HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission~~ Z ~OI"1")IYl y S s i o~
X02 /C~ iN~1~.~ Leh. z, i9 ~'9
AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY O F >~,~~5_ §
1
I, ~ji ~~~n~~ as a niernher of the - -_-- - --- _
make this affidavrt and hereby on oath state the following I, and/or a person r persons vela d to me.
have a substantial interest in a br,s~ness entity that would be peculiarly affected by a vote or decision of
the ~~ _ cat CUuncil~CAy+!r~'As~on o~ ,oardl was those terms are defined in Article 988b, V.T.C S
~ s ~~~
The business entity is_"_`~~~~i~ ~,
,..r.. „~ „~.,,
-----~Y ~____. (have/~s) a substanhai interest in this business .entity or the
following reasons: (check all which are applicable).
^ Ownership of 10% or more of the voting or shares of the business entity.
^ Ownership of 52,500 or more of the fair market value of the business entity.
^ Funds received from the business entity exceed 10% of (my. ner, nis) income for the
previous year.
U~' Real property is involved and _ 'µTM~ have an equitable or legal ownership with a
fair market value of at least S2.500
^ A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or property that would be
affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member.
Upon the filing of this affidavit with the (city clerk or secretary) I affirm that I will
abstain from voting on any decision involving this business entity and from any further participation on
this matter whatsoever.
Signed this ~__ day of _
it
Title
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared __ and
on oath stated that the facts hereinabove stated are true to the best of (n~siner- knowledge or belief.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this _ _ ._ _ day of 198__.
Notary Public in and for
the State of Texas
My commrssron expires
~37~Gi
s ,~
~~~
~_- ~~~
Signature of official
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 2, 1989
?:QQ P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Michel, Moore €:
Colson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Davis, Dresser & Esmond
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Gallaway, City Engineer
Pullen, Senior Planner Kee and Planning
Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM NO. l: Approval of minutes - meeting of January 5,
1989.
Chairman Sawtelle directed staff to change the approving signature to refle+~t her
name; Mr. Moore asked that the word "owner" be inserted on the 4th line from the
bottom, on page 4, to make the phrase read "responsi.bility of the property +~wner."
There were no other corrections suggested. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the
minutes with the 2 changes; Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously
{4-0}.
• AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
W. D. Fitch came forward and spoke of his project {golf course, subdivision, etc.)
south of Green's Prairie Road, and issued an invitation to all Commissioners to visit
his acreage or his office to see a model of the project. He offered a guided tour of
the area.
Mrs. Sawtelle and the other Commissioners thanked Mr. Fitch and assured him they
would, indeed, take advantage of his invitation, as they were very interested in his
plans.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3:. 89-800: A public hearing on the question of
revising Section 9.3 of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance
for the City of College Station, specifically affecting the
number of off-street parking spaces required for Motion Picture
Houses.
Mrs. Kee explained the proposed amendment reflects the change as directed b;y the
Commission at the meeting of January 5, 1989, regarding required parking for motion
picture houses. She pointed out the current requirement is 1 space per 2.5 seats,
and the proposed amendment requires 1 space per 4 seats.
'i'he public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Moore stated that since the amendment was prepared at the direction of the
Gommissi.an and reflects the decision made by that body in January, he would make a
motion to approve the proposed amendment. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (4-0}.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 89-201: Final Plat - Southwood Forest Phase
3B.
• Mr. Callaway identified the land being platted and explained the plat. He pointed
out that the Commission has already reviewed and approved a plat for this section of
the Southwood Forest subdivision, but the applicant withdrew the plat from 'the
Council agenda prior to consideration in order to make some changes. He stated that
staff has reviewed this revised plat, and recommends approval with Presubmi:;sion
Conference conditions.
Chairman Sawtelle announced that Commissioner Michel would be abstaining from voting
on this item due to a conflict of interest, therefore, a recommendation can.aot be
made at this meeting because his abstention leaves only 3 voting members, which does
not constitute a quorum. She directed staff to place this item on the agenda far
consideration at which time, hopefully, a quorum will be present.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business.
`t'here was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
Mr. Colson made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Michel seconded. Motion carried
unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
•
,, ~ .~
Chairmanncy Sawtelle
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes 2-?_-89
Page 2
MINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop
February 2, 1989
7:15 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Michel, Moore &
Colson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Davis, Dresser 8: Esmond
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Senior Planner
Kee, Gity Engineer Pullen and Planning
Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Review and update of Cosprehensive Plan; Land
Use Plan and Development Policies.
Mr. Callaway opened the workshop and stated that staff's plans for this review
are to identify changes which have taken place since Plan 2000 was adopted, including
land use imgacts, size and shape of the City, rezonings, and any changes from the
trend at the time the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982.
Mrs. Kee made a slide presentation of certain Base Studies and Inventories tables
which had been prepared by the Planning Division in the spring of 1988, and which
covez•ed information from 1987. She indicated staff is now preparing a revision which
will reflect information from 1988.
• 'Phe highlights Mrs. Kee covered included (1)Population projections, (2)Univ~~rsity
enrollment, {3)Residential building permits and housing projections, (4)Gro;ss sales
covering the Commercial sector, and (5)Labor force characteristics covering
Bryan/College Station combined.
Mr. Gallaway then briefly reviewed the Land Use Report which had been provi~3ed to
each Commissioner with the packet. He highlighted the tables covering the Land Use
Inventory, the areas of Highest Residential Growth since 1982, the areas of Highest
Overall Growth since 1982, and concluded this part of his regort by covering the
inventory of VAcant Land, specifying acreages in the various zoning districts.
Mrs. Kee explained the "holding capacities" of this land, that is, what would happen
if all the vacant land in the various zoning districts became fully developed. She
concluded that the holding capacity for• the vacant land would be approximately
97,000, which is not a population figures, but rather represents the normal number of
people expected to utilize the activity on the land.
Mr. Callaway then reviewed the table covering a Projected band Use from July 1988 to
the year 2000, including the consultant's 1982 projection, the actual increase which.
has taken place between 1982 and July 1988, and the balance needed between :1988 and
2000.
Mr. Colson had to be excused from the meeting at this time.
Mrs. Sawtelle then indicated that this workshop should be adjourned to be rescheduled
• at a later date when, hopefully, more commissioners can attend. Mr. Gallaway stated
that staff's intention is to schedule a 1 hour workshop at the end of each 'regular
P8:L meeting, and if additional workshop are needed, they, too, can be scheduled.
Council Liaison Gardner suggested that the
College Station) should be included in this
separate cities. Mrs. Kee pointed out that
gathered this way.
AGENDA ITEh! NO. 2: Adjourn.
entire metropolitan area (both Bryan and
study rather than treating the area as 2
the Labor Force information has been
The remaining Commissioners complimented staff on the preparation of the information.
There was no other discussion or business, so the meeting was then adjourned.
•
P&Z Workshop Minutes 2-2-8g Page 2
College Station Zone Changes
and Plan Conflicts
1983 - 1988
•
Prepared by the
College Station Planning Division
January, 1989
College Station Zone Changes
And Plan Conflicts
1983 - 1988
• This report identifies rezoning requests that have been approved
since 1983 that were in conflict with the uses reflected on the
future land use plan and/or the development policies expressed in
Plan 2000, the City's Comprehensive Plan document. This effort
is part of the update and revision to the land use section of
Plan 2000. This report does not attempt to identify the reasons
for each rezoning or judge the merit of any. The cases are
identified to facilitate review of the land use plan and
development policies and point to areas where changes in either
may need to be made. There are thirty rezonings summarized by
year and the location of each is graphically displayed on the map
at the end of the report.
1988
In 1988 there were two zone change requests approved that were
not in compliance with the land uses reflected on the future land
use plan. Commercial-industrial zoning and planned commercial
zoning districts were placed in an area reflected as low density
residential. A low density apartment district was located in an
area shown on the land use plan for single family and duplex
development.
1. In the Regency Square subdivision along Holleman near
• Wellborn Road a change to C-2 commercial-industrial (2.36
ac.) and C-3 planned commercial (6.5 ac.) zoning was
approved in an area reflected as low density residential.
2. R-4 zoning (15.87 ac.) was approved in an area near the Rio
Grande and Rock Prairie intersection. This area was
reflected on the land use plan as low density residential.
1987
Four rezonings were approved in 1987 in conflict with the plan.
All four were changes to commercial classifications. C-1 zoning
was placed along Texas Ave. north of Barron Road in an area shown
as high density residential and in conflict with the development
policy stating that commercial land uses be established at major
intersections. C-3 zoning was approved in areas reflected as
high density residential and office commercial on the plan.
3. This request was for C-1 zoning (5.75 ac.) along Texas Ave.
north of Barron Road in an area shown as high density
residential. This also was in conflict with the development
policy stating that commercial land uses be established at
major intersections.
4. In another area reflected as high density residential along
Highway 30 west of Stallings a rezoning to C-3 (.32 ac.)
• took place.
1
5. Along Texas Ave. near Mile Dr. in the Haney subdivision a
rezoning to C-3 occurred where the land use plan reflected
office commercial uses.
• 6. A change from C-N to C-3 zoning was approved on Highway 30
(.70 ac.). This is the current site of the Tenneco project.
The land use plan reflected high density residential uses.
1986
All rezonings that occurred in 1986 that were not in compliance
with either the land use plan or development policies were zone
changes to commercial classifications, either A-P, C-1 or C-2
districts. A-P zoning was approved in areas shown for medium and
low density residential development. Four C-1 requests were
approved in areas shown as low density residential, office
commercial and industrial on the plan. A large C-2 district was
placed in an area reflected as retail commercial.
7. Along the north side of University Drive 200 feet east of
Spring Loop in the University Park subdivision property was
rezoned from R-3 to A-P (1.22 ac.) in conflict with the land
use plan showing medium density residential.
8. On the opposite side of University in the One Lincoln Place
subdivision a C-1 commercial district (2.58 ac.) and an ,A-P
district (.75 ac.) were approved in conflict with the land
use plan showing low density residential uses and in
• conflict with the development policies providing for
commercial zoning at major intersections.
9. C-1 commercial zoning (10.83 ac.) was placed on the
south side of Harvey Road across from Stallings in an area
reflected for office commercial uses.
10. A request for C-2 zoning (54.99 ac.) at the southeast corner
of Texas and Rock Prairie was approved in conflict with the
development policies and in an area reflected as retail
commercial on the land use plan.
11. A C-1 (65 ac.) request was approved on what is now the site
of Greenleaf Hospital in an area indicated for industrial
uses on the plan.
12. A zone change from R-1 to C-1 (.81 ac.) was approved in the
Hrdlicka subdivision in conflict with the development
policies relative to the depth of commercial zones and
locational criteria for commercial districts.
1985
Eight rezonings were approved in 1985 in conflict with either the
land use plan and/or development policies. Seven of these were
changes to commercial classifications. Two C-1 zones were
• approved in areas reflected as low density residential while two
2
C-1 districts and a C-2 district were placed in areas shown as
high density residential. A change to C-N took place in an area
shown as high density residential. This same location was to
• later change to a C-3 classification.
13. Rezonings along University Drive to C-1 (7.9 ac.), A-P (2.06
ac.), R-4 (1.74 ac.) and R-lA (1.70 ac.) were approved in
areas reflected as low and high density residential and in
conflict with the policy to locate commercial zones at major
intersections.
14. On Cooner Street a small lot was rezoned from R-5 to C-1
(.15 ac.) in violation of development policies relative to
commercial depth and location.
15. Along the north side of Highway 30 near the corner of
Stallings a change from A-P to C-N (.70 ac.) took place
conflicting with the land use plan showing high density
residential and contrary to the policy regarding depth of C-
N districts. This is currently the Tenneco site.
16. Along the north side of Holleman 1500' east of Lassie Lane
property was rezoned from A-P to C-1 (8.95 ac.) where the
land use plan reflected high density residential uses.
17. A (36.61 ac.) tract on the west side of Welsh 150' south of
San Mario was changed from R-4 to R-1 in an area reflected
as medium density residential.
• 18. In the Regency Square subdivision a rezoning from a
neighborhood commercial district to C-1 general commercial
(2.17 ac.) was granted. The land use plan reflected low
density residential uses and the development policies called
for a greater depth for commercial tracts than was
available.
19. Just across Holleman on the northeast corner of Holleman and
Wellborn in an area reflected as high density residential a
zone change from R-5 to C-1 (2.33 ac.) was approved. This
placed C-1 zoning adjacent to developed single family
residential uses.
20. On the southwest corner of Graham and Texas C-2 zoning
(10.69 ac.) and R-6 zoning (25.17 ac.) were placed on
property annexed 2 years earlier. The land use plan
reflected the area as high density residential.
1984
Eleven rezonings took place in 1984 that were not in compliance
with the comprehensive plan. All eleven changes were to
commercial classifications. In areas shown for low density
residential land uses rezonings to C-1, A-P, and M-1 took place.
In areas reflected for medium and high density residential land
uses rezonings to A-P and C-1 were approved. Neighborhood
3
•
•
r~
commercial zoning was placed on a small piece of property
reflected for park and recreational use. Several rezonings were
in conflict with development policies relating to commercial
depth and commercial land use at major intersections.
21. Along University Drive in the One Lincoln Place subdivision
a (4.47 ac.) tract was rezoned from A-P to C-1 in conflict
with the land use plan showing low density residential a:nd
in conflict with the policy relative to location of
commercial districts at major intersections.
22. Along Highway 30 a rezoning from R-6 to A-P (.096 ac.) was
approved in an area reflected as high density residential.
23. In the existing Richards Addition shown as low density o:n
the land use plan changes from R-1 to C-1 (6.34 ac. and
2.10 ac.) took place.
24. Two tracts adjacent to the Woodstock subdivision were
rezoned to C-1 (4.97 ac.) and A-P (9.20 ac.) from R-6 in an
area shown as high density residential.
25. South of the Woodstock subdivision and east of the Richards
Addition 32 acres was changed from R-1 to C-1 (26.22 ac.)
and A-P (3.38 ac.).
26. In the Lakeview Acres Subdivision R-1 property (2.52 ac.)
was rezoned to C-1 where the land use plan reflected office
commercial uses.
27. A small tract of land was rezoned to C-N (.46 ac.) from R-1
adjacent to the City's community park in an area reflected
as parks and recreation on the land use plan.
28. Along the east side of Wellborn approximately 200' north of
the corner of Southwest Parkway and Wellborn property was
rezoned from R-1 to C-1 (2.53 ac.). The area is reflected
as medium density residential and conflicts with the policy
providing for commercial land uses at major intersections.
29. West of Texas Avenue in the Matthews subdivision A-0 zoning
was placed on the property upon annexation. A subsequent
rezoning to M-1 (13.69 ac.) and C-1 (6.2 ac.) was approved
contrary to the policy locating commercial districts at
intersections and in an area shown as low density
residential.
30. East of Texas Ave.
from A-0 to C-1 (7
sufficient depth as
and 400' north of
ac.) was granted
required in the
Barron Road a change
on a tract without
development policies.
4
i•
i•
`~
~n ~ ~ '
~ ~ ~
W02{ 3RIN21d SN33aJ
I I I o~ I
,~ I I I I ~ I
~
_
i i~
i
I
~d \
II
I II
d \ 1
I M+
d
I
~ ~.+"~ I
~. ~
~
a ~ •~ i
c i c ~.J
•
~
Q
~ I
I
I
L
W
~
~ .
•,
j .~
I u'a
~ ~
r--~ t
~ ~
W
~.S~u-F
O
c
NVW3T10H ~ C
~i ~ ~
0£ .IMH
7.S'A3Sa3f`
i
L. ._.
s
0
Z
a
m
adr
a
~~
~ ~-•-' ~
- ~
°~s~~
°O ~ cOO~t
~.
.--1
C12
•--~
Pr ~y ((
V
• ~ 111 ~ 3ntaa u~sa3niNn
~._ ._._.~~ I ~
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
• DATE Februarx 2, 1989
i•
NAME
_...y. ~_...
~~~
~ ti
5 . him- L~ r~£:~ -- _ .~.,
~~
~_ ,
7 ~ ~"
. ~ ~~.~
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23•
24.
ADDRESS
r~~_, 3 ~,
`,~
.~
25.
„~ .R
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I
\/
January 26, 1989
MEMORANDUM
j.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jim Callaway, Director of Planning~~~•,
Subject: Plan Update - Development policies a standards.
Attached is a draft document
plan implementation methods.
recommendations (guidelines)
from Plan 2000 and from past
and application of the plan.
identified by staff and are
methods available to achieve
including policies, standards and
The policies, standards and
listed under each heading were taken
staff and Commission interpretation
The Methods of Implementation wE~re
intended to demonstrate tools and
the plans goals and objectives.
This material is not presented to you as a complete and finished
product. It is a starting point for review and discussion. .[n
some cases "Methods" may be duplicative or redundant of
"Policies" as there were multiple sources of information. In
some cases a stated method is a policy decision.
This material will be brought to the Commission for discussion on
February 2.
PLANNING DIVISION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409) 764-3570
C~
•
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
for Plan Implementation
•
IMPLEMENTATION
• The plan provides for the physical development of the city in
various ways. The plan identifies goals for the future, and is
an expression of desires and ambitions. The plan must provide a
guide for decision making that leads to the desired future state
expressed by its goals.
In guiding decisions, both public and private, the plan must
provide a statement of policy. The goals and objectives set
forth in this plan are a general statement of policy. However,
goals often lack the specificity necessary to deal with the
number and range of decisions that must be made. More specific,
clearly understood policy statements are important in providing
this guidance as well as improving public understanding of the
planning process. Policies, standards and guidelines provide a
basis for evaluating concepts and proposals, allowing for
consistency in decision making.
Policies are statements of intent or position that express the
Council's commitment. Policies included herein are those that=
would be applied in decisions regarding development matters.
Standards and guidelines are intended to provide specific
measures for evaluating service delivery and physical
development, both public and private. Methods of implementation
are stated where applicable to demonstrate the tools or
capabilities available to the City for addressing goals and
• objectives or for supporting policy positions.
In addition to providing tools and guides for the City to use in
implementations the statements included in this section
communicate the City's position on development issues. This
allows citizens, neighborhood groups, real estate interests and
developers alike to know and understand that position and makE~
their o~an evaluation of development proposals. Equity and
continuity in plan implementation are enhanced by this knowledge.
The following statements provide policies and standards which can
be used in evaluating development proposals, in making decisions
and in implementing the development plan. These statements are
local policies and standards relative to physical development of
the city and they provide for continuity and equity in plan
implementation. Development policies, recommendations and
guidelines from Plan 2000 provide the basis for these statements.
Plan goals and objectives are restated to allow review for
consistency with those goals while demonstrating a relationship
between goals, objectives and policies and standards.
•
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 2
LAND USE
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR LAND USE
GOAL
ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF APPROPRIATELY ZONED AND LOCATED LAND FOR ALL
NECESSARY TYPES OF LAND USES ARRANGED IN AN EFFICIENT,
CONVENIENT, HARMONIOUS AND ECOLOGICALLY SOUND MANNER.
Objectives
Protect the integrity of single family and multi-family
residential areas.
Encourage the use of vacant land in areas where city
infrastructure and services are in place and readily
attainable.
Avoid strip commercial development and encourage centralized
commercial development.
Guide locations of desired development through zoning and
capital improvements.
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
The land use plan serves to place property owners and
other interested parties on notice as to the City's
• intentions.
The land use plan will be used to evaluate development
proposals.
Single family residential areas should be located
within easy access of shopping, schools and
recreation but should be protected from the
incompatibility of more intensive uses.
Appropriate buffers will be used to provide a
transition between low intensity land uses and
high intensity land uses.
Multi-family residential development
provides appropriate separation between
single family residential areas and higher
intensity land uses.
Residential densities should generally be
graduated, with higher density development
along the boundary of residential areas and
lower densities toward the center of
neighborhoods.
Major streets and other physical features may
• provide separation between incompatible lar,.d
uses.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 3
Office-Commercial development can provide
appropriate separation between residential
and commercial land uses.
Multi-family housing development should be
coupled with open-space and landscaping
requirements to soften the impact of buildings
and paved surfaces. Appropriate locations
include:
Areas where vegetation and natural settings
can be preserved with clustered locations for
housing;
Near but not necessarily on major
thoroughfares;
Adjacent to parks where part of the land may
be used as public park areas;
As buffer zones.
Areas planned for low density residential will
predominantly consist of single family residential
dwellings.
• Other housing types may be used but the
overall density of the area should remain
low. Appropriate other types include patio
homes, zero lot line housing, and townhomes.
Area densities should not exceed 6 units per
acre (gross density, including open space,
streets, etc.).
Medium density residential areas may consist of a
variety of housing types.
Appropriate housing types include, but are
not limited to, apartments, townhomes and
duplexes.
Gross densities should be generally no more
than 14 to 16 units per acre.
High density residential areas provide for the
widest range of housing types.
Appropriate housing types can range from
duplexes to high rise apartments.
• Area gross densities can exceed 16 to 24
units per acre.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 4
Net densities for individual projects can
exceed 24 units per acre only by approval of
• the City Council.
Specific locations for residential developments
allowed as Conditional Uses or Planned Unit
Developments will be considered on an individual
basis.
Commercial activities should be located at points
of high vehicular access.
Points of highest access are at grade
separations along controlled access roadways
(freeways). Secondary points of access ar-e
located at the intersections of thoroughfares
or major streets.
Commercial, general commercial or industrial
zoning on major and minor arterials should
have a minimum depth of four hundred (400)
feet, and individual tracts should be
encouraged to limit access at a minimum
spacing of five hundred (500) feet.
Industrial development should be located on sites
such that surrounding development can be
protected. Suggested locational criteria include:
• Sites should have easy access to ma 'or
J
arterials, be far enough from highway
interchanges to prevent general congestion
and allow efficient ingress and egress;
Depths of 1000' between railroads and
highways are good potential locations;
Traffic arteries can serve as boundaries
between industrial and residential uses;
Avoid at-grade railroad crossings;
Airport related considerations, such as
electronic interference, bulk of air
shipments, and number of employees;
There should be utility availability in
sufficient capacities for industrial
processes.
Improvements in utilities, transportation and
facilities should be provided to promote orderly
and efficient development patterns. J~
Approval of development plans must include
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 5
consideration of any necessary off-site
utility extensions.
• Final approval or development permission f`or
developments requiring utility extension
shall not be made until such extension is
provided for.
Methods of Implementation
The Zoning Ordinance, in Section 8.2,
establishes requirements for screening
fences between residential and higher
intensity land uses. Section 10.2
allows the imposition of additional
requirements when necessary to preserve
the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan,
Sections 7.2 and 7.3 limit the permitted
uses in single family zones, as do the
definitions of various uses both
permitted and excluded in residential
areas.
Initiation of a concentrated effort at
enforcement of Structural Standards Code
(Chapter 3, Section 2, City Code) would
ensure minimum regulations governing
• use, occupancy and maintenance of
dwellings and other structures.
Continue participation in the Community
Development Block Grant Program which
involves Federal grants to upgrade
existing low income housing.
Enforcement of Chapter 7, Sections 1, 2
& 3, City Code would address trash,
weeds, noise and other public nuisances.
Limit annexations and utility servicesa
to growth areas as identified by the
City's Comprehensive plan.
Administer access policies and monitor
for consistency with current City
policies.
Provision or withholding of utilities
should be used as a plan implementation
tool. Contractual agreements can be
used to aid in plan implementation wheen
utility services are sold to areas
within the E.T.J.
•
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 6
TRANSPORTATION
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR TRANSPORTATION
GOAL
BALANCED DEVELOPMENT OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION TO ASSURE THE
FAST, CONVENIENT, EFFICIENT AND SAFE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS
T0, FROM AND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
Objectives
Develop an organized preventative maintenance program foi:
streets to ensure safety and long, economical life.
Provide for the development or redevelopment of major
arterial routes as necessary to prevent traffic congestion.
Develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle
movement.
Study and monitor the need for development of public
transportation systems.
Cooperate with other local entities in efforts to minimize
adverse effects of the railroad.
Support continued development of Easterwood Airport.
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
The thoroughfare plan serves to place property ownet-s
and other interested parties on notice as to the Cit:y's
intentions.
The thoroughfare plan will be used to evaluate
development proposals.
The impacts of developments on area streets and the
ability of those streets to serve developments will be
considered in making land use decisions.
Arterial streets should border on, but not
penetrate, functional urban units, such as
neighborhoods.
Collector streets should direct traffic flow into
arterials but should be less continuous than the
arterial system.
Residential streets should be indirect and
discontinuous.
Access to thoroughfares and arterial streets shall
be minimized and shall be designed to minimize
• adverse impacts on such streets and their carrying
capacities.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 7
• Access points will be consolidated wherever
possible through the plat and site plan review
processes.
Access and drive opening permits shall be granted
in accordance with the Driveway Access and
Management Policy established and administered by
the City Engineer.
Sidewalk and off-street bikeway development shall
be included in plans and programs for improvemE~nts
to developed areas as well as in new subdivisions.
The locations of existing sidewalks and pedestrian
traffic generators such as schools and parks will
be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission when applying sidewalk requirements
under the provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations.
Evaluation of costs and benefits of public
transportation systems should be considered whE~n
evaluating public transportation alternatives.
Fully utilize the capabilities of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization and the State Department of
• Highways and Public Transportation.
Methods of Implementation
Continue oversize participation in nE~w
streets, street assessment and
continuous maintenance programs prov:~de
for development and up-keep of the
thoroughfare plan.
Minimum standards of design for new
streets shall be in accordance with
section 8 of the Subdivision Regulations.
The Project Review Committee will impose
additional requirements under Section
10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance when
necessary to ensure pedestrian safety.
Review all plats for application of
Section 8-G(10) of the Subdivision
Regulations, requiring sidewalks where
appropriate.
Develop and implement a park linkage
• plan to facilitate bicycle and
pedestrian travel.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 8
Review subdivision plats to ensure
• implementation of and compliance with
the Thoroughfare Plan.
•
•
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 9
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r~
U
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL
SOUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DIVERSIFICATION.
Objectives
Encourage industrial, commercial and residential development
compatible with the environment to serve the needs of the
citizenry.
Encourage a wide range of education and training programs.
Encourage active retirees to locate in College Station.
Encourage tourism and convention business.
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
The City supports the development of the College
Station Economic Development Foundation park.
Heavy industries will be guided to suitable areas.
Methods of Implementation
•
Fiscal impacts of economic development
proposals will be analyzed as part of
the decision making process.
Provision of zoning and municipal
services will be used to provide and
preserve opportunities for industrial
and commercial development in
appropriate locations.
Continue to support the local economic:
development foundation(s).
•
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 10
SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
• GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
FOR SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
GOAL
SERVICES AND PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF
ALL CITIZENS AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR PROPERTY.
Objectives
Maintain adequate personnel and equipment to provide police,
fire and emergency medical services to the population.
Develop and maintain various programs and facilities,
including but not limited to parks, recreational facilities,
libraries and cultural programs.
Assure consideration for the physically handicapped.
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
It has become generally accepted that the provisions of
services beyond the human necessities of utilities,
sanitation, fire and police and the like are valid
municipal functions to which land and personnel must: be
allocated. Auxiliary functions such as city
administrative centers, public libraries, meeting
• places, and social centers make up the cultural center
of the city. Generally in smaller communities the
centralization of these functions is adequate to be
responsive to the needs of the public.
There are certain accepted locational criteria for :such
services. These standards should be considered when
the City reviews locations for these services.
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Centralized city hall facilities should be near the
center of the city, easy to find and accessible to a.ll
citizens.
The site should be accessible by a variety of modes of
transportation.
Provisions should be made for accessibility for the
elderly and handicapped.
POLICE
A police facility should be near the geographic center
of the area it serves.
• It should be located on a major street with good access
to all areas of the city.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 11
If possible it should be near any concentrations of
~', ~ commercial and/or industrial development.
FIRE
A central fire station should be located within a 3/4
mile radius around the area of highest development
within the city.
Substations should be located so as to serve areas
within 1 1/4 mile radius.
Substations should locate on, but not facing major
thoroughfares.
The ultimate development patterns of land use are
important in considering where substations should ber.
built in outlying areas.
HOSPITALS
Hospitals should be centrally located and easily
accessible by major thoroughfares.
Locations should avoid conflict of noise, traffic and
night activity with surrounding residential areas.
• LIBRARIES
A library should be centrally located and should be
accessible to pedestrian traffic.
The site should be close to where people work and not
necessarily where they live.
Parks and residential areas should be avoided when
planning a facility.
The site has potential to be a focal point for a
community and this should be exploited.
SCHOOLS
Attempts will be made to develop schools and parks on
adjacent sites.
Locational criteria differ slightly depending on the
type of school being planned however, there are general
criteria that apply to all schools.
Facilities should be within safe walking distance from
home.
Ideally children should not have to cross ma 'or
7
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 12
•
streets.
Sidewalks should exist on both sides of streets.
MEETING PLACES AND SOCIAL CENTERS
Places such as auditoriums should be near other daytime
activities such as offices and administration
buildings.
The facility need not be centrally located, but access
should be clear.
Room for expansion should be available.
CONSIDERATION FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
Efforts should be made to provide easy access for the
elderly and the handicapped to all municipal facilities
and facilities supported by the city.
Methods of Implementation
•
Maintain ongoing capital improvements
planning and programming, reviewing
projected needs and using the
comprehensive plan as a guide to locate
future facilities.
Actively enforce building and other
codes relative to handicapped access and
facilities.
The Project Review Committee will
consider handicapped access in review of
site plans.
•
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 13
PARRS AND RECREATION
• GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
GOAL
A BALANCED SYSTEM OF PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACE.
Objectives
Maintain the high quality and wide variety of park and
recreation resources now available to residents and visitors
and provide for their expansion as needed.
Link selected park and recreation elements by a system o:E
linear parks and parkways, utilization of creekbeds,
drainageways and other natural features.
Combine park and school sites for the mutual benefits to
city and school district whenever functionally and
economically feasible.
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
There are various levels of parks. Locational critE~ria
differ depending on the type of park. Attempts will be
made to locate compatible parks and schools on adjacent
sites
Playground parks providing equipment for young
children should be located on residential streets and
on sites protected from traffic and incompatible usE~s.
Each park should serve a 2-3 block radius area and
should be where no larger parks exist within the
service area.
Neighborhood parks should be located to coincide with
the limits of a neighborhood and adjacent school whE~re
possible. They should be near the center of the
neighborhoods removed from heavily traveled streets.
Community parks should serve 3-6 neighborhoods or a
"community unit". The service area should be a 1/2 to
1 1/2 mile radius.
A central park should serve the total community by
being centrally located and accessible by major
thoroughfares.
Methods of Implementation
Review each subdivision proposal for
compliance with parkland dedication
needs and requirements.
• Continue implementation of the Wolf Pen
Creek Corridor Study.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 14
•
•
Draft Policies, Standards
Develop and implement a parks linkage
plan.
January 26, 1989 page 15
DTILITIES
• GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR UTILITIES
GOAL
THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF UTILITIES NEEDED TO ASSURE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND ACCOMMODATION OF GROWTH.
Objectives
On a regional basis, investigate and develop, if necessary,
surface water sources to meet current and future needs.
Upgrade reliability and constancy of electrical services..
Provide for adequate sewerage.
Encourage improvement in telephone, natural gas and other
privately owned services.
Utilize resources and utilities in City operations so as to
provide a model for citizens to emulate.
Policies, Standards and Guidelines
Development will be encouraged toward areas which ca.n
be adequately served normally by following the
utilities plan. Conversely, development will be
discouraged in areas which strain utilities.
Except for an extreme overriding case such as a
Municipal Utilities District, the City will annex and
provide utilities only when such utilities can be
provided cost effectively.
Methods of Implementation
All development will comply with
stormwater management and floodplain
development regulations.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 16
HOUSING
• GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR HOUSING
GOAL
AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF HOUSING
TYPES AND COSTS.
Objectives
Maintain integrity of existing housing supply, using the
housing code and other controls.
Upgrade minimum building codes to ensure quality and
economic construction.
Encourage the development of energy efficient standards :Eor
new construction.
Encourage the upgrading of deteriorating neighborhoods and
individual structures.
Encourage the development of diversified housing types for
low/fixed income residents through Community Development
Block Grant funded programs and other financial resources.
Institute a building code review board to continually
• evaluate existing codes relative to advances in technology
and materials.
Methods of Implementation
Concentrate efforts at enforcement of:
the Structural Standards Code and ant:i-
neglect ordinances. structures.
Continue participation in the Community
Development Block Grant Program
utilizing Federal grant funds to upgrade
existing low income housing and to
remove dilapidated structures.
Actively enforce zoning regulations that
regulate the use of residences and limit
occupancy of dwelling units.
L'
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 17
COIKMIINITY APPEARANCE
•
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION
FOR COMMUNITY APPEARANCE
GOAL
A BEAUTIFUL, SAFE ENVIRONMENT.
Objectives
Improve and maintain the appearance of municipal properties.
Promote good site design to provide a good appearance,
minimize drainage impacts and increase pedestrian safety.
Develop solutions to abate flooding and drainage problems in
the City.
Prevent and eliminate unsightly conditions such as junk
yards, abandoned vehicles, dilapidated buildings,
dilapidated structures and fences, and excessive weeds and
rubbish.
Develop community-wide pride in City appearance.
Develop and implement street tree planting program,
including a city nursery.
Use high quality design of public buildings and landscaping
to serve as a model for the private sector.
Assure maintenance of signs and fences and the longevity of
required landscaping through effective code enforcement.
•
Methods of Implementation
Actively enforce ordinances regulating
inoperable and abandoned vehicles.
Actively enforce ordinances regulating
the condition and upkeep of vacant and
developed properties.
Actively enforce zoning and building
code regulations which define sign
placement and maintenance.
Actively enforce zoning regulations
which require the installation and
maintenance of landscaping materials.
Continue to support Brazos Beautiful.
The Project Review Committee will
consider appearance from public areas in
review of site plans.
Draft Policies, Standards January 26, 1989 page 18
LAND USE
•
LAND USE
• An evaluation of current land use is an important element in
evaluating existing conditions and relationships, determining
present problems or deficiencies, and projecting future land
uses.
The City,, through its efforts in developing and adopting Plan
2000 in 1983, determined the direction that future growth should
take. The consultants at the time examined the three directions
available for expansion; to the east, the west and the south.
They reviewed environmental criteria, natural and man-made
elements, and holding capacities and concluded that there was
good potential for growth throughout the three areas, but the
highest potential was to the south. This conclusion was basE~d on
several factors.
There is extensive floodplain along the City's eastern boundary,
which is Carter's Creek. This floodplain would pose serious
development problems. The City's water distribution system was
generally oriented to the west and south. Major development east
of Carter's Creek would have required additional water storage
and distribution facilities. There were sewer constraints tc> the
west of the then present City limits that would have required
major dollars for development in that area. That area was also
away from existing development and the airport presented noire
problems and height restrictions.
• The area to the south was showing the then "present development
trend" with development in the E. T. J. Utility extensions would
be required but there were no major physical barriers to cau:;e
problems, and in fact, the provision of water and sewer
facilities would be most economical to the south. The land t:o
the south also showed the highest potential for residential ].and
uses. The primary access route through the area, SH 6, was
proposed to be developed as a freeway section toward the sough.
The situation that existed in 1983 remains essentially unchanged
today except that major facilities have been put in place to
accommodate growth to the south. These include a new waste water
treatment plant, a major sewer interceptor line, a major water
transmission line and a new water tower. The school district: has
begun to target new school sites in the southern portion of the
City. Highway improvements are currently under construction.
Hospital facilities have opened in the southern portion of the
area.
LAND USE PATTERNS
In order to identify current land use patterns and relationships
a complete land use survey of the City was conducted in 1986.
This study with updated data from certificate of occupancy
• records is the basis for a "Current Land Use Map" prepared as
part of the review process.
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 2
In 1982 approximately 45
• was developed (excluding
occurred since then have
Even with .half of that b
as of July, 1988 remains
percent of the City's total land area
the University). Annexations that have
resulted in the addition of 3,000 acres.
eing vacant, the amount of developed land
at 45 percent.
The City of College Station Planning Division began maintaining a
land use inventory system in December, 1982. This system,
impplemented by the Metropolitan Planning Organization in the
1970's, categorizes some types of land uses differently than the
consultants who prepared Plan 2000. In order to provide a better
comparison of land use patterns and identify changes the 1982 and
1988 Land Use Inventory tabulations are given in Table 12.
TABLE 12
LAND USE INVENTORY 1982 AND July, 1988
Land Use 1982 July, 1988 Change $ Change
Category Inventory Inventory in 1982 - 1988
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Right-of-way 1435.19
Railroads 26.75
Public 169.74
Parks 328.94
Vacant 6211.65
Multi-family 486.07
• Single Family 1671.66
Commercial 384.55
Industrial 462.53**
Texas A&M 3211.14
Other 85.52
Total 14,473.74
1593.41 158.22 11.0
26.75 0 0
395.51 225.77 133.0
799.05
8031.27 1819.62 2.9
562.60 76.53 15.7
1916.37 244.71 14.6
605.14 220.59 57.4
462.53** 0
3211.14 0
129.14 43.62 51.0
17,732.91 2789.06 19.3
Source: College Station Land Use Inventory System July, 1988
* category cannot be compared as 1982 acreage is in error.
** includes 291.64 acres of University owned property.
LAND USE STUDIES SINCE PLAN ADOPTION
Since the adoption of the present comprehensive plan there have
been three major land use studies examining specific areas of the
city. The recommendations from one of these studies was formally
adopted by the Council and incorporated into the plan. The other
two were presented for informational purposes and to provide
guidance in decision making. Summaries of the recommendations
from these three studies are given below.
In March, 1985, the Council amended the land use plan by adopting
the recommendations presented in the EAST BY-PASS LAND USE
• REPORT. Those recommendations were:
- The area located at the northeast corner of University Dr.
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 3
and the By-Pass should remain M-1.
• - The area south of University Dr. should be M-1 up to the
existing commercial zoning at SH 30.
- Encroachment into the floodplain should be discouraged and
there should be no channelization of Carter's Creek in this
area.
- The commercial area along SH 30 should be enlarged to
include floodplain area adjacent and to the east for support
(such as parking) for existing commercial zoning.
Alternatively, it could be left low density residential
so as not to increase the area of C-1 conflict with
neighboring Windwood.
- The area between Windwood and Raintree should remain low
density residential (R-1, R-lA, R-3 and PUD).
- The area between Raintree and Westinghouse should only be
single family (R-1).
- The A-P area at Emerald Parkway should be expanded to
include the adjacent tract to the north.
In October, 1985, the Council accepted for informational purpose s_
the recommendations stated in the UNIVERSITY DRIVE LAND USE
• REPORT. Those recommendations are summarized as follows:
- Zoning along the south side of University Dr. and east of
the existing C-1 tract should be held to A-P with possibly
some R-3/R-4. A-P is more consistent with established :land
use patterns. There is no need to increase commercial
zoning in this area.
- Rezonings reflected as high density should be limited to
R-3/R-4/A-P as in One Lincoln Place.
- Maintain a buffer of R-lA along the north side of the
Lincoln Street extension.
- The southwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln and
University is well suited for limited commercial or C-N
development. The southeast corner should be A-P or R-3.
- Along the north side of University Dr. the R-4 tract
between the A-P tracts should remain R-4 or change to A--P.
The R-3 tract east of Spring Loop should remain R-3.
- The large R-1 tract east of the University Park subdivi:~ion
should be medium density residential with A-P in the area
just east of and adjacent to University Park.
• In February, 1986, the Council accepted for information purposes
the recommendations stated in the WELLBORN ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY.
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 4
Those recommendations are summarized below and area descriptions
• are found in Figure 1.
•
•
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 5
•
Figure 1
Wellborn Corridor Study Area
•
I
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 6
AREA A
• - Existing residential uses should be preserved.
- Encourage code enforcement to encourage rehabilitation and
renovation.
- CDBG funds should be used to upgrade the area where
possible.
- Zoning should remain R-1 with some R-lA unless full blocks
are consolidated for change to higher density residential
zoning.
- Replatting and redevelopment of lots fronting
on Wellborn should be encouraged to reorient car acces:~ to
alleys or side streets.
- No additional curb cuts should be allowed within 200' of the
Jersey Wellborn intersection.
AREA B
- The best zoning would be commercial, provided that lot: are
consolidated and replatted with existing commercially zoned
properties.
- Vacant areas east of tracts fronting on Wellborn could be
considered for multi-family zoning (R-4/R-5) or mobile or
modular home development.
- CDBG funds should be used for rehabilitation.
AREA C
• - The area south of Holleman (between Holleman and Southland)
should include multi-family housing (R-4/R-5) and moderate
cost mobile or modular housing.
- Southland street should be extended to Oney Hervey.
- Residentially zoned lots along Wellborn should be
consolidated with multi-family zoning or mobile or modular
development on these tracts.
- CDBG funds should be used for rehabilitation.
- Non-conforming uses should be phased out.
AREA D
- The central portion should be low density residential,
preferably single-family.
- Access should be improved through the area but without
closing the creek along the southwest portion.
AREA E
- Place some C-N zoning on the west side at the Holleman and
Wellborn intersection.
- M-2 zoning should be phased out.
- Developable land in the area should be zoned M-1 and R-~4/R-5
in layers along the railroad.
Low-lying areas should be used for parkland.
Marion Pugh should be extended to 2818 and the alignment of
Southwest Parkway should be preserved for extension across
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 7
the railroad.
• AREA F
- Work with Texas A&M University regarding the extension of
Jones Butler to the west campus.
AREA G
- Extend Jones-Butler from Luther to 2818.
- West Luther should be widened and paved. Rezone the M-2
area along West Luther to eliminate future land use
conflicts.
LAND USE CHANGES SINCE 1983
There have been several land uses established since the adoption
of the plan, that are either not in compliance with the plan, are
inconsistent with policies in the plan or have had major impacts
on development.
The urbanization of Highway 30 between Texas Avenue and the :East
By-Pass has occurred with the development of several commercial
establishments fronting on 30 and widening improvements completed
by the Highway Department.
Generally in the Glenhaven area the pattern of land uses differs
from that reflected on the plan in that low density residential
uses are platted in areas shown for commercial and medium density
residential uses.
A major hospital and medical office building developed along Rock
Prairie Road in an area reflected as medium density residential
on the land use plan. This relocation of medical facilities has
prompted interest in additional medical office space and resulted
in the development of single family homes in excess of 3,000
square feet in close proximity to the medical complex. Spin-off
developments such as convalescent care facilities are being
considered in this area of town where single family densities
were planned.
Since the southern annexation, strip commercial development :has
occurred along the west side of Highway 6 from Barron Road to the
Shenandoah subdivision contrary to the policy to avoid this type
development. The wilderness park located in this southern area
is larger than originally anticipated while the industrial area
is reduced and a mix of commercial and industrial uses is
proposed.
In 1988 the City Council considered a study regarding development
of the Wolf Pen Creek corridor. This is a large area generally
• bounded by Texas Avenue, the East By-Pass, Highway 30 and
Southwest Parkway. The study was adopted as a revision to t:he
city's land use plan showing the Council's commitment to the Wolf
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 8
Pen Creek project. Development in the area will include major
• drainage improvements, the creation of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways and the addition of recreational and cultural focal
points such as an ampitheater and a library. The commitment to
this project will affect land uses in that area which currently
reflect a mix of commercial and low and high density residential
uses on the land use plan.
ZONING CHANGES SINCE 1983
Thirty-one rezoning requests that were in conflict with
either the land use plan or the development policies have been
approved since the adoption of the comprehensive plan in 1983.
These requests accounted for 330.08 acres. The location and
nature of each zone change has been identified and presented in a
separate report entitled "College Station Zone Changes and Plan
Conflicts, 1983 -1988".
GROWTH AREAS
Land use changes within serial zones are monitored through the
Landuse Inventory System. Serial zones are defined by physical
boundaries, typically streets. One can then see the areas where
growth is occurring. Discussion below indicates the areas of the
city where residential and commercial growth have been highest
• since 1983.
The largest amount of commercial growth has been along the north
side of University Drive (serial zones 181 and 202) and in the
area bounded by Texas Avenue, Highway 30 and the East By-Pass
(serial zones 160, 161, 163 and 164). This growth has been
largely office and retail development. Another area having shown
a large increase in commercially developed land since 1982 is
that part of Southwood Valley west of Texas Avenue bounded by Rio
Grande Blvd., 2818 and Deacon Drive (serial zone 166). This has
been largely retail development. See figure .
The highest residential development activity has occurred along
the east side of the East By-Pass between Highway 30 and Sebesta
Road (serial zones 158, 159, 237 and 259) and in the area of
Southwood Valley bounded by Texas Avenue, 2818, Welsh Avenue and
Rock Prairie Road (serial zones 166, 241, 242 and 243). This;
growth has consisted of single family residential development in
these two areas. Another area of high residential development is
that west of Wellborn Road in the Woodway West subdivision where
the development has been largely multi family residential (serial
zone 173).
Seventy percent of the new development that has occurred has been
residential and commercial. There are four areas that have shown
• the highest overall new development since 1982. They are:
(1) the area east of the East By-Pass;
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 9
(2) an area bounded by the East By-Pass, SH 30. 30,
• Dartmouth and Southwest Parkway where Post Oak Mall is
located;
(3) a large portion of the Southwood Valley area; and
(4) the area west of Wellborn Road in the Woodway West
Subdivision. See figure .
HOLDING~CAPACITY
Table 14 shows how the developed land within the city is
presently divided among various categories.
Table 14
Developed Land by Category
Category Percent of Developed Land
Street rights-of-way 25 $
Public 6 $
Other 2 $
Park 12 $
Single Family 30 $
Multi-Family 9 $
Commercial 9 $
Industrial 7 $
• TOTAL 100 $
Source: College Station Land Use Inventory July 1988
There are currently 8,032 acres of vacant land within the city.
Not all of this vacant land may be developable either due to
utility constraints or physical constraints. However, in an
effort to determine the impact on the City if all the vacant land
were to fully develop, holding capacity is determined. This
holding capacity is calculated using population equivalents
determined by the consultant's in Plan 2000. These equivalents
represent the number of people that would utilize a particular
use. Population equivalents are used because non-residential
uses do not have actual residents but have significant impacts on
the city's public facilities. The equivalents vary depending on
the type of use, the intensity of development, water and sewer
usage and other factors.
The equivalents in Plan 2000 were based on actual development,
utility capacities and traffic generations within the city at the
time of the plan preparation. They are given below:
•
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 Page 10
Table 15
• Population Equivalents
Equivalent
Land Use Persons per Acre
Residential uses 14
Multi-Family uses 33
` Commercial uses 30
Industrial uses 15
Institutional/Open Space 6
Source: Plan 2000, equivalents by consultant.
If the existing vacant land develops in the same ratios as
currently exist within the city, the 8032 vacant acres would
develop as follows:
Table 16
Existing Developed Ratios Applied to Current Vacant Land
Category
Acres
Street rights-of-way 2008 acres
Public 482 acres
Other 161 acres
. Park 964 acres
Single Family 2409 acres
Multi-Family 723 acres
Commercial 723 acres
Industrial 562 acres
TOTAL 8032 acres
Source: College Station Planning Division
Holding capacities for this development are given below. These
represent the normal number of people expected to utilize an
activity.
Table 17
Population Holding Capacity
Land Use Holding Capacity
Residential uses 33726
Multi-Family uses 23859
Commercial uses 21690
Industrial uses 8430
Institutional/Open Space 9642
Total 97347
Source: College Station Planning Division
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988
Page 11
UTILITY CAPACITY
At present the city has electrical capacity to serve
approximately 85,000 residents, water capacity to serve 65,000
and sewer capacity to serve 75,000. This is based on the premise
that growth would occur in an orderly fashion and not require
line extensions out to an isolated development. If the entire
8,032 acres develops in the same ratios as the current city then
there is`inadequate utility capacity at present to serve the
holding capacity.
LAND USE DEMANDS
Projections for land use demands were given by the City's
consultants in Plan 2000. These projections were primarily based
on population projections for the year 2000. The most recent
population projections prepared by the Planning Division are
within the same range as those used by the consultants for
projecting land use requirements in 1982. The Consultants'
projections are given in Table 16. These projections can be
compared to actual increases from 1982 to give an estimation of
possible increase from 1988 to 2000. This comparison is given in
the following table.
TABLE 16
PROJECTED LAND USE JULY 1988 TO 2000
Consultant's 1982 Actual Increase Balance
Category Projections of From 1982 to 7/88 1988 to 2000
Acres Needed by 2000
Residential 1500 321.24 1178.76*
Commercial 970 220.59 749.41
Public/Parks** 1110 708.25 401.75
Streets 877 158.22 718.78
Industrial 450 0 450.00
Railroad 50 0 50.00
Source: Plan 2000. pp. 83-86. Projections by Plan 2000
Consultants, Inventory by Planning Division staff.
* Multi-family residential development has occurred at higher
densities than had been anticipated by the consultants during
plan preparation. If this trend continues less area will bey
required for residential use.
** Categories consolidated due to difference in reporting mE~thods.
Land Use Draft January 25, 1988 PagE~ 12