 r~ ~ , ~ ,~ ,`7 - - __ i ~ ~ ~: ~~_ - --~-~ T r' ~cx1:.F~'•~ F ~ ~ ~ ,~ ^~ ;. n ,~ ! ~~~_ 1 ~ ~ s '~ ~ v f ~- ~' 1, ~ '_ n r __ _ ~, (` __ ; ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ '~ V '~' r __ ._ - _. _ i' r ,. ~/ ~ ~- T~ -~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ - JJ \ ~S ~C~ t -~ `~ ~ ~ ;1 ,. ~. ~,~~- ~~ __ ~~ __ _ -- -- ~; ,~ i ~ f c __ ~, l I~ I A ~ ....TT"__ t yy~~~~' n G ~' 3 _~ _ ~'}!fin/ ~~ ~pp ~ ,q ~(j ~ ~ ~)~(////~~') (~ ~ t /~`}////~ ,~' _~/p~ yJ _~/ r dY~ t f ~ 'rCa~,~'~/~ >>~./'/` ~__ _~~- ~~ ~.~ .~' ,. , ~„` -~' i~~./ t :,y 7 __ _'_' _ `i='ce'-~/~--_ ._. - _ _ ..... r i / ~: ~ f - ... f ,. r ~ ') _~ ~ ,A~ --___ _..__.._~ _.. ~- _ -- __.__.._. __,.___. ._...._ __ .. .. .._ _,.. ......._ __ ___ _.. ~' ~Y. ~,P /~ D X11 ~/ ,~ ~- ~~ ~ /'; ! ~~~,, . ,~ t ,~ . _ 1~'~"/ ~ ~ --._ l 7 r~.~-!.~,. /, ~..~, CITY OF C~LLE~E ST~~'I~~I ®~ Engineering Division ~,~ c..( COY ~ i ~~ l~ ~ ~ ~~-~N~ 3o q.... w, . ~ rT-~ 2w r1/~ c,C,~--~'`' ~ 1 ~ ~us~ M~ y.~~6 ~ i u~ c..~S ~ 2 ~ ~ y~~ ~ ~j~ M~~ ~`~' ~~f A~ ~w~ OMM• J ~ ~ ~,~Li 5 SLR p," ~ Z~'~-~.i 'S` ~% G~~'`~ _ 3.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~~ ~+~-` ~s`~"'" ~ ~~ (`~ ~K 1~ ~~~r, ~-, ,. l~ -, .. ~~ r ~ _. . ~~_~. ~~' ~.. ~~,' ~: ~ . ~~~~~ r`' "11~~ ~~' ~'~~ C~r~~~~~`~; ,~~,~ ~: --, ~~ N" ~' ~ T ~ T Q N ; ~- -1- ~ ~ T- r + N N \ ,- N \ T N N V N O ... 5T' Q N \ ~ ~ ~ _ r d' T /1 if `. T \ T ~. ~. J I"' ~ T . + N N N ~~//~~ W vJ ^ ~ l i X ~ Q N N - N N \ ~ ^ ~ ^ W ~ ~ ^ W ~ N 'd L .~ ^. ~ ~ r M N M -~. O _ ~O T r - T i V $' ~ ~ - X ~ O ~ Q. N N N N ^ , n~ ~ ` v ~ li M ,::~ , N N T M d' N ~ r ~~ ~Q1~ Q ~+ ~, X N Q 3 CV N C~ d' r ~ N M d' m w D DG O O H U O~ Z 1- .~: 'c N ~ X N ~ 3 ~ O W ~ ~ ~ '+ >+ ~ vim- p N ~ ~ U O .~ U O C ~ U Q. O N 3 U O 0 ~ ~ 3 Q ~ ~ .1 V U T ~ Q. ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. c `+- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ LT ~ N ~ C ~ Y O ,Q o ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ r N C9 a .--. ~ T ~ T `d T Q "' m + + + ~ N ~ ~ G ` /.. 1~ '-' ~. d T ~ T ~ T. a r N N N T _ -1--+ ~ ^ Q ~ N N N N ^^ ,, W W ~ ~ L ~ ^ ~ N ~ N ~ T ~`.. W T . i ~ ~ O ~ _Y ~ ~ ~ N N N N LL C~ ' ~ ^^ ~ { L.1. `MMV ~:.. L N W N LL Z T N N /i~ V T- V/ x N N ~ ,- N N M r' r tV M ~ m w ~ ~ O O~ U O~ Z 1- ~ Q. ~ o E °' ~ ~ Q ~ ~ N N ~ a ~ 0 ~ CoC ~ C ~ L ~ ~ '~ O N ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ U Y ~ (SS ~ ~ i ~ ~ (~ $ ~ ctY ~ ~ C~ G m `i `i b. Do you have a standard that .describes the proper placement of mailboxes so that they do not interfere with the functioning. of .other competing systems such as parking or trash collection? ( YES or NO ) (Such an ordinance is actually at least partially in the municipality's domain as most mailboxes are placed within the street right-of-way..) c. Would you allow the U.S.- P-octal Service to unilaterally change. -the method of use and / or style of mailbox without coordination with your responsible .planning department. 14) Property Owner's Associations: a. Do you have. ordinances that require that "neighborhood associations" be formed during residential real :estate .development for the purpose of the upkeep and maintenance of public .facilities such as storm water detention facilities, entrance-ways and greenbelts, etc.? ( YES or NO ) _~ ; ~~ L, -;~,,~.,1,~ 15) Parking Policies: - "~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~\~ a. Do you have a parking policy that restricts the parking on city .streets immediately adjacent to .the. university with residents of those streets. being identified'. by a specially. issued sticker or similar control devise? ( YES or NO ) i b. Does your local university .provide an adequate number of parking spaces on ', campus to accommodate both staff and faculty as well as student commuters? ( YES or NO ) c. Do you have an ordinance than requires a minimum number of parking spaces be made available for asingle-family home? ( YES or NO ) If yes, how many parking spaces are required? d. How many parking spaces would you .require for the following: Single- Duplex Tri & Apartments Family Four-Plea - One bedroom _ - Two .bedroom - Three bedroom - Four bedroom e. Do your residential parking policies attempt to take into account the use of alternate forms of transportation such as the bicycle or public .transportation? ( YES or NO ) MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: Zoning Ordinance amendment to require additional .parking and site requirements for duplexes and to effect a change in the parking required for apartments At a recent meeting of the City .Council, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amendment relating to multi-family parking requirements. Specifically, Council is concerned with the parking problems and appearance problems associated with multi-family development. The amendment draft that is currently being prepared by our legal staff will do the following: - Require 2 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom duplex unit - Require 3 parking spaces for each 2 bedroom duplex wait - Require 3. ~ parking spaces for each 3 bedroom duplex unit -Require 250 points of landscaping per duplex unit and that these plantings consist of drought- resistant species - Require 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom apartment unit -Require 2.~ spaces for each 2-bedroom apartment unit - Require 3 spaces for each 3-bedroom apartment unit These changes and other possible solutions were discussed at a Focus Group meeting on April 5. This group ~-vas made up of builders, bankers, architects, engineers, apartment owners and managers, and City Staff. Several more complex issues were also discussed. However, most of these will be left for the Community Enhancement Study that is currently under way. That study, headed by Dr.'Charles Graham, will address. functional and aesthetic control over development. This Zoning Ordinance amendment. requires additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and effects a change in the parking required for apartments. ;:~ ~. 0~/12/9~ __ Page 2 The Study will be much more in depth than is possible at this time. We are therefore making the above recommendations to address the largest concerns and will forward suggestions to the, parking subcommittee of the Conununity Enhancement .Steering Committee on the more complex issues. That subcommittee will be made up of several of the people that had been present at the Focus Group meeting. This interim ordinance amend~iieiit will, remain in place until the Community Enhancement Study is implemented. ~: ~~ MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Corrunission From: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Platuter Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: Zoning .Ordinance amendment to require additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and to effect a change in the parking required for apartments At a recent meeting of the City Council, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amendment relating to multi-family parking requirements. Specifically, Council is concerned with the parking problems and appearanceproblems associated with multi-famil}~ development. The amendment draft that is currently being prepared by our legal staff will do the following: - Require 2 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom duplex unit - Require 3 parking spaces for each2 bedroom duplex unit - Require 3.5 parking spaces for each 3 bedroom duplex unit -Require 250 points of landscaping per duplex unit. and that these plantings consist of drought- resistant species - Require 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom apartment trait -Require 2.5 spaces for each 2-bedroom apartment unit - Require 3 spaces for each 3-bedroom apartment unit These changes and other possible solutions were discussed at a Focus Group meeting on April 5. This group was made up of builders, bankers, architects, engineers, apartment owners and managers, and City Staff. Several more complex issues were also discussed. However, most of these will be left for the Community Enhancement Study that is currently under way. That study, headed by Dr. Charles Graham, will address functional and aesthetic control over development. This Zoning Ordinance amendment requires additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and effects a change in the parking required for apartments. ~~ ,~ 04/ 12/9 S Page 2 The Studv,vill be much more in depth than is possible at this time. We are therefore making the above recommendations to address the largest concerns and will forward suggestions to the parking subcommittee of the Community Enhancement Steering Conunittee on the more complex issues. That subcommittee will be made up of several of the people that had been present at the Focus Group meeting. This interim .ordinance amendmeirt will remain in place until the Community Enhancement Study is implemented. `~.. ~-~ MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Plamier Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: Zoning Ordinance amendment to require. additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and to effect a change in the parking required for apartments At a recent meeting of the. City Council, staff v«~as directed to prepare an ordinance amendment relating to multi-family parking requirements. Specifically, Council is concerned with the parking problems and appearance problems associated with multi-family development. The amendment draft that is currently being prepared by our legal staff will do the following: - Require 2 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom duplex unit -Require 3 parking spaces for each 2 bedroom duplex unit - Require 3.5 parking spaces for each 3 bedroom duplex unit -Require 250 points of landscaping per duplex unit and that these plantings consist of drought- resistant species - Require 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom apartment unit -Require 2.5 spaces for each 2-bedroom apartment unit - Require 3 spaces for each 3-bedroom apartment unit These changes and other possible solutions were discussed at a Focus Group meeting on April 5. This group was made up of builders; bankers; architects, engineers, apartment owners and managers, and City Staff. Several more complex issues were also discussed. However, most of these will be left for the Community Enhancement Study that is currently underway. That study, headed by Dr. Charles Graham, will address functional. and aesthetic control over development. This Zoning Ordinance amendment requires additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and effects a change in the parking required for apartments. ,~ 04/ 12/95 Page 2 The Study ~~-ill be much more in depth than is possible at this time. We are therefore making the above recommendations to address the largest concerns and will forward suggestions to the parking subcommittee of the Conununity Enhancement Steering Conunittee on the more complex issues. That subcommittee will be made up of several of the. people that had been present at the Focus Group meeting. This interim ordinance amendment will re-rian in place until the Community Enhancement Study is implemented. .~;` ~-- ~J`7 ) ~ t'k / ~~~ ~ _ b It~ ' (a~ ~Cq-rvSPbrLj A'(r ~ ^~ ~ GnwZO~a~ 1`i~~,J {v(~ ~i~~trc~ B ~ -. f 2 ~ y t T 5 i 5 ~ e,~ C ~ °. ~.- Cr4°r~h-5 v-T~i c,-2Y 7b _ ~-7u Div T C C~ r, ~ ~ -- 5 j rc~'l ~~r~t N c. k .scD ~-o ft- t!Jt~~TS ~ ~T ~~g r n~^'TS C ~ K i t'ht T Tb_ PRd ~ r o+~ _ 1 ~K- . _ ~'~ ~ S~ D-cwTS~ CGS ~~ I. G ~ - U N R. tii.A-~~rn Y. (l~'z-/+1'~ ~s s~ tr (~-ST~t~TM`` ~~ - sra~7' Q~a,~.~~ ~aa:~rco s ~. - Cc-t ~ "s Pbv«-~ ;, '~.tC,t"-aTl Sri ~ ~1c~~7 ~ P~~ o~ ~-r'~~~'T . ~ CEO ¢. t~DM+.~ .•• i3i sTk.~-~ Y. ~t,.~ ~ ~ ~ ski Cc~~ s. ~a~ s -- I've ~5ri ! N v D l.vE lid Urt iv~rr'Y I N ~~h2rc-r ~~ cJ' nLw7~ a~1 S _ jib -2. G w 5~ ~2o~(r m ~ ^~Y I ~' ~~c, 5TC ~+ ~ v . x~r~r~~ USG r' ~N G ~"' Ti V G ~2~b~~hr-, ~'~" Lp-,d,DStx~1 n~G . ~ '~a ~r}s t2tL~~ ~ A'~ii~'T'LS ~~ ~1 c.`Ob wi ~ i2ti~ ~ ~ 5 5 kE 0`~ ~ n~ APL-.~~( S I Z~ ~t's~5 w 'i ~Ghti~Gi e vck5 (~,~ . ,- ,~ ro__ {~ _ __ ~Er v~Ko~r ~ ~r` -' ~ Lu. ~ t TY ~ S `!. ~1. C ._ ~ Vb` o'i'ly /J ~ cT~C--~-ot ~Mp~c / NT'~'+JCcG 7 ~ ..._' L a r-. rn u~/! T ~ ~~c -D~ x.95 V ~o ~ ~ {1,0~~-"~`( ~W rt;e2- ~~1~~c.ernt-r~ 1 ~ _ ~C~a~' l7NIT ~TY ~-'~+~ R-~41 wb ~~ i l ~ "~ _ _ C~l~`f ~~'t ~-n~ ~ i4 j CD -- X55 ~,~ ~~ ~N_ _' M~.s7 Try t~~}a~'STr~ ~P~~ ._ - ~ .~-.'S S k is b(~ ~" ~~~1 61 L 1 l `( ~ L i1~btGC.~M6"1~~ .~ S~li~ 3 . Er(r=. ~. ~~.. c~ ~, ~~~ z , yNc'' ~.. ,~„f.: «: r 51~ -~ .~ `~ ~~~~ Svi=~ C ~ gdra~ ri. ~ t ~ MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Plam~er Date: April 12, 199 Subject: Zoning Ordinance amendment to require additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and to effect a change in the parking required for apartments At a recent meeting of .the City Council, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amendment relating to multi-family parking. requirements. Specifically, Council is concerned with the parking problems and appearance problems associated with multi-family development. The amendment draft that is currently being prepared by our legal staff will do the following: - Require 2 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom duplex unit -Require 3 parking spaces for each 2 bedroom duplex unit - Require 3.5 parking spaces for each 3 bedroom duplex unit - Require 250 points of landscaping per duplex unit and that these plantings consist of drought- resistant species - Require 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom apartment unit -Require 2.5 spaces for each 2-bedroom apartment unit - Require 3 spaces for each 3-bedroom apartment unit These changes and other possible solutions were discussed at a Focus Group meeting on April 5. This group was made up of builders, bankers, architects, engineers, apartment owners and managers, and City Staff. Several more complex issues were also discussed. However, most of these will be left for the Community Enhancement Study that is currently under way. That study, headed by Dr. Charles,Graham, will address fimctional and aesthetic control over development. This Zoning Ordinance amendment requires additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and effects a change in the parking required for apartments. 0~/ 12/95 Page 2 The Sh.idy will be much more in depth than is possible at this time. We are therefore making the above recommendations to address the largest concerns and will forward suggestions to the parking subcommittee of the Conununity Enhancement Steering Committee on the more complex issues. That subcommittee will be made up of several of the people that had been present at the Focus Group- mewing. This interim ordinance amendment will remain in price until the Community Enhancement Study is implemented. ~ Ai c~~ ~ ~s ~~ ~~ __ ~~ T~ .~. ~ __ _ _ _ _ i ~h 5 W 6 _ _..__ _. _-27- -C1Y1~4 ______ ___ _--- __ __ _-- - iZ ~ S Eck t.~sT i T _ __ i w E ___ _ __ ~! 6~ C~ ~~ ~ \\ - I Z ~_~ _ Z'l ~~ N 7d) - _ _ _ __ _ s~. !!!!!! M ,w+ i j _ ~ __ _ ', °® ~l~~~l~5-_~'- _- _ ---~ _STt~~r~ts Co~~D--r1~cT_ _--1~,9:~_ C~tttS ~. ,.~~ C ~ _ _ __ 6 _ _ ~, ~ \'j'u A'6 t A1`jCA!J6 6 ea ~i!ZCY~.. _ ~ \ ~'~.~+ 1 Nt' ` Ca ~N'f',ra ~ ®~ 5 ~T~ MME Q l t>~ ~ nTS (~~. ll~`Ytyct3 Np l ~.&~. a ~ L~~ ~ j ` ~i'n-wpb `~ ~. nod' -C't ec1 ~ ~~o~ l,~F EX~a~,os~. o ~ ~a.ftwc ~ ~ .. a~aS~,.a~t ~Qn~scgp~,..` S,~ 2 ,5~ 4 __ _ . _ LD N ~ l1.0 ~ ~~. 'V ~ p ~~ l S1Zt3 ~~2 __ - -- ~~31R-tL i ~r~-ll.tc.~N6 oncE ~-~. c~ Tit-C STQr~T __ _ _ _ - __ r ~ V _ ~ __ L>Z~ l.. T R~ 12~ _ V Q ~-1iM1 . ~ ~ _ ~~v. __ pp nn C !~~T(~ __ _ a~-- Z _ G J, r.e ~~ 'hqz.,., BUY _ ~t,o~5c.~-, -.- __ _ __ __ ~ __ __ ~'~\ 5~\''6 _ ~ ~ ~ JT+~4'~ 1 ~~--K...lv.~ b ~~}-o.-. ~- n ~E .~-~'3~rtsV c~ ~~ ~o~.~ i s .~-- .~ C(~t ~~ ~ `` ~'VZ-~L1~6 -`°~R. `J" ~t7~-c~G ~~ ~1~ ~ ~1.~sSOCt0.~c `-' ~~~5`~y (~ •( .~- ~ 5 ~ Gam. ~'~ ~. ~1Lf. S S l~ ~ ~ ~0 '~-~! t:.. S g 2 a ~C~ 1~ ~ __. C~ °° W-~i ~fl~ E''!-T N ~ _J l3~ ~d'V~~S~ ~i4-ri^~~ ~ (~oRc ~afo _P , ~~-s j _ __ _ ____ _ _ _ __ ~~ ~ ~ _ __~ s_~. Pte. ~~ { ~ ~ ~ _ J ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ - P--~"~ _ /~ Wpb 7 lDa~ Sly- _ ~~~~~ ~tt,,~[ ~~. 6 Printed by Sabina Kuenzel 5/2.2/95 10:10am From: Todd Mcdaniels To: Sabina Kuenzel Subject: Focus Group --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====-=----=====5/22/95==9:59am== Sabine, we have recieved a positive response re: attendance from everyone with the exceptions of Winnie Garner and Anne Goodman! The following people RSVP'd "YES": Mike M. Rosemarie S. John Nichols Charlie Burris Bill Boyett Charlie Thomas! See ya this afternoon, Todd! ~„VO . ~ Gkyrr c r.. _-----_-- -~J ------- - ----~------_ ~, _-.---_...~.v ___- --- = -- --~- __ -- ---- ----_-_ -- i ---- -----__-_-- ---- _- ---= ---- ----- - ----- _ ---_. ___ _.__ I, ____ ~- _,_ __.~__^____w _ -~--- _. -~_ __..._._~.._ 7 _. _. III', _ _ __ ____ _-.______.___._._.... ----- --~ __ -- - __ _ --_- -- :_--__~,. ~:_ ------_ _--- -- - - -- - - -_ 1 ~ ~~---- - : _-- vti ~-- -~---------. 1 t T>~ ~.L_~ti _ ---- i J ..__ ---..._ - -. ,, ~--- -- -- ~ _ . `~ '-_--- - _~ z ~ - - _ ti -- _._~_- _ ~ ,,,.:~ 1-~ - _ ~ _. -may-- r __ ~ _ _ __ ~.,.m.,... -- . ------ -- - - ~, ~ v ~~ -~~ -.-., y ~;~ . _._.. _ -- .} f -- ---. ~, i ~~k' M~~~.S ~ - - - -~- i ~` 1~~1~ .5 ~ ~~q --- ~ ~ ------..- _---- ~ -_ X145 -- - - - s d!~, ._ ~ t _ ,(' _ ,_'~._. ------ ~._ ~ ~~ t f ~ ~ i ~ t _,_ ~ ` --y- -- `--- - -~--~- // ~ P ~~ n `" ~ ~S.Xt~fL._ _-~._ ___ .--- ~~~ 5 _ r --- -.___ / (y ~ ~, .~~ ~ ~ ~ . ti ~O~~~EC~ E >: GB~E~~C~6.i~E~8~1~1~ ~~01~~r'~1VC TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE .FOR 1990 OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT SF 3812 89% SF 1513 11% APARTMENTS 265 6% APARTMENTS 11888 87% MOBILE/TRAIL 196 3'/o MOBILE/TRAIL 85 1% OTHERS 1 7 0.4% OTHERS 102 1% TOTAL 4290 100% TOTAL 13588 100% VACANT UNITS COUNT PERCENT SF 343 17% APARTMENTS 1555 79% MOBILE/TRAIL 44 2% OTHERS 2 5 1% TOTAL 196 7 100°Io OVERALL TOTAL COUNT PERCENT SF 5668 29% APARTMENTS 13708 69% MOBILE/TRAIL 325 . 2% OTHERS 144 lolo TOTAL 19845. 100% HOUSEHOLD TURNOVE R RATE .FOR 1980 & .1990 OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS. RENTER-OCCUPIED UNITS 1979 1989 1979 1989 MOVED INTO 678 565 MOVED INTO 6859. 9157 TOTAL 3184 4411 TOTAL 8783 13550 TURNOVER TURNOVER RATE 21% 13% RATE 78% 68% /^+ pp~~ u ~+cc RRIIT ^^ d~r~lt~~~~~~ ~~~~~~G~~C~ 1 ~~l~d~~~~ HOUSEHOLDS WITH VEHICLES 1980 AND 1990 OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS CHANGE VEHICLES. 1980 1990 OVER 10 YRS NONE NOT AVAIL. 74 1 2302 802 -65% 20RMORE 3184 3414 7% RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS CHANGE VEHICLES 1980 1990 OVER 10 YRS NONE NOT AVAIL. 808 1 8414 6099 -28% 20R MORE 3790 6681 76% NUMBER OF VEHICLES INCREASE OV ER 10 YEARS PERIOD CALCULATIONS DECREASE IN RENTER-OCCUPIED WITH 1 VEHICLE/HOUSEHOLD = 8414-6099= -2315 INCREASE IN RENTER-OCCUPIED = (6681-3790) * AVERAGE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD WITH 2 OR MORE VEHICLES =APPROX. 6566 CALCULATION OF AVERAGE # HOUSEHOLDS WITH 2 VEHICLES 10344 # OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH 3 VEHICLES 3621 # OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH 4 VEHICLES 1208 TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES 15173 TOTAL # OF 2 OR > VEHICLES HOUSEHOLDS fi 6 81 AVERAGE # OF VEHCLES/HOUSEHOLD 2.27 ~'~ ~~G~LSaN I~fi`Da`~ - i g~r~d~rn 1 ~,a-rh 12~ 11 - 13~ ~ _ ` i 3 X ~~ ~ 143 I- .~ t ~i ~~ ~a I JZ '~ - ~ _ __- T3TZ'~Z f 1 ~ l b' ~ `~ I I ~ ~ - __ ~2 2 ) f ~ l P~~~ tZoatn 2 ~ A-r BRA 2 -' Il ~ 1~ ~ 132 ~+ _- 1 ~ ~' ; - ~ _. ~ ALT ~ ~ ~ L ~ ) L' ~ RfiZ.~ 2 l~ ~ 12 . f ~5Z~3'° l2 X 11 _ t~l ~ i2o~ 132 ~_ f ,ti.3, ~~ ,~... ~ ~ 1 t~ ~~ ,~ / - r1 J r, ~' - I/~' ~ is t d 1 (~ 1' y~ it l~ ~` X rS 1 i a \_ v - ~. ~ a yy--~~ ~ i °~1 ))N -.,.•' ` (r, r s ~. _ _ ~ ~ ... e ~~ ;: ~°~ ~~~_T \~ c, r :~ ) a r ~r~ 1 l `o .. \ fir ,\ k - i ~-. x _ F t ~, __ ~,. _ __ ~~~ a - ~`i ~ - - <_ _ _ - __ ,. ;- . ~ ~ , .~ , , . °,~` ` " _ < ,, ~ ._ , v ~. ~ ~ ~ ~-~' ~1 "-~ ... 1J ,, ~ ~~ & ~~ ~'~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~t i ~ ~J ,~~ ~ ~ ~~ C\~ ~~ , 4 ..+' !s _ _ C ~ ~ ) ( ~ A 1 ~`g ...._._ ~. r ~; -~ \~a ~, P_ ~~ tt` ~,~ _ ~ ~ - _ ~.~ , ~. ~. ~ ,,z 1` - - ~J « ~\~ } ~? t,`'~ . ~ ~ ~: l ~ \.\ 1 ,F ~\_ ~ - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~t ~' ~~ ~, ~~~ ~_; ~~ \~ a o !. `,ti " ~ =,~ __ __ ), __ . __ __ __ . ~. c c . o ~ N T GV N N O ,-. r a ~ w~ ,~ Q). Q ~ T` r T T 1 W ~ ~~ ~ ^ W ~ N ~ N T GV CV N W ~ ~ ~ L •- . _ {~ V ~ Q ~ Q x ~ Q. N nn ,, W = V ~ ^ r N N N 1..1... (/~ i~ \ ~ T ~O `^ i f N N N O ~ `/ T N N Q r N N N T r N M d' m W o oC 0 O~ t) O~ z ~ 3 0 ~ ~ a~ ~ Q ~ c U ~ ~ {- c~ Q i. _ ~ (~ ~ ~ U O ~ ~ Q.. ~ ~ t~ ~ (~ L i t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ vi E ~ °o ~ ,~ o Q ~ ... ~ ~ i Q •~ ~ •~ U ~ c Q 0 T ~~( lV Q. Q. ~ x o ~ ~ n: `i `i _._ _.. _._.. __ __ 'tom r .~ ra ,/1 ~ ~~ D I~77't,~J"t~lvt~,~ _ __ __ _.. _ _._ __.. ~~ ~ August 23, 1994 ~~E1VE® CEC ~a 6 T0: Applicants With-Items Before City Council FROM:. ~PhylYis Jarrell,. Development Review Manager SUBJECT:I` _Results of City Council Meeting of August 22 At its meeting of August 22, City Council took action on the following: Public Hearing: x~Zon~ng Case 94-26 ~ Applicant: City of Plano DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Off=Street Parking .and Loading Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 3-1100) for a parking deferment .program in shopping centers. APPROVED.: 7-0 DENIED: TABLED: STIPULATIONS: City Council amended the Zoning .:Ordinance requirements for Off-Street Parking and Loading to add Section. 3-1115 and allow a Parking Deferment Program for neighborhood retail centers. Section 3-1115 Parking Deferment Program 1. Purpose - This section establishes the requirements and procedures for using a parking deferment program for .certain .uses.. The program is designed'to reduce parking for new or redeveloping neighborhood shopping centers. The program will allow a reduction of parking spaces from the requirements normally. .required. by the Zoning Ordinance, The program encourages increased landscaping ..and a reduction in the amount of pavement. N:PAC/08-22-CC Honorable Mayor & City Council Zoning Case 94-26 August. 23, 1994 Page 2 of 5 2. Definition - A parking deferment is an allowed reduction of .the total required. .parking for neighborhood `centers (including new and redeveloped centers).. 3. Eligibility - The program may be used for neighborhood retail centers, as defined on the Future Land Use Plan, that are 8=15 acres in size, with the following requirements: a. New and Existing Centers New Centers - Parking may be deferred when a new anchor store and/or .structure larger than 1.5,000 square feet. Existing Centers - Parking. may be removed and deferred as part of the demolition and reconstruction for a new anchor store, the remodeling or addition of in-line lease spaces, the repaving and. striping of parking areas and the addition of new landscaping. 4. Prohibited Uses - Parking-shall not be deferred for general office, medical office, indoor commercial amusements, private clubs with bar and waiting areas, free standing buildings of 5,000 square feet or less, free standing restaurants, outdoor commercial amusements, movie theaters, building supply stores, nurseries and garden centers. 5 Prohibited Areas - Retail and commercial uses in the U.S. 75 and Preston Road Corridors are not eligible for the program. The U.S. 75 Corridor is the land within '1,000 feet of the east right-of-way line of U.S. 75 and within 1,500 feet of tfi e west right-of-way line. The Preston Road Corridor is the 'land within 3,000 feet of the cen er line of Preston Road. 6. Extent of Reduction - 1,5% of the total parking spaces required may be deferred (calculated using the standard parking rates for the ..particular use in the Zoning Ordinance). The reduced parking area shall be subject to the'fo'llowing: a. Increased Landscaping Area .Land. used for '.:deferred parking must be maintained as a l andscaped area with sod, and shrubs. Tree plantings are also encouraged. All landscaped areas must be fully irrigated. N:PAC/08-22-CC Honorable Mayor & City Council - Zonng Case 94-26 August 23, 1.994 Page 3 of 5 b. Limited Rear Yard Parking No more than 10% of the required parking may be located at the rear of the.. shopping center. Areas reserved for deferred parking may not be located to the rear of the shopping center, in drainage easements, or in other unsuitable areas. 7. Procedure - The parking deferment program includes items "a" through "e" as described below. A'prelminary site plan must be submitted for approval with any application for participation in a parking deferment program. The applicant must also enter into a performance agreement.' with .the City of Plano. To ensure the submission of adequate information, the Development Services Department is hereby empowered to maintain and distribute a list of specific requirements for the parking deferment program. a. Pre-Application .Conference. The applicant should- schedule an appointment with a staff member of the bevelopment Services Department to discuss the program and its applicability to the project. b. Baseline Parking .Assessment The total parking requirement must be calculated using the standard parking ;rates for the particular uses in the Zoning Ordinance.. Land must be reserved on site to meet the baseline parking assessment, and may not. be located to the .rear of the shopping center, in drainage easements, or in other unsuitable areas. c. Performance Agreement All property owners in a neighborhood center must agree to tfie program regardles of the fact that their property may or may not be eligible for a deferment. A change in land use will require review of the agreement to determine if additional parking is needed'. The performance agreement shall: (1) Be signed by all property owners in a neighborhood center at the time of preliminary site plan submittal. This specification allows staff to make certain owners are aware of the 'agreement. (2) Require common access and parking between all lots and owners.. N:PAC/08-22-CC i Honorable Mayor & City Council Zoning Case 94-26 August 23, 1994 Page 4 of 5 d. e. (3) Specify the number of deferred and the type deferment. parking.. spaces which are being of development used to allow the `(4) Require annual parking demand monitoring .reports which will note any changes in occupancy or demand for additional 'parking. (5) Provide penalties for failure to comply with the above as stated in Article 6, Section 6-400 of this Ordinance. Preliminary Site ,Plan Approval A preliminary site plan showing how .thee total parking requirement (baseline assessment) could be met must. be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. One hundred percent of the required parking shall be shown on the preliminary site plan. The plan shall indicate the total number of spaces required, the number eligible for deferment, those. actually being deferred, and areas held in reserve. Planning & Zoning Commission Review The Planning & 'Zoning Commission shall review all proposed parking deferment programs. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall approve, modify or deny the proposed project, based on the following: (1) The effect of overflow parking on adjacent properties and streets; 'and (2) The feasibility of providing deferred parking if the agreement is revoked. N:PAC/08-22-CC f H®norable Mayor & City Council Zoning. Case 94-26 August 23, 1994 Page 5 of 5 f. Appeals The decision of-the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve or .deny a parking deferral agreement shall be final and binding. unless an .appeal of the decision i s made to the City Council . The applicant, Development Services Director or member of City Council may appeal the decision of the commission by filing a Notice of Appeal in the office'of the Director, no later than ten days after the date on which the commission notifies the applicant of its decision'. Such notification may take place by means of an oral ruling by the commission at a public meeting. Written notice of any appeal shall be sent to 'the property owner.:. The Notice of Appeal shall set forth in clear and concise fashion the basis-.fore the appeal. The -City' Council shall consider the appeal at a,public meeting no later than 45 days after thedate on which the Notice of Appeal_'is filed. The City Council may affirm, modify or reserve the decision of the commission and. may, where ,appropriate, remand the.,.plan to the commission for further proceedings consistent with:. City Council's decision. g. Revoking the Agreement The performance agreement shall be revoked for failure to ..comply with the stated terms of agreement. Notice will be given to property owners of pending review of the agreement at a public meeting by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The .property owner may present the commission with new information or plans for conforming to the agreement. After review of the agreement, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall have the right to require the construction of 'parking to meet the basel''ine parking assessment if the agreement is revoked. No subsequent certificate of occupancy will be issued until additional parking is provided. TD/dz xc: Dr. James Surratt, Superintendent, PISD Linda Keylon, Director-of Tax/Utility. Billing Ray Kirby, Deputy Building Official Sharon Medics, Office Coordinator Development Review Staff N:PAC/08-22-CC 04®20®95 02,19PM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE .~. v v j v c ~ o ~ ~ m p N A ~ C ~. ~ ~ a ~ -~ ~ - A o ~ <D ~ m a ~ ~ -c ~ N A w n ~ ~ ?~ cQ ~ ~ ~ n n O ~ ~ A ~D -"' 0 ~ "' ~ O ~ A ~ c 'N ~, c~ ~ ~ _ 0 3 3 ~, ~ 1 ~~ '~ ~ c .~'.. ~ o ~ ~ ~ a s X ~ N ~' A ..« `~ ~i. P02 ~ z c O n B O O ~ v m ao •A W N ."~ .p W N N ~_ (D ~ ~ a a~ ~~ ... N ~ W N ,~ N N ,Q ^' T1 r V (f) ? i ~ .~ . N N N N ' Q ~ X T O 1 ~. O Ca N ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. N ~. '~ C ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~ ~"~' V/ X ~ N N N + j j ~ P" ~ Q A ~ _ ~ N \ D 1 N ~ w v 1 ~ N N N .... N N ~ ~ 'n + j + 1 p ~ N ~ D 1 ~ .p . ~ }~ . N 04-20-95 02:19PM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCLENCE P03 ~ w N ~ __.. ~ ~ ~ ..« N ~ O N 3 3 ~ o ~, a 3' ~ tG ~ W n N m ~ ~ S 4 N ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~• 1 O T ~ 3 m ~p ~. ~+ 3. a '° ,a ce o ~ O ,3. ~ a -I z c O n B O O m o rn ao A W N ~+ 1 .......... W N N ~ N ~ X ~' a A .a C N W N N 1 ~ ~ T W N n' T ~ ++ ~ ~ Q N N N N 0 0 ~ X ~/~ ~ ~ V/ ~/ W J ~ Y/ ~~ ~ W N ~~ ~ ~ r/ ~ ~l l N N N N 0 ~ ~ ^~ / X ~' V N + N i~ N t -+ N ~ .~ C j j J ~ ~ O Y+ ~ Y ~ r ~ -P N ~ Z t + t fA D j_ ~_ ~ ~~ Printed by Jane Kee 4/21/95 12:01pm From: Jane Kee To: Jeff Kersten Subject: P&Z last Hite ===NOTE_____________________________________________________________________ CCd Jim Callaway "I•love•my•job.•I•love•my•job.•I•love•my•job."••OK.•Now•I•can•continue.••At• P&Z last Hite the parking issue took 1 1/2 hrs. This was the interim parking amendment we prepared at Couhoil's direction after .the Tony Jones rezoning on 2818 that prompted the concern about inadequate parking req. and how things look. We addressed the very basic concerns - increase the duplex parking req., provide for landscaping on duplex property and we decreased the MF parking req. slightly after inquiry and looks .around town. Nancy Crouch was the liaison in Lynn's absence. Charles Graham, Tony Jones and Glen Thomas spoke. The P&Z felt like there are many more issues to address - incentive vs. regulation, code enforcement, etc - ahings that. are being addressed in the Graham study. So they tabled the item (actually it was 4-3 for tabling. I believe the 3 wanted to send a negative rec. to CC that this amendment was not addressing enough.) The discussion was .for staff to meet with some Commissioners, some builders., some developers, etc. - a focus group but smaller than the one we met with before- to crank our some incentives. This was to be done over the next 30 days. Now here's the rub for me - this is duplicative of the Graham study. We are NOT in a crisis here. We have peaked .when it comes to duplex and MF development... We may get a few more but our current ord. requirements are very good from a screening standpoint.. All MF being built now is also using a new req. that didn't exist when previous MF was built (relative to parking #). Graham mentioned that he might be able to push up his schedule for this portion of the study. .Sabine and Todd will visit w/him today and then visit with Commission Chairman Hawthorne to clarify the Commission's intent. I wanted you to know what happened and why this interim amendment will not be going to CC at the next mtg. Personally I think it is a good interim measure-but also I think we can survive nicely without it. I do not want to allocate staff to a project that is redundant with one we are paying Graham for. I'll keep you posted. One other rub for me. All everyone could talk about was how inportant incentive is and how .important code enforcement is. I've had two decision packages for a landscape incentive. program turned down and we are giving up our vacant code enforcement position as part of the budget cuts - go figure! ~~.Ye . ~ AGENDA MULTI-FAMILY FOCUS GROUP 1. Background. Recent development Parking problems Community appearance Council direction Community Enhancement study {Dr. Charles Graham) 2. Identification of problems - .Duplexes 3. Current requirements -Duplexes 4. Discussion of possible solutions -Duplexes 5. Identification of problems -Apartments. 6. Current requirements -Apartments 7. Discussion of possible solutions -Apartments IDENTIFY PROBLEMS DUPLEXES 1, Front yards completely dominated by cars 2a 1Vot enough off-street parking 3e Dumpsters 4m 1Vlaintenance 1. FRONT YARDS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY CARS - Increase screening requirements - Require landscaping - Points? - Space for landscapinglgrassy areas (% or setbacks?) - Require parking in rear - Require two drives with carports/garages - Require increased lot depth - Require increased front setback - Require increased ROW width 2. NOT ENOUGH OFF-STREET PARKING - Increase number - 1 per bedroom plus one - 1.5 per bedroom - .Creation of "university commuting zone" - Reduction of requirement for large and/or mixed use developments ("parking by demand" concept) r ~ y ~, ~U ~a I, ,, y~ ~ G \ F 3. DUMPSTERS - Require pad - Require enclosure - Enforcement ~~ ,~~ ~~ p ~ ~ `~-~~ ~- ~ ~, ~ ,~ =~.~. ~- ~, J ~Z ~~ 4. MAINTENANCE - Require irrigation system - .Require. tenant associations - Provide rental inspectors IDENTIFY PROBLEMS APARTMENTS 1, Not enough off-street parking 2, Maintenance 1. NOT ENOUGH OFF-STREET PARKING - 1.5 spaces for every 1-bedroom; 2.5 spaces for every 2-bedroom; 3.75 spaces for every 3 bedroom - 1.5 spaces for every 1-bedroom; 2 spaces for every 2-bedroom; 2.5 spaces for every 3-bedroom (all plus 0.2 spaces per unit additional for visitors) - Creation of "university commuting zone" - Reduction of requirement for large and/or mixed use developments (parking by demand" concept) - Lower densities - Parking deferment 3. MAINTENANCE - Provide rental inspectors AGENDA MULTI-FAMILY FOCUS GROUP 1. Background Recent development Parking problems Community appearance Council direction Community Enhancement study (Dr, Charles Graham) 2. Identification of problems -Duplexes 3. Current requirements -Duplexes 4. Discussion of possible solutions -Duplexes 5. Identification. of problems -Apartments 6. Current requirements -Apartments 7. Discussion of possible solutions -Apartments IDENTIFY PROBLEMS DUPLEXES 1. Front yards completely dominated by cars 2. Not enough off-street parking 3. Dumpsters 4. Maintenance 1. FRONT YARDS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY CARS - Increase screening requirements - Require landscaping - Points? Space for landscaping/grassy areas (% or setbacks?) - Require parking in rear - Require two drives with carports/garages - Require increased lot depth - Require increased front .setback - Require increased ROW width 2. NOT ENOUGH OFF-STREET PARKING - Increase number - 1 per bedroom plus one - 1.5 per bedroom - Creation of "university commuting zone" - Reduction of requirement for large and/or mixed use developments ("parking by demand" concept) 3. DUMPSTERS - Require pad - Require enclosure - Enforcement 4. MAINTENANCE - Require irrigation system - Require. tenant associations - Provide rental .inspectors IDENTIFY PROBLEMS APARTMENTS 1. Not enough off-street parking 2. Maintenance 1. NOT ENOUGH OFF-STREET PARKING - l.5 spaces for every 1-bedroom; 2.5 spaces for every 2-bedroom; 3.75 spaces for every 3 bedroom - 1.5 spaces for every 1-bedroom; 2 spaces for every 2-bedroom; 2.5 spaces for every 3-bedroom (all plus 0.2 spaces per unit. additional for. visitors) - Creation of "university commuting zone" - Reduction of requirement for large and/or mixed use developments (parking by demand" concept) - Lower densities - Parking deferment 3. MAINTENANCE - Provide rental inspectors MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Continission From: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Plaiuler Date: April 12, 1995 Subject: Zoning Ordinance amendment to require additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and to effect a change in the parking required for apartments At a recent meeting of the City Council, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amendment relating to multi-family parking requirements. Specifically, Council is concerned with the parking problems and appearance problems associated with multi-family development. The amendment draft that is currently being prepared by our legal staff will do the following: - Require 2 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom duplex unit - Require 3 parking spaces for each 2 bedroom duplex emit - Require 3.5 parking spaces for each 3 bedroom duplex unit -Require 250 points of landscaping per duplex unit and that these plantings consist of drought- resistant species - Require 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom apartment unit -Require 2.5 spaces for each 2-bedroom apartment unit - Require 3 spaces for each 3-bedroom apartment unit These changes and other possible solutions were discussed at a Focus Group meeting on April 5. This group was made up of builders, bankers, architects, engineers, apartment owners and managers, and City Staff. Several more complex issues .were also discussed. However, most of these will be left for the Community Enhancement Study that is currently. under way. 'That study, headed by Dr. Charles Graham, will address fiinctional and aesthetic control over development. This Zoning Ordinance amendment. requires additional parking and site requirements for duplexes and effects a change in theparking required for apartments. r 04/ 12/95 Page 2 The Shidv will be much more in depth than is possible at this time. We are therefore making the above recommendations to address the largest concerns and will forward suggestions to the parking subconunittee of the Corrununity Enhancement Steering Committee on the more complex issues. That subcommittee will be made up of several of the people that had been present at the Focus Group meeting: This interim ordinance amendment will remain in place'mtil the Community Enhancement Study is implemented. .p WW N ~ ( U k.J o~ o~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` ' ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ z ~ d,~ ~ d.~ ° ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rc ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ o ~• " ~ ' ~ ~ t~ r"C ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ A o ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ o ~ ~ ,~ t7 a ~ ''d ~, d ~ ~ ~ -~ r ~, ,~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ y ~ ~ }"~ ora ~ w ~ yC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ O ~` ~ ~ ~ w ~ C w ~ ~ r y ~d --3 w -~ ~ ~' °' ~ > i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I y I ~ ~ ""'3~. "~' C as I ~ tic rF "~ ~ I r ~. A ~ r"'~. ~' I W ~ CD ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ Ir ~ y I ~ ~ ~ t9 ~"~3. I z ~ ~ CD v I ~ ~ ~ ~ Q"~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~9 A~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ G CA ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y I d ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ "~' ~ ~ ` ~ ~- -~ (~ I a ~ tp ~ I ~ ~, "~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ pr. t~DA `'" ~ y ~ '~ 1~1 d ~ I ~ a ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° °~- ~' R o ~ ~d ~ b ~ I I I ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t7 '~ ~ ~ ~ ~. N ~ ~ ~' ~ ¢ t7 ~ ~ ~ 'S Q ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~' mac- ... "'! a. Q -~' I i 1 1 I I t ~ ~ t i `.S `C ~ r.. A~ `~ "~' A~ tD fD „~ ~ a ~ r~ sz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ a, rn ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ b~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ via ~ ~" ~ `~ ~ '~ ~ ~ '~ ~• ~ ~• ~ rt ~ ,S~ ~~ "'! tD a ~ ~~ j W ~ a y V O ' I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' Fj ~ u~ I ~ f o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ o ~ '~ a -~ ~ t~ ~r-7 ~ F-] ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~-+ arc' c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~yy'yy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ y t~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ara ~' ~, ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; a ~ ~ w `'* ~ ~ l y ~. ~ o 'z ~ ~; "" a. c ~ ara tD '~ a ~' QQ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 i O~ A M~ \ - ~uT l I H ~ t RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN IhTTTEI~IM PARKINS POLICY FQR COLLEGE STA~'IC~I~ Existing Housing Problem Statements: Habitual parking on the street leads to congestion and unsightly conditions in some areas of town. Continuous storage of boats and recreational vehicles in parking areas within the street or parking spaces also leads. to unsightly conditions. Parking on lawns, on the: city right-of--way, in easements etc. is a problem in some areas and this too is unsightly. Certain .areas of town have large expanses of paving and inadequate landscaping, giving the general appearance of being one big parking ot. Each of the above conditions lessens property values and creates unsafe conditions. Performance Criteria: On-street parking should be reserved primarily for guests. Streets should be dedicated primarily to the movement of vehicles, including emergency vehicles, and should. not to be .considered as areas forhabitual .parking of vehicles of any type. Residents. should' park off-street. For all types of housing in College Station, the total number of automobiles a resident may have should not exceed the number of off-street parking spaces provided at that residence (single- family and multi-family). Owners choosing to provide additional .parking. spaces at a dwelling unit (s) should do so according to city standards. Boats and recreational vehicles should not be allowed in public view in front of residences for more than. 3 days. Longer-term storage of boats and recreational vehicles .should only be in approved screened areas or off-site. (Stricter deed restnctlons may apply.) Parking on lawns, on the city right-of-way, in easements etc. should be prohibited. It is not the desire of the citizens to have huge expanses of concrete and asphalt for parking, but .rather an environment that is a pleasing balance between adequate parking and .landscaping. Landscaping should become an integral part of parking provisions. New Housing Problem Statements: There is inadequate parking at some duplexes.. Two parking spaces for three bedroom duplexes, for example, is typically inadequate .when unrelated individuals reside there. However, for families, two spaces may be enough. Landscaping treatment at .parking areas of duplex and fourplex units is not required. Minimum lot sizes required for duplexes and fourplexes may.. be too small to accommodate .adequate parking and building setback requirements. Parking requirements are not. tied o bedroom size. ~ Bedrooms in multi-family housing units of over 150 square. feet may house two. individuals .:with two automobiles (and often do). Performance Requirements: Parking requirements should be associated with lifestyle preferences .and with market conditions. However, once a unit is built: with certain parking spaces provided, .the unit should not be leased to residents with more automobiles than parking spaces provided. ' Perhaps a new multi-family housing designation such as "h®rne-plex" (unit only for families) should be .adopted officially. Typically,. one parking, space should be provided per bedroom, unless the unit contains bedrooms over 1 square feet. that could accommodate two individuals and the unit is to be leased to unrelated individuals. ey N r' N N T T Q T + -~ -H + (v -I- N G r'. N N T T. ,.~ N N Y O N Q d' ~ r, ~ cv r--~ N r .- ~ ~ ~ ~ F- ~ ~ + N r + '~ + N + V + N + N J .- u ~.~ U) ~ ~ X Q N N N ^ N ~~ ~ ~ . ~ N N N N ^ , W ~ ~ ~ ci -- ~- T r M u (}~~) ~ O _ ~ ~ r ~ N N V o T ~ _ ' . TZ1 V~ O i.. O ~ X ~ Q (V u N u C'~ u C u ~ N N N N ~. ~ ^ L L ~ . M W LJ. Z N T N ~~ N N C'~ d' ~ r , }+ a Q c~ X ~ ^ /"1 ~ N N m r N M ~ m W D m O O ~ U O ~ Z H O N L 0 ~_ ~ vi ~ °' U x N N > ~ ~ O ~ ~ o ~ °' ~ >. . o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Q .U O ~ ~ U ~ ~ N ~ '~ v C ~ U O Q. O Q. ,-. ~ ' ~ O O U ~ ~--~ O ~ ~J ~ ~ L `V 1.. 1 ^ ~ N ~ U ~- ~ Y ~ t~ ,~ ~ ~ O ,Y ~ a3 O Y O ~ t~ U = C w- ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ (~ v- O +'~-. C U N ' i Q O N U O ~ U ~ •~ . ~ ~ O Y V O /~~ /x ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ -Q O ~ O U --~ J O Z r N C~ ~ d' T d' T ~ T Q `~ Z. C~ N ~ ~ O d' T ~ T ~ T T ~ ~ ~- ~ N r T ~- LV -1- N -F N W ~^ vim, ~ ~. Q N N N N W ~ N ~ .~ ~ N c~ T ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ x O ~ ~ LV N N N '~ ~ ^1 _ ~ ~ ~ / Il `v N `- N N M N L T V Q ~ V X N N Q `- N N C7 D T r N M' d' m w o oC O O ~ U O~ z I- ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ m _ c~ ~ °' a 0 ~ o c a a~ ~ i o ~ N ~ _ c ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ U ~ c ~ tts ~ ~~ o ~ ~ U Y ~ ~ ~ Q i N ~ C ~ c~ -a ~ ~ ~ a-' c ~ C~ C m ~~ ~~ N '""' N N N ~` T 'A N ~~/ a X W ~ X _N ~ ^^ ,, W ~ }~ ~ ^ ' W ~ N r CV N N ~~ V i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q N ^ W Z V 0 T N N N I.L. . T O ^\ /'~''~ W ti V ~ N T N N N a. M~ W O ctD v `~ T 1"' X N Q. 3 r N N N D T r N M d. m w o oC O O H U O~ z I-- •~ c '~ o ~ o ~ ~ Q ~ U O (~ +_+ ~ ~ ~ L Y ~ ~ ~ Q. i _ O RS ~ ~ U O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ t~ ~ C Y c~ ~, ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ cts ~ ~ o ~ o M O ~. Q 0 ~ ~_ ~ .~ ~ a __ ~ ~_ U C N n. T a. Q.. ~ X O v Q, `i `i r ~~ N N u ~ u +}_ V/ r ~ T N N ~~ ~ J C) °' N r-, N m Q ~ N N N N ^' W yr ~ \ ,~,~~ \ ~ ^ W ~ ~ ~ ~L, Z N ~ _ ~ ~_ ~ ^ W ~ ~ ty N N N .L .~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ _ ^, W = Q CV ~ ~ u ~ N N N N Q L W ~ ~ {,J. Z ~ ~ N N ^ f1 i W ~ Q _ S Q X N Q 3 N N N N r N M d' m w o o~ O O H U O~ z F- ~ ~ 03 r ~ ' M d r Q~ r r CV ~ ~ Z J x _Q. ~ T ~ M ~ T Q T T N c'0 ~ ~~ ` W ~ ~ ~ ~_ N N N N N ^ , ~ ~ (V N N . . ~ ~ ~ W N CV N CV ~ N N N N O N N ~ ~ (~ ~ fi Q~ N N N N M W ~ X ~ N N M ^ M Q ~ N N N N r N M d' m w o aC O O H U O`~ Z t- AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Driveway Variance 8401 Spring Creek TO• FROM: RE: DATE: ~~ CITY OF CC.~LLECiE STATIOI`I `~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT \ / POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM Sabine Kuenzel, Senior. Planner M -Mare aret Sexton Assistant C Attorne ~~ ary g , tY ~ y Amendments to Zoning Ordinance -- Parking Requirements Apri128, 1995 Attached is a draft of the amendments to the zoning ordinances set forth in your RFLA. Please review the ordinance and ensure that it incorporates all the changes that you wanted in the way that you wanted them to be done. If you have any additional changes,. let me know and we'1I get them done. Also, I noted. a couple of questions I had in .red pen on the first page -- let me know what you think on those. MM:gn Attachment ~ ° ~ ~ s ^ a~ ~, rr^^ ~ 0 ~, ~ ~ M Y O Ali r W ~ Y b a~ ~ o ~b~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ a ~ °' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A s ~ 3 A ~ o ~ ~ ~, ~ n ~ ~ }" z ~ it L ~ RS R! Ri . CC ~ iw ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ aa~o 1 s. 1 ~+ ~ I ~ C 1 p a°, a a 1s~ S ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~W~ ~ W~ a ~ ° v W o. c ~. a ~ ~ ~, A ' c ~ '~ A x. ~ ' 0.w ;x o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ L7 on ~ ~ ~ ~ r,,~ Z ~ ~ ca Z ~ H ~., a a ~ :~ a ~ ~ ~~ v~~ _ ~ ~^ z W ~ ~w ~~ ~ y z W , ce , ~ a ~ ~ ; o .~ ~ ~ C ~ E ~, o ~ ~ ~ d T. ~ ~ C ;, ~ ~ R J V ~ t"' ~" r~ hh~ V ~ ~ r~s, ~ R L i. v i a+ ~ ~ Ma ~v~ ~ S~o U ~ a a w W ® ~ ^ • ~ ~ ~ a~ E"t ' ~.~ a s. ~ "C ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ® E~ ® ~ .a ~ ~ d ~ ~' ~ a ~ ~ o ~ c c ~ ~ ~ C ~ v ~ ~ w 5 O R, ~ > > ~ ^ y ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ^ ® k ~ >. rii W ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ 1.+ a h h ~w x ~ o ~o a ~ ~ ~~ a ~v ~'" ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ " „ ~ z ~ a~ ~ ~ w~ ~ a ~~ A ~ S ~ o S o ~ ~ ~ , S ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ , a ~ OZ as v v ~ ~ ~ UW W ~ a~ 0 w w A ~. ^ ~ A~ y ~ ~ d ~ n.~ ~ , ~, ~ H a a Q ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ H W S a ~~,// r' ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ M ~ ~ ® w c .°; o ~• ~ ® ,~ ~ c W +~ ~ ~ :~ ~ v ~ ~ ~,, o w ° ° ~ ~ o z ~ ~ , ~ F W ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ z owz A M 7 W Z a W ~~ ~ ~ Z WSA~ •7 ~ ~ ~ a O O ~ rr o E"' Z F~ ~W~ ~ ~ as ua.a o ~ q w W A N ' z' w~ ~~ a z a a W a a a W ~., a 0 1 ~ ~ ° a °' ~ ti ~ !~ y G G y y ~ ~ C y V ~ y y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ Z z ~ x ~ r ~ ~ o°', ~ .., M ~ M C ~° o'' ~ '~' cQ"• ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ v a o ~ o z~~~, H ~ z~ w a~ O~ a Al lS~I TF Ey a y ~ H ~ ~ '~ ~ a~ d~' A EXPLANATION OF FACTS: ~ ~ ~'~~a a° ~ ~ A! ~ ~ ~ m'".. ~~ ~~ ~, I °i~ ~F i [' f 1 4~ ~, f' r_ ~ E/~i ~ ~~^;+a,. ~ ~a! ~T d' i t (r #~ dd F ~ ~ ~ G `~N,. '" "~ ~:~ ~ ~ 4. ~' L~ ~y'',,,0 ~ I~'. ~~ A I Y f..,.~'.~ ;~,,_. r ~ ~ ,1 %~~ h.,. S.+k ri~~t°~ t Y '+w^' ~rt~ F ~ S ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' t` `~ 6~ ~~ ~ -r ' i EXPLANATION OF ISSUES: ~ ~ t''~ ,~ ; ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ A A. IIQUESTtONS REGARDING THE ISSUES: STAFF GOAL ON THIS REQUEST: ~' a ..~, ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~,~ ~°~~% ~ ~~ ~.~~ ~ ~' ~:~- js/c/forms/as.ri,rt 04/12/95 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: 1. 2. 3. 4. LEGAL DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION 'ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATION: EXPLANATION OF LAW: RANGE OF OPTIONS.: ATTORNEY: DATE: js/c/forms/assist 04/12/95 ~~~~ElVED DEC ~1 ~ TO: Applicants With Items Before City Council FROM: ~hyllis Jarrell, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: Results of City Council Meeting of August 22 At its meeting of August 22, City Council .took action on the following: Public Hearing: --~~Zon~ng Case 94-26 ~ Applicant: City of Plano DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance {Section 3-1100) for a parking deferment program in shopping centers. APPROVED: 7-0 DENIED: TABLED: STIPULATIONS: City Council .amended the Zoning Ordinance requirements for .Off-Street Parking and Loading to add Section 3-1115 and allow a Parking 'Deferment Program for neighborhood .retail centers. Section.3-1115 Parking Deferment Program 1. Purpose - This- section establishes the requirements and procedures for using a parking deferment program for certain uses. The program is designed to reduce. parking. for new or redeveloping neighborhood shopping centers. The program. will allow a reduction of parking .spaces .from the requirements normally .required by the Zoning Ordinance. The ..:program encourages increased landscaping 'and a reduction in the amount of pavement. N:PAC/08-22-CC Honorable Mayor & City Council Zoning Case 94-26 August 23, 1994 Page. 2 of 5 2. Definition - A parking deferment is an allowed reduction of .the total required parking for neighborhood centers (including new and redeveloped centers).. 3. Eligibility. - The. program may be used for neighborhood retail centers, as defined on the Future .land Use Plan, that are 8-15 acres in size, with the following requirements: a. New and Existing Centers New Centers - Parking may be deferred when. a new anchor. store and/or structure larger than 15,000 square feet... Existing Centers - Parking may be removed and deferred as part of the demolition and reconstruction for a new anchor store, the remodeling or addition of in-line lease ;spaces, the repaving .and striping of parking areas and the addition of new landscaping. 4. Prohibited Uses - Parking shall not be .deferred for general office, medical office, indoor commercial amusements, private clubs wi'tth bar and waiting areas, free standing buildings of 5,000 square feet or less, free standing restaurants, outdoor commercial amusements,. movie theaters, building supply stores, nurseries and garden centers. 5 Prohibited Areas - Retail and commercial uses in the U.S. 75 and Preston Road Corridors are not eligible for the program. The U.S. 75 Corridor is the-land within 1,000 feet of the east right-of-way line of U.S. 75 and within 1,500 feet of the west right-of-way line. The Preston Road Corridor is the land within 3,000 feet of the 'center line of Preston Road. 6. Extent of Reduction.- 15% of the total parking spaces requred'may be deferred (calculated using the standard parking rates for the particular use in the Zoning Ordinance).. The reduced parking area shall be subject to the following: a. Increased Landscaping Area Land used for .deferred parking must be maintained as a landscaped area with sod, and shrubs. Tree plantings are also encouraged. All landscaped areas must be fully irrigated. N:PAC/08-22-CC Honorable Mayor & City Council Zoning Case.: 94-2b August 23, 1994 Page3of5 b. Limited Rear Yard Parking No more than 10% of the required parking may be located at the rear of the shopping center. Areas reserved for deferred parking may not be located to the rear of the shopping center, in drainage easements, or in other unsuitable areas. 7. Procedure - The .parking deferment program includes items "a° through "e" as described below. A preliminary site plan must be submitted fore approval with any application. for participation in a parking deferment program. The applicant must also enter into a performance agreement. with the City of Plano. To .ensure the submission of adequate -information, the Development Services Department is hereby empowered to maintain and distribute a list of specific requirements for the parking-deferment program. a. Pre-Application Conference The .applicant should schedule an appointment with a staff member of the Development Services Department to discuss .the program and its applicability to the project. b. Baseline Parking Assessment The total parking requirement must be calculated using the standard parking rates for the particular uses'in the Zoning Ordinance. Land must be reserved on site to meet the baseline parking .assessment, and may not be located to .the rear of the shopping center, in drainage easements, or in-other unsuitable areas.- c. Performance Agreement All, property owners in a neighborhood center must agree to the program regardless of the fact that their property may or may not be eligible for a deferment. A change in land use will requirre review of the agreement to determine if additional parking is needed. The performance agreement shall: (1) Be signed by all property owners in a neighborhood, center at the time of preliminary site plan submittal.'' This specification allows staff to make certain owners are aware. of the agreement. (2) Require common access. and parking between all lots and owners. N:PAC/08-22-CC r Honorable Mayor & City Council Zoning Case 94-26 August 23, 1994 Page 4 of 5 (3) Specify the number of parking spaces which are being deferred and the type of development used to allow the deferment. (4) Require annual. parking demand monitoring reports which will note .any changes. in occupancy or demand for additional parking. (5) .Provide penalties for failure to comply with the above as stated in Article 6, Section 6-400 of this Ordinance. d. Preliminary Site Plan Approval A preliminary. site plan showing how the total parking requirement (baseline assessment) could be met must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. One hundred `percent of the. required parking shall be shown on the preliminary site plan. The plan sfi all indicate the total number of spaces. required, th'e number eligible for deferment, those actually being deferred, and areas held in reserve. e. Planning & Zoning Commission Review The Planning & Zoning ..Commission shall review all proposed parking deferment programs. The Planning & Zoning'Commission shall approve, modify or deny the proposed projectl, based on the following: (1) The effect of overflow parking on adjacent properties and streets; and ` (2) The feasibility. of providing deferred .parking if the agreement is revoked. NaPAC/08-22-CC ~--' ~ , CourG1~ ov e or ty r . irg v ~ oc ~ ~1 ,~ to ra b U~Gi1 0 ..cable Me 9~,~6 commies fina~Glty r of ~ gya ~°r~ r9 ~' 3 > >99 o~1rg ail bto ire membe f 1,1 that tio~ ust 2 f 5 ~ ti t sh ade r or . r by ter the pu9ge 5 ° Q~arr 9 eemo~ is oirec ammisslo ro ~t1fiea°e by Q eats of thfecca, declsc~l°ef the pireotos °r taKe Pmeetlr ty PPP for , de the t Se ~ ° he minis a`J i~ o f • deGi s cklrg a~ of oPmer ui si ° of t re o° ti °r a Pub, he Pr a e and the a Pa aPQe Oevethe d offloe ioh t if1Ga at tot c1e ur°1 , deny ss ar part' eat. the or wh h ~°t s5lon seat th 1r ft`J Go an ~` ~e aP ~i ay aP a. 1~ d to 5u omm be for e C r th . sec the G P m PPPe ~ the Sion • the Sha11~ set, ~ ro l ate i s for \ pour` a of f ter dec ' r9 by eat sha ea rg ea> > s1 Noti oday s ao f 1t ~ cud 1 aPP eat the aP oeetl o f PPPhe deo P~ ar ~, ten. ica'~t ar ora of arof PPP fob ub~1c tine erne t d the ith aPP1 of t1Ge t1Ge basis at a the .Nor ces rematert W meat tee Pore No the Peal hicb odify riate co~`s15 t ~ r aP w ~~ Wci ec • f ashy r the e or icm~ .m aPpr°dirgs oGO G1s ~orsldthe d day aff wherePcocee sra~1 after our ~1 aid r { urthec ~'~, days pit`J ~ s~o fo ed -the Gomm1~'SSi°rsior • e revon - t~~ colors deol emert Shad agrevmeW ',,\ pound the Pgre agceeme~tecrose,~di~g & 19' `,, oK~rg ce aced of P 1rg \ rev ormar e st rers Q1arP Gomm fs ,,` g • -the Per with oQe ty by esert t~~e agre ~\ ~omPe~ to P ~eeti~`may P ~~g t°~, 1°~` ~t~' 9a~ Pubrty owocr~or Q1a rleg ~°rt ru ~ QroP laps f .the ire. thessmenf '~ t, u ss o ~,\\\ gP~?~eto Qa ki~~1{1~a5 prc ~~ c1g ~1re ce rg `~,, b ~bSeAu ~a Par~1 s ltio `''~ add ,, ~\ Su~~' ~, tt, Sutra reu} dti es Oi ~®~ Or • J~ Ke`1~° pePu pff f~ ,\ Xu; ~1'°d~icby diva' ieW St'. , Sharon M~ ~t rev eVe~oP 0 ,, ,~ ,, ,, ,\ ~ p~ a ~1 ~~~ P S A V ` --------~4~~= ---~-- - - - - - n - ~- 3~G ~~ ~ . C D (J`~N L \ ~ ~r`Z~, u ~'cs _~-e' '. ~1~-tai r G ~~ C~. . i j ~ $~~~r ~ ~~,~ P f t%I C.~T'T ` ~ ~~ ~~~ ..~~ Froperiy management Becky .Rube -- Apartments t lus, 18u8 D, Brothers Bivd. C.S., T~ 77845 (030-5487) Biii Boyett -- Gn-Line, 3700 E. 23th, Bryan, i X 7 %uu2 (L08-SbL0}. Brazos 2020 Vision Dr. Florita Be1i Griftm, Executive Director, F.G. Box 3573, Bryan, i~ 77805 (200-5275} Cif of ~oilege Station Todd IvicDaniel-- Policy Analyst Tim Callaway -- asst. i~irector of Economic and Development Services Jane Tree-- City Fianner Elrey Ash, B.E. -- Director of Economic and Development Services Mark Smith -- Fublic services (AII addresses P.G. Box 33ti0, C.S., TX 77842-0360 (764-3570}} City of Bryan Sohn Piackburn, Director of Community Services I3epartment, F.G. Bob 1000, Bryan, TX /7805 (361 sb43), (777-G2ii-mobile), (36i-3835-rax) Gff -Campus Aggies - Ann i7oodman , Associate 3irector, Studeni Life, Gffice of Siudeni Life Texas A~i University, TX 17843-i 257 (845-174 ) Stephanie Stone, Gff-Campus Aggies Siudent l'cepresentative Gff-Campus Aggies , F.G. Box 5084, C.S. ~iX 77844 (845-U688) Texas A~Iyi universiiv Dr. Charles W. iiraham, l~IA -- Dept. of Construction Science, College of Architecture, Texas AEI University, Coiiege Station, 1X 77843-3 i s7 {845-u116) (~Ax 801- i 572) T .~. iswa -- Depi. of Landscape Architecture and .Urban Fianning (i.and 33eveiopmeni}, C oliege of Architecture, Texas AcSC'M University, Coiiege Station, i~X 77843-3137 (845-0216) Bruce Bateman -- T~iept. of ~;onsiruciion Science, Coliege of Archiiecture, Texas ABilvi University, Coiiege atation, ~i~X 77843-3137 (845-G2i0} Dr. VVaiier VVendier, AiA, mean of College of Architecture, Texas AacIYi University, Coiiege Station , T~ 7 7843 (~45-1221) 03iu3i35 ~lll'V~IV1~tJ1~111' Y ~+ I~T~TirAlvc::~I~i~N 1' YK(J(iKAIVI J'i'~L+~LKII\Iti (;V1V11'Vll'1''1'LL mist of iviembers ,,-,, j~ea1 Estate Marsha Sanford -- IG~ Iniversity jjr. ~. C.S., 1 X /%2540 (g46-28y4} Winnie darner -- 1st American Bank, p.CJ. t3ox 262S1~, C.S., TXX / JS41-y1-16 (2611-4442) j`h'. Wayne rater -- inept. of rnance, Texas h&Ivi university, / /Z543-42125 ($4J-2(.Nl(J) En ineerng cu i~evejo~meni I~iike IvlcCiure, P.E. --1 iL2 j~roadmoor, Suite 2111th, jiryan, 1 x 77Su2 (776-67uu) illavid Mayo, p.E. -- Kt. 3, Sox 413, C.S., 1~ /72S4J or 217 Yost Uak C.~ircle, (:.5. l J~45 (bell)-33725) Charles (Jack) Godwin, p.E. -- 23 i-t Frankjin, jiryan, i~x ! /8Q~1 (Sl2-G~t~} ~uiiders John Godfrey --4611 I..ocksforci t~}r. ~., Fsryan, Tx 77Su2 (/74-4~2$) wailace Phillips -- 717 Wiiiow Loop, i>.5., i~ 7784 (6~3-iSs~i) Randall Pitcock -- i iu2 Fsayou ~%voods, C.S., i x 77u4t~ (764- 75~ j} Apartment. Association Rosemarie Ti.,. Selman -- 24t~2 jiroaamoor, Building D2, Suite u2, jiryan, T`~ 77$62 (776-~5~9) Janei lager Smith -- iuuurioiieman (Enclave Apts.}, C.S., ix 778u2 (6~4-3 71~} (cast president} Community Appearance Committee j'ir. JohnNichois -- 1317 Angelina, C.S., T~ 77S4u{$4~-S4~i) (Chairman) jar. Sarah Jones -- ty t'OI'est llr., l;.S., iX 17254U (254f)-3Z53S-j (Vice-l:tlail'} Banking jndustrv jvan Glson -- First American plank, i i i i sriarcrest imve, Bryan, Texas 778u2 (26u-43uu) Tim Jones -- Victoria Bank anti 'Trust, iSUi hock Prairie Rd., C.S., T~ ! 7254) (116-341J) Terry Rowan -- 457y Sandpiper Cove, C.S., 1'X 771543 (6yU-724%}, (/ 76-3221)%work), (7 76- 32'14%32311%t'ax} Homeowners Associations jar. Ray ivjartin -- i2G Peterson, C.S., Tx 77543-2132 (Raintree) ix. Sharon Colson, -- Community Affairs Editor, Educationaj Broadcast Services, i~Alvii7, Texas A~L.1Vl i3nlVersity, ~.~., TX !72543-4244 (6J6-6t~JU) .TOhri i{1ChardS -- '12101V1Uilsori Ave., i~.S., lX 71254 {6~6-6UyJ} AIChIteCtS Charlie Burris, f11A -- 51'1 University )!rive E., 2'11, C.S., 1 X % 12S4U (L6U-263J) v3iirliy5 t ~v7 n' ., ,r ~ ., r - ~ ~~~ ~_y. ~i ~~ \1 ~~ ( ~ t~ e .,?~~ Vl/ r J t•' _- v zv ~ , `iwl ~ ~ , : , ., J. , ~~~ ~ +~ -,~ ~, ! ~, t~/ ~~ ~ ~ '~Jjf f ~ " PK „ ~~ "~ Jj -~, . ~-- ~.:.; s^ t ~ I (_ Sm' t~ t t~ ?' ~ 1 ` y~ l7 ///~pp~ f ~ ~~ , ,. ~ t, _ `.q~. ,- ~ , -, s ~ t i j i. __. _ __ ._ i I ~, r `~' ~ ~,. .. ~ .~ wx . N F ~.:C .. `~ ai g' E f ~. SSS "' ~ . `~ ~ r . ~ i F .. `..., _ ~~ ~^ i .. _.. _. \ ~ ~ t v ~ ~ i. ~!- .+ _... _ ;w. ..,. ,r. ~ ._ s - ~ ~. .. ., .. _. "'~''t ryr~ ', y ' E; 1 J U _..._ as' ~(` ~ i ~ ~ - i ;" f J!~ f ~ f { lr , .... s .,.} f L. ` { .. `'~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I `~ Building Division ~' .S. yes ~ ~~ ~ ~~~''`. ~ ` SPA ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ', eft' .~ ~ / ~" t r nE 'fi'r 0 '~ ~ _ ~, Y ' I _ `. ,f 3 m ~, J r ., ,r' _ ,t i ~ .F t~ ~ ~, ¢~.+ } ~~ ~~ .. ~ ~(/~, ~- .__, _ _ . __ _ _ _~ _ a~ ._ _~` _. . _ __ _. ~; ~~ _~ a MEMBERS 1. John Godfrey 2. Tony Jones 3. Charles Thomas 4. Glen Thomas 5. Bill Boyett (On Line) 6. Ron Lightsey 7. Jim Griffin 8. Sandy Martin 9. Rose Marie Selman 10. Charles Burris 11. David Mayo 12. Winnie Garner FOCUS GROUP PHONE NUMBER wk: 846-4574 776-6111 764-9317 764-9317 268-8620 823-0006 845-9950 696-1848 776-5549 260-2635 690-3378 260-4333 ~ Z~ a~^-~.5 ~Ao~ 1-, ~tic~ 1.7 ..~ L 1~'r-vow ssa••n l~~'1 - ~~ ~~r. i ~,~,~ `~ ."a",gQ v~. ~7c~b't~ay ~ ~ ~,.~ _. ~s5~7~ho ~~R ~ 1 ?y:y.a~ ~1- ~~ u ~ ~ ~~ ~~^~ Ci~Q-~~,.. ~~z23 ~ s?tb-') J,~ d~1.~ na i w+oLh„ _ S(1-t~ff~,~ 1N~ '2 ~M~-'ub'd 13~1c - X~ v i'i9ha nva t O N •. 5 ~~ flQ~~ „_ ~I ~ ~ .1.~ v~+ W ~L~1 S .~ y - L ~ Nl/~ r;~~ ~9r.1 9~vl~JC2L_~,",j -_'' ~a+~11,1~~, .1.~7~7J~~w _' ~~ S1S~ .2,tarJEJ rz2~ 1 ?~~ 9 Ci t ~ 41, s'7~µt3' ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~' ~ a *I o~ - .~.~ i 9 N~ /a 4+~ xa't d n ~ f c'~ S ~'7 4~~~ ~'i~ o vU ._... • L W ttJ s 9~y~ ~~_ ~~ oN ~. •~ ( ~ 1 ~~ 4~~y~ `~ ~ ~~ 9M -1- ~ d ~~'ad~ • ~ S 4 ~ c ~, Si ~~" y~Y1~J ~5 _~~~~. - ~S X11 ~JI~ S»~~ 9M'~~V C T - 3 ~~ (easE ~ 3 ~-~,.,o~Ts ~'(~t~l. ~Ncc~NT~dt~ .S~sT' orJ o <`-"-_'_ CT -' ~-d ~,,, o ~r~' ~t-r~ ~ 'Te>s t~'r Pmt. ~CL (~ssK~. or~' ~. b...~} - q.~u s~~ C 1 -- ~ ~AMM1ll,tr~6 ~~Ga ~+CR R2 Stic-FlUt~ I ~~? . .,.r~ /~Sc_p (L~ v' ~ C~lLfl ~.-~ d to T.~ ~ 3> G -' ~a~ Fic,~~n -- VuT ~~i- - ~fl.n~N ~v~{~tic~2.sr~,~' '°' ~D L'oNS1 STr~ L i ~N ~sE S'1~'f"CtC, ~Trq-N p~~S ~C~ R --' ~ cd~i-T t~tzo•Po rz-c i o,~ c~~= ~ v~~-~~ ~ a ~/t K ~~s-- `P ~M-• t ~.; o ~ `(~'i~~ ~-1,t~ ~. a`~ ~~tSor~1S t n- ~NiT / ~CT-ac•r o'~ L~~~nu ~; ~wu ~,,,,~1l~Cl..S = SI~OrC.T^ (Gl2?~'^ ~ aCL_D, ~~-~"~ C~'t'td t~ I ~. ~ ^ ~ t~"^'~'P ~ ~ o~ -'~ ~n-tit`( s~'...9 ~rw5' ~ a l~ ~i'K},F,-~ i ~ ~ ~i STrN CrT, o r~ ^~ r `~I CrTy of `~ c ~~ ALLEGE POST OFFICEBOG~QL pEpgRTME STATj~~ X 9960 Nl. COLLEGE STgTION TEXAS 77 ~ 101 TEXAS gVENUE (409) 764.3507 X2'9960 MEM~RAN~VM ro: • FROM' Cath Y Locke, City Attorney REr ,w DgTE. ,~ ^J---7- . G ~,~ e F "nom! ~ ~~ ~~ f ~' ~ ~ :*a s r s YOUr request requests has been received neCeSSa pending at this time. by the Le request is .for us to In order to gal CePa~ment. as followsprioritize dePattmental eques Slish all the Ww have numerous As of this ~me a have --_ Your re ~ the statustof ~l ore as puss blest has not been assigned to a Y r --~~" Your re n attorney, but will be assi If the at o ney nes been gned as soon assigned to eds more information "~ If You feel that the Le ' Y°u II be cunt please make gal Department needs ted. . support sure that informations more information to noted on the request or Prioritize quest provide your re We will provide further ' understand that here re n e le written gal suppo~ you re umerous competin quested as soon as 9 needs. Possible. Please CL cc: ~~ ~k~rzsaN 1~~-0~ - g~ aurn 8A-rl. -- ~ t l = 13 2 t~i 3 X l1 = 143 ~~ t26om ~q T~ - --- ------ T3 fz~"Z - _ l ~ x ~ a' ~ „ -- ---_l ~ ~-~ _ -_ . -- - _- - ~ 13 rZ 1 - 1 l 8" ~ ~ - 1. ----- - ,, F3'tZ. ~ , .., X ~ - ~ 1 ~ `~-_ la4 ~ -- . --- -- i~R~ 2 - Ih = a4 _-_ - ~ v m ~- ~-~ Gov L E - 3 ~3 E ~ iz~r 2 ~Z - B~ ~ 2 - Spa R __ __ __ ~- ~L ~4 ``'rz rZ N !-~~ 1-~0~~~ ___ ~ ---- ~o M ~u ism - 14' c~ ~, ~ ,~ 3, ~ ,, _ 200 ~ , ONE t tAu ~~ -~ l4~ G" ~ ter' q " ~ 144 ~. ~ ~(L~'~ i ~ _ ld ~:12. l26 ~ _, _ '~~2_ ~ ~4~12 ~ ~1~~~ _ - 13 R~ 3- ;~ 5g ~ _ ;_ _ __- I ~1G _ 1 ~ _-~ - As-cc ,. - 1 ~ T`~J ,~ _ i 1I --_ a - i I - '~ ,~ .,~ w~ vHt P G y TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY w y Departmenf of Construction Science ~~ K' ~ 1876 , 26 April 1995 Jane Kee City Planner P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842-0960 dear iVls. Kee: Things are happening pretty fast with the Community Enhancement Program for College Station now so we .need to schedule a couple of meetings of the Steering Committee. At the meeting on April 13th we reviewed the preliminary findings of our team's meetings with the community groups in town. We also reviewed .the preliminary findings from a telephone survey of 27 cities in the United States that are much like College Station - small-to-mid-sized towns with major universities in them, meaning high rental rates,. and .much .student ..turnover in residency. Some interesting patterns have begun to emerge from these investigations that ..will give us direction for future activities.: Bruce Bateman, T.H. Kwa and I have begun work on .the fifth:. phase of the project, which is the investigation phase, by doing -the above, and- including literature reviews to see what: we can find in the printed media about community enhancement. We have also begun the process of designing a series of surveys for the residents of our community. Among these are a survey of the students and their perceptions and experiences with housing in College Station, a survey of parking conditions in the multi-family housing areas (including duplexes, tri-and four-plexes etc.), a survey of housing conditions and perceptions. of single-family residents, and a variety of less structured surveys on City .operations such as garbage collection, zoning enforcement, fencing and screening requirements etc. A majGr GGY'icern Gf tiie C1ty ~GilnCi' right nGw in7 parkn~T .iii "tl2e iiii'.It'i-famlly a~'e2S. An -issue of interest to some on .the Steering .Committee of our project is the student survey. These concerns need to be addressed, probably first by smaller sub- committees of the whole group, then brought to the whole .Steering Committee for action. We .also need to develop accurate. information for the City Council,. Planning and Zoning Commission and other elected and appointed bodies looking to our Committee for guidance, and this will require valid data collection procedures.. To .respond. appropriately, we will need to have good research designs based on valid scientific approaches, while' keeping in mind the realities of .our unique community and how this information can .best be collected. On- issues such as parking, the City Council has deferred to the Community. Enhancement Program Steering Committee to provide information and suggestions and so this signals at once the importance of what we are doing. 'Our elected officials are looking to us for guidance on matters. such as '~~ 422 Lan ford Buildin A • Colle e Station, Texas 77843-3137 • (409) 845-1017; FAX (409) 862-1572 9 g 9 these. Your participation on the Steering Committee is therefore greatly needed and appreciated. We need to have a balanced perspective leading to a consensus on each topic we address. Given the timeliness of the .parking and other matters,. we have decided to call two meetings- of the Steering Committee over the next few weeks. These are as follows: iTncomin,g Steering- Committee Meetin~s- Thursday, May 4, 1995; 12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m.- `Form subcommittees (parking, .student and resident surveys, city operations, and study designs) Review a proposed student survey form Review proposed interim parking requirements for multi-family housing including duplexes, tri- and four-plexes etc. Thursday,. May 18, 1995; 12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m. - Second review of interim parking requirements for Planning and Zoning .Commission Review progress on student surveys, .sister city surveys, other resident surveys, city operations analyses The. City has also decided recently to do some belt-tightening and so we are going to have to "brown bag" our lunch meetings from now on. We hope that you will still find participation worthwhile however. It cannot be emphasized enough how much the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, City Staff and other ', groups appreciate your 'dedication to this project. We all want to have a quality community to .live in, and we all want to make the best decisions possible based on good information. Some members of the Steering Committee are already involved in subcommittee discussions of focused topics. Ultimately, however, the membership of the entire Steering. Committee needs to develop a consensus on matters with a policy implication and so this is why we will use the subcommittees to draft ideas for presentation and consideration by the entire Committee. The City administrative staff will be contacting you shortly before the meetings to confirm your attendance. Please put these dates on your calendars now, to hold these times open. Future meetings .will be announced as they become necessary. Unless I see you before May 4, at a subcommittee meeting, I look forward to seeing you then. Sinc rely, ~• Charles W. Graham Project Coordinator Public Information Plan For Development Services Requested by Jane Kee May 1, 1995 For: Comprehensive Plan Public Meetings-May 23, CS Conference __ _ - Center, 6. p.m. Goal: To gain broad based public attendance and input into the public _ meetings to be held on the CS Comprehensive Plan. Objective: Utilize all media formats to disperse the information without spending additional advertising dollars. Action Plan: Place. advertisement. in "City News" to be distributed on Tuesday, May 16 through EAGLE distribution. Place information about the meeting on the government access channel. Use spot on WTAW talk radio on Thursday, (May 18, 8:15 a.m.) to discuss the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the meeting Spot on KYLE TV to discuss (Wed. 7 am May 17) Request'spot'on Brazos Valley This Morning Jane towrite as editorial on the ComprehensivePlan meetings for Sunday,'-May 21 EAGLE(due May 17) Request, time with EAGLE Editorial Board Request KBTX to do interview with on May 23, the day of the meeting,wth Joe Pobiner, consultant Request information to go into Chamber of Commerce Momentum We will have to forego the use of bill stuffers for this project until Bruce can work out the general policies and procedures with the BST. cc: L. Piwonka B. Yancy N. Thomas ro r z z z d 1~ C 1~ ^z ^ ^ ^ d r 0 b z y z n v b z y z y H Q /~ til 1 H ~: ~~ ~:r d i A~ O c c ~. ~~ C" y r ~C d C Ir Ib i~ ~~Z y ~ ~ ~ ~ " d ~ ~ ~m "' „:~v~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~n% ~ 4~ ~, ~~ ,~~, ~ ~'D ~Q ~~~y~ ~ mow. i 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ r y r ~C d C r O b Z y b ^ 1 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ '„ 0 d ~d C" b '~ x z II 1 1 IJ d b C'' h~ P1~ ~d • • ~s • ~r [M ~i M~ ~• ~` • 1 1 ~v.: ,.-t ~i 1 1 d ~d t" ~~ Q ~® F••• O ,r. ~D ~+ n ~d O r 1 1 ^ ^ :. ~g~ -~:_ Y r y y C • r^^i • a i i ~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 0 ~. W A~ t~ ~D A~ i..i. w.r. e~l~ ~d i i ~+ N • ~• M~ • s ry Mai 0 d b r t ~• '~ O O ~D a a. 0 ara e a. i ~. A~ ~.+• • [V A~ ~Q O ~! "~ A~ ~D (V A~ ~+• O 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ C" C" r y r ~c i ao i ~ o O ~ o ~ • ~ n ~ ~ ~. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ w ~ ~ .p i O i ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ 0 n ~` ~ CITY OF' COLLEGE STATIOI`I ,~. A 4 ~~s: ~:~~Szce ~30:~ 9~~C? 1?Q~ 7e_~~s ~verxe:e 1 ~, ~~;leg€ st<ai:ac>r~, T=.:,~~s 77€3-~2-9~~io -~'~'; 7~~b--35oCS August 16, 1995 Maxus Construction ATTN: Mr. Kolb Berryhill 901 Colgate College Station, Texas 77840 RE: Parking Lot Island on University Commons North Complex Dear Mr. Berryhill: During a visit to your complex this morning, Veronica Morgan and myself measured the. amount of clearance around the parking island in front of Building 10 as requested by the College Station Fire Department. They were concerned about this area not being large enough to use the ladder truck in case of an emergency. This truck is needed to provide proper fire protection due to the size of these buildings. We were able to substantiate their concerns from our field measurements. It appears that during .construction, this island was not constructed as designed and therefore decreases the required turning radius. As we .discussed with you this morning, this radius will need to be improved. in order to provide the necessary fire protection for the property owners as well. as the tenants. The reduction of this island will not require any:. additional .landscaping nor will it require any additional ,green space to be relocated. However, it does not preclude yourself from meeting the City's landscaping requirements. In reconstructing the island, please provide a minimum horizontal clearance of three (3) feet from the back of curb to the face of the fire hydrant. If I can be of any assistance, feel free to contact me at 764-3570. Sincerely, Steve Homeyer Graduate Engineer cc: Kent Laza, City Engineer Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Jane Kee, City Planner `~ Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator David Dobbs, Quality Assurance Inspector Jon Mies, C.S.F.D. Fire Marshall ~~~~ oaf ~'e~~s E~~~~ ~~~w~~ ~6~y Honorable Mayor & City. Council Zoning Case 94-26 August 23, 1.99 4 Page 5 of 5 f. Appeals The decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve or deny a parking deferral agreement shall. be final and binding unless an appeal of the decision is made to the City Council. The applicant, Development Services Director or member of City Council_ may appeal the decision of the commission by filing a Notice of Appeal in the office of the Director, no later .than ten days after the dace on which the commission notifies .the applicant of its decision. Such notification may take place by means of an oral ruling by the commission. at a public meeting. Written notice of any appeal shall be sent to the property owner. The Notice. of Appeal shall set forth in clear .and concise fashion the -basis for the appeal. The City Council shall consider the appeal at a public meeting no later than 45 days after. the date on .which the Notice of Appeal is filed. The City 'Council may affirm, modify or reserve the decision of the commission and may, where appropriate, remand the plane... to the commission for further proceedings consistent with City Council's decision. g. Revoking the-Agreement The performance agreement shall be revoked for failure to comply .with the stated terms of agreement. Notice. will be given to property owners of pending review of the agreement at a public meeting by -the Planning & Zoning Commission. The property owner may present the commission with new information or plans .for conforming to the agreement. After review of the agreement,. the Planning & Zoning Commission shall have the right to require the construction of parking to meet the baseline parking assessment if the agreement is revoked. No subsequent certificate of occupancy will be issued. until addi ional parking is provided. TD/dz xc: Dr. James Surratt, Superintendent, PISD Linda Keylon, Director of Tax/Utility Billing Ray Kirby, Deputy Building Official Sharon Medica,-Office Coordinator Development Review Staff NaPAC/08-22-CC