HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous1-23-1996. 11_aIAM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
a ~
'I'O
FROM:
A"I'"I'I:N'CI ('?N
Ta D~ /tit c ~Ay~ ~L:.
_~,~ cA~~w~ y
_/~N~ ... k~~ ._ ._
P~ 1
/h~}SON NFW ~07~1
. ~~,~.~y ~y~ Pte-.
~A~R,~ S~~ TN ~ ..
,~~~~ x~~,~A~ ~r
OR(~ANILA1'ION- ., Go/Yliylu N~ T y ~Nll/ah~cr-'lH~~.,/T
sPl/cIA;<, coMM,cNTS: ~J ~ ~ P~r~ PRO c.~~ss
TOTAL # OF PAGES (Including cover page): /
NAME. ^ j ~. ~iJA~~~12 C~A7C~~ ~~~f~iVf
Texas ABrM University
College of Arehi[ec[ute
Department of Construction Science
College Station, Texas 77843-3137
FAX #: (409) 86b1572
Please contact us immodiateiy at (409} 845-1017 if any pages are illegible, or if the total
number of pages indicated are no[ received_
~1-23-1996 11~02AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
Community Enhancement Program for College Station
from:
Department of Construction Science
College of Architecture
Texas A8~M University
College Station, Texas 7 7843-3 1 3 7
MENtO
TO: Steering Committee Members
Community Enhancement Program for College Station
DATE: January 22, 1996
SUBJECT: Community Enhancement Program Steering Committee Meeting
Our meeting with the City Council on Wednesday, January 10, during its regular workshop
meeting, werrt well. The demonstration project was approved as submitted, and the report of the
Preliminary Findings of December 12, 1995 was well received. I also understand that the Council
spern a considerable amount of time discussing the Community Enhancement Program at irs retreat
the next weekend..Mr. Kwa is now working on the real estate values project, Mr. Han, a new
doctoral student who is working on the project with us, is conducting an analysis of the costs of
city services of comparable cities with College Station, anal the results of the residern survey are
crow being completed. A meeting between the City Manager and the Policy Implementation
Subcommittee is also being arranged (probably Tuesday, January 30, 2:00-3:00 PM - to be
confirmed}.
We now need to take the neat step in our process towards finalizing our list of recommendations
for the City Council. 1 would like to underscore the concept of process because the City Staff, Mr.
Kwa and i have been trying to figure out how to get a long list of possible recommendations
reduced to those that will have the greatest possible impact on improving .real estate values in our
community. While there are perhaps many ways to do this, the Delphi Process we are about to
describe to you has proven to work well in other instances and so we will employ it here. As
always though, if you have a suggestion for a better way to do this, please let us lalow.
P. 2
1-23-1996 11:02AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572 P•3
The process will involve more focused input from each Steering Committee member over the next
couple of weeks, then we will meet in a day long workshop to refine the list of recommendations
even farther. What we are doing now is sending everyone the list of recommendations as nearly as
Mr. Kwa and I can determine from all ofthe sources to date. Please go down the list and rate each
item's importance on the scale provided_ Then, FAX or mail your response back to us within 5
days if possible. New recommendations, or arguments for or against any item, may be added to the
form. Any recommendationthnt does not achieve an average soots at least 3.0 on the scale of 1.-5
will be eliminated from the list. Aber analyzing the results of the first round we will send the
information out to everyone for a second ranking. Though authors of commenrts will remavn
anonymous, we will summarize the comn~errts added to the first questionnaire so everyone can see
them in the second round. Tha second questionnaire should be returned promptly just like the first
one. After the second round questionnaires are received, we will once again summarize the
frndi~s, including comments, and seed those to everyone. By this point we should begn to see a
consensus emerge and therefore be ready to carlduct a focused workshop which will take these
results one step further through in-depth discussions. We e~--pecx that this workshop will beheld on
Friday, February 23, from 9:04 AM urni14:00 PM. Please mark this tentatively on your
calendars. We will confirm the workshop date a few days before it is held. City Council members,
City Staff, the City Manager and others will be invited to attend the workshop to observe and
participate in the discussions. We will probably need all day to go into the recommendations in
detail.
By the time of the workshop we should also have some preliminary results from the cost of city
services study and the real estate values study. All of this informatiars will be fihsred into the
process for consideration in light of everything else we know. Any more detailed investigations
into codes and standards or other regulations that we need to conduct will become evident during
the workshop. We will conduct these investigations, if required, before we go to the City Council
with our tewmmendations. Other meetings of the Steering Committee may be required to
deliberate on these findings too, but right now this is how we seethe process unfolding.
We trust that this approach will integrate everyone's vsewpoint in a productive fashion. Again, if
you have any suggestions about the process we are using to reach closure on our recommendations,
please let us know. We look forward to receiving your completed questioa~naire from the first
round by January 29, I99b.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Graham
Project Coordinator
{409) 845-021b (Voice}
(409) 8G2-1572 (FAX}
1-23-1996 11:03AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572 P.d
COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT. PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Delphi process is to further our efforts to identify and prioritize key
recommendations to the City Council of College Station. This Delphi process involves all
members of the Steering Committee. The list of 68 items has evolved over the last several
months from numerous Community Enhancement Program meetings. As you review and
rate the importance of these potential items for recommendations to the City Council,
please add any other potential recommendations you feel are important.
Information obtained from this Delphi process will be tabulated and organized and
distributed to each one of you for another iteration of the process, which will stop when it
appears a consensus of the key recommendations is obtained. After a couple of rounds we
will hold a workshop session to try to finalize the list of recoomendations. Please complete
the enclosed questionnaire and fax or send it hack with the pre-addressed envelope within
5 days. Your identity should remain anonymous.
INSTRUCTION
Overview of the questinnnai~e :There are a total of b8 potential recommendations from
page 1-5. For convenience these items are categorized into Policy Issues, Infrastructure,
City and Public Services, Upgrading of Building Construction Standards, Enforcement of
Codes, Ordinances, and Regulations, Education of the Public, Parking Subcommittee
Housing, Real Estate Values Subcommittee and Student Housing Survey Committee.
Should you desire to add remarks to any of the potential recommendations, please do so in
the space provided. In page 5, there are spaces available for you to add any new items for
potential recommendations. Your remarks and comments are also encouraged. Again,
your. identity should remain anonymous in the process.
How to complete the questionnaire ;Please circle the number you believe is appropriate
reflecting the importance of th.e potential recommendatson and print legibly or type any
remark you may have about the item. Fax the completed questionnaire to Dr.Charles
Graham at this number {409) 8b2-15'72 or mail with the pre-addressed envelope within 5
days of receipt of the questionnaire if possible. If you have questions about completing the
questionnaire, please call us at {409). 845-0216.
1-23-1996 11.03AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572 P.5
IMPORTANCE RATING SCALE
~ i s s s
LOW HIGH
PLEASE CfRCLE
Policy Issues
1, Establish a mechanism to assure better coordination between the ~ z a a s
postmaster, fire marshal{, and public works depaRment.
REMARKS:
2. Establish a mechanism to assure better coordination between city ~ Z a 4 s
and state transportation planners.
REMARKS:
3. City should conduct more comprehensive, long-range planning with t 2 s a s
regular updates.
REMARKS:
4. Decisions to grant variances must be made in comparison with the ~ 2 a 4 s
City's master plan.
REMARKS;
5. City staff should not grant variances. t 2, 3 ~ 6
REMARKS:
8. Require single-family Homeowners Associations. ~ 1 3 s s
REMARKS:
~. Require multi-family Homeowners Associations. t 2 a a s
REMARKS:
8. Create Neighborhood Associations in older neighbofioods. ~ 2 a s s
REMARKS;
9. Create acommunity-wide Renters Association. ~ 2 s a s
REMARKS:
10. Require on-street parking restrictions. ~ s a s s
REMARKS
11. Require special parking districts with permits. ~ 2 3 s 5
R@MARKS:
12. Require more off-street parking spaces at duplexes. ~ 2 a s s
REMARKS;
13. Require off-street parfcing of 1 space per bedroom. ~ z a s s
REMARKS:
14. City should follow a consistent policy on location of sidewalks in ~ 2 3 s 5
rightsof-ways (R.O.W.'s) in subdivisions.
REMARKS:
1 ~, Recommend ordinance to eliminate billboard signs in the city. ~ 2 3 4 s
REMARKS:
18. Require a.l1 future Homeowners Associations to ~ ~ a 4 s
take care of maintenance of all easements in their neighbofioods.
REMARKS:
17. Require that City should maintain all easements{except ~ z a s s
those owned privately) in existing neighbafioods.
REMARKS:
Page 1 of 3
1-23-1996 11=8dAM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
IMPORTANCE RA7lNCi SCALE
1 2 a 4 6
LOW HIGH
PLEASE ClrtCLE
Infrastructure, City and Public Services
18. City should Lolled residential garbage Monday -Thursday ~ 2 . a s s
only; use Friday for non-residential and catch-up.
REMARKS;
19. Require better maintenance of all public drainageways t 2 3 4 6
by the City.
REMARKS:
20. City should install attractive gateways into the t 2 3 d s
community along all mayor thoroughfares.
REMARKS:
21. Produce acity-wide urban design plan including landscaping; ~ 2 3 ~ 5
hike-and-bike paths; parkways etc.
REMARKS:
22. City should provide better, more convenient public transportation. ~ 2 s a s
REMARKS:
23. Cross-train City workers to identify and report problems to the ~ 2 3 s 5
responsible departments of the City for action.
REMARKS:
24. Develop the ability of the City Accounting Departmerrt to accurately ~ 2 3 4 6
traGc costs a!I the way out to the consumers of City services.
REMARKS:
Upgrading of Building ConstructionlStandards,
Enforcement of Cod®s, Ordinances, and regulations.
25. Require rear alley access in duplex development; consolidate ~ z a a a
utilities and public services.
REMARKS:
26. Fences -- design for soil movements, use incentives for living ~ 2 3 4 5
screens and other landscaping.
fiEMARKS:
--- _ __ -
Screen aH mechanical equipment (HVAC, electrical) if visible on ~ 2 a e s
private property from public view.
REMARKS:
28. Require entrance signs at all new subdivisions. ~ 2 s 4 6
REMARKS:
29. Homeowners Associations should maintain detention ponds in a 2 a a s
their respective neighborhoods.
REMARKS :
30. Require landscape buffering between residential and commercial ~ 2 3 4 5
land uses.
REMARKS:
31. Enforce existing rules, codes and ordinances. ~ y g ~ 5
REMARKS:
32. Fences -- a finished side should always face the public view. 1 t 3 s s
REMARKS;
P. 6
Page 2 of 5
1-23-1996 11-0dAM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
P. 7
IMPORTANCE RATING SCALE
1 2 3 t 5
LOW NIGH
PLEASE CIRCLE
33. Residents and/or builders should provide screens where views ~ 2 s a a
from public streets are into residential rear yards.
REMARKS:
34. Builders should provide a gate in fences at the rear of all yards ~ 2 3 a a
abutting easements.
REMARKS:
35. Owners should be responsible for noise and parking violations. ~ 2 3 a s
REMARKS:
38. There should be a mandatory propeRy inspection of mufti-family ~ 2 s t s
rental units once every other year.
REMARKS:
37. A courtesy inspection of single-family units, not to exceed ane s 2 3 4 6
-per year at the resident's request, should be available from the City.
REMARKS:
38. Enforce building code requirements for acoustical and noise ~ z 3 t 6
standards in multi-family projects.
REMARKS:
39. Require minimum qualifications for maintenance personnel at ~ 2 s a s
multi-family residential projects.
REMARKS:
4a. Requiree architects and/or engineers on alt residential construction ~ 2 3 t 6
projects.
REMARKS:
41, increase the minimum residential foundation design and t 2 3 4 a
construction requirements.
REMARKS:
42. Require expansion joints in masonry walls as recommended by ~ s 3 a s
the brick institute of America.
REMARKS:
43. Minimum standards for construction of fencing should be developed. t Z s 4 a
REMARKS:
44. Have a landscape maintenance requirement. ~ 2 s a a
REMARKS:
45. Give citations for noise disturbances and parking violations. ~ 2 3 a s
REMARKS:
Education of the Public
4&. Form a permanent citizens advisory council to the City Council. ~ t 3 a s
REMARKS:
47. Have an ombudsman at City Hall to assist with project approvals. 4 z s a s
REMARKS:
48. Create a mechanism t0 assure b@tter communlCatlon between 1 2 3 < 5
the city and the Off-Campus Aggies professional staff who aften
act as "agents" of the city.
REMARKS:
Page 3 of 5
1-23-1996 11:05AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572 P.8
IMPORTANCE RATING SCALE
1 2 3 d 5
LOW HIGH
PLEASE CIRCLE
49. Publish a ranking of apartment projects. ~ 2 3 4 s
REMARKS:
50. Public education program -- easement maintenance; fence and ~ 2 3 d 6
screen construction; landscaping; utility equipment placement and
screening; garbage containers pickup and storage; recycling.
REMARKS:
59 . Establish a mechanism for better communication between t 1 3 d s
Texas A8M University and the City.
REMARKS:
(P ang u omm~ftee ecommendations~~--~
~~
52. Single-family existing development :recommend alive use of no s 2 a a s
parking signs to control on street parking and allow for the safe
flow of traffic and emergency access.
REMARKS:
53. Single-family future development : recommend no change to ~ 2 3 d s
current ordinance.
REMARKS:
54. Duplex existing development : monitor streets use and use no ~ 2 s a s
parking signs to control on street parking problems.
REMARKS:
55. Duplex future development :recommend the same rules as ~ 2 s 4 s
apartments on 2 or more bedrooms (1.25 per BR<132 SQPT, 1.25
per BR>132 SQFT on 2BR and 1.0 per BR on 3 or more).
REMARKS:
56. Multi-family existing development :recommend no change to ~ 2 3 a 5
to current ordinance.
REMARKS:
57. Mulls-family future development :recommend no change to ~ s s s s
current ordinance.
REMARKS;
58. Code enforcement officers needed for parking, trash, weeds, etc. ~ 2 s a s
REMARKS:
Real Estate Values Subcommittee Recommendations
59. To help the value of property, the City must enforce codes. ~ a 3 4 s
REMARKS:
60. Provide one-time incentive to owners to surface aff-street parking t 2 3 4 6
areas and grant variances for curb cuts, etc.
REMARKS:
61 _ Maintenance of drainage and easement where equipment and ~ z s d s
engineering expertise are needed must be the responsibility of
the City. This should be a line item in the city budget.
REMARKS:
Page 4 of 5
1-23-1996 11-05AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
.~
IMPORTANCE RATING SCALE
1 2 S 4 b
LOW NIGH
PLEASE CIRCLE
62. City should have an immediate drainage plan for Brazos ~ z s 4 s
County and future development should be based on study of
effect against overall plan.
REMARKS:
63. An on-going program that educates, bonds, builds neighborhood ~ 2 3 s s
pride and that presents a motto that everyone can identify with.
REMARKS
64. Recommend that all structures that are intended for human ~ z s s s
habitation be designed by a professional architect or engineer.
REMARKS:
Student Mousing Survey Committee Recommendations
65. Pest Control -Develop an informational piece about pests common ~ z 3 4 6
to our area and exterminating ideas, etc. to be included with
several utility mail outs.
REMARKS:
t36. Acoustic/noise Control -City must enforce existing ordinance. ~ z s s s
.REMARKS:
67. Heating, ventilation, air-conditioning (HVAC) -City must enforce ~ z s s s
existing ordinance.
REMARKS:
68. Appliances - y must en orce ex~ Ong a ;Hance. ~ z 3 4 s
REMARKS:
Additional Recommendations
69• 1 2 a 4 6
REMARKS:
7d• 9 2 a 4 S
REMARKS:
71. ~ 2 3 a 5
REMARKS :
72. ~ z a s 5
REMARKS:
I iota ommen s
I nanK you. r-ease return your completed questionnaire to Dr. Charles Graham a ,
mail immediately to :Community Enhancement Program, Department of Construction Science,
Texas A8M University, Coll®ge Station, Texas 77843-3137. _
Page 5 of 5
P. 9
u ~ H,
r' z
< ~ TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
.w =, Department of Construction Science
1876 r
March 21, 1996
Members, College Station City Council
c/o George K. Noe
City Manager
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Preliminary Recommendations for Community Enhancement Program for College Station
Dear Council Members:
Attached are the preliminary recommendations which are being submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Community Enhancement Program for College Station.
These recommendations are the result of an extensive consensus building process involving the
Steering Committee with input from people and business interests in the community. We believe
these are sound recommendations that will have a lasting, positive impact on College Station's real
estate values. What we need from you at this time is an indication that we are adequately
addressing your expectations of this project.
Sincerely,
(~(/
Charles W. Graham, Ph.D., AIA
Project Coordinator
xc: Dr. Larry Grosse, Head, Texas A&M University Department of Construction Science
Todd McDaniel, Department of Development Services, City of College Station
Jim Callaway, Department of Development Services, City of College Station
Lori Wilkensen, TAMU Research Foundation Grant Coordinator
Community Enhancement Program Steering Committee
Attachments: Executive Summary of Preliminary Recommendations
Attachments
~~
422 Langford Building A • College Station. texas 11843-3137 • (409) 845 101 7. FAX (409) 862 1572
3-27-1996 9:5dAM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
.~ _ -
DRAFT
3~zv~4~
PRESS 12ELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE REY.EASE
DATE: 20 March 1996
CONTACT PERSON: Amy French, Information Representative
PHONE: (409) 847-8677
P_ 3
Ask a Texas A&M student how to improve apartment living in College Station, and he or she will
probably tell you that apartment managers need to control pests better, reduce the noise, buy some new
carpeting and improve the air conditioning system. And 64% said that a rent increase might be possible
to accomplish this, if it were a reasonable one.
Charles W. Graham, Ph.D., associate professor of construction science, and T.H. Kwa, research assis-
tant, conducted a random survey of 1020 apartment-dwelling students during the summer of 1995 to find
out how the students felt about their living conditions. The survey was part of a grant funded by the city
of College Station to determine how to improve the quality of life there. Through the study, called the
Community Enhancement Program, the city is hoping to improve property values while reducing the
cost for various city services. City planners in other university towns were also surveyed for the project
to see what measures were employed to maintain property values there.
Graham and his steering committee of 30 residents and business leaders felt that the students made an
important target group because of the tremendous impact they have on the College Station community.
With an average of 56% of the property value in university towns being rental property, over 70% of the
housing units in College Station are renter-occupied, the majority of the tenants being students. These
statistics demonstrate the importance of renters to the economy. This situation also sometimes leads to
conflict between the two major life-styles: long-term residents versus transient students.
Asking the students about everything from how they travel to campus each day, to where they park, to
the factors that most influenced their choice of apartments, the researchers made several noteworthy
findings:
38% of the students were dissatisfied with one or more elements in their living situation
The four areas students considered most in need of improvement were pest control, acoustics, carpet-
ing and air conditioning
58% of the students drive to campus in a car or truck, with an additional 19% taking the bus, 13%
riding a bike, 7% walking, 2% car pooling and 1% driving a motorcycle or moped
29% of the respondents are not able to park in their housing unit's designated area at least once each
week
(continued on back)
3-27-1996 9=5dAM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE dD9 862 1572 P.2
M
s
Cost and location were the two mast influential aspects in determining living situation for Students
34°70 of the respondents said they would not support a rent increase in order to improve living condi-
tions while 40% would if it was a reasonable increase and 24% said they were unsure. That 240
infers, perhaps, that they are flexible.
Other problems or issues that were noted by the students include a lack of fencing and parking lot
lighting, over 1/3 say they have contributed to the improvement of their living conditions, 35% have pets
(predominantly dogs and cats) and older students were generally more satisfied with their living condi-
tions.
Based upon their results, Graham and Kwa would make the following recommendations:
With over 1/3 of the students dissatisfied with at least one aspect of their housing situation, there are
many areas in need of improvement. For the amount of money that apartment managers currently
charge for rent (an average of $526/month), they should make efforts to improve the conditions and
services that they provide for the tenants. And, if priced reasonably, the renters may pay far it.
Even though the students did not rank parking high in areas most in need of improvement, the fact that
29% experience weekly parking problems indicates that this is an area that needs to be addressed.
Motor transportation should be better distributed in the community to alleviate traffic and parking
congestion. Two ways this can be accomplished would be by increasing the capacity of the roads or by
reducing the numbers of cars. expanding the bus schedule and better coordinating it with the class
schedule could help increase the numbers of students who take the bus instead of drive to school. Em-
phasis on the bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel would also be alternatives that could reduce Barking
problems and traffic congestion.
- ~' ~-
`~ CITY O~ COLLEGE STATION
\/
From: Jeff Kersten, Management Analyst
Date: March 26, 1996
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409) 764-3510
To: Charles Cryan, Director of Management and Budget
Subject: Review of Building Official Position
Introduction
A review of the Building Official position in the Development Services
Department has been completed. Below is a recommendation on whether the
position should be filled, and the analysis of the position and how it fits into
providing service to customers. This evaluation and recommendation is being
made using information provided by the department on the job description and
organization chart, as well as a discussion with the Interim Director of
Development Services and information found in the FY 96 Annual Budget.
Recommendation
Based on the following analysis of the Building Official position the
recommendation is to have the position filled. The reason for this
recommendation is this is a front line supervisory position providing a direct
service. It is also a position that is established by ordinance and is an integral
part of the development process.
Position Review
The Building Official position is responsible for insuring residential, industrial,
and commercial construction is completed in compliance with applicable codes
and ordinances. The position works directly with the building and construction
community and must have a high degree of technical expertise in order to make
proper building and construction related decisions. The position is also very
important in the development review process as well.
The Building Official position supervises 5 people. These are the building,
plumbing, and electrical inspectors as well as the plans examiner. It is
anticipated that department reorganization will change some of the functions that
currently lay with the Building Official. The position is also anticipated to report
directly to the Director of Development Services. This is part of a flattening of
the entire Development Services Department that is being considered.
Analysis
The position is responsible for helping meet the following budget service level.
Provide prompt, efficient and accurate responses to the development
community.
The position helps meet this service level by providing the necessary expertise
to make decisions related to building and construction issues in a fair and
impartial manner. The position is also providing direct supervision to employees
who are addressing this service level. Moving the Building Official functions
closer to the Director of Development Services helps meet the goal of having the
positions that are directly providing service be closer to those who can make
critical decisions for the organization.
Further review of the entire Development Services Department in a
comprehensive manner could reveal additional opportunities for changing the
organizational structure of the department. Such a review is anticipated to occur
as in this department to address issues including the provision of development
review services as well as others.
cc: Jim Callaway, Interim Director of Development Services
Community Enhancement Program for College Station
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
March 27, 1996
The following preliminary recommendations for community enhancement are the result of over 18
months of intensive study. The problems and the solutions defined herein came from the citizens of
College Station and other communities like it. A steering committee composed of approximately 30
individuals representing private and business interests in College Station have developed a strategic
plan of action for adoption by the City Council. Research services were provided by Dr. Charles
Graham, AIA, and graduate students T.H. Kwa, Bnrce Bateman, and Sanghoon Han from the
College of Architecture at Texas A&M University. Support was also provided by City Staff in the
Department of Development Services, the Fire Marshall's Office, the Police Department, the Public
Works Department, and other departments of the City of College Station. Meetings were held from
the fall of 1994 through the fall of 1995 with 11 community organizations or groups in College
Station to gain insights into the issues of concern to residents and business people that might affect
real estate values. Approximately 88 concerns were identified during the meetings with these
community groups.
Once a preliminary list of concerns and potential solutions was developed, the Steering Committee
divided itself into seven subcommittees to address categories of topics represented on the list. These
included: parking, student housing, residents, real estate values, cost of city services, demonstration
project, and policy implementation concerns. The Steering Committee and the subcommittees met
over 50 times to address the issues identified from the community meetings. At least five focus
group meetings were held in addition to the Steering Committee/subcommttees meetings. The
purpose of the focus group meetings was to address such subjects as parking, city and
neighhborhood gateways, and tack-on construction (additions).
In the summer and fall of 1995, surveys of 27 university towns, 34 local real estate professionals,
1,020 students at Texas A&M University, and 1,500 College Station homeowners were conducted to
gather more factual information about public perceptions of problems and solutions related to
community enhancement. Literature reviews of U.S. Census Data and on the subject of
homeowners and neighborhood associations provided further information for the Steering
Committee and its subcommittees to use in addressing problems and opportunities. Studies into real
estate values and their association with home ownership and rental tenancies, into costs of city
services, and involving demonstration of many of the concepts developed to date are still underway.
A meeting with the City Council on January 18, 1996, outlined the preliminary findings of the above
activities. Following this meeting, atwo-stage Delphi process involving the entire Steering
Committee was conducted to synthesize the list of 67 recommendations that remained at that point in
the process to a more focused group. A workshop was conducted on Friday, February 23, to refine
the list further. The 12 key recommendations now being presented to the Council are the result of
that workshop. These recommendations respond to community-based concerns and include solutions
deemed necessary to enhance College Station's property values and reduce costs of city services now
and in the future. It must be emphasized that these recommendations are part of a process that must
be continued through further refinement, implementation, and evaluation over the next several years.
V -College.Station:~Gommuaity_-Enlancement~_P~.rogram
Steering Committee Yrelimin
Building Inspection,
Code Management
and Enforcement
•[a.831
Drainage
(a.63]
Easements
[a.aoJ
Parking
[4.33]
Landscaping
[4.301
Fence Construction
[4.13]
Public Service Delivery
[a.03J
Community Enhancement
Advisory Group
[a.oi
Building Standards
(3.97]
Customer Service
[3.961
Interagency Coordination
[ 3-671
Homeowners' and
Neighborhood Associations
20 March 96
y lZeeommendations •[in order of Delphi Importance Score
Ranking where 1 = L.ow and 5 =High)
Elevate the status of the building standards, nuisance problems, and code
enforcement program.
- hire a highly competent professional possibly with architectural and/or
engineering background to head building inspections and code enforcement
department with the goal of changing the image of the department
from being regulatory to being supportive of quality development and building
practices.
- consistently enforce existing codes and regulations.
- staff enough people to enforce codes, eg. fines, towing, etc.
- allow community enhancement advisory committee to advise on development
of standards.
- prevention and education.
- give authority to make design decisions beyond the minimum building
standards.
(~ Prepare a comprehensive drainage plan for College Station, Bryan and
~1 surrounding areas.
- Compare effects of future development against overall plan before approval
given.
City should provide maintenance of easements, alleys, right-of-ways, and bill
easement users whenever appropriate.
q~ Require a minimum of 4 improved off street parking spaces at all single-family
~J residences. Keep changes to parking requirements adopted in July, 1995 for
multi-family residences.
5 Upgrade and clarify landscaping and maintenance ordinances including
buffers between commercial/residential, right-of-ways ,easements,
multi-family residential/single-family residential, etc.
Establish minimum standards for fence construction based on street type.
-Provide incentives to use screening with landscape materials and other
appropriate options. Require screening of mechanical equipment and
commercial garbage containers visible from public streets.
A) Collect residential garbage Monday-Thursday only and use Friday
for non-residential and catch-up services.
B) Evaluate all streets, especially problem areas, for fire, police and zoning
requirements and use "no parking" and other controls to comply with
standards.
C) Develop a public education campaign to periodically inform the public
about codes, standards, regulations, and other city policies.
Create a permanent advisory group to advise City Council on community
enhancement issues.
Initiate a process to review all building standards for this area so community
enhancement objectives can be met. Standards could be improved by
incorporating long-term total cost analysis and aesthetics affecting property
values in review of at least the following
- Foundations -Expansion joints in masonry walls
- Drainage on lots -Tack-on structures (additions)
- Overhangs -Acoustic requirements at party walls
- Exterior stairs -Soils tests data
10 Evaluate the perception that citizens have difficulty getting development
and code enforcement related questions answered at City Hall.
11 Encourage the development of a coordinating mechanism between College
Station, Bryan, Texas A&M, Brazos Valley Development Council, Texas
Department of Transportation, etc.
12 Promote the organization of homeowners' associations and neighborhood
associations in College Station and provide city staff support for
coordination.
ATTACHMENTS
PROBLEM STATEMENTS 19 Mar 96
DESTABILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROPERTY VALUES
• 78% OF HOUSING STOCK IS RENTAL • 25 % STUDENTS PERCEIVED A PROBLEM OF
• 68% STUDENT TURNOVER RATE INADEQUATE PARKING
• 2.27 VEHICLES/HOUSEHOLD AND GROWING • ENCROACHMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTIES
• 40% OF STUDENTS DO NOT RETURN INTO SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS
TRASH CONTAINER FROM CURB AFTER • LONG-TERM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS
PICKUP CONSIDER TRAFFIC AS qt PROBLEM
A SIGNIFICANT PERCEPTION OF WEAK COORDINATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL CITY PLANNING
• FIRST-HAND FEEDBACKS FROM THE 11 • FROM RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY
COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT CITY LACKS : THE 47% OF RESPONDENTS' 3 MOST
MANPOWER TO ENFORCE ORDINANCES, FRUSTRATING PROBLEMS LIVING IN COLLEGE
RESOURCES TO DO LONG RANGE PLANNING, STATION ARE RELATED TO CITY PLANNING
EFFICIENT COORDINATION BETWEEN ISSUES (IN ORDER OF MOST FRUSTRATING
CITY DEPARTMENTS, PROPER REVIEW AND 1.TRAFFIC-RELATED (29%)
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT 2. HIGH TAXES (6%)
PROJECTS, PUBLIC INPUT AND PROPER COSTS/ 3. UNHAPPY WITH CITY OFFICIALS (6%)
BENEFITS STUDY PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF 4. STREET CONDITIONS (4%)
PUBLIC POLICIES. PUBLIC PERCEIVED AND 5. DRAINAGE (2%)
BLAMED CITY FOR FAILURE OF WOLF PEN
CREEK PROJECT.
A STRONG PERCEIVED ONGOING NEED FOR CITY-PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
• IN THE FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS WITH THE • 40% OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE TRASH
VARIOUS COMMUNITY GROUPS, THERE CONTAINERS NEED TO BE EDUCATED OR
WERE CALLS FOR : REMINDED OF THE LAW;
1. PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE EDUCATED; • VERY STRONG STEERING COMMITTEE
2. PUBLIC SERVICE POLICIES SHOULD BE MADE CONSENSUS FOR THIS NEED;
WITH PUBLIC INPUTS; • CITIZENS' PERCEPTION OF SOME CITY
3. BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMICS/COST AND COORDINATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL PLANNING
AND QUALITY; WEAKNESSES.
4. CITIZENS' REQUEST FOR COST/BENEFITS
INVESTIGATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION
OF POLICIES;
INCREASING PUBLIC CONCERN FOR PARKING SPACE PROBLEM
• 25% OF THE RESPONDENTS IN STUDENT • 12% OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RESIDENT
HOUSING SURVEY ENCOUNTERED HOUSING SURVEY ENCOUNTERED INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING PROBLEM. OFF STREET PARKING PROBLEM.
(HIGHEST IN DUPLEX, 32%) • 12% OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RESIDENT
• MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY GROUPS • 2.27 VEHICLESMOUSEHOLD AND GROWING
POINT TO PARKING AS A MAJOR PROBLEM.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE AND EASEMENT PROBLEM
• FROM THE RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY, 47% OF • BELOW ARE % OF RESPONDENTS IN THE
RESPONDENTS' 3 MOST FRUSTRATING VARIOUS SUBDIVISIONS REPORTING DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS LIVING IN COLLEGE STATION PROBLEMS ;
ARE RELATED TO CITY PLANNING ISSUES (IN CARTER'S GROVE (26%)
ORDER OF MOST FRUSTRATING) : COLLEGE HILLS (34 % )
TRAFFIC-RELATED, STREET CONDITIONS, PEBBLE CREEK (26%)
DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. RAINTREE (29%)
• FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY GROUPS, ESP. SOUTHWOOD (23 % )
THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS THAT SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (26%)
TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND NOISE IS A SERIOUS
PROBLEM AND THAT DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
ARE ALSO SEVERE AND IN SOME CASES PRESENT
SAFTEY PROBLEMS.
THERE IS AN UNDERLYING NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF :BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC APPEAL
• 16% OF RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY
RESPONDENTS REPORTED ABNORMAL
FOUNDATION PROBLEM.
• 32% OF RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY
RESPONDENTS REPORTED ABNORMAL
INTERIOR WALLS PROBLEMS.
• AMONG THE 17 ITEMS OF PUBLIC SERVICES
PROVIDED BY THE CITY: SIDEWALKS, STREET
PAVEMENT, TRAFFIC FLOW AND CONTROL,
AND STREET LANDSCAPING WERE RATED THE
LOWEST WITH SCORES ABOUT AVERAGE,
IN THE RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY.
• THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT IN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY GROUPS
AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT
FENCE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS NEED TO
IMPROVED.
• THE SURVEY OF 34 REAL ESTATE
PROFESSIONALS REPORTED THAT THE
APPEARANCE AND CONDITION OF THE
PROPERTIES, AND LANDSCAPE WERE
MENTIONED, AMONG OTHER FACTORS,
WERE CONSIDERED AS IMPORTANT
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO REAL ESTATE
VALUES.
COMMUNITY.ENHANCEMENT~PROGRAM••,STRATEGY PLAN,.: ~ 20 March 1966
RECOMMENDATIONS ^1 Elevate the status of the building standards, nuisance problems, and code
Building Inspection, enforcement program.
Code Management [~ Enforce existing codes and ordinances.
and Enforcement ^ Make perpetrators responsible for noise/parking violations.
Require on street parking restrictions In selected areas.
Enforce building codes for acoustic standards In multi-family projects_ - • - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Hire a highly competent professional possibly with architectural and/or engineering
STRATEGY background to head bullding Inspections and code enforcement department
with the goal of changing the Image of department from being regulatory to
being supportive of quality development and bullding practices.
~ Consistently enforce existing codes and regulations consistently.
~ Staff enough people to enforce codes, eg. fines, towing, etc.
Allow community enhancement advisory committee to advise on development
~ of standards.
~ Prevention and education.
Give authority to make design decisions beyond the minimum building standards.
~
~ Hire more code enforcement officers.
~ Develop a system where names of Informants against code violators will be kept secret.
O City should periodically publish articles about codes and enforcement.
O Create neighborhood associations as partners with city in enforcement
O Cross-train city workers to identity and report code violators to responsible departments for
action.
--------------------
-----.
COSTS /-BENEFITS- ~ Cost of professional and other code enforcement officers can be resolved through
citations, fines and fees.
~ Community more Involved and informed about codes and the necessity for enforcement
and will police Itself.
~ Stabilization of neighborhood and property values.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~2 Prepare a comprehensive drainage plan for College Station, Bryan and
Dralna a surrounding areas.
- Compare effects of future development against overall plan before approval given.
- - - _----~ _Improvedrainageatnewconstruction__________________________________________________
IMPLEMENTATION O If plans not already available, start production.
STRATEGY ~ Set official dates for regular updates of plans.
Q
• -Enforce drainage requirements of bullding codes around residential construction projects. -
-------------•
_
~
COSTS /BENEFITS Cost of In-house or outside consultants to produce plans that are not available.
~ With less drainage problems, citizens' safety and well-being will be enhanced.
~ Fewer drainage problems now and in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS ^3 City should provide maintenance of easements, alleys, right-Of--ways and bill
Easements easement users whenever appropriate.
City should maintain all easement (except those privately owned) with a specific Ilne Item budget
for maintenance.
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Line Item in budget should reflect commitment to et recommendations for drains a easement
STRATE
G
Y
----- -malntenancedone----------------------•----------------------•--------...----..
_
_
-
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Allocate cost for line-Item easement maintenance.
~ Enhance city and neighborhood appeals and thereby protect and enhance property values, protect
public health and safety.
RECOMMENDATIONS a^ Require a minimum of 4 improved off street parking spaces at all single-family
Parkin residences. Keep changes to parking requirements adopted in July, 1995 for
multi-family residences.
Single-family existing development :actively use of parking signs to control on-street parking
allowing for sate flow of traffic and emergency access.
Duplex existing development :monitor streets use and use no parking signs to control on street
parking problem.
[~ Duplex future development :1.25 unit of parking space for BR<i32 sq.ft., 1.25 per BR>132 sq.ff. on
26Randl.OperBRon3ormore______________________________________________________
----_
IMPLEMENTATION ~ _
Immediate Implementation should be possible with active use of no parking signs for existing
STRATEGY duplex and existing single-family developments.
~ For future duplex and single-family development, existing policies need to be revised to new
requirements.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Cost of additional signs that might be needed.
~ Cost of additional parking spaces In new developments.
~ Duplex and single-family neighborhoods look less Ilke a huge parking lot.
~ Enhance accessibility for emergencies and Increase neighborhood traffic safety.
RECOMMENDATIONS (~ Upgrade and clarify landscaping and maintenance ordinances including buffers
Landsca ing between commerciaUresidential, right-of--ways, easements, multi-family residentiaU
single-family residential, etc.
Enhance city and neighborhood aesthetic appeals through private and public means.
IMPLEMENTATION O Initiate landscape and Its maintenance codes for aesthetics and bufferings of mixed land uses.
STRATEGY
___
COSTS /BENEFITS _
~ Enhance city and neighborhood appeals and thereby protect and enhance property values.
RECOMMENDATIONS s^ Establish minimum standards for fence construction based on street type.
Fence ConsVUCtlon ~ -Provide incentives to use screening with landscape materials and other appropriate
options. Require screening of mechanical equipment and commercial garbage
containers visible from public streets.
---------------
-°--
-
----
------
-
---------------------
-----------------
IMPLEMENTATION P
P ~
P
P
P
~
------------------
~ Initiate codes to screen all mechanical and elecVical ui ment on rivate roe from ublic
STRATEGY view.
~ Initiate minimum design and construction standards for fence consVUCtlon :finished side should
always face the public view ;for screening; with a gate at the rear of all yards abutting easements;
easements; required If rear yards visible to the public; construction standards should account for
expansive soils.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Enhance city and neighborhood appeals and thereby protect and enhance property values.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ A) Collect residential garbage Monday-thursday only and use Friday for non-residential
Pubnc service and catch-up services.
especially problem areas, for fire, police and zoning
B) Evaluate all streets
delivery ,
requirements and use "no parking" and other controls to comply with standards.
C) Develop a public education campaign to periodically inform the public about
codes, standards, regulations, and other city policies.
Present an ongoing program that educates, bonds, and builds neighborhood pride and presents
a motto that everyone can Identify with.
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Use catchy educational flyers and mailings along with utility bills. Use local weekly Eagle's column
STRATEGY and local CNN and other public media. Use alogo/motto along with such community educational
activity to promote Identity and pride.
~ Develop a system where names of Informants against code violators will be kept secret.
City should periodically publish articles about codes enforcement.
City workers should be cross-Vained to identity and report code violators to responsible
departments for action.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Enhance accessibility for emergency and Increase neighborhood Vaffic safety.
~ Enhance the effectiveness of code enforcement
~ Enhance the communication linkage between the city and public.
~ Promote and enhance community pride.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ Create a permanent advisory group to advise City Council on community enhancement
ommun n ancemen Issues.
Advisory Group
IMPLEMENTATION ~ City to initiate the formation of permanent community enhancement advisory group
STRATEGY and to empower and recognize citizens Involved publicly. Consider folding the Community
Appearance Committee Into this group which will have expanded duties and responsibilities.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Promote and sVengthen public-city communication and relationship.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ Initiate a process to review all building standards for this area so community
eulldin Standards enhancement objectives can be met. Standards could be improved by
incorporating long-term total cost analysis and aesthetics affecting property
values in review of at least the following
- Foundations -Expansion joints in masonry walls
- Drainage on lots -Tack-on structures (additions)
- Overhangs -Acoustic requirements at party walls
- Exterior stairs -Soils tests data
IMPLEMENTATION ~ The building/code enforcement department should Initiate a process to review
STRATEGY all building standards with long-term cost analysis and aesthetics affecting
property values.
~ Allow community enhancement advisory committee to advise development of standards.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Cost of upgrading or maintaining minimum standards.
Increased cost of regulations will be recovered and exceeded by better quality of life (short-term
and long-term) and by lower maintenance cost over the long haul and by better return In property
Investments.
RECOMMENDATIONS [10 Evaluate the perception that citizens have difficulty getting development and code
(Customer Service enforcement related questions answered at City Hall.
Establish or Improve regular check-and-balance review mechanism(s) for comprehensive plan,
granting of variances, upgrading of minimum standards for building inspections and development
codes, and efficiency and effectiveness of codes and ordinances, and for Internal coordination in
---------------•-----CIry--------------------------------•---------------------------------------•
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Create an ombudsman planner position responsible for coordinating conformance-to-standard
STRATEGY Issues and who also will be a project / liaison planner with the public and citizens advisory group.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Finance ombudsman planner or reorganize other planners' responsibilities.
~ Promote and strengthen public-city relationship and credibility as well as Interagency coordination.
RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Encourage the development of a coordinating mechanism between College
Interagency Station, Bryan, Texas A&M, Brazos Valley Development Council, Texas
coordlnatlon Department of Transportation, etc_ - - -
IMPLEMENTATION - - O Create an ombudsman planner position who will be responsible for conformance-to-standard
STRATEGY Issues and who also will be a project / liaison planner with the ckizens advisory group and
other agencies at City Hali.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Finance new position of ombudsman planner or reorganize other planners' responsibilities.
~ Will promote and strengthen Interagency coordlnatlon, reduce redundancies and Inconsistencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS t2 Promote the organization of homeowners' associations and neighborhood associations
Homeowners' and fn College Station and proDide city staff support for coordination.
Neighborhood
Associations
-------------------------------------------------------9------..9 _...-------------------------•
IMPLEMENTATION ~ City ombudsman planner should hold monthly meeting with representatives from homeowners/
STRATEGY neighborhood associations and also use this Ilnka a to encoura a and create future
homeowners neighborhood associations. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ -Enhance the communication linkage between the city and public. . - - . - - - . - - -
Promote and enhance communtyy pride.
College Station will be a nicer place to live In.
MISCELLANEOUS ^ City to Install attractive gateways Into the community along all major thoroughfares.
RECOMMENDATIONS ^ City should follow a consistent policy on location of sidewalks in rights-of-ways In subdivision.
Initiate restrictive ordinance for billboard signs.
^ Initiate ordinance for entrance signs at all subdivisions.
~ Some kind of matching funds for private initiatives.
City staff should not grant variances.
^ City accounting to track cost down to consumers of city services.
City should have and should conduct more comprehensive ,long-term planning for traffic, drainage,
landscaping, hike-and-bike paths, parkways, and other city-wide Infrastructure requirements with
more regular updates.
^ City and county to adopt local sales tax Instead of property tax.
Keys : ~ Major recommendations found in the list of i2 Steering Committee Preliminary
Recommendations (italicized).
1f --~{--~(o
~1~~- ~ i~
c~4C~iv_ C
r' ~ ` ~
1 ~'
1~" ~ G~ c~S~~~• o ~ ~j .o • ~ ~c~b . -fir, -~- ro~`s-~,r~o.1s
P.
~~.~~-
~~~ ~ .
~.
C
~~~~ ~~.
C~ ~~, o~ ~!o a~.h~c~
04i14i96 10'49 $8468224
~•~ d~
k
310
n Z-IS1y
L ~/ i<i illy n ltl Vl1~l Llil\ VL 1 l~~J+-.~ +V • v~+~..~~..~ • • •
aRC81TRCt ~
If you dv nvt receive a.ll indicated pages, please call immediately.
CHARLIE BURRIS, AIA, ARCHITECT
511 University Drive East, Suite 211
College Station, Texas 77F340
voice - 409-2b0-2b35
fax - 409-846-8224
FAX OPERATOR:
C BURRS --- DEVELOPMENT SVGS I~]001
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
TO: _~
/~ti'ltA .nil
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Department of Construction Science
August 6, 1996
Mr. Jim Callaway
Asst. Dir. of Economic and Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842-0960
Dear ~.~ arli ay -•,) ~
.RE~~1~,~p ~Cr~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~h~11
~~~''ti'1 e~Ffs -
c L.
Attached is a draft of the final report on the Community Enhancement Program to be submitted to
the College Station City Council sometime in September. This draft reflects information received during
meetings of the Policy Implementation Subcommittee since the preliminary findings were submitted to
the Council on March 21. Please review it carefully and let me know if you have any suggestions or
revisions. I would like to have your comments no later than Friday. August 16. 1996. Shortly after I have
received everyones' feedback I will call a meeting of the entire Steering Committee to finalize the
recommendations.
The Policy Implementation Subcommittee met with Mayor McIlhaney on July 9, 1996, to discuss
ways to complete the long term goals of the community enhancement initiative over the next few years.
The Mayor was appreciative of the Steering Committee's efforts. The City Council and the City Staff are
already addressing many of the items on the list.
Thank you for taking the time to review these recommendations. Again, as soon as it is all in we
will call a meeting to discuss the input as a group. Together we can take this project to it's next stage
which includes implementation of the recommendations.
Sincerely,
C~~
Charles W. Graham, Ph.D., AIA
Project Coordinator, Community Enhancement Program for College Station
xc: George K. Noe, City Manager
Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services
Attachment
422 Langford Building A • College Station, Texas 77843-3137 • (409) 845-1017; FAX (409) 862-1572
•"'
.r
\ / ARKS & RECREATION
\ / PARKS & RECREATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960
COLLEGES ~~'N~?%HS "I]ea2-95so
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960
(409)764-3773
TO: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation
FROM: Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: August 13,1996
`~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
P
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Affilefic Park Property Values
Following the initial report that reviewed eleven potential sites for a future athletic park, a
decision was made to review the property values on areas E, /, and J.
Areas /and ./ are owned by one entity and do not contain residences. Area Econsists of four
tracts south of Barron Road. All, or portions of these individual tracts, could be purchased to
comprise the park. Two of these four tracts have residences, although they are of low value.
Two of the tracts are owned by multiple interests. The tract with the most potential appears to
be the McSwain tract (E.~. It contains 217 acres and will have frontage on Barron Road, as
well as the new Highway 40. An oil well is also located on the site.
Sewer for Area Esite remains a question mark. Two choices are available for sewer to be
routed east. One choice is to pump uphill, east along Barron Road to the Shenandoah
Subdivision. The second choice is to extend sewer up the north fork of Spring Creek. Both of
these choices are expensive although the cost may be significantly reduced if other
development occurs in the area. The Development Services Department has studied the cost
of extending sewer in this area for the school system. The extension of sewer along Spring
Creek is estimated to cost $400,000 to $500,000 fora 27" line to site E3. Oversize participation
could possibly defer some of this cost.
The current thoroughfare plan indicates several collector streets crossing Area E. It may be
possible to slightly alter the locations of these streets to provide a park that is not broken into
several pieces.
The appraisal district values and acreage are attached.
pe
enclosures: Athletic Park Property Values for Areas I, J, and Area E
Thoroughfare Plan
Highway 40 Project Alignment
We provide good thins in life!
~'
ATHLET/C PARK PROPERTY VALUES
AREA I
Bert Wheeler, Inc.
10665 Richmond Avenue, #100
Houston, Texas 77042-4910
Appraisal Da1+e:
Acreage:
Market Value:
1/1/94
153.5
$1,698,000 ($11,098 per acre)
AREA J
Texas Instruments
Systems & Equipment Sector
P.O. Box 650311 MS 3998
Dallas, Texas 75265
Appraisal Dafie:
Acreage:
Market Value:
1/1/94
192.696
$1,348,870 ($6,999.99 per acre)
42.696 acres were added by sale in 1990.
E1
James Ingram III
2100 Villa Maria #100
Bryan, Texas 77802
AREA E Barron Road)
Appraisal Date: 1/1/96
Acreage: 88 Acres undivided interest, split between
three individuals
Market Value: $316, 800 ($3,600 per acre)
AREA E (Barron Road) cont...
Anna Ferguson Trust
Victoria Bank & Trust
One O'Connor Plaza, 6th Floor
Victoria, Texas 77901
Appraisal Daf+e:
Acreage:
Residential Value (1):
Land Value:
Total Value:
1/1/96
50 Acres
$ 28,500
$160,000 ($3,200 per acre)
$188,500
A.S. McSwain
P.O. Box 442
Bryan, Texas 77806
Appraisal Dafie: 1/1/96
Acreage: Divided Interest th
Market Value: a. One (11 Acre
b. 22.5 Acres
c. 194 Acres
Mobile Home
F`4
T.L. Brown and W.A. Dunlap
2612 Spicewood
College Station, Texas 77845
Appraisal Daf~e:
Acreage:
Market Value:
1/1/96
155 acres
a. Mobile Home
b. 154 Acres
c. 1 Acre
ree ways
$ 3,200
$85,0001$3,778 per acre)
$620,800 ($3,200 per acre)
$ 5,~
$714,000
$ 3, 600
$462,0001$3,000 per acre)
$ 3,50
$468, 600
HWY 60
AREA I AREA J
Texas Instruments
Systems 9 Equipment Sector
P. 0. Box 650311 MS 3998
BERT WHEELER'S INC. Dallas, Texas 75265
10665 Richmond, Ave. #100
Houston, Texas 77042-4910
192.696 Acres
153.5 Acres Market value $1, 348, 870
Market value $1, 698, 000
$1 t, 098 per acre X6999. 99 per acr e
Appraised 1-1-94 Appraised 1-1-94
42.696 acres were added by a sale in 1990.
(It is not clear where the 42
acres are.)
HWY 30
AREA I & J
PROPERTY VALUES
"r
J
v
l
~ ~
Proposed Hwy. 40
N~ Anna
oI Ferguson McSwain
a lAcre $3200
~
James Ingrain 50 Acres 22.5 Acres $85, 00
Brown Dunlap
Home 194 Acres $620, 000 154 Acr s $459, 000
$316, ~~
-88~c
e~ $28, 500 Mob i 1 e home $5, 000 1 Acr e
$3, 000
cr Land Total $714, 000 Mobile hom 3, 600
~\ $160, 00 Total $ , 600
o~ Total
3 Interests al $188, 500
3 Interests
(undivided)v~ (divided)
of Mobile home
~'
Home D
v~
0 ~
0
a BARRON RD.
AREA
PROPERTY
E
VALUES
08/13/96 14:09
v
DEVELOPMENT SVCS -~-~-~ P
~- .
~~ ~ ~~~
o-~~~
~~~ ..
i
.' , ~
°~ lI~
*. %~
,, ~
~ `~
~ `'~1-
~ ~~ ~~
1 x
~ I
orvar l~ta~an, - mm ,`~;
~ ,~
~ `
~' !
$409 764 3496
~' ~.
'@~
T~~ ~ >
~~i
~~~
i
T ~- -~....,..
j
~ I',, i
~~ ~r
~ / i~
,~ -~
~%
~~ ~
.002/
~o!
_~
~~.-
~
~/
RECEIVED AUG ~ 5
~.
~.
Mr. Ed Hazd, Ciry Transportation Planner
City of College Station
PO Box 9960, 1101 Texas Ave S
College Station, TX 77842-9960
Deaz Mr. Hazd:
Thomas A. Moore
5721 E. Edgemont
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
(602) 9'47 2389 ,
tom.moore@asu.edu
August.~9, 1996
fi~
ci °~~ ~~ ~ ~~4~
I am taken aback by the level of traffic on Munson. My family has lived and owned
property on Munson for almost 50 years*. We have seen and participated in the
development of Texas A & M, College Station, and College Hills and for the most part
progress has been a good thing. The glaring exception to this was the opening of
Munson to Lincoln. Surely, no one anticipated at the time that Munson would become a
major cross town thoroughfaze carrying more than 7000 cazs and trucks per day.
Families living on Munson certainly never imagined that would happen.
But it has happened. These days my Mother, having engaged in the activities of her
community for more than 50 yeazs, cannot walk across the street to visit neighbors. Her
long-time friends, those who still drive, aze loath to visit her because of the traffic on
Munson. She is reluctant to ask even her younger friends for a ride to Church on Sunday
night because of the traffic on Munson. Please understand, I have never been one to look
backward or pine for the old ways. This is not about that, but rather a matter of
correcting a mistake. It has turned out that opening Munson was a mistake; fortunately,
it can be corrected.
I earnestly request that the officers of the city government demonstrate that they respect
the value of neighborhood integrity by closing Munson to through traffic. The quality of
life for the families living in this neighborhood depends on it.
Sincerely, ~i
Thomas A. Moore
*In 1948, I moved with my parents and brother to 1000 Munson; we were the last house in the
City Limits at that time and lived on a gravel road. Munson was dead-end to the east with only
two families, the Thompsons and the Redmonds, living east of us. Our major traffic concern
was Velma Redmond in her new-one-every-year Cadillac attempting to blow her rival real
estate magnate's house (Culpepper) off its foundation with her wake turbulence. We kept out of
her way.
cc. Mr. George Noe, City Manager, Council Members: Mr. Bill Fox, Place 1, Mr. Hub
Kennady, Place 2, Mr. Lazry Mariott, Place 4, Mr. David Hickson, Place 5, and Mr.
Dick Birdwell, Place 6.
8-28-1996 lL3.55AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
® ~~ Jr.~ e ~Ce. e
~2~/^I~ Sm~ ~.,
~i ~~~~
~.
ORGANi2A?iON: C m ~ y1 ?~ ~~ /Z ~~
/~ ~ /- /
SPECIAL COMMEI\'T5: ~/S ~ ~ "~
TOTAL # OF PAGES (Including Dover page):
FA7ti'. #~:
nA~cE:_ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ / 9" 9'
~exaz ASrM University
College of Architecture
Deparanenr of Construction Scieoee
Coilegc Station, Tezas 778Q3-3137
Plca;c contact us immediately at (409) 8a5-1017 i!'any pages arc illegible` o[ [f (lte total.
numl>ei oCi~ares indicated aye not rcc;c;iveG.
P_ 1
8-20-1996 10:55AM FROM CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE d09 862 1572
Community Enhancement Program for College Station
Department of Construction Science
Texas A$~M University
College Station, Texas 77843-3137
~~MEMO
j TO: Steering Committee Members
Community Enhancemeirt Prol;ram for College Station
FROM: Charles W. Graham
Project Coordinator
COPIES: Jim Callaway
George (Skip) 'Noe
DATE: August 20, 1996
SUBJECT: Meeting
We Hoed to call a meeting of the Steering Committee to review the comments on the final
recommendations to be made to the City Council for the above project. Many members of the
Steering Committee have responded with suggestions for improving the draft recommendations and
you might want to see and hear their comments. We also need to bring everyone up to date on the
latest activities of the City Council and City Staff concerning soma of the recommendations. Staff
members will be present to give this information.
The meeting of the Steering Committee will beheld next Tuesd$y, August 27, .11;30 - 1:3Q
-.
PM. in Room 1.05 of the College Station Conference Center. This will be a brown bag working
luncheon so bring something to eat. An assortment of canned soft drinks will he provided.
P. 2
An updated draft of the recommendations with our interpretation of same wiI1 be provided at the
meeting. We hope you can join us.
. ,:
DRAFT
Community Enhancement Program for College Station
Results of Surve of University Towns
Executive Summary
The Surve of University Towns was conducted to obtain background
data for the Community Enhancement Program by posing inquiries into the
municipal programs, policies and opinions of several communities across the
country that were the homes of large public universities. The Community
Enhancement Program is a community improvement project and has been
funded by the City Council of College Station, Texas. The goals of the
Community Enhancement Program are: 1) to increase the value of single-
family and multi-family residential real estate investments; and 2) to reduce the
cost of city services, especially in areas of town where they have been
excessive. The following is a very brief summary of several of the most
significant statistics from the survey that could impact the Community
Enhancement Program for College Station.
The Surve of University Towns began as what was to be simply a
handful of telephone calls to several communities to ask a few policy or
procedural questions. It quickly grew into a very detailed twelve page mail-out
survey (see Appendix A -Surve of University Towns targeted at twenty-seven
university communities (see also Appendix B -List of Survey Towns). Based
upon a summation of specific demographic parameters from the 1990 U.S.
Census, Appendix C makes a comparison between several College Station
statistic and those of other university towns as well as the nation as a whole.
The survey was initially sent out on May 8, 1995 with afollow-up letter to non-
respondents on May 26, 1995. In mid-June telephone calls were made to the
remaining communities that had not responded. A daily log was maintained to
track the arrival and the percentage of returned questionnaires. Twenty-two
completed questionnaires were returned for a return rate of 81.5%. Some of
the significant outcomes of the survey are as follows.
Real Estate Values: The first question asked respondents if they felt
that real estate values in their community were higher than that of surrounding
communities and if so why. Ninety-one percent of the respondent communities
confirmed that real estate values were higher and they gave such reasons for
these higher values as: quality schools; commercial hub of the region; scarce
land and demand for homes; small town atmosphere; and university town
amenities.
Design of Residential Structures: Seventy-three percentofthe
communities reported that their ordinances required that the designs of
residential structures be prepared by a registered architect or engineer. Of
those communities, all required multi-family and tri or four-plex units to be so
designed but only a very few required an architect or engineer to review single
t ~~
family homes. Structural review of foundations (100%) and wall/roof structures
(93%) were by far the most common.
Recycling Programs: Ninety-one percent of the communities conduct
a recycling program and of these communities 80% of their programs are
voluntary while only 20% of the communities make recycling mandatory.
Residential Inspection Program: Sixty-seven percent of
communities reported having such a program. Of these, all communities
applied such programs to rental property while a smaller portion, sixty-nine
percent, utilized this program to also inspect privately owned single-family
homes.
Landscaping: Nearly all communities had ordinances that required
some standard of minimum landscaping for new multi-family or commercial
development. Only a very few - 19% - had ordinances that required some
minimum standard of landscaping for new single-family homes.
Parking Policies Communities were asked how many residential
parking spaces they required verses how many the respondent of the survey
felt was ideal but not required by ordinance. The tabulated results (see
Appendix D -Residential Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit) clearly
demonstrate that most communities experience parking shortages, particularly
at multi-family dwellings. More spaces are desired.
Public Transportation: The vast majority of communities (86%)
responded that they had public transportation that serviced their university.
Not surprisingly, 95% of these communities had public transportation systems
that were run by the municipality or some public corporation. Twenty-eight
percent of these communities additionally had public transportation that their
university provided. (In some communities the respondents could mark more
than one category within a given answer, and these answers would then sum
more than 100%.).
Signage Policy: Almost all communities (95%) reported having a
signage policy which universally included size and height parameters in both
residential as well as commercial zones. Ordinances controlling scale and
lighting of signs were found in 60% to 75% of the communities while
ordinances that utilized the parameter of color were very much in the minority
for both residential (20% of respondents) and commercial (30% of
respondents).
U niversity Relations: Most respondents categorized their relations
with their local university as being positive, ranging from: harmonious (24%)
through usually agree (38%), to co-exist (33%). Only 5% of the communities
reported strained relations. No community felt they had acrimonious relations
with th ei r un iversity.
DRAFT
Utilities: Seventy-nine percent of the communities responded that they
required electrical, telephone, and television cable be placed below ground.
Very few communities reported any special aesthetic requirements for any
other type of utility feature such as electrical transformers, electrical meters,
gas meters or air conditioning condensing units.
Real Estate Value Enhancement Potential: Toward the end of the
survey form, the respondent was asked to mentally evaluate the previous
categories from the perspective of their potential to be a stimulus that would
enhance real estate values. The question asked for three responses which
were assigned weighted values of 3 for the #1 reply, 2 for the #2 reply and 1 for
the #3 reply. This system produced a weighted total of 28 for Code
Enforcement, 24 for Landscaping, 12 for Residential Inspection Program, and
1 1 for Greenbelts.
Cost of City Services: Of those communitiesthatreported thatthey
had areas in their city where the cost of city services was significantly higher
than other parts of the city, those services that were higher in cost were: Police
Protection 75%, Water 67%, Fire Protection 58% and Sewer Maintenance 50%.
Survey of "University Towns"
for
Community Enhancement Program for College Station, Texas
It may be helpful to keep in mind the goals of the "Community Enhancement
Program for College Station" while filling out this survey form. The stated goals are:
1) To increase the value of single-family and multi-family residential real estate
investments; and
2) To reduce the cost of city services, especially in areas of town where they
have been excessive.
The primary purpose of the "Community Enhancement Program for College
Station" is to provide a series of recommendations to the leadership and general public
of College Station that will assist them in making public policy and program decisions
that will improve the town. It is believed that these improvements will create an
environment that will not only accomplish the above goals but in the process make
College Station a better place to live, work, study and conduct business in the years
ahead.
We request that your community provide a coordinated response to the
following questions. It is fully realized that many of your answers will be very
subjective and cannot be answered quantitatively. The survey has been structured
into twenty-five general categories and arranged generally in alphabetical order, with
no attempt at prioritization. The survey was structured with response choices that
would simplify analysis. If you feel that an explanation is necessary please select the
closest response we have provided and write in a reply expanding upon your position.
Instructions: Please circle or check the preferred answer or fill in the
appropriate blank with your answer.
1) Real Estate Values:
a. Are the real estate values in your community higher on the average than
comparable real estate in neighboring towns? ( YES or NO )
b. If yes, to what do you attribute this higher real estate value?
Appendix A
2) Bicycle Transportation:
~Ed~~ e
a. Does your community have programs that encourage the use of the bicycle as
an alternative form of transportation? ( YES or NO )
b. Does your community have a "bikeway master plan"? ( YES or NO )
c. Does your community have a bikeway ordinance that requires bikeways to be
built in accordance with a bikeway master plan? ( YES or NO )
d. Does your community have any bikeway facilities? ( YES or NO )
e. If bikeways are provided, are they (check those that apply):
(1) Paths located in parks or parallel with streets (behind the curb)?
(2) Painted lanes located within the paved section of streets, to be used
exclusively by bikes? ___
(3) Signed (marked) "bike routes" where bicycles share the outside lane
with motor vehicles? ___
f. Does your community limit the speed of automobile traffic on roadways that
contain designated bicycle lanes to protect the bicyclists? ( YES or NO )
g. Does your community have a bicycle parking ordinance or any type of
ordinance that requires enhancements for bicycles when development occurs? ( YES
or NO )
h. Assuming that parking should not be permitted in bicycle lanes, does your
city have a conflict between the demand for on-street parking and the need or desire
to install bicycle lanes? ( YES or NO )
If yes, could you describe briefly how this conflict is handled:
3) Code Enforcement:
How do you view code /ordinance enforcement within your community as it
applies to such areas as development ordinances, building codes, parking ordinances
and noise/nuisance ordinances?
- Extremely aggressive, willing to litigate
- Aggressive but hesitant to litigate
- Relaxed enforcement ___
- Depends on who has violated ordinance _
- Very lenient, will only enforce ordinance if repeatedly violated
- Code enforcement is typically very poor
pendix A
4) Design of Residential Structures:
DRAFT
a. Do you have an ordinance that requires that the drawings and specifications
for residential structures be prepared by a registered architect or .engineer?
( YES or NO )
b. If yes, to the above, is such a design required for:
- Multi-family apartments ____
- Single-family homes
- Duplexes
- Tri-Plexes or Four-Plexes
c. If yes, what building systems must meet the above requirements:
- Foundations
- Walls and roof structure
- Other
5) Drainage System (Storm water):
a. Who is responsible for maintenance of natural or man-made storm water
drainage ways (excluding those that are contained within a pipe) (Check those that
apply)?
- Municipality
- Resident abutting the drainage ditch
- Property owner's association within which the drainage system lies
b. Do you have a local or state ordinance that requires storm water detention
facilities as a prerequisite for building /development? ( YES or NO )
6) Efficiency of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Systems:
a. Do you have a state or local program that mandates a minimum standard of
energy efficiency for installation of HVAC systems in new residential construction?
( YES or NO )
b. Do you have a state or local program that mandates a minimum standard of
energy efficiency for replacement of HVAC systems in existing residential facilities?
( YES or NO )
c. Do you have a state or local program that mandates a minimum standard of
energy efficiency for installation of HVAC systems in new commercial construction?
( YES or NO )
Appendix A
e: ^r'
7) Fencing Ordinances: ~~~i~~~'
a. Do you have ordinances that control the use of thoroughfare fences (it is
assumed in this and the next question that screening may be one objective in erecting
a fence)? ( YES or NO ) If yes, can these fences be placed in easements? ( YES or
NO ) or how close can they be placed to the right-of-way?
b. In direct contrast to the above, do you have ordinances that control the use of
yard fences (it is assumed in this and the previous question that screening may be one
objective in erecting a fence)? ( YES or NO ) If yes, can these fences be placed in
easements? ( YES or NO ). How close can they be placed to the right-of-way?
c. Do you have a specified design criteria for fence construction? ( YES or NO )
d.. Do you have a standard to which fences must be constructed and
maintained? ( YES or NO )
8) Trash Containers and Recycling:
a. Who has the responsibility for trash
- Private owner _ _
-Municipality
- If municipally responsible,
accomplished:
- Contracted operation __
pick up in your community?
how is your trash pick up physically
-Municipally operated system
b. Do you have an automated pick up system that requires special trash
containers to allow pick up by a single equipment mounted operator? ( YES or NO )
c. Do you have ordinances that require that trash containers be stored out of
public view except on days scheduled for pick up? Residential containers: ( YES or
NO ) Commercial containers: ( YES or NO ).
d. Do you have ordinances that require that trash containers be stored in
specially prepared enclosures (to screen from public view)? Residential containers:
( YES or NO ) Commercial containers: ( YES or NO ).
e. Do you have personnel that are empowered to issue citations for non-
compliance with the above trash container ordinances? ( YES or NO )
f. Do these personnel aggressively (vs. occasionally) have to enforce these
ordinances? ( YES or NO )
Appendix A
• ~ ew ((~r:~j r•~
~- F` !~ y
g. Do you have a recycling program? ( YES or NO ) '~~~-~
h. If yes, is this program?
- Mandatory
- Voluntary _
i. Does your recycling program require?:
- Curb-side source segregation by collection agency _.
- Presorted and separated items by household ____
- Homeowner transport to a centralized recycling center
9) Gateways into the City or into Residential Developments:
a. Do you have a program that provides an aesthetically attractive gateway
(landscaped area with an information sign) located on major approaches into the city
to welcome visitors? ( YES or NO )
b. Do you have any ordinances that require developers to provide an
aesthetically attractive gateway at the entrance into new developments?( YES or NO )
- If yes, how do you require that these gateways be maintained?
- Property owners associations be formed to maintain these gateways
- Municipally maintained by contract or in-house personnel ____
c. Do you have an incentive or recognition program for beautification and
maintenance of properties? ( YES or NO )
10) Greenbelts:
a. Do you have greenbelts in your city? ( YES or NO )
b. Does your city have an ordinance that requires that a portion of each new
residential development be donated to your greenbelt system? ( YES or NO )
c. Does your city have a program to actively enlarge its greenbelt system rather
than depend upon the donation of greenbelt land as land is developed by private
enterprise? ( YES or NO )
11) Residential Inspection Program:
a. Do you have an inspection program that evaluates residential property by
some standard to protect the health and safety of the occupants (minimal acceptable
condition to permit human habitation) which would be over and above the type of
inspection normally provided by the building inspe ctor to ensure building code
compliance when a residential structure is either built or modified? ( YES or NO )
Appendix A
~C~~ru
b. If yes, does this ordinance apply to (indicate those that apply):
- Privately owned, single-family homes ____
- Rented single-family homes
- Privately owned, condominiums _
- Multi-family rental apartments _____
c. If you have an inspection system, how are inspections initiated?
- Complaint-driven inspections _ _
-Scheduled /cyclic inspections _
- A combination of the two
d. If you have an inspection system, to what types of property does it apply?
- Privately owned, single-family homes ___
- Rented single-family homes ___
- Privately owned, condominiums _
- Multi-family rental apartments
f. If you have an inspection system, does it perform inspections of?
- Inside the unit
- Outside the unit
- Both
g. Do you have system to somehow cite or penalize individuals that fail to pass
such an inspection? ( YES or NO ) If Yes, could you explain?
12) Landscaping:
a. Do you have an ordinance that requires a minimum standard of landscaping
for any of the following:
- New commercial development? ( YES or NO )
- New multi-family residential rental property? ( YES or NO )
- New single-family residential property? ( YES or NO )
- Buffer zone between dissimilar uses (i.e. buffer zone between residential
and commercial uses? ( YES or NO )
b. Do you require that someone (developer, owner, landscaping contractor, etc.)
provide assurances that the landscaping will survive or be replaced? ( YES or NO )
c. Do you require that these landscaped areas have a sprinkler system to ensure
adequate survival and a healthy appearance? ( YES or NO )
Appendix A
13) Mailboxes:
a. Does your local Postmaster have a policy that provides a minimally acceptable
appearance and functionality standard for individual or gang mailboxes? ( YES or
NO )
b. Do you have a procedure in place whereby your city government and the U.S.
Postal Service Coordinate such actions as placement of mailboxes so that they do not
interfere with the functioning of other competing systems such as parking and trash
collection? ( YES or NO )
c. If yes to "b", should a coordination procedure be established? ( YES or NO )
14) Property Owner's Associations:
a. Do you have ordinances that require that "home owners associations" be
formed during single-family residential real estate development for the purpose of the
upkeep and maintenance of public facilities such as storm water detention facilities,
entranceways and greenbelts, etc.? ( YES or NO )
b. Do you have ordinances that require that "condominium owners associations"
be formed during condominium real estate development or conversion for the purpose
of the upkeep and maintenance of public facilities such as lawn and landscape
maintenance, storm water detention facilities, entrance-ways and greenbelts, etc.?
( YES or NO )
15) Parking Policies:
a. Does your city have a procedure that allows on-street parking "by permit
only" to residents of those streets who are identified by a specially issued sticker or
similar control devise (with special provisions for guests)? ( YES or NO )
b. Does your local university provide an adequate number of parking spaces on
campus to accommodate both staff and faculty as well as student commuters? ( YES
or NO )
c. Do you have an ordinance that requires a minimum number of parking spaces
be made available for asingle-family home? ( YES or NO )
If yes, how many parking spaces are required?
Appendix A
,`'..
d. How many parking spaces do you require for the following (place on the left
of the slash the number currently required by ordinance and to the right of the slash
an ideal number which you believe might more realistically address the needs
(possibly more or less than publicly approved requirement)):
Sin le- Duplex Tri & Apartment
Famil Four-Plex
- One bedroom
- Two bedroom
- Three bedroom
- Four bedroom
req'd/ideal
req'd/ideal
e. Does you city make a distinction
and large apartment complexes? ( YES or
this distinction occur?
req'd/ideal
_ /
req'd/ideal
within parking requirements between small
NO ) If yes, at what number of units does
f. Is the number of unrelated individuals living together regulated? ( YES or
NO ) If yes, who does regulating (circle one): city ordinance, or rental lease?
g. Is the number of recreational vehicles (boats, campers, trailers, RV's etc.)
allowed to be parked per unit regulated? ( YES or NO ) If yes, who does regulating
(circle one): city ordinance, or rental lease?
h. Do rental managers place additional parking restrictions (beyond those
discussed above) upon renters? ( YES or NO )
i. Do your residential parking policies attempt to take into account the use of
alternate forms of transportation such as the bicycle or public transportation? ( YES
or NO )
j) Has your city ever attempted to correct off-street parking deficiencies
incentive system? ( YES or NO ) If yes, describe your procedure:
16) Pedestrian Zones:
Do you have a commercial pedestrian zone where only foot traffic is allowed?
( YES or NO )
If Yes, could you describe:
by an
Appendix A
17) Public Transportation: ~,~~
Do you have a form of public transportation that services your university?
( YES or NO )
- If yes, to the above, who provides this system?
- Municipal or public corporation
- University _
- If yes, to the above, how does university ridership pay for service?
- Payment on a ride-by-ride basis ___
- Voluntary purchase of a pass (possibly at discount rate)
- Involuntary purchase as a mandatory student activity fee which is
transferred to the provider by the university ____
18) Rear Alley Ordinances:
a. Is residential rear alley access for new residential projects with duplexes,
townhouses, etc.:
- required
- encouraged
- not required _
b. If the above is required or encouraged, what functions utilize this rear access:
- resident parking _
- trash removal and recycling ___
- utility access
c. If yes, to the above, who has the maintenance responsibility for the alley?
- Individual owner ___
- Property owner's association -
- Municipal government _
19) Sidewalks:
a. Do you have an ordinance that requires sidewalks:
- In areas of single-family homes
- In areas of multi-family apartments
- One side of the street only
- Both sides of the street
b. Do your ordinances have a consistent policy of where sidewalks will be
placed:
- No consistent ordinance _
- Immediately adjacent to the curb _
- At inside of street right-of-way _
- A defined distance back from curb
Appendix A
20) Signage Ordinance: ~~'~~`~-~~"~~4 ~'
a. D'o you have a signage ordinance? ( YES or NO )
b. If "yes" to the above, what categories are controlled by your ordinance in
commercial zones?
- size
- height
- scale
- color
- lighting
c. If "yes" to the above, what categories are controlled by your ordinance in
residential zones?
- size
- height
- scale
- color
- lighting
21) University Relations:
How would you categorize the relationship between your municipal government
and your local university?
- extremely harmonious and always work together _
- usually agree and occasionally coordinate efforts _
- co-exist with a minimum of coordination and cooperation
- strained
- acrimonious
22) Utilities:
a. Do you require that the following be placed underground in new construction:
- Electrical cable
- Telephone cable
- Television cable
b. Do you have an aesthetically-driven ordinance that specifies how the
following will be placed:
- Electrical transformers
- Electrical meters
- Gas meters
- Telephone and cable TV service boxes
- Air conditioning condensing units
Appendix A
~ ~ ? r~
23) Real Estate Value Enhancement Potential:
Please mentally evaluate the previous twenty-two `~ categories from the
perspective and experience of your individual community concerning their potential
(if implemented or fully developed) to be a stimulus that would enhance (cause an
increase in) real estate values. Indicate those three categories (by category number)
that you feel would have the greatest potential for a positive real estate value
enhancement.
1.
2.
3.
24) Cost of City Services:
a. Do you have geographic areas within your city where you have found that the
cost of city services is significantly higher than the same service for most other areas
of the city? ( YES or No )
b. If yes, what city services are higher in some areas while less in most others
and why:
City Service
Police protection
Fire protection
Ambulance service
Sewer maintenance
Water
Street maintenance
Animal control
Why:
25) Other: Are there any issues, policies or programs that we have not addressed
that you believe would positively affect either the value of real estate or help to
manage costs of city services better? If so, please describe:
Appendix A
Thank you,
... , m. s. ;...
Please return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided to:
Dr. Charles W. Graham (Community Enhancement Program)
Department of Construction Science
College of Architecture
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-3137
Should you desire clarification of any part of this survey we may be contacted at
(409) 845-0216 or FAX (409) 862-1572.
A summary of all respondent's surveys will be sent to you in a few weeks if you
will provide us with your address. The information you provide will remain
anonymous.
Your mailing address: (optional)
Appendix A
~ ~,:.
i
Community Enhancement Program
Survey of University Towns
List of Survev Towns:
Ames, Iowa Kearney, Nebraska
Amherst, Massachusetts Las Cruces, New Mexico
Ann Arbor, Michigan Lubbock, Texas
Athens, Georgia Madison, Wisconsin
Berkeley, California Manhattan, Kansas
Borough of State College, Pennsylvania Norman, Oklahoma
Boulder, Colorado Provo, Utah
Canyon, Texas San Luis Obispo, California
Champaign, Illinois Santa Barbara, California
Chapel Hill, North Carolina Santa Cruz, California
Davis, California Starkville, Mississippi
Eugene, Oregon Tempe, Arizona
Fort Collins, Colorado West Lafayette, Indiana
Gainsville, Florida
Appendix B
,s
Demographic Comparison of College Station -
with University Towns and the Nation
Attached as Tab Ato Appendix C is a tabulation of several demographic
statistics for all the communities polled in the Surve of UniversityTowns ,
College Station, and the corresponding national average. All of these
statistics were derived from the 1990 U.S. Census data.
College Station will be compared with the other universitytowns
surveyed and the national average in the following categories: population,
education, employment, household data, and vehicles per housing unit.
Population
As one would obviously guess the numbers and thus the percentage of
college students in a universitytown are high. This trend is one that sets
universitytowns apart from othercommunities in the United States.
The percentage of college students in the College Station population at
60% is extremely high when compared to the survey mean of 33.4% and the
national average of 7.2%. Only two other surveyed communities had a higher
percentage of college students - Am herst, Massachusetts (74%) and Borough
State College, Pennsylvania (71%). The mean for the surveyed university
communities is approximatelyfourtimes the national average while College
Station's percentage is over eight times the national average and over twice
the mean of the other universitytowns. This statistic, like manyothers in this
comparison, is somewhat affected by the relative size of the community. That
is to say that in larger communities, certain characteristics are buffered or
have less impact when they are averaged over a large population.
Education
Another characteristic of universitytowns in general is a very high
standard of educational achievement at all levels.
College Station compares verywell with the university towns at all three
levels of education for which statistics were prepared. Looking at high school
graduates, only Borough State College, Pennsylvania tied with College Station
for the highest percentage in the population with 96%. Only one university
town's percent of high school graduates fell below the national average of 75.2
%, while the majorityof universitytowns were above the 90% mark.
When one compares bachelor of science (B.S.) degrees, College Station
has three times the nation's average at 68.2% as compared to the nation's
20.3%. Only three university towns exceeded or tied with College Station for
percent of B.S. degrees.
Appendix C
F~~, ,~~~ .,:x
In the area of advanced degrees College Station did not fare as well,
being exceeded bysixother universitytowns. At 31 .1% College Station easily
surpassed the national average of 7.22% and the mean of the universitytowns
surveyed set at 21.4%.
Employment
Another less obvious demographic characteristic of university
communities is employment.
The percent of unemployment nationallywas 6.30% in 1990 while the
mean percentforthe universitytowns was 5.51%. College Station was slightly
above the mean with 6.0% but still below the national average of 6.30%.
Notsurprisinglymostuniversitytowns have a high percentage of their
population employed in education. Of universitytowns in our survey, thirteen
had educational services as their largest employer while nationally
educational services ranked fourth.
Ageneral observation is that universitytowns have very high
concentrations of white collar jobs with employment in education, retail and
service type jobs; while the national employment picture shows high
percentages of blue collar jobs with concentrations in wholesale/retail and
manufacturing .
Household Data
Acommon trait of universitytowns is the high number of renter-occupied
households.
College Station has the highest percent of renter households of all
universitytowns surveyed with 76% as compared to the national average of
35.6% and the mean of universitytowns at 55.85%.
The phenomenon of high rental turnover within the last year is also
characteristic of most universitytowns where College Station again leads its
peers with staggering 67.39% as compared to the national average of
41.567% and a universitytown mean of only56.53%.
Vehicles per Ho us in q Unit
The concentration of more vehicles at rental units is another common
characteristic of universitytowns as the percentage of units with all number of
vehicles per unit are greater at universitytowns as compared to the national
average figures. Again the percentages for College Station are higher that
both the universitytowns average and the national average.
The statistics for vehicles at owner occupied housing units also shows
College Station with more vehicles than the national average in general and
slightly higher than a combined mean for the universitytowns.
Apperdix C
N
C
O
H
N
L
Q~
.~
Q~
d
,,~^
vI
Q
_V
t
Q
L
Q~
0
w
O
N
.~
Q.
0
U
F- \ o o\°\° o o\°\° o o ~o\°\° o\°\° o\°\° o o \ o \ o\°\° o \ 3~ \ o~°
o Oo OoOONOO 0O ~O~ON N N 01 O ~^
~ co oNM rnNNO~OO oM rna0o°0 N ^ o O 00
~
~ co °o ~ op ~ er er M rj cp co ~: ui v °o ~o N ~- °o o v c~i
~ O) tD M M N f~ cp tt M ^ co ^
~ CON W OOn ~dMNOnaD Oao n aD OfNn N d N r n(O
m ~r apr dtn Nd~COrdN OO N OO>n0 O n O r M(O
dN nrdN dnn000D °0 Ntn °DOrN C7 °0 (O t0r
m N O (O ~ N N O d d T O) c0 IA r N
1
M
O
U
m O O O o o\° o\° o \ o\° o \ o\° o o\° o o\° o o\° o o\° o 0 0\°
C
~ NcoN MMn41oOO O~ NCO ~O^ ^ O ^ M o
O N N MNMOrnnM Nb h°0^*-v N O QD COn
_
~ > n nNri co ~cti rico7~O Uj ~- Nvtq lrj .. t(j f~ (h <D Cp
ZQ N .- MV NVN N~t^
0 0° o o° o ~ o o° o o° o o° ~ ~ 0 0 0° o~° ~ o° o ~ o
Y
~Q
r~ 00d
oN4~ ^°0 +-O~O O
~oNONOO^ N
NO V~?M^ N
o~t~n rn O ^M
^ ~ O NN
(Aa co opts .;~ci~tvcM~-OO ~~ vN~ ^ M v M ~,_
rn o M v N N
~
L
~m do tnOnd NdNnnOr rn c9 dco NOD O r O N nN
N r O c0 (`7 O) M O lA N IfJ n N O ch O tiY c0 c0 O) c0 a0 a0 c7 c0 C7
O O rnn OddO O~OCO (OdN COM c7 n00('~ r r O N
OU con OOnd ~O(`7 Nab tq rC7N r r
m C7 N r r r
o ~~o 0 0 ~o o ~o o~ o ~~o ~ ~~~o
Q n Oo47 N~O~MO~O °0n OM h b OOO ~1^
~ t
0
N Mnv W •-co a~a~ao co No aornMrn O n
N M
U ~taD~u'ic~ib h uiN O
N ~n ~
O Nv
rnbM N
^ M ^
b ~
^
m d ~ (O r O) n O cfl O ~ O r O) a0 ~ a0 a0 O~ d r M O) 00 a0 N r
Y NO rnrnr OnN(On0(O ON T ~nOdN co ao O d 0c0
m nr docorn rnnrnrnaoc~r rnv ~ oconn N r rn r r>n
NO ~mOO ~Nndl`')M N ODd n nN('~ r t0 n N
m ON <O~Mr ~r rN r
0 0 0~° o o\° ~ o 0 0 ~ 0 0 0~° 0 0 0 ~~ o ~~ o
Q O
~t 007
N^N Nn^MM^O
vt~t~coMVN c0O
O._ NN~t ~O ~D
nNOCO W O f~ NN
N n ap nt~
C7 N co r~ ui ui co ai ri ri °o co v o M ai ~ N ~ ~i ao ~i ~i
~ M^ N N ^ O h N v N ^ M^
vi
C d O ~ ~p N r d CO d 0 (7 ~ O~ O M CO n N N 0 d ~ O) O r d
m (h m C7 N r d d r W O d d t0 d d 1n 0 00 GO N l0 CO O O N
Y nco toO~d ~ C'~00('7~Ot0(~ <Ot7 r MO~cOn co d n N aDCo
Q ~ CO O d n C7 m d d r (h In r (O N d N r N
d r N r r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0~° ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o\° o~° 0 0
M o0 V ~D h~0 a0N0 oM ~t0 ~t N b 01 ODD
M ONO ~OMM4')OJNN °0a naW n M ^ M N MW
chv~ ai~oiovN~`'i ~N ~`'iN~~ N ai o op c~''i
O O cO M N .- .- ._ h h ^ O N M eF .-
Q Nd NdOn NnNnrOtO cpr t0 ~000~ M r r r nco
C rnn
~O NO)dO
rMNO OO(O COOrN
OOnO>C70M Oc0 O
mt0 d dOdr ~
NdMr ~ cD c0 O) a0 O)
~ d t0 ~(O
C Ot0 rnmN mmm~tONr nco N MNtOr iA a0 N
Q OC7 10 U7 (`~N t17r rN r
0 0 0~° 0 0 0 0 o a° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~° 0 0 0~° 3~ o
Q 7 OOCp t~I~QtO~OMO 00 nO~O O h O ~t a0M
n
`
!~ b b O d n d <O ^ O 01 °0 O ^~ ~t ^ ~O 7 M N N
rico vririniNN~i ~o~ci oo~'ico~ N <r ~[i o ^N
rnOV vN Ov ^~n^ v ~r
d dO Mc0 t0O OMMdN°0 °D OO O t7OOM C7 d 00 CO Nn
,= Nn rNdm tl)n(O aDON<O CO O7 O f0 n(Dd tq d d 0> nN
'
COr draDn NcO O)NMNr 001 O) MOMr d c+
)
Q r r d d N r °p M r r r
o 0 0
p p o\°
o o\°\° o\° o~° o~~
o\° o
o~° o~° o o\°\° o\°
o~° ~ o\°\° \ o
(p 0p
r r ~O W O V ~O O O ~D N M O O O tp Q O M V' O
a 0 O n o^ O M N O) O M o~ N n N M M M M b
Q rn~n ui~io'iv<r
v ~~ rnvN~o ri N
o' my VM
N c
~N ~
^
N
m C7~ In °0d0 nMMnroDO dd ~ u'1rcoO to c'o O r O~
E Or (OdMd ONr(OOnr nC7 N rn0c0 °~ t0 aD m Od
Q r tp n n N to (h a0 N d C7 m r d0 n N a0 N (O n N r O c7 m N
nr OOr~ to ao ~nrr r (O ao to dN N M
d N N r r N
m m
.
m _ m
T ~d m ~ W O °' 7
N
~
u m
i
V m m
a
i C r
a
- m n
m m
~ p m
a ?~ nL °v,~
~ ~
c 0 m 0 r
CO a3 O m
~ m m
R a
i
-p~~~ L L m
CO ~? `~ ~ (n
U C Vl C V
Z ~ Q a~ > ~ O N m ~
N
~,.. m
~cEm
>.mm
ea
C mmm m m
m
~o~ ~~ m Ca°
~~
°O tE
°
°
O ~ Lrt~ O ttt~
~00m y -ai
aia-
m
~m
m i
c
i
'm
0
« mmm
~ m
c
~ mr
v
E
O
E
C ~
0
0 .7. ~mmm
7>> O .~m
>>> O
i n- p~ ~
~ C
O UotS W ~
t0
(d .fl m
L
O 7_
O
L m
`m C p C C
d
O
`'
rn O
0
V ~.
~
` ~`. .O
m
C 7 C
~ ow~x~u
d~ ~
..
.
y 3
~ ZrNM d
' r N (
)
=Z
~
o ~~ui
v a . i
m a
~
m o~ao ~a=mc~ ~~ o ¢
oOcc ~ d
U a w w x > >
t :., .e. 1 ;..
II ~ ~;
U
x
c
m
d
n.
Q
O
Q
td
~"'
3
_~
N
L
.~
Q~
L
.~
v-
O
N
V
t
fl.
L
Q
C
O
N
~L
fl.
O
U
o 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ o 0 0 0 \ o 0 0 0~° o
0 00^ rnorncoaorno orn brncom N N rn o ~n^
C fp O N M O N N O 1~ ~O O O M O N O Op N ~ ~O ~D aD a0
~
~ ~O N ~- ao ~ V V M C'j Cp tp I~ h er a0 ~0 N *~ 40 O V M
~ o~cpM MN 1~cp ~M ^ O ^
fn (O N aD (O O f` ~ V M N O 1\ O O p n p W N f~ N V N r r O
m to r a0 r~~ N V ~A t0 r V N O O to O 07 I~ O O ~ O r M O
~ N I~ r V N ~' n n m O O W N~ W O r N ('~ dO (O (O r
m N r tD t0 r 1n N d0 ~ V' M O CO ~ r N
- ~A C7 r r r N +"
O
U
~ m o a o 0 0 0~ o o h o a s o o~ a o o v a o
C ~ N NON MM^MOO)O O~ N~DfO~ ^ O ^ M O
~ -N MNMCO a~hM ~Oh hN^^ R N b N ~O^
aS j n r N ~ W ~ W ~ co V ~D tfj •- N V~ Sri h tcj ~ c~'i (p ~O
Z Q N •- MR NvN N V^
0 0 0 ~ ~ o o\° ~ o o ~ o o ~ o 00 ~ o 0 0\° oho 00 0\°
O o0 N(phM h0 ~~0 OOH n h M ~O O
~ .. cp OHO) OhbW ~O ~F <Y NN MM^O ^ 00 N h^
~ ~ M er co N I~ w 4i lM ~ ~ ~ ^
N ~ M
a ~O ~i
m O N ^
N
y p~0 ~~p ap ~p V'h tph(h ('71~ Mr 1~ mMON 1~ O O n Mfg
c0 a O~ r N ('~ ~ ~ W N V O) N O) 00 N f~ O) C`') c0 r c0 (D V' O)
W t0 V O O V V (O h O~ r 0 0 OO V f~ (O (O to r r N h ('~ 10 (O r
N r O N T O ~ O N V 1~ Ch r M N V O (D r (O r C7 r
r N t0 t0 N r t0 r N N r r
0 000 oa~aa~o o~ o~ao~ ~~e~oa
M 00 pM ~ Cp 0p N ~O O b o M `7 <t N <O ^ a0 ^ h o M
U h
M
M ~O~ W~Db
~~ ~~ ch V
Oa
O N N ~ ri~Y
p
O
i t _ c
h
~ O> M P M N N to (h st p r N r O> f~ GO r V M N f~ a c0 IA V O
'
~ O 1~ CO O r at (O r O t0 M CO N O r N
' <O ~ r 0 O to O
7 h (7
Q N O~ri~ ~NWOONO )O V
(` r(hNM ~ r O to N(h
tO CD MN~t~ ~COMrrrr 1~O O r~C7r N t7 r
~ N N N
o\°\° o~° o~ ~ o\°\° o\° o ~ o\°\° 0 0 ~ o\°\° \ o\°\° o\° o ~ o o~° o\° o~°
U O 00~ NtFntONMO cON N^MaD O •t h N MN
Z V V~N~O NCO^O~tI~ V
-
- MOB tF~taDN O ~t cD o M^
_ ty .map ~7N V~
~O
N ofO OaDN~ N M of ~ O]~
=_ U~f~M .
-
M^ hb ^7M ^
2 _
rn.-r~naDNCO
~h O
maOO V v
('-) I~ r nn
m cp ~n (h c0 O~ co O ch O v cp ~ N O ao (O ~ c0 ao r c0 O N to v ao
O- h M N O CO <f N r~ N r OD ~ (D r r pp O CO to r r (O t~ 1~ N
~ m I~ C7 t~ O O M N r to O d' C7 N r N
U M r rrr r
0 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 ~o 0 0~ o 0 0 ~o 0 0 ~o 0
J M 00 7^O~NO O ^b ^^M~D M N O O n
M NON boOhC1OM aD0 O^O~M ~ ~t aD N Ob
C cV 0 0 of N ~O do v N !t N o qj *- o ~t ^ `7 7 n O M
. ~D eFN NN ho N~nN M R ^
~
N O aD OD h O 'd' B O O V' r O~ ED ~ ~ n~ N r ~ `~t O~ N h
E O1~ OO V ~ rp000 tAhr OtD t0 rNt~~ O O n W d'O
(0 to O O r n~ t` O N r p to O ~ n t0 CO 10 (O ~ r ~ m Ch r~
t M r r CO N CO N O 1~ N N r r N h N (O N C7 IA r
U t0 N rJ N r M r r
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0~° 0 0 0\° ~ 0 0 0~° 0 0 0\° 0 0 0
~t O o H a0 a b o ~t h o b f\ N M ~0 O ~O ~D O o a0 ~O
- I
C
7 N a^ o N o v h h o m ^ h h o h N o <o ^ N M o
h
_ u'ioiri riv^cu'i~~ci ~iN opar~l~ N v v N err
~ cOM^ NN v~o bN N b ^
O tO~ O»MO OD ~A dOr~MaO t00 N rNrtO O n CO d0 Oh
C tOr Op cr COO 'Q rtnNNr°~ OC0 a0 t0 C7N('') M O ~ O (70
fd (h 1~ nONr (O M(`~~NMM N00 r0lnr r IA r Mr
U r N t n~ N t n r r N r r r
o 0 0
~~0
0 0 ~~o o~
~~
o o ~o ~
off' o o ~o
O p~ O~ a0 M M ~O ^ <O h 0 O b a O N~ M
~OOtp^ Q N A M ~D b
W ~t °~ ~f M
O
U M O
~ ~ ~ ^^O^MR^
o - r~ ,_ vi th ~ci NO
ri o ~
N o r~ co N N of ~ ui ~i
N NN ^ ono ~nN N v ^
N
'O
N O
uY N C7 n
t~ ~t N O O p O
M 00 t0
O a d0 m n
N r O a t0
~ ro aornrnv ooaonrnu~~n on r ~~n~n~n v u~ r ran
O MaD COMI~P ht00('~Nln (O Of0 N M(hrN N ~ n ~ ~W
(~ (+~ ~ OD (O d0 N 1~ OI O M to N r (O 00 N O ~ r ~ n N
C0 N '~t V' N r ~ r r r
.O
m m
>. N ~ ~ m
° m
~ d
N rn o
a
t ~ W
O ~
N O.
~ y
d c
me rn II N
_ m y
mN V
~ ~ ~ m
er ?~ ~L _
°oi~
~ ~ O L O s
p
, ~ C otS O rn
~ ~ m O) °~
~ c
-O -O !Z L m L m
0 ~ ? H ~ ~ (/)
U C to C ~
~ r a n "0
> ~ to to m C to N m
iom~ ~, a, y
m m >, N m
7 C~ m
::oc-m~ -o 0
~p
p~oo° C m m m
m ~0~° m m m
3 ~~oo
O p
m ~ 7 N C d ~ y~ f6 Qj Q~
d V U L i
~
~ ~ L L L~ O L L L
c O V
O
°> C m m
~ E m m~~ v°
~
c
~ O O y «
.
~ a ~ m m m
> > > `o ~ m m m m
> > > o
L a o
r ~
O c
O C3 c2S w ~ o m
~ .n a
i
~.
O c
L
' ~ -
t N m° «6 ~ O
Z r N co ~t ~ c
O r N f7 ~
~ °
V ~,
a
u
A
U
` -
m
O C
d
~ ~ W~ 2~ ii n- ~ m c
N
c = = Z
3 0 o
l-ae ) (
~
a
>
ax -
F- o N 3
i o
a
0¢~ ¢
m o ~
mc7 ~ 0 ~ m
U d w w x > >
U
x
c
m
n
Q
Q
~.
_~
L
Q~
._
d
N
N
V
's
a
L
C~
G
Q~
0
Y~
O
N
~L
Q.
0
V
a oao oooooao 00 00000 00000
~ o oo.- rnornOaorno orn brnOm N N rn ~o ~n
~ ~O oN~h 41NNOhtpO oC7 O)DOOm N ^ ~ DD DODO
~ ~o a<t di ri cp ^~ hv~W N ~- DO ~ et Dj
O
i~~h MN
D) ~ t0 N DO (D rn n ~ V M N O n a0 O W n a0 m N n N V' N r n c0
O) ~ r M r ~ M N~ In O .- V' N O) DD to O M n 0 0 n O r M O
O V'N nr~N vnnrnrnaO DO Nln MOrN M W (O t0r
O N t0 O r M N W V V' T O (O to r N
U ~ M r N
N O 0
O 0 0
O O °~
o ~~ o\°\° o o h
~ o\°\°
o ~ o\°\° o ~
o ~ o\°\° o\°
C ~ N NMN (h C7 t~Q10~0 O~ Nco Dph ~ ~ ~ C7 O
~
~
~ N MN~h ~D D)~M Oh ^DOh.~ <t N b DO
O
c0 > n nN~ N aori~vco h~ Nv~ciui+- b t\ th cow
Z Q N ~- ~a NvN N <t ~-
0 0 oD o 0 00 0° o 0 00 ~ o\° o o ~ o 00 00 00 0 0~0 0 00
M oorn u~oc~r~NOO nv Nrn m ~n ~`~ N hh
N ~O O ~t R h <t h ~ In O O) ~ h tO (y b t~ et DO N
o ^NOOicor~oi ~~ NvN~ T M
v Nri
c
rn~
M
O
~ N r N ~O DO t0 ~ ~ V V ~ lA oD In O O DO N DO n N r V' (D N
'O (O O n O~ n DD M to M O M M O~ V N M O t0 ~ M r N V c0
DO N t0 ~ O c0 m N W N N M n M M O M O N n [O M i n 'V M
r at ~ N n 0 DO DD N r 0 DD DO cO r N O) O O) r ~ T a r
O) a O~ N O N r M V N N
o oe o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0
~ oo r.rnr.v~o rnN NooN 0 v N o oN
<O O O t~ O~ N O) 01 4) c0 I~ M `7 O) M H DO O) O DO O) M
Q' vNr~viMco o
a Ui o
Th N N ~ tlj Uj
Y ^N ^ c
o ^
M '~
U
° N O~~DD OMnNMMCD Oa t0 MOnn n O M n ~tO
~ DO N n (O O t0 N n v O N~ to ~n v tD M~ a0 O (O N ao M GO M
~ N M r N tO ~A DO n to a0 rn r M r O~ O ~ n t0 n N r CO N O O
O
J tO OD tOOnM ONNmtO~M DOO oD MtAmr r O 07 ON
DON ODON DOrN MM r r r
~ \ o\° o\° o o~° o\°\° o o\°\° o\° o\° o\° o~ o\°\° o~ o~° o\°
t
< ~ d° d~ ~ o\°
~- O D
Z 7 O O ch
~- N O ~D O V~ ^ O ~ O
~ tp h a h <p O) I~ O)
~ N O~
\
t o o
h~ a V' T- O
N
`7 M O O) ~-
^ coNt~t\u'iTDO vh ~bNO T v ~ v ~N
~ NT „ ._
~
U ON OOMOD OMnO~r~to N~ 00 MOON in r aD (O NtA
~ NO nnmm rDOMNrMN aOr ~ OHO t0 t0 r O) n ~ (OM
U r0 aDrnO rnv WOOU~r My n rtoOto r in t0 n N0
y NM (OMO~ (O e1'~NNrM MO to rMM M ~ Nr
(0 (O MNr N rr
J
0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° o o ~ 0 0 0 ~ o o~° ~ o o
m 7 00(h 4')O~f *-O~tO 00 OM~O `7 ^ O DO O O)~t
o
~
N ~ O) b h O O N V a~ co M O) N O) .~ ~ ) M
O
V~
Z O OivivNri
N h MO ri
Do N N v
^
~N N v ~ N
(O~ bN V n DD~rtOMMtO rN M (OOmtO r ~ N n Min
~ rn n O M M n~ O N m N n 0 ~ N M O ~ A N n r M( O
O Mn to to (OM MtO DONOtAM MO N M(O~~ r r N OM
Y V t A N O M r M r M r N d' V N r r r N r
N r r r
o oe o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J OO~O <00~~1~b~00 Oc7 f~OhM C7 M Dp ~ ~`]
11 th Wbh N~oooov<o rnn N~-oN M O o DD NN
~ oi~j~teh~i~ bb ~~NO N v M ~ ^v
~ W~N N
N On N~nvaD OvvMrO~ nn nNMN M fO ~ M OM
C nN stMO01 MDOO~OOr MDO rNO~A Of O (O T V M
'~ n0 v~'cYn nnnmmaor Oa0 ~ O)r~0 M <O O ~ (O
Ur ~t0 NMMM DDMn~rrN uiO T Na0~r N O N
a0N a'Mr M rr
~ O n o\° o~° o\°\° o\°\° \ o o\°\° o\°\° 3~ \ o\°\° \
o \ o\°\° o\°\° o \ o\°\° o\°\°
Q ~ ,nN N rnbNOO NM _
rn ~b N rn v N bo
U N O ^ DO ~ N ~D ~ ~ Ch 0 O M N N ~O O t~ (D O)
vi rn v ~O ~ co ui v ri ~i r~ o O co N Do ri N ~`'i of co Sri
~_ .~ c~ .- v cp .- v cb N ~r ~-
O 00n N~Nr O>O><O aoMe0~ cDM a0Ma0 c0 a0 a0 a0 V O)n
(~ tnn rt17vM MOU7 tD <D a0n vv n OaOMr M n a0 N Ov
.C n M rn n ao r 0 ao O r 0 CO n rn ~ CO M r M 'Q v 0 ao M O
O nr ao ~'Nn ~n aoW MnNr nto m rntor ~ DO Mr
L.L O N d' ~ N V r r
D) N
T O V O d
W
° ° ~
M ~ ° ~
O fl. C.
d ~ ~ L II iD y V m V N
d~ V U
~ ~ t O •c0 ~ V U
d am as `o ^>¢mrn°a .°'n¢c L j ,. °
c
O
l 7
i T~ V! T /C 2 7 C~ D)
~ t~4 °- °• ~> ~ D) N N~ C m N N m
`
Da~~ ~D m
O ::oc°
mi~-~
~
~ pc°ic°io°
~ a~ ~~~° 3 vv moo
p_ ° D)
C
U N
N 0 0 0 N
O D) Q
G1
o
7 o U U L
C
Q N r ~ L L L~
O O L L L
D) m D)
>. O
O d .~ d C u1 N
~ c ~ a~ ~ ,D
Y
U
~ w ° o - c c . E O
p o Q1 D7
a C
._ > > > o ~ O
° > > > o
L y O- - U O otS ~ O L tD ~ cD .fl m
T
C
D)
' -
L m N 0 lC C U
Z r N M V
r N M V
?
O DS N O
U ++ N .°
~
n m
~
` -
~
7 C
O
N
w~ 2 i~ a n
~ O C S
c
C = Z
7 0 o t
(
.1 a
~ o y 3 a
i
i o a
v o~ao ~axmc7 E~ oOcc° ¢ m aLi
U a w w = > >
.m
r ~.`. ~, .
,~..
X
c
a
Q.
Q
Q
c0
f-
3
O
1-
L
.~
N
W
V
t
C.
L
O
w
O
N
.Y
C~.
G
V
~- ~ o ~ o 0 0 \ o ~~ o o 0 0 ~~ o 0 0 0 ~ o 0
0 00^ rnorn~omrno orn hrncom N N rn 0 ~~
C tp O N M O) N N O 1~ CO o O M O~ N O aD N h ~O N a0 W
~ soap ao <r<roichco cow uivmao N ~- ~o o <rri
c6 O O M M N ~ ~D V~ M ^ ~D ^
~ [~N 00 c0Or ~ V'C`7N O1~O OO n W mNn N V N r I~(O
N N r 00 r V to N V to O r~ N m OD to O O f\ O O n O r C7 (O
~Y N h r~ N 'd' !~ n 0 0 O O N~ GO O r N C7 00 O O r
N N r (O (O r~ N 00 V d' M m (O ~ r N
~ (h r r r N r
U
N O 0
O 0 0
\°
0 0
o o ~~ o\° o\° o\°
o o
~ o ~ o\° o\°
oe ~ o\° o\° o\°
C~ N 0
NON MMnO)OO0 O~ NCO OD t~ h O n M O
~ N M N M co O) t\ M ~O ~ ^ c0 h ^ eF N h N ~D ~
N > n ^Nt\ M OnO V (p b^ N~t'~h ^ h ^ M (p (p
ZQ N ^ My N~tN N V ^
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o 00 0 0 0
U M oo~D ~F 01 t~NMOO NM MOO 0 ^ ~O b h~D
N ^ N M CO ap h *~ ~D b ~O ~O O M M M^ O O M o O~
M In
COeF~tchR u ~ hvNO v ~i N ~ vino
~ ~~ N
V O M st r to Ch u7 (h (O (h O r 00 (O to V (D ~ V M I~ n fh O r to
(7S V' n r t0 O W W~ N m V V N O f7 OD t0 ct m (O CO CO ~' V c0 N
C O M O~ V m V r M I~ n N m to to N ~ O n O ~ V r O M ~A
~ mr O~OM O V OrMr d0O V rC`7N N a r
~ ~ r N N r N
U o 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o~ 0 0 0 \ o~ o~ 0 0 0 0 0
+- ooN omNNhOO M~ o Ob cp ~ N vO
~ ,~ t~ O .~ b <t aD ^ ~O ~0 M eF Op M dD ~ O ~ N a O
~ ~ ~ N ap of cp ^ t~ cti v b 7 ^ N
~ v V N ~ t\ co
~ ,_ ,~
N .-
~ rcO NcDNN tf10~d0 (hNO00 C7~ c0 0000 C) O ~ 00 t0~
m n O) r r C7 d' <O CD <O aD st t~ ~ CO c0 c0 O~ M t0 .- N d0 t0 N O>
~ LL7 M M O) c0 /n I~ r p) p) M c0 er ~ UO ~t O N ~ to t0 1~ O N ~ O>
~ ~rn rn~rnn mvwco~ncor vrn ao wrn~nr co co N
~ co ~nvr v rr
d o ~o o ~a ~o 0 0~ a~ o 0 o a o 0 0 ~~~
n t\ 00^ h~O~oNbO MO V a0N0 b V M •tM
U
1 M oO V O~obNOM~ rnO OM^O M o ^ O Ob
.a rn~tM V t~t~cp<thb ~i I~OtDa)~t o~ ~f M.. taco
Q a0 M ^ .- N ~ co M N ^ N ~t ^
~
~ aD P O O V O n V W m O O N O) IX? I~ a0 ~ st N O O~ d0 N
7 N~ (0000 fONOn rM hCO (O ~O)rCD M O ~ O O
J O~ MOOO Or(O to ('7ON V ~t OD CO ~dOM O M N r Ma
C r~ NOf~N rC7 tnrrrr nO to (hNr N (h r
(0 sr r N r N
o \ o off' oho o~° 0 0 ~ o o~° 0 0~ o o ~ o ~ o o ~ o~°
CD 000 ~Ot~4)~Yt0OO ~D^ MaOMM ^ ~ M M ~N
~ M a0 b 0 ~O f~ h M .- O O) O M M ~O N b ^ ~t •t W O M
~ NNO^sVN~i ~~ OvNO ^ M N ~ aDOi
M^
O W t0 N~ OD M 00 t0 N CO ~ l!) aD O CO N ~~ O r W O r f7 N~
~ M N (O t0 N r O n n~ O O ~ r a h 1~ CO N N tU O CD
d ON O)tn f`7 cO aD f~cpato tnn ~N O 0)N r(+~ ~ M (`7 r CO GO
(O r
OD M N O> r M
(`~ N r n O aO N V r
(`~ O V O
r lO V r N V r
a o o ~0 0 0 0 ~~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y N OOM b~M7eF~o art M^b~t O O N M~F
~
`
Q N •- •- ~D
r~ ao ui M M ~0 ~O M M .-
co N ~o 0o vi t~ co O O
ad ni ^ 7 (p ~ O
of N ui ~ (D tO ~O
7
N vi ao t~ vi
~ a0M^ ^N ~tO ~M N ~t ^
ctl c+~NO~n I~rn~neororn vv r> corn~nn co ~n ao ao ao~n
1~ ~ r~~ r r~ (7 t0 O O r O N ~ N OD d' W t0 N <O r M M
Q O I~ Q O M r at CO O~ V r O N c0 m ~t .- O O r ~ r O OD O
Z O f~ ~ m n n O h O M C'~ N N t0 ~ O r O V ~Y I~ N
W r ~ C7 r V r r
o ° ~ ~° o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 of o 0 0
Y N ~Nb ~nNO^<OO Q~Q~ M~OO~ ~ t~ to a O7
M ~n r~oaptnrn~o ~^ oOVrn rn M M r\ NM
c rn v °~ N N vi v v vi ~ h
h ~o of
o v N N v~ ui
~ ,. c
o M ^
~ a? M m O) O c0 (O h N r tq ~ N N O r ~ ap O N M ~ r O) d0 O)
L ~ N V CO t~ <t C`') a n cO M O~ M (O h (O to m O CO N t0 N~~ V
C h N c0 N 00 c0 N N ~p O 00 d0 O ~ r M cD ap LA t~ (`9 r P N O M
N I~ N oD 1~ n Ch O to V r r tp O by co N r (7 r
~ c7 r r r r
'O
N N
T N 7
N ~
d ~
` U
' d
~ ~ ao ~ ° w O ~ °' p,
d N L II N U N V N
C (!1
d 7 fA ^ L O y "' N ~ ~ C Q L Q L
~ >
O d 'O
7
N (`1 N
T~ rn ~
\ U C N C V
f0
~ 7 C E N
> r~~ O N
(p d O. ~> ~ to N
C G7 N N~ ~ y to
C d N N~
"
'
(6
m
w ~~ d .
d
cno~c~~ ¢o ~~v7~~ a> ~~~~ 3 ~ooo
o oO
~ ~
. oa°U~ oc`°^~
' Ew~o~c7~°E j
~ c»> a ?c»>o`
~.
Q '~ O-
A O ._ O (J o(j
O
r
- A- 7 L f0 N N L N
'O d C 7 C
'= N N O~ C O
Z r N M V
> C
O r N (`7 ~
>
QV o
!0 w
~
O O ~uw~x~iia~ d c cx c z
3 0 0 U U7
~ O N 3 N o 0
~
o c~ao aaxmc~ EF- oo¢
¢ a'~i m
U a w w x > >
''~ ~." 7F^ ~a
1. i i.,
U
x
C
d
n
d
Q
O
~~~~a
x
c
a~
a
n
Q
0
N
3
'"'
_~
N
L
d
.~
V
Z
a
L
0
O
N
L
Q.
O
V
° o o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
°
V o o
tnNN nOMaD tnO O o\
M nao aDr O M M O Nr
N lD c0 0 N a0 0~ M ao n n n 0 O °0 0 to v N~ to cO r
C O 0100 V (O 00 VMtn h vNtO N M N ~ torn
''
~ M °D V r N N tn
~ r
y rM rO)t70O NQNO)NtTr M V' M c0 V OO O tT O N O a
MM V'NOO OM°0OV mn ~~ r V MGM O M °D O V'N
N n W 00 O O n W O r V' M r O O O ~ M r M M ~ N r Mtn
nrn O(nNtn OntONNrr MN n rtnM N v r
tnr MNr N r
o o
o ' 0 0
°0 nc0 ap nOO
N ~M nrnrn
v p~ O ~
M V M°D Ol'.On O~O~Mtn stn nv0~ r l0 to n NO
ri tb co tri n ao v a tri tti ri ~ ao n ri of ao co tri tri
N o r
M °D V N N N ~ to r V N
N
r M to O) (D O N N O r to ~ ~ ~ to n c0 ~ t7D O a0 iD lT r to M
rn vncorn nnatnrrrn NM rn Nrvr M n to ao vtn
to o M to st M n o m o to o to °D v co r to M an o N v o o rn
00 tbMtOn tnnnMMNr [00 N ONOCO O N M M vn
nN MMr M V O N tOTrN r r M t0 tnr
M a N r r r
o o ~ o \ \ \ o° o° o° o ~ 0 0 0° o\° \ o~° o\° o\°
C O 00•- OO~tON00 00 hO~<O °0 N N OO O~
~ O ON M rnNNOn~00 OM Q~N OOO N ^ ~O N °D 40
io _
~o °o N vvri ri ~o ~
~ ~ N
~va *= cD ~ er cy
~ X rncnM ~`]N t
. i .. ^
Nr tON °O COMn to V MNOna~ Oa0 n a00~Nn N ~t N r n<O
~ tnr °Drvtn Nvtn COraN tTO to O01n0O n O r M(O
N ~N nr~N V nnrnrn°DN Ntn °OOrN M ao f0 (pr
N CO Cn rtn N°0v aT M c0 tnr N
U to M r N
~ ~ 0 0 0
~
c ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
~ ~
o~° o o\° of o~°
o o\° ~ o
C N O
N O O
NMN MMna1000 O~ NCO °0^ ^ O^ M O
~ N c7 N M ~0 0) h M N b ^ °o ~ ,~ V N to N <D ~
ttl > n n N r` ap ao r; cp v co vi += N ~r ui ui ~- tci ~ of ~o ~
Z Q N ~- ~ `m N v N N v +-
- o~° o o\°o° ~o°o°0 0 0 ~ ~o o°o ~~ o o° o° ~ o 0
~o ooto vn NNbo Nh rnu~~oN °o rn rn °o nn
N b t\vh tot~cb ,-.-r\ bN WOMN a0 O).~ O O0
~
~ O
~ v~0~°O M~-~ O
^ O
O ~ ^ M ~ OM
c
O~ .. (
D (
O .~ ..
N ^
t0
~ ntD rN~r Otn tnMnNn vO to Mv(Om n r to r MV
J O M r n aD v to M M t0 n M [O O 01 t0 O (O to tT O N to M M
Otn NnMN Mtn NtOOMr 00 O (O CD (O (O N lA O M
N to T O M (O v T to N M t0 v N r r
y N
o~° o\°\° oe \ o o\° o\° o\° ~ ~ o ~
~ o\° o\° o\° `off o~° o~° o~° o\° o\°
O O M R <Y O °O N to 0 _
N b ~O M th °0 N n1 N
IV N o1 a0 ~- v N ~- ~O ~O O~ O v ao o~ O ~O V ~ •~ th f\ N v
Q Oi NN~t~it~r.`'i0 N
v o
~v
~ ^ N N v oitci
~M ^ ^ c
o c
h ^
to <O rNNm NNtn M0000
( to to M
~T tT 01 vNtnO ~
O tT O M (O v v f0 nv
N (O In N n
N (O m
tD n c0 N /b M
to N M OD O to tT M O O
O
O m lT tD n 0 O O M N M n st l0 m M M to
~ r W N V OO Otn tD~NCOM °0 c0 O MM°0r cD M tnr
V'N aOnMr O r r NN r r
o 0 0 ~~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ o 0
O O
tnN~ f~MOf cp t~et0 M~F ~tNN~t ch M °D tO OCh
~ N ~ ~ .~ornW•-°or~ ono mmrnrn er o ~o„r~<r
n ~ Oi N °0 ~ ~O ~ 47 <O Ih .~ t(j tM °D ~O ~t Cp O (`] (p Cj
ai c7 ._ b ~ ~- ~ N M a ~-
> tDN O V O(D nMn V rON m0 n NvOO to O t0 tT (D °0
Y to n M °~ M n V t17 a0 lA M N a0 a aD <n <O M O m N O (O to N O
~ ctr In to M°0 N(O~ V nv V rr r (O CONN r r M M tnr
~ OD to O~nMr CDNr M~ N rr r
U
N m
~~
1A y O ~ W
O d C.
d m C
._
' L
Ol II O
- N N
N f6 U y
V U V N
d p
] q
^ L
O y 'y'
~ t
N
O L V U
O L
y
~
~~ C
E ~
O m •D
~
0 y y
~ U
~ O
O
T N\ 2 7 C~ N t0 N N
`
41 d~ >
gy Gl
N N N~ N ~
C N N m m
.
. >+
y ~
0 (
p
~
U
C =
p_ O N
c
U .. N -p0 ~ ~ Q ~ N
y y Q
dEmtu
~c~U U
=
~OONw •~ L L L~
mda~lU O L .C L
m lU a~
p
O d
~ cy~
'
~ Y
N~ tti L
W O O- ~
~ O>>> O ~ro
C C> >> O
i
O O
R- O O U
°C ~
.+ N
p L
7t
'O N C 7 C
~
~ L N N O O
c= Z r N M sf
> O r N M d
>
d1 7 0 oV U mcncD m 2
iid~
~ o W
O c
N 3 Z
aFdo ~a=CnC7 'H u 30pC° Q t L
w =
U a w > >
do 1`~~ tFj ~S, St
~~~ tsLYr, `~ s}~
w ~ ~: ~,
Residential Parking Spaces
Per Dwelling Unit
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
R Ideal Re . Ideal R Ideal
Mean 1.70 1.92 1.75 1.98 1.75 2.29
Single-Family Median 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mode 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mean 1.82 2.21 2.04 2.38 2.25 2.81
Duplex Median 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
Mode 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00
Mean 1.53 1.80 1.84 2.11 2.14 2.63
Tri and Four Median 1 .50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50
Plex
Mode 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mean 1.53 1.81 1.87 2.13 2.16 2.65
Apartments Median 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50
Mode 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Appendix D
Community Enhancement Program for College Station, Texas
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
September 20, 1996
Introduction
The Final Report and Recommendations of the Steering Committee for the Community
Enhancement Program for College Station, Texas are provided herein. The Executive
Summary of the Preliminary Recommendations for the Community Enhancement Program for
College Station, dated March 27, 1996, is attached in the Appendix in order to provide
additional details about the history of this project and the final recommendations being put
forth at this time. The focus of this Final Report is on specific recommendations for future
actions by the City Council.
The Preliminary Recommendations have been revised following meetings of the Policy
Implementation Steering Committee conducted since the Preliminary Recommendations were
presented to the City Council on March 27, 1996. All of the Steering Committee members
have had additional opportunities to review these recommendations since then. In a meeting
of the Steering Committee members on August 27, 1996, the Committee reiterated its
emphasis of Recommendation #1 on Code Enforcement, which is pivotal to all the rest of
the recommendations. This is linked in important ways to development of improved
codes and standards in many areas and to education and outreach activities directed to
the building community and to citizens as well. We believe that returns from the many
other recommendations contained in this report will be diminished greatly if this first
issue is not squarely addressed.
The Steering Committee members also wish to emphasize that the 12 recommendations
were the top priorities from a list of 87 recommendations that were gleaned from
multiple surveys and a broad cross-section of the city's residents, and not from the
committee alone. These recommendations are the result of a consensus process involving
representatives of many interests in the community. The Steering Committee assembled
grass-roots opinions and concerns that can be used by both the City Council and the
City Stag in formulating policy for future planning and development.
The end statements include recommendations for specific actions and the potential time frames
necessary to implement the recommendations. It is the Steering Committee's understanding
that some of the recommendations are already being implemented. Their mention is made here
with the goal of presenting a comprehensive and enduring strategy for enhancing our
community over the long term.
2
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMUNITY
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Rank Order of
Importance End Statements
(1=highest,
12 =lowest)
1. Elevate the status of all code enforcement programs of the city. There must
be consistent enforcement and education about the policy and procedural
regulations included in these programs.
Discussion: A consistent theme of almost every survey and meeting held over the
past two years has been that consistent and thorough enforcement of codes,
standards and ordinances is essential to assuring the quality of the city's
appearance, its neighborhood integrity, and positive nature of growth and
development. Further, it is widely believed that the quality of the building stock in
a community and its real estate values are inextricably tied to a rigorous
enforcement agenda. There is support for the notion that the building inspections,
zoning and nuisance control departments' roles in community enhancement should
include public education, in addition to regulation. The public needs to be
educated about the codes, standards and ordinances and the benefits of compliance
with them. Because Texas A&M University is a major catalyst for significant
population shifts in College Station annually, this educational function becomes
even more critical to the success of community enhancement efforts.
Recommendation: A primary concern of the Steering Committee is the lack of
consistent and thorough enforcement of many of the City's codes, standards and
ordinances. Therefore, the City of College Station should provide the resources
necessary to reorganize the inspections and regulations programs of the City and
establish an education component to deliver information to the public in a variety
of ways. The City should hire a qualified building professional to oversee an
adequately staffed organization of building inspectors and other staff charged with
providing regulatory and educational services on a consistent and ongoing basis
throughout the community.
Potential Time Frame: This change in the City's building inspections, zoning
enforcement, nuisance problems enforcement agencies, and the addition of a public
awareness/education component of the City, should be implemented immediately.
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/2O/9fi
3
2. Initiate a process to review and improve all building standards for the
College Station area so community enhancement objectives can be met.
Discussion: It became apparent from comments made by a number of groups
during the past two years that some of the minimum building standards for
residential construction are not adequate, or that they were not being enforced
consistently. It also became apparent that many developers, home builders,
architects and engineers have employed standard practices, such as for foundation
reinforcing, that exceed the minimums set by the City. The problem is, the field is
not level for those who know what the best practices should be and those who
would otherwise employ minimum standards on critical building components. The
need to update the codes and standards in certain areas is the subject of this
recommendation. Enforcement is addressed in Recommendation " 1 " above.
The City's building codes and standards need to be improved by incorporating life
cycle cost analysis in at least the following areas: foundations, drainage on lots,
roof overhangs, exterior stair construction, expansion joints in masonry walls,
tack-on structures (additions), acoustic requirements at party walls, and soils test
data. Other needs may be identified and addressed during the process of updating
these.
Recommendation: Because of the highly technical, economic and political nature
of these issues, the City Council should support creation of ablue-ribbon task
force made up of home owners, developers, builders, contractors, architects,
engineers, private and public building inspectors, lenders, and insurers to carefully
examine these issues and bring recommendations for improving the minimum
standards back to the City Council for adoption. This should be a consensus
process with input from many interests in the community.
Potential Time Frame: Complex issues and much technical material will need to be
reviewed to complete this recommendation. 1'he task force should be appointed as
soon as practically feasible and given approximately 6 months to conclude their
investigations and make recommendations.
FINAL, REPORT AND RF,COMMENDATIONS
COMMUN[TY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20196
4
3. The City should prepare a comprehensive drainage plan for College Station,
and it should be integrated into and coordinated with plans for Texas A&M
University, Bryan, Brazos County, and surrounding areas.
Discussion: It is apparent from the data collected that there is a wide range of
drainage problems in College Station. At the residential level, drainage in and
around many houses is inadequate. Water gets into houses and stands in yards.
Extending beyond the individual houses, drainage problems and flooding are
occurring at the neighborhood level. Safety of drainageways in the neighborhoods
was one of the highest issues of concern to local residents. It was also apparent to
the Steering Committee that water comes into College Station from surrounding
areas, and similarly, that College Station's water drains into areas outside the city.
Any drainage plan or activity in one area will therefore have effects on the entire
system at the regional level.
Recommendation: At the residential level, the City should enforce building code
requirements for foundation elevation and ensure that proper drainage around
houses and multi-family projects is achieved. At the neighborhood level it should
prepare acity-wide drainage plan that is coordinated with the drainage patterns of
the entire city and its surrounding areas. Regional detention facilities should also
be considered in the planning. It seems unreasonable to require developers, whom
lack the expertise, to install onsite detention facilities when more economy and
greater community benefits could be achieved with larger, regional facilities.
At the operational level, drainage impacts of future developments should be
weighed against the overall plan before approval to build is given anywhere in the
city or its jurisdictions. This should be a policy reinforced with support by the City
Council.
Potential Time Frame: College Station should ensure that its drainage plans
coincide with those of Texas A&M, Bryan and Brazos County. This needs to begin
immediately.
4. The City should provide maintenance of easements, alleys, rights-of--ways etc.
and bill easement users whenever appropriate. Where City departments
need budget support to implement such a strategy, this should be provided.
Discussion: The City has a checkered history of requiring construction of
easements, alleys and rights-of--ways with uncertainty as to who was to maintain
them once provided. The result is that dangerous and unsightly conditions exist in
paving, parking, garbage collection areas, drainage ways and so on.
F[NAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
5
Recommendation: A subcommittee of the current Community Enhancement
Program Steering Committee, with the assistance of the Director of Public Works,
should look into the extent of the problem, which can be broken into two parts:
existing problems, and policies for future development.
Potential Time Frame: Formation of the subcommittee should be accomplished
immediately. Working with the assistance of the Director of Public Works and the
Planning Department, this committee should produce community-based, consensus
type recommendations within 6 months.
5. Require a minimum of 4 improved off-street parking spaces at all single-
family residences. Keep changes to parking requirements adopted in July,
1995 for multi-family residences.
Discussion: This is an instance where the best practices of home builders in the
community were recognized and implemented in the regulatory process. In recent
years, multi-family home builders, such as apartment, duplex and quadrapiex
builders, responded to market pressures and provided more parking at their units
than required by the parking standards then in force. Adoption by the City Council
of the off-street parking standards in July, 1995 should go a long way towards
improving off-street parking problems in multi-family developments.
The concern that remains is what to do in single-family developments where only
one or two parking spaces are provided off-street. After much discussion, it is the
consensus of the Parking and Residential Subcommittees of the Steering
Committee that each single-family residence constructed in College Station should
provide a minimum of 4off-street parking spaces. Many single-family houses
eventually become rental properties for residents with more than 2 vehicles, and so
more space needs to be provided for off-street parking. In future developments
this will relieve some of the parking pressure on streets observed in many of the
current single-family neighborhoods in the city. In existing developments,
incentives should be provided for owners to upgrade their parking space according
to the new standard requirement.
Recommendation: Change the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance to require 4off-street parking spaces at all new single-family homes. A
committee should study the exact specifications of the design and details of the 4
off-street parking spaces and bring a recommendation to the City Council for
adoption within 3 months. The committee should also consider incentives to
encourage existing property owners to upgrade their parking to the new standard
where it does not already exist (e.g. offer aone-time tax abatement equal to the
contract cost to do same).
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
6
Potential 'Time Frame: This project should be undertaken immediately. Again, the
best practices of many home builders and investors are to voluntarily provide 4 or
more parking spaces in response to market pressures. A minimum standard is
required, however, to ensure that all builders provide at least the minimum of 4
off-street parking spaces.
6. Upgrade, clarify and enforce through periodic inspection landscaping
ordinances regarding the maintenance, location, and types of plants and
other landscaping features to be used for buffer zones between commercial
and residential properties; at right-of--ways and easements; and between
multi-family and single-family residential properties, etc.
Discussion: The relationship between dissimilar land uses, such as between
commercial and residential developments, or multi-family residential and single-
family residential developments, is a particularly troublesome one for College
Station. Many fear adverse impacts on quality of life and property values. Public
sentiment against the negative conditions sometimes seen with these arrangements
is making it increasingly more difficult, for example, to locate commercial or multi-
family projects near single-family neighborhoods. Appropriateness of what is used
for screening and, if plants are used, what is planted and where it is planted, are
also concerns of residents.
Recommendation: A subcommittee of the current Community Enhancement
Program Steering Committee, working with the Planning Department, should
identify appropriate techniques for buffering dissimilar land uses to make the
incompatibilities less of a problem than residents perceive.
Potential Time Frame: The subcommittee should begin work immediately and
bring community based, consensus type recommendations to the City Council
within 6 months.
7. Establish minimum standards for screening including fence design,
construction, and maintenance based on street type.
Discussion: The city is replete with numerous examples offence construction.
Designs vary widely, sometimes on the same street, in such ways that they are
visually incompatible and distract from the overall harmony of the visual aesthetics
of neighborhoods. Construction materials also vary widely, often with disregard to
the shifting clay soils of College Station. Another problem is that there are no
consistent standards for screening stored items from public view in rear or side
yards. Mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, and other unsightly types of
equipment are also often visible from public view. Houses at the end of blocks
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
often expose stored items, debris and garbage in their back yards to public view,
creating unsightly conditions.
Recommendation: A committee working with the Planning Department and the
Public Works Department should investigate ways to regulate fence construction
and screening requirements. It is acknowledged that the current screening
ordinance may address many of these issues, but little information seems to be
available to builders and home buyers about the best practices for fence
construction in our area, hence, a guide or technical bulletin made available
through the Building Inspections Department would be helpful. Including this in
the education component of the recommendations is essential.
Potential Time Frame: The committee should bring recommendations to the City
Council within 6 months.
8. Improve on the efficiency and effectiveness of public services delivery.
Discussion: Some of these issues are already being addressed by the City. The
Public Works Department might adjust its garbage collection schedule just as
Bryan did during the course of this project, whereby residential garbage is
collected Monday-Thursday only, and Friday is used for non-residential and catch-
up services, including ticketing violators. The Steering Committee thought that
one of the problems is with garbage containers remaining curbside for long periods
of time. This is due to the fact that some residents who have Friday pickups leave
their containers curbside for collection on Thursday evening, go out of town on
Friday for the weekend, and not return their containers until Sunday. The City of
Bryan, which changed its policy during the course of the Community Enhancement
Program project, reports that using Fridays for non-residential service made a
significant improvement on appearance of streets there.
The department should also evaluate all streets, especially problem areas, for fire,
police and zoning requirements and use "no parking" and other controls to comply
with standards. The public safety departments of the city are not aware of all the
areas of town where persistent, on-street parking has posed safety hazards or
blockages to provision of emergency services so public input will be necessary to
identify the most troublesome areas. These areas need to be identified and proper
steps taken to use signage or other devices to limit parking in these areas so
emergency vehicles can pass through.
Recommendation: The Fire Department and the Police Department should identify
the problem areas they are aware of and, working with the Public Works
Department, the Planning Department, the U. S. Postal Department, and input from
the public, should develop a safety or parking control program in the problem
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
8
areas to assure emergency egress. A public education program related to this
recommendation should be part of Recommendation " 1 "above. The public
education program must periodically inform the public about codes, standards,
regulations and other city policies.
Potential Time Frame: This activity should be undertaken immediately and
recommendations made within 2 months. Placement of signage and marking of
curbs etc. could begin as soon as funds are allocated by the City Council for the
project. Changes that could be done immediately should be done.
9. Create a permanent group to advise the City Council on community
enhancement issues.
Discussion: The Community Enhancement Program has identified a number of
issues that have long time horizons requiring more detailed follow-up and
evaluation after implementation. Similarly, there has been some overlap with other
committees' charges, such as with the Community Appearance Committee.
Further, it seems beneficial for the City Council to have at its disposal for
preliminary review and comment a committee representing all constituencies of the
community, one that could provide insights into upcoming issues of a regulatory or
political nature. The individuals making up the committee should represent the
broadest possible interests of the community to ensure that all voices are heard on
issues during their early stages of conception. One suggestion, for example, might
be to merge the Community Enhancement Program Steering Committee and the
Community Appearance Committee, into one committee with close ties to the City
Council to provide input on a regular basis. There may be other options too, and
these need to be explored.
Recommendation: The Policy Implementation Subcommittee of the Community
Enhancement Program's Steering Committee should review the charges of all of
the current committees, standing committees, and task forces to see where
overlaps in duties occur, then write the description of a single committee to
address community enhancement issues. The committee should be a permanent
committee, made up of members who would rotate on and off the committee on a
periodic basis. The committee should see that all the recommendations contained
in this report are implemented.
Potential Time Frame: Recommendations for this action should be brought to the
City Council by the end of 1996.
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMIvtENDATIONS
CON(IVIUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
9
l0. Evaluate the public's concerns about processing development and code
enforcement related questions at City Hall.
Discussion: The resident survey, conducted during the past year, found that
homeowners were very satisfied with services provided by the Fire and Police
Departments. Dissatisfaction with City services, especially in getting questions
answered by City Staff; seemed to center around building code and zoning
enforcement, permitting, zoning changes and other building-related problems
encountered when private citizens and businesses try to interface with City
departments. These were common complaints of many citizens and businesses in
the community. High staff turnover, for example in the Building Inspections
Department, and what many thought to be insufficient staff support in the Zoning
Enforcement Department, may have something to do with this perception of
reality.
It must be acknowledged too, that it may be impossible to satisfactorily address all
negative public perceptions about public services. However, the situation points to
the important need for educating the public and for providing them accessibility
and information. This again underscores the importance of Recommendation # 1
above.
Recommendation: The City Manager's office is the most appropriate agency to
study these concerns and find ways to address those that need attention.
Potential Time Frame: This issue is of sufficient sensitivity that it should not be
rushed. It might take 6 - 12 months to conduct the investigations and make
necessary internal changes.
11. Encourage the creation of a coordinating mechanism for public service
delivery between College Station, Bryan, Texas A&M University, the Brazos
Valley Development Council, the Texas Department of Transportation, the
Postmaster, and similar regional and local entities.
Discussion: Many agencies are responsible for delivering services of one kind or
another to the community. Sometimes these agencies take actions that adversely
affect the efforts of other agencies. While there have been attempts to coordinate
between the agencies, conflicts still arise with enough frequency to demand
improvement in the flow of information. One example of the conflicting goals was
when the Postmaster recently began installing rural mail boxes at multi-family
housing projects, in the public-right-of--way, and in locations that often conflicted
with garbage pickup at the same properties. An obvious question would be who
should have taken the lead in deciding how such conflicts could be avoided?
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
10
Recommendation: A subcommittee of the Steering Committee for the Community
Enhancement Program should be charged with identifying all of the agencies that
could benefit from better information exchange and the proper vehicles for
accomplishing this objective.
Potential Time Frame: This subcommittee should be given 6 months to review the
problems, to identify potential solutions, and to present them to the City Council.
12. Promote the organization of homeowner's associations and neighborhood
associations in College Station and provide city staff support for
coordination.
Discussion: There seems to be much community support for creation of an active
network of homeowner's associations and neighborhood associations in College
Station. Homeowners associations are already required by ordinance for new
developments, but creation of neighborhood associations in existing
neighborhoods could go a long way towards supporting a kind of "self policing"
function of the neighborhoods. In some nearby communities such as Waco, Texas,
creation of a network of neighborhood associations has been very effective in
reducing crime, improving the appearance of neighborhoods, and fostering much
better communication between the citizens and city staff and elected officials.
The current City Manager has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork for
creation of an active network of neighborhood associations. Further development
of this program should be supported in every way possible. The dividends to our
community could be tremendous if people will get involved locally. Support of
their elected officials would go a long way towards achieving this goal.
Recommendation: The City Council should continue to support efforts to create
an active network of citizen based neighborhood and homeowner associations and
provide adequate resources for city staff to facilitate information exchange about
meetings, decisions, questions, issues and etc.
Potential Time Frame: Immediately provide the support, and as needs for
assistance and coordination increase, provide the additional staff support and
resources necessary.
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
9/20/96
APPENDIX A
(Preliminary Recommendations Given to
the City Council March 21, 1996)
w M v N
March 21, 1996
~- L
6 ~ ,.. , 'P
lx m TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
a ~ y Department of Construction Science
Y
1876
Members, College Station City Council
c/o George K. Noe
City Manager
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Preliminary Recommendations for Community Enhancement Program for College Station
Dear Council Members:
Attached are the preliminary recommendations which are being submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Community Enhancement Program for College Station.
These recommendations are the result of an extensive consensus building process involving the
Steering Committee with input from people and business interests in the community. We believe
these are sound recommendations that will have a lasting, positive impact on College Station's real
estate values. What we need from you at this time is an indication that we are adequately
addressing your expectations of this project.
Sincerely,
W
Charles W. Graham, Ph.D., AIA
Project Coordinator
xc: Dr. Larry Grosse, Head, Texas A&M University Department of Construction Science
Todd McDaniel, Department of Development Services, City of College Station
Jim Callaway, Department of Development Services, City of College Station
Lori Wilkensen, TAMU Research Foundation Grant Coordinator
Community Enhancement Program Steering Committee
Attachments: Executive Summary of Preliminary Recommendations
Attachments
,~~p_
~~'~ 4?2 I oncaford (3uildmg n .College Station, Texas 77843 ~~ 137 • (409) 84`~-101 7; r/~X <409) 867 157?
Community Enhancement Program for College Station
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
March 27, 1996
The following preliminary recommendations for community enhancement are the result of over 18
months of intensive study. The problems and the solutions defined herein came from the citizens of
College Station and other communities like it. A steering committee composed of approximately 30
individuals representing private and business interests in College Station have developed a strategic
plan of action for adoption by the City Council. Research services were provided by Dr. Charles
Graham, AIA, and graduate students T.H. Kwa, Bruce Bateman, and Sanghoon Han from the
College of Architecture at Texas A&M University. Support was also provided by City Staff in the
Department of Development Services, the Fire Marshall's Off ce, the Police Department, the Public
Works Department, and other departments of the City of College Station. Meetings were held from
the fall of 1994 through the fall of 1995 with 11 community organizations or groups in College
Station to gain insights into the issues of concern to residents and business people that might affect
real estate values. Approximately 88 concerns were identified during the meetings with these
community groups.
Once a preliminary list of concerns and potential solutions was developed, the Steering Committee
divided itself into seven subcommittees to address categories of topics represented on the list. These
included: parking, student housing, residents, real estate values, cost of city services, demonstration
project, and policy implementation concerns. The Steering Committee and the subcommittees met
over 50 times to address the issues identified from the community meetings. At least five focus
group meetings were held in addition to the Steering Committee/subcommttees meetings. The
purpose of the focus group meetings was to address such subjects as parking, city and
neighhborhood gateways, and tack-on construction (additions).
In the summer and fall of 1995, surveys of 27 university towns, 34 local real estate professionals,
1,020 students at Texas A&M University, and 1,500 College Station homeowners were conducted to
gather more factual information about public perceptions of problems and solutions related to
community enhancement. Literature reviews of U.S. Census Data and on the subject of
homeowners and neighborhood associations provided further information for the Steering
Committee and its subcommittees to use in addressing problems and opportunities. Studies into real
estate values and their association with home ownership and rental tenancies, into costs of city
services, and involving demonstration of many of the concepts developed to date are still underway.
A meeting with the City Council on January 18, 1996, outlined the preliminary findings of the above
activities. Following this meeting, atwo-stage Delphi process involving the entire Steering
Committee was conducted to synthesize the list of 67 recommendations that remained at that point in
the process to a more focused group. A workshop was conducted on Friday, February 23, to refine
the list further. The 12 key recommendations now being presented to the Council are the result of
that workshop. These recommendations respond to community-based concerns and include solutions
deemed necessary to enhance College Station's property values and reduce costs of city services now
and in the future. [t must be emphasized that these recommendations are part of a process that must
be continued through further refinement, implementation, and evaluation over the next several years.
College Station.: ConlmunYty EnhanCenlent Program ~ 20 March 96
Steering Committee Preli minary Recommendations *[in order of Delphi Importance Score
Ranking where l =Low and 5 =High]
Building Inspection, ~ Elevate the status of the building standards, nuisance problems, and code
Code Management ~•J enforcement program.
and Enforcement - hire a highly competent professional possibly with architectural and/or
*[a.a31 engineering background to head building inspections and code enforcement
department with the goal of changing the image of the department
from being regulatory to being supportive of quality development and building
practices.
- consistently enforce existing codes and regulations.
- staff enough people to enforce codes, eg. fines, towing, etc.
- allow community enhancement advisory committee to advise on development
of standards.
- prevention and education.
- give authority to make design decisions beyond the minimum building
standards.
Drainage ~ Prepare a comprehensive drainage plan for College Station, Bryan and
[4.63] surrounding areas.
- Compare effects of future development against overall plan before approval
given.
Easements (3 ~ City should provide maintenance of easements, alleys, right-of-ways, and bill
[4.40] ~J easement users whenever appropriate.
Parking ~ Require a minimum of 4 improved off street parking spaces at all single-family
[4.33] residences. Keep changes to parking requirements adopted in July, 1995 for
multi-family residences.
Landscaping ~ Upgrade and clarify landscaping and maintenance ordinances including
[a.3o] buffers between commercial residential, right-of-ways ,easements,
multi-family residentiaUsingle-family residential, etc.
Fence Construction ~ Establish minimum standards for fence construction based on street type.
[4.13]
-Provide incentives to use screening with landscape materials and other
appropriate options. Require screening of mechanical equipment and
commercial garbage containers visible from public streets.
Public Service Delivery ~ A) Collect residential garbage Monday-Thursday only and use Friday
[4.03] for non-residential and catch-up services.
B) Evaluate all streets, especially problem areas, for fire, police and zoning
requirements and use "no parking" and other controls to comply with
standards.
C) Develop a public education campaign to periodically inform the public
about codes, standards, regulations, and other city policies.
.
Commumty Enhancement -
g Create a permanent advisory group to advise City Council on community
Advisory Group enhancement issues.
[4.00]
Building Standards (9 ~ Initiate a process to review all building standards for this area so community
[3.97] ~J enhancement objectives can be met. Standards could be improved by
incorporating long-term total cost analysis and aesthetics affecting property
values in review of at least the following
- Foundations -Expansion joints in masonry walls
- Drainage on lots -Tack-on structures (additions)
- Overhangs -Acoustic requirements at party walls
- Exterior stairs -Soils tests data
Customer Service i 10 Evaluate the perception that citizens have difficulty getting development
[3.96] and code enforcement related questions answered at City Hall.
Interagency Coordination [ 11 Encourage the development of a coordinating mechanism between College
[3.67] Station, Bryan, Texas A&M, Brazos Valley Development Council, Texas
Department of Transportation, etc.
Homeowners' and 12 Promote the organization of homeowners' associations and neighborhood
Neighborhood Associations associations in College Station and provide city staff support for
[3.00] coordination.
ATTACHMENTS
P~iO~L'L'IVl ~TA`~~NC~NTS'' '' is Marss
DESTABILIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROPERTY VALUES
• 78% OF HOUSING STOCK IS RENTAL • 25% STUDENTS PERCEIVED A PROBLEM OF
• 68% STUDENT TURNOVER RATE INADEQUATE PARKING
• 2.27 VEHICLES/HOUSEHOLD AND GROWING • ENCROACHMENT OF RENTAL PROPERTIES
• 40% OF STUDENTS DO NOT RETURN INTO SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS
TRASH CONTAINER FROM CURB AFTER • LONG-TERM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS
PICKUP CONSIDER TRAFFIC AS #1 PROBLEM
A SIGNIFICANT PERCEPTION OF WEAK COORDINATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL CITY PLANNING
• FIRST-HAND FEEDBACKS FROM THE 11 • FROM RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY
COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT CITY LACKS : THE 47% OF RESPONDENTS' 3 MOST
MANPOWER TO ENFORCE ORDINANCES, FRUSTRATING PROBLEMS LIVING IN COLLEGE
RESOURCES TO DO LONG RANGE PLANNING, STATION ARE RELATED TO CITY PLANNING
EFFICIENT COORDINATION BETWEEN ISSUES (IN ORDER OF MOST FRUSTRATING
CITY DEPARTMENTS, PROPER REVIEW AND 1.TRAFFIC-RELATED (29%)
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT 2. HIGH TAXES (6%)
PROJECTS, PUBLIC INPUT AND PROPER COSTS/ 3. UNHAPPY WITH CITY OFFICIALS (6%)
BENEFITS STUDY PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF 4. STREET CONDITIONS (4%)
PUBLIC POLICIES. PUBLIC PERCEIVED AND 5. DRAINAGE (2%)
BLAMED CITY FOR FAILURE OF WOLF PEN
CREEK PROJECT.
A STRONG PERCEIVED ONGOING NEED FOR CITY-PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
• IN THE FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS WITH THE • 40% OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE TRASH
VARIOUS COMMUNITY GROUPS, THERE CONTAINERS NEED TO BE EDUCATED OR
WERE CALLS FOR : REMINDED OF THE LAW;
1. PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE EDUCATED; • VERY STRONG STEERING COMMITTEE
2. PUBLIC SERVICE POLICIES SHOULD BE MADE CONSENSUS FOR THIS NEED;
WITH PUBLIC INPUTS; • CITIZENS' PERCEPTION OF SOME CITY
3. BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMICS/COST AND COORDINATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL PLANNING
AND QUALITY; WEAKNESSES.
4. CITIZENS' REQUEST FOR COST/BENEFITS
INVESTIGATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION
OF POLICIES;
INCREASING PUBLIC CONCERN FOR PARKING SPACE PROBLEM
• 25% OF THE RESPONDENTS IN STUDENT • 12% OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RESIDENT
HOUSING SURVEY ENCOUNTERED HOUSING SURVEY ENCOUNTERED INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING PROBLEM. OFF STREET PARKING PROBLEM.
(HIGHEST IN DUPLEX, 32%) • 12% OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RESIDENT
• MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY GROUPS • 2.27 VEHICLES/HOUSEHOLD AND GROWING
POINT TO PARKING AS A MAJOR PROBLEM.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE AND EASEMENT PROBLEM
• FROM THE RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY, 47% OF • BELOW ARE % OF RESPONDENTS IN THE
RESPONDENTS' 3 MOST FRUSTRATING VARIOUS SUBDIVISIONS REPORTING DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS LIVING IN COLLEGE STATION PROBLEMS ;
ARE RELATED TO CITY PLANNING ISSUES (IN CARTER'S GROVE (26%)
ORDER OF MOST FRUSTRATING) : COLLEGE HILLS (34%)
TRAFFIC-RELATED, STREET CONDITIONS, PEBBLE CREEK (26%)
DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. RAINTREE (29%)
• FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY GROUPS, ESP. SOUTHWOOD (23%)
THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS THAT SOUTHWOOD VALLEY (26%)
TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND NOISE IS A SERIOUS
PROBLEM AND THAT DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
ARE ALSO SEVERE AND IN SOME CASES PRESENT
SAFTEY PROBLEMS.
THERE IS AN UNDERLYING NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF :BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND 1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC APPEAL
• 16% OF RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY
RESPONDENTS REPORTED ABNORMAL
FOUNDATION PROBLEM.
• 32% OF RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY
RESPONDENTS REPORTED ABNORMAL
INTERIOR WALLS PROBLEMS.
• AMONG THE 17 ITEMS OF PUBLIC SERVICES
PROVIDED BY THE CITY: SIDEWALKS, STREET
PAVEMENT, TRAFFIC FLOW AND CONTROL,
AND STREET LANDSCAPING WERE RATED THE
LOWEST WITH SCORES ABOUT AVERAGE,
IN THE RESIDENT HOUSING SURVEY.
• THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT IN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY GROUPS
AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT
FENCE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS NEED TO
IMPROVED.
• THE SURVEY OF 34 REAL ESTATE
PROFESSIONALS REPORTED THAT THE
APPEARANCE AND CONDITION OF THE
PROPERTIES, AND LANDSCAPE WERE
MENTIONED, AMONG OTHER FACTORS,
WERE CONSIDERED AS IMPORTANT
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO REAL ESTATE
VALUES.
[COMMUNITY' ICNHANCEMENT PROGRAM STRATEGY PLAN ,,~ 20 March 1996
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ Elevate the status of the building standards, nuisance problems, and code
Building Inspection, enforcement program.
Code Management ~ Enforce existing codes and ordinances.
and Enforcement (~ Make perpetrators responsible for noiselparking violations.
Require on street parking restrictions in selected areas.
- _ - - - - _ - - - _ Enforce building codes for acoustic standards in multi-family protects.
---- ------ ----- --- -- --- ---- --- ------- -- --- --- ---
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Hire a highly competent professional possibly with architectural and/or engineering
STRATEGY background to head building inspections and code enforcement department
with the goal of changing the image of department from being regulatory to
being supportive of quality development and building practices.
~ Consistently enforce existing codes and regulations consistently.
~ Staff enough people to enforce codes, eg. fines, towing, etc.
~ Allow community enhancement advisory committee to advise on development
of standards.
~ Prevention and education.
~ Give authority to make design decisions beyond the minimum building standards.
~ Hire more code enforcement officers.
O Develop a system where names of informants against code violators will be kept secret.
~ City should periodically publish articles about codes and enforcement.
O Create neighborhood associations as partners with city in enforcement.
O Cross-train city workers to identify and report code violators to responsible departments for
action.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Cost of professional and other code enforcement officers can be resolved through
citations, fines and fees.
~ Community more involved and informed about codes and the necessity for enforcement
and will police itself.
~ Stabilization of neighborhood and property values.
RECOMMENDATIONS ^2 Prepare a comprehensive drainage plan for College Sfation, Bryan and
Drains a surrounding areas.
- Compare effects of future development against overall plan before approval given.
-------- - ---- _~-Improve-drainage at new construction--------------------------------------------------
IMPLEMENTATION ~ If plans not already available, start production.
STRATEGY O Set official dates for regular updates of plans.
Q -Enforce drainage-requirements of building codes around residential construction projects. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Cost of in-house or outside consultants to produce plans that are not available.
~ With less drainage problems, citizens' safety and welt-being will be enhanced.
~ Fewer drainage problems now and in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ City should provide maintenance of easements, alleys, right-of--ways and bill
Easements easement users whenever appropriate.
City should maintain all easement (except those privately owned) with a specific line Item budget
-----------------
---- for maintenance.
-------------------
---------------
-
IMPLEMENTATION
~ -
-
--------------------------------------
Line item in budget should reflect commitment to get recommendations for drainage easement
STRATEGY maintenance done.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Allocate cost for line-item easement maintenance.
~ Enhance city and neighborhood appeals and thereby protect and enhance property values, protect
public health and safety.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~~ Require a minimum of 4 improved off street parking spaces at all single-family
Parkin residences. Keep changes to parking requirements adopted in July, 1995 for
multi-family residences.
Single-family existing development :actively use of parking signs to control on-street parking
allowing for safe flow of traffic and emergency access.
IJ Duplex existing development :monitor streets use and use no parking signs to control on street
parking problem.
i'J Duplex future development :1.25 unit of parking space for BR<132 sq.ft., 1.25 per BR>132 sq.ft. on
28R and 1.0 per BR on 3 or more.
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Immediate implementation should be possible with active use of no parking signs for existing
STRATEGY duplex and existing single-family developments.
~ For future duplex and single-family development, existing policies need to be revised to new
requirements.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Cost of additional signs that might be needed.
~ Cost of additional parking spaces in new developments.
~ Duplex and single-family neighborhoods look less like a huge parking lot.
~ Enhance accessibility for emergencies and increase neighborhood traffic safety.
RECOMMENDATIONS (~ Upgrade and clarify landscaping and maintenance ordinances including buffers
Landscapin between commerciaUresidential, right-of-ways, easements, multi-family residentiaU
single-family residential, etc.
- - - - - - - - Enhance city and neighborhood aesthetic appeals through private and public means.
IMPLEMENTATION O Initiate landscape and its maintenance codes for aesthetics and bufferings of mixed land uses.
STRATEGY - --- - ------- ---------- ----------------•
--
COSTS /BENEFITS --• ---- --
~ Enhance city and neighborhood appeals and thereby protect and enhance property values.
RECOMMENDATIONS ~ Establish minimum standards for fence construction based on street type.
Fence Construction -Provide incentives to use screening with landscape materials and other appropriate
options. Require screening of mechanical equipment and commercial garbage
containers visible from public streets.
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Initiate codes to screen all mechanical and electrical equipment on private property from public
STRATEGY view.
~ Initiate minimum design and construction standards for fence construction :finished side should
always face the public view ;tor screening; with a gate at the rear of all yards abutting easements;
easements; required if rear yards visible to the public; construction standards should account for
expansive soils.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Enhance city and neighborhood appeals and thereby protect and enhance property values.
RECOMMENDATIONS ^i A) Collect residential garbage Monday-thursday only and use Friday for non-residential
Public Service and catch-up services.
Delivery B) Evaluate all streets, especially problem areas, for fire, police and zoning
requirements and use "no parking" and other controls to comply with standards.
C) Develop a public education campaign to periodically inform the public about
codes, standards, regulations, and other city policies.
Present an ongoing program that educates, bonds, and builds neighborhood pride and presents
a motto that everyone can identify with.
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Use catchy educational flyers and mailings along with utility bills. Use local weekly Eagle's column
STRATEGY and local CNN and other public media. Use a logo/motto along with such community educational
activity to promote identity and pride.
~ Develop a system where names of informants against code violators will be kept secret
City should periodically publish articles about codes enforcement
City workers should be cross-trained to identify and report code violators to responsible
departments for action.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Enhance accessibility for emergency and Increase neighborhood traffic safety.
~ Enhance the effectiveness of code enforcement
~ Enhance the communication linkage between the city and public.
~ Promote and enhance community pride.
RECOMMENDATIONS s^ Create a permanent advisory group to advise City Council on community enhancement
ommumty n ancement Issues.
Advisory Group
IMPLEMENTATION ~ City to initiate the formation of permanent community enhancement advisory group
STRATEGY and to empower and recognize citizens involved publicly. Consider folding the Community
Appearance Committee into this group which will have expanded duties and responsibilities.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Promote and strengthen public-city communication and relationship.
RECOMMENDATIONS (~ Initiate a process to review all building standards for this area so community
Building Standards ~ enhancement objectives can be met. Standards could be improved by
incorporating long-term total cost analysis and aesthetics affecting property
values in review of at least the following
- Foundations -Expansion joints in masonry walls
- Drainage on lots -Tack-on structures (additions)
- Overhangs -Acoustic requirements at party walls
- Exterior stairs -Soils tests data
IMPLEMENTATION ~ The building/code enforcement department should initiate a process to review
STRATEGY all building standards with long-term cost analysis and aesthetics affecting
property values.
~ Allow community enhancement advisory committee to advise development of standards.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Cost of upgrading or maintaining minimum standards.
Increased cost of regulations will be recovered and exceeded by better quality of life (short-term
and long-term) and by lower maintenance cost over the long haul and by better return in property
investments.
RECOMMENDATIONS 10 Evaluate the perception that citizens have difficulty getting development and code
Customer Service enforcement related questions answered at City Hall.
^ Establish or Improve regular check-and-balance review mechanism(s) for comprehensive plan,
granting of variances, upgrading of minimum standards for building inspections and development
codes, and efficiency and effectiveness of codes and ordinances, and for internal coordination in
city.
IMPLEMENTATION ~ Create an ombudsman planner position responsible for coordinating conformance-to-standard
STRATEGY issues and who also will be a-project /liaison planner with the public and citizens advisory group. -
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Finance ombudsman planner or reorganize other planners' responsibilities.
~ Promote and strengthen public-city relationship and credibility as well as interagency coordination.
RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Encourage the development of a coordinating mechanism between College
Interagency Station, Bryan, Texas A&M, Brazos Valley Development Council, Texas
Coordination Department of Transportation, etc.
IMPLEMENTATION O Create an ombudsman planner position who will be responsible for conformance-to-standard
STRATEGY issues and who also will be a project /liaison planner with the citizens advisory group and
other agencies at City Hall.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Finance new position of ombudsman planner or reorganize other planners' responsibilities.
~ Will promote and strengthen interagency coordination, reduce redundancies and inconsistencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS t2 Promote the organization of homeowners' associations and neighborhood associations
Homeowners' and in College Station and provide city staff support for coordination.
Neighborhood
Associations
---------------------
IMPLEMENTATION ~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
City ombudsman planner should hold monthly meeting with representatives from homeowners/
STRATEGY neighborhood associations and also use this linkage to encourage and create future
homeowners/neighborhood associations.
COSTS /BENEFITS ~ Enhance the communication linkage between the city and public.
Promote and enhance community pride.
College Station will be a nicer place to live in.
MISCELLANEOUS ^ City to install attractive gateways into the community along all major thoroughfares.
RECOMMENDATIONS ^ City should follow a consistent policy on location of sidewalks in rights-of-ways in subdivision.
Initiate restrictive ordinance for billboard signs.
Initiate ordinance for entrance signs at all subdivisions.
[~ Some kind of matching funds for private initiatives.
~ City staff should not grant variances.
[J City accounting to track cost down to consumers of city services.
j~ City should have and should conduct more comprehensive ,long-term planning for traffic, drainage,
landscaping, hike-and-bike paths, parkways, and other city-wide infrastructure requirements with
more regular updates.
~J City and county to adopt local sales tax instead of property tax.
Keys : ~~ Major recommendations found in the list of 12 Steering Committee Preliminary
Recommendations (italicized).
APPENDIX B
(List of Steering Committee Members)
COi4•~~i•~I1N'IT~' ENHANCEI~•1ENT PROGRAM FOR
COLLEGE STATION
List of Steering~Committee Members
Real Estate
Marsha Sanford -- 1021 University Dr. E. C.S., TX 77840 (846-2894, FAX 846-4652)
Dr. Wayne Etter -- Dept. of Finance, Texas A&M University, 77843-4218 (845-2000, FAX 845-0460)
Plamling and Zoning Commission
Winnie Garner -- 1st American Bank, P.O. Box 2680, C.S., TX 77841-9176 (260-4442, FAX 846-8697)
Engineering & Development
Mike McClure, P.E. -- 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 2100, Bryan, TX 77802 (776-6700, FAX 776-6699) (Civil)
David Mayo, P.E. -- Rt. 3, Box 413, C.S., TX 77845 or 2167 Post Oak Circle, C.S. 77845
(690-3378) (Civil)
Charles (Jack) Godwin, P.E. -- 2317 Franklin, Bryan, TX 77801 (822-0090, FAX 822-0769) (Structural)
Home Builders
Wallace Phillips -- 3109 Westchester Ave., C.S., TX 77845 (693-7830)
Randall Pitcock -- 1102 Bayou Woods, C.S., TX 77840 (764-7551)
Apartment Association
Rosemarie L. Selman -- 2402 Broadmoor, Building D2, Suite 102, Bryan, TX 77802
(776-5549, FAX 776-5862) (Executive Director)
Janet Hager Smith -- P.O. Box 2778 (Manager's Office, Enclave Associates), Bryan, TX 77803 (846-4574,
FAX 268-7796) (Past President)
Community Appearance Committee
Dr. John Nichols -- 1317 Angelina, C.S., TX 77840 (845-8491, FAX 845-6378) (Chairman)
Banking IndustrX
Ivan Olson -- First American Bank, I 1 l 1 Briarcrest Drive, Bryan, Texas 77802 (260-4300, FAX
846-1237)
Terry Rowan -- Norwest Bank, P.O. Drawer 913, Bryan, TX 77805-0913, (776-3220/work), (776-
3214/3230/FAX)
Homeowners Associations
Dr. Ray Martyn -- 120 Peterson, C.S., TX 77843-2132 (Raintree) (TAMU Plant Pathology 845-8269)
Dr. Sharon Colson, -- 1116 Neal Pickett, College Station, TX 77840 (696-6050, FAX 845-1643)
John Richards -- 1210 Munson Ave., C.S., TX 77840 (696-6095)
09/20/96
Texas A&M University Students
Vic Romero, Office of Student Life, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-1257 (845-1741,
FAX 862-1026)
Scott Hancock, President, Texas A&M University Off-Campus Aggies Student Association, Office of
Student Life, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-1257 (845-0688, FAX 862-1026)
Architects
Charlie Burris, AIA -- 511 University Drive E., Ste. 21 1, C.S., TX 77840 (260-2635, FAX 846-8224}
Property Mana egg ent
Becky Dube -- Apartments Plus, 1808 D, Brothers Bivd. C.S., TX 77845 (696-5487, FAX 693-0323)
Bill Boyett -- On-Line, 3706 E. 29th, Bryan, TX 77802 (268-8620, FAX 846-4423)
City of College Station
(All addresses P.O. Box 9960, C.S., TX 77842-0960 (764-3570, all FAX's 764-3496))
Jim Callaway -- Director of Economic and Development Services
Jane Kee-- City Planner
Mark Smith -- Public services
Bill Kennady -- Fire Marshall
Mason Newton -- Asst. Chief of Police
CitX of Bryan
Dr. John Blackburn, Director of Community Services Department, P.O. Bob 1000, Bryan, TX 77805 (361-
3643), (777-0211-mobile), (FAX 361-3895)
Texas A&M University
Dr. Charles W. Graham, AIA -- Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Science, College of
Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3137 (845-0216) (FAX 862-
1572)
T.H. Kwa -- Graduate Student, Dept. of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning (Land Development),
College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3137 (845-0216, FAX
862-1572)
Bruce Bateman -- Graduate Student, Dept. of Construction Science, College of Architecture, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77843-3137 (845-0216, FAX 862-1572)
Dr. Walter Wendler, AIA, Dean of College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77845-3137 (845-1221, FAX 845-4491).
09/20/96
0
?r ,`
P
o l ~~~~
,~.
BEGlN PROJECT -=~
.~
E.~. ~ENrz
O.F.CARROL -
~~~~~ ~\• ...... ....... ..j T.J.CROWCEY O~ ~' ~~ o~
C ~BRONN & CUNLpP ~ ~
E.E. rr P.s. rx~Nas ~GTO~ ~() S ~~~
,c o Q~P~
..: , ~~
G~~~
.: ;,~..
R1CHr OF WAY
:z"k.
JJlnrmum /8.bin (366 fN
Clear Zone Cl~r ?one
9.0 m l4.4 m median 9.0 m 3.0 m
~ 3.0 m f4T.2 ffl 12.°.S frl 19.8 lrl
r29.s fo
r9.Bfr1 r.2m r.2m 0.6m
1.2m 3.Om 1. LZm l,2m 7.2m 3.Om
0.6 m 1.2 m -
f2.0 frJ r23.6 fn fJ.9.fU r9.8 rrl r23 3.9 (rl ~ 13.9 1l1 f23.6 id r9.~4 frl 13.4 frl r2J.6 fll f2.0 fll
sNdr : sNdr Z !ones srldr sNdr 2 lwxs offsel
offset 2lones sNdr sNdr 2
I
-- ____ r&r I2d - ---_s.~ 6d aPi~cs
6:, 6a -- __ - -- ---- ------ _
FUTURE ~NfS ~ FUTURE /AN1~lM'fS fRONTAGE ROAO ~ -
FRONTAGE ROPD
lace agFfFAI/FII IluTll IIFFl1Fn Pr~7POSE0
a anonccn
l•
~F
~~®~D~~'~ AILII~~I~i(~~Y~'
FRONr~cE RoAOS sy END PROJECT
- - - - -FUTURE IIbrNGWES 6' ~~
---.----- PRElllIINARf R.O.W. U1IfTS ~\ ~ w
`~,~ ~' , wEU6oRx ~ r.J. cROW1EY
~. '•,, Rom .nr ~0~ ~E
. ~ ',
0 , . ~; .',
,.
~ ~~~ ~ T.J. CROXLEY ~ ;
r''
ARRINGTON ROAD
0
r
r
N
~ ..
r
w
0
ou
0
ou
;.
TE'~(AS DSPh.RTMEIVT 4F TRAidSPORTAT1O~1
E~~Yf;?1 ~fST9;CT
S~~~G~' ~'~ R9~'~iS~~~
CJ
z
z
0
0
~+ ro
J~~ ~®