Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1991 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)• M I N U T E S Planning and Zoning Commission Special Workshop CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 5:30 P.M. June 6, 1991 • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sawtelle, Vice Chairperson Dresser, Members Colson, Hall, and Michel. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Gentry and Esmond. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, Development Review Coordinator Volk, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Transportation Planner Hard, City Planner Callaway, Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan, Assistant City Attorney Coates, and Development Services Receptionist Lucas. (Council Liasion Birdwell was in the audience.? The Planning and Zoning Commission met with staff to review and discuss the University Drive Study Report. Senior Planner Kee and Transportation Planner Hard presented the report using slides, graphics, and artist renderings. particular tract of land. Mr. Colson agreed that underground utilities should be required in this proposed overlay district; however, there may be problems relocating existing supply lines. He added that property owners of the corner lots at University and East By Pass should resist a C-B zoning. Staff will meet much opposition in rezoning these t.wo parcels because they are high profile pieces of property and perfect locations for service stations, convenience stores, etc. Mr. Colson stated that staff may also meet opposition of the proposed shared access locations . The City does not have the authority to deny access to a Mr. Hall also expressed concern of limited access creating limited use of a particular property. Having access along University is an important consideration when purchasing property along this corridor. Mr. Hall stated that landscaping and sign control play an important role in effectively developing an aesthetically pleasing corridor. The City should offer some financial incentives such as tax abatement for existing businesses to come into compliance with current standards and for new businesses to locate in this corridor. Staff should apply this same overlay district to other partially undeveloped entryways to the City such as F M 2818. • Mr. Dresser informed the Commission that the Subcommittee agreed that businesses with a number of signs, short (frequent, convenience oriented) traffic, etc. should be prohibited in this district. Mr. Dresser further explained that the driveway access graphic illustrates locations using the current ordinance. Limited access should not limit the property; instead, more attention will be placed on design and how the site is developed. The Commission should insist that entire tracts are platted instead of small parcels with numerous access locations along University Drive. The Commission generally agreed with the Study recommendations and decided to take formal action and make further recommendations at their regular meeting scheduled at 7:OOpm. APPROVED: ,, ~, ~. C ai perso,n, Nancy Sawtelle ATTEST: • ~"i ~ Plannin Technician, Natalie Thomas • P & Z Workshop Minutes Page ? June 6, 1991 ~ DG3pff~ A STUDY OF THE UNIVERSITY DRIVE CORRIDOR 1 prepared at the request of the City Council City of College Station, Texas by a Subcommittee of the Planning & Zoning Commission and Planning Division Staff Development Services Department City of College Station, Texas June, 1991 • PLANNING & ZONING COMNIISSION SUBCONIlVIITTEE George Dresser Steve Esmond Randy Michel • PL.~~NNING STAFF Jane R. Kee, Senior Planner Sabine Kuenzel, Staff Planner Edwin Hard, Transportation Planner Nanette Manhart, Mapping Specialist Natalie Thomas, Planning Technician • TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One -Introduction Pur ose Background Information Study Area Description Plan 2000 and the Original Study • Chapter Two -Existing Conditions Current Comprehensive Plan and Policies City Council Issues Zoning Land Uses Ownership Patterns Topography and Floodplains Utility Availability Traffic and Transportation Driveway Access Chapter Three -Discussion and Analysis A New Commercial Zoning District The Wheeler Property The Northeast Quadrant The C-N Property at Spring Loop A Special Overlay District Traffic Forecasts Access Management and Future Drive Locations Property Owner Comments Chapter Four -Conclusions and Recommendations • • CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION • • • INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE STUDY City Council has directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the recommendations of the 1985 University Drive Land Use Study to see if modifications or changes should be made. Council empphasized that University Drive is the last major thoroughfare in the City that is still largely undeveloped and that staff should keep in mind its function as an entryway into the City when reviewing the 1985 study. The City Council has adopted several issues as a part of their annual work program. Those that deal with Community Appearance, Streetscape and Economic Deve o~ment impact a review of this nature. This demands that a review of the University Drive corridor be broad enough in scope to address these Council issues. Therefore, the staff set out not only to see if the recommendations in the original University Drive study were still valid, but to view University Drive as a major gateway into the City. Future development along this corridor and its aesthetic quality or lack thereof ill impact the City's appearance and its economic vitality. Another element that has to be analyzed in a review of this corridor is driveway spacing and location. When looking at future development along this particular roadway one must look at access management techniques m order to preserve the functional . character of University Drive and retain favorable traffic operating conditions. A second but closely related purpose that developed out of this review is the need for an additional commercial zoning district. This district should be available city-wide where locations are appropriate for some commercial uses but not necessarily for the range of uses allowed m the C-1 General Commercial district. The need had been recognized for some time and this review provided an opportunity to address this concern. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 1985 a subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission prepared the University Drive Study, a report recommending land uses for the area along University Drive from the Tarrow intersection east to the East By-Pass. When the Council adopted an updated and revised Comprehensive Plan in 1989 the recommendations of the University Drive Study were incorporated. In December of 1990 the Planning & Zoning Commission considered a rezoning request for two tracts of landowner by Bert Wheeler; one on the southwest corner of University and Lincoln and the other on the southeast corner. The properties were zoned R-1 Single Family upon annexation and the request was for a combination of C-N Neighborhood Commercial and A-P Administrative Professional on the southeast corner, and for A-P and C-1 General Commercial on the southwest corner. In analyzing the rezoning request the staff noted that the proposed C-1 zoning did not comply with the University Drive Study recommendations nor did it comply with some of the City's development policies. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of the entire request due to the proposed C-1 on the west in light of the University Drive Study and the • Comprehensive Plan. The City Council voted to deny the request as well and directed the staff to review the previous study. A Subcommittee of the Planning & Zoning Commission was formed consisting of Commissioners Dresser, Michel and Esmond. Staff support was supplied in data gathering and analysis, base map preparation and scheduling meetings of the subcommittee. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA The current study area is that area along University Drive from Tarrow Street east to the East By-Pass as shown in Figure 1. The boundary is basically the same as in the 1985 study with minor moditicatlons made due to changes in property lines. PLAN 2000 AND THE ORIGINAL STUDY In the City's Comprehensive Plan for Development, Plan 2000, adopted in 1983, the consultants devised a development suitability index by analyzing natural and man-made features. In the University Drive study area natural features identified included floodplains in the northern portion of the area and steep slopes along small creeks in the area. The East By-Pass was noted as a visual barrier. Man-made features included commercial and multi-family uses in the University Park and Chimney Hill subdivisions, multi-family uses in Lincoln Place, single family uses south of Lincoln, the developed Post Oak Forest PUD and a major Lone Star Gas easement running through the area. Based on their initial analysis, the consultants in 1983 developed a set of first level land use recommendations. These included commercial uses at the By-Pass and University Drive intersection, multi-family uses west of this on both sides of University and single family uses in the majority of the area. Plan 2000 also contained several development policies related to commercial land uses. These policies called for commercial developments to be located at major intersections and encouraged the development of aesthetically pleasing commercial protects. Commercial activities were to be discouraged in locations where they would present conflicts due to traffic, noise, light or other high activity level effects. Minimum depths for commercial zoning on major and minor arterials were addressed and individual tracts were to be encouraged to limit access points. Detached signs were to be consolidated whenever possible. Low intensity administrative/office development was viewed as an appropriate buffer between residential areas and more intense uses. At the time of their study the original University Drive subcommittee considered the additional factors of traffic congestion in the Tarrow -Hilton area and along University, as well as sewer constraints in the area. Based on their analysis the following land use and zoning recommendations were made: 1. C-1 General Commercial along the south side of University from Tarrow east to what was then zoned A-P was appropriate. 2. Properties earl of the above area should be held to A-P with R-3 and R-4 also being app ropriate_ 3. Tract A, reflected in Figure 2, should be rezoned to A-P. 4. Land reflected as high density residential should be limited to R-3, R-4 or A-P. Draft Pagc 2 Draft FIGURE 1 Draft FIGURE 2 • 5. The buffer of R-lA should be continued along the north side of Lincoln. 6. The southwest corner of Lincoln and University could have limited commercial or C-N. 7. The southeast corner should be A-P or R-3. 8. The existing land uses reflected on the Land Use Plan on the north side of University from Tarrow east to Spring Loop were appropriate. 9. Tract C should be left as R-4 or rezoned to A-P. 10. Block Y of University Park (Tract D) has pproblems due to topography and access and should remain R-3 or be rezoned to A-P. 11. Tract E, located at the northwest corner of University and the By- Pass, consisting of 64.71 acres, should be used to increase the depth of Tract F zoned C-1. The balance could be used as medium density residential with A-P on the By-Pass frontage. Additional A-P just east of the University Park subdivision was also appropriate. ~J • Draft Page 3 • CHAPTER TWO EXISTING CONDITIONS • • EXISTING CONDITIONS Staff reviewed the original University Drive Study and gathered data relative to current and historical zoning and land use, traffic conditions, driveway locations, topography and floodplain locations, ownership patterns and utility availability for the study area. Comparisons were made to determine where significant changes had occurred since the original study. Staff also reviewed current Council issues that might impact this study as well as current development policies. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The Development Policies in the current Comprehensive Plan express the same philosophy relative to commercial development, appropriate buffers and access locations as those m the previous Plan. Specific commercial land use objectives state that the City should avoid strip commercial development and encourage centralized commercial development. The term strip commercial is defined and apppropriate centralized locations for commercial uses are identified. The policy callm~ for a minimum depth for commercial tracts and the policy encouraging a m~mmum spacing for access points remain the same. The current Plan goes even further to stale that access points should be consolidated through the site plan review or the plaiting process. It is evident that the philosophy toward development and specificallyy commercial land use locations has not changed since 1985 as reelected in the City's Com rehensive Plan • and Development Policies. Therefore, land use recommendations based on the Plan and Policies made at the time of the 1985 study should still be valid today. CITY COUNCIL ISSUES Each fiscal year the City Council prioritizes certain issues to be addressed in the upcoming year. There are several issues this year that impact this study. Two separate issues deal with Economic Development. Although the thrust of these issues does not directly relate to a review of land use, the emphasis on economic development as a priority affects the way land use recommendations are determined. There are two issues involving Community Appearance. One addresses the need to develop a comprehensive streetscape program while the other addresses the need to increase tree planting within the City. The Council's concern with Economic Development and Community Appearance greatly affect an analysis of this important corridor. ZONING The properties in the study area are zoned either for residential, office, or general commercial use. The current zoning pattern is reflected in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of acreage per zoning distract. Most of the area is zoned for residential use. A third of the total area is zoned A-P and C-l. All of these office and commercial tracts have frontage on University, with the exception of the two A-P tracts that act as buffers between the C-1 and R-4 properties located on the south side of University just west of Lincoln. Figure 5 is a further breakdown of the residential districts. More than half of the residentially zoned land is zoned R-4 Apartment Buildings/Low Density. No medium or high density apartment zoning exists in the area. Almost all of the R-4 property has been developed accordingly. Thirty one percent of the residentially zoned land is R-1 Singlc Family, however, only seven acres of the total of 90 available for single family Draft Pagc 4 Draft FIGURE 3 • • Draft FIGURE 4 CURRENT ZONING UNIVERSITY DRIVE STUDY AREA Breakdown of Zoning Classifications District Number of Acres Percent of Total Residential 290 Acres 67% A-P 25 Acres 6% C-1 120 Acres 28% TOTAL 435 Acres 100% Draft FIGURE 5 CURRENT ZONING UNIVERSITY DRIVE STUDY AREA Breakdown of Residential Zones District Number of Acres Percent of Total R-1 90 Acres 31 R-1A 10 Acres 3% R-2 5 Acres 2% R-3 15 Acres 5% R-4 170 Acres 59% Total Residential 290 Acres 100% • development have been platted for residential use. The rest of the land zoned R-1 is vacant. Over a fourth of the area is zoned C-1 General Commercial. Much of this land remains available for development on the south side of University Drive and near the Bypass on the north. There is C-1 zoning on a large portion of the properties with frontage on University. A-P zoning occupies only six percent of the total land in the study area. Almost twenty acres remain vacant. Zoning history in the study area is shown in Figure 6. Pressure for rezonings has been greatest in the southwest quadrant of the study area. C-1 rezonings along the south side of University have occurred which conflict with the recommendations in the original study. These changes occurred over a 3 year period and appear to have been speculative in nature as the properties remain vacant. Tract A (Figure 2) and the A-P tract abutting it to the west were zoned from R-3 and A-P to C-1 shortly after the 1985 Study was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. That decision conflicted with staff and Planningg and Zoning Commission recommendations to deny the request. The P&Z recommendation to deny was based on the 1985 University Dnve Study. That change to C-1 zoning in effect changed the conditions in the immediate area to • make more C-1 zoning to the east a possibility. The result was an extension of C-1 from the Tarrow/University intersection to Tract B (Figure 2). None of these requests were in compliance with the recommendations of the original study, which limited area zoning to R-3, R-4, and A-P. Tract D (Figure 2) was to remain R-3 because of access and slope problems. A revised request from C-1 to A-P met with staff support because although the request was not precisely that which had been recommended m the 1985 study, A-P zoning was considered to be in accordance with the intent of the Study Committee's recommendation for this tract. The A-P and apartment zones are considered appropriate buffers and in certain cases interchangeable as far as land use compatibility analyses are concerned. LAND USE Current land uses are reflected in Figure 7 and have not changed significantly since the 1985 Study. Two office buildings, the Woodbine and State Farm, were started shortly after the Study. To the Southeast, the new Scott and White Clinic abuts new residential development in Glenhaven. Land use remains mostly retail and service commercial in the northwest quadrant along University with medium density residential to the rear. There is some retail in the southwest corner with medium and low density residential behind it. The majority of the northeast and southwest portions of the study area remain vacant. There are no well established development trends identified in the study area at this time. Activity in the area since 1985 consists of some single family construction and platting in the Glenhaven Subdivision and some very recent restaurant development in the southern portion of the area and just outside the study area to the west. The Woodbine building was purchased by the University and will serve as the State Draft Page 5 Draft FIGURE 6 ZONING HISTORY A-P R-4 p ~~ c - i ~`' - r ~ A- a REQUEST - PASSED C -1 ~ A-P R 4 a ~ R-1 C -1 ;~ c-1 R-1 1988 ^._ 0 R-1 ~° - P R-4 P a~ ,QQ--~ W~ U S' ~ U r C-1 Qi rl ~ REQUEST - 1fITHDRAWN x~ p~, o~ -i~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 i J= Q"' C-1 ~ A-P R-4 p a~ c -1 ~~ ~~ -1 ~i R R d C - L ~ '~ REQUEST - PASSED C-1 ~ ~ P ~ C-1 ~~ ~ R-1 ~ a C-1 -1~~ R 4 ,~ ~ ' C-1 1[ap produced for Dnlverslt~ Drlve Stud, Lune 1891 Draft FIGURE 7 • • • * LAND USE MAP INCOMPLETE (Map in Final Report will be in Color) • Headquarters for the Texas A&M University System. This should increase the importance of University Drive as an entryway into the City and Texas A&M University. CURRENT OWNERSHIP PATTERNS In the northwest quadrant, financial institutions own all of the vacant property except for a relatively small tract occupied by State Farm Insurance building. The large vacant area of the northeast quadrant is owned by Jacob Luza, Jr., Don Lamar, and Bert Wheeler. CSI Associates owns 16 acres ot~ this area. Brazosland Properties retains ownership of all of the vacant lots in Glenhaven. Local landowners, Bert Wheeler, E.L. Putz, and Richard Smith own most of the land in the southwest quadrant of the study area. Two of the tracts in the same quadrant are owned by financial institutions. TOPOGRAPHY AND FLOOD PLAINS As noted in the 1985 study, existing flood plains and steep slopes will have an impact on future development in the study area. A 17ood plain associated with Burton Creek and its tributaries extends generally along the northern boundary of the study area and is shown in Figure S. This ligure indicates the 100-year 17ood plain and flood way locations as identified m the Federal Emergency Management Associations (FEMA) 1990 preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Areas in the flood way present a greater potential for flood damage. The study area contains a moderate amount of topographic relief. The elevation ranges • from a high of 330 feet above sea level near the Tarrow/University intersection to a low of 260 feet in the flood plain located in the northeast portion of the study area. The study area has a general downward slope to the east northeast. Two undeveloped tracts in the study area are impacted by the Burton Creek flood plain and steep slopes. These include the large R-1 tract located m the northeast quadrant of the study area and the Wheeler tract located at the southwest corner of the Lincoln/University intersection. Portions of these tracts are subject to flooding and could be found to be topographically unsuitable for some types of development. UTII ITY AVAILABILITY Ample water service infrastructure and capacity is in place to accommodate existing and future development in the University Drive study area. Since 1985 water service and capacity have been improved with the completion of the Lincoln/Munson water line, a project funded through the City's Capital Improvements Program. The Lincoln/Munson p rade, shown in Figure 9, begins on Lincoln at Munson and extends east up Lincoln and University to the Bypass. This upgrade substantially improved water service capacity and accessibility to the area. Sewer service to the University Drive study area is provided via a series of lines which extend off of a major sewer trunk line serving the area. The service areas of the lesser lines form subareas of service for which there are corresponding capacity limits. Currently, there is sufficient sewer capacity to serve existing development and enough to accommodate future development in the study area having similar land use types and density levels as those currently in place continue to develop. However, depending on the type of future commercial use, if the entire corridor were to develop as commercial with hotels, washaterias, and cafeterias, etc. there would not be ample sewer capacity. Dralt Page 6 Draft FIGURE 8 Draft FIGURE 9 • • There are plans for sewer capacity improvements to the University Drive corridor study area. The Burton Creek Sewer Improvement Project, or "Phase 1' and "Phase 2" on Figure 9, when completed will approximately double the existing sewer capacity in the study area. Phase 1 of this project will add a major sewer trunk line that will extend parallel to the East Bypass. Phase 1 desi n and construction documents are complete and the engineering costs are budgeted for 1991-'92. Phase 2 of the project calls for a major trunk line beginning from the Phase 1 line at the Bypass and extending west generally alongg the northern border of the study area and continuing along the Chimney Hill Street rigfit-of-way. Completion dates for these sewer improvement plans are not known. The Burton Creek plans will be implemented as development mandates. Currently, there is sufficient gas service and availability for existing development in the University Drive corridor. Gas service to the study area ~s provided via two high pressure gas lines which are illustrated in Figure 9. These lines are contained within an easement which prohibits structures which could thereby affect development. There is possibility that the lines could be moved at developer's expense in order to allow for future development. There is also a pressure reduction station in the study area. Both high pressure gas lines connect with this station. There are several undeveloped areas in the study area which currently do not have gas service. The local gas company indicates there would be no problem m roviding gas service in these areas to accommodate any type of future development. It does not foresee any constraints to future development m the study area due to limited gas service or availability. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Existing and future traffic conditions are an important consideration in the evaluation of zoning and land use along the University Drive corridor. An evaluation of such conditions deals with two separate areas in the field of transportation which include traffic operational (engineenng~ concerns and transportation planning concerns. A discussion on other transportation related matters, driveway access and TRANPLAN traffic forecasting, is included in later sections of this report. Existing driveway access locations and conditions are included in the section to follow. Future access drives and TRANPLAN traffic forecasts are included in the Chapter 3, Analysis and Discussion. Many of the traffic issues addressed in the 1985 study are still valid today while some of these concerns have been alleviated due to roadway im rovements implemented since this time. The following issues and concerns were notedpin the 1985 study. 1.) The importance of maintaining "through" traffic movement along with the need for access to abutting properties. This concern is still valid today. It is discussed at length in driveway access sections to follow. 2.) Traffic congestion in the Tarrow St./Hilton area. This concern is still valid today, especially with the TAMU Systems Building and Randalls developments soon to be in place 3.) Traflic congestion along University Drive from E. Tarrow to the Bypass. This concern has been alleviated with the improvement of this section of University from two to four lanes. Draft Pagc 7 C7 The extension of Lincoln Street from near Ashburn to University Drive has also taken place since the 1985 study. This extension improved traflic circulation in the study area and established Lincoln as a minor arterial. Currently, the probable need for additional signalization in the corridor is the primary traffic operational concern. The additional traffic to be generated from the soon-to-open TAMU Systems Building and the Randalls Supermarket will compound the need for signalization at the intersections of E. Tarrow and University and Hearthstone and Tarrow. A traffic signal is also needed at the Spring Loop/University Dr. intersection. Signal warrant studies have been completed by the SDHPT for the Spring Loop and Tarrow intersections on University Drrve, however, due to lack of funding there are no immediate plans for signals at these intersections. Currently, Tarrow Street is two lanes from the Bryan-College Station city limit to E. Tarrow Street where it remains as a two-lane section to University Drive. From a traffic volume standpoint, this roadway operates near capacity. Computer generated traffic forecasts indicate that traffic will increase by nearly 20 percent on this roadway by the yyear 2010. There are plans proposed to improve Tarrow from the city limit to University Dr. to four lanes to accommodate traffic in this area. From a transportation planning standpoint, the major thoroughfares included in the University Dnve corridor study area include University Drive as a major arterial, Lincoln and Tarrow Streets as minor arterials, and Sppring Loop as a collector street. The short- range transportation improvement plans in the study area include changing the Bypass frontage roads from two to one way and, as previously mentioned, the proposed widening of Tarrow. There are no long range transportation improvement plans for the University Drive corridor study area. EXISTING ACCESS POLICY AND LOCATIONS A policy on Access Management and Driveway Design was developped by the City in the Spnn~ of 1987 in order to establish design and spacing guidelines £or city thoroughfares. Considerable research has been undertaken to refine and enhance the policy's guidelines in order to put this information into ordinance form. A draft Driveway Access Location and Design Ordinance has been prepared but has not yet been before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council for their consideration. The purpose for examining driveway access in this study is to ensure that University Drive is able to provide safe and etficient movement of traffic which is not interrupted by random or poorly spaced driveway access points. The city's access policy sets driveway access spacing and design requirements for City thoroughfares which have been functionally identified as major and minor arterials and collector streets. Such requirements are more stringent for mayor, heavily travelled streets such as Texas Avenue and University Drive and become less restrictive for lesser streets in the City. The driveway spacing and design requirements set lorth in the ordinance reflect the fact that left turns have the most impact on traffic due to the conflict of crossing opposing traffic. Right turns into and out of driveways have a lesser impact, as they may only cause encroachment on adjacent travel lanes. University Drive from Tarrow cast to the Bypass is planned as a major arterial. The ordinance sets forth the following driveway spacing requirements for major arterials: Draft Page 8 ~J Opposite Arterial or Collector, Right 400 Feet Opposite Local Street or Driveway, Left 275 Feet Opposite, Left 125 Feet Adjacent Drive Spacing 350 Feet Currently, there are 18 existing driveway access locations (excluding actual streets) along University in the study area. The location and relative spacing of these driveways are illustrated in Figure 10. There are seven access points from existing streets which also must be considered when applying the guidelines. None of the 18 existing driveways would meet all four of the above spacing requirements. The number of driveways meeting policy requirements are broken down by category and listed below. Spacing Cate~ory Number of Driveways Opposite Left 15 Opposite Right 7 Adiacent Left 4 • Adiacent Right 4 The primary reason for the apparent close driveway spacing along this segment of University Drive, or anywhere ~n the City for that matter, is the development evolution of the adjacent tracts of land. Most of the smaller tracts adJ~acent to University were once a part of larger tracts which were subdivided. Each of the tracts were allowed at least one and sometimes two access drives which resulted in the close spacing that exists today: To prevent this from happening, joint access agreements between tracts should be negotiated m the subdividing process. Currently, access drives along University from Tarrow east to the Bypass do not pose a problem to the free flow of traffic since the majority of the land a ~acent to this segment of roadway remains undeveloped. However, ~f the City's access policy is not adhered to and access is not addressed in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, traffic interruptions from access drives will lessen the level-of-service and erode the intended function of the roadway as a facility providing primarily through traffic movement. f1 u Draft Page 9 Draft FIGURE 10 CHAPTER THIZEE DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS • • DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS NEW COMII~RCIAL ZONING DISTRICT This review provided an opportunity to address a need that had existed for some time; the need for an additional commercial zoning district to be available City. wide. Presently the City has a general commercial district (C-1) that allows a wide range of commercial uses that vary greatly in terms of traffic generation and land use intensity. The next less intense district (C-3 Planned Commercial) allows no restaurants, theaters, night clubs, or other high traffic generators. There are many locations within the City where these commercial uses are appropriate but not necessarily the entire range of uses available in the C-1 General Commercial district. When locations for these commercial uses are desired an applicant is left having to request the C-1 zone with its wide range of uses. Therefore, the staff and P&Z Sub-Committee developed details for another commercial zoning district referred to as C-B, Business Commercial. Its Turpose is specifically intended as an alternative to the C-1 General Commercial district for areas where certain commercial uses may be acceptable but where more intense uses would not be compatible with existing zoning and land use. The district requires that business be conducted wholly within an enclosed building and that certain uses (convenience store and gas stations) be prohibited. The range of permitted uses includes: Offices, Retail Sales, Art Studios, Cleaners (no on-site cleaning), Dance or uric Schools, Domestic Household and Office Equipment Rentals, Dormitories, Financial Institutions, Hotels, Personal Service Shops, Restaurants, Theaters Other Uses May Be Permitted by the Commission. The Committee examined the tracts that had been zoned C-1 since 1985 and determined that because the recommendations in the original studyy are still valid that these tracts should be rezoned to the new C-B district. All other C-1 tracts in the study area should also be considered for rezoning to the new district. THE WHEELER PROPERTY AT LINCOLN AND UNIVERSITY The subcommittee examined the Wheeler pproperty at the intersection of Lincoln and University and felt that if the proposed C-B district had been available at the time of the rezoning request, the western corner would be an appropriate location for this district. It would be more compatible with surrounding land uses and more closely aligned with the intent of the recommendations in the original study which called for limited commercial zonin on this tract. The subcommittee determined that the eastern corner would be appropriately zoned as A-P. The subcommittee also determined that the recommendation in the original study that the R-lA buffer along the north side of Lincoln be continued makes little sense now Draft Page 1O ~J since the actual extension of Lincoln Street has occurred. The shape and size of the western corner since the extension does not easilyy lend itself to having a strip of R-lA along its Lincoln Street boundary. Further, the R-1 across Lincoln is separated by the street itself and is buffered as currently developed due to the orientation of the existing lots. THE GN PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF SPRING LOOP At the time of the 1985 study the property on the northwest corner of Spring Loop and University Drive was zoned C-N Neighborhood Business. It had been rezoned from R-4 Low Density Apartments. At the time of the rezoning a project was being proposed which was subsequently abandoned. The property has remained vacant since that time. As previously mentioned there are two uses which the Subcommittee would not recommend be developed along this corridor. These two uses are gas stations and convenience stores. Because the C-N zone is specifically designed for the latter use the Subcommittee determined that this properly should be rezoned. The size and shape of the property are not conducive to the new C-B district nor the currently available C-3 Planned Commercial district. The Subcommittee determined the most appropriate classification for this tract to be the R-4 zone. The current Land Use Plan reflects this property as medium density residential. THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT The large undeveloped area on the north side of University at the intersection of the • By-Pass has potential for various land use scenarios. The property does have extensive floodplain that will impact development alternatives. The property is currently zoned C- 1 at the corner and west along University with R-1 to the north. The Committee determined that the original recommendatton of utilizing some of the R-1 to increase the depth of the commercial property is still an appropriate recommendation. A SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT The Council is currently dealing with issues concerning Streetscape, Community Appearance and Economic Development. When directing staff to review this study, Council stated that staff should keep m mind that University Drive is a major entryway into the City. To be able to truly create an attractive entryway with a strong image elements beyond just land uses need to be dealt with. Elements such as signage, landscaping, parking lots, screening and setbacks must be addressed. Kirk Bishop, Senior Research Associate for the American Planning Association, in his 1989 publication Designing Urban Corridors, states: Commercial corridors have been the subject of derision for decades, yet the features that characterise these areas have not changed much over the years. Today's corridors, like yesterday's strips, drags and rihbon development areas share a numher of common components. Among the characteristics that have come to epitomize the common commercial corridor are: Numerous large and freestanding and portable signs; Draft Pagc 11 C~ Large expanses ol~ unscreened sur%ace parking; Little or no landscaping ol~ public or private property; Few or no pedestrian improvements; Above ground utilities and overhead lights; Numerous poorly delineated and closely spaced driveway access points; and A generally uncontrolled approach to the design, location, and planning of various puhlic and private improvements. A special overlay district is a way to address these elements without changing the uses allowed on properties currently zoned appropriately. This district could have greater parking and building setbacks otf the street, parking lot screening requirements that would buffer parking areas Crom the street, landscape requirements that would create a theme along the corrtdor, and sign restrictions that call for lower signs with limits on colors and design. The subcommittee and stall suggest the following criteria for an overlay district: Increase the building setback from the current twenty-five (25') feet to forty (40') feet, Increase the parking lot setback from eight (8') feet to twenty (20') feet, Alter the landscape requirements to provide for a three (3') foot berm to screen parking areas located along University Drive, Require specific tree species to be planted along the corridor to create a theme and to enhance the parking lot screening, Limit sign heights, colors and letlerin~ styles to avoid what would most commonly be considered garish or unattractive signage, and Limit building colors to avoid unattractive colors and color combinations. Require utilities to be placed underground when located along the corridor. The properties affected by this district would be those with frontage along University Drive as shown in Fi~ute 11. If given direction from Council to pursue this overlay district the subcommittee and staff will determine specifics and present the information to Council prior to preparing an ordinance amendment. These recommendations will have to be considered m light of the forthcoming Streetscape Report and recommendations so that the overlay district requirements are compatible. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The thoroughfare system of the Bryan-College Station area is modelled by computer to determine existing and future traffic conditions. The purpose for examining such Draft Page 12 Draft FIGURE 11 • information is to gain a general feel for the existing traffic conditions compared to how they might be in future years if development was to occur along the University Drive corridor as it is planned (zoned). The traffic volume data generated from the TRANPLAN soltware is compared to the design capacity of a roadway to determine its level-of-service (LOS) by consideringg its volume to capacity (V/C ratio. The TRANPLAN model uses the four following V/C ratio ranges to measure LOS. LOS V C Ratio Condition 1 0-.40 Good 2 .40-.70 Fair 3 .70-1.0 Poor 4 > 1.0 Unacceptable It should be noted that in order for LOS conditions to remain about the same when traffic volumes have increased, the design capacities will have also increased due to some type of roadway improvement. For example, if a two lane roadway with a volume of 12,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) has a "good" LOS, then in order for it to maintain this L S when it's ADT increases to say 20,000, the design capacity of the roadway will have to increase by improving the roadway from two to four lanes. The networks for Year 1989 and future years 1995 and 2010 were analyzed. The TRANPLAN results by year for the University Drive subarea are illustrated and included in the Appendix. A general synopsis on each year is described in the following three subsections. Year 1989 -Generally, the results indicate that traffic volume conditions on University Drive from Tarrow to the E. Bypass conditions are fair. To interpret this in terms of LOS measures, traffic volumes are generally greater than seventy percent of the roadways design capacity. A small segment of University drive located between the east and west frontage roads of the East Bypass indicates a poor LOS. The traffic volumes generated by the model indicate from Tarrow east to the Bypass average about 17,200 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) A comparison of model to ground count data shows that model estimates are generally about six percent higher than ground count data. Year 1995 -The model indicates that traffic conditions have improved somewhat since 1989. The LOS conditions could generally be judged as good. Again, the segment on Universit between the frontage roads shows poor LOS conditions. The model indicates that traffYc volumes on University from Lincoln east to the Bypass have remained about the same. This is probably a result of the Bypass frontage roads being changed from two to one way along with improvements made to 29th Street in Bryan. There are considerable traffic volume changes in the triangular area of University, Tarrow, and E. Tarrow Streets. This is due to Tarrow and E. Tarrow being modelled as a one-way pair in the 1995 model. Year 2010 -The model indicates that trallic LOS conditions have worsened since 1995. Poor LOS conditions are indicated on University between the frontage roads and on Tarrow Street. Traffic volumes on University between Lincoln and the Bypass have increased by about 31 percent from 1995 to 2010. Volumes on Tarrow have increased Draft Page 13 • significantly as the 29th Street-Tarrow section from Texas Ave. (in Bryan) south to University has been upgraded and modelled as a 4-lane arterial. In sum, the results of the traffic forecasts indicate that in years to come, serious traffic congestion will not occur on University Drive from Tarrow east to the Bypass if planned future improvements are implemented. Based on the roadways future design capacity, it appears this section of University Drive could support a reasonable amount of additional commercial land uses and maintain a fair LOS. However, this will be largely dependent on future driveway access to the roadway. ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND FUTURE DRIVE LOCATIONS Access management requirements typically are justified on the basis of improving and maintaining capacity and reducing the number of accidents. There is a significant increase in the reduction of speed on an arterial as the number of access points increases. Generally, access improvements reduce accidents by eliminating speed differentials. Safety research has shown that there is a direct correlation between the number of access points on a facility and the accident rate. Access management techniques and the benefits accrued through access controls have been known to traffic planners and engineers for over half a century. The intended benefits of the city's access location and design policy are as follows: To reduce the potential for accidents; To prevent or reduce traffic congestion; To reduce energy consumption; To provide for an aesthetically pleasing corridor; and, To preserve the long term integrity of traffic movement on city thoroughfares. There are seven large undeveloped properties adjacent to University Drive in the study area. Most of these vacant properties contain several tracts under different ownership. Access spacing requirements with regard to individual tracts could be waived or lessened if the appropriate ~omt access agreements or easements are provided between abutting properties. The proposed future access locations for undeveloped areas and tracts are shown on Figure 10 entitled Driveway Access and are briefly discussed in the following subsections. Area 1 -This area includes all of the undeveloped land on the north side of University from near Spring Loop east to the Bypass. If access ordinance requirements were strictly applied, this area would be allowed two access drives to University, primarily due to the numerous driveways on the south side of University. Access to University from the Wheeler C-1 tract could be considered if joint access agreements were provided between the property lines in the areas abutting University and the Bypass. Joint access agreements or easements would also be needed between the A-P, R-1, C 1 tracts. The A-P tract on the western corner of Area 1 previously Dratt Page 14 • had been denied access to University because it had an exclusive access easement to April Bloom. It should be noted that Glenhaven is pplanned to be extended south to Dominik. It is logical that this collector street could be extended across University to provide access to this undeveloped area. Such an extension would create additional access locations for two parcels. The resulting intersection should warrant signalization. Area 2 -This area includes the undeveloped pie-shaped tract of land on the north side of University just west of the Lincoln intersection. If the access ordinance was applied, an access drove could be located on the A-P parcel of this area. The C-N tract would be denied access to University and allowed a drive on Spring Loop if it was aligned directly opposite April Bloom. Area 3 -This area is located on the north side of University about midway between E. Tarrow and Spring Loop. It is the vacant tract of land located between the Chimney Hill Hotel and State Farm Insurance. Direct access to University Dr. from this tract would not be permitted or necessary as it already has the appropriate access easements in place. Area 4 This area is located on the south side of University immediately across from the Hilton and the Chimney Hill area. Driveway access to this area would not meet opposite driveway spacing requirements due to numerous existing driveways on the north side of Umversity. As shown on the Driveway Access illustration, three driveway locations to serve five individual tracts could be considered if the appropriate access easements were provided. Area 5- This area includes the undeveloped pie-shaped tract of land located in the southwest corner of the Lincoln/University intersection. The area would be permitted one access drive to University in accordance with the proposed ordinance. This drive would need to be located such that it would be aligned directly opposite a future drive on the north side of University. Access to Lincoln could also he permitted, assuming appropriate sight distance consideration. Area 6 -This area is located in the southeast corner of the Lincoln/University intersection. If adJJ~acent spacing requirements were applied, access to this tract via University would be denied. However, due to it's near compliance with spacing requirements, access to University could be considered if appropriate precautions are considered in driveway design. Access to Lincoln could be permitted when sight distance has been considered. Area 7 - This area is located on the south side of University between Glenhaven Drive and the E. Bypass. If proposed ordinance requirements were applied, access to University would not be permuted. The future access drives along University are largely dependent on new preceding developments. The driveway location of a new development will effect the access possibilities of opposite and adjacent properties on University Drive. Zoning can control the types of land uses along University Drive and thereby influence the type and volume of tratt~c generated. Heavy volumes of commercially generated traffic (such as that on Texas Avenue) would have an adverse impact on the thoroughfare. Land uses should be limited to those that generate low to moderate traffic and exclude those that generate large volumes of "peak hour traffic". Land uses Draft Page 15 • generating large volumes of "off peak" traffic should be considered on a case by case basis. The geometric design of driveways could also be used to control the access to University Drive. Driveways not meetin 7 spacing guidelines set forth in the proposed ordinance could be designed for limite~ access by the addition of a median or channelization improvement to University or by including channelization in the driveway design. Three types of access driveways with medians and channelization limiting or prohibrtmg left turns could be used. Such driveways (see Appendix) have movements including "No left out", "No left in", and "No left in or out". PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS On April 28, 1991, the P&Z Subcommittee and the Plannin r staff held a meeting to receive input from property owners within the study area. P~orty-five property owners were invited and 13 owners or their representatives came to the meeting. Presentation was made on the proposed new commercial zoning district, the proposed overlay zone and the results of applying the City's Access and Management Policy to University Drive. In general there was support for the Commercial-Business zoning district. There was comment that some would like to see other uses permined on a discretionary basis. In response the staff included in the list of ermitted uses "other uses may be permitted by the Commission". One representative felt that University Drive should be exclusively • commercial. In general there was agreement to the concept of an overlay district. Questions concerned who should bear the cost of improvements and underground utilities, when should improvements be required and how would non-conforming uses be treated. There was also discussion as to where the corridor as an "entry" should end relative to the overlay district. Some suggested that it should extend to Texas Avenue. The discussion concerning access was the most sensitive issue with general agreement that controlling access is appropriate and should be done through the platting or site plan process. There was desire to see the City's Access Policy remain flexible. There was concern that adequate access points be provided for individual properties. • Draft Page 16 • CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • CONCLUSIONS AND REC011~IlViENDATIONS • • University Drive's function as a major gateway to College Station and Texas A&M University will increase in importance m the future particularly with the relocation of the State Headquarters for the Texas A&M University System. The Planning and Zoning Commission Subcommittee focused on this while rev~ewin~ the findings in the 1985 University Drive Study, and while analyzing current conditions in the study area and looking at changes since 1985. They determined that the assumptions and recommendations of the original 1985 study are still generally valid today. The C-1 zonings done since the study did not comply with the 1985 findings nor the Comprehensive Plan and Policies in existence at the time. The current Comprehensive Plan and Policies express the same philosophy relative to commercial land uses as the Plan did in 1985. Therefore, the changes to C-1 zoning that occurred along the south side of University since 1985 do not invalidate the ori~mal recommendations in the 1985 study. Essentially there have been no changes in zoning, land use or other factors to warrant significant changes in the original recommendations. The Subcommittee offers the following conclusions and recommendations based on their study: The existing land uses reflected on the Land Use Plan on the north side of University from Tarrow east to Spring Loop are still apppropriate. These consist of commercial and office uses and medium density res~denUal uses. RECOMMENDATION: As in the original studyy, limit areas reflected on the Land Use Plan for mufti- family uses to R-3 or R-4 with A-P as a possible alternative; Leave Tract C (Figure 2) as R-4 or rezone it to A-P; and Consider favorably requests !or additional A-P zoning just east of the University Park Subdivision. 2. There exists a need for an additional commercial zoning district (C-B) that would be available for locations where some commercial would be appropriate but not the full range of uses allowed in C-1. The full range of C-1 uses would not be appropriate along the University Drive corridor considering its function as an entryway. Properties currently zoned C-1 in the study area would be more appropriately zoned C-B. The existing C-1 tracts that are developed at this time could be rezoned to C-B without affectingg existing uses. Uses existing at this time would also be permitted under the C-B district. Il appears from the comments received from most property owners that zoning to C-B would not be opposed. The City should anticipate possible op osition reggarding the vacant C- 1tract on the northwest corner of University and the East By-Pass. This property had an approved site ptan for a service station several years ago but a permit was never requested. There may also be some opposition from the developer of the Glenhaven Subdivision regarding the vacant C-1 property at the corner. Draft Page; 17 • RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning ordinance creating a new commercial zoning district which would be available City-wide for locations appropriate for commercial uses but not the range allowed m C-1, and Rezone through Gty initiation all C-1 tracts s~lthin the study area to C-B as shown on Figure 12. Only the corner portion of the C-1 property in Glenhaven should be rezoned to GB as shown on Figure 12. The Wheeler tract located on the southwest corner of University and Lincoln is an appropriate location for C-B zoning. The southeast corner would be most appropriate as A-P. RECOMMENDATION: Accept rezoning upon request of the Wheeler tract on the west to C-B and the one on the east to A-P. • 4. The R-1 tract shown as Tract E (Figure 2) is large enough to be developed under different acceptable scenanos and analysis of specsfic proposals should be made at the time of request. RECOMMENDATION: Leave the R-1 zoning of Tract E until such time as rezoning is requested. Specific recommendations should wait until development pressures cause rezoning requests. A portion of this property could be used to extend the depth of Tract F. If any commercial zoning ~s requested it should not be other than A- P or GB -vith a mrnimum depth of 400' o!t University Drive. The C-N tract at the corner of Spring Loop is inappropriately zoned in light of the Subcommittee's recommendatson that no convenience stores be placed along University Drive. It would be more appropriately zoned R-4. This will more than likely result in opposition from the property owner but is supported by the current Comprehensive Plan and Policies. RECOMMENDATION: Rezone through City initiation the GN tract at the corner of Spring Loop and University Dnve to R-4 as shown on Figure 12. Draft Pagc 1 S Draft FIGURE 12 ~J 6. An overlay district is a way to address those elements other than land uses that affect the visual character of an entryway corridor. This concept could be applied to other major corridors within the City as well as University Drive. Applying this district along University Drive will create some non-conforming situations. Existing building and parking setbacks would more than likely not meet those that would be proposed in the overlay district. This would impact future requests for building or remodeling permits but should not preclude solutions acceptable to all parties involved. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance creating an overlay district, compatible with any Streetscapc recommendations, addressing elements such as parking lot screening, corridor theme plantings, building setbacks and colors, srgnage and utility locations as proposed for application to all major corridors. Adopt the distract for the University Drive corridor as soon as possible and apply it to all properties that abut University Drive. Regulations would apply to These properties for a depth of S00 feet. 7. Limiting and controlling driveway location is imperative to preserve the function of University Drive as a major arterial providing safe and efficient traffic movement with a minimal interuptions. This should be accomplished through platting and site Manning actions as is currently supported by the City's development policies. Access control is a sensitive issue. The City should be prepared for developer opposition in the application of the Subcommittee's recommendations relative to specific future access points. RECOMMENDATION: Limit access drives as rel7ected on Figure 10. Depending on the timing of development some Ilexibility will be necessary. Access should not be denied to tracts ready to develop when the necessary easements cannot be acquired across neighboring properties. ~~ Draft Page 19 C~ J APPENDIX • 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMtSSiON GUEST REGISTER • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ~5• DATE q AME ADDRESS - ~,~ ~~' R_ ,` ~o ~~DI ~~,~ 15. 16.