HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 Venessa Garza 16,ikers ride the CS trails Page 1 of 2
APRIL AVISON
Eagle Staff Writer
Bicycle enthusiasts aim to get support for more lanes
Bikers ride the CS trails
Sunday afternoon at Lemontree Park, College Station Mayor Ben White (left) and City Councilman John Crompton start on a three-mile bike
ride with members of the community to promote bike riding in College Station .
Eagle photo/Gabriel Chmielewski
For information on Brazos Valley Cyclists, go to www .brazoscyclists .org. The group was created in the 1990s and sponsors events such as the
annual Bike to Work Day in April. This year's event is set for April 28 .
By APRIL AVISON
Eagle Staff Writer
There's not mu ch room for a dozen cyclists on Southwest Parkway -which is exactly why a group of residents decided to bike the busy
thoroughfare Sunday afternoon.
The Brazos Valley Cyclists invited e lected officials to join them on a three-mile ride to draw attention to the city's limited bike trail syste m and
encourage environmental awareness.
College Station Mayor Ben White, along with Councilmen John Crompton and James Massey , accepted the challenge , as did Phil Shackelford,
an aide to U.S . Rep . Chet Edwards, D-Wa co.
'ollege Station adopted a bikeway and pedestrian master plan in 2002 . At that time , city officials est im ated that more than 10 ,000 bicycle trips
,;ere made to the Texas A&M University campus each day from various points across the city.
The city has more than 25 miles of bikeways , according to its Web site , but the Brazos Valle y Cyclists say that's not enough .
Jonathan Coopersmith , a Texas A&M professor who helped organize Sunday's ride , said he wanted the council members to see for themselves
how difficult it is to cycle down a busy road in a narrow bike lane .
"Part of our focus is to remind elected officials that when we build roads, we need to build the bike infra structure at that time," he said .
The cyclists weren't making a formal plea for funding Sunday , but rather attempting to show how governmental assistance could improve
cond ition s for riders .
Planning bicycle-friendly thoroughfares is a goal of the City Council , but it's difficult to re construct existing roads , Mayor White said .
"People think , why not just go and paint white lines down the street?" he said . "It's not that simple . Logistically , you have to study an
intersection before you can do that. It requires engineering, and it costs money."
Councilman Massey recalled biking to sc hool almost every day when he was a stude nt at Texas A&M .
It used to be easier to get around the ci ty, but recent population growth has brought more vehicles, Crompton said .
College Station has abo ut 87,000 residents , a nd abo ut 45,000 students attend Te xa s A&M.
The cyclists rode for about an hour Sunday , starting at Lemontree Park and going down Southwest Parkway to Hondo Drive . They rode down
Harvey Mitchell Parkway "so everyone can appreciate the new improved intersection" at Welsh Avenue, Coopersmith said .
fhis route shows the wide range of biking conditions in College Station ," he said .
1ttp://www.theeagle.com/PrinterFriendly/Bikers-ride-the-CS-trails 4115 /2008
Bikers ride the CS trail s Page 2 of
Among the riders was Bill Garrett , who works as an information technology specialist at Texas A&M. He doesn't have a parking pass because
he always rides his bike --rain or shine .
"Whatever you pay for your rain pants , think about what it costs to fill up the tank of a monster truck ," he said . "In the long run , you save a lot c
mo ney ."
Bu t cyclists hav e to be ca reful in a co mmunity like Brya n-Co ll ege Station , where a sidewa lk occasionally ends and the paths aren't always
co nn ected , Garrett said .
"We try to stay off the main arteries ," he said . "You just can't go out on a Friday of a football game weekend . You have to find ways to cross th
street, and you don't get on Texas [Avenue] because it's a death trap ."
• April Avison's e-mail address is g_g ril.avi so n@theeag le.com.
htt p://www .th eeagle.com/PrinterFri endl y/Bikers-rid e-th e-CS -trail s 4115/2 00:
*The College Station Greenways Program and the Bike and Hike Task Force conducted a survey in May
to identify preferences for greenway corridors and trails. We had 315 respondents.
76 %
College
Station
Greenways Survey Results
2005
1. Where do you live? 2 . Which group best describes you?
17%
Bryan
6%
Outs ide City
Limits
2%
Other
Page 1
82 %
-
"O
Q) c
tl ~ ~~
Q) ·-c ()
2 %
c >-
<l) :t= E c
0. ::J o E
Qi E > 0 ~ ()
2 %
c
Q) >-E u c c
..... Q)
Q) Ol
1) <x:
c..9
11%
11
Q) ....,
Ol c
Q) Q)
-"O -::J 0....,
() (/)
3%
.....
Q)
..c
6
3 . W hat is your age?
48 %
30 %
10% 12%
19-24 Years 25-39 Years 40-54 Years Over 54 Years
5. Have you ever used a greenway trail?
90 %
10%
I I
Yes No
Page 2
4. How would you use a greenway corridor?
89 %
72 %
51 %
3% 7%
c c
Q) ~ Q) .....
0 (J) Q)
~ 0 ::::> ..c
~ (.) "'C 6 Q) c= 0
t; t::'. ·~ ~ c Q)
0 c Q) a. Q) Q) 32 0 o::'. (J) a. ..... x ::::> ::::> c 0 cu w cu ~ ..... z I-
6. What do you use the greenway trail system for?
72 %
16%
5% 7%
c c ..c 03 0 0 0 ~ £ ~ en "Qi
Q) t::'. z ..... 0
(.) a.
Q) (J)
o::'. c cu .....
I-
7 . What would you think about having a greenway trail
adjacent to your home?
70 %
20%
10%
0 % 0 %
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
QJ QJ ~ ..r:::. -c
QJ QJ 0 > ~ o~ 0 ~ -cu 0 :.::i _J I
9 . Which location is the second most important to be
able to bike or walk to from home?
22 %
0
0 .c
(.)
Cf)
27 %
17%
en c ·a. c.
0 .c
Cf)
8%
c
~ ::>
~
(/)
Q)
Cl:'.
19%
4%
.....
Q) .c
0
3 %
Page 3
8. Which location is the most important to be able to
bike or walk to from home?
3 7%
25% 25 %
0
0 ..r:::.
(_)
(j)
11 %
0
0 .c
(.)
Cf)
5% 3%
~ O> c ~ .....
QJ c .....
C1l ·o.. C1l 0 ..r:::. a... ..... ~ i5 c. ::i
C1l 0 ..r:::. t5
(j) QJ
0:::
10 . Which location is the third most important to be
able to bike or walk to from home?
14%
23 %
en c ·a. c.
0 .c
Cf)
22 %
17%
10%
.....
Q) .c
0
3%
...... QJ o~ c ·--.D
---·-QJ :s: ~ -:.c
3%
~ Q)
0-"' c ·-= ~ -~ ~ -:.c
11. Excluding cost, what is your preference for a trail
surface for hiking and biking?
21 % 18% 19% 18% 17%
n n D D n 6%
D
...... Cl> -0 Cl> ·a -0 ..... ..c
cu Q) Cl> (J) Cl> ~Cl> -0 ~ ..c ...... cu (/) ..... gen (.) (.) ..c Cl> -0 :::J a. (.) -cu >. ..c (3 0 ~ (J) c a. Cl> ~ 't: (.) :::J >. 0 --<{ 0 & er: () E c :::J :::J ~ s .9-0 0 cu (/) () i75 er: ..c z ()
13 . If you were buying a new home, how would you
consider close proximity to a greenway trail as a factor
in your home purchase?
64%
28%
Very Positive Pos itive Not a factor Negative
Page 4
12. Do you believe that connected trail systems add
value to your community?
97 %
3%
Yes No
14. How willing are you to pay more to live in a
community with a well-connected greenways trail
system?
46% 45%
6% 3%
Very Willing Willing Unwilling Very Unwilling
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bike and Hike Task Force Members
FROM: Ken Fogle, City of College Station Transportation Planner
DATE: March 31 , 2005
RE: Bic y cle Advisory Committee
When the City of College Station was designated as a Bicycle Friendly Community in
2003 by the League of American Bicyclists, a list of suggested improvements was
provided to the city (see attached). One of the items suggests that we should establish a
Bicycle Advisory Committee. This item has been one of the primary discussion points of
the Bicycle Subcommittee of the Bike and Hike Task Force.
The g eneral consensus among the subcommittee is that it would be b en eficial to
establish a Bicycle Advisory Committee and we would like to bring this item up for
discussion with the entire task force. If the task force agrees that a Bicycle Advisory
Committee would be beneficial for the City of College Station, we will include that
recommendation in our presentation to City Council.
I have outlined some of our ideas regarding responsibilities, meeting frequenc y, and
potential members below.
Responsibilities:
• review and guide the implementation of the bike and pedestrian master plan
• review capital projects involving a bicycle component
• provide feedback and ideas for the bicycle program
• provide policy guidance on bicycle issues
Meeting Frequency:
• quarterly or as needed
Potential Committee Members:
• Planning and Zoning Commission representative
• Brazos Greenways Council representative
• transportation engineering representative
• Texas A&M University representative
• College Station Police Department bicycle officer
• bicycle industry representative
• Brazos Valley Cyclists representative
Suggested improvements for College Station, TX
Based on our review of Co Hege Station 's Bicycle Friendly Community
application.. These are our suggestions for items to focus on next. ..
a Establish a Bicycle Advisory Committee
b . Encourage the Brazos Transit District to install bike racks on their buses
c . Explore additional opportunities for bicycle safety instruction, particularly
the Texas Supercyclist Project.
d . Add bike parking throughout the city in places where it is lacking as
indicated in the improvements planned for next year.
e . Continued implementation of the recently adopted bicycle master plan
f. Create a community bike ride, potentially as part of a Bike Month
celebration
Routine Operations
Department of Public Works
Greenways Program
FY 03 \Vork Plan
The primary role of the Greenway s program is to acquire greenways and open
space within the City of College Station. The greenways program manager coordinates
within the organization and with outside agencies to implement the Greenways Master
Plan.
Operational Areas
+ Initial contact with property owners and developers for property acquisition either
through dedication, fee simple purchase or purchase of development rights .
+ Once the appropriate real estate is identified : order title commitments, surveys and
appraisal of the property.
+ Negotiate purchase price with the property owner and present the information to the
public works director, city manager and city council as required .
+ Develop network contacts with outside agencies such as Texas A&M University,
College Station Independent School District, US Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of
Engi neers , Texas Department of Transportation, TCEQ and others as deemed
appropriate to accomplish the goals of the Greenways Master Plan.
+ Present Greenways concepts to internal and external customers .
Special Programs
+ Greenways Education programming
+ Public Information and referral
+ Funding applications, submissions and administrative follow up
+ Identify and prioritize greenways as transportation corridors (Plan update
information)
• Identify and map ecologically sensitive areas (Plan update information)
+ Develop specific projects for future funding
• Develop and coordinate projects with the Brazos Greenways Council
+ NPDES Phase II Storm Water Management Plan and Permit application
+ Identify areas as future mitigation projects
+ Bee Creek Combined drainage project property acquisition
+ Complete hydraulic analysis of Wolf Pen Creek (George Bush Drive to Texas
A venue) HDR Engineering, Inc . contract
Budget
• The City passed a $3 .64 million bond issue in 1998 for the acquisition of greenways
and open space .
• The City issued $500 ,000 in bonds in 1999, $500,000 in 2001 and $785 ,000 in 2002,
$1 ,855 ,000 remain to be issued .
• Negotiations pending for 2003
>:> City Center -Bee Creek, priority 2
>:> Swoboda -Bee Creek, priority 6
>:> Ritchey -Lick Creek, priority 1
>:> Thousand Oaks Development Joint Venture (Section 6 grant -Navasota ladies '
tresses) -Alum Creek, priority 4
~ Seaback-Spring Creek, priority 3
~ First Baptist Church (donation) -Burton Creek, not currently in plan
~ Academy Sports (donation)-Wolf Pen Creek, priority 5
>:> Additional initial contact letters will be sent out in early 2003 with a
concentration on the east bypass neighborhoods and perceived growth areas with
high priority rankings.
Miscellaneous
+ Anticipated Additional Key Activities for 2003
>:> GIS ecological mapping .
~ Continued negotiation for properties either through dedication or purchase .
>:> Completion of the UDO to include constraints on developments within the 100
year flood plain.
~ Development of Best Management Practices for storm water systems within the
greenway (Plan update information).
>:> Presentation of educational programs as detailed in the Greenways Education
Plan .
~ Application for additional trails funds through State and Federal funding sources .
~ Pursue funding for the bike loop extension through the east bypass
neighborhoods .
>:> Place Creek name signs on major thoroughfares .
Applicants First Name: Sh er ry
Applicants Last Name: Ell ison
Title: Presi dent
Organization: Brazos Greenways Council, Inc.
Address: fill in BGCs addr ess
City: College Station
State: Texas
Zip:
Telephone: fill in BGCs numbers
Fax:
Email : ell ison @txcyber .com
Applicant is a SOl(c) (3) non-profit organization
Fed. ID #: fill in BGCs tax-exempt number
Year Organization Founded: 1997
Annual Operating Budget: fill in BGCs budget .. Michele?
Have you previously applied for a grant through the American Greenways Program? No
If so what years: N/ A
Awarded Grant: N/A
Amount of funding requested: $1SOO (I suggest asking fo r more if you can)
Project Location: Bra zos Vall ey -Brazos, Bu rleson, Grimes, Leo n, Madison, Robertson , and Washington counties in
Texas (Carolyn, didn't one of these already have a trust?) (I suggest dropping Wa shington County as it is in the Legacy
Land Tru st se rvi ce area).
Describe your project: Brazos Greenways Council will sponsor th e activities necessary for the formation of a "Land
Comm ittee' leading to the formation of a Brazos Valley Land Trust - a multi-county land trust. This will include creating
edu cationa l materials, creat ing maps, and holding outreach presen tations in the counties . The proposed Brazos Val ley
La nd Trust would wo rk with landowners (both publ ic and priva te) in providing them with va ri ous options for conserving
th eir lan ds: co nserv at ion eas ements and other acquis ition transacti ons (including mitigation projects with public
agencies ), techn ical assi stance, plann ing support, and education about the various choices that are available to protect
and co nse rv e open spa ce in rural and urban areas of these 6 counties .
Organizatio n Description: (Explain why no suitable local nonprofit could perform the project) A large land
tru st with ac ti ve members from all counties of the Bra zos Valley is needed to hold conservation easements that are being
encouraged by cities in this area and that are being sought by area landholders. This trust cou ld also oversee mitigation
lan d as well. I believe this information needs to be in the above answer describing the projed. This question asks for a
description of the BGC, I believe.
Major projects undertaken and results over the last two years: Participation on the College Station Capital
Improvements Projects Citizens Advisory Board which recommended to the Coll ege Station City Council a bond issue for
the funding of development of trails and bike paths in city greenways. Act ive support of the bond package via a City
Coun cil presentation, lette rs to the editor, and a BGC newsletter article , as well as flye rs at a booth at Forward Fest. The
bond package was approved by the citizens. Creek Cleanups during the 2004 exas Trash in Bryan/College Station,
creek clean ups in 2003. Current production of a brochure (flyer?) "Trails in and around Bryan/Colleg e Station". Seniors'
Gree nways Walk in March 2004 at Wolf Pen Creek Park . Con se rvation Easement Workshop on February 7, 2004
How will grant money be used? Create maps of th is 6-cou nty re gion which would dep ict lands curre ntly conserved
(state parks, city and county parks, conservation easem ents, et c) in cluding eco logically important areas, showing
watersheds, lakes, creeks, riv ers, undeveloped land, connections, floodplains, existin g conservation easements, wildlife
manageme nt areas, etc . (Another map could dep ict where fragmentation is projected to occ ur) Prepare information
sheets fo r the area as well as information about land trusts . Hold at least two workshops - one in Calvert and one in
Madisonvil le or Anderson or other Brazos Valley town . ( Would a BGC newsletter on land trusts be something this grant
could legitimately
fund?)
How is the project innovative and how does it meet the criteria of the Grants Program? What is the
potential for the greenway proceeding to completion as a result of your work? This will be the first active
attempt to gain residents of other adjacent counties to join together and form a land trust. The first step will be the
formation of a "land committee". This 7 county area does not have a land trust to serve area landholders, developers,
and governments, and requests for such have been made. (mention the need for wildlife co rridors and other greenways
t hat co uld occur as a res ult of this regional approac h?)
Describe the involvement and support of other community groups, public officials, agencies, and other
interests, if any, with the project. The Land Trust CQUDQ has already helped in the preparation and talks at
the Brazos Greenways Council Conservation Workshop held February 7, 2004. The Calvert Chamber of Commerce had a
representative at that workshop. 1 eep Bfazos Beauti is an organizational member of the Brazos Greenways Council,
and we hope to get their participation in this effort. The Bra zos Valley Council of Gove rnments may support this effort.
The City of College Station has initiated and passed a Greenways Master Plan, hired a fulltime Greenwa s Pro ram
Mana er, and has passed $3.SM in bond funds to be used for the acquisition of greenways, as well as · it I
prm1em.ents Pro · funds for the building of ·(<, n ail through the City's Bikeway and Pedestrian Master
Plan. The City of College Station is working with the Brazos Greenways Counci l to lend expertise, contacts, and land tru st
skills. We plan to solicit &/or otherwise document support from the BVCOG, City of Bryan, etc. Someone needs to call
Robert Hicks. Texas Parks an d Wild life Department (in addition t o th e Texas Land T rust Council) will play a role through
its Te chnical Guidance Bio log ist and St ate Parks in th is region .
How did you learn about this greenway grants program? Ms. Kr istan Clann, the College Station Greenways
Program Manager, brought the Kodak Ameri ca n Gree nways Grant information to the attention
of BGC board mem bers.
Supporting materials:
Documentation of 501(C)(3) non-profit status and
two letters of support at least:
I will write Mayor Ron Silvia and ask for a letter from the City Council
in support of our effort.
I can also contact Laura Tankersley-Gl enn for such a letter.
Carolyn , if we ask you to help us on the project, may we also ask you to
write a letter of reco mmendation? Yes.
Grant recipients must provide a written and photographic report within one year documenting how the
grant money was used and with what results.( Any newspaper clippings too) Can this be done in one year?
We can write how the money was spent, minutes to the me etings that we hold in Calvert and elsewhere, pictures of
workshop meetings, any maps produced, any flyers produced, and a list of members of the Land Committe e and what it
is doing. Is this adequa te? -The answer is supposed to be yes or no.
Funding is available for greenway projects only! Please check the category that applies: Other -Land
Committee for formation of multi-county land trust. I believe we can check several categories (i.e. recreational trail,
wildlife corridor, ecological corridor, hiking trail. .. because we are seeking to connect those existing natural corridors
through the use of conservation easements).
What is the budget for this project? What additional money will be used? From what sources? Specify in
kind contributions, volunteer hours, services, donated equipment, etc. (Please send a one page copy of
your project budget along with the reference letters to the specified address as listed in part 7 of this
application.)
Michele e-mailed a list of possible expenses . Sherry S. and Kristan will check on ecological mapp ing and some other
expenses . Michele, how do you estimate the value of volunteer hours? Michele's suggested cost li st includes :
room renta l for meetings $150 per meeting (CS Conference Center cost) to equa l $600 (2 community wide meetings 2
fund raisers)
display and supplies for meetings $150
food /refres hments (donations by local grocers) $250
food for fundraisers (donated by local grocers) $200
meeting facilitator (Michele's time donated) $250
3 newslette rs covering land trust issues(stamps and printing) $522
3 newsletters sent to 100 additional peop le would be additional $174
map of area with details $
information sheets on 6 county area $
information sheets on land trusts $
name tags, pen s, notepaper $
con tact in formatio n sheets $
mail ed minutes of meeting to participants and others $
Does this give you enough to think about? Since the grant is due in June
1st, we really must pull this together now .
The following is my list of people who attended the BGC Land
Conservation Workshop on Feb. 7, 2004. Michele, can you correct this? We
need their contact information, so we can get their support on this and
their ide as.
Ron Kaiser TAMU Rec., Parks, Tourism Science
Val Silvy TAMU water policy issues
Rh onda Holly Environmental Science
Jenn ifer Nations BGC
Po -Hsin TAMU Rec., Parks, Tourism Science
Carolyn Voge l Texas Parks and Wildlife, Land Tru st Council
Wesley Newman Katy Prairi e
Robert Hicks Calvert Chamber of Commerce
John McEachran TAMU Wildlife Dept.
Lee Paulett(?) TAMU
Nacy Volkman Landscape Arch itecture and Urban Planning
Tim Bradle Lake Sommerville, Tx Parks and Wildlife
Chri stina Moon BGC
Wendy Windfield Leon County
Matt Wagner Tx Parks and Wil dlife
Michele Brown BGC
Sherry Ellison BGC
.. -~-----~--· Pat hw· ·ys ;;;j;J.B/&y
. 1· d" ·. • • 'C.oc;/,
WO U ·•. ·JO ID
Brya : CS
By JESSICA LENCHNER . officials . said. The Bi.:az.os
Eagle Staff Writer Gr eenwa ' Cuunctf:. a· non-
pro it organiz ation that
Bryan and College Station warits-To-establish and main-
are moving forward · with ta.lilal1etvv6rk ~_"Qf-.=-gree n ways,
plans for new hiking and bik-. def!rmS-th em as corridors of
ing trails, including a 15 -mile open space left iargely in a
path that would connect the na11ifa1 state. -····· ······
ITvo citjs!s. ·131;8.Zcis Greenways Coun cil
-rnanother project, :the · President Sherry Ellison sa id
Texas Parks and -:Wikllife the co uncrrnas·oeen acti ve
Department receRtfi;·'a~ed ~-..::Since--'1997;;·.·:when a group of
Bryan a $100 ,000 grant to build · reSl.Cfents ·not iced-that--r a pid
a l l /2-ml1~J riiil a.J..@g Turkey de velopment in th e a r ea was
'Creek ff om North Harvey elim inating s uch connections
iVffiCEell . 15 ~;·"10W est bet we en h om es, schools a nd
l. Villa Maria Road . AncfCOire ge busi ne sses.
SfanonFecentJ y hired a 0 rie w · Ellis on said it's ·important
' greenwajls progra~·~manager : ·-for -the · ci tie s to ha ve · green-
to oversee such projects , wa ys, al ong with safe trail s
Bryan Parks and Re cre-. and sidew alks .
ation Manager Da vid.Schmitz "In .some neighborho od s. you
if?aid the joint trail .with .Col-have to go six or seven blocks
lege Station is in the ·plaru1in g arow1d to get to a park th at's
stages. T~~ mllz. a_p_l_~c~-~~1 ay,'' she said .
bg_en funded but.~would run 15 Coil ege Station Ci ty Plan-
Tiii_l~~ ... ·:m:C.th~ .. ~ e.-~~:'s10£:of n er .L~ Kee said th e Brazos C<;J-rter's _gr~~_lsJ~·oiJ)J~l " Gr ee nway'S'Council was influ-
ih-filY.1i:n..rn.J,.1ck Cr~e_~k ential in getting a 1998 bond
in Co llfge Station . -· . is sue passed t hat set aside
"Wnen we made our master ab out $3 million to h el p the
plan , we found trails to be our city ···acquire green ways to
number one need in parks and conheC'fde ~lQPriie nfa : ··--·
re creation ," Schmitz said . · · "TheOcind issu e was impor-
Another trail was just fin -tant becaus·e it all owed Col-
is h ed at Brvan 's , Crescent lege Station to buy la n d
Park on Heffser Ui'ivEC ___ befo re it 's deve loped to make
Th e trails are P.art of an co nne ctions so peop le and
effort to ens ure greenways children can wa lk or bike to
remain in the Brazos Valle y, parks or .scnoot" Ellison sa id . -· .. . .. . .. ·;r,.-~. . ....
Greenway Bond Fund Expenditure Summary
Bond funds approved : $ 3,640,000
Bond funds issued :
1999 $ 500 ,000
2001 $ 500 ,000
2002 $ 785 ,000
2003 $ 1,000 ,000
Total issued $ 2 ,785 ,000
Remaining t o be issued :
Expenditures to date :
$
AS400 Project to date (8/22/03)
Craegor
Freeman
Fire Station #5
City Center (pending)
855 ,000
Total committed to date
Funds Available
Pending Projects:
Alum Creek
Shenandoah
SIZE (ac) Appraised Value
245 $ 611 ,320
-6
$ 299 ,507
$ 285 ,825
$ 69 ,126
$ 1 ,744
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,856 ,202
$ 1,783 ,798
Memo
To: Tom Brymer, City Manager
Glenn Brown , Ass istant City Manager
From: Kristan Clann , Greenways Program Manager
Date: 6/24/2004
Re: Greenways Program Update
Action: FYI
City of College Station
Public Works Department
In the FY04 Strateg ic Plan for the City of College Stat ion , the Planning and Development Vision
Statement conta ins the follow ing :
Strategy #3 We will continue to provide for a well -planned commun ity . (We w ill promote well-
planned neighborhoods .)
d.) Update Greenways Master Plan
A short-term implementation plan to update and expand ex isting plans as
needed to anticipate growth , integrate bikeway and pedestrian plans , and
reflect planned and completed greenway acqu isitions.
The or iginal Greenways Master Plan was adopted by City Council on May 27 , 1999 . Five years late r,
and in concurrence with the FY04 Strategic Plan , we are work ing to complete the Master Plan update .
In beg inning that process , I have met with city staff from Deve lopment Serv ices and Parks and
Recreation , as well as Plann ing & Zon ing Commiss ion and Parks Advisory Board members and
resea rching what occurred prior to my hiring. A jo int meeting with the P&Z and Parks Board took place
on October 30 , 2003 , in wh ich my predecessor Judy Downs presented some program updates , along
with challenges she had faced in implementing the Master Plan . Mark Smith made the same
presentation to City Counc il on January 30 , 2004 . Judy had been working with Scott Shafer, Jane Kee ,
and Nanette Manhart on the Master Plan update and had planned to host a meeting on November 10
to garner publ ic input. W ith her departure , this meet ing never occurred .
To continue on w ith the process of updating the Master Plan , our steps include :
• Re-convening the Greenways Implementation Task Force as a focus group
• Conducting surveys of public opinion and input regarding greenways
• Creating a new comprehensive map showing the floodplain, neighborhood development, city
parks , schools , and the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan to display connect ivity routes
Conducting ecological mapping
• Hold ing public meetings
Please contact me with any questions or concerns . A true greenway is one that displays connectivity .
We are work ing closely with all city departments , as well as our neighbors , the City of Bryan and Texas
A&M Univers ity , to achieve that end .
•Page 1
.u~;-~ .... -.::::~~.I. ~0 -~..)H l "I r-KUl'I L cU I U H f'C n 0. LJ ['Uc:ifl rlc:irl I U
Design Altem~t1ves for Selected .Sites
Proposed by the
· College Station Greenways .
Master Plan
A Proposal By
Dr. Jon Rodiek
~
College \of Architecture
Department of Laµdscape Architecture and
Urban Planning
October 2001
10 -04-2001 08 :03RM F RO M La nd Rrch . & Ur b an ~!a n TO '3 ' (b4-3 4 8'3 p . 0 3
Introductio:n
I
The Greenways Network in College Station, texas is a program that is concerned with corridors that
follow narutal features such as creek drainage ways or human made features such as utility corridors ,
roadways, ot railroad beds . "Greenways" de4gnations assigned to creek drainage cortjdors are
recognized for therrvalue to help improve water quality and reduce flooding. "Green...}ays'" are also
becoming recognized as possible ways to conpect people to special places along these corridors.
' ;
These corridors can provide alternative transportation choices providing people a safe place to pursue
different outdoor recreation activities includi~g biking , bicycling, jogging, and nature walks.
Greenways can ~ncrease real estate values of adjacent properties by affording the public desirable low
cost, aesthetically pleasing environments in which to become connected to the area's natural resources and
recreational landscapes .
The Greenways Concept in College Station as ~tis described in the May 27 , 1999 Master Plan document
states four specific goals.
1. Land Use ~l
To encourage a kind of land use on pyblic property and adjacent private propew that provides an
open space, natural landscape more i1 harmony with the surrounding natural environment. .
I
2. Colilmamty Appearance Goal j
To promote in College Station land Ufes that create aesthetically pleasing and safe environments
for its citizens
3. Transpprtation Goal l ,
To promote the development of altel"9ative means of traveling within College ~tation along
bicy'.de and walking corridors away f~om vehicular traffic. These pathways should, wherever
pos~ible, s~ve to connect neighborh~, schools, parks, retail/office areas an~ the University in
a safe and pleasing manner. ! : •
4. Parks and Recreation Goal I
Col~ege Station should enhance its syftem of parks , recreation facilities , and OP,Cn space and
enc:Qurage additional connections by ' system of linear parkways, which utilize creek beds ,
drainage ways, and other natural features.
' I I
The master plan document entitled "A Netwo1f' of Green ways for College Station 51'1:7 f9" goes a long
way in defining what tasks need to be accom~ished in order to realize these goals. : -, I , . . . ! '
.L 1:.1-1:,1 .._-~1:.11:.1.L IOO . IO .._H l 'I r r<.un Lona H ren . o. u roan r ! o.rt I U
Methodol~/ Approach
The proposal contains a three phase process that is de.signed to further clarify the intention of the master
plan as it awties to specific sites . These thr~ phases are: ,
l. Research and inventory
2. Analysis
3. Synthesis
Phase I ~ R(.<:eac.ch qnd layentw;y
This phase Qivolve!t
~. :The creation of accurate base maps for selected sites.
i. The inventory of the site's natu~ resource condition. This inventory will ~nclude:
a) ·The identification of the ~egetative communities found on site. .
b)' The identification of the ~l conditions found on site. ·
c). The identification of the ~ood zone and related drainage network that influences the
Site. I :
d). The identification of the tcological communities that are found in ~d around the
.site. \
3. The inventory of the site's physic~ features . This task shall include:
. a) · An inventory of the abutfng land ownership conditions surroundi~g the site .
. b) A visual assessment of ~e site in terms of its physical features.
c) ; : An assessment of the topbgraphic conditions of the site and surrodncling property that
• will influence any fwal ~sign alternative .
d) 'An assessment of all access and egress possibilities for the site. . I
I
Phase ff. Altalysis
' . : .
This pb~e involves an assessment of th e site ~ limitations and capabilities to provide th~ city of College
Station With i ts desired goals for each site. : :
I . irhe site will be analyzed for its a~ility to support enhancement activities ~at will protect and
conserve the ecological character ff the site .
2. The sire. will be analyzed for its ~ility to support enhancement activities applied to its
Vegetati ve communities and drai~ge way landscapes. '
3. The site will be analyzed for its afility to support design proposals that ~ improve its water
quality; :tlood control performancf, trail way linkage and educational/rec~tional potential.
' I
'
Phase Ill • .£.vttlhe.sis JI
This phase will involve the tasks of:
l . Creati~g a preliminary concept o zoning* plan . .
~. The <!r~tiQn Qh ~it~ iWiDi"' p~. ilPPTOYed by the ~licnt. ;
3. The creation of an approved final resign alternative for each site selected ..
!
"' rhe zoning of land uses specific for each site i
I
I
l~-~4 -d~~l ~~=~4HM " t-uuM Land Hrch 1 ~ Urban ~Ian IU '.::f (b4.S4~'::1 ~ . ~::>
Deliverables
1. Written report -8 112 x 11" tor;mat (Ten copies)
2, A design alternative for each *e selected -24 x 36" fonnat (1 original ~opy) (3 to 4 sites)
I . 3. CD of all completed work (1 c9py) :
Scbedule .
January 2002
March2002
May 2002 :
July 2002
August2002
Research and Invdnory
Site Analysis
Preliminary Design Alternative
Final Design Alte~ative
Presentation to Client
Budeet ·
Direct Cos~
Salaries (Category I)
Rodick, Jon ·
Pclncip~l Investigator
50% time , 3 sum. mos.
Subtotal.
Salaries (Categqry ill)
Summer Interns
"Two students for assistance
over 16 weeks
Subtotal
Total Salaries ahd W aaes
Fringe l3eriefits
Total Pe..SOnnel Costs
Materials and Supplies
Domes~c Travel !
including van tental
Computer Costs • ·
Photography
Printing; etc.
Total Modified Direct Costs
Total Dir~t Costs
Indirect Co~ts
Indirect Costs @ 18 %
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
I U ':f (b4..)4tf:I t"' • IOb
1#,895 .
14,895
22,000
36;895
4;526
41 ,421
1,poo
1.~00 .
l 000 •,
1,0oo
1.$00
47,421
£5S.95Z
TOTAL P.06
...
Page 1 of 2
A enda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #4
Regular Item
Consent Item
x Workshop Item
IItem Submitted By: I Mark Smith, D irect or of Public Works
Council Meetin Date: M ar ch 2 8 , 2 0 02
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
Item: Presenta t ion, consideration and possible action regarding a sidewalk retrofit
policy . V ision Statement #6, Strategy #3a.
Item Summary: The Strategic Plan ind icates that staff should present a plan for
implementing a new sidewalk retrofit plan during FY 2002. Staff will p r esent a
proposed plan for implementing sidewalk retrofit projects in neighborhoods.
Item Background: In November 2000, staff presented a S.W.0.T. analysis of the
City's sidewalk program. The recommendations that fol lowed from that
presentation were:
• Redevelop Policy on Residential Area Retrofits to be more Neighborhood
Driven
• Revise Sidewalk Master Plan to Focus on Non-Residential Areas
• Prepare Act ion Plan for Spending Remaining Sidewalk Funds
• Prepare Sidewalk CIP Proposal for Next Bond Issue
Budgetary and Financial Summary: Funds to begin implementing the proposed
retrofit p lan are budgeted and available in 1995 and 1998 General Obl igation
Bonds for sidewa l k improvements and thoroughfare rehabilitation. All of the
current funding is allocated to projects. Additiona l funding to conti nue the program
wi l l be proposed i n a future bond issue.
http :// agenda. cstx. go v /2 0 02 /0203 28 / sidewalk%2 Oretrofit/retrofit%2 Op olicv%2 0cov ershee... 10 /31 /2008
Page 2 of2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that projects currently slated be
implemented and that new funding for sidewalk construction be included in a
future bond issue.
Council Action Options:
1. Accept Staff recommendations and direct Staff to proceed with the
implementation of the program.
2. Provide Staff with alternate direction.
Supporting Materials:
none
httn :// aizenda .cstx. izov /2002/0203 28 / sidewalk%2 Oretrofit/retrofit%20po licy%20covershee... 10/31 /2008
Page 1ot1
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item # 5
D Regular Item
D Consent Item
x Workshop Item
Item Submitted By: Brooke Brandenburg, Assistant to th e City
Manager
Council Meeting Date: ]~6,2001
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval: r F~~P.Y:O}.lY.~!.~UF .. ~~'.".11~~. ®'
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the addition of an item to a
future City Council agenda regarding the creation of a Greenways Advisory Board.
Item Summary: The Mayor has requested that the Council discuss the possibility
of adding an item to a future Council meeting agenda for consideration of the
creation of a Greenways Advisory Board.
http://agenda.cstx .gov/200 1/010726 / greenways%20committee/coversheet.htm 5/20 /2008
I Agenda Item Cover Sheet I
Agenda Item #11.9
Regular Item
x Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By: Mark Smith, Public Works
Council Meeting Date: July 26, 2001
t===================~
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action approving an appropriation of $285,825 from the
greenways acquisition funds to the Business Park Fund for greenways in the new business park.
Item Summary: This action provides for the reimbursement of $285,852 of greenway bond funds into the
Business Park Fund to pay for the portion of the Class "A" business park to be designated as a greenway.
Item Background: City Council purchased real estate located at Highway 6 and Greens Prairie Road on
August 14, 2000, for development of a Oass "A" type business park. A portion of that real estate purchase
Is designated as •greenway" in the Greenway Master Plan. A survey of the property indicates that there is
a total of 357.07 acres, and that 102.09 of the acreage is located within the 100 year flood plain. The
negotiated price, in coordination with the Economic Development Department, of the greenway acreage
was $2,800 per acre.
Budgetary and Financial Summary: The City's Bond Election of September 3, 1998 authorizes
expenditure of bond funds for the acquisition of land for drainage control and greenbelt purposes. Funds
are budgeted and available In the greenways acquisition funds.
staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council approve the transfer of funds and officially
designate the 102.09 acres surveyed, a Suburban Greenway. Suburban Greenways will connect users and
their destinations such as neighborhood to other neighborhoods, to businesses, to parks or to schools.
Council Action Options:
1. Approve the expenditure of funds from the 1988 Bond Issue for the acquisition of greenways in the new
Business Park.
2. Deny approval of the fund transfer.
Supporting Materials:
1 ~ Location Map
http://cityneUCouru:il%20Agendas/2001/010726/Greenway%201''und%20Transte ... I Agendao/o20ltemo/o20Cover%208heet.ht 07!l6!l001
r Yage i or L.
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #12.2
X Regular Item
kshop Item
Item Submitted By: Mark Smith, Public Works
Council Meeting Date: June 14 , 2001
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval: ,
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a resolution approving a
grant application with the Texas Department of Transportation for the
develop me nt of the Bee Creek/ Wolf Pen Creek Multi-Modal Trail Connector.
Item Summary: This resolution approves a Transportation Enhancement (TEA-
21) grant application to provide funding for a hike/bike trail connecting
neighborhoods on the east side of College Station and connecting to the existing
"Bike Loop" in College Station. The estimated cost of the project is $2,661,884.00.
The City's match is estimated at $665,470.00. The grant application must be
submitted to the TxDOT area office by June 18, 2001.
Item Background: This project is consistent with several City planning
documents. The Thoroughfare Plan shows a bike path in the Gulf States easement
that runs along the east side of town. This project builds a portion of that facility.
The East By-Pass Small Area Plan indicated that bike paths should be built in this
area and that it should provide connections to the existing "Bike Loop". Council's
Strategic Plan for FY 2001 indicated that the Greenways Program Manager should
pursue grant funding for the development of greenways. This application and
project are consistent with that plan.
Budgetary and Financial Summary: The estimated cost of the project is
$2,661,884.00. The City's match is estimated at $665,470.00. Greenways
acquisition funds, approved by voters in 1998, will be used to purchase the land
necessary to build the project. That contribution will provide the match.
http ://agenda.cstx .gov/2001 /010614/tea%2021 %20reso lut ion/agenda%20item%20cov e 0 1 . 5/20/2008
Page 2 ot '2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving
the grant application.
Council Action Options:
1. Approval of the resolution
2. Deny approval of the resolution
Supporting Materials:
1. Res oluti on
2. Grant apg licati on is avai l ab l e in th e Ci ty Secretary 's office fo r r evi ew.
http ://agend a.cs tx.gov/2001/010614/tea%202 1 %20resoluti on/agend a%20item %20cover%. .. 5/20 /2008
t
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Regular Item
Consent Item
X Workshop Item
Agenda Item #
Item Submitted By: Mark Smith, D irector of Publi c Wo rk s
Council Meeting Date: Novemb er 9 , 2000
Director Approval:
City Manager Approval:
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding "Pedestrian
Friendliness" as reflected in Vision Statement 6, Strategy 3b. Presentation,
discussion, and possible action regarding "Prevention of residential decline
and improve neighborhoods" as reflected in Vision Statement 8, Strategy lb.
Item Summary: Staff will present the issues, a S.W.0.T. analysis, and
related recommendations. A copy of the Sidewalk Master Plan is attached.
Item Background: Develop policy for installing sidewalks in neighborhoods
that request them and identify funding sources for sidewalk retrofit program
are two of the milestones for related Sidewalk strategies of Vision Statement
6, "Easily Travel To, Within, and From the Community" and Vision Statement
8, "Well Planned Neighborhoods".
The City's Sidewalk Master Plan has guided some of the decisions to build
new sidewalks. A Proposed Sidewalk Schedule for the 1995 G.O. Bonds was
prepared in 1996, but has not been completed. The scheduled sidewalks are
primarily sidewalk retrofits in established neighborhoods. Most of the
sidewalk requests are for proposed sidewalks not shown on the Sidewalk
Master Plan.
The City of College Station Ordinances currently have a mechanism in which
neighborhoods can request sidewalks. (See Chapter 3 : Building Regulations,
•
Section 3: Development of Streets, Items G, H, and I)
Budgetary and Financial Summary: The original funding for sidewalks in
the 1995 G.0. Bonds was $830,000.00. Approximately $340,000 has been
spent on sidewalk projects throughout the City of College Station.
Staff Recommendation: Staff should bring back detailed recommendations
in scheduled March 2001 Council Workshop Presentation. These
recommendations should include:
1) re-development of the policy on retrofit of sidewalks in existing
neighborhoods that request them,
2) an update of the Sidewalk Master Plan, and
3) Proposed Plan outlining present and future expenditures to install
sidewalks in the City.
Council Action Options:
1. Accept Staff recommendations and direct Staff to prepare necessary
revisions and recommendations to sidewalk policies and ordinances.
2. Provide Staff with alternate direction.
Supporting Materials:
1. Sidewalk Master Plan.
Page 1 of 2
A enda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #12.4
x Regular Item
Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By: llM ark Smith, Di rector of Public Works I
!council Meeting Date: jjoctober 26, 2000 I
!Director Approval: ,.
jcity Manager Approval: I·
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a strategic planning review
of the need for a new stormwater master plan for the City of College Station.
Item Summary: Drainage improvements fall under Vision Statement #2; As a
result of our efforts, citizens will live in a safe, secure, and healthy environment.
The current stormwater master plan is based on old information. It was developed
using stormwater models from 1986 and revised in 1998 . The current master plan
identifies some capital project needs but the plan does not cover the Northgate
area or the Lic k Creek and Spring Creek drainage basins. Staff proposes to initiate
a new stormwater master plan that co vers the entire city and includes new
modeling, mapping and a new drainage capital improvement plan. The new
stormwater master plan is estimated to cost $500,000.
Background: The last stormwater capital plan was based on work done by David
M. Griffith in preparation for implementing the drainage utility. Staff has revised
the plan as new stormwater modeling work has been done on Bee Creek and Wolf
Pen Creek. The capital projects identified for Bee Creek and Wolf Pen Creek are
either completed or are currently under design. Areas not included in the current
plan include Northgate, and new subdivisions on the south end of town on the Lick
Creek & Spring Creek basins. A new stormwater master plan will also be used to
more bring greater definition to the Greenways Master Plan and specifically define
greenways for acquisition.
Budgetary and Financial Summary: Funds are available for the stormwater
master plan in the drainage utility fund under "minor drainage improvements" and
"greenways projects".
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council direct staff to proceed
with the development of a new stormwater master plan.
http :// agenda. cstx . gov 120001001 02 61 stormwater%20master%20plan/ stoim %20coversheet... 512 0/2008
Page 2 of2
Council Action Options:
1. Direct staff to proceed with the development of a new storm water master plan.
2. Delay action on implementing a new stormwater master plan .
3. Direct staff to continue operating und e r the existing stormwater m as t e r plan.
Supporting Materials: None
http://agenda.cs tx.gov/2000 /001026/stormwater%20rnaster%20plan/storm%20coversh e ... 5/20/2008
Page 1of2
I Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #14.7
x Regular Item
Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By: K. Foutz, Director of Economic Dev .
Council Meeting Date: July 13 , 2000
Director Approval: ·
City Manager Approval: .
Item: Discussion and possible action on a real estate contract between the City of
College Station and Jerry Windham and Frank Thurmond.
Item Summary: The real estate contract provides for purchase of approximately
123 acres generally located at the corner of Greens Prairie Road and State
Highway 6. This site acquisition is for future development of a 339 acre Class "A"
type business park. The parties of the real estate contract agree that the purchase
price for the Thurmond/Windham property is $1,635,220 in cash plus a land
exchange (total purchase price of $2,045,220). The land exchange includes
approximately 41 acres to be transferred from Thurmond/Windham to the City of
College Station and approximately 36 acres (adjacent to and east of Pebble Hills
subdivision) to be transferred from the City to Thurmond/Windham. The appraised
value of the Thurmond/Windham tract is $2,080,000. ~ /b c,27~/lJ?...
Item Background: In its Strategic Planning process, City Council identified the
need to develop plans for future business parks inCollege Station to increase the
diversity of the College Station economy. These plans include acquisition, master
planning, development, recruitment and retention for a new Class "A" and Class
"B" business park (Vision Statement 7, Strategy lb). Staff is currently negotiating
on land for a Class "B" Park.
Budgetary and Financial Summary: The total proposed purchase is $1,635,220
and would be funded from Electric and Water Utility Working Capital. A budget
amendment authorizing appropriation of funds for this project will be presented at
a future City Council meeting.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the real estate contract contingent
http://www2 .ei .college-station .tx .us/councilAgendas/2000/000713/14 .7 .htm 12/8/2002
rage 1 or L.
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Agenda Item #13.4
DIRegular Item I
x Consent Item
Workshop Item
Item Submitted By: Eri c Plo eger , Assistant D irector of Park s and
R ecreatio n
Council Meeting Date: May 11 , 2000
loirector Approval: ll s teve B eachy , D ire ct or of P arks and R ecr eati on I
City Manager Approval: .
Item: Discussion and possible action on a resolution authorizing the Director of
Parks and Recreation to apply for a matching grant from the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department for the year 2000 to construct trails i n Lick Creek Park.
Item Summary: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department administers the
National Recreation Trail Fund in Texas. This grant request will fund trails and
bridges in Lick Creek Park. The project will construct priority portions of trails on
the Lick Creek Master Plan approved by the City Council in February 1998.
Item Background: The grant application preparation is a joint effort between the
Brazos Greenways Council, the Texas A&M University Recreation, Parks, and
Tourism Sciences Department, and City Staff. A similar grant was prepared in
1999 but was not funded. These trails are part of the Lick Creek Park Master Plan,
which was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1998. When complete
these trails will become part of the overall Greenways Master Plan Trail System.
Budgetary and Financial Summary: The grant requires a minimum 20°/o match
on the part of the City of College Station. The total project cost is $126,265. The
City 's match in this proposal will be $46,265. We believe that the higher local
contribution will enhance our chances of being approved this year. These funds for
the match are available from bond funds approved in the 1998 Bond Election for
the development of Lick Creek Park in the amount of $458,000. The Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department can award the grant for a lower amount than requested.
Staff Recommendations: Approval of the Resolution.
Council Action Options:
1. Approval or disapproval of the Resolution.
hrtp://agenda.cs tx .gov/2 0 00/00051 1/13.4.htm 5/20 /20 0 8
Yage L. OIL.
Supporting Materials:
1. Resolution authorizing the Director of Parks and Recreation to apply for a grant
from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for construction of trails i n Lick
Creek Park .
2 . Site Location Map
3. Approved Master Plan
http ://agenda.cstx.gov/2000/00051 1 /13 .4 .htm 5/20/2008
COLLEGE STATION
PARKS-AND·
RECREATION
DEPARTMENT
COLLEGE STATION
GREENBELTS
CollEqE SrArioN
"We Provide Good Things in Life"
COLLEGE STATION GREENBELTS
DISCUSSION POINTS
I. EXISTING COLLEGE STATION GREENBELTS
A. Bee Creek Park & Lem o ntree Pa rk -Approxim a tely 1 1/2 miles of
co nc rete and natural trails linking two park areas adjacent to
tributaries of Bee Creek.
B . Brothers Pond Park -Approximately 1/2 mile of concrete and
c rushed brick trails that provide a pedestrian corridor from
Ponderosa Street to Southwood Valley Elementary school.
C. Ra intree Park -Approximately 1/4 miles of concrete trails .
Approximately 1/2 mile of 150 feet wide electric/pipeline ROW
acquired in 1982 through donation will be developed with trails
this year utilizing 1990 Bond Funds.
D . Lick Creek Park & Pebble Creek subdivision -Approximately
1 1/2 miles of 150 feet wide electric/pipeline/street ROW acquired
in 1988 as part of Fitch property trade. Approximately 6 acres of
land fronting on Greens Prairie Road and approximately 4 acres at
the intersection of Spearman Drive also acquired through donation
from Pebble Creek Subdivision a nd will be utilized as trail access
points .
E . Wolf Pen Creek Project -The Phase I project now under
construction will provide approximately 1/2 mile of concrete trails
and will serve as the catalyst for future development of the Wolf
Pen Creek Corridor from Texas Avenue to the Highway 6 East
Bypass.
II. POTENTIAL GREENBELT EXP ANSI ON SITES
A. Bee Creek from Texas Avenue to Highway 6 East Bypass. This
would provide a direct linkage system from Bee Creek Park
through Cy Miller Park and up to Central Park.
B. Bee Creek from Emerald Forest Park to Highway 6 East Bypass.
This would provide a trail system from Emerald Forest
Subdivision to the East Bypass and could provide a continuation
for the western portion of the Bee Creek greenbelt.
C. Wolf Pen Creek from the East Bypass to Raintree Park. This
section of the creek would link future residential areas with the
Raintree Subdivision and eventually the Lick Creek Park trail.
D . Wolf Pen Creek from the eastern boundary of the WPC Phase I
project to the East Bypass . This would provide pedestrian access
from the amphitheater c o mplex to the Wolf Pen Family Recreation
Cente r.
..
E. Wolf Pen Creek from the Dartm outh/Ho llem a n intersection to
Texas Avenue. This would provid e pedestrian access from the
residential and commercial areas adjacent to the creek to the WPC
amphitheater complex. Also, this development would serve as a
stimulus for additional commercia l development along this portion
of the Wolf Pen Creek corridor.
F. Windwood/Raintree/Emerald Forest/Woodcreek/Foxfire Subdivi-
sions R.O. W. Trail. Acquisition of this strategic ROW corridor
would provide an outstanding pedestrian/bike/equestrian trail
system for these subdivisions. Thi s would also help to link these
neighborhoods that are now effectively isolated from each other.
This trail system can form the northern most portion of an
ex tended trail to link Lick Creek Park.
G . South Branch Bee Creek -Texas Avenue to Highway 6 East
Bypass. This would provide linka ge from residential areas in
Southwood Valley to other trail systems along Bee Creek's main
channel.
Ill. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF GREENBELTS
A . Improved quality of life.
B . Economic Development.
C. Enhanced property values.
D. Tourism attraction.
E. Alternative transportation routes.
F. Preservation of natural resources.
G. Protection of water resources.
H . Enhanced educational opportunities.
IV. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTIONS
A. Formation of Greenbelt Advisory Committee to seek public input,
explore alternatives, and provide recommendations.
B. Inclusional of greenbelt systems in future land use planning for
public and private developments .
C . Actively seek donation/dedication of selected greenbelt areas.
0. Inclusion of trails and greenbelt developments in future CIP
planning and· implementation .
E. Revision of ordinances to encourage greenbelt developments in
accordance with Plan 2000.
F. Provide resources to conduct further studies concerning the
feasibility and design of a comprehensive greenbelt system for
College Station.
..
FACT SHEET
WHAT IS A GREENWAY?
Greenways are corr i dors of protec t e d open space managed for c onservation
and recre at ion purpo ses. Greenways often follow natural land or water fe a tures,
and link na ture reserves, parks, cultur a l f eatures, and histori c s i tes wi th each
other and with p opu lated areas. Som e g r eenways are publicly owned, some are
private ly ow ned , a nd som e are the result of public/private part nerships. Some
are open to visitor s, others are not. Some appeal to people, others attract
wildlife .
In c ities and othe ~ urban areas, g r e enways can en~ompass natural or man-
made featu r es and can be managed primarily for resource c onservation or
recreation.
In the count r y, greenways are planned natural corridors linking large
natural areas --l i ke state parks and national forests, or wildlife refuges.
Rural greenways preserve native habitats and wildlife migration routes, and can
be an impetus to restore environmentally valuable landscapes. In conjunction
with existing and proposed recreational trail systems, such as the Florida
National Scenic Trail, rural greenways will form the heart of America's network
of greenways.
From the hi l ls of i nland America t o the beaches and barrier islands of the
coast, greenways provide a vast network linking our state 's special places and
providing a whole that is truly greater than the sum of its parts.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF GREENWAYS?
No other conservation initiative provides so many ecological, economic, and
quality of life bene fi ts to the communities that create them. Greenways not only
protect environmentally i mportant lands and native plants and animals, they also
link people with t he natural world and outdoor recreational opportunities.
Greenways can also :
., Eelp pr c se ::-·.·c: ;:;-,e bi0 logicai o i.versu:y of . plant a nd a nima l spe c ie s by
ma in taining the con n e ctions between n a tural commun i t ies .
Soften urban a~d su burban lands capes wi th ribbons o f g ::-e e n that i mprove
the q ual i t y of l i fe and enhance prope::-ty values.
* Help protect the q uantity and qua li t y o f water, a natura l r esource vital
to people, p l ants , and wildlife .
* Direct devel o pment and growth a wa y from i mportant natura l resource
areas.
* Provide a lt erna t ive t ranspor tatio n
c o mm un itie s , and t h e .countr y sid e.
* Ac t as outdo or c lassrooms.
ro utes that co nne c t people,
FACT SHEET: Economic Benefits of Greenways
Real Property Values
Expenditures by Residents
Commercial Uses
Tourism
Agency Expenditures
Corporate Relocation
Public Cost Reduction
intrinsic Value
Summary of Findings
Many studies demonstrate that parks, greenways and trails
increase nearby property values . lnturn, increased property
values can increase local tax revenues and help offset greenway
acquisition costs.
Spending by local residents on greenway related activities helps
support recreation oriented businesses and employment, as well as
other businesses which are patronized by greenway and trail
users .
Greenways often provide business opportunites, locations and
resources for commercia l activities such as recreation equipment
rentals and sales, lessons, and other related businesses.
Greenways are often major tourist attractions which generate
expenditures on lodging, food, and recreation oriented services .
Greenways also helps improve the overall appeal of a community
to perspective tourists and new residents.
The agency responsible for managing a river, trail or greenway
can help support local businesses by purchasing supplies and
services. Jobs created by the managing agency may also help
increase local employment opportunities.
Evidence shows that the quality of life of a community is an
increasingly important factor in corporate relocation decisions .
Greenways are often cited as important contributors to quality of
life .
The conservation of rivers , trails, and greenways can help local
governments arrd ether publi::: agencies reduce costs resulting from
flooding and other natural hazards .
While greenways have many economic benefits it is important to
remember the intrinsic environmental and recreation value of
preserving rivers, trails and other open space corridors .
Adapted from : Economic Impacts of Protectin!! Rivc:rs . Trails . and Greenway Corridors, National
Park Service, 1990
For additional information contact : The Conservation Fund
1800 N. Kent Street, Arlington, Va. 22209, (703) 525-6300
ANALYSIS AND SPECIAL CONCERNS
Open Space Conservation
A large portion of the land in the area contains forest and/or lies in floodplain and floodway areas.
The opportunity to create a system that serves for both protecting valuable resources and providing
recreation and transportation facilities is great. The creation of conservation/open space ( C/OS) areas
may address both of these concerns and as well as serve the publi~ interest.
The purpose of providing for conservat ion/open space areas (C/OS) is twofold. The first is to provide
protection for land that is especially sensitive (floodplains, wetlands, aquifer recharge zones, forests,
steep slopes, and other areas which are environmentally sensitive or aesthetically significant) to
traditional development practices and to restrict or minimize the detrimental effects of development
upon adjacent and "down,stream" properties. The second purpose would be to provide access to
portions of these C/OS areas (sensitive and non,sensitive) for the area residents and in certain cases,
(i.e. bikeways, jogging trails, etc.), for the general public.
There are three mechanisms to consider for the creation and protection of C/OS areas . None are
mutually exclusive and could be used in combinitaion.
1) Protection by Ownership , This method includes outright purchase, development and
maintenance of the C/OS areas by the City, as well as a potential for "leasebacks" or
"sellbacks" to the private sector with restrictions attached. Easements would offer "partial"
ownership to the City and allow for regulation and maintenance without ownership .
Donations would provide for city ownership without purchasing costs.
2) Protection by Regulation , Conventional zoning offers several options for protection. The
development of a standard conservation district zone with stringent development controls
could provide for C/OS protection. A C/OS "overlay" district would allow existing
conventional zoning di stricts to control uses but could superimpose additional require,
ments. These requirements might include additional setbacks from existing floodways/
floodplains or other potential C/OS areas, existing tree maintenance, lower densities, C/
OS dedication, buffer strips/areas, and other requirements. In lieu of or in addition to the
use controls of standard zoning districts, performance standards may be applied to the C/
OS overlay district. These would set criteria or limits relating to C/OS elements, which
a particular use or process may not be permitted to exceed. Lastly, a Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.) zoning district may be applied in such a way as to include the
sensitive areas. Within the P.U.D., sensitive and other C/OS potential lands may be set
aside, regulated and placed in an easement or out,right ownership by the City, individual
business entity, individual homeowner, or Home Owners Association (HOA). Most
current residential P .U.D.s deed easements to the HOA. The American Planning
Association in the March 23, 1990, issue of Zoning News suggests however that ownership
28 I 8 Extension
Page 26
)
be retained by the developer until completion of the entire project. This method would
require special agreements to allow for full public access to C/OS facilities like bikeways,
jogging trails, etc ..
3) Protection by Incentive -There are several methods of encouraging the creation of Cf
OS areas. These could be incorporated into the t~chniques discussed above. One incentive
involves the use of "density bonuses" as a way for the city to encourage growth in the most
desirable sites. Developers are encouraged to set aside C/OS areas and to build in less
sensitive, more appropriate areas by permitting them an increase in density over what
would normally be allowed by the extant zoning district. A second option is the "transfer
of development rights'', which allows for the developm~nt rights in one area of a tract of
land to be transferred or conveyed to another part within that same tract or to another
tract. This transfer encourages landowners to leave more sensitive areas undeveloped in
the form of C/OS areas by allowing them more options for development on the less-
sensitive lands. A third technique may involve the use of tax incentives using the tax
abatement approach. Residential tax abatement and commercial-industrial tax abatement
zones may be designated within a duly created reinvestment zone . It may be possible to
overlay a reinvestment zone and allow for some tax abatement on new development (for
up to ten years) for C/OS area creation. A fourth method involves the coordination of
parkland dedication requirements with C/OS creation. Possibly an agreement allowing
public access to areas not owned or maintained by the city could fulfill the parkland
requirements of new subdivisions.
All methods mentioned could be researched further to fully examine appropriateness and pos sible
application within the study area .
Transportation
Staff reviewed several items relating to transportation for the purposes of this report. These are the
City's Thoroughfare Plan, bikeway development, and the City's Driveway Access Management Policy.
Each of these items is addressed in the following paragraphs.
Thoroughfare Plan. After a closer look and ev aluation of the existing and planned ro adways
within the study area, four proposed amendments to the City's Thoroughfare Plan were
identified. These proposed amendments are illustrated in Figure 12 and discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Extension of Dartmouth Street from FM 2818 to Texas A venue at Brothers. Texas A venue
is by far the most heavily travelled roadway in College Station. This is partially due to the lack
of alternative north-south thoroughfares in the City. The extension of Dartmouth Street from
FM 2818 to Texas Avenue would provide for an additional north-south route and take a
significant amount of traffic off of Texas A venue .
This extension was modelled on TRAN PLAN for the Year 2010. In order to estimate the affects
of this extension, TRANPLAN was used to model the future roadway system both with and
2818 Extension
Page 27
Venessa Garza
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Venessa -
erin .eurek@kimley -horn .com
Monday, October 27, 2014 5:34 PM
Venessa Garza
Brian.Shamburger@kimley -horn .com ; kjavalos@accessology.com
FW : Intersection Pedestrian Improvements -Current Progress
In general, any ramp that is parallel to the crossing direction it serves is p referred since curb ramps are supposed to
provide access and d irection. You do not want curb ramps directing a pedestrian one way with crosswalk pavement
markings directing them in another.
Also , all pedestrian push buttons should not be located more than 10' from the face of curb or more than 5' from the
outside edge of the crosswalk that button is serving . Some of the push button locations look like they may be outside
this area and it is recommended that all push button locations be checked. Based on our review of the ramp
orientations on the aerial layouts, we offer the following comments :
CS Ped Int Holleman Exhibit h"t-VV0\Sh.
/?." --=:::::::: • Page 1 ,· "'
Io /The curb ramp in the NW corner could be angled slightly to better align with the crosswalk on the north
side of th intersections . 'I
o The cu , ramp in NE corner is oriented N-S, but serves both the N-S and E-W crossings . The crosswalk
on ~ east side of the intersection terminates at the outside edge of the Holleman travel lane and does
n extend to the existing ramp . -h\> .$~IS\'\ --0 A blended transition design should be considered in the SW corner to serve both crossing directions and
avoid potential drainage issues that may result from the proposed design. Since the landing area will
have a 2% max . slope, the area where curbed area separates the landings may cause issues . You may
also consider installing directional ramps in the NW and SW corners further to the west to serve the
crossing on the west side of the intersection and realign crosswalk perpendicular to Holleman.
o The angled ramp in the SE corner, serving the crossing on the east side of the intersection, is acceptable
given the utility constraints on both the NE and SE corners.
• Page 2
o No changes needed to SE corner.
_,., 0 No proposed design changes on the NW corner; however, existing diagonal ramp design indicates both
the west and north side crossing directions are being accommodated . No crosswalk is shown along the
north side of the intersection and no receiving ramp is shown to be installed on the NE corner . .£er
FHWA, access cann reduced so the north side crossin must be accommodated unless the City has efr, ~a policy in lace to officially close a crossing and has following this policy for the crossing on the nort
"{\e. w-'fV ~ e in ersection ...... re, .1) lm,...t~ _ ~~~A~ -----~tcJi V9NlYn-Pyt0-r\Ulo-.. --J -~'PY . -· lU~
1
1
o No proposed design changes reviewed for NE corner.
CS Ped Int Proposed GeorgeBush /."'\, 1 L•-,
• Page ~ \ V>"-
' o/ back the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection and install directional ramps in the NW and
/ NE i <1nds to serve the relocated crosswalk .
~ I"'~ directional ramps in the fiw pnd SW ]orners to serve the crossing on the west side of the ~;;~·ection and realign crosswalk perpendicular to George Bush .
o install directional ramp in th~r ners to serve the crossing on the east side of the ~~~section and realign crosswal perpe ndicular to George Bush .
¥Rotate the proposed ramps dn the SE and SW ~rners to be parallel to the crosswalk on the south side
?'of the intersection . i , __ _
• Page 2
o No changes needed to SW corner.
o The angled ramps on SE corner are not ideal, but allowed. The narrow width of the shared flare area
between the two ramps is awkward. A parallel ramp or blended transition design should be considered
to serve both crossing directions.
o No proposed design changes on NW and NE corners were reviewed or recommended.
Please let me know if you have any questions about these recommendations.
Thanks,
Kimley»> Ho rn
Erin P. Eurek, P.E.
Kimley-Horn I 801 Cherry Street, Unit 11 , Suite 950 , Fort Worth , TX 76102
Direct: 817 339 22621 Mobile : 817 879 4450
Connect with us : Twitter ! Linked In I Facebook I YouTube
Proud to be on e of FORTUN E magazine's 100 Best Companies to Work For
Begin forwarded message :
From: Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx .gov>
Date: October 13, 2014 at 3:04:37 PM CDT
To: "Brian.S hamburger@k im ley-horn .com " <Br ian.S hamb urger@kimley-ho rn.com >, "kjavalos@accesso logy.com "
<kjavalos@accessology.c o m >
Subject: FW: Intersection Pedestrian Improvements -Current Progress
This message contains attachments del ivered via ShareFile .
• CS_Ped_lnt_Holleman_Exhibit.pdf (8 .9 MB)
• CS_Ped_lnt_Proposed_GeorgeBush.pdf (8 .5 MB)
Download the attachments by clicking here.
2
Hey -We have a consultant redesigning a few intersections for us and I have a question about a
few of the curb ramp designs. There are separate curb ramps aligned with each crossing but they
have a slight angle to them. Is that ok?
Thanks!
Ve n essa Garza, AICP
Greenways Prog r am Manager
City of College Station
9 79 -764-3674
From: Ramiro Martinez
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 3:11 PM
To: Venessa Garza
Subject: Intersection Pedestrian Improvements -Current Progress
Hi Venessa,
I received some preliminary sketches for the Intersection Ped Improvements from Kent and I wanted to
see if you could take a look at them and let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Ramiro M arti nez
Graduate Civil Engineer, EIT
Public Works Department
P.O . BOX 9960 College Station, Texas 77842
Mobile 979-900-4449 I Office 979-764-3872 I Fax 979-764-3489
r marti nez@ cs tx.gov
0 ---------·----------
City of College Station
Home of Texas A&M University ®
3
Venessa Garza
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mary Ann Powell
Thursday, November 12 , 2015 1:51 PM
Aubrey Nettles; Venessa Garza; Rachel Lazo
Carla Robinson
Miniature Ho rse and ADA
VoiceMessage.wav ; 3HUD FHEO Notice -FHE0 -2 013 -01.pd f
Good afternoon . Below you will please see my opinion on how to proceed .
I am going to expand on what's below to further discuss and add some legal authorities. However, my recommendation
re how to proceed is as set forth below, and will remain unchanged .
I wanted to go ahead and share this, given that the person called Carla yesterday, and sounded like she was wanti ng
feedback sooner than later.
I will set up a meeting for us to discuss . In the meantime, please read and feel free to give me your thoughts when we
get together.
I'm also attaching a handout that you may find helpful from HUD re th is issue .
**** ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE***
Issue: Must the City allow a miniature horse to live in a single family home to provide emotional support to a
person who lives there? ~~ li>5~·
Facts: A person who lives in a (single family?) home called the City saying she wants to bring a miniature
horse to live with her to provide her emotional support. It is not known whether the person is disabled or
believes herself to be disabled nor whether the horse is trained to perform a service to assist w ith such
disability. There is no known federal financial assistance involved with respect to her hous ing at this time .
Brief Answer: If the miniature horse is for ONLY emotional support , it is not likely covered by the
Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"). However, it may be allowed under the Fair Housing Act Amendment of
1988 ("FHAct"). It 's recommended to follow the U.S . Department of Hous ing and Urban Development ("HUD ")
Notice FHE0-2013 -01 by first determining definitively whether the ADA applies in this instance requiring
"reasonable modification " of the City 's ordinances . If not , then determine if reasonable accommodation is
requ i red under FHAct.
It 's important to make this determination in this order and to ask the specific questions set forth in the
applicable regulations.
Implementation :
ADA:
According to the U .S . Department of Justice , a miniature horse is a horse generally in range in height from
24 inches to 34 inches measured to the shoulders and generally weighing between 70 and 100 pounds .
The first thing HUD recommends determining is whether the animal qualifies as a "service animal " or a
min iature horse that meets the criteria for "reasonable modification " of the City's ordinances under the
ADA.[iJ This is done by performing an individualized assessment by asking two questions :
1
1. Is this a service animal or a miniature horse that is required because of a disability?
2. What work or tasks has the animal been trained to perform related to the disability?
Regarding training , psychiatric service animals may be trained to perform in a specific manner such as
taking action to prevent an emotional outburst or to remind someone to take medication. "Emotional support
animals " that are not trained to do anything are NOT included in this definition .
CAVEAT #1 : You may NOT ask either question 1 or 2 above if the answer to the question is readily
apparent or known-e .g . observing an animal pull a wheelchair , watching a guide dog perform .
CAVEAT #2 : You may NOT ask about the nature or extent of a person 's disability .
CAVEAT #3 : You may NOT require documentation, such as proof that the animal is certified as a trained
animal , or proof of disability .
If the answer is YES to both questions : You must do an "individualized assessment " whether "reasonable
modifications " can be made . For miniature horses, this includes considering
1. The type, size , and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility (home in this case) can
accommodate these features ;
2 . Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse ;
3 . Whether the miniature horse is housebroken ; and
4 . Whether the miniature horse 's presence in a specific facility (home) compromises legitimate safety
requirements that are necessary for safe operation .
CAVEAT #4 : "Individualized assessment" must be based on information specifically about the subject
animal. It cannot be based on assumptions, or upon what a person may know generally about miniature horses ,
or how miniature horses may perform under other circumstances , etc.
If answer is No to one or both questions : ADA does not apply , and you must see if FHAct applies as set
forth below.
FHAct:
If ADA does not apply, determine whether the miniature horse qualifies as an "assistance animal " (aka
"support animal ", "emotional support animal " or "assistive animal ") under FHAct requiring reasonable
accommodation . This includes animals providing emotional support to alleviate one or more symptoms or
effects of a person 's disability. The animal need not be canine and doesn 't have to be trained . However, the
regulations allow more verification as seen below .
First , however, the following inquiries must be made :
1. Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability-Le. a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?
If the disability is not readily apparent or known , the person may be asked to provide rel iable
documentation of a disability and their disability-related need for an assistance animal.
2 . Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance animal? In
other words , does the animal work , provide assistance , perform tasks or services for the benefit of a person
with a disabil ity , or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects
of a person 's existing disability?
If the disability is readily apparent or known but the disability-related need for the assistance animal is
not , the City may ask the individual to provide documentation of the disability-related need for an assistance
animal. For example , it may be necessary to have documentation from a physician , psychiatrist , social worker
2
..
or other mental health professional that the animal provides emotional support that alleviates one or more
identified symptoms or effects of an existing disability .
Access to medical records or requiring extensive or detailed information is not allowed.
An "Individualized Assessment" as described in CAVEAT #4 applies.
If the answer to one or both of these questions is no , then no reasonable accommodation is required
from the City , and the City can implement its rules as usual.
However, if the answer to BOTH are "yes" then the City needs determine if it can make a reasonable
accommodation to allow the miniature horse at the residence . The regulations are assumptive in that it is
assumed that the City can reasonably make this accommodation unless
1. Doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the City ;
2 . Doing so would fundamentally alter the zoning ordinance;
3. The specific assistance animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be
reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation ; or
4 . The specific assistance animal would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others
that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation .
Additional Legal Discussion:
(To Be Cont'd)
!ii Per Federal regulations, ADA applies only to "service animals" described as being trained canines. In 2011, the regulations for Part
A of Title II which applies the ADA to local government's services, programs or activities, added miniature horses. Although
min i ature horses are not considered "service animals" under the ADA, the criteria under which there must be reasonable
accommodation for them is the same as for service animals per the 2011 regulation .
Mary Ann Powell
Deputy City Attorney
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Ave.
College Station, TX 77842
DIRECT: 979.764.3521
MAIN: 979.764.3507
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law . If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. Sender requests a reply or notification by other
immediate means of the mis-delivery.
3
( ,,,. ...
To :
Cc :
From :
Date :
Re:
**ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE**
MEMORANDUM
Vanessa Garza , Greenways Program Manager
Aubrey Nettles, Special Projects Coordinator
Rachel Lazo , Planning Technician
Lance Sims , Director of Planning and Development
Carla Robinson , City Attorney
Molly Hitchcock , Assistant Director of Planning and Development
Jason Schubert, Principal Planner
Mary Ann Powell, Deputy City Attorney/?l'P
November 13 , 2015
Miniature Horses and ADA/FHAct concerns
Issue : Must the City allow a miniature horse to live in a single family home to provide emotional
support to a person who lives there?
Facts : A person who lives in a (single family?) home called the City saying she wants to bring a
miniature horse to live with her to provide her emotional support . It is not known whether the
person is disabled or believes herself to be disabled nor whether the horse is trained to perform
a service to assist with such disability. There is no known federal financial assistance involved
with respect to her housing at this time.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice , a miniature horse is a horse generally in range
in height from 24 inches to 34 inches measured to the shoulders and generally weighing between
70 and 100 pounds. Wikipedia describes miniature horses as a breed of equine .
Brief Answer: If the miniature horse is for ONLY emotional support, it is not likely covered by
the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"). However, it may be allowed under the Fair Housing
Act Amendment of 1988 ("FHAct"). It's recommended to follow the U .S . Department of Housing
and Urban Development ("HUD ") Notice FHE0-2013-01 by first determining definitively whether
the ADA applies in this instance requiring "reasonable modification " of the City's ordinances . If
not, then determine if reasonable accommodation is required under FHAct.
It's important to make this determination in this order and to ask the specific questions
set forth in the applicable regulations.
Implementation :
ADA:
1
The first thing HUD recommends determining is whether the animal qualifies as a "service
animal" or a miniature horse that meets the criteria for "reasonable modification " of the City's
ordinances under the ADA. i This is done by performing an individualized assessment by asking
two questions:
1. Is this a service animal or a miniature horse that is required because of a disability?
2. What work or tasks has the animal been trained to perform related to the disability?
Regarding training , psychiatric service animals may be trained to perform in a specific
manner such as taking action to prevent an emotional outburst or to remind someone to take
medication . "Emotional support animals " that are not trained to do anything are NOT included
in this definition.
CAVEAT #1 : You may NOT ask either question 1 or 2 above if the answer to the question
is readily apparent or known-e.g. observing an animal pull a wheelchair, watching a guide dog
perform .
CAVEAT #2 : You may NOT ask about the nature or extent of a person 's disability .
CAVEAT #3: You may NOT require documentation , such as proof that the animal is
certified as a t rained animal , or proof of disability.
If the answer is YES to both questions : You must do an "individualized assessment"
whether "reasonable modifications" can be made. For miniature horses , this includes considering
1. The type , size , and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility (home in this
case) can accommodate these features;
2 . Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse ;
3 . Whether the miniature horse is housebroken ; and
4 . Whether the miniature horse 's presence in a specific facility (home) compromises
legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation .
CAVEAT #4: "Individualized assessment" must be based on information specifically about
the subject animal. It cannot be based on assumptions , or upon what a person may know
generally about miniature horses , or how miniature horses may perform under other
circumstances , etc .ii
If answer is No to one or both questions : ADA does not apply , and you must see if FHAct
applies as set forth below.
FHAct:
If ADA does not apply , determine whether the miniature horse qualifies as an
"assistance an imal" (aka "support animal ", "emotional support animal " or "assistive animal")
under FHAct requiring reasonable accommodation . This includes animals providing emotional
support to alleviate one or more symptoms or effects of a person 's disability. The animal need
not be canine and doesn 't have to be trained . However, the regulations allow more verification as seen below. ....
First, however, the following inquiries must be made :
2
1. Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability-Le . a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities? ~<Z, •
If the d isabilit is not readil a arent or known , the person may be asked to provide
reliable documentation of a disability.
2 . Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for an assistance
animal? In other words , does the animal work , provide assistance , perform tasks or services fo l
the benefit of a person with a disability , or provide emotional support that allev iates one or more
of the identified symptoms or effects of a person 's existing disability?
Access to medical records or requiring extensive or detailed medical information is not
allowed .
An "Individualized Assessment " as described in CAVEAT #4 applies.
If the answer to one or both of these questions is no , then no reasonable
accommodation is required from the City , and the City can implement its rules as usual.
However, if the answer to BOTH are "yes " then the City needs determine if it can make a
reasonable accommodation to allow the miniature horse at the residence . The regulations are
assumptive in that it is assumed that the City can reasonably make t his accommodation unless
ing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the City ; f\-O
in so would fundamental! alter the zonin ordinance ; 2.-S" I e<~4e.. /lrJ-J...,
T e specific assistance animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others lW~ ·
that annot e reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation ; or
4 . T, e specific assistance animal would cause substantial physical damage to the
others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation .
Additional Legal Discussion :
ADA:
The ADA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq . An early case in Texas decided shortly
after passage of the ADA held that it did not apply to zoning except with respect to public
access .i ii However, more recent decisions in other jurisdictions have recognized its applicabil ity
in the zoning context .iv Indeed , publications by the DOJ , HUD and other federal agenc ies
assume its applicability . v
Title II addresses discrimination of public services. Specifically , Title II prohibits public
entities from discriminating against individuals with disabil ities , including by failing to make
reasonable modifications in policies , practices , or procedures when such modifications are
3
necessary to afford such goods , services , facilities , privileges, advantages , or accommodations
to individuals with disabilities , unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications
would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods , services, facilities , privileges , advantages,
or accommodat ions . vi
28 CRF 35 .136 sets forth regulations for service animals under Title 11 , Part AfPublic
Services Gene rally .vii
FHAct:
The FHAct offers broader protection for disability-related animals with respect to zoning
and private housing .vi ii The FHAct prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color ,
religion, sex, d isability, familial status , and national origin .ix Its coverage includes all housing .x It
is unlawful to d iscriminate in any aspect of selling or renting housing or to deny a dwelling to a
buyer or rente r because of the disability of that individual , an individual associated with the
buyer or renter , or an individual who intends to live in the residence . Other covered activities
include , for example , financing , zoning practices , new construction design , and advertising .
There are some exceptions under FHAct but not enough is known whether they apply.
The most common are (a) owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units (which is
commonly known as the Mrs. Murphy exemption); (b) single family housing sold or rented
without the use of a broker if the private individual owner does not own more than three such
single family homes at one time ; or (c) housing operated by organizations and private clubs that
limit occupancy to members . xi
HUD has issued regulations setting forth reasonable accommodation requirements for
public housing . However, several jurisdictions have applied it to all housing subject to the
FHAct_Xii At a minimum , I believe it's reasonable to assume jurisdictions will be looking at these
regulations for guidance as there is currently no other recognized authority providing alternative
criteria for consideration.
The FHAct does not specify whether an assistance animal be specially trained like is
required for service animals under the ADA. There is no Texas case on this. Some jurisdictions
have determined the animal must be specially trained. Other jurisdictions hold otherwise . HUD
has issued regulations stating that an assistance animal does NOT need to be specially
trained .xiii Because the position of the enforcing federal agency is that the animal need not be
specially trained , the conservative recommendation is to not require this .
When F HAct applies , reasonable accommodation must be made as described above .
Texas State law:
Chapter 121 Texas Human Resource Code has similar requirements to the FHAct but
limits "service animals " to canines . Therefore , Chapter 121 does not apply to this situation .
City Ordinances:
4
.. I ...
Sect. 2-51 of the City Code of Ordinances ("Code") prohibits keeping domestic livestock
except in areas zoned R/Rural zone and E/Estate zone . The zoning designation where the
person lives is not known . However, even if livestock are allowed in the area there is a 100'
distance requ irement of the livestock from the home . The City would still be required to perform
the ADA-FHAct analysis described above to determine whether to allow the miniature horse in
the home .
Processing a Reasonable Accommodation:
If it's determined to make reasonable modification or accommodation to allow the
miniature horse to live in the home , what action does the City need to take? The federal law
does not require any speci fi c action . However, it is advisable to memorial ize the federal
preemption in some manner. There may be a variety of ways to do this , including a written
interpretation from the building official and/or considerat ion by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
This may require further discussion .
Recent Case Law:
A case out of Ohio decided August 14 , 2015 relating to miniature horses is illustrative of
how cases like these are analyzed with respect to the ADA and FHAct. xiv Anderson, et al v.
City of Blue Ash is about Mrs . Anderson keeping one or two miniature horses at various times
beginning in 2010 to assist her child in navigating her backyard . According to Mrs. Anderson ,
the ch ild had ambulatory problems and the miniature horses assisted by steadying the child ,
and to help her to stand after a fall. The City responded to citizen complaints regarding
accumulation of feces , smells of manure causing devaluation of the neighborhood and creating
health issues . (One complaint alleged Mrs . Anderson was keeping two miniature horses , five
dogs , goats , chickens and pigs) There were also complaints questioning whether the animal
was actually used for therapeutic purposes. Mrs . Anderson ultimately obtained a doctor's orders
for "in-home therapy." Finally , in 2013 the city passed an ordinance prohibiting keeping farm
animals at residences excepting those "animals which are otherwise specifically permitted
elsewhere in the Municipal Code or permitted by Hamilton County, Ohio State, or Federal law."xv
Mrs . Anderson brought claims under both ADA and FHAct. Supporting dismissal of the
ADA claim but reversing the granting of summary judgment in favor of the City under FHAct
cause of action , the court recognized the "highly fact-specific" inquiry to be made under both
acts and delves extensively into the facts . xvi
To establ ish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under Title II of the ADA , a
pla int iff must show that (1) she has a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified; and (3) she was
being excluded from participation in , denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under
the program because of her disability. Numbers 1 and 2 were not in dispute. Regarding
number 3 , the city admitted it passed the ordinance in response in part to complaints about the
residence . However, the court noted there must be an intent to discriminate because of
disability and concluded there was no evidence showing this .
With respect to the FHAct claim , claims were brought forth for disparate treatment ,
disparate impact and no reasonable accommodation . With respect to the claim there was a
5
failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, the court went through the "three operative
elements" of the act's reasonable accommodation requirements of "equal opportunity ,
necessary, and reasonable ."xvii The court noted that compared to the ADA, Mrs . Anderson did
not need to show that the miniature horse was an absolute necessity for her child but rather that
the accommodation is necessary for her to have an equal opportun ity to enjoy a particular use
of her house-independent recreation and exercise in this case . The court allowed this claim to
go forward and reversed the summary judgment granted to the city by a lower court. xviii
With respect to the disparate treatment claim under FHAct, the court concluded intent
was a necessary element which was lacking per the discussion under the ADA claim described
above .
With respect to the disparate impact claim of a facially neutral policy or practice as in the
case of the ordinance , Mrs . Anderson needed to show that the impact of the ordinance had a
disparate impact on disabled individuals compared to the general population. Because the
ordinance excepted animals that were allowed per applicable law, the claim failed .
;Per Federal regulations, ADA applies only to "service animals" described as being trained canines . In 2011, the
regulations for Part A of Title II which applies the ADA to local government's policies, prac tices added miniature
horses . Although miniature horse s are not considered "s ervice animals" under the ADA, the criteria under which
there must be reasonable accommodation for them is the same as for service animals per the 2011 regulation .
;; PGA Tour, In c. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 {2001).
;;; Robinson v. City of Friendswood, 890 F.Supp. 616 (S .D. Texa s, Houston Div . 1995)
ivsee e.g. Woodard v. City of Par is Tennessee, 520 F.Supp2d 911 (W.D. Ten nessee, Eastern Div. 2007) citing MX
Group, Inc . v. City of Covington, 293 F.3 d 326, 332 (6th Cir.2002) (citing Innovative Health Sys . v . City of White Plains ,
117 F.3d 37, 44 -46 {2d Cir.1997)).
v See e.g. publ ication U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disabil ity Rights Section, "The ADA and City
Government : Common Problem s;" and HUD.gov : Di sability Rights in Hou sing, November 13, 2015 at website :
http ://portal.hud .gov/hudportal/HUD ?src=/program offices/fair housing equal opp/disabilities/inhousing
vi 42 U.S .C. sect. 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
vi iTitle 11, Part B appl ies to Public Transportation and is not applicable here .
vi ii Preamble of the 2010 ADA reg ulations specifically note that under the FHAct , "a n in dividual with a disability may
have the right to have an animal other than a dog in hi s or her home if the anima l qualifies as a "reasonab le
accommodation " that is necessary to afford the individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwell in g, assuming
that the us e of the animal does not po se a direct th reat." In addition, the prea mbles state that emotional support
animals that do not qualify as service anima ls under the ADA my "neverthele ss qualify as permitted reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities under the FHAct ."
ix 42 USC 3604.
x 42 use 3603{a)(2).
xi Id .
xii See Fair Hou sing of the Da kotas, Inc. v . Gold mark Prop erty management, Inc ., 778 F.Supp 2d 1028 (D. North
Dakota , Southeastern Divi sion , 2011); See also 42 US C 3604
xiii For a discussion re this see Da kotas at 1034.
xiv Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 6th Cir. U.S. Ct. of Appeals , Southern Di strict, Cincinnati. [Note: recommended for
publication, but not published to date ]
6
'*--. I
"'
xv Id . at 6.
xvi Id . at 18.
xvii Id. at 23.
xviii Id . at 27.
7
CS to addressADAneeds
BY CAITLIN CLARK
caitlin.clark@theeagle.com
Several people attended
a public meeting Monday
to learn more about the
city of College Station's
plan to improve acces-
sibility and equal access
by fulfilling the require-
ments of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The city is develop-
ing and implementing
0 -•s-v.,,, 111.ation
which began in October
2014 with evaluation of
the city's public services,
programs, activities and
existing physical facili-
ties as they relate to ac-
cessibility.
"We wanted to estab-
lish a program and share
this formal commitment
through a plan that's on-
going and living," said Ve-
nessa Garza, interim ADA
coordinator for the city.
The College Station City
-• .. :I -._-.1,..]i,.,.
hearing on the plan dur-
ing its Oct. 22 meeting, at
which time it is expected
to accept the document,
Garza said.
Garza emphasized that
only the first phase of the
plan is being considered,
astherearemanymorefa-
cilities and areas around
the city that need to be
evaluated. The plan has
a 15-year implementation
schedule.
See ADA , Page A3
ne
'St on
ton
lo
len
\ngelo
ria
Today
Hi/Lo/W
89/62/pc
84n5tt
84nO/t
96n2/pc
95n4/pc
91/60/s
89/68/pc
87/68/pc
Wednesday
Hi/Lo/W
88/63/s
86n5/pc
89/68/pc
97n2/pc
95n3/pc
90/62/s
89/65/s
90/68/pc
Rivers Stage Stage
Trinity
Long Lake ...........•... 35 ............. 4.55
Crockett ................. 45 ............. 7.19
Navasota
Easterly ................... 19 ............. 3.08
Brazos
Richmond ............... 48 ............ 10.15
Bryan ...................... 43 . . ...... ... . . 8.27
leather(W): s-sunny, pc-partly cloudy, c-cloudy, sh-showers, t-thunderstorms, r-rain, sf-snow flurries, sn-snow, i-ice
~tional Cities
Hi/Lo/W Hi/Lo/W City Hi/Lo/W Hi/Lo/W
or age 42/33/sn 43/27/pc Las Vegas 1oon5ts 101n4/s
ta 77/68/t 80/63/t Los Angeles 87/66/pc 88/68/pc
tic City 77/69/c 75/62/r Miami 9on11t 89n6/t
iore 80/68/c 75/57/r Minneapolis 62/42/s 62/43/pc
1s ' 78/50/pc 80/50/pc New Orleans 87n3tt 86n1 /pc
~ston, SC 83n2/pc 86nOtc Oklahoma City 86/63/s 81/59/s
go 65/51/sh 64/50/s Orlando 86n5tt 68n5tt
land 73/57/r 64/51/pc Philadelphia 84nO/sh 74/58/r
91/69/pc 90/67/s Phoenix 104n8/s 05/771·
it 73/53/sh 67/46/s Sa rancic.r-l!'l
,o 93/66Ls 04 Ii ~
··'
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
The Eagle • theeagle.com
News
ADA: Plan calls for long-term coordinator
Continued from Al
The scope of the first
phase includes designating
a long-term ADA coordina-
tor, establishing a grievance
procedure for residents with
questions and concerns and
conducting a self-evaluation
looking at the city's services,
programs and practices.
So far, Garza said, con-
sultants from Kimley-Horn
and Associates have evalu-
ated three buildings, two
parks, 20 intersections and
three miles of sidewalk for
the plan's first phase. In that
process, the consultants
evaluated slopes, intersec-
tions, pedestrian signals and
"all things related to making
an area accessible," Garza
said. All issues were identi-
fied and prioritized.
Eagle photo by Caitlin Clark
Venessa Garza (right), the Interim ADA coordinator for the city of College
Station, leads a meeting Monday night on the city's plan to Improve
public services, programs, activities and existing physical facllltles as
they relate to accesslblllty while an Interpreter uses sign language.
Needed changes in Col--especially around Texas
lege Station identified by a A&M -and new sidewalks
focus group and attendees at along certain corridors such
afirstpublicmeetinginMay asHarveyMitchellParkway
include providing more ac-near Welsh Avenue, Ander-
cessible pedestrian signals son Streetfrom George Bush
Drive to Southwest Parkway
and Wellborn Road. Staff
members were also asked
to be educated on interpre-
tive services in certain de-
partments, including fire
and police. The use of video
phones was also suggested.
Garza said the need for
additional staff training
and education on the aids
and services available for
people with disabilities was
identified as part of the self-
evaluation, as was the need
to include ADA notices on
meeting agendas.
Garza said the comments
gathered from the public
meetings will be incorpo-
rated into the plan. Once
the City Council accepts
the plan, Garza said, ongo-
ing implementation of the
first phase will begin.
The Eagle • theeagle.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
CRYSTAL DUPRE, Publisher
KELLY BROWN, Editor
ROBERT C. BORDEN, Opinions editor
letters@ltheeagle.com
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"I pledge to you that we will follow the path of truth
wherever it may lead. Clergy and bishops will be held ac-
countable when they abuse or fail to protect children."
-Pope Francis, promising victims of sexual abuse that bishops
who covered up for abusers will be held responsible
You S~OULD CRY.
\(ouvr.. DON( NOTHING
FOi? THE ENVIRONMENT,
IMMIGRANTS , Tli£, POOR,
TJ.1£ UNDE~PRIVI LEGrD .•.
//