HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2020 - Regular Agenda Packet - Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee
AGENDA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION
COMMITTEE
Monday, June 15, 2020, 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting via Zoom
By Computer: https://zoom.us/j/95195369870?pwd=Ump2OWtFTmRMQ210ZTlhekdGNlpzUT09
By Phone: 888-475-4499 US and enter Meeting ID: 951 9536 9870 and Password: 375210
A quorum of the College Station City Council or the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission may or may not be present at this meeting.
1. Call the meeting to order.
2. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting Minutes.
• May 12, 2020
3. Overview presentation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report working draft.
4. Presentation and discussion of the Big Picture Recommendations.
5. Presentation and discussion of updated scenario information including performance metrics.
6. Presentation and discussion of the proposed public input process.
7. Presentation and discussion outlining next steps in the Evaluation process. 8. Adjourn.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas
Avenue, College Station, Texas, on June 11, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_________________________________
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting
and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or
large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least
two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the
necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder With an Openly Carried Handgun. “Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun
licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly”
Codigo Penal §30.07. Trespasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre
con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre”
MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION
COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 6:00 PM
Virtual meeting via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Bochner, Brad Brimley, Michael Buckley, Clint
Cooper, Elizabeth Cunha, Shana Elliott, Joe Guerra, Lisa Halperin, Linda Harvell, Dennis
Maloney, John Nichols, Jeremy Osborne and Julie Schultz CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager and Interim Director of Planning and
Development Services Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant Director Molly Hitchcock, Transportation
Planning Coordinator Jason Schubert, Long Range Planning Administrator Alyssa Halle-
Schramm, Staff Planner Jade Broadnax, Staff Planner Treston Rodriguez and Staff Assistant
Robin Macias 1. Call the meeting to order.
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
• January 29, 2020 Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm discussed the attendance corrections
from the minutes.
The committee had no other corrections.
3. Presentation and discussion of a revised working timeline and process changes due to COVID-19.
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave a presentation regarding the
revised working timeline and future steps of the project. She discussed the possibility of
doing online public outreach in June or July and having a possible public meeting in
August, if safe to do so based on COVID-19 and social distancing guidelines. 4. Presentation and discussion of potential revisions to the Future Land Use categories.
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave a presentation regarding the
Future Land Use Categories. The proposed revisions to the land use categories allow
more flexibility. The category names will be simplified and renamed so there will no longer be a one-to-one match with the zoning ordinance.
There was general discussion amongst the committee regarding the future land use
categories.
• Engage the Economic Development department for their recommendation
on the Employment Center category name
• Some confusion between the Mixed Residential and Suburban Residential categories based on the proposed definition. Clarification may be needed
to more clearly separate these categories
• For Suburban Residential – How would you make the distinction between the two densities in modeling for transportation and water if restricted
suburban and general suburban are combined? Potentially think more
about this category.
• What would be the benefit of keeping the Parks and Greenways land use
separate from Natural Areas? Staff clarified that Parks and Greenways is largely City-owned property while Natural Areas is floodplain or environmentally-sensitive areas on private property.
• Combining all Wellborn land uses may make the community feel
minimalized. Maybe have two different categories for Wellborn Business
and Wellborn Residential. There needs to be a way to ensure the Wellborn
community understands that the Comprehensive Plan continues
supporting their character. There may need to be more language about this special district.
5. Presentation and discussion of the draft scenarios.
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave a presentation regarding the
scenario performance measures.
There was general discussion amongst the committee regarding the performance measures.
• There may be more understanding needed of the definitions, especially
Quality of Place
• There was an urge to include the neighborhoods in these decisions and
processes
• Clearly communicating to the public that the scenarios are meant to test
ideas will be key
Transportation Planning Coordinator Schubert gave a presentation regarding the six scenarios.
There was general discussion regarding the six scenarios.
Scenario 1: University Drive East of Texas Avenue
• When looking at the performance measures it may be good to take an
average of the past few years.
• It will be important to formulate a statement regarding the current economic situation due to COVID-19 and losses in sales and property tax revenues. This situation is still unfolding, there are many unknowns.
Scenario 2: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus
• The alternative idea was liked due to the prime real estate of the current
City Hall location.
• Advise engaging neighborhood before changing the area of neighborhood conservation.
Scenario 3: Post Oak Mall Area
• Attract more anchors to this area
• Need more hotels and multi-family in this area to make it a destination
• Include Brazos Valley Transit in discussion and potentially make this a
transportation hub and the City’s first transit oriented development
• Over retailed – look into more mixed use with the mall being the urban center
• Not sure if it is appropriate to put forward a scenario in regards to the mall to the public since it is privately owned. We would not want people
thinking that we are going to change the mall when we have no control
over what they do. Committee discussion regarding this exercise being a
test of future options in the mall area, not a specific proposal or
development plan to change to mall.
• This would be a good scenario to start with because we can show that we are brainstorming on what it could be. This scenario does a good job
demonstrating the intent of the scenario exercise.
Scenario 4: Harvey Road (opposite the Post Oak Mall)
• There were no comments on this area
Scenario 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area
• Would like to revisit the neighborhood committee and neighborhood residents to discuss changes in this area. Potentially revisit the Southside Area Neighborhood Plan to see what was done eight years ago and if it’s
still relevant.
• The Anticipated Scenario does match the Southside Area Neighborhood
Plan. We should consider new family dynamics in this area and ask the
neighborhood and public at large.
• What can be done to protect the current single family homes
• The Mixed Residential areas provide a nice buffer between uses
• Likes the Alternate Scenario because of the street patterns. This pushes
denser development along Wellborn.
• Public involvement is vital. The scenario exercise involves the public in the
discussion.
Scenario 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus
• Some committee members feel like this scenario area should be tabled while others think it should be included to test ideas with the public
• Neighborhood integrity is important in this area
• There are no changes to the schools and religious institutions
6. Presentation and discussion outlining next steps in the Evaluation process. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm gave an update regarding the next committee meeting.
7. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan
10-year Evaluation
and Appraisal Report
Draft June 8, 2020
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
2 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Contents
Part I: Introduction
Overview and Purpose .............................................................................................. 1
Process ......................................................................................................................... 1
Changing Conditions ................................................................................................. x
Plan Successes ........................................................................................................... x
Interim Amendments ................................................................................................ x
Themes that the Plan Update Must Address ......................................................... x
Part II: Big Picture Recommendations
Overview .....................................................................................................................
A. Consider renaming the chapters to reflect aspirations .................................
B. Refine the vision statement and goals .............................................................
C. Refine the Concept Map .....................................................................................
D. Refine the Future Land Use Map ......................................................................
E. Prioritize areas for additional detailed planning .............................................
F. Refine the Thoroughfare Plan ...........................................................................
G. Refine the Annexation Priorities and Phasing Plan ........................................
H. Create a more accessible, action-oriented, and user-friendly plan ...............
I. Add a chapter about partnerships and collaboration ....................................
Part III: Recommendations by Plan Chapter
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................
Chapter 2: Community Character .............................................................................
Chapter 3: Neighborhood Integrity .........................................................................
Chapter 4: Economic Development .........................................................................
Chapter 5: Parks, Greenways and the Arts .............................................................
Chapter 6: Transportation ........................................................................................
Chapter 7: Municipal Services & Community Facilities .........................................
Chapter 8: Growth Management .............................................................................
Chapter 9: Implementation & Administration .........................................................
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report (2018)
Appendix B: Public Input Summary (part 1)
Appendix C: Public Input Summary (part 2)
Appendix D: Implementation Progress Assessment
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 3
Part I: Introduction
Overview and Purpose
College Station’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in May of 2009, serves as a
statement of the community’s vision for the future. It provides goals, policies,
and actions on a broad range of topics and provides strategic direction to
guide the City’s physical growth while maintaining a high quality of life. As a
long-range document with an anticipated life span of 20 years, the
Comprehensive Plan calls for an Evaluation and Appraisal Report to be
prepared every five years.
The purpose of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report is to serve as a “checkup” by identifying the
Plan’s successes and shortcomings, considering changing conditions, and recommending
appropriate modifications.
This report and its associated appendices:
• Builds upon the Five-year Evaluation and Appraisal prepared in 2014.
• Provides a review of the basic conditions and assumptions related to the City’s growth.
• Evaluates implementation progress related to the Plan’s goals, strategies, and action items.
• Serves to prepare the City for a major update to the Plan by defining potential modifications
to its policies, action items, and structure.
What is the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document adopted by the City Council that serves as a
guide for decisions about our physical development. The Local Government Code, which gives
cities their police powers, requires that land use decisions be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, so it is very important to keep it up to date. The purpose of the plan is to
anticipate growth and to guide that growth in a manner that provides College Station with a
balance of land uses that promote economic development while retaining quality of life.
The Plan expresses community values and aspirations through goals and objectives. It also
contains policy guidance in the form of text, maps, and specific actions related to land use and
character, neighborhoods, housing, environment, economic development, transportation and
related topics. It implemented over time through the City’s zoning and other regulations,
infrastructure investments, and other public and private development decisions.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
4 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Process
Overview and highlights of the Next 10 Process (to be added).
Changing Conditions
Overview and highlights of the 2018 Existing Conditions report (to be added).
Plan Successes
Overview and highlights of the accomplishments (to be added).
Interim Amendments
Overview and highlights of the amendments to the plan. Focus on the past five years (to be added)
Themes that the Plan Update Must Address
The following 10 themes guide the recommendations in this Evaluation and Appraisal Report. These
themes were distilled from input of stakeholders, the public, City staff, and the CPEC. A future
update to the Comprehensive Plan should address these themes.
1. Creating a stronger sense of place
2. Encouraging infill and redevelopment in strategic locations
3. Protecting the character of established stable neighborhoods
4. Expanding housing choices
5. Focusing on quality of life, amenities, and “things to do”
6. Building a more complete transportation system
7. Maintaining fiscally responsible growth
8. Addressing environmental resiliency and “green” initiatives
9. Improving coordination between the City and University
10. Creating a more actionable, strategic, and user-friendly Plan
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 5
Part II: Big Picture
Recommendations
The following recommendations detailed in this section include potential
updates to the Plan that address the 10 themes defined on the previous
page. These Big Picture recommendations involve potential updates to the
Plan’s major guiding vision, goals, and policy maps. They also include
recommendations that apply to the Plan’s structure and each of its chapters.
A. Consider renaming the chapters to reflect aspirations
B. Refine the vision statement and goals
C. Refine the Concept Map
D. Refine the Future Land Use Map
E. Prioritize areas for additional detailed planning
F. Refine the Thoroughfare Plan
G. Refine the Annexation Priorities and Phasing Plan
H. Revise the Plan’s recommendation structure and format
I. Add a chapter about partnerships and collaboration
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
6 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
A. Consider renaming the chapters to reflect aspirations
The Plan is organized into nine chapters that are named based on common
comprehensive plan elements. Input with staff, stakeholders, and CPEC included
potentially renaming some of the chapters to be more aspirational and to better
reflect the Plan goals.
A.1. Rename Chapter 6. Transportation to “Mobility”
Use the term “mobility” in place of Transportation in the title of Chapter 6 to imply that this element
is more than roads, traffic, and cars.
A.2. Consider chapter names that use verbs or adjectives.
Some modern comprehensive plans are organized by themes rather than literal topic names. A
similar idea could be implemented in College Station’s Plan by renaming the existing chapters to
reflect themes or aspirations. The two examples below rename the existing chapters using
adjectives or verbs.
EXAMPLE 1
Potential Chapter Titles Existing
1. Plan foundation 1. Introduction
2. Distinctive places 2. Community Character
3. Strong neighborhoods 3. Neighborhood Integrity
4. A prosperous economy 4. Economic Development
5. Desirable amenities 5. Parks, Greenways, and the Arts
6. Integrated mobility 6. Transportation
7. Exceptional services 7. Municipal Services and Community Facilities
8. Managed growth 8. Growth management and capacity
9. Plan implementation 9. Implementation and Administration
EXAMPLE 2
Potential Chapter Titles Existing
1. Foundation 1. Introduction
2. Shape 2. Community Character
3. Live 3. Neighborhood Integrity
4. Prosper 4. Economic Development
5. Experience 5. Parks, Greenways, and the Arts
6. Move 6. Transportation
7. Serve 7. Municipal Services and Community Facilities
8. Sustain 8. Growth management and capacity
9. Achieve 9. Implementation and Administration
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 7
B. Refine the vision statement and goals
The Comprehensive Plan includes a vision statement and seven goals that depict
the City’s high-level aspirations. A plan’s vision and goals should be enduring and
may not need to be re-evaluated on a regular basis. However, based on community
input and discussions with the CPEC, there is a need to consider refinements to the
statements in the 10-year update.
B.1 Refine the Vision Statement
The following comments were provided by the CPEC regarding the vision statement.
• Remove “Research valley” and replace with Texas Triangle
• Consider adding resiliency, sustainability, and fiscal health
• Consider replacing “growth” with character and quality of place
• Simplify wording of bullet #2
• Consider adding “community pride”
• Remove the term “remain” – the statement should be bolder and more aspirational
The following proposed vision statement shortens the existing vision, incorporates the above
comments, and utilizes the chapter themes suggested in A.2. on the previous page.
Draft Proposed Vision Existing Vision
College Station, the proud home of
Texas A&M University and the heart
of the Texas Triangle, will serve as
an example of a vibrant, forward
thinking, knowledge-based
community, that promotes the
highest quality-of-life through
distinctive places, strong
neighborhoods, a prosperous
economy, desirable amenities, an
integrated mobility system, and
exceptional services. The City will
continue to be friendly, highly
responsive, and a demonstrated
partner in promoting a vibrant
Brazos Valley. It will be a place
where Texas and the world come to,
to learn, to live, to experience, and
to conduct business!
College Station, the proud home of Texas A&M University and
the heart of the Research Valley, will remain a vibrant, forward
thinking, knowledge-based community which promotes the
highest quality of life for its citizens by …
• Ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods
with enduring character;
• Increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station
citizens through a well-planned and constructed inter-
modal transportation system;
• Expecting sensitive development and management of the
built and natural environment;
• Supporting well planned, quality and sustainable growth;
• Valuing and protecting our cultural and historical
community resources;
• Developing and maintaining quality cost-effective
community facilities, infrastructure and services which
ensure our City is cohesive and well connected; and,
• Pro-actively creating and maintaining economic and
educational opportunities for all citizens.
College Station will continue to be among the friendliest and most
responsive of communities and a demonstrated partner in
maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the
Brazos Valley. It will continue to be a place where Texas and the
world come to learn, live, and conduct business!
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
8 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
B.1 Refine the Goals
The Comprehensive Plan contains seven goals, one for each of the topical chapters. The existing
goals are written inconsistently and may omit important ideas that relate to the vision. For the
purpose of this Evaluation, a Goal is defined as: an intended outcome expressed in simple terms.
The following Comprehensive Plan goals are listed below. Each topic provides a list of comments
from the CPEC pertaining to that chapter’s goal, followed by a proposed revision to the goal.
Community Character (chapter 2)
• Replace “rural areas” with green spaces
• Consider use of “conserve” rather than “protect”
Draft Proposed Existing
A community with vibrant and distinctive built
places, revitalized gateways and corridors,
attractive neighborhoods, and conserved natural
areas, that exhibits environmental stewardship
and resiliency.
To be a community with strong, unique
neighborhoods, protected rural
areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and a
protected and enhanced natural environment.
Neighborhood Integrity (chapter 3)
• Use the word “foster” as opposed to “protect”
• Goal should apply to all neighborhoods, not just established ones
Draft Proposed Existing
Desirable and complete neighborhoods that
offer long-term viability and appeal while
providing a wide range of housing options for a
diverse population.
To protect the long-term viability and appeal of
established neighborhoods.
Economic Development (chapter 4)
The Economic Development chapter references the Economic Development Masterplan. An update
to that masterplan was adopted by City Council on May 14, 2020. The following notes and proposed
revision are provided for completeness, but may be superseded by the ongoing update of that plan.
Ideally, the overall goal for economic development aligns with the goals in the Masterplan.
• Concern that the term “full-time jobs” excludes an important dimension of employment
opportunities
• Consider entrepreneurs and workforce development
• Need to be welcoming for all – job opportunities (diverse) and housing
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 9
Draft Proposed Existing
A diversified economy with a wide variety of
competitive jobs, support for entrepreneurs,
and opportunities to build skills; that
provides a tax base to support the City’s
ability to foster a high quality of life; and
where economic prosperity is widespread.
A diversified economy generating quality, stable, full-
time jobs; bolstering the sales and property tax base;
and contributing to a high quality of life.
Parks, greenways, and the arts (chapter 5)
• Consider changing the title of this element since it is broader than parks. Perhaps
“recreation and amenities”
Draft Proposed Existing
Highly desirable parks, greenways, and arts
and culture amenities, that support high-
quality experiences for residents and
visitors.
Diversity of parks, greenways and the arts for leisure
and recreation as well as for entertainment,
education and culture to achieve a high quality of life
for all residents and visitors.
Transportation (Mobility) (chapter 6)
• Use a comprehensive approach to mobility that is sensitive to and supportive of the
surrounding land use context
Draft Proposed Existing
An innovative, safe, and well-connected
complete mobility system serving all user
types that is designed to support the
surrounding land uses.
Improved mobility through a safe, efficient, and well-
connected multimodal transportation system
designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land
uses.
Facilities and Services (chapter 7)
• No comments
Draft Proposed Existing
Exceptional municipal facilities and services
that meet community needs, contribute to
community character, and are sensitive to
the surrounding land uses.
Municipal facilities that meet community needs,
contribute to community character, are sensitive to
the surrounding land uses, and provide exceptional
municipal services.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
10 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Growth Management (chapter 8)
• Remove leading verb (applies to all)
Draft Proposed Existing
Fiscally responsible and carefully managed
development that is aligned with growth
expectations and the ability to provide safe,
timely, and efficient infrastructure and
services.
Ensure fiscally responsible and carefully managed
development aligned with growth expectations and in
concert with the ability to deliver infrastructure and
services in a safe, timely, and effective
manner.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 11
C. Refine the Concept Map
The Concept Map is intended to provide broad overview of City’s growth and
development strategy. It designates general growth types including redevelopment,
growth, and conservation. It also identifies locations where small area plans or
neighborhood plans exist or should be created in the future. This information is
used along with the Future Land Use map to guide development decisions,
infrastructure, and rezonings.
However, some of the information on the Concept Map overlaps with information
the Future Land Use Map, requiring staff to reference both maps together. Also,
some information shown such as growth areas or special planning areas may no
longer be relevant or feasible.
C.1. Make the map more strategic by highlighting only areas for change and
areas with special plans.
Rather than identifying all parts of the city with a concept such as growth, or redevelopment, or a
neighborhood planning, the map should highlight only those areas where a change in land use or
character is intended or where there are special plans and policies.
C.2. Show only neighborhood or special planning areas that have or will have
a neighborhood plan or area plan.
Another more strategic option is to show only the existing neighborhood plans, special district plans
(Wellborn & Medical District) and defined planning areas. Future or potential planning areas should
be removed.
C.3. Consider renaming the map.
Consider renaming the Concept Map to “Planning Areas Map” to reflect its new content.
C.4. Move the information describing the general intent for the planning
areas into the Future Land Use Category definitions.
The map identifies growth and planning areas and defines the intent for each of those areas within
the plan text. The guidance of those statements should be reflected in the definitions of Future Land
Use categories and not tied to this map. That change would make the Future Land Use map and the
Concept Map serve different purposes and would reduce the need to consult both maps. Growth
and redevelopment areas could still be identified on the Concept Map, but they should represent
strategic priority areas.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
12 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
D. Refine the Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map is the primary policy guide to the City’s future physical
development. It uses general land use categories to express the expectations and
intent for how land in the City and its ETJ should be used in the future. The map is
used to guide decisions about zoning changes and infrastructure investment.
A future land use map should provide clear expectations for City decision-makers,
the development community, and the public, while also providing flexibility to
accommodate specific site context, unique opportunities, and changing long-term
conditions. This challenge means that future land use maps vary widely between
communities.
Based on community and stakeholder input, changing conditions, and best
practices, several updates should be considered for the Future Land Use map.
These updates include including renaming the categories, refining the definitions of
those categories, and changing the categories applied to some locations in the City.
D.1. Consolidate and rename categories on the Future Land Use Map
One concern noted from stakeholders is that College Station’s Future Land Use map appears similar
to the City’s zoning map in many ways, which often creates confusion. It includes a relatively large
number of categories and several categories have the same name as zoning districts, but with
different meaning. Additionally, there may be important development concepts that are not
adequately accommodated by the current categories. The table on the following page illustrates a
proposed list of categories that address three issues.
a. Reduce the number of categories to simplify the map. The current map includes 25
categories, eight of which apply only to the Wellborn special district. In comparison, recent
plans for similar communities typically include between 12 and 18 categories. The
following proposed list includes 17 categories and shows how those proposed categories
relate to existing categories. Note that the underlying zoning districts that implement
these categories would not change.
b. Rename the categories to be distinct from zoning district names. The category names
have been changed so that they are different than zoning district names. The proposed
names describe types of places, rather than specific uses or development densities.
c. Introduce new categories that reflect missing development types, concepts, or
conditions. A new neighborhood-scale center (mixed-use) category and a new mixed
residential category are proposed.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 13
PROPOSED: Consolidated list of Future Land Use Categories
Existing categories Proposed categories Map color Color value (rgb)
Mixed Use Centers
1 Urban Mixed Use Urban Center 122 0 0
2 Village Center (unmapped) Neighborhood Center 180 120 100
Commercial Areas
3 General Commercial General Commercial 237 18 18
4 Suburban Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 250 162 162
5 Business Park Business Center 149 100 189
Neighborhood and Residential Areas
6 Urban Urban Residential 235 152 0
7 NEW Mixed Residential 235 194 61
8 Restricted Suburban Suburban Residential 247 239 87
General Suburban
9 Estate Estate Residential 255 255 179
10 Neighborhood Conservation Neighborhood Conservation 176 179 14
Institutional and Special Districts
11 Texas A&M University Texas A&M University 216 226 237
12 Institutional/Public Institutional/Public 158 210 232
Utilities
13 Medical Use Medical 0 97 199
14
Wellborn Preserve (open)
Wellborn Estate (open)
Wellborn Business
Wellborn Commercial
Wellborn Preserve
Wellborn Estate
Wellborn Restricted Suburban
Wellborn Suburban
Wellborn
0 149 168
Limited Development Areas
15 Natural (protected) Parks and Greenways 92 120 68
16 Natural (reserved) Natural Areas 192 214 154
17 Rural Rural 224 242 194
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
14 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
D.2. Clarify the definitions of each Future Land Use category
The current Plan’s future land use categories are each defined with a short text description. In some
cases those descriptions accommodate a wide range of potential uses and development types. One
example is the existing “Urban” category, which in many contexts means high density residential, but
could also mean commercial, office, or a vertical mixing of uses depending on location. These
current definitions provide flexibility, but may be less successful at providing clarity and
predictability. In some locations, the Concept Map also indicates expectations for development.
The future land use categories could be redefined to provide clearer expectations about future
development for policymakers, staff, and the public while still providing flexibility needed in a long-
term city-wide policy guide. The following example definitions employ a character-based approach
that include a general description, statements of intent, physical attributes, and representative
example photos.
EXAMPLE: Future land use type definitions from another plan
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 15
PROPOSED: Future Land Use Definitions based on proposed categories
Urban Center
Areas that are appropriate for the most intense development and
mix of uses arranged in a compact and walkable pattern. These
areas will tend to consist of multi-story residential, commercial,
and office uses that may be mixed vertically within mixed-use
structures or horizontally in an integrated manner. Urban Centers
should also incorporate consolidated parking facilities, access to
transportation alternatives, open space and recreational facilities,
and public uses.
Building Height: 5 stories average
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Create and reinforce walkable activity centers with small blocks that are
connected to surrounding development and include a mix of complementary
uses.
• Accommodate a mix of building types including freestanding and attached
structures that frame attractive pedestrian zones between buildings and
streets.
• Encourage commercial uses along primary streets.
• Encourage vertical mixed-use structures with ground-floor retail in
appropriate locations such as along major corridors.
• Support multifamily residential as a secondary component of a center.
• Encourage shared surface parking located behind buildings or to the side of
buildings; structured parking; and on-street parking where possible.
Zoning districts:
MU Mixed-Use,
In Northgate only: NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3,
In Wolf Pen Creek only: WPC
Future Land Use and Zoning
The Future Land Use Map and categories are general policy guides for how areas of the City
could develop in the future. The zoning map is a legal document that that regulates how a
specific property can be developed today. Each property in the City is assigned to one zoning
district. The Future Land Use categories reference multiple potentially appropriate zoning
districts. Zoning map changes are considered based on the Future Land Use Map, other City
policies, and the context of a specific site. Zoning changes involve a public hearing process.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
16 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Neighborhood Center
Areas that are appropriate for a mix of uses arranged in a compact
and walkable pattern at a smaller scale than Urban Centers. These
areas consist of residential, commercial, and office uses arranged
horizontally in an integrated manner and may be mixed vertically
within structures. Neighborhood Centers should also incorporate
consolidated parking facilities, access to transportation
alternatives, open space and recreational facilities, and public uses.
Height: 3 stories average;
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Create and reinforce walkable activity centers that are connected to
surrounding development and include a mix of complementary uses.
• Accommodate a mix of building types that frame attractive pedestrian spaces.
• Encourage commercial uses along primary streets.
• Support vertical mixed-use structures with ground-floor retail in appropriate
locations such as along corridors or major intersections
• Support multifamily residential as a secondary component of a center.
• Encourage shared surface parking located behind or to the side of buildings,
with some limited parking in front of buildings; structured parking; and on-
street parking where possible.
Zoning districts: MU Mixed-Use
General Commercial
Concentrated areas of commercial activities that cater to both
nearby residents and to the larger community or region. Generally,
these areas tend to be large and located along regionally
significant roads. Due to their context, these areas tend to
prioritize automobile mobility.
Height: 1-2 stories average
Mobility: Primarily automobile, but accessible by walking, biking, and transit.
Intent
• Accommodate a wide range of commercial uses.
• Concentrate future commercial development at major intersections.
• Provide connectivity to surrounding bicycle and pedestrian networks and
provide safe pedestrian facilities within sites.
• Encourage transitions in building height and mass when adjacent to
residential neighborhoods.
• Support multi-family residential as secondary uses on a site.
• Encourage shared surface parking
Zoning districts: GC General Commercial, O Office, MU Mixed-Use
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 17
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas of commercial activities that cater primarily to nearby
residents. These areas tend to be smaller format than general
commercial and located adjacent to major roads along the fringe
of residential areas. Design of these structures is compatible in
size, architecture, and lot coverage with surrounding residential
uses.
Height: 1-2 stories average
Mobility: Primarily automobile, but accessible by walking, biking, and transit.
Intent
• Accommodate limited commercial services compared to General Commercial.
• Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and
nearby public uses (schools, parks, etc.).
• Support some residential use that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood character.
• Encourage transitions in building height and mass when adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
• In a walkable neighborhood context, locate new buildings near the street and
accommodate parking to the side or rear of buildings with some limited
parking in front of buildings and accommodate on-street parking where
possible.
Zoning districts: SC Suburban Commercial, O Office
Business Center
Areas that include office, research, or industrial uses that may be
planned and developed as a unified project. Generally, these areas
need convenient access to arterial roadways.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Intent
• Accommodate a variety of large footprint buildings.
• Accommodate commercial and service uses within Employment Centers.
• Accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity to and within
Employment Centers.
• Provide buffering through landscaping and building placement where large-
scale employment sites are adjacent to residential areas.
Zoning districts: BP Business Park, BPI Business Park Industrial, CI Commercial
Industrial
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
18 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Urban Residential
Areas that are appropriate for a range of high density multi-family
and attached residential development in various forms including
townhomes, apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings, and
limited non-residential uses that are compatible with the
surrounding area.
Height: 3 stories average
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Accommodate a wide range of attractive multi-family housing for a diverse
population. Buildings may be clustered and grouped. Building setback from
street varies but is generally consistent within a development.
• Provide vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between developments.
• Accommodate streetscape features such as sidewalks, street trees, and
lighting.
• Support commercial, service, office uses, and vertical mixed-use within
redevelopment areas.
Zoning districts: MF Multi-Family, MU Mixed-Use, T Townhouse
Mixed Residential
Areas appropriate for a mix of moderate density residential
development including, townhomes, duplexes, and small (3-12
unit) multi-family buildings, and limited small-lot single family.
These areas are appropriate for residential infill and
redevelopment that allows original character to evolve. These
areas may serve as buffers between more intense multi-family
residential or mixed-use development and suburban residential
or neighborhood conservation areas.
Height: Varies (generally 2-3 stories)
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Accommodate a walkable pattern of small lots, small blocks and well-
connected street pattern.
• Accommodate streetscape features such as sidewalks, street trees, and
lighting.
• Encourage community facilities, parks, and greenways within neighborhoods
• Support neighborhoods with a mix of housing types and where larger or more
dense housing is located near community facilities or adjacent to commercial
or neighborhood centers
Zoning districts: D Duplex, T Townhouse, limited scale MF Multi-Family
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 19
Suburban Residential
Primarily single-family residential areas that consist of low to
moderate density single-family lots. These areas may also
include limited townhomes, duplexes, other housing types, and
some non-residential uses that are compatible with
surrounding single-family areas. Development types tend to be
highly consistent within a subdivision or neighborhood.
Height: 1-2 stories average
Mobility: Primarily automobile, but accessible by walking, biking, and transit
to surrounding neighborhood services and centers.
Intent
• Accommodate streetscape features such as sidewalks, street trees, and
lighting
• Support neighborhoods with a mix of housing types
• Encourage community facilities, parks, and greenways within
neighborhoods
• When establishing new residential areas or expanding existing
developments, provide pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between
adjacent developments
Zoning districts: RS Restricted Suburban, GS General Suburban
Estate Residential
Primarily single-family residential areas that have a low level of
development activities. These areas are appropriate for very
low-density residential lots one-acre or greater lot sizes or
average 20,000 square feet lots when clustered around open
space.
Height: 1-2 story average
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Intent
• Support a wide range of lot sizes, long blocks, and curvilinear streets.
Buildings tend to be located greater than 30 feet from a fronting street.
• When establishing new residential areas or expanding existing
developments, provide pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between
adjacent developments
Zoning districts: E Estate, R Rural, MHP Manufactured Home Park
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
20 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Neighborhood Conservation
Residential areas that are essentially “built-out” and are not
likely to be the focus of extensive infill development or
redevelopment. These areas often were platted before current
development regulations were in place often resulting in non-
conforming situations. These areas are appropriate for overlays
or zoning classifications that provide additional character
protection and address non-conforming issues.
Height: 1-2 stories
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile. On-street parking and private
off-street parking.
Intent
• Maintain the existing housing stock, lot patterns, and character of
neighborhoods.
• Support infill housing that fits-in with neighboring homes (scale,
placement, use, etc). Address non-conforming lot issues through
flexible development regulations.
• Maintain established trees
Zoning districts: GS General Suburban and RS Restricted Suburban
Texas A&M University
Areas owned by Texas A&M University and are appropriate for
campus development as described in the Texas A&M Master
Plan and related documents.
Institutional/Public
Areas that are, and are likely to remain, in some form of
institutional or public activity. Examples include schools,
libraries, municipal facilities, and major utilities.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 21
Medical
Areas appropriate for medically-related uses and supporting
office, commercial, and residential uses. The medical land use
designation surrounding Rock Prairie and State Highway 6 is
further detailed in the Medical District Master Plan, which
envisions a wide array of medical and supporting services and
activities concentrated in the district. This includes the two
major hospitals in close proximity to residential neighborhoods,
neighborhood centers, offices, and commercial uses.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Zoning districts: Varies
Wellborn
The Wellborn Community Plan envisions the future of Wellborn
to maintain its rural character with open space that is both
privately and publicly held. The area will continue as a place
where neighborhood commercial uses support surrounding
low-density residential properties.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Zoning districts: Where appropriate as specified in the Wellborn Community
Plan - WE Wellborn Estate, WRS Wellborn Restricted Suburban, WC Wellborn
Commercial
Parks and Greenways
Areas that are permanently protected from development. Such
areas are preserved for their natural function or for parks,
recreation, or greenways opportunities. These areas include,
publicly owned open space, conservation easements, and
public parks.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
22 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Natural Areas
This land use designation is generally for areas that represent a
constraint to development and that should be preserved for
their natural function or open space qualities. These areas
include floodplains and riparian buffers.
Intent
• Conserve environmentally sensitive land.
• Buffer incompatible land uses with open space.
• Develop a connected open space network through the city for recreation.
•
Zoning districts: NAP Natural Areas Protected
Rural
Areas that, due to public service limitations, inadequate public
infrastructure, or a prevailing rural or agricultural character,
should have very limited development activities. These areas
will tend to include a mix of large acreages (ranches and
farmsteads) and limited large-lot (one acre or larger)
residential developments. Open space is the dominant feature
of these areas.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Zoning districts: R Rural, MHP Manufactured Home Park
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 23
D.3. Update the future land use map to reflect new categories
The following examples are intended to illustrate a concept behind potential map changes that
could be applied to various locations. Each example focuses on a small area of the city and features
an existing map (with existing categories) and a potential map (with new categories).
a. Introduce a new Neighborhood Center category
The Neighborhood Center category defines areas that are appropriate for a mix of uses
arranged in a compact and walkable pattern at a smaller in scale than Urban Centers.
EXAMPLES
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
24 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
b. Introduce a new Mixed Residential category
The Mixed Residential category defines areas that are appropriate for a mix of moderate
density residential development including small-lot single family, townhomes, duplexes,
and small (3-12 unit) multi-family buildings. These areas are appropriate for residential
infill and redevelopment that allows original character to evolve.
EXAMPLES
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 25
c. Re-evaluate “Suburban Commercial” and “General Commercial” locations
The current General Commercial category name is proposed to be retained. The current
Suburban Commercial category is proposed to be called Neighborhood Commercial. Areas
that are currently Suburban Commercial along major corridors could be reclassified as
General Commercial and additional areas within the City may be classified as
Neighborhood Commercial.
EXAMPLE
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
26 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 27
d. Update the Natural Areas boundary
The current Natural Areas can be updated using recent data to more accurately represent
the FEMA floodplain and other natural features.
EXAMPLE
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
28 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
E. Prioritize areas for additional detailed planning
(neighborhood plans and small area plans)
The current Plan relies on further planning and detailed study for specific guidance
on many of the city’s existing neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and growth areas.
For example, it states that 13 districts and corridors “will be the subject of a future
district or corridor plan that will … refine appropriate and compatible land uses and
design for vacant land within the district or corridor and for areas appropriate for
redevelopment or resource protection.”
Over the last 10 years, five neighborhood plans (Central College Station, South
Knoll, Eastgate, Southside, and Wellborn) were developed as well as the Medical
District Master Plan. However, several other neighborhoods, corridors, and
redevelopment ideas identified in the Comprehensive Plan have not been
undertaken.
E.2. Review neighborhood plans that are beyond their planning horizon
(address what to do with older neighborhood plans)
To be completed
E.1. Undertake strategic area plans… (specific recommendations may be
informed by the scenario planning effort underway)
To be completed
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 29
F. Refine the Thoroughfare Plan
The Thoroughfare Plan within the Transportation Chapter provide guidance on the
planning and design of streets that a serve moderate to high traffic volumes, serve
moderate to long distance trips, and provide connectivity to regional roadway
systems. The Thoroughfare Plan was last updated in 2017 and introduced a
modern, context-sensitive approach to street design. That approach means streets
are designed to accommodate and prioritize various transportation modes and
users based on their surrounding land use context.
F.1. Consider consolidating categories on the Thoroughfare Plan
Consolidate two street types on the Thoroughfare Plan to simplify the map and better align it with
the Federal functional classifications. The 4-lane and 6-lane major arterials could be merged into a
single major arterial category. The typical section illustrations in the Comprehensive Plan document
would need to be updated to reflect this change.
F.2. Consider the placement of “Context Zones” in response to changes
on the Future Land Use Map
Update the definition of Context Zones based on changes to the Future Land Use categories. For
example, the Urban Core zone may need to include both the Urban Center and Neighborhood
Center Future Land Use categories. The placement of Context Zones on the Thoroughfare Plan
should also be adjusted to correspond to changes to the Future Land Use Map.
F.3. Integrate the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan into
the Transportation (Mobility) Chapter
Input from stakeholders indicated a strong desire emphasize bicycle and pedestrian mobility along
with the Thoroughfare Plan within the Transportation Chapter. The City has updated the Bicycle,
Pedestrian and Greenways Masterplan, which addresses this topic. Like all masterplans, this plan is
intended to be an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the current Comprehensive
Plan references this masterplan briefly in Chapter 5 “Parks, Greenways, and the Arts” while Chapter
6: Transportation, contains only a small section about bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
To complement the Thoroughfare Plan, key elements from the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Masterplan should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and potential bicycle corridors
could be identified. For example, consider including Map 5.5 Existing and Proposed Bicycle facilities
and Map 5.6 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities within the Comprehensive Plan in the same
chapter as the Thoroughfare Plan.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
30 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
G. Refine the Annexation Priorities and Phasing Plan
Annexation benefits cities in many ways, including providing areas for future
growth, securing tax base revenue sources, covering costs for ETJ residents already
using City services such as streets and parks, and asserting zoning and other
regulatory controls to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Annexation
Priorities and Phasing Plan within Chapter 8 identifies the geographic priority areas
for annexation. However, recent Texas legislative changes have limited cities’ ability
to annex territory. The Comprehensive Plan should reflect this new reality.
G.1. Update Map 8.1 Annexation Priorities and Phasing
The plan narrative describing annexation should be revised to reflect the conditions under which
annexation could occur in the future. The text of Chapter 8, should be revised accordingly.
The annexation priorities and phasing map should be revised as follows:
a. Identify only areas for priority annexation. The current distinctions between Future
Annexation Areas and Areas Eligible for Annexation could be revised to be all one color
and renamed to “priority annexation areas.”
b. Review and update current development agreements. The current Development
Agreements should be assessed in light of the Texas Legislature’s changes to
annexation. The City should assess the long-term interest and the viability of sustaining
these agreements.
c. Include current Municipal Utility Agreements (MUD). MUD #2 for Millican Reserve
will need to be added to the map.
d. Update the ETJ Boundary. The ETJ needs to be extended to the 5-mile boundary.
Texas Legislative Changes to Annexation
After the 86th session of the Texas Legislature in 2019, cities lost the ability to unilaterally annex territory.
House Bill 347 has changed the way cities can annex, essentially requiring consent to annexation by a territory’s
residents and/or property owners for cities to grow. Moving forward, cities may annex in four ways: 1) consent
exempt annexation, 2) annexation on request of the landowner, 3) annexation by petition of an area with a
population of less than 200, and 4) annexation of an area with a population of 200 or more by election and
possibly petition. A few exceptions include areas with Strategic Partnerships.
College Station currently has two Strategic Partnership Agreements—one for Brazos County Municipal Utility
District No. 1 (Southern Pointe), and one for Brazos County MUD No. 2 (Millican Reserve). Both agreements
define how the City may annex these territories in the future—when they are substantially developed and
infrastructure costs have been reimbursed to the developers—and in the case of Millican Reserve, how the City
may also annex for limited purpose. Strategic Partnerships will likely remain a viable annexation option for
College Station, with evaluation and negotiations to be made on a case-by-case basis.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 31
H. Revise the Plan’s recommendation structure and format
Stakeholders familiar with the Plan expressed a desire for a more action-oriented
document that is written in simple and approachable language. Many observe that
it contains unnecessary information, that critical action items are mixed with
ongoing efforts, and that actions are difficult to track. The following
recommendations address this issue.
H.1. Revise actions to be more specific, actionable, and trackable.
The current Plan’s recommendations are listed within each chapter in a section called “Goal,
Strategies, and Actions.” Within those sections, numbered strategies organize actions that are
presented in a bullet format. There is a considerable amount of repetition of similar or identical
actions between the chapters. Some of the current action items are specific projects or programs
such as “Neighborhood Funding Support. Fund and expand the Neighborhood Grants program,” yet
others are very general, such as “Sustainability. Promote sustainable design for neighborhoods.”
a. Write actions as a specific project, policy, program, or regulation. Where the goals and
strategies depict the City’s broad aspirations and direction, action items should answer
“how” those aspirations are achieved. The action statement should be concise. It could be
supported by several explanatory sentences.
EXAMPLE: 1.2 Conduct community-wide parks and recreation needs
assessments. Evaluate facilities and programs provided by the Parks and Recreation
Department through community surveys at least every five years.
b. Use a numbering system to track action items. To assist with cross referencing and
tracking of the recommendations, each action item should be numbered. In the example
above, the action 1.2 is the second item listed under strategy 1. To associate a specific action
to a chapter, a third level may be added to the numbering system. Using the same example,
the action from Chapter 5 could numbered as 5.1.2. Another common numbering scheme
involves abbreviating the chapter title, such as CF 1.2.
c. Remove duplicate or complete actions. In the 10 years since the Plan was adopted, many
of its specific action items have been completed. Other action items may not have been
completed, but are no longer relevant for various reasons. In several instances, action items
are duplicated or are very similar across chapters. Actions that fall into any of these three
categories should be removed from the Plan. Potentially duplicated actions that are still
relevant, should be included once within the most appropriate chapter and strategy. A status
assessment of the actions is included in Appendix D.
d. Consider rephrasing the strategies that organize actions. The updated actions could be
organized by strategies as they are now, but those strategies could be phrased more
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
32 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
concisely and reflect themes within the goals. For example, if the goal for Neighborhood
Integrity mentions “diverse housing,” then a strategy could address “Promote housing
diversity.” Similarly, if the goal for Mobility mentions “a complete transportation system”
then a strategy could be “promote a more complete transportation system.”
e. Consider an alternative for organizing actions. Many of the actions are ongoing, but still
relevant and merit including in the Plan. Other actions offer general policy guidance, but are
not as specific as typical sections. Rather than using strategies to organize actions, it may be
helpful to sort the recommendations into two categories: (1) Ongoing initiatives and policy
direction; and (2) strategic actions. In this case, the strategic actions would only include
projects or programs that are relevant and have not yet been undertaken, have not yet been
sufficiently been implemented, or are new actions. Ongoing initiatives would include regular
actions such as undertaking updates to plans. This alternative organization may better help
the City focus its efforts.
EXAMPLE: Alternative for organizing actions (Parks, Greenways, and the Arts chapter)
Goal: Highly desirable parks, greenways, and arts and culture amenities, that support
high-quality experiences for residents and visitors.
Strategic actions
5.1 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.2 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.3 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.4 Action title. Descriptive text.
Ongoing initiatives and policy direction
5.5 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.6 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.7 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.8 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.9 Action title. Descriptive text.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 33
H.2. Include an implementation summary table that references the
actions.
A best practice for managing a comprehensive plan is to include a table that summarizes the
actions, notes timing, responsibility, and other relevant information for each action. The current
Chapter 9: Implementation, includes a table that identifies various initiatives, general roles and
responsibilities, and funding sources. In addition to or in place of this table, an action summary table
should be included. Such a table may resemble the following example. Similar summary tables exist
in recent neighborhood plans such as the Wellborn Community Plan.
EXAMPLE: Implementation summary table from another plan
EXAMPLE: Each action could be tagged with icons or words that are defined in the text
including responsible parties, time-frame, category, or status.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
34 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
H.3. Reduce the amount of text, particularly for background or
contextual information
Background information is useful to support a plan’s policies and recommendations, however it
becomes dated quickly and can distract from the plan’s important “so what?” message. Currently, a
significant amount of the Comprehensive Plan’s text relates to conditions, trends, and planning
considerations. A modern approach to preparing a comprehensive plan is to limit the amount of
contextual information to key highlights that are critical to inform the recommendations. Consider:
a. Reducing the amount of narrative within the plan overall and breaking up text into shorter
sections
b. Calling attention to key points using bold descriptive statements at the beginning of a
paragraph.
c. Referencing appendices for details of the conditions and trends
H.4. Update the document design and format
The City raised expectations in the terms of graphic design in its most recent 2018 Existing
Conditions Report. The Comprehensive Plan update is an opportunity to continue that direction and
create a more graphic and user-friendly document.
In preparing an updated document, the city should also consider how the community could learn
about the plan and its recommendations. Consider updating the plan’s online presence. Many
examples exist such as the award-winning PlanOKC.org.
EXAMPLE: The excerpt below from the 2018 Existing Conditions Report serves as a
precedent for redesigning the Comprehensive Plan document.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 35
I. Add a chapter about partnerships and collaboration
Many of the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations relate to collaborations
and partnerships with entities outside of City government. This evaluation
process identified the need to emphasize and build upon the City’s
relationships particularly with Texas A&M University and City of Bryan.
Currently, these recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan are spread
among many chapters.
I.1. Within a new chapter, consolidate partnership actions.
A new chapter should be added to the plan to would consolidate the many action items that require
collaboration with external entities (Texas A&M, CSISD, Brazos County, etc.) and specific internal
coordination actions into one location. This chapter would help to highlight the importance of the
University-City relationship.
I.2. Within this new chapter, summarize internal coordination activities.
This chapter should also highlight critical internal coordination activities such as ongoing processes
for updating masterplans. For example, an update to the City’s water and wastewater masterplan,
should be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use and growth assumptions.
Each of the major ongoing coordination activities should be described.
WORKING DRAFT June 8, 2020
36 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Part III: Recommendations
by Plan Chapter
1. Introduction
2. Community Character
3. Neighborhood Integrity
4. Economic Development (being updated through a separate process)
5. Parks, Greenways, and the Arts
6. Transportation
7. Municipal Services and Community Facilities
8. Growth Management and Capacity
9. New: Partnerships and Collaboration
10. Implementation and Administration
This section is under development and will be discussed at future CPEC
meetings.
This document serves as a review of the technical methodology for the metrics used to score the land use
scenarios for the College Station Comprehensive Plan Update. In total, there were nineteen metrics used
in this planning exercise divided into five broad categories:
⚫ Housing,
⚫ Economic,
⚫ Transportation,
⚫ Infrastructure, and
⚫ Quality of Place.
Table 1 lists all of the scoring metrics by category and describes their methodologies. Tables 2 and 3 are
reference tables that were used to calculate development densities and employment levels by land use
type.
Table 1: Scoring Metrics & Methodologies
Category Metric Description Existing Scenario
Calculation Method
Future Scenario
Calculation Method Housing Housing Units Number of housing units in
the subarea
Count of housing units
based on existing land
use shapefiles provided
by the City
Count of existing housing
units that did not
redevelop, plus the
acreage of new
residential multiplied by
the residential density
assumptions (Table 2)
Population Number of residents living
within the subarea
Number of housing units multiplied by an average
occupancy rate of 90.2% and an average household
size of 2.48 people Economic Jobs Number of jobs provided by
the office and retail
businesses within the subarea
Existing square footage
of non-residential land
uses multiplied by an
employment factor
determined for each land
use type (Table 3)
Existing jobs that did not
redevelop, plus the
acreage of new non-
residential land uses
multiplied by a floor-area
ratio and an employment
factor determined by
land use (Table 3)
Commercial
Square Footage
Square footage of retail space
provided in the subarea
Existing square footage
of commercial buildings
based on existing land
use shapefiles provided
by the City
Existing commercial
square footage for
properties that did not
redevelop, plus the
acreage of new
commercial multiplied by
a floor-area ratio
determined by land use
(Table 2)
Property Tax
Revenue (Annual)
Estimated amount of revenue
generated from property taxes
in the subarea. Based on
2019 actual revenues.
2019 actual property tax
revenues
2019 actual property tax
revenues, plus property
tax revenue projected
using an excel-based tax
model developed by
Kimley-Horn
Category Metric Description Existing Scenario
Calculation Method
Future Scenario
Calculation Method
Sales Tax
Revenue (Annual)
Estimated amount of revenue
generated from sales tax in
the subarea. Based on 2019
actual revenues.
2019 actual sales tax
revenues
2019 actual sales tax
revenues, plus sales tax
revenue projected using
an excel-based tax
model developed by
Kimley-Horn Transportation Total Trips (all
modes)
Total number of person trips
generated by the subarea’s
land uses
Input the existing land
use program into ITE’s
Trip Generation
spreadsheet
Input the future land use
program into ITE’s Trip
Generation spreadsheet
Vehicular Trips
Total number of vehicular trips
generated by the subarea’s
land uses
Total Trips (all modes) multiplied by one minus the
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction
Intersection
Density
Average number of
intersections per acre in each
subarea
Total number of roadway intersections divided by the
acreage of the subarea
Internal Capture
Rate
Number of trips captured
internally by the mix of land
uses within the subarea
Total Trips (all modes) divided by land use type, input
into an excel-based internal capture calculator
developed by Kimley-Horn
Multimodal Trip
Rate Reduction
Percent of total trips that are
estimated to be non-vehicular
Excel-based Multimodal trip rate calculator developed
by Kimley-Horn Infrastructure Water/Wastewater
Demand (gal/day)
Total demand of water and
wastewater gallons per day
generated in the subarea
Land use program multiplied by the Water Master
Plan’s land use equivalents (LUE’s) and average
demand by land use
Cost of
Water/Wastewater
Upgrades
Total cost of upgrades to the
existing infrastructure system
based on Water/Wastewater
Demand (gal/day) in the
subarea
Determined by the City based an infrastructure
demand model
Annual
Water/Wastewater
Revenue
Estimated amount of revenue
earned based on the increase
in water/wastewater demand
Determined by the City based an infrastructure
demand model Quality of Place Land Use Mix A balance of mix of uses on a
scale from low to high
Qualitative examination of the land use program by
scenario on a scale from low to high
Low: Low mix of
uses, all single-
use development
Medium: Medium
mix of uses, some
mixed-use
development
High: Large
diversity of land
uses, large
amount of mixed-
use development
Meaningful Open
Space
Integrated into the area with
opportunities to create
synergy between people and
uses on a scale from low to
high
Qualitative examination of the open space by
scenario on a scale from low to high
Low: No open
space or open
space is not
sufficient
Medium: Open
space present but
not in abundance
High: Large
amount of open
space with
opportunities to
create synergy
Category Metric Description Existing Scenario
Calculation Method
Future Scenario
Calculation Method
Street Level
Activation
Active and inviting storefronts,
building location and massing,
and priority ped activity on a
scale from low to high
Qualitative examination of the street level activation
by scenario on a scale from low to high
Low: Little or no
priority to
pedestrians
Medium: Some
design dedicated
to pedestrians
High:
Development
prioritizes
pedestrians
Connectivity Ratio of nonvehicular facilities
to vehicular facilities
Miles of sidewalk and bicycle facilities divided by
miles of roadway facilities
Table 2: Development Density Assumptions
Land Use %
Residential
%
Commercial
%
Office
Units/
Acre
#
Floors Coverage FAR
Urban
Residential 100% - - 16 - - -
Mixed
Residential 100% - - 10 - - -
Suburban
Residential 100% - - 4 - - -
Urban Center 50% 25% 25% 16 4 50% 2.0
Neighborhood
Center 25% 37.5% 37.5% 10 2 30% 0.6
General
Commercial - 90% 10% - 1 20% 0.2
Institutional/
Public - - 100% - 1 20% 0.2
*This table does not list every land use used in the scenarios. Any land use not shown above did not
require unit or square footage calculations.
Table 3: Employment Assumptions
Land Use SqFt Per
Emp
Commercial Retail 500
Commercial Office 301
Commercial Industrial 1,093
Commercial Other 500
Group Quarters 429
Mixed Use 500
Public Facilities 301
Semi-Public 301
Transportation/Utilities 1,093
Light Industrial 433
HARVEY ROAD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityLand Use Types*
8
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
HARV
EY
R
O
AD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Post Oak Mall remains intact
• Develop empty or
underutilized parcels into
urban center
Zone 1• Urban center developments along the corners and edges of sub area• South-western developments to link in high density residential to create the feel of one contiguous walkable development
Retail: (15,000) sqft
Office: 245,000 sqft
Residential: 215 units
HARV
EY
R
O
AD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Assumes major rework of
Post Oak Mall
• Adds new minor collector
between Harvey Rd &
Holleman Dr
Zone 1
• Redevelopment of Post Oak Mall into
a large urban & neighborhood center
• Increased access points from
surrounding thoroughfares
• Replaces a large amount of
commercial square footage with office
and residential
Retail: (265,000) sqft
Office: 735,000 sqft
Residential: 1,209 units
9
1
1
1
1
1
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Urban Residential:Apartment complexes
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Institutional/Public
General Commercial:Retail, office, & commercial uses Unimproved/Vacant
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
10
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-21%55%
--23%
70%67%10%
13%9%9%
4%4%4%
13%--
---
594 units 809 units 1,803 units
1,125,000 sqft 1,110,000 sqft 860,000 sqft
15,000 sqft 260,000 sqft 750,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
UrbanCenter
General
Commercial
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area
11
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 594 809 1,803
Population 1,329 1,811 4,033
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 2,299 2,731 3,219
Commercial Square Footage 1,140,027 1,364,825 1,608,665
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $771,000* $1,158,000 $2,217,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $1,974,000* $1,946,000 $1,477,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 28,543 59,626 70,312
Vehicular Trips 24,427 48,419 45,928
Intersection Density 0.06 0.06 0.11
Internal Capture Rate 0.20%5.30%12.70%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 14.25%14.25%25.18%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)277,920 351,120 566,040
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $1,911,325 $2,055,850 $3,037,060
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$886,004 $1,114,169 $1,754,912
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Low Medium High
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low High
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Medium High
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
1.31 1.56 1.91
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Neighborhood
Center
HARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Land Use Types*
12
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
HARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE
EAST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Carries over urban style
mixed use from mall
redevelopment
• Mixing in more commercial
with existing multi-family
Zone 2
• Expanded general commercial
development along Harvey Rd across
from Post Oak Mall
Retail: 116,000 sqft
Office: 96,000 sqft
Residential: (163) units
Zone 1
• Smaller pocket of urban center
development towards the center of
the sub area
HARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EAST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• A portion of existing
apartments converted to
neighborhood center
• Providing a buffer
between urban center and
neighborhood
Retail: 436,000 sqft
Office: 296,000 sqft
Residential: (308) units
13
2 1
1
Zone 1
• Neighborhood center along Harvey Rd
• Commercial and office located near
highway, residential in the back closer
to the neighborhoods
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
General Commercial:Retail, office, & commercial uses
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Urban Residential:Apartment complexes
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall)SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
14
Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall)
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-11%-
--38%
19%26%26%
81%63%37%
---
1,501 units 1,338 units 1,193 units
114,000 sqft 230,000 sqft 550,000 sqft
4,000 sqft 100,000 sqft 300,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Urban
Residential
Neighborhood Center
UrbanCenter
General
Commercial
15
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 1,501 1,338 1,193
Population 3,358 2,993 2,670
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 252 677 1,700
Commercial Square Footage 117,848 158,566 850,053
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $342,000* $395,000 $727,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $113,000* $331,000 $931,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 12,426 17,689 31,310
Vehicular Trips 10,427 11,905 22,195
Intersection Density 0.19 0.19 0.19
Internal Capture Rate 1.00%20.60%13.80%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 15.24%15.24%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD) 287,880 290,340 342,240
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $2,009,913 $2,085,113 $2,526,294
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$843,808 $865,994 $1,052,546
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Medium Medium Medium
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low Medium
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Medium Medium
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
1.29 1.52 1.56
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
U-
V
R
O
W
TA
R
R
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
W-
X
R
OW
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
C
O
U
R
T
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
S
Q
U
A
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
FLORICULTURE
R
O
A
D
CH
A
P
P
E
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
TU
R
N
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
PA
S
L
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T PRESTON STREETSO
U
T
H
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
ARGUELLO DRIVE
MA
C
A
R
T
H
U
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
L
A
N
E POPLAR STREETCH
U
R
C
H
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
TA
R
R
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
NU
N
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
BA
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
EIS
E
N
H
O
W
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
JA
N
E
S
T
R
E
E
TCOONER STREETNI
M
I
T
Z
S
T
R
E
E
T
PURYEAR DRIVEFR
O
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T LINCOLN AVENUEASH STREETBANKS STREETCOLUMBUS STREETAV
E
N
U
E
B
HENSEL STREETMOORE AVENUEMONTE CARLO
AV
E
N
U
E
A
WA
L
T
O
N
D
RIV
EPEYTON STREETHENSEL DRIVEWELLESLEY COURTVASSAR COURTHA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY DRIVEUNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityLand Use Types*
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY DRIVEUNIVERSITY DRIVE EA
ST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Northern commercial to be
redeveloped
• New urban residential
housing in place of duplexes
Zone 2
• Redevelopment of underutilized
low density commercial sites into
focal points that serve as a gateway
between the university and its
surrounding commercial
Retail: 120,000 sqft
Office: 170,000 sqft
Residential: 152 units
Zone 1• Focused on redevelopment of larger tracts that are underutilized for enhanced gateway at University Drive
U-V
R
O
W
TA
R
R
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
W-
X
R
O
W
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
C
O
U
R
T
CE
N
T
UR
Y
S
Q
U
A
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
FLORICULTURE RO
A
D
CH
A
P
P
E
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
TUR
N
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
PA
S
L
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T PRESTON STREETSO
U
T
H
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
ARGUELLO DRIVE
MA
C
A
R
T
H
U
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
L
A
N
E POPLAR STREETCH
U
R
C
H
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
TA
R
R
O
W S
T
R
E
E
T
NUN
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
BAL
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
EIS
E
N
H
O
W
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
JA
N
E
S
T
R
E
E
TCOONER STREET
NI
M
I
T
Z
S
T
R
E
E
T
PURYEAR DRIVE
FRO
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T LINCOLN AVENUEASH STREETBANKS STREETCOLUMBUS STREETAVEN
U
E
B
HENSEL STREETMOORE AVENUEMONTE CARLO
AVE
N
U
E
A
WA
L
T
O
N
D
R
I
V
EPEYTON STREETHENSEL DRIVEW ELLESLEY COURTVASSAR COURTHA
RRI
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY DRIVEUNIVERSITY DRIVE EA
ST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• More redevelopment with a
mixed-use pattern
• Adding residential on
top of the proposed new
commercial
Zone 1
• Neighborhood mixed use
development that offers access to
both vehicles and pedestrians
• Increased amount of office uses
Retail: 140,000 sqft
Office: 480,000 sqft
Residential: 313 units
Zone 2
• Urban mixed use, creating strong focal
points moving away from university
campus to draw people in
• Corners are set to frame an entrance
into the northern section of University
Drive
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
16 17
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Suburban Residential:Single-family homes
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Neighborhood Conservation:Established Neighborhoods
General Commercial:Retail, office, & commercial uses Institutional/Public
Urban Residential:Apartment complexes Parks and Greenways
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
Unimproved/Vacant
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
2
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
18 19
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 255 407 568
Population 570 911 1,270
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 1,410 1,804 2,464
Commercial Square Footage 603,125 862,955 1,192,943
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $849,000* $1,229,000 $1,662,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $412,000* $637,000 $675,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 23,320 39,637 42,401
Vehicular Trips 19,477 31,745 31,242
Intersection Density 0.28 0.28 0.26
Internal Capture Rate 2.60%6.60%10.40%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 14.25%14.25%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)139,725 212,865 293,760
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $4,068,657 $5,364,315 $6,087,918
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$445,545 $670,549 $923,953
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Low Low High
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Medium Medium Medium
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Low High
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
0.50 0.67 0.75
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-16%14%
--40%
67%52%15%
-8%22%
13%15%1%
10%--
4%5%4%
3%3%3%
2%1.5%2%
1%0.5%-
87 units 35 units 35 units
168 units 372 units 533 units
530,000 sqft 650,000 sqft 670,000 sqft
70,000 sqft 240,000 sqft 550,000 sqft
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Suburban
Residential
Mixed
Residential
Parks &
Greenways
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Urban
Center
Neighborhood
Conservation
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
NEW
MAI
N D
RIVE
LOT 55 DWPOLO ROADRO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
E
L
O
T
1
5
ARMISTEAD STREETMILLIFF ROADSTAL
L
ING
S
DR
IVEPOPLAR STREETLOT 54 DW
NU
N
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
KYLE AVENUEFO
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
EIS
E
N
H
O
W
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
NI
M
I
T
Z
S
T
R
E
E
T
PURYEAR DRIVE JAM
E
S
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y GILCHRIST AVENUEMI
L
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
MOSS STREETRAMP
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
AV
E
N
U
E
A
WA
L
T
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
BOLTON AVENUEAS
H
B
U
R
N
A
V
E
N
U
E WOODLAND PARKWAYBROOKS AVENUEHA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
EUNIVERSITY DRIVEHARVEY ROAD
GE
O
R
G
E
B
U
S
H
D
R
I
V
E
E
A
S
T
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityLand Use Types*
20 NEW MAIN
DR IVE
LOT 55 DWPOLO ROA
D
ROS
E
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
E
LO
T
1
5
ARMISTEAD STREETMILLIFF ROADS
TA
L
L
ING
S
DR
IVEPOPLAR STREETLOT 54 DW
NU
N
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
KYLE AVENUEFO
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
EIS
E
N
H
O
W
E
R
S
T
R
E
ET
NIM
I
T
Z
S
T
R
E
E
T
PURYEAR DR
IVE
JAM
E
S
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y GILCHRIST AVENUEMI
L
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
MOSS STREETRAMP
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
AVE
N
U
E
A
WA
L
T
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
BOLTON AVENUEAS
H
B
U
R
N
A
V
E
N
U
E WOODLAND PARKWAYBROOKS AVENUEHA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
EUNIVERSITY DRIVEHARVEY ROAD
GE
O
R
G
E
B
U
S
H
D
R
I
V
E
E
A
S
T
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
GEORGE BUS
H DRI
VE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• City Hall redevelopment with
plaza space
Zone 1• Neighborhood center mixed-use to compliment City Hall redevelopment
Retail: 86,000 sqft
Office: 121,000 sqft
Residential: (19) units
Zone 2
• New general commercial
development along George Bush DriveNEW MAIN
DR IVE
LOT 55 DWPOLO ROA
D
RO
SE
M
A
R
Y
L
A
N
E
LO
T
1
5
ARMISTEAD STREETMILLIFF ROADS
TA
L
L
INGS
DR
I
V
EPOPLAR STREETLOT 54 DW
NU
N
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
KYLE AVENUEFO
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
EIS
E
N
H
O
W
E
R
S
T
R
EE
T
NIM
I
T
Z
S
T
R
E
E
T
PURYEAR DRIVE JAM
E
S
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y GILCHRIST AVENUEMI
L
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
MOSS STREETRAMP
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
AV
E
N
U
E
A
WA
L
T
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
BOLTON AVENUEAS
H
B
U
R
N
A
V
E
N
U
E WOODLAND PARKWAYBROOKS AVENUEHA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
EUNIVERSITY DRIVEHARVEY ROAD
GE
O
R
G
E
B
U
S
H
D
R
I
V
E
E
A
S
T
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
GEORGE BUS
H DRI
VE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• More neighborhood center
uses to compliment City Hall
redevelopmentRetail: 176,000 sqft
Office: 211,000 sqft
Residential: 11 units
21
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
2
1
1
1
Zone 1
• Townhomes and mixed residential
along edge of sub-area to buffer
between neighborhood center and
single-family neighborhood
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Neighborhood Conservation:Established Neighborhoods
General Commercial:Retail, office, & commercial uses Institutional/Public
Urban Residential:Apartment complexes Parks and Greenways
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
Unimproved/Vacant
Suburban Residential:Single-family homes
1
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
2
2 Zone 2
• Increased neighborhood center uses
with structured parking
• Moss St area consolidated to
neighborhood center
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
22
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-28%48%
27%17%17%
3%--
5%9%21%
17%--
22%21%-
16%16%10%
8%8%4%
1%--
82 units 49 units -
56 units 70 units 149 units
94,000 sqft 180,000 sqft 270,000 sqft
9,000 sqft 130,000 sqft 220,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus
23
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 138 119 149
Population 309 266 333
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 370 890 1,239
Commercial Square Footage 102,987 313,656 487,965
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $231,000* $399,000 $581,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $1,245,000* $1,406,000 $1,575,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 5,553 8,118 10,230
Vehicular Trips 4,627 5,152 6,065
Intersection Density 0.28 0.28 0.25
Internal Capture Rate 1.00%24.60%25.30%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 15.83%15.83%20.63%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)40,290 67,920 100,320
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $1,521,838 $1,643,638 $1,772,960
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$128,740 $221,536 $325,087
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Medium Medium Medium
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low High
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Medium Medium
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
1.55 1.74 1.78
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Suburban
Residential
Mixed
Residential
Parks &
Greenways
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Neighborhood
Conservation
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE WEST
HOLLEMAN DRIVEGEORGE BUSH DRIVEWELLBORN
ROAD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityLand Use Types*
24
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
GEORGE BUS
H DRIVE
WEST
HOLLEMAN
D
RIVEGEORGE BUSH DRIVEWELLBORN
ROA
D
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Representative of Southside
Area Neighborhood Plan
• More density along George
Bush and Wellborn
• Assumes Bush-Wellborn
interchange construction
Zone 1• Urban and neighborhood center along George Bush and Wellborn• Designed to be easily accessible to both TAMU campus and nearby single family residential
Retail: 46,000 sqft
Office: 70,000 sqft
Residential: 109 units
Zone 2
• Medium density residential to buffer
between new urban center and
existing Southside single-family homes
• Duplexes and fourplexes that match
the nearby suburban contextGEORGE BUSH DRIVE
WEST
HOLLEMAN DRIVE
GEOR
GE BUSH
D
RIVE
WEL
LBO
RN
ROAD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Assumes Bush-Wellborn
interchange construction
• Additional urban center
areas with removal of some
local streets
Zone 1
• Creating an enhanced pedestrian-
friendly neighborhood center on
the south side of campus (similar to
Century Square)
• Road closures along Highland St and
Grove St (marked on map) due to
Bush-Wellborn interchange
• Highland St from George Bush Dr to
Grove St closed to vehicular traffic,
similar concept to College Main
Retail: 90,000 sqft
Office: 124,000 sqft
Residential: 97 units
25
1
1
1
2
1
Urban Residential:Apartment complexes
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office,
& residential
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
General Commercial:Retail, office, & commercial uses
Suburban Residential:Single-family homes Parks and Greenways
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Unimproved/Vacant
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions= intersection closure
= intersection closure
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
26
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-33%55%
-20%16%
5.5%--
0.5%--
7%47%26%
83%--
--3%
4%--
170 units --
17 units 296 units 284 units
34,000 sqft 80,000 sqft 124,000 sqft
-70,000 sqft 124,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
27
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 187 296 284
Population 418 663 635
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 68 317 497
Commercial Square Footage 33,851 158,566 104,620
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $331,000* $521,000 $599,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $253,000* $339,000 $422,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 1,771 9,264 13,659
Vehicular Trips 1,536 6,751 9,839
Intersection Density 0.48 0.42 0.42
Internal Capture Rate 0.00%16.00%12.40%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 13.25%13.25%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)42,500 81,700 94,000
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $1,014,176 $1,435,018 $1,534,613
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$128,648 $236,950 $279,854
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Low High High
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low Medium
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low High High
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
0.29 0.96 1.02
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Suburban
Residential
Mixed
Residential
Parks &
Greenways
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Urban
Center
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
WELLBORN ROADTEXAS AVENUEHARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTHOLLEMAN DRIVE
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE WEST GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Land Use Types*
28
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
WELLBORN ROADTEXAS AVENUEHARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTHOLLEMAN DRIVE
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE WEST GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Scenario Assumptions
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Full residential buildout of
neighborhood conservation
area
Zone 1• Matches existing Southside Area Neighborhood Plan• Neighborhood conservation, historic suburban context• Development of currently vacant lots
Retail: -
Office: -
Residential: 4 units
WELLBORN ROADTEXAS AVENUEHARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTHOLLEMAN DRIVE
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE WEST GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Scenario Assumptions
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Redevelopment of select
areas with frontage along
George Bush Dr
Zone 1
• New neighborhood center
development
• Old town style to match the character
of the surrounding neighborhood
Retail: -
Office: 20,000 sqft
Residential: 10 units
29
1 1
1
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
General Commercial:Retail, office, & commercial uses
Neighborhood Conservation:Established Neighborhoods Institutional/Public
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Unimproved/Vacant
Zone 2• New mixed residential along George Bush Dr that matches the character of the Southside Neighborhood• Brownstone style homes
2
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
30
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
EXISTING
4%4%11%
40%41%31%
--3%
10%10%10%
45%45%45%
1%--
98 units 102 units 76 units
52 units 52 units 84 units
90,000 sqft 90,000 sqft 90,000 sqft
--20,000 sqft
300,000 sqft 300,000 sqft 300,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Education
31
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 150 154 160
Population 336 344 358
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 834 1,201 1,218
Commercial Square Footage 95,827 95,827 104,620
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $254,000* $257,000 $281,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $309,000* $309,000 $309,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 10,968 11,823 12,021
Vehicular Trips 8,636 8,357 8,225
Intersection Density 0.33 0.33 0.33
Internal Capture Rate 10.90%12.30%12.30%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 15.24%15.24%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)39,750 40,450 44,500
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $658,675 $727,250 $765,922
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$265,356 $267,666 $278,967
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Medium Medium Medium
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low Low
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Low Low
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
0.86 0.89 0.94
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Mixed
Residential
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Neighborhood
Conservation
ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE