HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp PlanKENDIG KEAST
COLLABORATIVE
514 Brooks Street I ugar Land, Texas 77-178
Phone : 2 1.242.2%0 Fax : 281.242.1115
College Station Comprehensive Plan Update
FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY
On October 26-27, 2006, a series of small-group interview sessions was conducted as part of
the "Discovery and Reconnaissance" phase of our work program as consultant for the
College Station Comprehensive Plan Update. These "focus groups" consisted of one-hour
discussions between Gary Mitchell, AICP, principal of Kendig Keast Collaborative (or Sean
Garretson with TIP Development Strategies for the two Economic Development sessions)
and anywhere from 10 to 30 community members in each session. Participants offered their
insights and concerns about current conditions in College Station and their ideas and
preferences as to how the community will develop over the next 20 years and beyond.
These informal conversations, together with the broader input to be received through the
upcoming Citizens Congress on December 4, 2006, will become the foundation of the City's
new long-range plan. The plan is issue-driven, meaning that it began with issues
identification, moved into exploration of the nature and cause of these issues, and will
result, ultimately, in an expressed deliberate course of action to overcome obstacles and
resolve difficulties to achieve the community's overall vision for the Year 2025.
The following topical sessions were completed over the course of the two days (City staff
documented the attendance by session). Some topics were repeated due to greater interest.
Concurrent sessions on Transportation and Economic Development were held on Friday.
Thursday, October 26
1. Historic Preservation (9:00 a.m.)
2. Transportation (10:00 a.m.)
3. Growth Management (11:00 a.m.)
4. Parks and Greenways (1:00 p.m.)
5. Land Use & Community Character
(2:00 p.m.)
6. Housing & Neighborhoods (3:00 p.m.)
Friday, October 27
7. Growth Management (9:00 a.m.)
8. Economic Development (10:00 a.m.)
9. Transportation (11:00 a.m.)
10. Economic Development (11:00 a.m.)
11. Transportation (1:00 p.m.)
12. Land Use & Community Character
(2:00 p .m.)
13. Growth Capacity (3:00)
On the following pages are summary notes from the focus groups, compiled by topic.
Pl!Tfon111111ce Co11cepts in Plmming
www. ken dig keast.com
, .
l _______ -...-_~J ---
• Need to focus on developing a network to hold the community together.
Other
• Park initiative between Grimes and Brazos County for a 10,000-acre park facility.
• An arterial intersecting a freeway, where Home Depot went in, is encroaching upon the
floodplain -the thoroughfare plan needs to respect the green way system.
• CS has a sister city (Bryan), and they don't always play well together. CS has been proactive in
the past, and citizens would like them to go to the next level.
• Need to decide what type of economic development they want.
• Parks are as fundamental as streets and infrastructure.
TRA NSPORTATION
Bike/Pedestrian!fransit Issues and Improvements
• Roads are not wide enough to cycle safely, and intersections are not safe.
• Major challenges crossing over ypass because bridges are not bike friendly.
• Bicyc e routes needed for park-to-park-recreation; however, there is a need for those who are
using it to go to work.
eed to accommodate two types of users of bike facilities: those that use roadways/pafus to
commute to destinations and those that use aths/trails for recreational purposes.
• Access road s on By ass were usable before they were improved (could ride on shoulder), now
there are curbs so you can't ride your ike.
Need bike paths that are separate.from .. both cars and pedestrians.
Transportation rights-oi-ways should include roads, bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
• Als need to account for school kids; right now b1cyc ists are using e sidewalks not the bike
lanes becau e they are not safe.
• Crossing Texas Avenue by bike is a safety issue cause fhere is carrecognition but no bike
recognition at the traffic 1g t.
• On campus the underpass is wonderful-the old overpass didn't work.
• Pu51ic transportation is a good solution (light rail, buses).
• General public can ride the TAMU transit system, but does it go where they need to go?
• There are a lot of bikers that use the easf13ypass, and therefore there is an opportunity for bike
•
•
connections to WolfPen ereek.
Need good community planning so kids can walk/Bike to fhe park, schOOI.
Bikeway system is relabvely good -as an alternative transportation system.
The bikes still have to compete with cars to get-acros J'exas and University to get to campus.
George Bush and Wellborn -TxDOT does have funds to put in a grade separation eventually for
bikes/pedestrians. Everything lags behind 10-15 years before projects hit the ground.
Bikes need to abide by traffic rules .
o hgate is beginnin to make progress for pedestrian traffic.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 15of 18
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Longmire Drive and Rock Prairie .
Deacon and Longmire (waiting at the lights when there are no cars) .
Synchronization of lights on University, Texas Avenue .
Munson, Dartworth, Harvey -could be a great edestrian and thoroughfare corridor .
Wellborn Road .
Rock Prairie and Wellborn Road .
Have proposed a project to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to interconnect
signals on state system -this will happen in the coming years.
Southwest Parkway at the Bypass -need for traffic signalization here, going east you have a
traffic light at Dartmouth.
Late at night lights should go to blinking red .
Overgrown trees on sidewalks forces people to walk in streets .
Lincoln-there are bike lanes; however, when you get to the duplexes it stops because of par ing,
ana ffien starts again. There is no serious consideration for bike lanes.
Intersections are reallx a roblem for bikes; bike boxes elsewhere in country allow bikes to make
a left turn.
Rock Prairie and Highway 6 .
Going north to Rock Prairie, traffic backs up .
Stonebrook at Rock Prairie (traffic, turning movements and intersection) .
Emerald Forest and Highway 6 .
Traffic on Munson, result of a system that lacks north/south roadways to travel.
2818 by theitigh school -getting kids safely across (no medians, crosswall<S .
Holleman and Texas Avenue .
Grade separation at 2818 and railroad will be implemented next December .
Co ege Station ISD: getting into neighborhoods is not a problem, coming out of the
neighborhoods is difficult. Up to 10% of the budget can be used for_hazardous conditions (for
example, Barron Road -two schools on Barron and kids cannot cross the road). Need to see more
eonnectivity.
anfuc et -difficult to pick up kids because of high-speed traffic .
Munson -speed - it's a cut-through .
Forest Bridge School on Barron Road is backed up because parents drop off kids (they can't walk
to school due to traffic).
All development inhibits connectivity-still only three to four ways-north-south and three to four
ways east-west. Limited-alternatives, therefore there is congestion. Every street should be a minor
collector with sidewalks.
Fine and good fo r new development but not for older neighborhoods. Should be able to come
home and not feel intruded upon by traffic. Kids should be able to play in the front yards -
it's wrong to take a neighborhood that's been there 20-25 years and seek connectivity options.
Community attitude has always been reactive not proactive. Traffic plan should be in place well
in advance including the ED. Plan should be updated every five years -10 years is not enough.
We have not had a viable plan/system for some time. Development is way ahead of the City's
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 16 of18
thought process. One ofThe key ways-a city can encourage/discourage growth is through a
transportation p an.
• Did put in traffic calming along Dexter that works.
• Traffic enforcement by the Police Department is good.
• City uses quality traffic signal system equipment.
Thoroughfa re Plan
• Major sections of the thoroughfare plan have been changed because of development.
• Thoroughfare plan is being implemented now.
• The thoroughfare plan establishes an overall picture, unfortunately it changes because of
development.
• Shouldn't negotia esp itting roads with developers, need to preserve right-of-way.
• Iiiclude a strong statement that City and City Council cannot ignore thoroughfares on plan.
Land Use and Transportation Planning
• Cut-through traffic through older neighborhoods is a problem.
• Don't want new thoroug ares cutting through neigh5or oods, need to preserve neighborlioo
integrity.
• Design the community to minimize reliance on automobile to get everywhere -i.e., through
mixed-use developments.
• Mixed-use developments -people don't believe it until it is there, so maybe make one corridor a
pilot, identify a target area and try to demonstrate that it works. One otential area could include
the Wolf Pen Creek and Harvey Road area. [ool< at transit possibilities (i.e., like Portland street
car or light rail, currently buses are packed, they leave people behind because they are so fu ll).
• CS has done a good job with Wolf Pen Creek corridor.
• Not going to have the mixed-use development if you attract the franchises, with parking lots out
front. European cities have plazas; however, if you don't restrict franchises this won't happen.
• Where major roads come together there is ressure for commercial development -this generates
pollutants that go into drainage system. Old thoroughfare plan did not take into account natural
constraints. e new plan should take into account-natural constraints, and new intersections
should be located away from floodplain.
• CS has grown and fias had to rely on arterials that are now inadequate. Munson-Dartmouth was
designed to discourage cut-through traffic but it doesn't do that. Need a plan to allow for future
traffic loads. Collectors-are serving as arterials. Should be on a half-mile grid. People need to
know that there's a 200-foot right-of-way. Barron Road is a good example -the-right-of-wa
sfiouldnave been bought years ago.
Other
•
•
•
ot interested in traveling fa ster in the city. University near Northgate can have narrower lanes,
with a median, and everyone's quality of life would go up. The number of cars there does dictate
quality of life.
Neea transportation planning for special events. Looking for creative ways to handle traffic
because of football games-and other special events.
No p ans to add more on-campus housing -more students are going to be living off campus and
we need to accommodate them.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 17of18
• Converting Foxfire Drive into a collector will redefine the neighborhood -making the street
larger than what it should be changes the character of the neighborhood.
• Should include question about bicycle usage on community survey.
• Community relies heavily on the comprehensive plan with a 10-year horizon. Could we think in
a 30-year horizon for a traffic plan?
• The right-of-way on 28l8 shows tremendous foresight but now may not be needed because it was
p anned as a freeway, but that is no longer where we need a freeway. 2818 is one of the few
streets where you can get somewhere through town.
• Expansion on the Bypass will be to six lanes instead of four and the widened bridges out near the
mall. The ramps wil change from a diamond pattern to an "X" pattern.
• Is TAMU transit just for students, or is it open to anyone who wants to go to the University or the
mall? razos Valley Transit does a lot of coordination that people do not see. They have nine
buses now that are shared between B-CS -could use 30 buses because of the large apartment
complexes going in.
• e railroad is an asset. Lots of big development going in. Railroad should stay.
• Transportation system is designed to fail twice a day.
• Older schools are located off mi!jor routes; new schools have access from a major road, which
creates traffic flow problems. Access needs to be far enough off the roads that queues do not back
up into traffic.
• Rock Prairie Road widening is good.
• Kudos on working with Bryan and TxDOT for the timing of the lights to move people through
morning commutes.
• South of Olson Field -City has put in two or three roads to funnel traffic off George Bush -
it helps alleviate backup onto George Bush.
• We have exceptional City staff, but the difficulty is using staff in processing ra er than planning.
Not fully utilizing the talent of the staff.
• The City should work with other communities to find examples of where traffic issues have been
successfully addressed in other places.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 18 of18
>r
KENDIG KEAST
C OLLABORAT I VE
514 Brooks h"ect I Sugar Land, Tcxa 77-178
Phone : 2 1.24-.2%0 Fax : 281.242.1115
College Station Comprehensive Plan Update
CITIZENS CONGRESS SUMMARY
A Citizens Congress was held on December 4, 2006, at the College Station Hilton.
The purpose of the Congress was to introduce the community to the comprehensive
planning process and gain valuable input for identifying community issues,
improvement needs, and priorities. The event was well attended with more than 300
residents participating in the process, according to coverage in the Bryan-Colleg e
Station Eagle.
Following opening festivities and remarks, including a Comprehensive Plan
overview presentation by lead consultant Kendig Keast Collaborative (KKC), three
rounds of breakout sessions were held to encourage discussion of specific plan
topics. Congress attendees were able to participate in breakout sessions on:
(1) Land Use and Community Character (facilitated by KKC),
(2) Economic Development (facilitated by TIP Development Strategies), and
(3) Transportation (facilitated by Alliance Transportation Group).
The comments and insights received through this significant community event will
be particularly helpful for formulating a community vision and goals, policies and
action strategies for the updated Comprehensive Plan. This summary of comments
from the Congress is based on flipchart and staff notes taken during the breakout
sessions.
Perfomm11ce Co11ce11ts in Plnnni11g
www. ken d igkeast.com
.!' STURGEON BAY.WI I CHICAGO.IL I SUGAR LAND.TX
• Don't like that people who worked for the City previously can represent developers once they
stop working for the City -believe it is a conflict of interest
• No development within floodplain
• Like the Unified Development Ordinance, but need to add a tree preservation ordinance and
stricter landscape requirements
• If City Council doesn't stick with the plan, how do you implement the plan?
• Land use and transportation planneed to be tied togethe
• Don't like having variances -get too far away from what the plan intended
• Ordinances need to match Comprehensive Plan more, require fewer Planning & Zoning
Commission (P&Z) and City Council decisions
• City Council and P&Z need to stop granting rezonings and variances
• Need to update development codes
• Conflicts between Comprehensive Plan and zoning
• Are ordinances flexible where they need to be?
• Broader zoning districts?
• Form-based zoning?
• Lack of code enforcement-the current process does not work
Citizen Participation and Planning Process
• Citizens feel like they, and the rest of the community, don't understand development process,
how zoning/land use/etc. work -want City to make an effort to educate citizens
• Citizens want to be informed -want homeowners associations to inform citizens through way of
City staff
• Need more e-mail notification, lists where citizens can sign up for different topics (land
development, parks updates, etc.)
• Notification areas for rezonings and variances too small
• Increase notification area to 500 feet
• Notification area should depend on size of development -larger development should have larger
notification area
• Greens Prairie Road/Rock Prairie Road Triangle: nearby residents didn't like the commercial
development changes to land use plan for the area without citizen input, need notification to a
larger area (more than just adjacent landowners)-citizens need to be informed more
• Need more public involvement when plan changes happen
• One long-time resident said that many years ago Bill Fitch tried to develop 28 acres (near
larger-lot residential) into 98 home sites -the nearby residents protested and got a park on this
land instead, making the point of citizen involvement to get the development they desire
• 1ke the existing Comprehensive Plan, but don't like how changes/runendments were made
5etween plans (i.e., zoning, land use, thoroughfare plan)
• Process between plans, like changes to land use plan and zoning, is secretive
Other
• Need better planning dialogue between TAMU and College Station
• Some like the idea of a county-wide metropolitan government -no College Station, Brazos
County or Bryan for planning/development, but one organization
• Move railroad? -cost?
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 6of14
• Lots of new branch offices for major companies have located here recently to tap into TAMU
talent base -should look at trying to leverage and expand their presence
• Should consider whether adopting Kyoto Protocols on emissions would enhance the
community's attractiveness to progressive businesses
• Each of the area's two airports should be leveraged fully for economic development
Potential Benchmarks
At the end of the presentation, TIP Strategies advised the audience that through an initial assessment,
including metro area population, student enrollment, and distance from a major metropolitan area,
College Station appeared to most resemble the communities listed below. TIP advised that these
communities would be used as benchmarks as a means for understanding their initiatives for
leveraging the presence of a major university for economic development:
• Gainesville, FL (University of Florida)
• Bloomington, IN (Indiana University)
• Champaign, IL (University of Illinois)
• State College, PA (Penn State)
• Athens, GA (University of Georgia)
• Ft. Collins, CO (Colorado State)
TIP then asked the audience if they could identify other communities that they felt were similar to
College Station or would want the community to emulate. The following communities were
identified by the audience:
• Boulder, CO (University of Colorado)
• Ann Arbor, MI (University of Michigan)
• Fayetteville, AR (University of Arkansas)
• Littleton, CO ("economic gardening" program)
• Lubbock, TX (Texas Tech)
• Davis, CA (UC-Davis)
• Corvallis, OR (Oregon State)
• The most important issue is maintaining neighborhood integrity. [This comment was repeated
many, many fimes.
• Do not put major thoroughfares through existing neighborhoods because it is important to
maintain neighborhood integrity.
• Neighborhood integrity -safety and security are the real issues.
Transportation Alternatives (other than autos)
• The problem with transportation planning-in this City is that the focus is all on building streets
an automobile transportation. There should be more focus on public transit, bicycles, and
pedestrians.
• A major issue is that if a erson' s car breaks down, or if a person cannot afford a car, or if a
person cannot drive a car -there are no NON-auto transportation alternatives available.
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 9of 14
• eurrent bike lanes are not safe. The lanes are not respected by autos and are intruded upon by
buses. The lanes just abruptly stop. The lanes do not allow for cyclists to safely cross major
intersections.
• Intersections should be made safe for pedestrians -even able-bodied coUege students do not
have time to cross streets under current signal timing without running -older people who cannot
run, cannot cross.
• The issue is that we need more transportation choices -that automobiles should not be the only
choice available to people. The-transportation plan should look at all modes of transportation
and create a unified plan that includes mass transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. ~icycles and
pedestrians should not just be something that is tacked on to an automobile plan.
• Bicycles cannot currently be used because bike lanes are not safe -they are too narrow or they
abraptly'stop -even avid bikers do not bike because it is not safe except on Sunday mornings.
• Our new plan should adequately address handicapped-accessible public transportation. At
present a handicapped person who lives in south College Station (e.g., Woodland Hills, Pebble
Creek, Nantucket) cannot use the Brazos Transit handicapped van because one must "live within
% mile of an established bus stop."
• Why can't the City work with the TAMU bus system? There should be some way to allow the
public to use T AMU buses.
• e need to learn about and provide input concerning bike paths, multi-use paths and open
SEace/ regional parks. We need more multi-use paths separate from car traffic (e.g., Boulder,
Colorado, Creek Path). Bike paths need to go under roads to keep the separation. It also helps
with flood control for those paths are ad·acent to drainage.
• All new development should have a bicycle transportation p an. Co lege Station is the only
designated Bicycle Friendly Community in the entire state of Texas (Bronze Level). Wouldn't it
be nice to become a silver, gold or platinum community?
• There are too many older people who are still driving even thou gh they shouldn't be because
they have no other transportation al ternatives. This problem is only going to get worse as the
"baby boomer" generation ages.
• In some subdivisions that were designed for it we should be certain that the transportation plan
stays friendly to horses, too.
• People should not be forced to depend on automobile transportation. It forces the citizens to
make bad long-term choices because they have no other alternative that is safe and reliable in the
short term.
Environmental Concerns
• The new plan needs to address environmental issues in a realistic manner.
• The majority of the City's funds should go into mass transit rather than new asphalt -because
mass transit is more environmentally friendly, cheaper, and it does not negatively impact the
rural countryside.
• There-is a large negative impact on existing communities when streets are widened and all
greenery and buffering is destroyed in that process. Large trees should be _preserved wherever
possible, and all projects should include landscaping and buffering.
• We need to create and enforce buffers between existing neighborhoods and major arterials.
• Talk about "parkways"-instead of streets and highways.
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 10of14
• Make keeping integrity of woodlands a priority. Trees keep our air clean -once air gets bad trees
have a hard time growing. e proactive and make kee ing our mature trees a riority when
designing new streets or enlarging old ones.
• We want green strips along with transportation -plan right of ways that allow for that.
• We need green growth. For instance, affirming the Kyoto Agreement; viable recycling; gray
water permits, individual electric energy generation with City buyback of excess output.
I believe these items will encourage the special village growth we are seeking and attract the
35-44 age demographic we need.
The Planning Process and-Public Involvement
• The major issue is that the City must develop a plan and then stick to it -especially, it-should
make developers stick to the plan as adopted. [This comment was repeated many times.]
• The City seems to put the interests of golfers and other wealthy individuals before that of the
average citizen.
• The issue is that the people want to have a say in what happens in their own neighborhood rather
than having outsiders come in and tell them what they need.
• The public has issues with the thoroughfare plan as it exists:
o Does not take into consideration actual growth patterns, especially to the east and-South.
o Topography of the land ignored -as a result, we s2ent millions of dollars for bridges
unnecessarily.
o City failed to make developers adhere to the plan.
• Citizens, NOT developers, should say where growth and new services should go.
• The new plan needs to be fiscally realistic.
• Major issue is that the citizens want the City to stick to agreements made -versus the public
having to constantly monitor what is going on to keep the City from going back on those
agreements.
• The citizens want a plan that is predictable - a plan that the City is required to stick to.
• The citizens want a durable plan -not something that is changed on a whim.
• Transportation plan should drive development, not the other way around.
• e need a strategy for ea ing with the TxDOT policy that they only build roads AFTER-the
need exists. This does not allow for prior planning for growth, but only addresses problems after
they arise. e need a plan for how to achieve our objectives given this TxDOT constraint.
• Traffic calming measures, ike spee bumps, are inst led to a {lress a specific problem area and
they end up causing more problems than they solve because the initial problem was not analyzed
looking at the broader transportation network.
• The City needs to exercise control over developers so that new neighborhoods are done right -so
thatthey meet an established set of standards. With new development we have an opportunity
to do things right -but we are not doing it. Even in new developments there are no sidewalks
for our children, no connecting roads, no bike lanes or bike paths -children still can't walk or
ride their bikes to school or the playground.
• stead of controlling through annexation, set standards for annexation. If a development does
not meet the standards, then no annexation and no city services. If a developer cannot sell the
development, he or she will not develoe.
• The thoroughfare plan changes "magically." The City needs to adhere to previous agreement .
• We need to plan before we build. Proactive not reactive.
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 11 of 14
• The major issues have been identified but are listed with important but less significant issues.
The list needs to be prioritized.
• My concern about the Comprehensive Plan is having adequate citizen input so that business
interests do not dominate it.
• Improve the existing Comprehensive Plan. Any plan that would have allowed Weingarten
Realty to destroy the neighborhoods off Rock Prairie Road -not only would it have destroyed the
property values in Woodcreek and Foxfire, but it would have created major traffic jams. The fact
that we allow gridlock to occur and then address the problem is counterproductive. Citizens
would have been left paying for the mess created by the developers. Look at Bryan ... The Eagle
noted the desirability and the incredible expense of widening Briarcrest. We need to anticipate
problems, not react to them.
• Don't builo an Tuen decide to provide roads. Provide the oads first, particularly when it is
affecting existing subdivisions where citizens have sunk their savings into their home.
• We need to work on planning and building a regional transportation system.
• It is cheaper to plan first than to react to problems after they are allowed to develo .
• weneed to figure outnow to accommodate the Texas Plan for its main "mega-highway" and
how it will affect our city.
• The plan needs to be long range. It needs to address predicted growth patterns and coordinate
with the land use plan to control growth.
Safety Issues
• Having two entrances to a neighborhood is not necessary when property owners bought the
property knowing there was only one entrance.
• e want our children to be able to walk anywhere in the neighborhood without fear of being run
over or kidnapped.
• We need to plan for mass transit in coordination with other neighboring jurisdictions and public
agencies (e.g., Bryan, Brazos County, TAMU, TxDOT, Bryan-College Station Metropolitan
Planning Organization, etc.).
• We need to coordinate the funding process with other entities to maximize the effectiveness of
local transportation funds (e.g., Bryan, Brazos County, TAMU, TxDOT, B-CS MPO, etc.).
Improvements will not happen until we coordinate funding.
• A major issue related to children is that there are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes for them to use to
get to sc ool, the library or recreation areas -we want community where children can walk to
school, walk-to the park, or ride bikes safely.
• Adults need to be a Jle to walk or ride a bike safely around the community, too.
• The plan should address possible evacuation plans should a tank car with poison gas explode, or
in case of a natural or man-made disaster.
• School buses need to be able to get onto arterials and the bypass safely.
• School traffic is bad, terrible, horrible -kids can't get to school on-their own because there are no
safe ways for them to walk or ride their bikes. Schools are built right on major arterials so-that
the line of cars dropping off or picking up kids backs up onto the arterial and causes major traffic
jams and safety problems.
• Schools should NOT be built so that they are accessed directly from an arterial
• Fire and police response time should be taken into consideration when planning the
transportation system. The current system is faulty.
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 12 of14
Kind of Community that Citizens Want College Station to Be
• Do NOT pave over our rural areas -the answer is not to build more roads ounore lanes. The
city needs to be a good urban area and the countryside needs to stay rural. We do not need to
have urb sprawl all over the rural areas. We will lose the reason a Lot of people c ose toJ ive in
this area if we do not stop the urban sprawl.
• We need to create a pedestrian ambiance that makes people want to walk in the area -need to
create pedestrian-friendly shopping areas, like-.along Wolf Pen Creek near the amphitheatre.
• We need more mixed-use development, but we are not going to attract mixed-use developments
if the City focuses on franchises with large parking lots out front. We should look at the
European model with plazas.
• Goal is to enjoy driving, walking, bicycling, and living in College Station. Bumper-to-bumper
traffic, lack of safety on bicycles, too many bright development lights, and too much road noise
all cause stress.
• Non-development should be seen as positive for some areas rather than as wrong.
• We need to have priorities that include:
o Preservation of neighborhoods.
o Preservation of green spaces.
o Access to central areas of City by auto, bus, bike, and foot.
• We do not want or need Wal-Mart!! "Big box" stores need to be carefully planned for and not
placed in residential neighborhoods.
• Keep commercial development in town small scale. Small stores put back much more economic
value into the community than "big box" stores.
• We need more and larger parks and green spaces.
• Connect the entertainment area along Wolf Pen Creek to the amphitheatre -like Market Street in
the Woodlands.
• Don't let College Station become a bedroom community to Houston. Don't create plans that
encourage this.
Relationship between Land Use and Transportation
• TheJand use plan and the trans ortation plan need to work together. The density of the land use
should ofbe allowed to exceed the caEacity of the transportation system. If the City wants to
allow increasea ensity, then it needs to make certain that an adequate transportation system is
in place EIRST to support that density.
• Allowing higher density than the transpo_rtatio ysteni_can handle is what creates congestion
and parking problems.
• Build a sustainable community by establishing land use plans and tr ns ortation plans that
support alternative transportation uses.
• Important words: "comprehensive transportation system" and "transit-based." Transit means
rail, roads, buses, bikeways, and pedestrian ways.
Connectivity and Thoroughfare Plan Specifics
• The reason we have no connectivity is because the City allowed developers to put new
subdivisions in without requiring connectivity.
• There are two different problems that need to be addressed in the new thoroughfare plan:
(1) old streets not capaole of handling current traffic levels, and (2) new subdivisions not
adequately integrated into the transportation network.
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 13of14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address the connectivity p_roblerns between the east and west sides of the city by addressing the
issue of crossing the railroad tracks-at grade -need grade separation or move the railroad tracks.
Using the railroad right of way would be one way to address the north-south connectivity
roblem.
e issue is that we are losing neighborhood integrity when the City_puts an arterial or collector
through a neighborhood.
The connectivity problem would be better if we had a widely interconnecting system -then the
traffic wou d be dispersed across lots of streets instead of concentrating on only a few (which
eren't designed to handle so much traffic).
We do not need roads into Woodlake subdivision .
The city needs more sidewalks .
The City needs to fix intersections. The City also needs to add a tum-only lane so that you can
turn without having to wait for the light, especially by the high school.
Plans need to be realistic. We need to quit calling roads "major arterial" on the map w en in fact
they are not. We need to be realistic so that development doesn't occur when infrastructure is
not in place.
We need for the
transportation plan
to address out-of-
town public
transportation to
and from College
Station (inter-city
transportation).
Improve the airport
and its connectivity
to the state and
beyond -people
have to go to
Houston, Austin.
"Every street
shc:mld be at least a
minor collector with
sidewalks.
"I disagree that
every street should
be a minor collector
with sidewalks."
College S ation is
long and narrow, so
everyone would not
be far from a trolley
line-{see drawing).
l ,.,...
Ef>\ ==--re: -/0. ~
I =-f\ t. t--\ I
EBI
I ~
1c11c
~c.\~
I -
I
~-~___.---/ ~\~ \)c de.s / o~ C{,
?. .lrl.._s
~\\'oar
Citizens Congress Summary (January 2007) Page 14of14
• Need to be planning for a certain look.
• Need to identify areas for new development while preserving the old.
Barriers/Obstacles
• Vermont is not a fair comparison because it's a different animal here. About one out of three
residents is a student -we are a college community.
• What about large master-planned communities? The pattern here is smaller lots with older
residences purchased in what was then suburban with expectation to stay suburban. Citizens of
older neighborhoods do not want to lose that.
• Mixed use adjacent to residential (for example, Central Market in Austin).
• We don't have ordinances in place to facilitate tree preservation or planting of more trees.
• Allowed neighborhoods to go in 300 feet off of major arterials. Now we have to deal with people
who don't want to carry the burden of the uses. We already have these pods around town (for
example, east side of town).
• Residents need to accept the fact that development around their neighborhoods is inevitable. The
codes need to be rewritten.
• We want to be CS, not Austin or Georgetown -but must think big picture when it comes to our
codes. We are about to get another influx of additional students and will feel that ripple effect.
• Largest demographic we'll experience in the next five years is retiring Aggies.
PARKS & GREENWA YS
Best Things City has Done in Recent Years related to Parks and Recreation
• Have 42 projects this year ($17M) -just approved park #51, approaching 1,300 acres of parkland.
• Upper side of Wolf Pen Creek.
• Number of parks.
• Quality of the parks -forethought of the parks staff and City.
• Trails.
• Improving and expanding the facilities in the parks.
• Central Park -good efforts.
• Edelweiss -very well used.
• Thomas and Central Parks -provide lots of facilities at a single location.
• Dynamic -wide range of ages/users.
• Shade structures.
• City is very proactive with their parks, and they reflect that.
• Neighborhood parks -City goes around to residents and asks what they'd like to see in a park
before they implement; also 80-90% are within walking distance to most neighborhood parks.
• Veteran's Park-can be an economic draw for the City, moved to phase 2B ahead of schedule.
• Walking paths/trails at most parks.
• Every subdivision has to have a park at time of approval.
• Leadership in City staff and elected official -recognize the long-term value.
• The beginnings of a network between the parks.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 13of18
• They're growing like crazy.
Greatest Deficiency
• More "pet friendly" parks -Steeplechase Park is a dedicated space, also Lake Creek.
• Would like to see more pools -not a new one since 1988; multiple uses at parks would be nice.
• Lots of kids are not involved in formal sports; would like to see a skate park.
• Lap lane availability for seniors; don't think you should be able to rent a public pool.
• Interpretive trails (trees, vegetation) -we're losing track of our sense of place.
• Would like to see an urban park area -open mall or public gathering spaces; on the plans for
Northgate, but not there yet.
• Would like to see more natural areas -more trees.
• Greenway planning tends to be an exercise in watershed management -Wolf Pen Creek is
beautiful but it's in a backyard -would like more "front yard" spaces.
• More mini parks/pocket parks.
• Denver's greenbelt system is a fine example of a comprehensive system.
• Use a bufferyard for park space between different residential densities.
• Green ways have been a touchy subject here: What constitutes a green way and who can own one?
Permitted activities in greenways? Joint use of greenways by precluding them as park space.
• Parks are expensive and we must determine who will pay for them.
• No park requirements in the ETJ -have to purchase it outright. That's how Central Park and
Lake Creek were acquired, otherwise they would have been lost.
Barriers
• Greenways are split between public works and parks/recreation departments -need them to
work together.
• What happens in the En? -Timberline is one of the most beautiful drives in the county.
• Greenways need to be incorporated into the plan ahead of time.
• No advance acquisition in place -have done some item-by-item acquisition in the past but not a
comprehensive plan.
• Concerned about the pattern of residential development -City will have more greenways than
they know what to do with due to development occurring in the floodplain. This goes back to
determining a definition of a green way.
• University/Texas/2818/George Bush/Harvey-few to no safe crossing points for cyclists.
• Tree ordinances and setbacks should be pursued -would like to see the ordinances beefed up in
this regard.
• 77 acres in the ETJ were developed to build 330 homes -every tree on the 77 acres was removed.
Without a county population of 700,000, the County has no authority.
Features Lacking in Current Park System
• City cannot develbp connectivity soon enough.
• CS has a well-defined edge now -concern that we must maintain that rural edge by focusing on
infill opportunities.
• Bicycling is an afterthought. There are not safe crossings for cyclists. Demanding more from
developers would be proactive.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 14of18
• Need to focus on developing a network to hold the community together.
Other
• Park initiative between Grimes and Brazos County for a 10,000-acre park facility.
• An arterial intersecting a freeway, where Home Depot went in, is encroaching upon the
floodplain -the thoroughfare plan needs to respect the greenway system.
• CS has a sister city (Bryan), and they don't always play well together. CS has been proactive in
the past, and citizens would like them to go to the next level.
• Need to decide what type of economic development they want.
• Parks are as fundamental as streets and infrastructure.
TRANSPORTATION
Bike/Pedestrian!fransit Issues and Improvements
• Roads are not wide enough to cycle safely, and intersections are not safe.
• Major challenges crossing over Bypass because bridges are not bike friendly.
• Bicycle routes needed for park-to-park recreation; however, there is a need for those who are
using it to go to work.
• Need to accommodate two types of users of bike facilities: those that use roadways/paths to
commute to destinations and those that use paths/trails for recreational purposes.
• Access roads on Bypass were usable before they were improved (could ride on shoulder), now
there are curbs so you can't ride your bike.
• Need bike paths that are separate from both cars and pedestrians.
• Transportation rights-of-ways should include roads, bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
• Also need to account for school kids; right now bicyclists are using the sidewalks not the bike
lanes because they are not safe.
• Crossing Texas Avenue by bike is a safety issue because there is car recognition but no bike
recognition at the traffic light.
• On campus the underpass is wonderful -the old overpass didn't work.
• Public transportation is a good solution (light rail, buses).
• General public can ride the TAMU transit system, but does it go where they need to go?
• There are a lot of bikers that use the east Bypass, and therefore there is an opportunity for bike
connections to Wolf Pen Creek.
• Need good community planning so kids can walk/bike to the park, school.
• Bikeway system is relatively good -as an alternative transportation system.
• The bikes still have to compete with cars to get across Texas and University to get to campus.
• George Bush and Wellborn -TxDOT does have funds to put in a grade separation eventually for
bikes/pedestrians. Everything lags behind 10-15 years before projects hit the ground.
• Bikes need to abide by traffic rules.
• Northgate is beginning to make progress for pedestrian traffic.
Road way/Intersection Improvements
• Lack of north/south corridors.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 15of18
• Longmire Drive and Rock Prairie.
• Deacon and Longmire (waiting at the lights when there are no cars).
• Synchronization of lights on University, Texas Avenue.
• Munson, Dartworth, Harvey -could be a great pedestrian and thoroughfare corridor.
• Wellborn Road.
• Rock Prairie and Wellborn Road.
• Have proposed a project to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to interconnect
signals on state system -this will happen in the corning years.
• Southwest Parkway at the Bypass -need for traffic signalization here, going east you have a
traffic light at Dartmouth.
• Late at night lights should go to blinking red.
• Overgrown trees on sidewalks forces people to walk in streets.
• Lincoln-there are bike lanes; however, when you get to the duplexes it stops because of parking,
and then starts again. There is no serious consideration for bike lanes.
• Intersections are really a problem for bikes; bike boxes elsewhere in country allow bikes to make
a left tum.
• Rock Prairie and Highway 6.
• Going north to Rock Prairie, traffic backs up.
• Stonebrook at Rock Prairie (traffic, turning movements and intersection).
• Emerald Forest and Highway 6.
• Traffic on Munson, result of a system that lacks north/south roadways to travel.
• 2818 by the high school -getting kids safely across (no medians, crosswalks).
• Holleman and Texas A venue.
• Grade separation at 2818 and railroad will be implemented next December.
• College Station ISD: getting into neighborhoods is not a problem, corning out of the
neighborhoods is difficult. Up to 10% of the budget can be used for hazardous conditions (for
example, Barron Road -two schools on Barron and kids cannot cross the road). Need to see more
connectivity.
• Nantucket -difficult to pick up kids because of high-speed traffic.
• Munson -speed-it's a cut-through.
• Forest Bridge School on Barron Road is backed up because parents drop off kids (they can't walk
to school due to traffic).
• All development inhibits connectivity-still only three to four ways north-south and three to four
ways east-west. Limited alternatives, therefore there is congestion. Every street should be a minor
collector with sidewalks. ·
• Fine and good for new development but not for older neighborhoods. Should be able to come
home and not feel intruded upon by traffic. Kids should be able to play in the front yards -
it's wrong to take a neighborhood that's been there 20-25 years and seek connectivity options.
• Community attitude has always been reactive not proactive. Traffic plan should be in place well
in advance including the E1]. Plan should be updated every five years -10 years is not enough.
We have not had a viable plan/system for some time. Development is way ahead of the City's
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 16 of18
thought process. One of the key ways a city can encourage/discourage growth is through a
transportation plan.
• Did put in traffic calming along Dexter that works.
• Traffic enforcement by the Police Department is good.
• City uses quality traffic signal system equipment.
Thoroughfare Plan .
• Major sections of the thoroughfare plan have been changed because of development.
• Thoroughfare plan is being implemented now.
• The thoroughfare plan establishes an overall picture, unfortunately it changes because of
development.
• Shouldn't negotiate splitting roads with developers, need to preserve right-of-way.
• Include a strong statement that City and City Council cannot ignore thoroughfares on plan.
Land Use and Transportation Planning
• Cut-through traffic through older neighborhoods is a problem.
• Don't want new thoroughfares cutting through neighborhoods, need to preserve neighborhood
integrity.
• Design the community to minimize reliance on automobile to get everywhere -i.e., through
mixed-use developments.
• Mixed-use developments -people don't believe it until it is there, so maybe make one corridor a
pilot, identify a target area and try to demonstrate that it works. One potential area could include
the Wolf Pen Creek and Harvey Road area. Look at transit possibilities (i.e., like Portland street
car or light rail, currently buses are packed, they leave people behind because they are so full).
• CS has done a good job with Wolf Pen Creek corridor.
• Not going to have the mixed-use development if you attract the franchises, with parking lots out
front. European cities have plazas; however, if you don't restrict franchises this won't happen.
• Where major roads come together there is pressure for commercial development -this generates
pollutants that go into drainage system. Old thoroughfare plan did not take into account natural
constraints. The new plan should take into account natural constraints, and new intersections
should be located away from floodplain.
• CS has grown and has had to rely on arterials that are now inadequate. Munson-Dartmouth was
designed to discourage cut-through traffic but it doesn't do that. Need a plan to allow for future
traffic loads. Collectors are serving as arterials. Should be on a half-mile grid. People need to
know that there's a 200-foot right-of-way. Barron Road is a good example -the right-of-way
should have been bought years ago.
Other
• Not interested in traveling faster in the city. University near Northgate can have narrower lanes,
with a median, and everyone's quality of life would go up. The number of cars there does dictate
quality of life.
• Need transportation planning for special events. Looking for creative ways to handle traffic
because of football games and other special events.
• No plans to add more on-campus housing -more students are going to be living off campus and
we need to accommodate them.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page 17of18
• Converting Foxfire Drive into a collector will redefine the neighborhood -making the street
larger than what it should be changes the character of the neighborhood.
• Should include question about bicycle usage on community survey.
• Community relies heavily on the comprehensive plan with a 10-year horizon. Could we think in
a 30-year horizon for a traffic plan?
• The right-of-way on 2818 shows tremendous foresight but now may not be needed because it was
planned as a freeway, but that is no longer where we need a freeway. 2818 is one of the few
streets where you can get somewhere through town.
• Expansion on the Bypass will be to six lanes instead of four and the widened bridges out near the
mall. The ramps will change from a diamond pattern to an "X" pattern.
• Is TAMU transit just for students, or is it open to anyone who wants to go to the University or the
mall? Brazos Valley Transit does a lot of coordination that people do not see. They have nine
buses now that are shared between B-CS -could use 30 buses because of the large apartment
complexes going in.
• The railroad is an asset. Lots of big development going in. Railroad should stay.
• Transportation system is designed to fail twice a day.
• Older schools are located off major routes; new schools have access from a major road, which
creates traffic flow problems. Access needs to be far enough off the roads that queues do not back
up into traffic.
• Rock Prairie Road widening is good.
• Kudos on working with Bryan and TxDOT for the timing of the lights to move people through
morning commutes.
• South of Olson Field -City has put in two or three roads to funnel traffic off George Bush -
it helps alleviate backup onto George Bush.
• We have exceptional City staff, but the difficulty is using staff in processing rather than planning.
Not fully utilizing the talent of the staff.
• The City should work with other communities to find examples of where traffic issues have been
successfully addressed in other places.
Focus Group Summary (October 2006) Page18of18
~~.....,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-C-o-lle_g_e_S_ta_t_:-:-C-~-~-p-r-~h-~-~-s~-.vd_e_~-~~:
CITY OF Cou_EGF TATION
Wednesday, 09.13.06
6:00 .m.
Tuesday, 10.10.06
5:30 .m.
Thursday, 10/26/06
9:00 a.m.-4:00 .m.
Thursday, 10/26/06
6:00 .m.
Friday, 10/27 /06
9:00 a.m.-4:00 .m.
Monday,11.06.06
6:00 .m.
Thursday, 11.16.06
6:00 .m.
Monday, 12.04.06
6:00 .m.
Thursday, 12.07.06
6:00 .m.
Januar 2007
Thursday, 02.22.07
7:00 .m.
Tuesday, 03.20.07
6:00 .m.
Thursday, 04.05.07
6:00 .m.
Tuesday, 04.24.07
7:00 .m.
Thursday, 05.03.07
OR 05.17.07
7:00 .m.
City Hall
Hilton
Conference Center
Hilton
Conference Center
City Hall
TBD
City Hall
City Hall
Conference Center
City Hall
TBD
City Hall
Open Meetings Act Information
Focus Groups -Day 1
CPAC Meeting
Focus Groups -Day 2
CP AC Meeting
P&Z Briefing
Citizens Congress
P&Z Briefing
No Meetin
City Council Briefing
CPAC Meeting
P&Z Briefing
Joint Workshop of P&Z and CPAC
City Council Public Hearing
Introductions, Comprehensive Plan overview
Open Meetings Act video
Assess community perceptions and concerns, solicit opinions
and ideas
Complete SWOT analysis, issues identification
Assess community perceptions and concerns, solicit opinions
and ideas
Review results of Focus Groups, discuss Citizens Congress
Jans
Update on Focus Groups, Citizens Congress plans and draft
Communit Surve
Identify vision statements and community objectives
Update on Citizens Congress results and Community Survey
Jans
Conduct Communit Surve
Update on Phase 1 progress
to date and u comin activities
Review/respond to draft G9als and Policies Report
Update on Community Survey results, draft Goals and
Policies Re ort
Final review of Goals and Policies Report, recommend for
Cit Council consideration
Accept public comment, consider formal acceptance of Goals
and Policies Report
-The CPAC may schedule interim meetings with City staff, but not the consultant, as needed
KENDIG KEAST 514 Brooks Street I Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Phone : 281.242.2960 Fax : 281.242.1115 CO L LA BOR ATIVE
College Station
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC)
SWOT SUMMARY
On October 26, 2006, the City-appointed Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC)
met for the first time with the City's Comprehensive Plan consultant, Kendig Keast
Collaborative (KKC). KKC facilitated a "SWOT" (~trengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities
Ihreats) discussion with the CPAC. Below are the notes taken during this session.
STRENGTHS
• Lesser congestion • Proximity to Houston
• Wea ther • Parks
• Rural nature • Airport
• Character • Art, culture, sports, etc. with A&M
• Schools • Attracting retirees
• University influence • Cost of living
• University amenities • Quality of medical
• Quality and cost of housing • Northgate
WEAKNESSES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fragmentation of government (could be a • Small property tax base (A&M, churches,
strength as well) -Bryan, College Station, CSISD)
A&M, TxDOT, Brazos County • Losing A&M graduates -no job
Sprawl opportunities
Homogeneity • acl< of "gree~ on city roads
Lack of history • Availability of air service
Lack of city center • Difficult to deal with for developers -
No major interstate (strength?) time, process, regulations
Growth does not pay for itself • Lack of planning I
Lack of diversity in economic base • City growth inhibited
Performance Concepts in Pla1111i11g
www. ken dig k ea s t.com
STURGEON BAY.WI I CHICAGO.IL I SUGAR LAND.TX
KENDIG KEAST
CO LL A BOR ATI VE
OPPORTUNITIES
• Urban choices
• Wellborn -look at ways to move up schedule
• Northgate -entertainment, popular arts
• Tech or vocational school
• Water park
• 25-35 year old population -jobs
• Railroad passenger service to Houston
• Regional partnerships
• Regional medical magnet
• Economic/industrial development
• High-tech friendly
• Two current business parks
THREATS
• Lack of economic diversity
• Regional accessibility
• Outside/fr anchise Businesses
• Tax base to support new residents/students
• Lack of money for infrastructure
• Neighborhood degradation -student lifestyles
• Looking like Houston
Successes as a Community
• Blinn in Bryan
• Scott & White
• Lick Creek Park
• Southwood Athletic Park
• Central Park
• Wolf Pen Creek
• Veteran's Park
Performance Co11cepts i11 Plm111i11g
www.kendigkeast.com
514 Brooks Street I Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Phone : 281.242.2960 Fax : 281.242.1115
STURGEON BAY.WI I CH I CAGO.IL I SUGAR LAND.TX
KENDIG KEAST
CO L LA BOR A TIVE
Opportunities Missed
• Not buying land for parks ahead of growth
• Not moving railroad
• Location of business park detriment to thoroughfares
• Conference center
• Wolf Pen Creek-Bee Creek connections
• Retirees
• Redevelopment/revitalization of older areas
• Infill "skipped" areas
• Transportation system
• Thoroughfares
514 Brooks Street I Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Phone : 281.242.2960 Fax : 281.242.111 5
• City center for mixed use also in Rock Prairie Road and Greens Prairie Road area
Peer Cities
University Communities
• Boulder, CO
• Ft. Collins, CO
• Gainesville, FL
• Waco, TX
• Lawrence, KS
• Wall a Wall a, WA
• Moscow, ID
• Cary, NC
• Bryan (rental/single family)
• Arlington
• Plano
• Austin
• Sugar Land
• The Woodlands
• Kingwood
Perfor111a11ce Co11cepts i11 Pla1111i11g
ww w.kendigkeast.com
STURGEON BAY.WI I CHICAGO.IL I SUGAR LAND.T X
Community Character
Strong, unique neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and
protected and enhanced natural environment
• Develop and maintain, through regular review, a land use plan that identifies, establishes
and enhances community character
• Establish and protect distinct boundaries between various character areas
• Promote public and private development and design practices that ensure distinct
corridors, neighborhoods, and districts
• Focus community enhancement activities to promote a strong community character
• Promote public and private development and design practices that encourage resource
conservation and protection
• Identify, protect, and enhance unique community assets in our natural and built
environment
Neighborhood Integrity
Long-term viability and appeal of established neighborhoods
• Identify, protect, and enhance elements that contribute positively to neighborhood
integrity
• Identify and minimize elements that detract from neighborhood integrity
• Identify and implement tools to ensure that infill or redevelopment adjacent to or within a
neighborhood is sensitive to its surroundings
• Develop, implement and maintain , through regular review, neighborhood plans
Transportation
Improved mobility through a safe, efficient, and well-connected multi-modal transportation
system designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses
• Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review, a transportation plan that
supports the planned growth and development pattern
• Reduce and manage traffic congestion
Develop and implement context sensitive transportation solutions
Premote and invest in alternative transportation options
• Balance changes in land use with the capabilities of the transportation system
Growth Management & Capacity
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
• Identify land use needs based on projected population growth
• Align public investments with planned growth and development pattern
• Balance the availability of and desire for new development areas with redevelopment
and infill opportunities
• Identify and implement growth management techniques for areas outside of the City
limits
• Encourage and promote the redevelopment of land that is currently occupied by
obsolete or non-functioning structures
Economic Development
Diversified economy generating quality, stable, full-time jobs, bolstering the sales and property
tax base, and contributing to a high quality of life
• Promote and support new investment that serves regional market opportunities
• Promote and support the establishment, retention and expansion of locally-owned
businesses
• Promote and support the attraction of festivals, entertainment, conferences, conventions
and other special events for the purpose of economic growth
• Identify and pursue redevelopment opportunities that further desired community
character
• Protect and buffer prime economic generators from development that is out of character
or that creates or contributes to decreased service levels
arks, Art, & Leisure
Diversity of parks, open space, art, entertainment, recreation, and cultural opportunities
contributing to the high quality of life for all residents and visitors
• Maintain and expand parks, recreation , and cultural facilities and services consistent
with growth expectations
• Preserve or enhance greenways, park linkages, and open spaces for their intrinsic and
functional value
• Create and promote recreational, cultural, entertainment, and educational opportunities
that serve a variety of interests and abilities
Municipal Facilities and Services
Municipal facilities meeting community needs, contributing to community character, sensitive to
the surrounding land uses, and providing exceptional municipal services
• Maintain existing infrastructure
• Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review, facilities and service master
plans that support the planned growth and development pattern
• Maintain exemplary levels of municipal services
• Expand municipal services and facilities consistent with growth expectations and to
support the planned growth and development pattern
• Promote facilities and services delivery practices that encourage resource conservation
and protection
Utilities
Cost effective, reliable, and safe utilities benefiting existing customers and supporting of
development activity, designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses, and promoting
resource conservation
• Maintain existing infrastructure
• Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review, utility service master plans
that support the planned growth and development pattern
• Maintain exemplary levels of utility services
• Expand municipal utilities consistent with growth expectations and to support the
planned growth and development pattern
• Promote utility design and delivery practices that encourage resource conservation and
protection
CDS
Market Research
An lnterDlrect USA. ltd. Company
l 250 Wood Bronch Park Drive • Suite l 00
Houston, Texos 77079
713 465.8866
COMMUNITY SURVEY
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Prepared for:
Kendig Keast Collaborative
514 Brooks Street
Sugar Land, TX 77478
Prepared by:
CDS Market Research
1250 Wood Branch Park Dr.
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77079
February, 2007
February 28 , 2007
Mr. Gary Mitchell
Kendig Keast Collaboration
514 Brooks Street
Sugar Land, TX 77476
CDS
Market Research
Jl..n lnterDuael US.A., ltd. Compony
SUBJECT: COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY SURVEY
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Enclosed please find three (3) copies of our report
summarizing the findings of the mail survey of College
Station utility customers completed in accordance with the
Professional Services Agreement between our respective
firms.
We appreciated the opportunity to be of service to Kendig
Keast on this assignment and look forward to working with
you again in the near future. Please don't hesitate to call
me if you have_ any questions regarding the results of the
survey.
Yours sincerely,
Ray C. Lawrence
Principal Associate
Enclosures (3)
cc: R. Kent Dussair
Charlie Savino
COMMUNITY SURVEY
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS ............................................... I
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 1
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ................................................ 3
FINDINGS ................................................................................. 5
COMMUNITY SURVEY
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a mail survey of
College Station utility customers conducted during January
and February, 2007 to provide support for a comprehensive
plan for the City of College Station.
METHODOLOGY
• Questionnaire drafted by Kendig Keast and
reviewed by CDS. Minor changes in questions
and response options suggested by CDS
incorporated into final questionnaire.
• One page (front and back) questionnaire
consisting of six ranking and check-off questions
relating to community issues and four
demographic questions. (Copy enclosed as
Append ix A.)
• Questionnaire mailed out with utility bills (four
cycles) during the month of January, 2007 by
College Station Utilities. Total of 27,774 customer
households and businesses.
CDS Market Research, Houston Page 1
College Station Community Survey
• Approximately one month allowed for returns.
Returns collected and mailed by priority mail to
CDS for processing. 2,495 returns received by
CDS by cut-off date of February 21 representing
raw return of 9.0%.
• Returned surveys edited by CDS. Of total 2,495
returns, 1,906 were useable. 589 returns
excluded from sampling universe for one or more
of the following reasons:
-Failure to respond to one or more
questions, rank three factors in Os 1, 2, 3
and 6, or prioritize all factors in 04.
-Writing in and ranking or checking non-
listed factors or issues.
-Assigning the same rank to two or more
factors or issues.
-Checking rather than ranking factors/issues
in Os 1, 2, 3 and 6.
-Checking both "student" and "non-student"
in 08.
-Torn or damaged returns.
CDS Market Research, Houston Page 2
College Station Community Survey
-Forms printed on only the front side (around
10).
• 900 completed and edited questionnaires
randomly selected for tabulation. High level of
validity in results for respondent universe minimum
of ±. 5% on any finding at 99% confidence level.
Validity of findings for entire universe of utility
customers unknown due to fact that respondents
(those who returned forms) were not randomly
selected. Therefore, there is an unknown degree
of nonresponse error. However, survey findings
very representative of opinions of those with
sufficient interest to respond.
• Sample selection followed by data entry,
programming and printout of tabulations, analysis
of findings, and preparation of final report.
(Tabulation tables enclosed in Appendix B.)
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
• Two-thirds of the sample of 900 respondents were
in the middle two age groups.
CDS Market Research, Houston
AGE OF RESPONDENTS IN SAMPLE
18-24 148 16.4%
25-44 294 32 .7%
45-64 307 34 .1%
65+ 151 16.8%
Totals 900 100.0%
Page 3
College Station Community Survey
• 80% of respondents were non-students.
• Nearly three-fourths of respondents own their own
home.
• The large majority have no children living in their
households.
CDS Market Research, Houston
STUDENTVS.NONSTUDENTRESPONDENTS
--------------------~----
Student Status Number % of Total
Student 170 20.2%
Non-student 662 79.8%
Totals 900 100.0%
TENURE OF RESPONDENTS
Group Number
Own 662 73 .6%
Rent 238 26.4%
Totals 900 100.0%
RESPONDENTS WITH CHILDREN AT HOME
None 630 70.0%
One or more 270 30.0%
Totals 900 100.0%
Page 4
College Station Community Survey
FINDINGS
Question 1 asked respondents to rank from 1 to 3 their top
three priorities from a list of 12 community needs and
desires.
• "Traffic circulation" was the dominant concern of
all demographic groups followed in distant second
and third places by "public safety services
(police/fire)" and "utilities (water, sewer,
electricity)".
• Other factors receiving significant numbers of top
three rankings were (in order) "environmental
protection", "jobs and economic development",
"planning for compatible land uses", "parks and
recreation facilities", "drainage and flooding" and
"community image/appearance".
• Three factors received only minor mention among
the top three perceived issues -"historic buildings
and areas", "redevelopment efforts" and "housing
needs".
• "Traffic circulation " was ranked slightly lower on
average (fewer No. 1 rankings, more No. 2
rankings) by respondents aged 18-24 and
students than by older or non-student respondents
(see Appendix 8).
CDS Market Research, Houston
COMMUNITY NEEDS AND DESIRES
(See Appendix 8 for Ranking Detail)
Traffic circulation 64%
Public safet services 42%
Utilities 34%
Environmental rotection 28%
Jobs and economic develo ment 27%
Parks and recreation facilities 21%
20%
18%
8%
8%
6%
Page 5
College Station Community Survey
• "Public safety services (police/fire)" received a
higher percentage of respondents aged 65+ rating
the factor No. 1 compared to other respondent
groups (see Appendix B).
Question 2 asked respondents to rank from 1 to 3 those
factors that most negatively impact their quality of life.
• 'Traffic congestion" was the dominant factor
mentioned with "City taxes and utility rates"
second. "Loss of green space", "crime/security
concerns" and "impacts of rental housing" all
received strong mention, with over 30% of the
sample ranking eaGh 1, 2, or 3.
• A fifth of respondents ranked "loss of sense of
community" and "lack of job opportunities" 1, 2, or
3.
• "Housing costs/availability", "dealing with City
regulations" and "limited activities for kids"
received only minor mention among ranked
factors.
CDS Market Research, Houston
FACTORS THAT MOST NEGATIVELY IMPACT
QUALITY OF LIFE
(See Appendix B for Ranking Detail)
44%
35%
34%
31%
20%
19%
13%
10%
Limited activities for kids 9%
Page 6
College Station Community Survey
• Somewhat surprisingly, in view of the Question 1
results, those respondents 18-24 and students
ranked "traffic congestion" the No. 1 factor more
often than others (see Appendix B).
• Respondents aged 65+ ranked "crime/security
concerns" 1, 2, or 3 more often than did other
respondents (see Appendix B).
• Respondents in the upper three age groups, non-
students and/or homeowners are more concerned
about the "impacts of rental housing" than are the
younger and/or student respondents (see
Appendix B).
CDS Market Research, Houston Page 7
College Station Community Survey
Question 3 asked respondents to rank the top three
enhancements that would make College Station a better
place to live and work.
• As could be expected from the findings related to
the first two questions, "neighborhood traffic
management" was the highest ranked
enhancement.
• There was widely dispersed support for all other
enhancements listed, led (in order) by "more park
land and greenways", "safer routes for r
biking/walking", "beautification of the community" f
and "expanded airline service".
• The item mentioned least often among
enhancements ranked 1, 2, or 3 was "stronger
code enforcement" (see Appendix B).
• Respondents 65+ were the strongest supporters of
"neighborhood traffic management", "expanded
airline service" and "stronger code enforcement"
(see Appendix B).
• The youngest age group (18-24) and students
favored "more park land and greenways" and
"more shopping and entertainment" the most (see
Appendix B).
CDS Market Research, Ho uston
ENHANCEMENTS THAT WOULD
MAKE COLLEGE STATION
A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK
(See Appendix B for Ranking Detail)
Preservation of rural area
Creation of a true "cit center"
Stron er code enforcement
Page 8
31%
27%
25%
24%
24%
20%
College Station Community Survey
• The two youngest age groups -18-24 and 25-44
favored "creation of a true 'city center' the most.
Question 4 asked respondents what priority -high, medium
or low -they would give to certain challenges that College
Station is expected to face in coming years.
• Those factors accorded "high priority" by the
largest percentages of sample respondents were
(in order, with the percent so indicating):
• All of these factors also had substantial, often
more, respondents rating them "medium priority".
• Factors that were for the most part rated as
"medium priority" were "continued tax base
expansion to fund public improvements" and
"continued focus on special districts" (see
Appendix B).
• Only one factor was rated "low priority" by the
plurality of sample respondents -"focus on
housing/amenities to attract more retirees here"
see Appendix B).
CDS Market Research, Houston
FACTORS WITH HIGH PRIORITY
(See Appendix 8 for Detail
Promote more development while protecting
existin nei hborhoods and businesses
Greater focus on integrity of established
nei hborhoods
Improve how City codes deal with large-scale
develo ments
Upgrade the image and appearance of the
comm unit
Manage outward growth to limit urban
"s rawl"
Focus on jobs/amenities to keep more A & M
raduates here
Page 9
48%
48%
46%
42%
36%
36%
College Station Community Survey
Question 5 asked respondents to express their feeling about
whether the City should annex more territory in the future,
with or without property owner consent (see Appendix B).
• The majority of respondents -60% -felt that the
City should be cautious with annexation , adding
new territory to the city limits as development
proceeds.
• Those favoring this view most strongly were
respondents 18-24 years old and/or students.
• Around a fifth of respondents favored a policy of
the City annexing as much territory as it can to
stay ahead of growth.
• Another fifth favored the opposite policy of not
annexing any new territory because the City has
enough issues to deal with within the current city
limits.
Question 6 asked respondents which of 11 types of
improvements, services or programs they would rank 1, 2,
and 3 in terms of the best use of City taxes and fees .
• The majority ranked "repair to existing streets" the
most important issue, with strongest mention
coming from 18-24 year olds.
CDS Market Research, Houston Page 10
College Station Community Survey
• Somewhat less than half the respondents gave
top 3 ranks to "police, fire and ambulance
services", with those 65+ making most prominent
mention of such services.
• "Long range and strategic planning" rece ived the
next highest frequency of top 3 rankings.
• "Library" and "development review/regulation"
received the lowest percentages of respondents
ranking them 1, 2, or 3.
CDS Market Research, Houston
IMPROVEMENTS, SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
MOST DESERVING OF CITY TAXES AND FEES
(See Appendix B for Detail)
------
ITEM % Ranking 1-3
Street repairs 56%
Police, fire and ambulance services 47%
Lona ranae and strateqic planninQ 37%
· Parks and recreation proQrams 30%
Drainaae/storm sewers 24%
Code enforcement 22%
' Off-road hike and bike tra ils 22%
New streets 17%
Water/sewer improvements 17%
Librarv 14%
Development review/regulation 13%
Page 11
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
4. College Station will face many challenges in coming years as it continues to grow. What priority do
you place on each of the following potential strategies the City might pursue? (please check boxes)
High Medium Low
Priorit}'. Priorit}'. Priorit}'.
0 0 0 Manage outward growth to limit urban "sprawl"
0 0 0 Promote more development within the City while protecting
existing neighborhoods and businesses
0 0 0 Focus on jobs/amenities to keep more A&M graduates here
0 0 0 Focus on housing/amenities to attract more retirees here
0 0 0 Continued tax base expansion to fund public improvements
0 0 0 Greater focus on integrity of established neighborhoods
0 0 0 Upgrade the image and appearance of the community
0 0 0 Make recreation and "green space" a centJal focus
0 0 0 Improve how City codes deal with large-scale developments
0 0 0 Continued focus on special districts (like Wolf Pen Creek, Northgate)
5. Cities and counties in Texas have limited authority to regulate land development outside city limits.
But, cities are able to annex additional territory to extend their building/development codes to new
growth areas. What is your feeling about the City of College Station potentially annexing more
territory in the future, with or without property owner consent? (please check one)
0 The City should annex as much territory as it can under state law to "stay ahead" of the growth
that is already happening and likely to continue.
0 The City should be cautious with annexation, adding new territory to the city limits as
development proceeds but otherwise avoiding significant annexations.
0 The City should not annex any new territory because it has enough issues to deal with in the
current city limits.
6. If City taxes or fees you pay were to be devoted to improving a particular type of City service, please
select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list:
01£,,road hike/bike trails
Library
Long-range and strategic planning
New streets
Repair to existing streets
Drainage/storm sewer
Water/sewer improvements
Code enforcement (building,
parking, property maintenance)
Police, fire, ambulance services
Parks and recreation programs
Development review /regulation
THANK YOU
Please include the completed survey with your utility bill payment, OR
You may drop it off at City Hall, Planning & Development Services Department, 1101 Texas Avenue
7. What is your age range? D 18 -24 D 25-44 D 45-64 D 65 or over
8. Are you a college student? D Student D Non-student
9. Do you own or rent your current residence? D Own D Rent
10. Do you have children in your household? D None D 1 or more
THANK YOU
Please include the completed survey with your utility bill payment, OR
You may drop it off at City Hall, Planning & Development Services Department, 1101 Texas Avenue
APPENDIX 8
TABLES
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 17
Q.1 A Comprehensive Plan addresses a wide variety of community needs and desires.
Please select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
()\A...-\-<> t I 2-
a. Environmental protection
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
125
14%
49
5%
79
9%
253
18-24
148
100%
23
16%
9
6%
14
9%
Age
25-44 45-64
294
100%
49
17%
16
5%
20
7%
307
100%
41
13%
21
7%
34
11 %
b. Planning for compatible land uses
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
54
6%
87
10%
76
8% -?..Y1
c. Traffic circulation
Base
(D one
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
293
33%
155
17%
125
14%
18-24
148
100%
1%
4
3%
3
2%
18-24
148
100%
39
26%
34
23%
19
13%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
6
2%
22
7%
29
10%
27
9%
44
14%
28
9%
Age
25-44
294
100%
102
35%
45
15%
38
13%
45-64
307
100%
107
35%
47
15%
45
15%
65+
151
100%
12
8%
3
2%
11
7%
65+
151
100%
20
13%
17
11%
16
11 %
65+
151
100%
45
30%
29
19%
23
15%
Status
Non-
Student Student
Home
Own
170
100%
718 662
Rent
238
100% 100% 100%
31
18%
7
4%
17
10%
Status
91
13%
41
6%
60
8%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
3
2%
7
4%
3
2%
Status
50
7%
79
11%
73
10%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
47
28%
40
24%
24
14%
245
34%
111
15%
100
14%
81
12%
35
5%
59
9%
44
18%
14
6%
20
8%
Home
Own
662
100%
53
8%
76
11 %
63
10%
Rent
238
100%
0%
11
5%
13
5%
Home
Own
662
100%
227
34%
107
16%
97
15%
Rent
238
100%
66
28%
48
20%
28
12%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630
100%
86
14%
28
4%
60
10%
269
100%
39
14%
21
8%
19
7%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
45
7%
53
8%
44
7%
9
3%
34
13%
31
12%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
200
32%
113
18%
89
14%
Kids
269
100%
93
35%
42
16%
36
13%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 18
Q.1 A Comprehensive Plan addresses a wide variety of community needs and desires. Please
select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
d. Jobs and economic development
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
100
11 %
84
9%
63
18-24
148
100%
19
13%
13
9%
15
7% 10%
i41
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
44
15%
34
12%
24
8%
28
9%
24
8%
15
5%
e. Parks and recreation facilities
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
36
4%
76
8%
79
9% -\q \
f. Housing needs
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
16
2%
18
2%
21
2% --SS
18-24
148
100%
5
3%
12
8%
18
12%
18-24
148
100%
7
5%
4
3%
7
5%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
16
5%
41
14%
28
10%
Age
13
4%
21
7%
23
7%
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
2
1%
7
2%
8
3%
4
1%
3
1%
4
1%
65+
151
100%
9
6%
13
9%
9
6%
65+
151
100%
2
1%
2
1%
10
7%
65+
151
100%
3
2%
4
3%
2
1%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
21
12%
16
9%
13
8%
Status
79
11%
68
9%
49
7%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
5
3%
17
10%
24
14%
Status
31
4%
59
8%
53
7%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
6
4%
5
3%
7
4%
10
1%
13
2%
13
2%
Home
Own
662
100%
61
9%
63
10%
41
6%
Rent
238
100%
39
16%
21
9%
22
9%
Home
Own
662
100%
28
4%
56
8%
55
8%
Rent
238
100%
8
3%
20
8%
24
10%
Home
Own
662
100%
8
1%
6
1%
9
1%
Rent
238
100%
8
3%
12
5%
12
5%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
65
10%
61
10%
45
7%
Kids
269
100%
34
13%
23
9%
18
7%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
19
3%
45
7%
48
8%
17
6%
31
12%
31
12%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
15
2%
14
2%
16
3%
0%
4
1%
5
2%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 19
Q.1 A Comprehensive Plan addresses a wide variety of community needs and desires. Please
select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
g. Historic buildings and areas
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
14
2%
28
3%
31
3%
18-24
148
100%
3
2%
3
2%
12
8%
h. Drainage and flooding
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
31
3%
80
9%
73
8%
18-24
148
100%
8
5%
18
12%
7
5%
i. Redevelopment efforts
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
13
1%
21
2%
46
5%
,.,---
18-24
148
100%
3
2%
3
2%
4
3%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
5
2%
9
3%
10
3%
3
1%
13
4%
9
3%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
3
1%
23
8%
17
6%
15
5%
22
7%
31
10%
Age
25-44
294
100%
3
1%
11
4%
20
7%
45-64
307
100%
5
2%
5
2%
16
5%
65+
151
100%
3
2%
3
2%
0
0%
65+
151
100%
5
3%
17
11%
18
12%
65+
151
100%
2
1%
2
1%
6
4%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
3
2%
3
2%
13
8%
Status
11
2%
25
3%
18
3%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
7
4%
21
12%
8
5%
Status
23
3%
58
8%
64
9%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
3
2%
5
3%
6
4%
10
1%
16
2%
39
5%
Home
Own
662
100%
13
2%
21
3%
19
3%
Rent
238
100%
0%
7
3%
12
5%
Home
Own
662
100%
25
4%
58
9%
59
9%
Rent
238
100%
6
3%
22
9%
14
6%
Home
Own
662
100%
9
1%
16
2%
31
5%
Rent
238
100%
4
2%
5
2%
15
6%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
11
2%
22
3%
25
4%
3
1%
6
2%
6
2%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
22
3%
61
10%
50
8%
9
3%
19
7%
23
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
9
1%
15
2%
33
5%
Kids
269
100%
4
1%
5
2%
13
5%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey
j. Community image/appearance
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
17
2%
52
6%
86
10% -(SS
18-24
148
100%
3
2%
5
3%
16
11%
Age
25-44
294
100%
6
2%
24
8%
33
11 %
45-64
307
100%
6
2%
15
5%
27
9%
k. Public safety services (police/fire)
Base
® One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
155
17%
121
13%
106
12% -
18-24
148
100%
28
19%
18
12%
13
9%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
38
13%
34
12%
34
12%
49
16%
47
15%
37
12%
I. Utilities (water, sewer, electricity)
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
53
6%
132
15%
116
13%
18-24
148
100%
10
7%
26
18%
19
13%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
20
7%
28
10%
34
12%
12
4%
47
15%
40
13%
65+
151
100%
2
1%
8
5%
10
7%
65+
151
100%
40
26%
22
15%
22
15%
65+
151
100%
11
7%
31
21 %
23
15%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
2
1%
4
2%
19
11 %
Status
15
2%
47
7%
67
9%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
29
17%
19
11 %
15
9%
Status
122
17%
102
14%
89
12%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
14
8%
27
16%
19
11 %
37
5%
101
14%
96
13%
Home
Own
662
100%
16
2%
44
7%
61
9%
Rent
238
100%
0%
8
3%
25
11 %
Home
Own Rent
662 238
100% 100%
113
17%
91
14%
85
13%
42
18%
30
13%
21
9%
Home
Own
662
100%
34
5%
91
14%
84
13%
Rent
238
100%
19
8%
41
17%
32
13%
Page 20
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
13
2%
31
5%
64
10%
Kids
269
100%
4
1%
21
8%
22
8%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
110
17%
86
14%
78
12%
45
17%
35
13%
28
10%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
42
7%
104
17%
79
13%
Kids
269
100%
11
4%
28
10%
37
14%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 21
Q.2 Community planning is aimed at improving the "quality of life" of residents. Please
select and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the following list that most negatively
impact your day-to-day life in College Station today.
a. Traffic congestion
Base
Total
900
18-24
148
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
65+
151
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
Home
Own Rent
662 238
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Two
Three
411
46%
174
19%
85
57%
25
17%
143 11
16% 7% -7'28
b. Crime/security concerns
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
60
7%
114
13%
125
14% -
18-24
148
100%
13
9%
23
16%
22
15%
c. Loss of "green" space
Base
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
84
9%
124
14%
108
12% -
18-24
148
100%
11
7%
23
16%
21
14%
131
45%
60
20%
38
13%
125
41 %
61
20%
66
21 %
Age
25-44
294
100%
16
5%
20
7%
29
10%
45-64
307
100%
13
4%
45
15%
46
15%
Age
25-44
294
100%
31
11 %
38
13%
35
12%
45-64
307
100%
37
12%
45
15%
40
13%
70
46%
28
19%
28
19%
90
53%
34
20%
15
9%
318 292
44% 44%
140 129
19%
124
17%
19%
122
18%
119
50%
45
19%
21
9%
Status Home
Non-
65+ Student Student
151 170 718
100% 100% 100%
18
12%
26
17%
28
19%
65+
151
100%
5
3%
18
12%
12
8%
18
11%
23
14%
25
15%
Status
40
6%
88
12%
100
14%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
13
8%
29
17%
26
15%
69
10%
92
13%
82
11%
Own
662
100%
34
5%
87
13%
92
14%
Rent
238
100%
26
11 %
27
11 %
33
14%
Home
Own
662
100%
64
10%
95
14%
81
12%
Rent
238
100%
20
8%
29
12%
27
11%
295
47%
126
20%
94
15%
116
43%
48
18%
48
18%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
49
8%
82
13%
88
14%
Kids
269
100%
11
4%
32
12%
37
14%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
55
9%
85
13%
78
12%
Kids
269
100%
29
11 %
38
14%
30
11%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 22
Q.2 Community planning is aimed at improving the "quality of life" of residents. Please select
and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the following list that most negatively impact your day-to-
day life in College Station today.
d. Housing costs/availability
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
21
2%
48
5%
58
6%
18-24
148
100%
7
5%
20
14%
21
14%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
8
3%
20
7%
22
7%
0%
7
2%
12
4%
e. Impacts of rental housing
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
93
10%
95
11%
89
10% -
18-24
148
100%
4
3%
7
5%
8
5%
f. Limited activities for kids
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
17
2%
28
3%
40
4%
18-24
148
100%
2
1%
1%
8
5%
Age
25-44
294
100%
27
9%
31
11 %
32
11%
45-64
307
100%
47
15%
38
12%
26
8%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
10
3%
21
7%
22
7%
5
2%
6
2%
9
3%
65+
151
100%
5
3%
1%
3
2%
65+
151
100%
15
10%
19
13%
23
15%
65+
151
100%
0
0%
0
0%
1%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
7
4%
18
11 %
20
12%
Status
14
2%
29
4%
38
5%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
6
4%
9
5%
10
6%
Status
85
12%
85
12%
78
11%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
4
2%
1%
8
5%
13
2%
27
4%
31
4%
Home
Own
662
100%
6
1%
18
3%
23
3%
Rent
238
100%
15
6%
30
13%
35
15%
Home
Own
662
100%
83
13%
81
12%
71
11 %
Rent
238
100%
10
4%
14
6%
18
8%
Home
Own Rent
662 238
100% 100%
12
2%
23
3%
29
4%
5
2%
5
2%
11
5%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
18
3%
37
6%
44
7%
3
1%
11
4%
14
5%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
59
9%
66
10%
67
11%
Kids
269
100%
34
13%
29
11 %
22
8%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
6
1%
4
1%
14
2%
11
4%
24
9%
26
10%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 23
Q.2 Community planning is aimed at improving the "quality of life" of residents. Please select
and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the following list that most negatively impact your day-to-
day life in College Station today.
g. Lack of job opportunities
Base
Total
900
18-24
148
Age
25-44
294
45-64
307
65+
151
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
Home
Own
662
Rent
238
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
One
Two
Three
52
6%
62
7%
56
~
\10
9
6%
13
9%
14
9%
22
7%
27
9%
24
8%
18
6%
16
5%
11
4%
h. Dealing with City regulations
. Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
21
2%
27
3%
43
5% -
18-24
148
100%
2
1%
2
1%
4
3%
Age
25-44
294
100%
2
1%
10
3%
20
7%
45-64
307
100%
14
5%
9
3%
12
4%
i. City taxes and utility rates
Base
(0 One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
121
13%
156
17%
128
14% -4oS
18-24
148
100%
13
9%
28
19%
26
18%
Age
25-44
294
100%
39
13%
37
13%
41
14%
45-64
307
100%
40
13%
53
17%
39
13%
3
2%
6
4%
7
5%
10
6%
12
7%
14
8%
Status
42
6%
50
7%
41
6%
Non-
65+ Student Student
151 170 718
100% 100% 100%
3 19
2%
6
4%
7
5%
65+
151
100%
29
19%
38
25%
22
15%
1%
2
1%
8
5%
Status
3%
25
3%
33
5%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
17
10%
29
17%
27
16%
102
14%
125
17%
99
14%
30
5%
39
6%
35
5%
22
9%
23
10%
21
9%
Home
Own Rent
662 238
100% 100%
19 2
3%
20
3%
35
5%
1%
7
3%
8
3%
Home
Own
662
100%
106
16%
115
17%
87
13%
Rent
238
100%
15
6%
41
17%
41
17%
37
6%
47
7%
40
6%
14
5%
15
6%
16
6%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
15
2%
18
3%
28
4%
Kids
269
100%
6
2%
9
3%
15
6%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
83
13%
112
18%
98
16%
Kids
269
100%
38
14%
44
16%
30
11 %
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 24
Q.2 Community planning is aimed at improving the "quality of life" of residents. Please select
and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the following list that most negatively impact your day-to-
day life in College Station today.
j. Loss of "sense of community"
Age Status Home Household
Non-No
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Student Student Own Rent Kids Kids ------
Base 900 148 294 307 151 170 718 662 238 630 269
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
One 19 2 7 7 3 4 15 15 4 13 6
2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%_ 2% 2%
Two 69 5 28 26 10 12 56 53 16 51 18
8% 3% 10% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 7% 8% 7%
Three 90 10 24 39 17 12 78 71 19 64 26
10% 7% 8% 13% 11 % 7% 11% 11% 8% 10% 10% -\1<b
February 2007
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 25
Q.3 On the other hand, what potential enhancements would make College Station an
even better place to live and work? Please select and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on
the following list you feel are most important.
a. Neighborhood traffic management
~ Base ~oe
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
223
25%
122
14%
91
10% -4?~
18-24
148
100%
33
22%
15
10%
12
8%
b. Expanded airline service
Base
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
97
11%
104
12%
75
8% -
18-24
148
100%
8
5%
17
11%
7
5%
Z1Y,
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
61 74
21 % 24%
25
9%
36
12%
Age
45
15%
36
12%
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
24
8%
33
11%
32
11 %
40
13%
36
12%
23
7%
c. More shopping and entertainment
Base
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
89
10%
79
9%
72
8% -
18-24
148
100%
38
26%
20
14%
13
9%
240'
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
28
10%
33
11 %
28
10%
18
6%
21
7%
22
7%
65+
151
100%
55
36%
37
25%
7
5%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
39 180
23% 25%
17
10%
14
8%
105
15%
77
11 %
Status
Non-
65+ Student Student
151 170 718
100% 100% 100%
25
17%
18
12%
13
9%
65+
151
100%
5
3%
5
3%
9
6%
10
6%
14
8%
11
6%
Status
87
12%
88
12%
62
9%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
34
20%
20
12%
16
9%
54
8%
59
8%
56
8%
Home
Own
662
100%
175
26%
98
15%
73
11 %
Rent
238
100%
48
20%
24
10%
18
8%
Home
Own
662
100%
79
12%
80
12%
53
8%
Rent
238
100%
18
8%
24
10%
22
9%
Home
Own
662
100%
43
6%
50
8%
50
8%
Rent
238
100%
46
19%
29
12%
22
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
159 64
25% 24%
87
14%
58
9%
35
13%
33
12%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
74
12%
78
12%
51
8%
23
9%
26
10%
24
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
67
11 %
56
9%
45
7%
22
8%
23
9%
26
10%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 26
Q.3 On the other hand, what potential enhancements would make College Station an even
better place to live and work? Please select and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the
following list you feel are most important.
d. Beautification of the community
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
65
7%
88
10%
131
15%
18-24
148
100%
9
6%
17
11 %
27
18%
Age
25-44
294
100%
26
9%
30
10%
46
16%
45-64
307
100%
16
5%
28
9%
38
12%
e. More park land and "greenways"
Base
{j) One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
79
9%
119
13%
118
13% --
18-24
148
100%
18
12%
21
14%
18
12%
f. Expanded public transit
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
63
7%
90
10%
71
8%
18-24
148
100%
9
6%
16
11%
9
6%
Age
25-44
294
100%
28
10%
40
14%
38
13%
45-64
307
100%
28
9%
42
14%
49
16%
Age
25-44
294
100%
21
7%
29
10%
15
5%
45-64
307
100%
24
8%
31
10%
26
8%
65+
151
100%
14
9%
13
9%
20
13%
65+
151
100%
5
3%
16
11 %
13
9%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
12
7%
20
12%
28
16%
Status
53
7%
68
9%
102
14%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
20
12%
31
18%
24
14%
Status
56
8%
87
12%
94
13%
65+ Student
Non-
Student
151 170
100% 100%
9 11
6%
14
9%
21
14%
6%
22
13%
11
6%
718
100%
51
7%
66
9%
59
8%
Home
Own
662
100%
46
7%
63
10%
87
13%
Rent
238
100%
19
8%
25
11 %
44
18%
Home
Own
662
100%
54
8%
80
12%
91
14%
Rent
238
100%
25
11%
39
16%
27
11%
Home
Own
662
100%
38
6%
62
9%
58
9%
Rent
238
100%
25
11 %
28
12%
13
5%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
46
7%
61
10%
100
16%
Kids
269
100%
19
7%
26
10%
31
12%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
56
9%
85
13%
80
13%
Kids
269
100%
23
9%
34
13%
38
14%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
52
8%
72
11%
49
8%
Kids
269
100%
11
4%
18
7%
22
8%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 27
Q.3 On the other hand, what potential enhancements would make College Station an even
better place to live and work? Please select and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the
following list you feel are most important.
g. Stronger code enforcement
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
75
8%
. 66
7%
47
18-24
148
100%
2
1%
6
4%
4
5% 3%
~ (<6 i .
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
20
7%
15
5%
11
4%
31
10%
24
8%
17
6%
h. Safer routes for biking/walking
Base
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
84
9%
109
12%
104
12%
18-24
148
100%
14
9%
19
13%
18
12% --1,0\ /'\
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
42
14%
38
13%
30
10%
26
8%
43
14%
35
11 %
i. Preservation of rural areas
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
60
7%
62
7%
98
18-24
148
100%
9
6%
5
3%
19
11% 13% --Zl..0
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
17
6%
23
8%
22
7%
29
9%
19
6%
43
14%
65+
151
100%
22
15%
21
14%
15
10%
65+
151
100%
2
1%
9
6%
21
14%
65+
151
100%
5
3%
15
10%
14
9%
Status
Student
170
Non-
Student
100%
3
2%
6
4%
3
2%
Status
718
100%
70
10%
59
8%
44
6%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
23
14%
20
12%
23
14%
Status
61
8%
87
12%
78
11%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
8
5%
6
4%
18
11 %
51
7%
54
8%
75
10%
Home
Own
662
100%
67
10%
60
9%
42
6%
Rent
238
100%
8
3%
6
3%
5
2%
Home
Own
662
100%
60
9%
82
12%
74
11%
Rent
238
100%
24
10%
27
11 %
30
13%
Home
Own Rent
662 238
100% 100%
50
8%
47
7%
72
11%
10
4%
15
6%
26
11%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
42
7%
44
7%
33
5%
33
12%
22
8%
14
5%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
51
8%
67
11 %
78
12%
33
12%
42
16%
26
10%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
40
6%
39
6%
70
11 %
19
7%
23
9%
28
10%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 28
Q.3 On the other hand, wh at potential enhancements would make Co llege Station an even
better place to live and work? Please select and rank from 1 to 3 the three items on the
following list you feel are most important.
j. Creation of a true "city center"
Age Status Home Household
Non-No
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Student Student Own Rent Kids Kids -----
Base 900 148 294 307 151 170 718 662 238 630. 269
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
One 66 9 27 21 9 11 55 50 16 44 22
7% 6% 9% 7% 6% 6% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8%
Two 61 12 28 18 3 14 45 40 21 41 20
7% 8% 10% 6% 2% 8% 6% 6% 9% 7% 7%
Three 89 21 35 17 16 22 67 58 31 63 26
10% 14% 12% 6% 11 % 13% 9% 9% 13% 10% 10% -'}.,.\~
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 29
Q.4 College Station will face many challenges in coming years as it continues to grow.
What priority do you place on each of the following potential strategies the City might
pursue?
a. Manage outward growth to limit urban "sprawl"
Base
(9 H;gh priority
@ Medium priority
Low priority
Total
895
100%
323
36%
359
40%
213
24%
18-24
146
100%
36
25%
66
45%
44
30%
~
Age
25-44
294
100%
104
35%
114
39%
76
45-64
305
100%
117
38%
120
39%
68
26%. 22%
65+
150
100%
66
44%
59
39%
25
17%
Status
Non-
Student Student
168 715
100% 100%
46 269
27% 38%
70 286
42% 40%
52
31 %
160
22%
Home
Own
657
100%
257
39%
256
39%
144
22%
Rent
238
100%
66
28%
103
43%
69
29%
Household
No
Kids
626
100%
223
36%
255
41 %
148
24%
Kids
268
100%
99
37%
104
39%
65
24%
b. Promote more development within the City while protecting existing neighborhoods
and businesses
Base
(ii High priority
~'Medium priority
Low priority
Total
898
100%
429
48%
352
39%
18-24
148
100%
57
39%
76
51 %
117 15
~ 10%
~';".
Age
25-44 45-64
293 307
100% 100%
145
49%
112
38%
36
12%
151
49%
116
38%
40
13%
65+
150
100%
76
51%
48
32%
26
17%
Status Home
Non-
Student Student Own Rent
170 717 660 238
100% 100% 100% 100%
67
39%
82
48%
21
12%
356 320
50% 48%
267 247
37% 37%
94
13%
93
14%
109
46%
105
44%
24
10%
c. Focus on job/amenities to keep more A&M graduates here
Base
G)igh priority
Medium priority
@ Low priority
Total
898
100%
234
26%
298
33%
366
41 %
18-24
147
100%
53
36%
52
35%
42
29%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
78
27%
106
36%
110
37%
69
22%
94
31%
144
47%
65+
150
100%
34
23%
46
31 %
70
47%
Status
Non-
Student Student
169 718
100% 100%
62
37%
56
33%
51
30%
171
24%
237
33%
31 0
43%
Home
Own Rent
660 238
100% 100%
154
23%
211
32%
295
45%
80
34%
87
37%
71
30%
Household
No
Kids
629
Kids
268
100% 100%
298
47%
245
39%
86
14%
130
49%
107
40%
31
12%
Household
No
Kids Kids
628 269
100% 100%
175
28%
211
34%
242
39%
58
22%
87
32%
124
46%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 30
Q.4 College Station will face many challenges in coming years as it continues to grow. What
priority do you place on each of the following potential strategies the City might pursue?
d. Focus on housing/amenities to attract more retirees here
Base
Total
897
18-24
148
Age
25-44
293
45-64
306
65+
150
Status
Non-
Student Student
169 717
Home
Own
659
Rent
238
Household
No
Kids
629
Kids
267
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
\@ High priority
Medium priority
0 Low priority
156
17%
328
37%
17
11 %
51
34%
413 80
46% 54%
30
10%
102
35%
161
55%
67
22%
110
36%
129
42%
42
28%
65
43%
43
29%
19
11 %
54
32%
96
57%
136
19%
269
38%
312
44%
121
18%
245
37%
293
44%
35
15%
83
35%
120
50%
e. Continued tax base expansion to fund public improvements
Base
\~ H;gh priority
0 Medium priority
®Low pc;oc;ty
Total
890
100%
138
16%
18-24
146
100%
16
11 %
472 85
53% 58%
280 45
31 % 31%
Age
25-44 45-64
291 306
100% 100%
43 54
15% 18%
164
56%
84
29%
156
51 %
96
31%
65+
147
100%
25
17%
67
46%
55
37%
Status
Non-
Student Student
168 710
100% 100%
19 119
11 % 17%
99
59%
50
30%
368
52%
223
31%
f. Greater focus on integrity of established neighborhoods
Base G High priority
Medium priority
Low priority
Total
900
100%
433
48%
343
38%
124
14%
18-24
148
100%
51
34%
66
45%
31
21%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
130
44%
123
42%
41
14%
165
54%
107
35%
35
11%
65+
151
100%
87
58%
47
31%
17
11%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
58
34%
81
48%
31
18%
370
52%
256
36%
92
13%
Home
Own
652
100%
109
17%
335
51%
208
32%
Rent
238
100%
29
12%
137
58%
72
30%
Home
Own Rent
662 238
100% 100%
348
53%
235
35%
79
12%
85
36%
108
45%
45
19%
118
19%
235
37%
276
44%
38
14%
93
35%
136
51 %
Household
No
Kids Kids
622 267
100% 100%
94 44
15% 16%
329
53%
199
32%
142
53%
81
30%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
294
47%
247
39%
89
14%
138
51 %
96
36%
35
13%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 31
Q.4 College Station will face many challenges in coming years as it continues to grow. What
priority do you place on each of the following potential strategies the City might pursue?
g. Upgrade the image and appearance of the community
Base 0 H;gh prim;ty
~edium priority
Low priority
Total
895
100%
18-24
146
100%
380 62
42% 42%
395 67
44% 46%
120 17
13% 12% ~
Age
25-44
294
100%
130
44%
122
41%
42
14%
45-64
307
100%
122
40%
140
46%
45
15%
65+
148
100%
66
45%
66
45%
16
11 %
Status Home
Non-
Student Student Own
658
100%
168 716
100% 100%
72
43%
72
43%
24
14%
304 275
42% 42%
318 299
44% 45%
94 84
13% 13%
Rent
237
100%
105
44%
96
41 %
36
15%
h. Make recreation and "green space" a central focus
Base
igh priority
Low priority
Total
898
100%
358
40%
375
42%
165
~
18-24
148
100%
72
49%
58
39%
18
12%
Age
25-44
293
100%
134
46%
125
43%
34
12%
45-64
307
100%
128
42%
115
37%
64
21 %
65+
150
100%
24
16%
77
51 %
49
33%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 716
100% 100%
87
51 %
62
36%
21
12%
264
37%
311
43%
141
20%
Home
Own
660
100%
253
38%
275
42%
132
20%
Rent
238
100%
105
44%
100
42%
33
14%
i. Improve how City codes deal with large-scale developments
Base
~High priority
®Medium priority
Low priority
Total
891
100%
410
46%
372
42%
109
~
18-24
146
100%
33
23%
81
55%
32
22%
Age
25-44 45-64
292 304
100% 100%
109
37%
136
47%
47
16%
176
58%
103
34%
25
8%
Status
Non-
65+ Student Student
149 168 711
100% 100% 100%
92
62%
52
35%
5
3%
44
26%
87
52%
37
22%
359
50%
281
40%
71
10%
Home
Own
654
100%
342
52%
258
39%
54
8%
Rent
237
100%
68
29%
114
48%
55
23%
Household
No
Kids
625
100%
271
43%
273
44%
81
13%
Kids
269
100%
108
40%
122
45%
39
14%
Household
No
Kids
628
100%
234
37%
275
44%
119
19%
Kids
269
100%
124
46%
99
37%
46
17%
Household
No
Kids Kids
625 265
100% 100%
291
47%
258
41 %
76
12%
119
45%
113
43%
33
12%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 32
Q.4 College Station will face many challenges in coming years as it continues to grow. What
priority do you place on each of the following potential strategies the City might pursue?
j. Continued focus on special districts ( like Wolf Pen Creek, Northgate)
Age Status Home Household
Non-
Stud en Stud en No
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ t t Own Rent Kids Kids ----------
Base 896 147 294 305 150 169 715 659 237 628 267
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
~High priority 231 73 81 53 24 77 150 126 105 180 51
26% 50% 28% 17% 16% 46% 21 % 19% 44% 29% 19%
~ Medium priority 394 52 130 150 62 65 325 307 87 271 122
44% 35% 44% 49% 41% 38% 45% 47% 37% 43% 46%
Low priority 271 22 83 102 64 27 240 226 45 177 94
30% 15% 28% 33% 43% 16% 34% 34% 19% 28% 35%
Q.5 Cities and counties in Texas have limited authority to regulate land development
outside city limits. But, cities are able to annex additional territory to extend their
building/development codes to new growth areas. What is your feeling about the City of
College Station potentially annexing more territory in the future, with or without property
owner consent?
Age Status Home Household
Non-No
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Student Student Own Rent Kids Kids ----
Base 892 147 291 304 150 167 713 655 237 626 265
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The City should 185 21 65 61 38 26 158 147 38 129 56
annex as much 21% 14% 22% 20% 25% 16% 22% 22% 16% 21 % 21 %
territory as it can
under law to "stay
ahead" of the
growth that is
already
h nin ...
The City should 539 107 169 179 84 117 415 382 157 390 148
be cautious with 60% 73% 58% 59% 56% 70% 58% 58% 66% 62% 56%
annexation,
adding new
territory to the city
limits as
development
proceeds ...
e City should 168 19 57 64 28 24 140 126 42 107 61
not annex any 19% 13% 20% 21 % 19% 14% 20% 19% 18% 17% 23%
new territory
because it has
enough issues to
deal with in the
current city limits
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 33
Q.6 If City taxes or fees you pay were to be devoted to improving a particular type of City
service, please select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
a. Off-road hike/bike trails
Base 5J One
Two
Three
b. Library
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
74
8%
58
6%
71
8%
Total
900
100%
29
3%
41
5%
51
6% --\ i. \
18-24
148
100%
9
6%
10
7%
14
9%
18-24
148
100%
4
3%
5
3%
5
3%
Age
25-44
294
100%
40
14%
27
9%
31
11 %
45-64
307
100%
24
8%
17
6%
22
7%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
12
4%
18
6%
19
6%
10
3%
11
4%
19
6%
c. Long-range and strategic planning
Base
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
130
14%
100
11 %
105
12%
18-24
148
100%
20
14%
14
9%
13
9%
]3'>
Age
25-44
294
100%
40
14%
34
12%
41
14%
45-64
307
100%
46
15%
35
11 %
34
11 %
65+
151
100%
1%
4
3%
4
3%
65+
151
100%
3
2%
7
5%
8
5%
65+
151
100%
24
16%
17
11%
17
11%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
17
10%
14
8%
17
10%
Status
57
8%
42
6%
53
7%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
4
2%
9
5%
8
5%
Status
25
3%
32
4%
42
6%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
21
12%
22
13%
20
12%
107
15%
76
11 %
85
12%
Home
Own
662
100%
51
8%
41
6%
48
7%
Rent
238
100%
23
10%
17
7%
23
10%
Home
Own
662
100%
22
3%
32
5%
37
6%
Rent
238
100%
7
3%
9
4%
14
6%
Home
Own
662
100%
104
16%
74
11%
80
12%
Rent
238
100%
26
11%
26
11%
25
11%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
42
7%
39
6%
52
8%
Kids
269
100%
32
12%
19
7%
19
7%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
19
3%
25
4%
31
5%
Kids
269
100%
10
4%
16
6%
20
7%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
96
15%
71
11%
68
11 %
Kids
269
100%
33
12%
29
11 %
37
14%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 34
Q.6 If City taxes or fees you pay were to be devoted to improving a particular type of City
service, please select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
d. New streets
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
65
7%
55
6%
36
4% -15~
18-24
148
100%
13
9%
8
5%
6
4%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100%
24
8%
21
7%
10
3%
100%
15
5%
20
7%
17
6%
e. Repair to existing streets
Base
Two
Three
0
Total
900
100%
21 1
23%
201
22%
99
11 %
s l \
18-24
148
100%
42
28%
45
30%
15
10%
f. Drainage/storm sewers
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
43
5%
88
10%
80
9%
18-24
148
100%
10
7%
18
12%
13
9% ---1..-\ \
Age
25-44
294
100%
53
18%
58
20%
32
11 %
45-64
307
100%
71
23%
66
21 %
36
12%
Age
25-44
294
100%
14
5%
20
7%
22
7%
45-64
307
100%
12
4%
35
11%
32
10%
65+
151
100%
13
9%
6
4%
3
2%
65+
151
100%
45
30%
32
21 %
16
11%
65+
151
100%
7
5%
15
10%
13
9%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
Home
Own
662
100% 100% 100%
Rent
238
100%
14
8%
7
4%
6
4%
Status
51
7%
48
7%
28
4%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
48
28%
44
26%
18
11 %
Status
161
22%
155
22%
81
11 %
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
12
7%
20
12%
12
7%
31
4%
67
9%
67
9%
42
6%
42
6%
29
4%
23
10%
13
5%
7
3%
Home
Own
662
100%
151
23%
141
21 %
73
11 %
Rent
238
100%
60
25%
60
25%
26
11 %
Home
Own
662
100%
31
5%
65
10%
58
9%
Rent
238
100%
12
5%
23
10%
22
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
49
8%
38
6%
23
4%
Kids
269
100%
16
6%
17
6%
13
5%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
159
25%
149
24%
73
12%
Kids
269
100%
52
19%
52
19%
25
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
31
5%
65
10%
55
9%
Kids
269
100%
12
4%
23
9%
25
9%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 35
Q.6 If City taxes or fees you pay were to be devoted to improving a particular type of City
service, please select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
g. Water/sewer improvements
Base
One
Two
Three
Age
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64
900 148 294 307
100%
31
3%
58
6%
69
8%
100%
5
3%
7
5%
15
10%
100%
9
3%
18
6%
19
6%
100%
13
4%
23
7%
21
7%
Status Home
Non-
65+ Student Student Own
151 170 718 662
100% 100% 100% 100%
Rent
238
100%
4
3%
10
7%
14
9%
6
4%
7
4%
14
8%
24
3%
48
7%
54
8%
23
3%
42
6%
47
7%
8
3%
16
7%
22
9%
h. Code enforcement (building, parking, property maintenance)
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
49
5%
73
8%
77
18-24
148
100%
2
1%
8
5%
7
Age
25-44
294
100%
14
5%
22
7%
25
9%
45-64
307
100%
19
6%
19
6%
23
7%
i. Police, fire, ambulance services
Base
®one
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
186
21 %
115
13%
18-24
148
100%
28
19%
8
5%
115 20
13% 14%
~
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
57 69
19% 22%
30
10%
26
9%
48
16%
42
14%
65+
151
100%
14
9%
24
16%
22
15%
65+
151
100%
32
21 %
29
19%
27
18%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
2
1%
6
4%
10
6%
Status
47
7%
66
9%
67
9%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
28 154
16% 21%
11
6%
21
12%
103
14%
93
13%
Home
Own
662
100%
40
6%
66
10%
61
9%
Rent
238
100%
9
4%
7
3%
16
7%
Home
Own
662
100%
141
21 %
90
14%
92
14%
Rent
238
100%
45
19%
25
11 %
23
10%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
22
3%
45
7%
52
8%
Kids
269
100%
9
3%
13
5%
17
6%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
38
6%
48
8%
53
8%
Kids
269
100%
11
4%
25
9%
24
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
124 62
20% 23%
79
13%
84
13%
36
13%
31
12%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey Page 36
Q.6 If City taxes or fees you pay were to be devoted to improving a particular type of City
service, please select and rank from 1 to 3 your top three priorities on the following list.
j. Parks and recreation programs
Base
One
Two
Three
@
Total
900
100%
63
7%
82
9%
18-24
148
100%
16
11%
21
14%
124 35
14% 24%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
27
9%
37
13%
47
16%
19
6%
21
7%
29
9%
k. Development review/regulation
Base
One
Two
Three
Total
900
100%
19
2%
31
3%
71
8%
18-24
148
100%
0
0%
4
3%
4
3%
,~,
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
3
1%
9
3%
21
7%
9
3%
12
4%
34
11 %
Q. 7 What is your age range?
Base
18-24
25-44
45-64
65 or over
Total
900
100%
148
16%
294
33%
307
34%
151
17%
18-24
148
100%
148
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Age
25-44 45-64
294 307
100% 100%
0
0%
294
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
307
100%
0
0%
65+
151
100%
1%
3
2%
13
9%
65+
151
100%
7
5%
6
4%
12
8%
65+
151
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
151
100%
Status
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
18
11 %
26
15%
34
20%
Status
43
6%
56
8%
87
12%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
0
0%
3
2%
9
5%
Status
18
3%
28
4%
60
8%
Non-
Student Student
170 718
100% 100%
129
76%
37
22%
4
2%
0
0%
19
3%
253
35%
300
42%
146
20%
Home
Own Rent
662 238
100% 100%
38
6%
47
7%
76
11%
25
11%
35
15%
48
20%
Home
Own
662
100%
19
3%
23
3%
60
9%
Rent
238
100%
0
0%
8
3%
11
5%
Home
Own
662
100%
27
4%
197
30%
296
45%
142
21%
Rent
238
100%
121
51 %
97
41 %
11
5%
9
4%
Household
No
Kids
630
100%
35
6%
53
8%
90
14%
Kids
269
100%
28
10%
29
11%
34
13%
Household
No
Kids Kids
630 269
100% 100%
15
2%
21
3%
48
8%
4
1%
9
3%
23
9%
Household
No
Kids
630
Kids
269
100% 100%
146
23%
138
22%
203
32%
143
23%
2
1%
155
58%
104
39%
8
3%
College Station Comprehensive Plan Community Survey
Q.8 Are you a college student?
Age Status
Non-
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Student Student --
Base 888 148 290 304 146 170 718
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Student 170 129 37 4 0 170 0
19% 87% 13% 1% 0% 100% 0%
Non-student 718 19 253 300 146 0 718
81 % 13% 87% 99% 100% 0% 100%
Q.9 Do you own or rent your current residence?
Age Status
Non-
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Student Student
Base 900 148 294 307 151 170 718
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Own 662 27 197 296 142 36 617
74% 18% 67% 96% 94% 21 % 86%
Rent 238 121 97 11 9 134 101
26% 82% 33% 4% 6% 79% 14%
Q.10 Do you have children in your household?
Age Status
Non-
Total 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Student Student --
Base 899 148 293 307 151 170 717
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
None 630 146 138 203 143 161 459
70% 99% 47% 66% 95% 95% 64%
One or more 269 2 155 104 8 9 258
30% 1% 53% 34% 5% 5% 36%
Home
Own Rent ----653 235
100% 100%
36 134
6% 57%
617 101
94% 43%
Home
Own Rent --662 238
100% 100%
662 0
100% 0%
0 238
0% 100%
Home
Own Rent --661 238
100% 100%
417 213
63% 89%
244 25
37% 11 %
Page 37
Household
No
Kids Kids
620 267
100% 100%
161 9
26% 3%
459 258
74% 97%
Household
No
Kids Kids ----
630 269
100% 100%
417 244
66% 91 %
213 25
34% 9%
Household
No
Kids Kids ----630 269
100% 100%
630 0
100% 0%
0 269
0% 100%