HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2020 - Joint Agenda Packet - City CouncilCollege Station, TX
Meeting Agenda
City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
Joint Workshop
Phone: 888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 939 4561 2258
Internet: https://zoom.us/j/93945612258
August 28, 2020 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers
College Station, TX Page 1
1.Call to Order.
2.Joint Workshop Agenda
Speaker Protocol: An individual who wishes to address the City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding any item on the agenda shall register with the City Secretary one (1) hour
prior to the meeting being called to order. Individuals must register to speak or provide written
comments at https://forms.cstx.gov/Forms/CSCouncil or provide a name and phone number by
calling 9797643500. Upon being called to speak an individual must state their name and city of
residence, including the state of residence if the city is located out of state. Speakers are
encouraged to identify their College Station neighborhood or geographic location. Each speaker’s
remarks are limited to three (3) minutes. Any speaker addressing the Council through the use of a
translator may speak for six (6) minutes. At the (3) minute mark the City Secretary will announce that
the speaker must conclude their remarks.
2.1.Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the Next 10 project and the Comprehensive
Plan 10Year Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
Sponsors:Alyssa HalleSchramm, Jason Schubert
Attachments:1.Next10_EvaluationAppraisalReport_Draft
2.Next10_AppendixA_ExistingConditions2018
3.Next10AppendixB_FocusontheFutureSummary
4.Next10_AppendixC_ImplementationAssessment
5.Next10_AppendixD_BestPracticesReport
6.Next10_AppendixE_ScenarioAnalysis
7.Next10_AppendixF_CommunityChoicesSummary
The Joint meeting will recess for lunch at 11:30 am.
3.Adjourn.
The City council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on the agenda if a
matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website of the City of College Station,
Texas, on August 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.
City Secretary
Page 1 of 484
City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission
Joint Workshop
Page 2 August 28, 2020
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting
and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters,
readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 7643541, TDD
at 18007352989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the
meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive
notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable
attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly
Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al
aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del SubCapitulo H, Capitulo
411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta
propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 2 of 484
August 28, 2020
Item No. 2.1.
Next 10 Project and the Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Sponsor:Alyssa Halle-Schramm, Planner, Jason Schubert
Reviewed By CBC:City Council
Agenda Caption:Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the Next 10 project and the
Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Good Governance
Core Services & Infrastructure
Neighborhood Integrity
Diverse & Growing Economy
Improving Mobility
Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff recommend that the City Council and the Planning & Zoning
Commission receive the presentation and draft report and provide feedback as desired.
Summary: This is a joint workshop of the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to receive
and discuss the draft Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The purpose of
an Evaluation and Appraisal Report is to serve as a “checkup” by identifying the long range
Comprehensive Plan’s successes and shortcomings and recommending appropriate modifications in
response to changing conditions. College Station’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2009. It is
meant to be a “living document” and recommends that the City undertake regular evaluations and
updates, including a thorough review every five years. Now 10 years into the plan, the City undertook
a major effort to evaluate the plan, consider recent growth and best practices, and identify needed
updates to the City’s policies.
This process began in June of 2019 with stakeholder and focus group interviews and the formation of
a Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee (CPEC). The CPEC has provided guidance throughout
the process and is comprised of three representatives each from the City Council and Planning &
Zoning Commission, along with seven citizen representatives. The current draft report is the
culmination of many months of staff and CPEC review, analysis, and multiple rounds of community
and stakeholder input. The report features a list of potential strategies and actions, contains a set of
considerations for future map changes, and summarizes the community and stakeholder input. The
report serves to prepare the City for an update to the plan, which will begin following the report’s
acceptance. City staff will draft update amendments, which will be made available for public feedback
and will go through the public hearing process at future Planning & Zoning Commission and City
Council meetings. Formal Comprehensive Plan updates are expected in 2021.
This report and its associated appendices:
• Builds upon the Five-Year Evaluation and Appraisal prepared in 2014
• Provides a review of existing conditions and best practices
Page 3 of 484
• Evaluates plan implementation progress related to the existing goals, strategies, and action items
• Incorporates multiple rounds of citizen and stakeholder input to ensure potential plan revisions
reflect the community’s vision
• Prepares the City for an update to the plan by defining potential modifications to its policies, action
items, maps, and structure
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Reviewed & Approved by Legal: No
Attachments:
1.Next10_EvaluationAppraisalReport_Draft
2.Next10_AppendixA_ExistingConditions2018
3.Next10-AppendixB_FocusontheFutureSummary
4.Next10_AppendixC_ImplementationAssessment
5.Next10_AppendixD_BestPracticesReport
6.Next10_AppendixE_ScenarioAnalysis
7.Next10_AppendixF_CommunityChoicesSummary
Page 4 of 484
Comprehensive Plan
10-year Evaluation
and Appraisal Report
Draft August 14, 2020
Page 5 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
2 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Contents
Part I: Introduction
Overview and Purpose .............................................................................................. 3
Process .......................................................................................................................... 4
Changing Conditions .................................................................................................. 5
Plan Successes ............................................................................................................ 6
Themes that the Plan Update Must Address .......................................................... 7
Part II: Big Picture Recommendations
A. Consider renaming the chapters to reflect aspirations ................................. 10
B. Refine the vision statement and goals ............................................................. 11
C. Refine the Concept Map ..................................................................................... 15
D. Refine the Future Land Use Map ....................................................................... 16
E. Prioritize areas for additional detailed planning ............................................. 35
F. Refine the Thoroughfare Plan ............................................................................ 37
G. Refine the Annexation Priorities and Phasing Plan ........................................ 38
H. Add a chapter about partnerships and collaboration .................................... 39
I. Create a more accessible, action-oriented, and user-friendly plan ............... 40
Part III: Recommendations by Plan Chapter
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 44
Chapter 2: Community Character ............................................................................. 44
Chapter 3: Neighborhood Integrity .......................................................................... 48
Chapter 4: Economic Development ......................................................................... 51
Chapter 5: Parks, Greenways and the Arts ............................................................. 52
Chapter 6: Transportation ......................................................................................... 54
Chapter 7: Municipal Services & Community Facilities ......................................... 56
Chapter 8: Growth Management ............................................................................. 60
Chapter 9: Partnerships and Collaboration ............................................................ 61
Chapter 10: Implementation & Administration ....................................................... 66
Acknowledgments
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report (2018)
Appendix B: Public Input Summary (part 1)
Appendix C: Implementation Progress Assessment
Appendix D: Best Practices Report
Appendix E: Scenario Analysis Summary
Appendix F: Public Input Summary (part 2)
Page 6 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 3
Part I: Introduction
Overview and Purpose
College Station’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in May of 2009, serves as a
statement of the community’s vision for the future. It provides goals, policies,
and actions on a broad range of topics and provides strategic direction to
guide the City’s physical growth while maintaining a high quality of life. As a
long-range document with an anticipated life span of 20 years, the
Comprehensive Plan calls for an Evaluation and Appraisal Report to be
prepared every five years.
Near the end of this 10-year Evaluation process, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted communities
nationwide. While the City has many immediate needs and is working to implement its disaster-
management plans, it is still important to plan for the long-term. As this situation is unfolding, many
of the long-term impacts are not known. The City has many reasons to be optimistic about the future,
and the Comprehensive Plan is its long-term guide. History from other disasters has taught that
communities with clear long-range plans have an advantage in terms of obtaining funding and
investment for recovery.
The purpose of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report is to serve as a “checkup” by identifying the long
range Comprehensive Plan’s successes and shortcomings and recommending appropriate
modifications in response to changing conditions. This report and its associated appendices:
• Builds upon the Five-year Evaluation and Appraisal prepared in 2014.
• Provides a review of the basic conditions and assumptions related to the City’s growth.
• Evaluates implementation progress related to the Plan’s goals, strategies, and action items.
• Serves to prepare the City for a major update to the Plan by defining potential modifications
to its policies, action items, and structure.
Page 7 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
4 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Process
This 10-year Evaluation and Appraisal process, called simply The Next 10, is more rigorous in scope
than the previous five-year evaluation. It contains a set of potential amendments to key maps,
features a list of potential strategies and actions, and involved multiple rounds of community input
including a scenario modeling effort that considered the potential impact of policy alternatives. The
14-month process began in July of 2019 and concluded in September 2020.
Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee. A 13-
member group called the Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation Committee (CPEC), met throughout the
process to provide input and feedback to guide both the
substance and the process of the Evaluation. The CPEC
was composed of members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, current and former City Council members,
and citizen representatives.
Community and stakeholder input. Two rounds of
stakeholder and community input were conducted. The
first round, during the summer of 2019, began with a
series of individual and small group interviews with a
variety of targeted community stakeholders including
leaders from City departments, representatives of the
County, City of Bryan, Texas A&M University, student
government, economic development, business groups,
neighborhood groups, realtors and developer, and
others. Over 130 stakeholders participate in those
targeted discussions. Then, four community workshops,
called Focus on the Future workshops, were conducted.
What is the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document adopted by the City Council that serves as a
guide for decisions about our physical development. The Local Government Code, which gives
cities their police powers, requires that land use decisions be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, so it is very important to keep it up to date. The purpose of the plan is to
anticipate growth and to guide that growth in a manner that provides College Station with a
balance of land uses that promote economic development while retaining quality of life.
The Plan expresses community values and aspirations through goals and objectives. It also
contains policy guidance in the form of text, maps, and specific actions related to land use and
character, neighborhoods, housing, environment, economic development, transportation and
related topics. It is implemented over time through the City’s zoning and other regulations,
Page 8 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 5
Over 200 participants worked in small groups with trained facilitators to provide feedback on the
existing Comprehensive Plan goals, input on issues and opportunities, and input on geographic
locations for future planning. Following these workshops, similar activities were offered online with
another 200 participants. Additionally, a workshop that engaged nearly 100 university students was
convened in partnership with Texas A&M’s student government association. In total, approximately
600 people participated in the first round of input.
The second round of public input conducted in
summer of 2020 obtained feedback on potential
updates to the future land use map, and conceptual
scenarios for six geographic areas of the city. Due to
COVID-19, this round was conducted entirely online
and branded the virtual Community Choices
Workshop. A web page containing a series of maps
and prompts allowed for rating and open-ended
input, while series of videos explained the material
and expectations. Approximately 200 people
participated, providing over 1,900 data points.
Details of the community and stakeholder input
processes is contained in Appendices B and F.
Best Practices. Part of The Next 10 process involved
considering potential best practices and planning
innovations from other communities based on
College Station’s issues, assets, challenges, and future
opportunities. A Best Practices Report (Appendix D)
describes potential strategies and case studies from
other comparable communities (including cities with
large universities) to address topics prioritized by City
leadership. That research is integrated into
recommendations in this Evaluation and Appraisal
Report.
Scenario modeling. Another significant component
of the planning effort was the development and
evaluation of scenarios for six geographic areas of
the City. The scenario planning process for the Next
10 illustrated potential disparities between existing conditions, a likely future supported by existing
Comprehensive Plan policies, and an alternative future that may be possible with changes to existing
policies. The scenarios and their performance measures (detailed in Appendix E), along with the
public feedback gathered will be used to inform potential future updates to the Comprehensive Plan
or other City policies.
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH
To inform the public about the importance of The Next
10 and opportunities for input, the City conducted a
rigorous communication and outreach campaign. That
effort included traditional media and electronic media
communication, as well as word-of-mouth outreach
with the assistance of the Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation Committee. Outreach transitioned to
primarily digital toward the end of the project due to
COVID-19. Specific communication and outreach
activities included:
• Multiple social media campaigns
o Twitter
o Facebook
o LinkedIn
• Features on the City’s website and homepage
• A Next 10 project webpage and email list
• Multiple blog posts
• City Council Weekly Update articles
• City newsletters
o Recreation Connection
o Neighborhood eNews
o Planning & Development Services
• Newspaper columns and letters to the editor
• Newspaper ads (digital and print)
• Radio interviews
• Personal email invitations for participation
• Personal emails to multiple Texas A&M student
organizations and divisions and inclusion in
student listserves
• Flyers and posters
• Presentations to civic groups and student
organizations
• In-person promotion at community events
Page 9 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
6 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Changing Conditions
City staff prepared an assessment of existing conditions in 2018 to provide context for the Evaluation.
The Existing Conditions Report (Appendix A) considered population growth and projections,
demographic and socioeconomic makeup, existing land use, and other physical development trends.
Much of this report is based on the most recent City data and estimates from the US Census Bureau.
As the City looks to the future, significant conditions and trends include:
Continued growth. The City has maintained an average annual growth rate around 2.8% and is
projected to continue to grow in population. Texas A&M University’s increasing student enrollment
continues to be a significant driver of this growth. The 2020 US Census will likely affirm population
and demographic conditions. One anticipated outcome of the 2020 Census is that the Bryan-College
Station metropolitan area will reach a population over 200,000, at which point, the region will receive
less Federal funding for transit service. Providing balanced mobility choices, housing options, and
quality of life amenities will be critical to serving a growing and diversifying population.
Increasing costs of growth. There are growth opportunities on the City’s edge, but also challenges
with providing well-timed infrastructure improvements that support long-term financial wellbeing for
the City. Also, it may be cost prohibitive to provide utility services in some areas, particularly on the
City’s southwestern edges. The City must be strategic with its future investments in infrastructure,
facilities, and services.
Changing annexation laws. In 2019, the Texas State Legislature changed how cities can annex,
effectively requiring property owners to request or opt-in to annexation. Cities can no longer
unilaterally annex territory. With limited incentives for annexation in the City’s Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ), it is more challenging for the City to expand its boundaries in the future. The City
may need to continue and potentially increase the use of other growth management tools, such as
development agreements and municipal utility districts (MUDs).
Many redevelopment and reinvestment opportunities. There are many developed areas that are
underutilized where infill and redevelopment could create more viable and vibrant places. While
some of these areas were defined in the existing Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment activity has
been slower than some expected. The pace of redevelopment is largely dependent on local
economics and physical conditions, but City investments or policies could influence or incentivize
redevelopment potential. Nationally, there is expected to be continued demand for walkable,
integrated, mixed use districts and the City could encourage infill and redevelopment opportunities
to support this type of development.
COVID-19. Near the end of this 10-year Evaluation process, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted
communities nationwide. While specific short-term impacts of the pandemic are still being assessed,
the Comprehensive Plan sets long-term goals and policies that endure short-term disruptions. Even
so, there may be opportunities to address relatively short-term needs in the Comprehensive Plan
update. Such needs could include policies to incentivize redevelopment or reuse of vacant sites,
streamline development or permitting processes, or otherwise support struggling small businesses.
Other strategiescould involve evaluating data regularly to fully understand how the pandemic will
Page 10 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 7
impact business activity, development demand, commuting patterns, recreational facility use, or
other community needs.
Plan Successes
The Comprehensive Plan’s implementation chapter established a protocol for regular reporting and
evaluation of progress. Each year, the City prepares a summary report of notable plan progress and
development activity. At 5-year intervals, a more thorough evaluation is prepared (such as this
report), which typically leads to amendments to the plan itself.
As part of this 10-Year Evaluation and Appraisal, an Implementation Progress Assessment (Appendix
C) was conducted to review each action item in the plan and determine its status (complete, not
complete, ongoing, etc.) Based on this exercise, many of the plan’s action items have been initiated or
completed, while others were no longer relevant. A smaller number of items had not been
undertaken but were still supported, or had been initiated but progress was limited. This analysis
also helped identify duplicate items that could be refined or consolidated.
This report contains a list of potential actions for the Comprehensive Plan that includes new
recommendations and carries forward other existing actions with refinements.
Interim Amendments
Several updates and amendments to the plan have been adopted since the previous five-year
evaluation was prepared. These include the following plan updates:
1. Update to the Water System Master Plan dated April 2017
2. Update to the Wastewater System Master Plan dated April 2017
3. Update to the Thoroughfare Plan section (Chapter 6) of the Comprehensive Plan (2017)
4. Update to the Growth Management section (Chapter 8) of the Comprehensive Plan based
on recommendations from the annexation task force (2017)
5. Update to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan and associated
Comprehensive Plan maps (2018)
6. Updated to the Economic Development Master Plan (Chapter 4) of the Comprehensive
Plan (May 2020)
Numerous small revisions to the Future Land Use and Character map (29 in total) have been made
since 2015.
Page 11 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
8 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Themes that the Plan Update Must Address
The following 10 themes guide the recommendations in this Evaluation and Appraisal Report. These
were distilled from input of stakeholders, the public, City staff, and the CPEC. A future update to the
Comprehensive Plan should address these themes.
1. Creating a stronger sense of place
2. Encouraging infill and redevelopment in strategic locations
3. Protecting the character of established stable neighborhoods
4. Expanding housing choices
5. Focusing on quality of life, amenities, and “things to do”
6. Building a more complete transportation system
7. Maintaining fiscally responsible growth
8. Addressing environmental resiliency and “green” initiatives
9. Improving coordination between the City and University
10. Creating a more actionable, strategic, and user-friendly Plan
Page 12 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 9
Part II: Big Picture
Recommendations
The following recommendations detailed in this section include potential
updates to the Plan that address the 10 themes defined on the previous page.
These Big Picture recommendations involve potential updates to the Plan’s
major guiding vision, goals, and policy maps. They also include
recommendations that apply to the Plan’s structure and each of its chapters.
A. Consider renaming the chapters to reflect aspirations
B. Refine the vision statement and goals
C. Refine the Concept Map
D. Refine the Future Land Use Map
E. Prioritize areas for additional detailed planning
F. Refine the Thoroughfare Plan
G. Refine the Annexation Priorities and Phasing Plan
H. Add a chapter about partnerships and collaboration
I. Revise the Plan’s recommendation structure and format
Page 13 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
10 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
A. Consider renaming the chapters to reflect aspirations
The Plan is organized into nine chapters that are named based on common
comprehensive plan elements. Input with staff, stakeholders, and CPEC included
potentially renaming some of the chapters to be more aspirational and to better
reflect the Plan goals.
A.1. Rename Chapter 6. Transportation to “Mobility”
Use the term “mobility” in place of Transportation in the title of Chapter 6 to reflect that this element
is more than roads, traffic, and cars.
A.2. Consider chapter names that use verbs or adjectives.
Some modern comprehensive plans are organized by themes rather than literal topic names. A
similar idea could be implemented in College Station’s plan by renaming the existing chapters to
reflect themes or aspirations. The following example renames the existing chapters using adjectives
or verbs. The CPEC generally preferred a hybrid of the Example and retaining some of the existing
chapter names, specifically Neighborhood Integrity. There was group consensus that Transportation
should be renamed to Mobility.
EXAMPLE
Potential Chapter Titles Existing
1. Plan foundation 1. Introduction
2. Distinctive places 2. Community Character
3. Strong neighborhoods 3. Neighborhood Integrity
4. A prosperous economy 4. Economic Development
5. Desirable amenities 5. Parks, Greenways, and the Arts
6. Integrated mobility 6. Transportation
7. Exceptional services 7. Municipal Services and Community Facilities
8. Managed growth 8. Growth management and capacity
9. Plan implementation 9. Implementation and Administration
Page 14 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 11
B. Refine the vision statement and goals
The Comprehensive Plan includes a vision statement and seven goals that depict the
City’s high-level aspirations. A plan’s vision and goals should be enduring and may
not need to be re-evaluated on a regular basis. However, based on community input
and discussions with the CPEC, there is a need to consider refinements to the
statements in the 10-year update.
B.1 Refine the Vision Statement
The following comments were provided by the CPEC regarding the vision statement.
• Remove “Research Valley” and replace with Texas Triangle
• Consider adding resiliency, sustainability, and fiscal health
• Consider replacing “growth” with character and quality of place
• Simplify wording of bullet #2
• Consider adding “community pride”
• Remove the term “remain” – the statement should be bolder and more aspirational
The following proposed vision statement shortens the existing vision, incorporates the above
comments, and utilizes the chapter themes suggested in A.2. on the previous page.
Draft Proposed Vision Existing Vision
College Station, the proud
home of Texas A&M
University, will serve as an
example of a vibrant, forward
thinking, knowledge-based
community, that promotes the
highest quality-of-life.
College Station, the proud home of Texas A&M University and
the heart of the Research Valley, will remain a vibrant, forward
thinking, knowledge-based community which promotes the
highest quality of life for its citizens by …
• Ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods
with enduring character;
• Increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station
citizens through a well-planned and constructed inter-
modal transportation system;
• Expecting sensitive development and management of the
built and natural environment;
• Supporting well planned, quality and sustainable growth;
• Valuing and protecting our cultural and historical
community resources;
• Developing and maintaining quality cost-effective
community facilities, infrastructure and services which
ensure our City is cohesive and well connected; and,
• Pro-actively creating and maintaining economic and
educational opportunities for all citizens.
College Station will continue to be among the friendliest and most
responsive of communities and a demonstrated partner in
maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the
Brazos Valley. It will continue to be a place where Texas and the
world come to learn, live, and conduct business!
Page 15 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
12 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
B.1 Refine the Goals
The Comprehensive Plan contains seven goals, one for each of the topical chapters. The existing
goals are written inconsistently and may omit important ideas that relate to the vision. For the
purpose of this Evaluation, a Goal is defined as: an intended outcome expressed in simple terms. The
following Comprehensive Plan goals are listed below. Each topic provides a list of comments from the
CPEC pertaining to that chapter’s goal, followed by a proposed revision to the goal.
Community Character (chapter 2)
• Replace “rural areas” with green spaces
• Consider use of “conserve” rather than “protect”
Draft Proposed Existing
Vibrant and distinct districts, attractive
neighborhoods, revitalized gateways and
corridors, and conserved natural areas,
grounded in environmental stewardship and
resiliency.
To be a community with strong, unique
neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts,
distinct corridors, and a protected and enhanced
natural environment.
Neighborhood Integrity (chapter 3)
• Use the word “foster” as opposed to “protect”
• Goal should apply to all neighborhoods, not just established ones
Draft Proposed Existing
Viable and attractive neighborhoods that
maintain long-term neighborhood integrity while
collectively providing a wide range of housing
options for a diverse population.
To protect the long-term viability and appeal of
established neighborhoods.
Economic Development (chapter 4)
The Economic Development chapter references the Economic Development Master Plan. An update
to that master plan was adopted by City Council on May 14, 2020.
• Concern that the term “full-time jobs” excludes an important dimension of employment
opportunities
• Consider entrepreneurs and workforce development
• Need to be welcoming for all – job opportunities (diverse) and housing
Page 16 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 13
Draft Proposed Existing
A diversified economy with a wide variety of
quality, stable jobs; support for entrepreneurs,
and opportunities to develop skills; that provides
a tax base to support the City’s ability to foster a
high quality of life; and where economic
prosperity is widespread.
A diversified economy generating quality, stable, full-
time jobs; bolstering the sales and property tax base;
and contributing to a high quality of life.
Parks, greenways, and the arts (chapter 5)
• Consider changing the title of this element since it is broader than parks. Perhaps “recreation and
amenities”
Draft Proposed Existing
Highly desirable parks, greenways, and arts and
culture amenities that support high-quality
experiences for residents and visitors.
Diversity of parks, greenways and the arts for leisure
and recreation as well as for entertainment, education
and culture to achieve a high quality of life for all
residents and visitors.
Transportation (Mobility) (chapter 6)
• Use a comprehensive approach to mobility that is sensitive to and supportive of the surrounding
land use context
Draft Proposed Existing
An innovative, safe, and well-connected
mobility system serving all user types that is
designed to support the surrounding land uses.
Improved mobility through a safe, efficient, and well-
connected multimodal transportation system designed
to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses.
Facilities and Services (chapter 7)
• No comments
Draft Proposed Existing
Exceptional municipal facilities and services that
meet community needs, contribute to community
character, exhibit environmental stewardship and
resiliency, support surrounding land uses,
incorporate full life-cycle costs, and are
coordinated and fiscally responsible.
Municipal facilities that meet community needs,
contribute to community character, are sensitive to the
surrounding land uses, and provide exceptional
municipal services.
Page 17 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
14 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Growth Management (chapter 8)
• Remove leading verb (applies to all)
Draft Proposed Existing
Fiscally responsible and carefully managed
development that is aligned with growth
expectations and the ability to provide safe,
timely, and efficient infrastructure and
services.
Ensure fiscally responsible and carefully managed
development aligned with growth expectations and in
concert with the ability to deliver infrastructure and
services in a safe, timely, and effective
manner.
Partnerships and Collaboration (new chapter 9)
Draft Proposed
Well-coordinated planning at all levels and effective engagement with local jurisdictions,
institutions, and organizations to further realize the City’s vision and support the broad
community.
Page 18 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 15
C. Refine the Concept Map
The Concept Map is intended to provide a broad overview of the City’s growth and
development strategy. It designates general growth types including redevelopment,
growth, and conservation. It also identifies locations where small area plans or
neighborhood plans exist or should be created in the future. This information is
used along with the Future Land Use map to guide development decisions,
infrastructure, and rezonings.
However, some of the information on the Concept Map overlaps with information
the Future Land Use Map, requiring staff to reference both maps together. Also,
some information shown such as growth areas or special planning areas may no
longer be relevant or feasible.
C.1. Make the map more strategic by highlighting only areas for change and
areas with special plans.
Rather than identifying all parts of the city with a concept such as growth, redevelopment, or a
neighborhood plan, the map should highlight only those areas where a change in land use or
character is intended or where there are special plans and policies.
C.2. Show only neighborhood or special planning areas that have or will have a
neighborhood plan or area plan.
Another more strategic option is to show only the existing neighborhood plans, special district plans
(Medical District), and defined planning areas. Future or potential planning areas should be removed.
C.3. Consider renaming the map.
Consider renaming the Concept Map to “Planning Areas Map” or a similar name that reflects its new
content.
C.4. Move the information describing the general intent for the planning areas
into the Future Land Use Category definitions.
The map identifies growth and planning areas and defines the intent for each of those areas within
the plan text. The guidance of those statements should be reflected in the definitions of Future Land
Use categories and not tied to this map. That change would make the Future Land Use map and the
Concept Map serve different purposes and would reduce the need to consult both maps. Growth and
redevelopment areas could still be identified on the Concept Map, but they should represent
strategic priority areas.
Page 19 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
16 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
D. Refine the Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map is the primary policy guide to the City’s future physical
development. It uses general land use categories to express the expectations and
intent for how land in the City and its ETJ should be used in the future. The map is
used to guide decisions about zoning changes and infrastructure investment.
A future land use map should provide clear expectations for City decision-makers,
the development community, and the public, while also providing flexibility to
accommodate specific site context, unique opportunities, and changing long-term
conditions. This challenge means that future land use maps vary widely between
communities.
Based on community and stakeholder input, changing conditions, and best
practices, several updates should be considered for the Future Land Use map. These
updates include renaming the categories, refining the definitions of those
categories, and changing the categories applied to some locations in the City.
D.1. Consolidate and rename categories on the Future Land Use Map
One concern noted from stakeholders is that College Station’s Future Land Use map appears similar
to the City’s zoning map in many ways, which often creates confusion. It includes a relatively large
number of categories and several categories have the same name as zoning districts, but with
different meaning. Additionally, there may be important development concepts that are not
adequately accommodated by the current categories. The table on the following page illustrates a
proposed list of categories that address three issues.
a. Reduce the number of categories to simplify the map. The current map includes 25
categories, eight of which apply only to the Wellborn special district. In comparison, recent
plans for similar communities typically include between 12 and 18 categories. The
following proposed list includes 17 categories and shows how those proposed categories
relate to existing categories. Note that the underlying zoning districts that implement these
categories would not change.
b. Rename the categories to be distinct from zoning district names. The category names
have been changed so that they are different than zoning district names. The proposed
names describe types of places, rather than specific uses or development densities.
c. Introduce new categories that reflect missing development types, concepts, or
conditions. A new neighborhood-scale center (mixed-use) category and a new mixed
residential category are proposed.
Page 20 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 17
PROPOSED: Consolidated list of Future Land Use Categories
Existing categories Proposed categories Map color Color value (rgb)
Mixed Use Centers
1 Urban Mixed Use Urban Center 122 0 0
2 Village Center (unmapped) Neighborhood Center 180 120 100
Commercial Areas
3 General Commercial General Commercial 237 18 18
4 Suburban Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 250 162 162
5 Business Park Business Center 149 100 189
Neighborhood and Residential Areas
6 Urban Urban Residential 235 152 0
7 NEW Mixed Residential 235 194 61
8 Restricted Suburban Suburban Residential 247 239 87
General Suburban
9 Estate Estate Residential 255 255 179
10 Neighborhood Conservation Neighborhood Conservation 176 179 14
Institutional and Special Districts
11 Texas A&M University Texas A&M University 216 226 237
12 Institutional/Public Institutional/Public 158 210 232
Utilities
13 Medical Use Medical 0 97 199
14
Wellborn Preserve (open)
Wellborn Estate (open)
Wellborn Business
Wellborn Commercial
Wellborn Preserve
Wellborn Estate
Wellborn Restricted Suburban
Wellborn Suburban
Wellborn
0 149 168
Limited Development Areas
15 Natural (protected) Parks and Greenways 92 120 68
16 Natural (reserved) Natural Areas 192 214 154
17 Rural Rural 224 242 194
Page 21 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
18 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
D.2. Clarify the definitions of each Future Land Use category
The current plan’s future land use categories are each defined with a short text description. In some
cases those descriptions accommodate a wide range of potential uses and development types. One
example is the existing “Urban” category, which in many contexts means high density residential, but
could also mean commercial, office, or a vertical mixing of uses depending on location. These current
definitions provide flexibility, but may be less successful at providing clarity and predictability. In
some locations, the Concept Map also indicates expectations for development.
The future land use categories could be redefined to provide clearer expectations about future
development for policymakers, staff, and the public while still providing flexibility needed in a long-
term city-wide policy guide. The following example definitions employ a character-based approach
that include a general description, statements of intent, physical attributes, and representative
example photos.
EXAMPLE: Future land use type definitions from another plan
Page 22 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 19
PROPOSED: Future Land Use Definitions based on proposed categories
Urban Center
Areas that are appropriate for the most intense development and
mix of uses arranged in a compact and walkable pattern. These
areas will tend to consist of multi-story residential, commercial,
and office uses that may be mixed vertically within mixed-use
structures or horizontally in an integrated manner. Urban Centers
should also incorporate consolidated parking facilities, access to
transportation alternatives, open space and recreational facilities,
and public uses.
Building Height: 5 stories average
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Create and reinforce walkable activity centers with small blocks that are
connected to surrounding development and include a mix of complementary
uses.
• Accommodate a mix of building types including freestanding and attached
structures that frame attractive pedestrian zones between buildings and
streets.
• Encourage commercial uses along primary streets.
• Encourage vertical mixed-use structures with ground-floor retail in
appropriate locations such as along major corridors.
• Support multifamily residential as a secondary component of a center.
• Encourage shared surface parking located behind buildings or to the side of
buildings; structured parking; and on-street parking where possible.
Zoning districts:
MU Mixed-Use,
In Northgate only: NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3
In Wolf Pen Creek only: WPC
Future Land Use and Zoning – An Overview
The Future Land Use map and categories are general policy guides for how areas of the City
could develop in the future. The zoning map is a legal document that that regulates how a
specific property can be developed today. Each property in the City is assigned to one zoning
district. The Future Land Use categories reference multiple potentially appropriate zoning
districts. Zoning map changes are considered based on the Future Land Use Map, other City
policies, and the context of a specific site. Zoning changes involve a public hearing process.
Page 23 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
20 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Neighborhood Center
Areas that are appropriate for a mix of uses arranged in a compact
and walkable pattern at a smaller scale than Urban Centers. These
areas consist of residential, commercial, and office uses arranged
horizontally in an integrated manner and may be mixed vertically
within structures. Neighborhood Centers should also incorporate
consolidated parking facilities, access to transportation
alternatives, open space and recreational facilities, and public uses.
Height: 3 stories average;
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Create and reinforce walkable activity centers that are connected to
surrounding development and include a mix of complementary uses.
• Accommodate a mix of building types that frame attractive pedestrian spaces.
• Encourage commercial uses along primary streets.
• Support vertical mixed-use structures with ground-floor retail in appropriate
locations such as along corridors or major intersections
• Support multifamily residential as a secondary component of a center.
• Encourage shared surface parking located behind or to the side of buildings,
with some limited parking in front of buildings; structured parking; and on-
street parking where possible.
Zoning districts: MU Mixed-Use
In Wolf Pen Creek only: WPC
General Commercial
Concentrated areas of commercial activities that cater to both
nearby residents and to the larger community or region. Generally,
these areas tend to be large and located along regionally
significant roads. Due to their context, these areas tend to
prioritize automobile mobility.
Height: 1-2 stories average
Mobility: Primarily automobile, but accessible by walking, biking, and transit.
Intent
• Accommodate a wide range of commercial uses.
• Concentrate future commercial development at major intersections.
• Provide connectivity to surrounding bicycle and pedestrian networks and
provide safe pedestrian facilities within sites.
• Encourage transitions in building height and mass when adjacent to
residential neighborhoods.
• Support multi-family residential as secondary uses on a site.
• Encourage shared surface parking
Zoning districts: GC General Commercial, O Office, MU Mixed-Use
Page 24 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 21
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas of commercial activities that cater primarily to nearby
residents. These areas tend to be smaller format than general
commercial and located adjacent to major roads along the fringe
of residential areas. Design of these structures is compatible in
size, architecture, and lot coverage with surrounding residential
uses.
Height: 1-2 stories average
Mobility: Primarily automobile, but accessible by walking, biking, and transit.
Intent
• Accommodate limited commercial services compared to General Commercial.
• Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and
nearby public uses (schools, parks, etc.).
• Support some residential use that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood character.
• Encourage transitions in building height and mass when adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
• In a walkable neighborhood context, locate new buildings near the street and
accommodate parking to the side or rear of buildings with some limited
parking in front of buildings and accommodate on-street parking where
possible.
Zoning districts: SC Suburban Commercial, O Office
Business Center
Areas that include office, research, or industrial uses that may be
planned and developed as a unified project. Generally, these areas
need convenient access to arterial roadways.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Intent
• Accommodate a variety of large footprint buildings.
• Accommodate commercial and service uses within Employment Centers.
• Accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity to and within
Employment Centers.
• Provide buffering through landscaping and building placement where large-
scale employment sites are adjacent to residential areas.
Zoning districts: BP Business Park, BPI Business Park Industrial, CI Commercial
Industrial
Page 25 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
22 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Urban Residential
Areas that are appropriate for a range of high density multi-family
and attached residential development in various forms including
townhomes, apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings, and
limited non-residential uses that are compatible with the
surrounding area.
Height: 3 stories average
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Accommodate a wide range of attractive multi-family housing for a diverse
population. Buildings may be clustered and grouped. Building setback from
street varies but is generally consistent within a development.
• Provide vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between developments.
• Accommodate streetscape features such as sidewalks, street trees, and
lighting.
• Support commercial, service, office uses, and vertical mixed-use within
redevelopment areas.
Zoning districts: MF Multi-Family, MU Mixed-Use, T Townhouse
Mixed Residential
Areas appropriate for a mix of moderate density residential
development including, townhomes, duplexes, and small (3-12
unit) multi-family buildings, and limited small-lot single family.
These areas are appropriate for residential infill and
redevelopment that allows original character to evolve. These
areas may serve as buffers between more intense multi-family
residential or mixed-use development and suburban residential
or neighborhood conservation areas.
Height: Varies (generally 2-3 stories)
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Intent
• Accommodate a walkable pattern of small lots, small blocks and well-
connected street pattern.
• Accommodate streetscape features such as sidewalks, street trees, and
lighting.
• Encourage community facilities, parks, and greenways within neighborhoods
• Support neighborhoods with a mix of housing types and where larger or more
dense housing is located near community facilities or adjacent to commercial
or neighborhood centers
Zoning districts: D Duplex, T Townhouse, limited scale MF Multi-Family, limited
scale GS General Suburban
Page 26 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 23
Suburban Residential
Primarily single-family residential areas that consist of low to
moderate density single-family lots. These areas may also
include limited townhomes, duplexes, other housing types, and
some non-residential uses that are compatible with
surrounding single-family areas. Development types tend to be
highly consistent within a subdivision or neighborhood.
Height: 1-2 stories average
Mobility: Primarily automobile, but accessible by walking, biking, and transit
to surrounding neighborhood services and centers.
Intent
• Accommodate streetscape features such as sidewalks, street trees, and
lighting
• Support neighborhoods with a mix of housing types
• Encourage community facilities, parks, and greenways within
neighborhoods
• When establishing new residential areas or expanding existing
developments, provide pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between
adjacent developments
Zoning districts: RS Restricted Suburban, GS General Suburban
Estate Residential
Primarily single-family residential areas that have a low level of
development activities. These areas are appropriate for very
low-density residential lots one-acre or greater lot sizes or
average 20,000 square feet lots when clustered around open
space.
Height: 1-2 story average
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Intent
• Support a wide range of lot sizes, long blocks, and curvilinear streets.
Buildings tend to be located greater than 30 feet from a fronting street.
• When establishing new residential areas or expanding existing
developments, provide pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between
adjacent developments
Zoning districts: E Estate, R Rural, MHP Manufactured Home Park
Page 27 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
24 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Neighborhood Conservation
Residential areas that are essentially “built-out” and are not
likely to be the focus of extensive infill development or
redevelopment. These areas often were platted before current
development regulations were in place often resulting in non-
conforming situations. These areas are appropriate for overlays
or zoning classifications that provide additional character
protection and address non-conforming issues.
Height: 1-2 stories
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile. On-street parking and private
off-street parking.
Intent
• Maintain the existing housing stock, lot patterns, and character of
neighborhoods.
• Support infill housing that fits-in with neighboring homes (scale,
placement, use, etc). Address non-conforming lot issues through
flexible development regulations.
• Maintain established trees
Zoning districts: GS General Suburban and RS Restricted Suburban
Texas A&M University
Areas owned by Texas A&M University and are appropriate for
campus development as described in the Texas A&M Campus
Master Plan and related documents.
Institutional/Public
Areas that are, and are likely to remain, in some form of
institutional or public activity. Examples include schools,
libraries, municipal facilities, and major utilities.
Page 28 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 25
Medical
Areas appropriate for medically-related uses and supporting
office, commercial, and residential uses. The medical land use
designation surrounding Rock Prairie and State Highway 6 is
further detailed in the Medical District Master Plan, which
envisions a wide array of medical and supporting services and
activities concentrated in the district. This includes the two
major hospitals in close proximity to residential neighborhoods,
neighborhood centers, offices, and commercial uses.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Walking, biking, transit, automobile.
Zoning districts: Varies
Wellborn
The Wellborn Community Plan envisions the future of Wellborn
to maintain its rural character with open space that is both
privately and publicly held. The area will continue as a place
where neighborhood commercial uses support surrounding
low-density residential properties.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Zoning districts: Where appropriate as specified in the Wellborn Community
Plan - WE Wellborn Estate, WRS Wellborn Restricted Suburban, WC Wellborn
Commercial
Parks and Greenways
Areas that are permanently protected from development. Such
areas are preserved for their natural function or for parks,
recreation, or greenways opportunities. These areas include,
publicly owned open space, conservation easements, and
public parks.
Page 29 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
26 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Natural Areas
This land use designation is generally for areas that represent a
constraint to development and that should be preserved for
their natural function or open space qualities. These areas
include floodplains and riparian buffers.
Intent
• Conserve environmentally sensitive land.
• Buffer incompatible land uses with open space.
• Develop a connected open space network through the city for recreation.
•
Zoning districts: NAP Natural Areas Protected
Rural
Areas that, due to public service limitations, inadequate public
infrastructure, or a prevailing rural or agricultural character,
should have very limited development activities. These areas
will tend to include a mix of large acreages (ranches and
farmsteads) and limited large-lot (two acre or larger) residential
developments. Open space is the dominant feature of these
areas.
Height: Varies
Mobility: Primarily automobile
Zoning districts: R Rural, MHP Manufactured Home Park
Page 30 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 27
D.3. Update the future land use map to reflect new categories
The following examples are intended to illustrate a concept behind potential map changes that could
be applied to various locations. Each example focuses on a small area of the city and features an
existing map (with existing categories) and a potential map (with new categories).
NOTE: These examples are intended for consideration. A public review process will be
conducted to obtain feedback on actual proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map.
a. Introduce a new Neighborhood Center category
The Neighborhood Center category defines areas that are appropriate for a mix of uses
arranged in a compact and walkable pattern at a smaller in scale than Urban Centers.
EXAMPLES
Community Choices
Public Feedback
79% of respondents supported this
potential change or had no opinion. Of the
minority who did not support the potential
change, their comments mentioned
concern about density and loss of open
space in this specific location. These
comments indicate those participants also
would not not support the current plan’s
Future Land Use for this location.
63%
21%
16%
0%20%40%60%80%
I generally support this…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 1, Example 1
Page 31 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
28 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Community Choices
Public Feedback
72% of respondents supported this
potential change or had no opinion. The
minority who did not support the potential
change either feel that a strictly
commercial activity is more appropriate
for this area, or do not think this specific
site is suitable for a walkable,
neighborhood center. Others expressed
concern that neighborhood center could
invite multi-family housing in this location.
54%
28%
18%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
I generally support this…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 1, Example 2
Page 32 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 29
b. Introduce a new Mixed Residential category
The Mixed Residential category defines areas that are appropriate for a mix of moderate
density residential development including small-lot single family, townhomes, duplexes,
and small (3-12 unit) multi-family buildings. These areas are appropriate for residential infill
and redevelopment that allows original character to evolve.
EXAMPLES
Community Choices
Public Feedback
73% of respondents supported the
potential changes or had no opinion. The
minority who did not support the potential
change are concerned about Mixed
Residential encouraging low quality
housing, student housing, or higher
density development and traffic. Those
comments indicate that some participants
would also not support the current plan’s
Future Land Use designations in these
locations.
57%
27%
16%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
I generally support this…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 2, Example 1
Page 33 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
30 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Community Choices
Public Feedback
Similar to the previous example, 76% of
respondents supported the potential
changes or had no opinion. The minority
who did not support the potential change
are concerned about Mixed Residential
encouraging low quality housing, student
housing, or higher density development
and traffic. Those comments indicate that
some participants would also not support
the current plan’s Future Land Use
designations in these locations.
59%
23%
17%
0%20%40%60%80%
I generally support this…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 2, Example 2
Page 34 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 31
c. Re-evaluate Suburban Commercial and General Commercial locations
The current General Commercial category name is proposed to be retained. The current
Suburban Commercial category is proposed to be called Neighborhood Commercial. Areas
that are currently Suburban Commercial along major corridors could be reclassified as
General Commercial and additional areas within the City may be classified as
Neighborhood Commercial.
EXAMPLE
Community Choices
Public Feedback
68% of respondents supported this
potential change or had no opinion. Those
who did not support the potential change
expressed differing opinions. Some were
concerned about any new development
increasing traffic in the area. Others
suggested that a mixing of uses such as a
neighborhood center should be
considered for this location.
51%
32%
17%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
I generally support this…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 3, Example 1
Page 35 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
32 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Community Choices
Public Feedback
73% of respondents supported this
potential change or had no opinion. Those
who did not support the potential change
said that existing commercial in the area
was sufficient. Or, they were otherwise
opposed to additional commercial
development that might increase traffic or
cause drainage issues.
56%
27%
18%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
I generally support this…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 3, Example 2
Page 36 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 33
d. Update the Natural Areas boundary
The current Natural Areas can be updated using recent data to more accurately represent
the FEMA floodplain and other natural features.
EXAMPLES
Page 37 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
34 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Community Choices
Public Feedback
76% of respondents supported these
potential changes or had no opinion. The
minority that did not support the potential
change were concerned about loss of open
space or flooding caused by reducing
limitations on development.
Using the Scenario Planning Process to guide Future Land Use Updates
In addition to the potential changes in this section, scenarios for six locations were evaluated with
the public at the virtual Community Choices workshop. The analysis and public feedback should
be used to guide potential Future Land Use changes. Most of these areas will require
refinements to the Future Land Use map since the existing map may not completely reflect any of
the three scenarios.
As stated previously, all proposed changes to the Future Land Use & Character Map will be
subject to public input. For areas where further analysis and community input are
necessary, a future area planning process should be undertaken.
57%
24%
19%
0%20%40%60%80%
I generally support…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 4, Example 1
55%
23%
21%
0%20%40%60%
I generally support…
I do not support this…
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 4, Example 2
Page 38 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 35
E. Prioritize areas for additional detailed planning
(neighborhood plans and small area plans)
The current Plan relies on further planning and detailed study for specific guidance
on many of the City’s existing neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and growth areas.
For example, it states that 13 districts and corridors “will be the subject of a future
district or corridor plan that will … refine appropriate and compatible land uses and
design for vacant land within the district or corridor and for areas appropriate for
redevelopment or resource protection.”
Over the last 10 years, five neighborhood plans (Central College Station, South Knoll,
Eastgate, Southside, and Wellborn) were developed as well as the Medical District
Master Plan. However, several other neighborhoods, corridors, and redevelopment
ideas identified in the Comprehensive Plan have not been undertaken.
E.1. Review neighborhood plans that are beyond their planning horizon
Develop a procedure for reviewing neighborhood plans. These plans are intended to provide
strategic recommendations for an area within a defined timeframe (typically seven years). Once
adopted, those recommendations would either be implemented over the plan’s horizon or
incorporated into relevant parts of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City should establish a more formal process for reviewing neighborhood plans at defined
intervals to assess:
• What was achieved relative to the plan’s recommendations
• What was not achieved (and why)
• Whether a new plan for the area is needed and what it should address
E.2. Undertake strategic area plans
The City should consider undertaking district or neighborhood planning efforts for priority locations.
The information compiled during the Next 10 process should provide direction to inform potential
area plans. These future area plans could include the areas considered in the scenario process, or
other areas. The scenario analysis could provide guidance for other areas of the City outside of the
six areas that were specifically analyzed.
Based on the scenario planning analysis, public feedback on those scenarios, and input from the
CPEC, the following is a list of areas for potential future planning efforts (listed in priority order):
Page 39 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
36 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
• Scenario Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M (City Hall area) This area was consistently
ranked as a high priority by the CPEC members. The public was divided on preferred scenario
options for this area indicating a need for further study and public engagement efforts.
• Scenario Area 1: Post Oak Mall area. This area was considered by many CPEC members to
be the top priority, though others thought future planning was notneeded. There was
support from the public for considering alternatives for this area.
• Scenario Area 5: George Bush Drive at Wellborn Road area. The public was divided on
scenario options for this area of the Southside neighborhood, indicating a need for further
study and public engagement efforts. Future planning for this area should center around the
timing of TxDOT road changes. The public felt strongly in opposing changes to the portion of
George Bush Drive across from A&M (Scenario 6). Future planning efforts in the Southside
area should focus on Area 5 surrounding the George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road
intersection.
• Scenario Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue. Public input generally supported
the alternative scenario or a hybrid of the anticipated and alternative. This area could benefit
from additional study.
Additional Areas identified by CPEC members:
• Texas Avenue around its intersection with Harvey Mitchell Parkway (2818)
• Texas Avenue and theHighway 6 frontage road between Deacon Drive to Rock Prairie Road
and west to Longmire Drive
• Major gateways(generally), perhaps focusing efforts on corridor / gateway planning at the
main entrances into the City
Page 40 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 37
F. Refine the Thoroughfare Plan
The Thoroughfare Plan within the Transportation Chapter provides guidance on the
planning and design of streets that serve moderate to high traffic volumes, serve
moderate to long distance trips, and provide connectivity to regional roadway
systems. The Thoroughfare Plan was last updated in 2017 and incorporates a
modern, context-sensitive approach to street design. That approach means streets
are designed to accommodate and prioritize various transportation modes and
users based on their surrounding land use context.
F.1. Consider consolidating categories on the Thoroughfare Plan
Consolidate two street types on the Thoroughfare Plan to simplify the map and better align it with
the Federal functional classifications. The 4-lane and 6-lane major arterials could be merged into a
single major arterial category. The typical section illustrations in the Comprehensive Plan document
would need to be updated to reflect this change.
F.2. Consider the placement of “Context Zones” in response to changes
on the Future Land Use Map
Update the definition of Context Zones based on changes to the Future Land Use categories. For
example, the Urban Core zone may need to include both the Urban Center and Neighborhood Center
Future Land Use categories. The placement of Context Zones on the Thoroughfare Plan should also
be adjusted to correspond to changes to the Future Land Use & Character Map.
F.3. Integrate components of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Master Plan into the Transportation (Mobility) Chapter
Input from stakeholders indicated a strong desire emphasize bicycle and pedestrian mobility along
with the Thoroughfare Plan within the Transportation Chapter. The City has updated the Bicycle,
Pedestrian and Greenways Masterplan, which addresses this topic. Like all masterplans, this plan is
intended to be an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the current Comprehensive
Plan references this masterplan briefly in Chapter 5 “Parks, Greenways, and the Arts” while Chapter 6:
Transportation, contains only a small section about bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
To complement the Thoroughfare Plan, key elements from the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
Masterplan should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and potential bicycle corridors
could be identified. For example, consider including Map 5.5 Existing and Proposed Bicycle facilities
and Map 5.6 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities within the Comprehensive Plan in the same
chapter as the Thoroughfare Plan.
Page 41 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
38 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
G. Refine the Annexation Priorities and Phasing Plan
Annexation benefits cities in many ways, including providing areas for future growth,
securing tax base revenue sources, covering costs for ETJ residents already using
City services such as streets and parks, and asserting zoning and other regulatory
controls to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Annexation Priorities and
Phasing Plan within Chapter 8 identifies the geographic priority areas for
annexation. However, recent Texas legislative changes have limited cities’ ability to
annex territory. The Comprehensive Plan should reflect this new reality.
G.1. Update the growth management strategy
The plan narrative describing annexation should be revised to reflect the conditions under which
annexation could occur in the future. Evaluate the City’s objectives with respect to recent legislation
constraints and describe the approach to managing growth of the City which may rely on alternative
tools in the future, such as development agreements and Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs).
G.2. Update Map 8.1 Annexation Priorities and Phasing
The annexation priorities and phasing map should be revised as follows:
a. Identify areas for priority annexation. The current distinctions between Future
Annexation Areas and Areas Eligible for Annexation could be revised to be all one color
and renamed to “priority annexation areas.” Priority areas should be strategically
beneficial to the City. Areas not designated as priority areas could be considered for
annexation based on the merits of each request.
b. Review and update current development agreements. The current Development
Agreements should be assessed in light of the Texas Legislature’s changes. The City
should assess the long-term interest and the viability of sustaining these agreements.
c. Include current Municipal Utility Agreements (MUD). MUD #2 for Millican Reserve will
need to be added to the map.
d. Update the ETJ Boundary. The ETJ needs to be extended to the 5-mile boundary.
Texas Legislative Changes to Annexation
After the 86th session of the Texas Legislature in 2019, cities lost the ability to unilaterally annex territory.
House Bill 347 has changed the way cities can annex, essentially requiring consent to annexation by a territory’s
residents and/or property owners for cities to grow. Moving forward, cities may annex in four ways: 1) consent
exempt annexation, 2) annexation on request of the landowner, 3) annexation by petition of an area with a
population of less than 200, and 4) annexation of an area with a population of 200 or more by election and
possibly petition. A few exceptions include areas with Strategic Partnerships.
College Station currently has two Strategic Partnership Agreements—one for Brazos County Municipal Utility
District No. 1 (Southern Pointe), and one for Brazos County MUD No. 2 (Millican Reserve). Both agreements
define how the City may annex these territories in the future—when they are substantially developed and
infrastructure costs have been reimbursed to the developers—and in the case of Millican Reserve, how the City
may also annex for limited purpose. Strategic Partnerships will likely remain a viable annexation option for
College Station, with evaluation and negotiations to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Page 42 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 39
H. Add a chapter about partnerships and collaboration
Many of the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations relate to collaborations
and partnerships with entities outside of City government. This evaluation
process identified the need to emphasize and build upon the City’s
relationships particularly with Texas A&M University, City of Bryan, and Brazos
County. Currently, these recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan are
spread among many chapters.
H.1. Within a new chapter, consolidate partnership actions.
A new chapter should be added to the plan to consolidate the many action items that require
collaboration with external entities (Texas A&M University, CSISD, Brazos County, etc.) and specific
internal coordination actions into one location. This chapter would help to highlight the importance
of the City-University relationship.
H.2. Within this new chapter, summarize internal coordination activities.
This chapter should also highlight critical internal coordination activities such as ongoing processes
for updating masterplans. For example, updates to the City’s water and wastewater master plans,
should be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use and growth assumptions. Each
of the major ongoing coordination activities should be described.
Page 43 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
40 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
I. Revise the Plan’s recommendation structure and format
Stakeholders familiar with the Plan expressed a desire for a more action-oriented
document that is written in simple and approachable language. Many observe that it
contains unnecessary information, that critical action items are mixed with ongoing
efforts, and that actions are difficult to track. The following recommendations
address this issue.
I.1. Revise actions to be more specific, actionable, and trackable.
The current plan’s recommendations are listed within each chapter in a section called “Goal,
Strategies, and Actions.” Within those sections, numbered strategies organize actions that are
presented in a bullet format. There is a considerable amount of repetition of similar or identical
actions between the chapters. Some of the current action items are specific projects or programs
such as “Neighborhood Funding Support. Fund and expand the Neighborhood Grants program,” yet
others are very general, such as “Sustainability. Promote sustainable design for neighborhoods.”
a. Write actions as a specific project, policy, program, or regulation. Where the goals and
strategies depict the City’s broad aspirations and direction, action items should answer “how”
those aspirations are achieved. The action statement should be concise. It could be
supported by several explanatory sentences.
EXAMPLE: 1.2 Conduct community-wide parks and recreation needs
assessments. Evaluate facilities and programs provided by the Parks and Recreation
Department through community surveys at least every five years.
b. Use a numbering system to track action items. To assist with cross referencing and
tracking of the recommendations, each action item should be numbered. In the example
above, the action 1.2 is the second item listed under strategy 1. To associate a specific action
to a chapter, a third level may be added to the numbering system. Using the same example,
the action from Chapter 5 could numbered as 5.1.2. Another common numbering scheme
involves abbreviating the chapter title, such as CF 1.2.
c. Remove duplicate or complete actions. In the 10-years since the Plan was adopted, many
of its specific action items have been completed. Other action items may not have been
completed, but are no longer relevant for various reasons. In several instances, action items
are duplicated or are very similar across chapters. Actions that fall into any of these three
categories should be removed from the plan. Potentially duplicated actions that are still
relevant, should be included once within the most appropriate chapter and strategy. A status
assessment of the current plan actions is included in Appendix D.
Page 44 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 41
d. Consider rephrasing the strategies that organize actions. The updated actions could be
organized by strategies as they are now, but those strategies could be phrased more
concisely and reflect themes within the goals. For example, if the goal for Neighborhood
Integrity mentions “diverse housing,” then a strategy could address “Promote housing
diversity.” Similarly, if the goal for Mobility mentions “a complete transportation system” then
a strategy could be “promote a more complete transportation system.”
e. Consider an alternative for organizing actions. Many of the actions are ongoing, but still
relevant and merit including in the plan. Other actions offer general policy guidance, but are
not as specific as typical sections. Rather than using strategies to organize actions, it may be
helpful to sort the recommendations into two categories: (1) Ongoing initiatives and policy
direction; and (2) strategic actions. In this case, the strategic actions would only include
projects or programs that are relevant and have not yet been undertaken, have not yet been
sufficiently been implemented, or are new actions. Ongoing initiatives would include regular
actions such as undertaking updates to plans. This alternative organization may better help
the City focus its efforts.
EXAMPLE: Alternative for organizing actions (Parks, Greenways, and the Arts chapter)
Goal: Highly desirable parks, greenways, and arts and culture amenities, that support
high-quality experiences for residents and visitors.
Strategic actions
5.1 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.2 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.3 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.4 Action title. Descriptive text.
Ongoing initiatives and policy direction
5.5 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.6 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.7 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.8 Action title. Descriptive text.
5.9 Action title. Descriptive text.
I.2. Include an implementation summary table that references the
actions.
A best practice for managing a comprehensive plan is to include a table that summarizes the actions,
notes timing, responsibility, and other relevant information for each action. The current Chapter 9:
Implementation, includes a table that identifies various initiatives, general roles and responsibilities,
Page 45 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
42 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
and funding sources. In addition to or in place of this table, an action summary table should be
included. Such a table may resemble the following example. Similar summary tables exist in recent
neighborhood plans such as the Wellborn Community Plan.
EXAMPLE: Implementation summary table from another plan
EXAMPLE: Each action could be tagged with icons or words that are defined in the text
including responsible parties, time-frame, category, or status.
Page 46 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 43
I.3. Reduce the amount of text, particularly for background or
contextual information
Background information is useful to support a plan’s policies and recommendations, however it
becomes dated quickly and can distract from the plan’s important “so what?” message. Currently, a
significant amount of the Comprehensive Plan’s text relates to conditions, trends, and planning
considerations. A modern approach to preparing a comprehensive plan is to limit the amount of
contextual information to key highlights that are critical to inform the recommendations. Consider:
a. Reducing the amount of narrative within the plan overall and breaking up text into shorter
sections
b. Calling attention to key points using bold descriptive statements at the beginning of a
paragraph
c. Referencing appendices for details of the conditions and trends
I.4. Update the document design and format
The City raised expectations in the terms of graphic design in its most recent 2018 Existing Conditions
Report. The Comprehensive Plan update is an opportunity to continue that direction and create a
more graphic and user-friendly document.
In preparing an updated document, the city should also consider how the community could learn
about the plan and its recommendations. Consider updating the plan’s online presence. Many
examples exist such as the award-winning PlanOKC.org.
EXAMPLE: The excerpt below from the 2018 Existing Conditions Report serves as a
precedent for redesigning the Comprehensive Plan document.
Page 47 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
44 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Part III: Recommendations
by Plan Chapter
1. Introduction
2. Community Character
3. Neighborhood Integrity
4. Economic Development
5. Parks, Greenways, and the Arts
6. Transportation
7. Municipal Services and Community Facilities
8. Growth Management and Capacity
9. New: Partnerships and Collaboration
10. Implementation and Administration
Note:
Text in brackets within this section refers to actions in the existing plan or a source for new actions.
For example: [2.1.5 UDO Amendments] refers to action called “UDO Amendments” in the current
plan Chapter 2, Strategy 1.
Page 48 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 45
Chapter 1: Introduction
Opening and Purpose
a. Update the opening, planning context, and process to include The Next 10 plan evaluation
process.
b. Update the vision statement (see Big Picture recommendation A)
c. Rework the “Green College Station” box since this specific program no longer exists. Mention
the importance of environmental stewardship and list actions included in the plan that
promote this idea.
d. Update the descriptions of each plan chapter to reflect any revisions to titles, numbering, and
content.
e. Update the summary of existing conditions with more current data.
Chapter 2: Community Character
Opening and Purpose
a. Integrate the purpose statement into the opening on the first page of the chapter.
b. State the goal of the chapter (Goal for Community Character)
Planning Considerations
c. Remove references to “the planning process” and “participants” or make them more general
such as “planning input from the community.”
d. Consider adapting the “Growth and Development” narrative into a series of summary points
led by simple statements. For example: “The City’s strong growth is projected to continue…”
“population needs are changing…” and “utilization of existing land and development will be
increasingly important…”
e. Update the projections referenced on page 2-2
f. Consider adapting the bullets under “Character and Identity” and “Resource Protection and
Sustainability” into a set of principle statements that are phrased in terms of:
o “As College Station grows, is the City’s intent that… (Examples)
1. Infill and redevelopment in strategic locations is a priority over
expansion of the urban area;
Page 49 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
46 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
2. The character of existing neighborhoods is maintained and
strengthened;
3. New residential areas are created with qualities of traditional
neighborhoods;
4. Transportation planning and street design is sensitive to its context.
Etc.”
Existing Land Use and Character
g. Consider combining the Existing Land Use and Character section with the Community Design
and Appearance section.
Future Land Use and Character
h. Update the Concept Map as described in Big Picture Recommendation C. Reconsider the
most appropriate location for this map within the Plan. It could reside in Chapter 2 where it
exists currently, or it could follow the Future Land Use and Character Map.
i. Update the Future Land Use categories and map as described in Big Picture Recommendation
D.
Community Design and Appearance
j. See above. Consider integrating into Future Land Use and Character. Also consider extracting
affirmative statements about the City’s intent into principle statements as described above.
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Community Character. This list
includes those actions from the current plan that are still relevant as well as potential new actions.
Proposed Goal:
Vibrant and distinct districts, attractive neighborhoods, revitalized gateways and
corridors, and conserved natural areas, grounded in environmental stewardship and
resiliency.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
2.1 Review and undertake amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance’s
zoning districts. Consider amendments necessary to implement the Future Land Use
and Character categories and definitions. [2.1.5 UDO Amendments]
2.2 Prioritize and undertake detailed plans for priority neighborhoods, districts, or
redevelopment areas. The City should commit to proactively planning for a limited set
Page 50 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 47
of target areas, as specified in the updated Planning Areas map. [2.1.2 and 2.3.1 Further
Planning]
2.3 Pursue feasibility of a tree preservation and/or tree planting incentive program.
This could involve regulatory changes, incentives to preserve existing trees (especially
large canopy trees) in new development and redevelopment projects, requiring
replacement of trees that are destroyed or removed, proactive efforts by the City such
as planting trees and installing landscaping along major road corridors and gateways,
or a program where the City or a partner agency provides trees at reduced cost.
[revised 2.3.6 Greening of the City]
2.4 Create additional incentives for conservation design and evaluate the
effectiveness of cluster development standards in the UDO. Common incentives
include density bonuses where a project may be permitted a greater total density in
exchange for preservation of common open space areas. [2.4.1 Conservation Design]
2.5 Evaluate existing policies and create incentives for low impact and sustainable
development. Encourage policies and regulations that incentivize sustainable practices
such as energy reduction, renewable energy, water conservation, protection of natural
resources, adaptive reuse, waste minimization, and stormwater management. [revised
2.4.5 Green Building – Private Sector]
2.6 Re-evaluate the effectiveness and purpose of the Community Assets & Image
Corridors Map. Clarify the map’s intent, how it should be used, and the features it
represents. If retained, ensure that this map supports and does not contradict the
Future Land Use and Character Map. [2.6.1 Community Assets Mapping]
2.7 Integrate parks, greenways, and community facilities within new neighborhoods.
Ensure that parks, greenways, and other types of open spaces are integrated into the
design of new neighborhoods that appropriate connections are made to existing
facilities. Also consider opportunities and partnerships to locate civic uses (such as
recreation centers, schools, libraries) within new neighborhoods or redevelopment
areas.
ONGOING ACTIONS AND POLICY DIRECTION
2.8 Evaluate and update development standards in the UDO. Evaluate the effectiveness
of the UDO’s development standards such as mobility and connectivity, off-street
parking, building form and design, landscaping and buffers, exterior lighting, or other
applicable standards to achieve desired design form and quality. [2.2.2 and 2.3.2 UDO
Amendments]
2.9 Develop or refine incentives to promote high quality design. Such incentives may
include regulatory (flexible standards, density bonuses), procedural, cost-sharing
agreements, and tax incentives, among others. Incentives could be targeted to specific
Page 51 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
48 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
geographies or types of development (such as mixed-use or commercial). [2.3.5
Incentives]
2.10 Encourage parking alternatives to support redevelopment opportunities. Use
regulatory or other incentives to encourage residential, commercial and mixed
development models in the City’s targeted Redevelopment Areas that focus on
integration of structured parking to enable more productive use of the overall site in
place of extensive surface parking. [8.5.2]
2.11 Continue to initiate proactive zoning map updates. Amend the zoning map in
strategic areas to encourage transitions to the desired community character and help
implement the Future Land Use and Character Map. Proactive zoning map changes may
also encourage redevelopment in targeted areas. [2.1.6 and 2.2.1 Zoning Adjustments]
2.12 Continue beautification programs. Maintain and consider opportunities to expand
beautification partnerships with Keep Brazos Beautiful and other organizations.
[revised 2.5.1 Right-of-way enhancements]
Chapter 3: Neighborhood Integrity
Opening and Purpose
a. Integrate the purpose statement into the opening on the first page of the chapter.
b. State the goal of the chapter within the opening or purpose (Goal for Neighborhood Integrity)
Neighborhood Conditions
c. Consider removing this section of the chapter since it relies on data that is outdated.
Otherwise, simplify the narrative on pages 3-2 through 3-6 into a series of summary points
led by simple statements as described in Chapter 2 above. Update or remove the statistics
and maps that are more than 10 years old, such as references to the 2005 Consolidated Plan
(unless updated information exists).
d. Consider removing the point-based maps of Student Population, Code Enforcement Cases,
and Noise Violations. Reference these exhibits in the Existing Conditions Report or online. In
revising these analyses, consider using a heat-map technique.
Planning Considerations
a. Simplify the narrative and highlight key direction. Consider identifying statements of policy or
recommendations that exist throughout this section. For example, there are several
statements between pages 3-7 through 3-14 that begin “the City should…”. These
recommendations get lost in the narrative and should be prominently identified.
b. Update the Neighborhood Partnerships Map on page 3-17.
Page 52 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 49
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Neighborhood Integrity. This list
includes actions those from the current plan that are still relevant as well as potential new actions.
Proposed Goal:
Viable and attractive neighborhoods that maintain long-term neighborhood integrity
and while collectively providing a wide range of housing options for a diverse
population.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
3.1 Evaluate the effectiveness and refine neighborhood compatibility standards in
the UDO. Standards in the UDO should address both compatibility of infill and
redevelopment within established neighborhoods and transitions between
neighborhoods and more intense commercial or mixed-use development adjacent to a
neighborhood.
3.2 Create a neighborhood planning toolkit. Build upon Neighborhood Services efforts
and establish a process for neighborhood organizations to undertake a City-supported
project in their area, or to create City-supported projects and policies for their area.
[NEW]
3.3 Create a housing upkeep educational program. An education/promotional campaign
to raise awareness of existing resources to maintain existing housing stock including
City grants and federal programs.
3.4 Develop a parking strategy for neighborhoods near the University. Coordinate with
Texas A&M University regarding university-related parking to prevent excessive on-
street parking in areas adjacent to the university. Evaluate the feasibility of a program
to address management of parking in adjacent neighborhoods. [3.2.8 Parking
Standards]
3.5 Develop and refine data monitoring processes to analyze housing trends and
define a strategic set of actions to address housing affordability, diversity, and
gentrification. Consider existing market data, best practices, and existing regulations
and incentives. Potential actions range from regulatory provisions such as: [Revised
3.3.3 and 3.4.3]
• Development standards that reduce barriers for affordable and diverse housing
types.
• Pre-approved building plans or pattern books for target locations.
• Incentives such as density bonuses or more flexible standards.
Or a workforce housing capital pool where a public entity establishes a fund that
is used for various types of affordable housing initiatives (capital costs).
Page 53 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
50 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
3.6 Track neighborhood change. Understanding neighborhood change is the first step to
identify actions are needed to promote revitalization or address resident displacement.
To identify potential areas at risk of decline and to combat displacement of existing
residents, the City could maintain an inventory of housing conditions by block or
neighborhood in areas with a high propensity for change. Existing data on demolitions,
building permits, or occupancy could be compiled and reviewed on a regular basis.
[3.2.2 and 3.2.3]
3.7 Evaluate relevancy of neighborhood and small area plans that are beyond their
planning horizon. Develop a process to either retire or update plans. [See Big Picture
recommendation E.1. ]
ONGOING ACTIONS AND POLICY DIRECTION
3.8 Continue outreach and educational efforts to support existing and encourage
new neighborhood organizations. Continue Neighborhood Services initiatives such as
Seminar Suppers, Neighborhood Newsletters, and training programs.
3.9 Continue to fund the Neighborhood Grant Program. Continue to fund and expand
the Neighborhood Grants program for neighborhood activities such as gateways,
landscaping, and other permit application fees. [3.1.11 Neighborhood Funding Support]
Contextual (neighborhood) compatibility standards – Examples for action 3.1
Like many cities, College Station’s Unified Development Ordinance contains standards that are
intended to address the compatibility of development and redevelopment to maintain the integrity
of neighborhoods, including some of the items included below. Such regulations vary widely
between communities and may need to be evaluated and adjusted to respond to local conditions
and preferences. The types of neighborhood compatibility standards include:
• Standards within neighborhoods. Consider contextual compatibility standards for some
single family residential zoning districts. These standards could include a rule that requires the
lot area, setback, and height standards in the district be between a certain percent of the
average setbacks, lot area, and height of the lots and development on the same block face, or
within a certain distance of the site. Other types of standards could address student housing
conversions by limiting on-site parking, or the location and size of accessory dwelling units, or
limiting the size and scale of homes.
• Transitional areas. Consider standards that apply to new nonresidential development, mixed-
use development, and intense, multi-family development above a certain density that is
adjacent to, across the street from, or within a certain distance from attached and detached
residences. Such standards include building frontage, building height, signage, lighting, parking,
loading and access areas, among others.
Page 54 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 51
3.10 Continue to encourage neighborhood meetings for certain development
applications. This provides a forum for applicants and neighbors to resolve conflicts in
an informal setting before an application is submitted or prior to formal consideration
of the item
3.11 Maintain property maintenance enforcement efforts. Maintain enforcement
resources to ensure that minimum property standards are being upheld. Utilize
community development plans and current data to target and prioritize enforcement
efforts, while being equitable to the needs of lower income or rental areas. [3.2.4 and
3.2.5]
3.12 Evaluate the effectiveness of short-term rental regulations. Periodically evaluate
short-term rental regulations with respect to local data, national trends, and emerging
technology, to support neighborhood integrity. [NEW]
3.13 Evaluate and refine the rental registration program. Periodically evaluate the rental
registration program with respect to local data and trends to support neighborhood
integrity.
Chapter 4: Economic Development
As of the 2015 update, Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan references the Economic Development
Master Plan prepared in 2013. An update to that master plan was adopted by City Council on May 14,
2020.
Proposed Goal:
A diversified economy with a wide variety of competitive jobs, support for
entrepreneurs, and opportunities to build skills; that provides a tax base to support
the City’s ability to foster a high quality of life; and where economic prosperity is
widespread.
The intent of the Economic Development Master Plan is to ensure that future growth and
development advances the city’s economic development objectives. The plan establishes a strategic
framework to attract high-end investment, support retail development and redevelopment
opportunities, support and retain existing, support expansion and relocation of corporate
investment, destination, and hospitality activities, and to sustain and enhance community health,
wellness, and a high quality of life. Specific actions are included to enhance and promote the
Midtown Business Park, College Station Business Center, the Science Park/Providence Park, and the
BioCorridor. The plan also focuses on enhancing awareness of College Station through improved
marketing and recruitment efforts of major employers, retail and industry, and Aggie-owned and led
Page 55 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
52 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
businesses. Amplifying existing community assets such as the Wolf Pen Creek and Northgate districts
and community events is also a priority. Please see the Economic Development Master Plan for full
details.
The current Economic Development Master Plan was approved during the early months of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The data and competitive positions discussed in the plan reflect pre-COVID
economic trends and projections. There is economic uncertainly as the pandemic continues to unfold
and the City will continue to monitor trends and modify economic development plans and responses
accordingly.
The Plan was approved just before City Council made the decision to move tourism efforts in house,
integrating it with economic development effective August 1, 2020. This move has placed a greater
emphasis on collaboration with strategic partners like Texas A&M University, enhanced branding and
marketing of College Station and its sports and leisure assets, and newfound ways to generate sales
tax dollars from tourism in College Station.
Chapter 5: Parks, Greenways, and the Arts
Opening and Purpose
a. Integrate the purpose statement into the opening on the first page of the chapter.
b. State the goal of the chapter within the opening or purpose (Goal for Parks, Greenways and
the Arts)
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Parks, Greenways and the Arts.
This list includes actions those from the current plan that are still relevant as well as potential new
actions.
Proposed Goal:
Highly desirable parks, greenways, and arts and culture amenities that support high-
quality experiences for residents and visitors.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
5.1 Create connections between key elements of the parks, recreation system, and
destinations. As described in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan,
prioritize opportunities to connect segments of the greenway with parks, community
facilities, and other destinations. [5.2.5 Implement Key Connections]
Page 56 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 53
5.2 Investigate feasibility of incorporating riparian buffer standards to preserve
sensitive land along waterways. Consider amendments to applicable ordinances to
include corridor widths and channel guidelines. [Revised 5.2.4]
5.3 Continue to promote major arts, entertainment, and cultural destinations. Utilize
digital platforms and coordinate with the Economic Development department to
promote cultural and entertainment offerings. Promote the multi-purpose mission of
the Wolf Pen Creek and Northgate Districts as live music destinations and areas to live,
work, and play. [5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.7]
ONGOING ACTIONS AND POLICY DIRECTION
5.4 Invest in the redevelopment of existing parks. Identify new improvements and
continue upgrades and maintenance to existing park facilities, particularly
neighborhood scale parks as detailed in the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master
Plan, neighborhood or district plans. [5.1.4 and 5.1.8 Park Development and
Maintenance]
5.5 Maintain a community-based greenway up-keep program. Through the Adopt-a-
Greenway program, continue involving neighborhood or other community groups in
assisting with some upkeep tasks or to inventory wildlife and natural features in their
area. [Revised 5.2.8]
5.6 Conduct community-wide parks and recreation needs assessments. Evaluate
facilities and programs provided by the Parks and Recreation Department through
community surveys at least every five years. [5.1.2 Needs Assessments]
5.7 Pursue new programs and evaluate ongoing priorities to implement needs
assessment for park facilities and recreational programs. Identify physical and
operational improvements and recreational programs to meet the needs of a growing
and changing population. [5.1.5 New and Enhanced Programs]
5.8 Continue to secure land for future parks and to protect sensitive land. Ensure
adequate parkland provision for future neighborhood, community, and regional park
developments through the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, the Capital Improvements
Program, City purchases of property, acquisition programs, grants, and public and
private partnerships. [5.1.3 Secure More Parkland, and 8.2.8]
5.9 Identify and establish partnerships with other agencies and entities. Seek
partnerships with other public agencies to provide recreational amenities and services
where mutually beneficial opportunities are available. Additionally, consider public-
private partnerships to offer unique facilities and programs. For example, sponsorships
or investments to support additional swimming pools, a water park, or athletic fields.
[5.1.7 Role of Private Sector] [5.1.6 Coordinated Improvements and Programming]
Page 57 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
54 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
5.10 Continue to protect land and resources for expanding the greenway system. Such
methods can include continuing the utilization of grants, public and private
partnerships, and the Capital Improvements Program; and exploring connections
between developments, overlay zones, conservation easements, or open-space set-
aside provisions. [5.2.8]
5.11 Evaluate and amend relevant ordinances to protect natural features and set
aside land for parks and greenways. Consider amendments to the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance to include provisions or incentives that encourage developers to
design and build greenway trails. [Revised 5.2.4]
5.12 Design and construct sustainable and accessible trails. Trails should minimize
environmental impact and promote scenic views and special features. Encourage
developments that are oriented towards and designed for accessibility to greenway
trails. [5.2.6 Careful Design and Accessibility]
5.13 Continue cross-jurisdictional and inter-agency coordination on greenways
acquisition, maintenance, funding, and network expansion. Promote cross-
jurisdictional and inter-agency coordination on greenways acquisition, maintenance,
funding and network expansion. [5.2.8 Coordination]
5.14 Continue to expand outreach about the parks and greenway system. Enhance
awareness and accessibility to programs and facilities through the City’s website,
publications and media outlets. [5.1.9]
5.15 Support a community-wide public art program. Contribute to the expansion of a
public art program in conjunction with the Arts Council of Brazos Valley, the City of
Bryan, Texas A&M University, Brazos Valley, and the Texas Department of
Transportation. [5.3.9]
5.16 Continue leisure and educational programming. Continue the City’s role in nurturing
young local artists and offering leisure and educational activities to adults and seniors
through the City’s Parks & Recreation department programming. [5.3.6]
Chapter 6: Transportation (Mobility)
Opening and Purpose
a. Integrate the purpose statement into the opening on the first page of the chapter.
b. State the goal of the chapter within the opening or purpose (Goal for Mobility)
Page 58 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 55
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Mobility. This list includes actions
those from the current plan that are still relevant as well as potential new actions.
Proposed Goal:
An innovative, safe, and well-connected mobility system serving all user types that is
designed to support the surrounding land uses.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
6.1 Implement context sensitive design. Amend the street cross sections and update the
Unified Development Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station Unified Design Guidelines,
and the City’s capital improvement process to implement context sensitive design such
as primary mobility corridors, rehabilitation projects in established neighborhoods, and
in areas where right-of-way is constrained. [6.1.5 and 6.3.3 Context Sensitive Solutions,
6.3.7, 6.3.8, 6.3.9, 6.4.3]
6.2 Evaluate Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) requirements. Consider updates to the traffic
mitigation thresholds for intersections impacted by new development. The
requirements could also be amended to address internal site elements such as
circulation, queueing, connectivity, as well as bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure.
[Stakeholders and 8.2.4]
6.3 Enhance and upgrade intersections. Improve multimodal efficiency and implement
the City’s roundabout policy to improve safety and reduce congestion at intersections.
Consider life-cycle costs of roundabouts compared to traditional intersection
improvements as part of the decision-making process. [6.2.6 Intersection
Improvements]
6.4 Undertake streetscape improvements within gateways and image corridors.
Identify locations and implement targeted infrastructure and streetscape
improvements (perhaps through partnerships) to improve aesthetics. Consider
operation and maintenance costs when identifying appropriate improvements. [revised
2.5.1 Right-of-way enhancements]
6.5 Conduct a Thoroughfare Plan audit. Evaluate adjustments to the Thoroughfare Plan
based on existing roadway context and consider alternatives to relieve congestion
anticipated with long term growth.[NEW]
ONGOING ACTIONS AND POLICY DIRECTION
6.6 Maintain the various funding programs for mobility projects. These include the
Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation
Page 59 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
56 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Improvement Program, the Brazos County Regional Mobility Authority, and the City’s
Capital Improvements Program. [6.1.3 Project Programming]
6.7 Fund bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and safety improvements Dedicate
funding for system improvements and maintain collaborative partnerships as detailed
in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan.
6.8 Continue to evaluate and implement best management practices to increase
bicycle and pedestrian use. Build on the existing network of infrastructure to increase
safety and comfort for all users such as separated bike lanes and shared use paths.
[mentioned in Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan ]
6.9 Evaluate transit funding partnerships. To prepare for reductions in Federal transit
funding from the region’s growth, the City should explore regional partnerships to
maintain and improve transit services. Transit services should link activity centers,
major employers, dense residential areas, concentrations of student housing, and
provide access for underserved populations. [6.3.5]
6.10 Collect and monitor transportation data. This includes data such as, traffic volumes,
levels of service, vehicle miles traveled, transit ridership, pedestrian and bicycle facility
usage, and safety data on vehicle crashes and those involving bicyclists or pedestrians.
Use data to target future interventions. [6.1.4 Monitor Trends and 6.5.4]
6.11 Evaluate and update access management strategies. Coordinate with the Bryan-
College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to align regional standards
along thoroughfares to preserve modal efficiency throughout the street network. [6.2.3
Access Management]
6.12 Develop and implement a travel demand management program. Build upon
existing services and including real-time traffic information, traffic incident alerts,
ridesharing programs, promotion of flexible work schedules, and encouragement of
dense mixed-use development in strategic areas. [6.2.4 Travel Demand Management]
Chapter 7: Municipal Services and Community Facilities
Opening and Purpose
a. Integrate the purpose statement into the opening on the first page of the chapter.
b. State the goal of the chapter within the opening or purpose (Goal for Municipal Facilities and
Services)
Page 60 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 57
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Municipal Services and
Community Facilities. This list includes actions those from the current plan that are still relevant as
well as potential new actions.
Proposed Goal:
Exceptional municipal facilities and services that meet community needs, contribute to
community character, exhibit environmental stewardship and resiliency, support
surrounding land uses, incorporates full life-cycle costs, and are coordinated and
fiscally responsible.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
7.1 Prioritize utility and service improvements in existing areas. Invest in infrastructure
rehabilitation within the City’s older areas to maintain their viability and attractiveness
and encourage infill and redevelopment where appropriate. [7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.2 and 7.4.5
combined]
7.2 Develop a comprehensive facilities plan. That meets the future space and functional
needs of City employees, services, and the community. [7.2.5]
7.3 Continue capitalizing on opportunities to achieve multiple community objectives
through coordinated infrastructure projects. Incorporate a measure in the Capital
Improvements Program to weigh projects that achieve multiple objectives. Examples of
coordinated infrastructure projects include road improvements, utility and drainage
upgrades, sidewalk rehabilitation / installation / extensions, and streetscape
enhancement. [7.4.4]
7.4 Continue to build resiliency in municipal operations and services. Ensure
operations and services are resilient and adaptable to unforeseen circumstances, such
as disaster or pandemic, and able to continuously meet community needs. Consider
updating provisions in city plans and policies and develop incentive programs to better
prepare for and adapt to abrupt changes or strained circumstances while
simultaneously allowing for action in the face of uncertainty or unforeseen events.
[NEW]
7.5 Evaluate the utilization of community paramedicine. Partner with regional health
care providers and social services to evaluate community paramedicine. This is an
emerging field that uses a comprehensive approach and integrated deployment model
to connect underserved populations to underutilized medical, social, and safety
services, helping to decrease strain on emergency rooms, hospitals, and first
responders such as EMS, fire, and police. [NEW]
Page 61 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
58 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
ONGOING ACTIONS AND POLICY DIRECTION
7.6 Continue to pursue recognition, credentials, and accreditations City-wide.
Continue to obtain national recognition for outstanding and innovative service in police,
fire, emergency medical services (EMS), public safety communications, parks, water, and
public works, planning and other areas. [7.3.1]
7.7 Continue using business intelligence, data analytics, and data visualization tools.
Utilize data and business intelligence solutions to inform policy decisions and provide
efficient municipal services. [NEW]
7.8 Continue to expand wi-fi to public buildings. Expand existing public wi-fi services to
additional facilities and consider partnership opportunities to establishing a city-wide
wi-fi network. [7.3.2]
7.9 Update public service plans. Continue to re-evaluate and update key public service
master plans (water, wastewater, stormwater, drainage management, solid waste,
electric, Police, Fire, EMS) on regular cycle or when necessary based on changing
conditions. Ensure that these plans reflect long-term growth forecasts and support
priority growth areas. [7.2.4 also 7.4.7 and 7.4.8]
7.10 Utilize municipal service cost-benefit assessments in planning utility expansion.
The City should focus on areas that can be reliably and economically served within the
City’s capabilities. Consider an analysis of cost versus benefit when evaluating potential
development agreements, municipal utility districts (MUDs) or annexation petitions.
[7.3.5]
7.11 Evaluate ways to reduce energy consumption. Implement energy and resource
conservation strategies in City facilities and all areas of municipal service provision.
[7.5.1]
7.12 Pursue and support local water conservation and reuse initiatives. Utilize
reclaimed and/or nonpotable water to irrigate City facilities where feasible. [revised
7.5.4]
7.13 Continue outreach and educational programs to reduce resource consumption.
Encourage residents, businesses, and local institutions to participate in solid waste
reduction and recycling, energy efficiency, and water conservation programs. Create
publicity campaigns to highlight the City’s sustainability and resiliency efforts within
public facilities. [revised 5.5]
7.14 Continue to implement best practices in meeting or exceeding State and Federal
standards for stormwater management. Implement the City’s Stormwater
Management Program (SWMP) in accordance with State requirements of the TPDES
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) program to manage stormwater
discharges to protect, preserve and improve area streams and waterways. Consider
Page 62 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 59
updates to better protect area creeks and bodies of water from the impacts of urban
runoff. [revised 7.3.3 and 7.3.4]
7.15 Advance sound floodplain management practices. Reduce the risk and impacts of
flooding, adhere to higher development standards, and limit long-term infrastructure
costs through continued implementation and refinement of the City’s Flood Ordinance
(including No Adverse Impacts) and participation in FEMA’s Community Rating System
(CRS) program. [revised 7.5.2]
7.16 Continue to meet or exceed State and Federal water quality standards for
drinking water sources. Continued phased expansion of water supply resources and
associated production capabilities to meet shorter-term peak demands, as well as
forecasted longer-term needs. [revised 7.3.3 and 7.4.7]
7.17 Continue to keep wastewater collection and treatment capacities ahead of
demand. Continued phased expansion of the existing wastewater system to comply
with all regulatory permits, standards, and requirements that meet shorter-term peak
demands, as well as forecasted longer-term needs.
7.18 Continue coordinated electric planning along with area partners. This will ensure
adequate and reliable supply to serve anticipated growth and to maintain College
Station Utilities’ capability for rapid response to system outages. [7.4.6]
7.19 Design high-quality public facilities that reflect the character of their
surroundings. These buildings, facilities and improvements should blend into existing
areas, and help establish an identity and quality standard for newly developing or
redeveloping areas of the City. [7.4.2]
7.20 Design City facilities and infrastructure to incorporate sustainable and resilient
practices. Consider design features such as stormwater management, water
conservation and reuse, native or adapted plantings, or building design features that
conserve energy and natural resources. [Green College Station 7.5.3]
7.21 Provide public safety facilities to maintain adequate service and response times.
Monitor response times and safety service needs as growth occurs; use data and
national standards to make decisions about service investments. [7.4.8]
Page 63 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
60 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Chapter 8: Growth Management and Capacity
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Growth Management and
Capacity. This list includes actions those from the current plan that are still relevant as well as
potential new actions.
Proposed Goal:
Fiscally responsible and carefully managed development that is aligned with growth
expectations and the ability to provide safe, timely, and efficient infrastructure and
services.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
8.1 Prioritize proactive infrastructure investments and programs in strategic
redevelopment and infill areas. Invest in the necessary infrastructure to increase
redevelopment potential or to catalyze redevelopment activity in areas identified in the
Future Land Use & Character Map or in district plans. Concentrating development and
services within target areas promotes efficient use of infrastructure and supports
environmental resiliency goals. [8.3.1]
8.2 Amend the zoning map and consider regulatory incentives to encourage infill and
redevelopment. Apply targeted zoning strategies in designated Redevelopment Areas
identified on the Future Land Use & Character map. Review the effectiveness of the
Redevelopment District (RDD) overlay zoning and consider updating provisions in the
Unified Development Ordinance to incentivize infill and redevelopment. [8.5.3 and
8.5.4]
8.3 Re-envision underutilized retail uses and incentivize redevelopment and/or reuse
of vacant buildings and properties. Monitor national trends in the evolving retail
sector or other sectors and continue to seek redevelopment and revitalization
opportunities for vacant or underutilized sites, particularly large retail and big-box sites.
[revised 8.5.1 and 8.5.3]
8.4 Evaluate the utilization of impact fees that provide revenues to support
infrastructure demands. Consider the need to amend the impact fees to promote the
city’s long-term fiscal strength. [8.2.6]
ONGOING ACTIONS AND POLICY DIRECTION
8.5 Evaluate and revise the Water/Sanitary Sewer Extension Policy. Evaluate the City’s
service area for sanitary sewer (the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity boundary)
Page 64 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 61
and extension into the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in an incremental and carefully timed
manner to meet defined growth management objectives. Ensure that extensions to
water/sewer utilities and service areas are consistent with the Future Land Use &
Character Plan, the City’s utility master plans, and multi-year Capital Improvement Plan.
[8.2.2, 8.2.1, and 8.2.5]
8.6 Conduct fiscal impact analyses. Utilize financial modeling to evaluate the cost-to-
serve for annexation requests, MUDs, and development agreement areas. [8.4.7]
8.7 Continue the City’s Oversize Participation practice, where appropriate. Continue
providing funds for potential oversize participation to reduce future infrastructure
costs. [8.2.4]
8.8 Use available tools to strategically manage growth pressure in the ETJ. Utilize
development agreements and Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) to manage growth
pressure in areas where annexation is not feasible. [8.4.3]
Chapter 9. Partnerships and Collaboration
Goal, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a potential list of actions that support the Goal for Partnerships and Collaboration.
Proposed Goal
Well-coordinated planning at all levels and effective engagement with local
jurisdictions, institutions, and organizations to further realize the City’s vision and
support the broad community.
External Partnerships and Collaboration
Texas A&M University
9.1 Establish University/City annual agenda. Conduct an annual meeting between
between leadership of the City and the University to reflect on the previous year’s
successes and challenges and to establish a collaborative agenda for the next 12
months. The intention of the agenda created is to strengthen the University and City in
a way that student success and faculty/staff retention is also improved. This agenda
could be informed by the Best Practices Report as well as other examples. Participants
would be from the highest levels of leadership of the University and City and mutually
committed to best-in-class town-gown relationship. [NEW]
Page 65 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
62 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
9.2 Gather growth expectations. Work with Texas A&M University and Blinn College
concerning their projected enrollment growth and associated faculty/staff increases to
plan effectively for the implications of further off-campus housing demand. [8.1.4]
9.3 Formalize ongoing collaborations and establish a planning coordination task force
with Texas A&M University and the City. Continue to coordinate with Texas A&M
University regarding the benefits and impacts of University development projects and
support ongoing efforts to provide harmonious transitions between the campus and
the surrounding area. These meetings should continue to take place regularly. [2.6.4
Texas A&M University Coordination].
9.4 Establish a “good neighbor” initiative with Texas A&M for permanent and
temporary residents. Build upon existing programs to promote positive living
experiences for students and long-term residents in city neighborhoods. Activities could
include community discussions, a lecture series, door-to-door visits, or neighborhood
gatherings. The activities would raise awareness about ordinances, positively
communicate neighborhood norms, promote social interaction, and demonstrate what
it means to be a “good neighbor.” [NEW see Best Practices Report]
9.5 Contribute to a joint branding effort with Texas A&M University. Continue to work
with Texas A&M University to define and promote a stronger and more unified brand
identity. This includes not only graphics, but, more importantly, the underlying
messages and strategies to share the brand work. [NEW]
9.6 Expand tourism opportunities with Texas A&M University. Expand partnerships
with Texas A&M University to recruit, create, and magnify tourism opportunities at A&M
facilities and beyond. [NEW]
9.7 Pursue partnerships with Texas A&M University regarding environmental
stewardship. Encourage collaborations with academic departments, institutes, and
operational units to capitalize on university research and expertise and help raise
awareness of environmental stewardship and sustainable practices within the
community. [revised and NEW]
Other local and regional coordination
9.8 Convene coordination meetings with neighboring jurisdictions and regional
planning organizations. Participate in collaborative efforts, such as the
Intergovernmental Committee and others, on land use, infrastructure, facilities
planning, and other planning issues of mutual interest. Seek opportunities to align
policies or share services to create a stronger region and more efficiently utilize
resources. [from Ch. 2]
9.9 Pursue interlocal cooperation agreements. With Brazos, Grimes, and Burleson
counties; City of Bryan; Texas A&M University; and other service providers, as
Page 66 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 63
appropriate. Such agreements can address coordination of subdivision review,
thoroughfare planning, floodplain management, and utility and other service provision,
among other matters of mutual interest. [8.2.9]
9.10 Continue to coordinate with the College Station Independent School District and
public charter schools. Coordination should address facility needs and projections,
potential locations for new schools or future use of existing schools, infrastructure
impacts of school development, and ensuring safe/walkable areas around schools.
[7.4.3]
9.11 Continue to participate in regional transportation initiatives. Partner with the
Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Brazos County
Regional Mobility Authority, Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Texas A&M
University, TxDOT, Brazos Transit District, and Union Pacific on initiatives such as
Interstate 14, Easterwood Airport flight network expansion, Texas High Speed Rail
Initiative, freight transport, the Brazos Yard, and quiet zones.
Internal Coordination
9.12 Reference the Comprehensive Plan actions within City master plans. City master
plans are components of the Comprehensive Plan that provide. Master plans should be
updated on a regular cycle (or as needed). The updates should include provisions that
relate directly to actions within the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use &
Character Map within Chapter 2. [8.2.1]
9.13 Reference the Comprehensive Plan and City master plans in Capital
Improvements Planning, departmental work programs, and budgeting processes.
Alignment with the City’s long-term plans should be among the criteria for evaluating
potential capital or operating expenditures. [8.3.3]
Page 67 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
64 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Existing City Master Plans
Master Plan Name
Relevance to Comprehensive
Plan Created
Last
Updated
Typical
Horizon
City
Department
Recreation, Parks, and
Open Space Master Plan Chapter 5: Parks, Greenways,
and the Arts 2011 Ongoing
2011-2020
Parks &
Recreation
Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Greenways Master Plan
Chapter 6: Mobility
Chapter 5: Parks, Greenways,
and the Arts 2010 2018 2010-2020
Planning &
Development
Services
Economic Development
Master Plan Chapter 4 2013 2020 2020-2025
Economic
Development
Water System Master
Plan Chapter 7: Municipal Services &
Community Facilities 2010 2017
CSU Water
Services
Wastewater System
Master Plan Chapter 7: Municipal Services &
Community Facilities 2011 2017
CSU Water
Services
Existing Neighborhood & Special District Plans
Plan Name Created
Planning
Timeframe City Department
Medical District Master Plan 2012 unspecified
Planning & Development
Services
Central College Station Neighborhood Plan 2010 2010-2017
Planning & Development
Services
Eastgate Neighborhood Plan 2011 2011-2018
Planning & Development
Services
South Knoll Area Neighborhood Plan 2013 2013-2020
Planning & Development
Services
Southside Area Neighborhood Plan 2012 2012-2019
Planning & Development
Services
Wellborn Community Plan 2013 2013-2023
Planning & Development
Services
Page 68 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 65
The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s broadest and most long-term policy
guide. It is supported by several focused master plans, district, and
neighborhood plans. These high-level plans provide direction to several short-
term strategic implementation plans and City ordinances.
Page 69 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
66 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Chapter 10: Implementation and Administration (currently
Chapter 9)
Consider the following for updating this chapter.
1. Undertake a new educational initiative as described in Chapter 9 of the current
Comprehensive Plan upon adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan.
2. Replace the table of initiatives (current table 9.1) with a summary table of
recommendations organized by chapter. Include action type, roles, funding, etc. See Big
Picture recommendation I2.
Page 70 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 67
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the countless citizens, civic organizations, student groups, outside agencies, regional
partners, and community leaders who participated in The Next 10 evaluation process and public
input opportunities. This report would not be possibile without your input and support.
A special thanks to the following contributors for their many hours of service preparing this report.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
EVALUATION COMMITTEE
City Council Representatives
Linda Harvell
Dennis Maloney
John Nichols
Planning and Zoning Commission Representatives
Elizabeth Cuhna
Joe Guerra
Jeremy Osborne
Citizen Representatives
Brian Bochner
Brad Brimley
Michael Buckley
Clint Cooper
Shana Elliott
Lisa Halperin
Julie Schultz
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Dennis Christiansen (chair)
Elizabeth Cunha
Joe Guerra
Bill Mather
Jeremy Osborne
Bobby Mirza
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Karl Mooney
Bob Brick
John Crompton
Linda Harvell
John Nichols
Dennis Maloney
STAFF RESOURCE TEAM
Bryan Woods, City Manager
Jeff Capps, Interim City Manager
Jeff Kersten, Assistant City Manager
Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant City Manager
Barbara Moore, Assistant to the City Manager, Special Projects
Timothy Crabb, Electric Utility Director
Gary Mechler, Water Services Director
Stephen Maldonado, Jr., Assistant Director of Water Services
Debbie Eller, Community Services Director
Natalie Ruiz, Economic Development Director
Aubrey Nettles, Economic Development Manager
Richard Mann, Fire Chief
Scott Giffen, Assistant Fire Chief
Eric Dotson, Fire Marshall
Stuart Marrs, Accreditation Manager
Mary Ellen Leonard, Finance Director
Sindhu Menon, Chief Information Officer
Iroshi Price, Assistant IT Project Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
David Schmitz, Parks & Recreation Director
Billy Couch, Police Chief
Charles Fleeger, Assistant Police Chief
Brandy Norris, Assistant Police Chief
Colin Killian, Public Communications Manager
Donald Harmon, Public Works Director
Page 71 of 484
DRAFT August 14, 2020
68 THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Jennifer Prochazka, Interim Director & Assistant City Manager
Molly Hitchcock, Assistant Director
Alyssa Halle-Schramm, Long Range Planning Administrator – Project Manager
Jason Schubert, Transportation Planning Coordinator – Project Manager
Anthony Armstrong, Engineering Services & Constructions Inspections Manager
Erika Bridges, Assistant City Manager
Jade Broadnax, Staff Planner
Julie Burden, GIS Analyst
Carol Cotter, City Engineer
Venessa Garza, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Planning Administrator
Kristen Hejny, Administrative Support Specialist
Robin Macias, Staff Assistant II
Rachel Lazo, Senior Planner
Justin Golbabi, Planning Administrator (former)
Lauren Hovde, Senior Planner (former)
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Beal, Broadcast Media Specialist
Kendra Gilts, Multimedia Coordinator
Lacey Lively, Marketing Manager
Jay Socol, Director
PLANNING NEXT
Jamie Greene
Michael Curtis
KIMLEY HORN
Jeff Whitacre
Monica Powell
Page 72 of 484
2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
2018 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
APPENDIX A
Page 73 of 484
2 cstx.gov Page 74 of 484
3
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
10
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Messages from City Leaders ..................4
2009-2030 Comprehensive Plan
Mission Statement .........................5
Introduction ..............................5
Location .................................6
History ..................................7
2016 Citizen Survey ........................8
Quality of Life ............................8
Recognitions and Rankings ..................9
Ecoregion ................................11
Flood Map ..............................12
Climate .................................13
14
DEMOGRAPHICS
23
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Population ..............................15
Higher Education Population ...............16
Age Groups .............................17
Ethnicity and Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Household Size and Composition ............18
Housing Stock and Inventory ...............19
Housing Market .......................... 20
Housing on Texas A&M Campus ............. 20
Occupancy and Tenure ....................21
Rental Registration .......................21
Income .................................22
Employers ..............................24
Tourism ................................26
Property Tax and Assessed Value ............27
Sales Tax ...............................30
31
LAND USE
45
PUBLIC FACILITIES
57
TRANSPORTATION
69
NEXT STEPSCity Growth and Annexation ...............32
Platted Growth ..........................33
Future Land Use and Character .............34
Zoning .................................36
Existing Land Use ........................38
Existing Land Use in the City Limits ..........38
Residential Land Use ...................... 40
Commercial and Industrial Land Uses ........41
Undeveloped and Agricultural Land Uses .....42
ETJ Land Use ............................43
Electric .................................48
Water .................................. 49
Wastewater ............................. 49
Solid Waste ............................. 50
Parks and Recreation .....................52
Police ..................................53
Fire ....................................54
Public K-12 Education .....................55
Higher Education .........................56
Thoroughfares ...........................58
Trac Crash Data ........................61
Bus Transit ..............................67
Rail Data ...............................68
Air Travel at Easterwood Airport ............68
Where Do We Go From Here? ...............70
Acknowledgments ........................70
Page 75 of 484
4 cstx.gov
Planning is essential to maintain a
thriving and financially sound city
DR. KARL MOONEY, MAYOR
“College Station is a growing community. Its attraction is its livability and the
quality of life that many elements of the city cooperatively work together
to sustain. To continue those collective eorts, planning is essential. The
established visions of long-term residents have to be maintained in purpose
and scope so that the ideas, experiences, and expectations of new residents
can be merged in a way that fosters a thriving and nancially sound city. By
doing so, the melting pot that is created enables city leaders to evolve the
comprehensive plan with regularity. The result is further evaluation and, when
necessary, modication of ordinances, city budgets, and boundaries in an
atmosphere of transparency and relevance.”
Comprehensive planning provides a way
for everyone to focus on a common vision
JANE KEE, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CHAIR
“Comprehensive planning provides a way for everyone in a community to
focus on a common vision for the future. In a vibrant and growing city such
as College Station, this is especially important. Through the planning process,
we can nd areas where most of us can agree — if we are open to working
together. The process provides a format for education and developing goals
and objectives that once adopted, allow residents to know what to expect in
and around their neighborhoods, business owners and developers to know
where and how to invest in our community, and municipal decision-makers to
stay focused on the long term. The key to success is having as many people as
possible involved in the planning process from initial input to nal adoption.”
Effective planning directly confronts
challenges and opportunities
JENNIFER PROCHAZKA, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR
“Comprehensive planning is essential to preserving the unique character
of College Station and creating opportunities for economic growth. In its
simplest form, planning helps determine what we as a community want
to protect, what opportunities are available, and provides the direction to
get there. Planning engages people and creates conversations about the
things that matter most to them – their neighborhoods and schools, the
availability of jobs and economic opportunity, and their businesses and the
ability to grow. College Station consistently ranks among the fastest-growing
communities in the nation, so it is essential that we plan for continued
growth in a way that is sensible, predictable, and scally responsible. Eective
planning directly confronts the challenges and opportunities facing College
Station, while providing a unied vision for the community.”
MESSAGES FROM CITY LEADERS
Page 76 of 484
5
2009-2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MISSION STATEMENT
College Station, home of Texas A&M University, will remain a vibrant, forward-
thinking, knowledge-based community that promotes the highest quality of life
for our citizens by:
• Ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring character.
• Increasing and maintaining the mobility of our citizens through a well-planned and constructed
inter-modal transportation system.
• Expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural environments.
• Supporting well-planned, high-quality and sustainable growth.
• Valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources.
• Developing and maintaining high-quality, cost-eective community facilities, infrastructure,
and services that ensure our city is cohesive and well connected.
• Proactively creating and maintaining economic and educational opportunities for our citizens.
College Station will continue to be among the friendliest and most responsive of communities and a
demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley.
It will continue to be a place where Texas and the world come to learn, live, and conduct business.
INTRODUCTION
Planning for the growth and development of a city is similar to planning for a road
trip – it begins simply with knowing the starting point and the destination.
Based on these two points, one can project how long the trip will take, the necessary supplies, and come
up with a general game plan for the predictable parts of the journey. After all this preparation, it is time to
execute the plan, which requires constant adjustments as both the expected and unexpected unfold along
the way.
In 2006, the City of College Station began a three-year process of community input to determine where
and how it wanted to grow and develop. The resulting 2009-2030 Comprehensive Plan is the city’s
policy roadmap to plan, anticipate, and guide growth and development over a 20-year period. This
Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Unied Development Ordinance, which provides the technical
regulations for all new development.
Now approaching 10 years since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, it is time for the College Station
community to reassess and discuss where the city has come from, where it is, and how to proceed. The
2018 Existing Conditions Report kicks o this process by taking a snapshot of the growth trends and
conditions from multiple planning perspectives as of September 2018. The goal of this report is to provide
a common, data-informed starting point for upcoming comprehensive planning conversations and
scenarios about future growth and development.
Beyond the starting point and the destination, what makes any road trip fun are the people one is
traveling with. The College Station community has earned its reputation of being a city of great people
that is successfully implementing its vision to “continue to be among the friendliest and most responsive
of communities and a demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated
in the Brazos Valley.” To that end, city sta is excited and grateful to begin the community conversations
and processes that will culminate in an updated Comprehensive Plan.
JUSTIN GOLBABAI, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR
Page 77 of 484
6 cstx.gov
LOCATION
College Station is located in Brazos County in the heart of central Texas.
Its central location is within a three-hour drive of four of the 11 largest cities in the United States: Houston,
Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin. The greater College Station-Bryan Metropolitan Area is made up of Brazos,
Burleson, and Robertson Counties. The area is home to approximately 258,000 residents and is the 15th
largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in Texas.1 Major attractions include the George Bush Presidential
Library and Museum, which attracts an average of 147,205 visitors annually2. The city has almost 120,000
residents and boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the state3.
College Station is home to the main campus of Texas A&M University, the agship institution of the Texas
A&M University System. In the fall of 2018, approximately 67,003 students attended the College Station
campus4. Texas A&M is the oldest public institution of higher education in Texas and had over $2.79
billion dollars of endowment in 20175. The university has a triple designation as a land, sea, and space-
grant institution, reecting the broad scope of the research endeavors it brings to the city, including
ongoing projects funded by agencies such as NASA, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science
Foundation, and the Oce of Naval Research 6.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU GEORGE BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CITYRATING.COM COLLEGE
STATION CRIME RATE REPORT TEXAS TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT PROFILE FALL TEXAS A&M
FOUNDATION ANNUAL REPORT TEXAS A&M TODAY
SOURCES:
367
FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL
1938
COLLEGE STATION WAS
INCORPORATED
4,198
ACRES OF FLOODPLAINS
ARE PRESERVED
MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
GULF OF MEXICO
DALLAS
HOUSTONAUSTIN
SAN ANTONIO
COLLEGE STATION
Page 78 of 484
7
HISTORY
1876
Established through the Morrill Land Grant
Act, the Agricultural and Mechanical College
of Texas, now known as Texas A&M University,
became the rst public institution of higher
learning in Texas. Classes began Oct. 4,
1876. Because of its isolation, administrators
provided facilities for those associated with
the college. The campus became the focal
point of community development. College
Station, Texas, was designated in 1877 by the
U.S. Postal Service. The name was derived
from the train station located west of campus
that was serviced by the Houston and Texas
Central Railway.
1939
The rst city council meeting was held on
Feb. 25, 1939, in the Texas A&M Administration
Building. During this time, the city relied
heavily on Texas A&M for meeting space, a re
department and utility lines.
1938
The growth of both the community and
college inuenced residents’ desire to create
a municipal government. On Oct. 19, 1938,
by a vote of 217-39, College Station ocially
incorporated as a city. The incorporation
was the result of a petition to Texas A&M’s
Board of Directors by 23 men representing
on- and o-campus interests. The board
had no objections and suggested to the
neighborhoods that a belt around campus
be included in the proposed city. These
neighborhoods are known as Northgate,
Eastgate and Southside. The city jurisdiction
covered roughly two square miles. The city
has since expanded to 51 square miles.
1944
At the time of incorporation, state law
did not allow a general law city to hire a
city manager. As a result, College Station
employed a business manager until 1943,
when the law was changed to permit general
law cities to use the council-manager form of
government. On April 4, 1944, the city became
the rst general law city in Texas to have a
city manager. Citizen committees were also
formed that year.
1947
In December 1947, College Station celebrated
the opening of its rst city hall.1952
College Station witnessed growth to the north,
east and south during the 1940s. The city’s
status as a general law city, however, limited
ocials’ ability to annex territory. Without
its own city charter, the council could only
annex property in areas where residents had
petitioned for inclusion inside the city limits.
The home rule amendment from 1912 allowed
Texas cities with at least 5,000 inhabitants the
legal right to compose and amend their own
charters. The 1950 Census recorded College
Station’s population at 7,268. To compete with
the City of Bryan in annexation, the council
held a special election on Jan. 8, 1952, when
residents voted 220-11 to adopt a home rule
charter.
19 40s
19 50s
19 60s
19 70 s
19 80s
1990s
2000s
2010-2018
ANNEXATION HISTORY
Page 79 of 484
8 cstx.gov
2016 CITIZEN SURVEY
In 2016, the City of College Station conducted a comprehensive citizen
survey to measure how citizens feel about the city’s services and quality of life.
Many of these items relate either directly or indirectly to land use and transportation-related issues.
Top 5 things citizens value most about living in College Station
1. Friendly people, family-friendly, good quality of life.
2. Quality education opportunities (schools, Texas A&M), college atmosphere, proximity
to Texas A&M.
3. Small-town feel but has amenities of a larger city (entertainment, cultural, religious, etc.).
4. Safety, low crime.
5. Entertainment/shopping/businesses.
Top 5 changes citizens would make in College Station
1. Trac congestion, stricter trac laws, ban texting/driving, improve trac ow, need
public transit.
2. Improve retail options, more entertainment activities for teens, adults, seniors, tourists.
3. Improve road planning and maintenance.
4. Ecient use of taxpayer funds, sustainable growth, more responsive to citizens,
maintain infrastructure.
5. Less rental housing in residential neighborhoods, preserve neighborhood integrity.
Top 5 areas citizens believe should be College Station’s highest priority
1. Balanced city budget, managed growth, sustainability, maintain small-town feel, high-quality
growth/development.
2. Reduce trac congestion, alternative transportation methods.
3. Public safety.
4. Job creation.
5. Maintain streets/roads.
Q UALIT Y OF LIFE
RESPO NSE: PO OR OR FAIR
RESPONSE: GO O D OR EXCELLEN
84%
74%80%
79%89%
86%91%
OVERALL QUALITY
OF CITY SERVICES
PLACE TO RETIRE
PLACE TO WORK
PLACE TO DO BUSINESS
PLACE TO
RAISE A FAMILY
PLACE TO LIVE
(NEIGHBORHOOD)
PLACE TO LIVE
(CITY)
87%
OVERALL IMAGE
AND REPUTATION
T
Page 80 of 484
9
Growth
No. 1, Fastest-Growing Non-Suburb in Texas1
No. 2, Fastest-Growing City in U.S.2
No. 3, Fastest-Growing Cities in Texas3
No. 4, Fastest-Growing College Towns4
No. 15, Fastest-Growing U.S. Metros1
Economy
No. 1, Best Small Texas Cities for Jobs5
No. 1, 10 U.S. Cities Primed for Economic
Growth in 20186
No. 3, Best Small Places in the U.S. for
Business and Careers5
No. 11, America’s Most Internet-Connected
Cities7
No. 15, Best Small U.S. Cities for Cost
of Business5
Quality of Life
No. 4, Safest Cities in Texas8
No. 6, America’s Best College Towns9
No. 11, Best Cities to Raise a Family in Texas 10
No. 17, Cities with the Best Public Schools in
the United States8
No. 28, Best Cities to Live in America8
Retirement
No. 1, Top College Towns Drawing
55+ Homebuyers11
No. 4, Great Places to Retire12
RECOGNITIONS AND RANKINGS
In recent years, College Station has received many prestigious national recognitions
and rankings in a variety of economic and social categories.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU NERDWALLET SAVEONENERGY SELFSTORAGE
FORBES CARDRATES.COM GOVERNING N ICHE.COM
LIVEABILITY.COM ELITE PERSONAL FINANCE NEWHOMESOURCE USA TODAY
SOURCES:
Page 81 of 484
10 cstx.gov
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
Page 82 of 484
11
ECOREGION
College Station is located in the East Central Texas plains.
The undeveloped landscape is characterized by a mosaic of post oak woodland and grassland. The city is
anked by the Brazos River to the southwest and Navasota River to the east, with the natural topography
ranging from gently hilly in the center of town to relatively level terrain along the Brazos and Navasota
River oodplains. Loamy soils are dominant across the cityscape. These soils have restricted permeability
and high shrink-swell potential.
Burleson
County
Washington
County
Grimes
County
Robertson
County
Madison
County
UPLAND SOILS
STREAM TERRACE SOILS
FLOODPLAIN SOILS
BRAZOS COUNTY SOILS
BRYAN
COLLEGE
STAT ION
Page 83 of 484
12 cstx.gov
FLOOD MAP
College Station strives to protect
the natural and beneficial functions
of local floodplain areas.
The city’s oodplain management program helps
citizens minimize ood-related property damage as
well as protect water quality, provide ideal wildlife
habitat, and maintain dynamic travel corridors.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the land use
designation of Natural Areas Reserved for a desired
future zoning district of Natural Areas Protected
to preserve the natural function of oodplains,
manage regulatory oodway and provide
greenways, open space and recreation facilities.
The city also employs development standards
and zoning provisions to protect and preserve the
natural function of the oodplains.
The National Flood Insurance Program continues
to rate College Station as a Class-7 Community
in recognition of the city’s ood management
eorts beyond the minimum National Flood
Insurance Program standards. Subsequently, the
ood insurance rates in College Station have been
reduced by 15 percent for insurable structures in
Special Flood Hazard Areas and ve percent in
500-year areas.
College Station has about 91-square miles of land
available for potential expansion. At that point,
the city limits will meet the extraterritorial limits of
Navasota and the 100-year oodplain of the Brazos
and Navasota Rivers. The vast oodplains range
from a half-mile to six miles wide.
Page 84 of 484
13
90 99 96 98 101 108 110 110 112 102 94 89 112
78.5 81.5 85.2 89.2 93.5 97.3 100.1 102.3 98.7 92.6 84.7 79.5 103.4
61.0 64.8 71.7 78.9 85.8 91.7 94.8 96.2 90.5 81.4 71.0 62.3 79.2
41.2 44.4 51.0 58.1 72.2 74.6 74.5 74.5 69.4 60.3 50.5 42.2 58.9
24.9 26.7 32.2 40.1 52.4 64.1 69.0 68.5 54.9 42.5 32.8 24.9 20.3
-3 1 17 28 42 53 60 55 41 29 19 2 -3
3.24 2.85 3.17 2.66 4.33 4.45 2.14 2.68 3.18 4.91 3.22 3.23 40.06
8.4 8.1 8.3 6.5 8.3 8.5 5.7 5.8 6.7 7.6 8.1 8.8 90.8JANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHAPRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBER NOVEMBERDECEMBERANNUALRECORD HIGH F°
MEAN MAXIMUM F°
AVERAGE HIGH F°
AVERAGE LOW F°
MEAN MINIMUM F°
RECORD LOW F°
AVERAGE PRECIPITATION INCHES
AVERAGE PRECIPITATION DAYS
(> 0.01 INCHES)
CLIMATE
Located about 367-feet above sea level, College Station
has a subtropical and temperate climate.
The winters are mild with periods of low temperatures that usually last less than two months. Snow and
ice are rare, although College Station received ve inches of snowfall on Dec. 7, 2017. Summers are hot and
humid with the only real variation in weather being occasional rain showers.
NOAA CLIMATE DATA FOR COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS EASTERWOOD AIRPORT, NORMALS, EXTREMES
PRESENT RETRIEVED FROM: WIKIPEDIA.ORG: GHCN DAILY ID: USWOOOO
SOURCES:
Page 85 of 484
14 cstx.gov
DEMOGRAPHICS
Page 86 of 484
15
196019501940
30,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018
60,000
90,000
120,000
2,148 7,925
11,396 17,676
37,272 52,456
67,890
94,817
119,748
POPULATION
In October 2018, the population estimate for College Station was 119,748.
In October 2018, the population estimate for College Station was 119,748. Since 2010, the population has
increased by 26 percent. College Station’s population numbers include university students living in the
city limits. The population estimates were calculated using the average houshold size and occupancy rate
based on 2010 Census population, then calculating population growth based on residential demolition
permits and certicates of occupancy issues for new residential dwelling units.
FROM THE YEAR TO TODAY, THE AVERAGE ANNUAL
GROWTH RATE HAS BEEN .%. FIGURE . ILLUSTRATES
POPULATION PROJECTIONS BASED ON .%, % AND
.% ANNUAL GROWTH RATES:
FIG 3.1 - POPULATION SINCE 1940
FIG 3.2 - POPULATION DENSITY SINCE 1940
196019501940
700
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018
1,400
2,100
2,800
856
2,723
1,797
1,064
1,552
1,762
1,667 1,906
2,336
PLEASE NOTE
POPULATION
D E N S I T Y
POPULATION DENSITY PER ACRE
MIDLOW H IGH
134 6 8 10 30022142
N
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2010 2020 2030200520152025
155,279
166,226
177,886
2.5% PROJECTED
GROWTH RATE
3.0% PROJECTED
GROWTH RATE
3.5% PROJECTED
GROWTH RATE
RECORDED
GROWTH RATE
FIG 3.3 - COLLEGE STATION’S PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
Page 87 of 484
16 cstx.gov
HIGHER EDUCATION POPULATION
The city’s growth is significantly impacted by the growth of Texas A&M University.
Blinn College, a two-year college located in Bryan, also contributes to the student population in College
Station. Fall 2018 enrollment for Texas A&M’s College Station campus was 67,0031, a new record. Fall 2018
enrollment at Blinn College’s Bryan campus was 11,6822. Enrollment for Texas A&M is a 25.9 percent jump
from 2013 and Blinn’s Bryan Campus is a decrease of 9.3 percent.
94,817
119,748
60,440 67,003
49,129
41,892
11,68212,821
6,925
1996
0
100,000
50,000
75,000
25,000
2010
CITY POPULATION
2018
TEXAS A&M POPULATION
BLINN POPULATION
FIG 3.4 - HIGHER EDUCATION POPULATION SINCE 1996
SOURCES:
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY DATA & RESEARCH SERVICES, BASED ON THE TH CLASS DAY ESTIMATES
BLINN RESEARCH & REPORTING DEPARTMENT
THE TEXAS A&M ENROLLMENT DATA INCLUDES DISTANCE
LEARNING AND THE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, LOCATED
IN BRYAN. BLINN COLLEGE ENROLLMENT DATA INCLUDES
THE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AND RELLIS CAMPUS, BUT
NO DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMS.
PLEASE NOTE
STUDENT POPULATION DENSITY
MIDLOW HIGH
TEXAS A&M STUDENT
POPULATION DENSITY
1
2
3
4
5
1 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
2 NORTHGATE/UNIVERSITY CORRIDOR
3 FM 2818/HOLLEMAN DR CORRIDOR
4 SOUTHWEST PKWY & WELSH AV E
5 DARTMOUTH ST & HARVEY RD
Page 88 of 484
17
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
65,000
60,000
70,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
33,625 34,753 35,200 35,415
32,210
39,463
40,384
42,629
48,019
51,729
43,442
44,618 44,813 44,578
46,542
48,702
49,861
52,449
61,585
66,069
2018
55,934
67,003
TOTAL ENROLLMENT
OFF-CAMPUS POPULATION
FIG 3.5 - TEXAS A&M OFF-CAMPUS POPULATION
AGE GROUPS
The median age in College Station is 22.6 years old,
an increase of 0.3 years from 2010.
The relatively young age of city residents is due to the large number of college students. The increase in
median age is likely due to the increase in local job opportunities for recent graduates. The city’s senior
population (65+) grew from 4.7 percent to 8 percent from 2010 to 2016. As the baby boomer generation
ages, it is likely that the city will continue to see an increase in residents 50 years and older. About 17
percent of College Station’s population is under the age of 18, and the child dependency ratio is 21 percent,
which shows the ratio of dependents under 18 years old and the total population of 18-64 year olds.
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS , ACS YEAR ESTIMATE
50.6%49.4%MALEFEMALE
FIG 3.6 - MALE AND FEMALE POPULATION FIG 3.7 - POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
21%
OF THE POPULATION
HAS CHILD DEPENDENTS
43%
OF THE POPULATION
IS BETWEEN 18 AND 24
5%
11%
43%
14%
9%
5%
7%
3%
55-59
1%
70-74
2%
75+
<5
5-17
18-24
24-35
35-44
45-54
60-69
Page 89 of 484
18 cstx.gov
ETHNICITY AND RACE
In 2016, 78.8 percent of College Station residents identified themselves as
Caucasian, 14.9 percent as Hispanic, and 9.7 percent as Asian1.
In the Fall of 2018, 55.8 percent of Texas A&M students identied themselves as Caucasian, 21.3 percent as
Hispanic, and 8.6 percent as International.2 College Station has grown more diverse since the 2010 Census,
with an increase in Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, ACS YEAR ESTIMATE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY DATA AND RESEARCH SERVICES FALL .
FIG 3.8 - FALL TEXAS A&M RACIAL DIVERSITY FIG 3.9 - CITY OF COLLEGE STATION RACIAL DIVERSITY
7.5%
3.5%
21.3%
OTHER
0.5%
MULTI-
RACIAL
2.3%
ISLANDER
0.09%
ASIAN
BLACK
NATIVE AMERICAN
0.2%
55.8%
8.6%
HISPANIC
WHITE
INTERNATIONAL
SOURCES:
7.1%
OTHER
0.1%
ASIAN
9.7%
HISPANIC
14.9%
BLACK
NATIVE
AMERICAN
0.2%
78.8%
2.4%
WHITE
MULTIRACIAL
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
AND COMPOSITION
In 2016, there were an estimated 38,020 total households in College Station.
Of these, 53 percent were considered non-family households and 47 percent were considered family
households. A non-family household is dened by the U.S. Census Bureau as a householder living alone or
with non-relatives only. Non-relatives include any household member not related to the householder by
birth, marriage, or adoption. Non-relatives could include roommates or housemates, as well as unmarried
partners or foster children. A family household is dened by the U.S. Census Bureau for statistical purposes
as “a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or
adoption and residing together; all such people are considered as members of one family.” Families are
classied by type as either a married-couple family or other family according to the presence of a spouse.
Other family is further broken out according to the sex of the householder.
FIG 3.12 - FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION FIG 3.13 - FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION WITH
CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS
FIG 3.11 - FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITIONFIG 3.10 - HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
53%NON-FAMILY
HOUSEHOLDS
FAMILY
HOUSEHOLDS47%50%
CHILDREN
UNDER
18 YEARS
OLD
WITHOUT
CHILDREN
UNDER
18 YEARS
OLD
50%
76%
MALE
HOUSEHOLDER
FEMALE
HOUSEHOLDER
MARRIED-COUPLE
FAMILY
7%
17%
74%
MALE
HOUSEHOLDER
FEMALE
HOUSEHOLDER
MARRIED-COUPLE
FAMILY
5%
21%
2.5
AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
3
AVERAGE
FAMILY SIZE
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, ACS YEAR ESTIMATE
NOTE: FIGS . THROUGH . DATA REPRESENTS , TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS FAMILY AND NONFAMILY
Page 90 of 484
19
HOUSING STOCK AND INVENTORY
From 2010 to 2018, the city has seen
growth in all housing unit types.
Multi-family dwelling units made up the largest
segment of new residential units constructed
at 5,775 units, with a large spike in multi-family
construction in 2017 after the addition of 1,320
units with the Park West development. During
this same period, 4,985 single-family homes were
constructed, with over 400 single-family homes
built each year.
ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY
SURVEY, .% OF ALL HOUSING UNITS IN COLLEGE
STATION WERE BUILT FROM , WHILE .% OF
HOUSING UNITS WERE BUILT FROM . ABOUT
, HOUSING UNITS WERE COMPLETED THROUGH
OCTOBER BASED ON CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
PLEASE NOTE
FIG. 3.14 - HOUSING UNITS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE
OF OCCUPANCY*
3,604
2,000
2,500
3,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2017 20182016201520142013
1,0111,3061,572
1,041
970
SOURCE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BASED ON OCTOBER DATA.
FIG 3.15 - AGE OF HOUSING STOCK-YEAR BUILT
FIG 3.16 - NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS (2010-2018)
18%
18%
28%
6%
19%
4%
2014-2016
2%
1950-1959
2%
1940-1949
1%
1939-OR
EARLIER
1%
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2013
5,000
6,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
SINGLE-
FAMILY
DETACHED
3,649
MULTI-
FAMILY
5,775
DUPLEX
556
TOWNHOMES
1,336
FIG 3.17 - HOUSING STOCK BY TYPE
50
40
30
20
10
0
SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED
43.6%
DUPLEX
6.6%
SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED
5.5%
BOAT, RV,
VAN, ETC.
0.02%
MULTI-
FAMILY
43.1%
MOBILE
HOME
1%
According to the 2016 American
Community Survey, College Station
has about 42,239 housing units.
Almost half of the housing stock is made up of
single-family homes (attached and detached).
Multi-family housing units (three or more units
within a structure) make up more than 43 percent
of the city’s housing stock, only 0.5 percent less
than single-family detached.
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, ACS YEAR ESTIMATE, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Page 91 of 484
20 cstx.gov
HOUSING MARKET
College Station’s median
home price is $247,000.
Based on October 2018 estimates, the median
home price is $247,0001, with an average of
$283,035—up from $158,214 in 2013. The estimated
monthly inventory, or the amount of time
estimated to sell the existing stock, was 4.5
months. With the growing housing market, the
total number of annual sales in 2013 has decreased
from 1,820 to 1,717 for 2018.
2000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
500,000
0
2010 2018
$104,500
$153,450
$247,000
FIG 3.18 - MEDIAN HOME PRICE
SOURCE: TEXAS A&M REAL ESTATE CENTER, AS OF OCTOBER
HOUSING ON
TEXAS A&M CAMPUS
Texas A&M has an on-campus bed inventory of more than 11,000 in four campus
geographic precincts — Northside, Southside, West Campus and The Gardens.
Texas A&M’s 2017 Master Plan calls for the construction of 4,245 additional beds in these areas.
SOURCE: DATA PROVIDED COURTESY OF TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY AND AYERES SAINT GROSS VIA THE MASTERPLAN
11,000
BEDS
22
LIVE LEARN
COMMUNITIES
3.23M
GROSS SQ. FEET
5,800
ROOMS
52
AVERAGE AGE (YEARS)
OF HOUSING
Page 92 of 484
21
OCCUPANCY AND TENURE
According to the 2016 American Community Survey, College Station’s
estimated occupancy rate is 90.1 percent, a decline from 94.1 percent
and 94.7 percent in 2000.
Of the total population, 39 percent owned the housing unit they lived in and 61 percent rented the unit.
The chart below is the breakdown of each type of housing unit every person in College Station lived in and
if it was owner or renter occupied. According to the data, 37 percent of the total population (34,952) lived
in a single-family (attached or detached) home in 2016 in almost 96 percent of all owner-occupied housing
units. Multi-family housed 25 percent (23,617) of the population and made up 41.4 percent of renter-
occupied housing units.
FIG. 3.21 - OCCUPANCY RATE ALL HOUSING TYPES
FIG. 3.19 - POPULATION IN OWNEROCCUPIED HOUSING
UNITS BY TYPE
FIG. 3.20 - POPULATION IN RENTEROCCUPIED HOUSING
UNITS BY TYPE
95.9%
SINGLE-FAMILY
(ATTACHED & DETACHED)
MOBILE
HOME
2.0%
MULTI-
FAMILY
1.3%
DUPLEX,
TRIPLEX
& FOURPLEX
0.8%
BOAT, RV,
VAN, ETC.
0.0%
34.3%
23.5%
41.4%
SINGLE-FAMILY
(ATTACHED &
DETACHED)
MOBILE
HOME
0.8%
MULTI-
FAMILY
DUPLEX, TRIPLEX
& FOURPLEX
BOAT, RV,
VAN, ETC.
0.03%
90%
VACANT
4,219
OCCUPIED
38,020
10%
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU , ACS YEAR ESTIMATE
RENTAL REGISTRATION
Since 2014, the City of College Station has tracked rental
properties through its Rental Registration program.
In October 2018, there were 6,931 single-family and duplex units registered as active rental properties. The
registered properties account for approximately 13.8 percent of College Station’s single-family and duplex
units based on the 2016 American Community Survey. Rental properties are located throughout the city
but are concentrated near Texas A&M and to the west of State Highway 6, as shown below.
RENTAL REGISTRATION DENSITY
MIDLOW HIGH
Page 93 of 484
22 cstx.gov
INCOME
In the 2016 American Community Survey, College Station’s
estimated average income (per capita) was $23,218.
The same year, the median household income was estimated at $36,471—up $4,236 from 2010—and the
median family income was $72,047, up $4,595 from 2010.
Due to the College Station’s unique demographic makeup where many households are made up of college
students, it is important to distinguish the dierence between family and household. The Census Bureau
denes a household as “people who occupy a housing unit” and a family as “a group of two people or
more related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together.”
The income statistics include college student households that may have little or no income, which
creates a lower median household income. Additionally, the median household income in College Station
was lower than the state and Brazos County, which was $54,727 and $41,654, respectively. Based on the
American Community Survey, only 40 percent of households in College Station had an income of more
than $50,000 and 21.4 percent had an income between $50,000-100,000.
The College Station Independent School District classied 36.3 percent of its students as economically
disadvantaged for the 2018-2019 school year. Under the National School Lunch and Child Nutritional
Program, students are eligible for free or reduced-priced meals when they meet the income eligibility
guidelines set by the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service.
SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, AND ACS YEAR ESTIMATE
$200,000 OR MORE
$150,000 TO $199,999
$125,000 TO $149,999
$100,000 TO $124,999
$75,000 TO $99,999
$60,000 TO $74,999
$50,000 TO $59,999
$40,000 TO $49,999
$30,000 TO $39,999
$20,000 TO $29,999
$15,000 TO $19,999
$10,000 TO $14,999
LESS THAN $10,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
3.6%
4.1%
3.7%
5.0%
8.5%
7.0%
5.8%
7.0%
7.2%
10.0%
6.8%
6.5%
24.9%
4.6%
3.8%
3.9%
6.7%
9.4%
6.8%
5.2%
6.3%
10.1%
11.7%
6.1%
7.7%
17.7%
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
2016 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
2010 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
FIG. 3.22 - MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION
VS
Page 94 of 484
23
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Page 95 of 484
24 cstx.gov
EMPLOYERS
The College Station-Bryan
Metropolitan Statistical Area has
a growing, educated labor force and
low unemployment rate.
The growth of Texas A&M is a signicant driver in
the positive expansion of the local economy.
FIG. 4.22 - MSA NUMBER OF FIRMS BY INDUSTRY SIZE CLASS
FIG. 4.1 - TOP 10 EMPLOYERS IN BRAZOS COUNTY IN 2017
BLINN COLLEGE
BRYAN ISD
CHI ST. JOSEPH’S REGIONAL HOSPITAL
COLLEGE STATION ISD
HEB GROCERY
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS
SANDERSON FARMS
TEXAS A&M HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
WALMART/SAM’S CLUB
0
1,000
500
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 5-91-4 10-19 20-49 100-249 250-499
13102598200442
667
856
500-999 1000+50-99
1,947
447
SOURCES:
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT,
2 TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, DATA AS OF OCTOBER
FIG. 4.3 - METRO STATISTICAL AREA (MSA) EMPLOYMENT BY FIRM’S EMPLOYMENT CLASS
FIG. 4.4 - MSA WAGES BY INDUSTRY
FIG. . MSA EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
34,038
6,758
0
10,000
500
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 100-249 250-499
8,832
14,506
13,356
9,152
5,717
3,984
13,907
500-999 1000+50-99
11%
6%
12%
9%
12%6%
36%
4%
MINING, LOGGING,
AND CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
TRADE,
TRANSPORTATION,
AND UTILITIES
INFORMATION
1%
FINANCIAL
ACTIVITIES
PROFESSIONAL
AND BUSINESSEDUCATION AND
HEALTH SERVICES
LEISURE AND
HOSPITALITY
OTHER
2%
GOVERNMENT
6%5%
13%
10%
8%
13%
38%
3%
MINING, LOGGING,
AND CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
TRADE,
TRANSPORTATION,
AND UTILITIES
INFORMATION
1%
FINANCIAL
ACTIVITIES
PROFESSIONAL
AND BUSINESS
EDUCATION AND
HEALTH SERVICESLEISURE AND
HOSPITALITY
OTHER
3%
GOVERNMENT
SOURCES: TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, DATA AS OF OCTOBER
$1.7B
WAGES IN THE COLLEGE
STATION-BRYAN MSA
124,200
JOBS IN THE COLLEGE
STATION-BRYAN MSA
EMPLOYEES PER ACRE
MIDLOW HIGH
135 8 12 18 55032222
N
EMPLOYMENT
DISTRIBUTION
Page 96 of 484
25
FIG. 4.81 - EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR
POPULATION 25+ FIG. 4.72 - MSA NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT
FIG. 4.6 - MSA UNEMPLOYMENT (BY YEAR)
2008 98,900
2009 100,600 1.7%
2010 101,700 1.1%
2011 101,200 -0.5%
2012 102,000 0.8%
2013 105,900 3.8%
2014 109,200 3.1%
2015 111,800 2.4%
2016 113,800 1.8%
2017
2018
116,500
124,200
2.4%
6.6%
YEAR EMPLOYMENT % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR
FIG. 4.91 - MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
0
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
6.0%
7.0%
5.0%
2008 20102009 2011 2012 2014 2015
3.2%3.5%3.6%3.5%
4.1%
5.1%
5.5%
6.3%6.6%
2016 2017 20182012
5.7%
4.0%
0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$60,000
$70,000
$50,000 $41,313
$53,981
$31,537
LESS THAN
HIGH SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL
GRADUATE
SOME COLLEGE
OR ASSOCIATE
BACHELOR’S
DEGREE
GRADUATE OR
PROFESSIONAL
DEGREE
$31,520
$23,000
5%
13%
6%
20%
28%
28%
NO HIGH SCHOOL
DIPLOMA
HIGH SCHOOL
GRADUATE
OR GED
SOME COLLEGE,
NO DEGREE
ASSOCIATE
DEGREE
BACHELOR’S
DEGREE
GRADUATE OR
PROFESSIONAL
DEGREE
SOURCES:
1 U.S. CENSUS AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, DATA AS OF OCTOBER
FIG. 4.10 - EMPLOYMENT INFLOW AND OUTFLOW FOR COLLEGE STATION
SOURCE:
“ALL THE RIGHT MOVES,” TIERRA GRANDE, JANUARY TEXAS A&M REAL ESTATE CENTER,
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, LEHD COLLEGE STATION
36,898 PEOPLE - EMPLOYED IN COLLEGE STATION, LIVE OUTSIDE
19,130 PEOPLE - LIVED IN COLLEGE STATION, EMPLOYED OUTSIDE
16,898 PEOPLE - EMPLOYED AND LIVED IN COLLEGE STATION
#1
IN TEXAS FOR THE NUMBER
OF MOVERS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF
POPULATION1
29%
OF THE POPULATION
MOVED ANNUALLY
BETWEEN 2011-20151
#2
IN TEXAS FOR MOVERS
FROM ABROAD AS
A PERCENTAGE
OF POPULATION1
16 ,898 PE OPLE
19,130 PE OPLE36,898 PEOPLE
College Station-Bryan MSA
Page 97 of 484
26 cstx.gov
TOURISM
Visitors can experience a variety of enjoyable activities.
College Station is home of Texas A&M University, the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum,
and several unique entertainment districts and venues, including Northgate and Wolf Pen Creek. Since
much of the area’s tourism revolves around Texas A&M, the majority of College Station’s hotels are
located along University Drive and Texas Avenue.
$5.4M
HOTEL TAX FUND
REVENUES IN FY 20171
1.26M
HOTEL ROOM NIGHTS
AVAILABLE IN 20172
992,000
HOTEL ROOM NIGHTS
SOLD IN 20172
78%
OF HOTEL ROOM NIGHTS
WERE OCCUPIED IN 20172
SOURCES:
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTK
UNIVERSITY DR EMUNSON AVE HARVEY RDSH 6
TEXAS AVE TEXAS AVE S
UNIVERSITY DRGEORGE BUSH DRHOLLEMAN DRSOUTHWEST PKWYFM 2818WELLBORN RD ROCK PRAIRIE RDROCK P
R
AI
RIE
R
D
GRAHAM RDEAGLE AVEBARRON RDWILLIAM D FITCH PKWYWILLIAM D FITCH PKWYSH 6
DEACON DRSEBESTA RDN# OF ROOMS
> 300
200 - 300
150 - 200
100 - 15 0
50 - 10 0
< 50
HOTEL ROOMS
SOURCE: OFFICE OF GOVERNOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
$336M
VISITOR SPENDING IN
COLLEGE STATION IN 2017
70%
OF BRAZOS COUNTY
VISITOR SPENDING
OCCURRED IN
COLLEGE STATION
4,340
TOURISM-GENERATED
JOBS IN
COLLEGE STATION
$109M
TOURISM-GENERATED
PAYROLL IN
COLLEGE STATION
$21.1M
STATE SALES TAX
REVENUE GENERATED
BY VISITORS TO
COLLEGE STATION
$7.5M
COLLEGE STATION
SALES TAX REVENUE
GENERATED
BY VISITORS
COLLEGE STATION-BRYAN MSA RANKED NO. 4 OF 26 MSAS IN TEXAS WITH
AVERAGE VISITOR TRAVEL SPENDING GROWTH OF 4.6 PERCENT FROM 2000-2017.
Page 98 of 484
27
2010 201120092008
$300
$200
$100
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$620
$536
$464 $466
$555 $575
$753
$863
$662
$600
FIG. . SINGLEFAMILY BUILDING PERMITS IN MILLIONS
PROPERTY TAX AND
ASSESSED VALUE
College Station has achieved steady, healthy growth.
The city has experienced a 77 percent increase in total taxable assessed value over the last decade because
of rising prices and increases in new construction. The growing assessed values have allowed College
Station to maintain a low property tax rate. On a per acre basis, the highest property valuations are in the
Northgate area.
SOURCE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
2010 201120092008
$300
$200
$100
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$400
$500
$600
$319
$147
$255 $248
$217 $213
$279
$285
$533
$440
FIG. 4.11 - CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (IN MILLIONS)
Page 99 of 484
28 cstx.gov
N
APPRAISED PROPERTY VALUES
PROPERTY VALUE PER ACRE
MIDLOW HIGH
375K 1M 1.5M 2M 2.5M 5M 45M020M10M750K
RISE AT NORTHGAT E
STERLING NORTHGAT E
THE WOODLANDS
OF COLLEGE STATION
THE BARRACKS
CREEK MEADOWS
PEBBLE CREEK
GARDEN
BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE
HOSPITAL & CLINIC
SUMMIT CROSSING
TEXAS A&M HOTEL &
CONFERENCE CENTER
Page 100 of 484
29
0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$1.0
$2.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
$6.0
2010 201120092008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$4.5 $4.9 $5.3 $5.5 $5.7
$5.9
$6.2 $6.6
$7.1
$7.9
0
0.100
0.200
0.400
0.439
0.448
0.438 0.431 0.426
0.453 0.453
0.473
0.500
0.300
2010 201120092008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0.439 0.439
0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$5.0
$10.0
$35.0
$40.0
$30.0
2010 201120092008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$20.0 $22.1 $23.6 $24.3 $25.0 $25.5 $26.4 $29.8
$32.0
$37.0
SOURCE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
FIG. 4.13 - TOTAL TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUE (IN BILLIONS)
FIG. . CITY PROPERTY TAX RATE
FIG. 4.15 - PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS (IN MILLIONS)
59%
1.398 21%
0.4975
20%
0.485
BRAZOS
COUNTY
COLLEGE
STATION ISD
CITY OF
COLLEGE STATION
0
$300,000
$250,000
$150,000
$50,000
$100,000
$200,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$180,306
$187,210
$196,160
$207,902
$223,927
$248,532
$262,839
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FISCAL SERVICES, TEXAS A&M REAL ESTATE CENTER
FIG. 4.161 - FY 2018 PROPERTY TAX RATE PER $100 OF
ASSESSED VALUATION (IN CENTS)
FIG. 4.17 - HOME SALES AVERAGE PRICE
SOURCES:
0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
5.0%
10.0%
35.0%
40.0%
30.0%<$100,000$100,000-$149,000$150,000-$199,000$200,000-$249,000$250,000-$299,000$300,000-$399,000$400,000-$499,000>$500,0006.5%
1.8%
33.0%
20.9%
11.7%
29.1%
35.9%
6.0%
5.4%
16.6%
2011
2017
15.8%
1.6%
6.5%
3.4%
1.4%4.6%
FIG. 4.18 - HOUSING SALES PRICE DISTRIBUTION
Page 101 of 484
30 cstx.gov
$13.8
$16.8
$18.1
$19.8
$19.4
$19.3 $20.3
$20.3 $21.5
$23.1
$24.6
$26.7
$27.2 $28.6
$15
$15.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
SALES TAX
With its expanding economy, College Station has
experienced a steady increase in sales tax revenue.
About 80 percent of taxable sales come from retail, accommodation and food services.
FIG. 4.191 - SALES TAX RATE BREAKDOWN
FIG. 4.213 - SALES TAX REVENUE BY FISCAL YEAR (IN MILLIONS)
FIG. 4.202 - 2017 TAXABLE SALES BY CATEGORY (IN MILLIONS)
1.5%
0.5%
6.25%
COLLEGE
STATION
BRAZOS
COUNTY
STATE OF
TEXAS
20%
$278.9
22%
$315.358%
$831.6
RETAIL
ACCOMMODATION
AND FOOD
SERVICES
OTHER
SOURCES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FISCAL SERVICES, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
RETAIL SQUARE
FOOTAGE N
POST OAK MALL
LONE STAR PAVILION
CENTURY SQUARE
WOLF PEN PLAZA
TARGET
HEB
KROGER
WELLBORN
SHOPPING PLAZA
HEB
LOWE’S
ACADEMY
WALMART SHOPPING PLAZA
SAM’S CLUB
HOME DEPOT
COLLEGE STATION
SHOPPING PLAZA
RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE
MIDLOW HIGH
15 K 30K 50K 75 K 100K 17 5K05K 895K300K10K
Page 102 of 484
31
LAND USE
Page 103 of 484
32 cstx.gov
19 40s
19 50s
19 60s
19 70 s
19 80s
19 90s
2000s
2010 -2018
DECADE
ANNEXED
32,814
ACRES WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS
102,978
ACRES WITHIN THE
CITY’S EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION
2,211
ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND COVERED IN NON-
ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS
CITY GROWTH AND ANNEXATION
FIG. 5.1 - CITY LIMITS IN SQUARE MILES AS OF 2018
45
60
30
15
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018
0
2.5
2.9 6.3
16.6
24.0
30.3
40.7
49.8 51.2
Since being incorporated in 1938, the City of College Station has
actively annexed property into its city limits.
Properties in the city limits are subject to zoning, which regulates land use, lot dimensions, and building
form. The city continues to oer development agreements according to the Texas Local Government Code
to the property owners of agriculturally appraised land, which protects the land from annexation for 10
years if the property maintains agricultural status and remains undeveloped. Upon completion of that
10-year term, the city can choose to extend the agreement or annex the property.
NON-ANNEXATION
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS
Page 104 of 484
33
PLATTED GROWTH
Prior to developing property, platting is generally required.
The platting process prepares a property for development and subdivision by ensuring it can be served
by utilities, can access the transportation network, and meets applicable zoning dimensional standards.
Platting is also the principal way the city obtains necessary right-of-way and utility easements to meet the
demands of growth. Growth and platting activity during College Station’s early years reects the inuence
of Texas A&M as the physical, economic, and social center. Over the years, platting activity has steadily
expanded outward, particularly to the south. The city is expected to process more plats in the extra-
territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) with its recent expansion from 3⁄ to 5 miles. Under interlocal agreements, the
city and Brazos County both review plats in the city’s Brazos County ETJ, while the city does not review
plats in Grimes or Burleson Counties.
PLATTED GROWTH HISTORY
IN THE CITY LIMITS
UNPLAT TED
PRIOR TO 19 50
19 51-1970
19 71-1990
19 91-2009
2010-2018
FROM 2010 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 2018, THE
CITY PROCESSED 414
PLATS COVERING 4,192
ACRES WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS
Page 105 of 484
34 cstx.gov
The Future Land Use and Character
Map is the part of the city’s
Comprehensive Plan that represents
the community’s desired future land
use pattern.
Those who seek a zoning change either need to
comply with the Future Land Use and Character
Map or seek a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
FUTURE LAND USE AND CHARACTER
FOR THE FOLLOWING GRAPHS THE TOTAL AREA OF THE
COMBINED CITY LIMITS AS OF SEPTEMBER IS ,
ACRES. THE TOTAL AREA IN THE ZONING CATEGORIES IS
, ACRES. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THESE GRAPHS
DO NOT INCLUDE THE AREA FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAY
RIGHTSOFWAY.
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
933
GENERAL
SUBURBAN
266
OTHER
1%
7
URBAN
MIXED-USE
104
URBAN
96
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
275
SUBURBAN
COMMERCIAL
2%
42 BUSINESS
PARK
3%
48
33%52%
15%
6%
5%
15%
NATURAL
AREAS
PROTECTED
1%
23
PLEASE NOTE
FIG. . APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE
LAND USE AMENDMENTS BY ACREAGE
SEPTEMBER
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION
13%
ESTATE
22%
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
43%
WELLBORN
RESIDENTIAL
3%
GENERAL
SUBURBAN
19%
1,0502,409
4,635
313
2,047
FIG. . ACRES OF SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE
LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
FIG. . ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
FUTURE LAND USES
FIG. . FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGE WITHIN CITY LIMITS
1,050
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
38%
821
46
74
789
SUBURBAN
COMMERCIAL
29%
WELLBORN
COMMERCIAL
2%
BUSINESS
PARK
28%
WELLBORN
BUSINESS
PARK
3%
11%10%
4%
16%
20%
38%
URBAN
3,253
COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
2,780
CIVIC
991
TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY
4,732
NATURAL
AREAS
5,860
RURAL
1%
225
OTHER
0.4%
115
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
10,829
SOURCE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
34 cstx.gov Page 106 of 484
35!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬¬
¬¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬!!!!!¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬
¬¬
FUTURE LAND USE & CHARACTER
¬
¬
¬¬
Neighborhood Conservation
Rural
Estate
Village Center
Restricted Suburban
General Suburban
Urban
Urban Mixed Use
General Commercial
Suburban Commercial
Business Park
Institutional/Public
Natural Areas - Reserved
Medical Use
Texas A&M University
Natural Areas - Protected
Utilities
!! !!! !
Redevelopment Areas
Water
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬Wellborn Preserve - Open
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬¬Wellborn Estate - Open
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬Wellborn Business Park
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬Wellborn Commercial
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬¬Wellborn Preserve
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬Wellborn Estate
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬¬¬Wellborn Restricted Suburban
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬Wellborn Suburban
Page 107 of 484
36 cstx.gov
ZONING
Zoning provides a property’s legal entitlements regarding the
types of allowed land uses, dimensional standards, and form.
At the time of annexation, land is given the residential/agricultural zoning classication of Rural, with
the expectation that a rezoning request will be made for new development that requires a more intense
classication.
FIG. . APPROVED REZONINGS BY ACRES,
SEPTEMBER
293
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
384
237
621
836
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
517
619
888
386
PLEASE NOTE
FIG. . MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
FOR THE FOLLOWING GRAPHS THE TOTAL AREA OF THE
COMBINED CITY LIMITS AS OF SEPTEMBER IS ,
ACRES. THE TOTAL AREA IN THE ZONING CATEGORIES IS
, ACRES. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THESE GRAPHS
DO NOT INCLUDE THE AREA FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAY
RIGHTSOFWAY.
5
10
15
20
25
30
RURALESTATERESTRICTEDSUBURBANGENERALSUBURBANTOWNHOUSEMULTI-FAMILY0.3 1.0
4.0
14.0
8.0
30.0
DUPLEX12.0
FIG. . ACRES BY ZONING
FIG. . ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
ZONING FIG. . ACRES OF NONRURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING
COLLEGE &
UNIVERSITY
5,096
RURAL
9,416
RESIDENTIAL
8,718
COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
3,286
18%
33%30%
11%
7%
1%
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
1,905
NORTHGATE &
WOLF PEN CREEK
DESIGN DISTRICT
323
0.1%
NATURAL AREAS
PROTECTED
41
GENERAL
SUBURBAN
60%
TOWNHOUSE
2%
HIGH DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY
6%
SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
1%
ESTATE
9%
MIXED-USE
0.03%
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
8%
MANUFACTURED
HOME PARK
0.2%MULTI-
FAMILY
10%
DUPLEX
3%
WELLBORN
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
1%
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
59%
LIGHT
COMMERCIAL
3%
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
4%
OFFICE
6%
SUBURBAN
COMMERCIAL
2%
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
0.9%
WELLBORN
COMMERCIAL
0.4%
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
24%
BUSINESS PARK
INDUSTRIAL
0.2%
HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL
1%
SOURCES: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
36 cstx.gov Page 108 of 484
37
OV Corridor Overlay
RDD Redevelopment District
NPO Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay
NCO Neigh borhood Conservation Overlay
C-3 Light Commercial
M-1 Light Industrial
M-2 Heavy Industrial
R-1B Single Family Residential
R-4 Multi-Family
R-6 High Density Multi-Family
R&D Research and Development
NAP Natural Areas Protected
R Rural
E Estate
RS Restricted Suburban
GS General Suburban
D Duplex
T To wnhouse
MF Multi-Family
MU Mixed-Use
MHP Manufactu red Homes
O Office
WE Wellborn EstateWW
WRS Wellborn Restricted SuburbanWW
SC Suburban Commercial
GC General Comm ercial
CI Commercial Industrial
BP Business Park
BPI Business Park Industrial
C-U College and University
P-MUD Planned Mixed-Use Development
PD D Planned Development District
NG-1 Core Northgat e
NG-2 Transitional Northgate
NG-3 Residential Northgate
WPC Wolf Pen Creek
WC Wellborn CommercialWW
W
W WW
W
W
WWWW
W
W WW
W
W
ZONING
OV Corridor Overlay
RDD Redevelopment District
NPO Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay
NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
C-3 Light Commercial
M-1 Light Industrial
M-2 Heavy Industrial
R-1B Single Family Residential
R-4 Multi-Fa mily
R-6 High Density Multi-Family
R&D Research and Development
NAP Natural Areas Protected
R Rural
E Estate
RS Restricted Suburban
GS General Suburban
D Duplex
T To wnhouse
MF Multi-Family
MU Mixed-Use
MHP Manufactured Homes
O Office
WE Wellborn EstateWW
WRS Wellborn Restricted SuburbanWW
SC Suburban Commercial
GC General Commercial
CI Commercial Industrial
BP Business Park
BPI Business Park Industrial
C-U College and Univ ersity
P-MUD Planned Mixed-Use Development
PDD Planned Development District
NG-1 Core Northgate
NG-2 Transitional North gate
NG-3 Residential Northgate
WPC Wolf Pen Creek
WC Wellborn CommercialWW
W
W WW
W
W
WWWW
W
W WW
W
W
ZONING
Page 109 of 484
38 cstx.gov
As adequate infrastructure becomes available
and properties are available for development over
the next 10-year planning horizon, the amount
of undeveloped land is expected to decrease
and the discrepancy between the existing and
the proposed future land uses as dened in the
Comprehensive Plan will decrease.
FIG. . EXISTING BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
IN CITY LIMITS*FIG. . RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
EXISTING LAND USE
FOR THESE GRAPHS THE TOTAL AREA OF THE COMBINED
CITY LIMITS AS OF SEPTEMBER IS , ACRES.
THE TOTAL AREA IN THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORIES
IS , ACRES. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THESE
GRAPHS DO NOT INCLUDE THE AREA FOR STREETS AND
HIGHWAY RIGHTSOFWAY. THE FOLLOWING DATA IS AS
OF JANUARY .
FIG .: . BILLION SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING
BUILDINGS IN CITY LIMITS
PLEASE NOTE
OTHER
0.4%
INDUSTRIAL
1%
COMMERCIAL
20%
RESIDENTIAL
79%
OTHER
RESIDENTIAL
2%
APARTMENTS
32%
SINGLE-
FAMILY
54%
DUPLEX, TRIPLEX,
FOURPLEX
7%
TOWNHOME
5%
FRATERNITY/
SORORITY
0.3%
*SOURCE: BRAZOS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
FIG. . EXISTING LAND USE ACRES
FIG. . ACRES OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NONRURAL
28%
6%
19%
11%
33%
3%
OTHER
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY
CIVIC
UNDEVELOPED &
AGRICULTURAL
918
8,132
1,778
5,331
3,241
9,386
SINGLE-FAMILY
76%
6,181
DUPLEX
5%
385
MULTI-FAMILY
16%
1,357
GROUP
QUARTERS
1%
67
MOBILE
MANUFACTURED
HOME
2%
142
FIG. . ACRES OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL LAND USESFIG. . ACRES OF EXISTING PUBLIC AND SEMIPUBLIC
LAND USES
FIG. . ACRES OF EXISTING RURAL, AGRICULTURAL,
AND UNDEVELOPED LAND USES
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
18%
318
COMMERCIAL
OTHER
9%
155
COMMERCIAL
RETAIL
62%
1,104COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
2%
41
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
9%
160
PUBLIC
FACILITIES
32%
1,043
SEMI-PUBLIC
12%
385 PARKS
45%
1,444
GREENWAY
DEDICATION
11%
369
AGRICULTURAL
5%
452
UNDEVELOPED
PLATTED
15%
1,400
UNDEVELOPED
UNPLATTED
63%
5,925
RURAL
17%
1,608
Page 110 of 484
39
Single-Family Residential (Including Townhouse)
Duplex Residential
Multi-Family
Mixed-Use
Group Quarters (Nursing Home, Dorm, etc)
Mobile/M anufactured Home
Commercial Retail (Banks, Hotels, etc)
Commercial Office
Commercial Other (Amusement, Service Station, etc)
Commercial - Industrial (Warehousing/Distribution)
Light Industrial
Public Facilities (COCS, CSISD, Library, etc)
Semi-Public (Religious, Hospitals, etc)
TA MU (Easterwood)
Tr ansportation, Utilities & Communication
Park (Private & Public)
Greenway
Drainage
Common Area
Agricultural
Rural (Large lot, >= 5 acres)
Unimproved
EXISTING LAND USE
IN THE CITY LIMITS
Single-Family Residential (Including Townhouse)
Duplex Residential
Multi-Family
Mixed-Use
Group Quarters (Nursing Home, Dorm, etc)
Mobile/M anufactured Home
Commercial Retail (Banks, Hotels, etc)
Commercial Office
Commercial Other (Amusement, Service Station, etc)
Commercial - Industrial (Warehousing/Distribution)
Light Industrial
Public Facilities (COCS, CSISD, Library, etc)
Semi-Public (Religious, Hospitals, etc)
TA MU (Easterwood)
Tr ansportation, Utilities & Communication
Park (Private & Public)
Greenway
Drainage
Common Area
Agricultural
Rural (Large lot, >= 5 acres)
Unimproved
EXISTING LAND USE
IN THE CITY LIMITS
Page 111 of 484
40 cstx.gov
Single-Family Residential (Including Townhouses)
Duplex Residential
Multi-Family
Group Quarters (Nursing Homes, Dorms, Etc.)
Mobile/M anufactured Homes
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
College Station offers a variety of housing types, from single-family homes
on a variety of lot sizes to apartments, duplexes, and townhomes.
About 28 percent of land in College Station is used for non-rural residential while the Comprehensive
Plan anticipates that this could increase to 49 percent at buildout. In addition to this increase in
residential acreage, the city has also seen projects with increased density, particularly in the Northgate
Redevelopment Area. The proximity of Northgate to a large university population has encouraged the
development and redevelopment of various residential and commercial uses in the area. Over the past
two decades, the city has invested over $30 million in the area’s infrastructure, which has supported and is
expected to continue to support multi-story redevelopment.
Residential Land Use
FIG. . EXISTING LAND USE ACRES
28%
6%
19%
11%
33%
3%
OTHER
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY
CIVIC
UNDEVELOPED &
AGRICULTURAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
76%
6,181
DUPLEX
5%
385
MULTI-FAMILY
16%
1,357
GROUP
QUARTERS
1%
67
MOBILE
MANUFACTURED
HOME
2%
142
FIG. . ACRES OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
NONRURAL
Page 112 of 484
41
Commercial and Industrial Land Uses
Just over half of the land area that has been planned for commercial
and industrial uses has been developed for such uses.
The Future Land Use and Character Plan calls for approximately 2,780 acres (or roughly 10 percent of
the city) of commercial and industrial land use, including Business Park, General Commercial, Suburban
Commercial, Wellborn Commercial, and Wellborn Business Park designations. Because of the plan’s
exibility, commercial can also be developed on properties designated as General Suburban, Urban,
and Urban Mixed Use, in certain circumstances. Approximately 1,778 acres have been commercially and
industrially developed, the majority for retail commercial uses that cater to the general population and
attract regional sales tax dollars.
Commercial Retail (Banks, Hotels, Etc.)
Commercial Office
Commercial Other (Amusement, Service Station, Etc.)
Commercial - Industrial (Warehousing/Distribution)
Light In dustrial
EXISTING COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
FIG. . EXISTING LAND USE ACRES
28%
6%
19%
11%
33%
3%
OTHER
RESIDENTIAL
TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY
CIVIC
UNDEVELOPED &
AGRICULTURAL
COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
FIG. . ACRES OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
18%
318
COMMERCIAL
OTHER
9%
155
COMMERCIAL
RETAIL
62%
1,104COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
2%
41
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
9%
160
Page 113 of 484
42 cstx.gov
Approximately, 9,386 acres of the city are undeveloped
or have rural or agriculture uses.
The majority of this land is unplatted and has a zoning designation of Rural. The Future and Land Use
Character Map shows these areas designated for a mix of future land uses.
Undeveloped and Agricultural Land Uses
Agricultural
Rural (Large lots, >= 5 acres)
Unimproved
EXISTING UNDEVELOPED, RURAL
& AGRICULTURAL LAND USES
FIG. . EXISTING LAND USE ACRES
FIG. . EXISTING UNDEVELOPED AND AGRICULTURAL
LAND USES
AGRICULTURAL
5%
452
UNDEVELOPED
PLATTED
15%
1,400
UNDEVELOPED
UNPLATTED
63%
5,925
RURAL
17%
1,608
28%
6%
19%
11%
33%
3%
OTHER
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL &
INDUSTRIAL
TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY
CIVIC
UNDEVELOPED &
AGRICULTURAL
FIG. . ZONING OF UNDEVELOPED, RURAL AND
AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CITY LIMITS
FIG. . FUTURE LAND USE OF UNDEVELOPED AND
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN CITY LIMITS
RURAL
63%
5,945
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
7%
670
GENERAL
SUBURBAN
4%
393
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
7%
661
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENET
DISTRICT
7%
596
OTHER
12%
1,123
ESTATE
14%
1,322
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
31%
2,883GENERAL
SUBURBAN
6%
545
URBAN
MIX-USE
9%
873
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
4%
419
COMMERCIAL
3%
300
BUSINESS PARK
6%
529
OTHER
6%
573
NATURAL
AREAS
21%
1,942
Page 114 of 484
43
ETJ LAND USE
With the expansion of the city limits comes an expansion
of the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
In July 2018, the city extended its ETJ boundary from 3⁄ miles to 5 miles outside the city limits. The city
does not have zoning or land use controls in the ETJ but regulates the subdivision of land with the county.
Per the Unied Development Ordinance, lots in the ETJ must be a minimum of one acre or be serviced by a
Municipal Utility District (MUD).
College Station’s ETJ has experienced a signicant amount of development in recent years. Southern
Pointe and Millican Reserve are two large MUDs starting development in the ETJ. In 2017, Southern Pointe
received approval for a preliminary plan with 1,994 single-family lots on 553 acres. Millican Reserve is
projected to have about 1,900 single-family homes on 2,354 acres.
COMMERCIAL
9%
OPEN SPACE
& AGRICULTURAL
42%
OTHER
1%
RESIDENTIAL
48%
FIG. . EXISTING LAND USE: ETJ ACREAGE BY TYPE FIG. . ETJ FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGE
FIG. . EXISTING LAND USE:
ETJ RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
RURAL
SINGLE-FAMILY
66%
MANUFACTURED
HOME
8%
MULTI-FAMILY
0.3%
SINGLE-FAMILY
(NON-RURAL)
26%
NATURAL
AREAS
20%
RESTRICTED
SUBURBAN
0.2%
OTHER
1%
GENERAL
SUBURBAN
0.6%
BUSINESS
PARK
1%
RURAL
78%
Page 115 of 484
44 cstx.gov
Single-Fam ily - To wnhome
Manufactured Home
Duplex
Multi-Family
Va cant
Op en Space
Rural-Land
Comm ercial
Industrial
Utilities
Other
EXISTING LAND USES
ETJ EXISTING LAND USES
Single-Fam ily - To wnhome
Manufactured Home
Duplex
Multi-Family
Va cant
Op en Space
Rural-Land
Comm ercial
Industrial
Utilities
Other
EXISTING LAND USES
Page 116 of 484
45
PUBLIC
FACILITIES
Page 117 of 484
46 cstx.gov
PUBLIC FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
College Station is the only city in the
nation to simultaneously have national
accreditations in police, fire, public
safety communications, parks, water,
and public works.
The city plans, maintains and invests in the
infrastructure, facilities, services, personnel, and
equipment required to meet projected needs
and opportunities to accommodate growth. This
section includes updated information regarding
electric, water, wastewater, sanitation, police, re,
parks, K-12 education, and higher education related
to the city’s growth and development patterns.
, ACRES MAKING UP % OF THE LAND WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS IS FOR CIVIC USES.
, ACRES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
, ACRES OF PARKS* *INCLUDES CEMETERIES
ACRES OF GREENWAYS* *GREENWAYS NOT DEPICTED
IN MAP
PLEASE NOTE
19
1
2
3
4
5
10
9
8
11 12
7
6
13
18
17
16
14
15
POLICE STATION11
MUNICIPAL COURT12
UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE13
CITY FACILITY BUILDINGS
NORTHGAT E PARKING GARAGE1
FIRE STATION #62
FIRE STATION #43
CITY HALL4
FIRE STATION #210
LARRY J RINGER LIBRARY9
ARTS CENTER8FACILITIES & HUMAN RESOURCES5
FIRE STATION #17
LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER6
LICK CREEK WWTP19
FIRE STATION #518
FIRE STATION #317
UTILITY SERVICE CENTER16
PARKS & RECREATION14
CARTER CREEK WWTP15
PARKS*
CEMETERIES
CITY LIMITS
CITY FACILITY BUILDINGS
K-12 EDUCATION*
TAMU PROPERTY*
* More detailed maps on the following pages
PUBLIC LANDS &
CITY FACILITIES
19
1
2
3
4
5
10
9
8
11 12
7
6
13
18
17
16
14
15
POLICE STATION11
MUNICIPAL COURT12
UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE13
CITY FACILITY BUILDINGS
NORTHGAT E PARKING GARAGE1
FIRE STATION #62
FIRE STATION #43
CITY HALL4
FIRE STATION #210
LARRY J RINGER LIBRARY9
ARTS CENTER8FACILITIES & HUMAN RESOURCES5
FIRE STATION #17
LINCOLN RECREATION CENTER6
LICK CREEK WWTP19
FIRE STATION #518
FIRE STATION #317
UTILITY SERVICE CENTER16
PARKS & RECREATION14
CARTER CREEK WWTP15
PARKS*
CEMETERIES
CITY LIMITS
CITY FACILITY BUILDINGS
K-12 EDUCATION*
TAMU PROPERTY*
* More detailed maps on the following pages
PUBLIC LANDS &
CITY FACILITIES
Page 118 of 484
47
FIG. . CITIZEN SURVEY IMPORTANCE VS. QUALITY RATING RANK
QUALITY RATINGS SHOWN ARE FOR EXCELLENT/GOOD SCORES
RANK LISTS THE CITY SERVICE IN ORDER BASED ON THE RESPONDENTS FIRST, SECOND
AND THIRD MOST IMPORTANT SERVICE
IMPORTANCE RATINGS SHOWN ARE FOR VERY IMPORTANT AND SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT SCORES
28%
POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICES
QUALITY
RANK
IMPORTANCE
FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICES
MANA GING T RAFFI C CO NGESTION
MAI NTAININ G STREE T ROADS
ATT RACTING BUSINE SS AND JOBS
MA NAGING TRASH AND RECYCLING
BIK ING/WALKING FACI LITIES
PROGRAMS T O RET AIN AND
SUPPORT EXISTING BU SINE SSES
ENF ORCING TRAFF IC LAWS
PRO VIDING A VARIE TY OF
YOUT H RECREATIO N PROGRAMS
86%
48%
67%
84%
56%
45%
63%
69%80%
89%
90%
97%
86%
87%
99%
93%98%
97%
98%
0 20 40 60 80 100020406080100
Page 119 of 484
48 cstx.gov
ELECTRIC
College Station’s primary electric provider is College Station Utilities, which
is a wholesale power purchaser and does not have generation capabilities.
Power is supplied by American Electric Power and the City of Garland from plants located around Texas.
Delivery is on the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) transmission grid. CSU has policies for
purchasing excess power produced by customers with forms of distributed generation such as solar
panels.Rebate programs are oered as incentives for these types of installations. Since 1992, the city has
required that electric lines for new developments and subdivisions to be installed underground.
FIG. . ANNUAL COLLEGE STATION UTILITY ELECTRIC
CONSUMPTION K w H
RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION AVERAGE:
925 KwH
($119.51/MONTH)
COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION AVERAGE:
9,937 KwH
($1,095.30/MONTH)
41,000+
CUSTOMERS
490
MILES OF ELECTRICAL LINES
% OVERHEAD AND % UNDERGROUND
7
SUBSTATIONS AND ONE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
2017
8 25.9
2016
833 .3
2015
84 1.6
2014
789 .0
2013
8 01.4
2012
777 .8
2011
8 20.9
2010
787 .0
2009
76 6.0
2008
76 5.5
200(IN MILLIONS)400
600
800
1,000
BRYAN TEXAS UTILITY SERVICE AREA*
COLLEGE STATION UTILITIES SERVICE AREA
*Service area has been clipped to College Station city limits
ELECTRIC SERVICE AREAS
Page 120 of 484
49
WATER
College Station’s water system is rated superior by the state and has received awards
for outstanding operations and maintenance from the Environmental Protection
Agency.
FIG. 6.3 - WATER CONSUMPTION (THOUSAND GALLONS)
201020092008
1,250,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2,500,000
3,750,000
5,000,000
3.89
3.95
3.94
4.97
4.11
4.25
3.90
4.29
4.12
4.20
PARK PLACE
GREENS PRAIRIE
COLLEGE STATION UTILITIES SERVICE AREA
CITY OF BRYAN SERVICE AREA*
WELLBORN SUD SERVICE AREA*
WICKSON CREEK SERVICE AREA*
WATER TOWER
*Service area has been clipped to College Station city limits
WATER SERVICE AREAS
WASTEWATER
The City of College Station uses reclaimed water for irrigation at Veterans Park and
Athletic Complex, which saves about 25 million gallons of drinking water each year.
The city also has rainwater harvesting cisterns at the CSU Meeting and Training Facility, Beachy Central Park,
and the Lick Creek Park Nature Center.
*Service area has been clipped to College Station city limits
COLLEGE STATION UTILITIES SERVICE AREA
CITY OF BRYAN SERVICE AREA*
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CARTER CREEK
CARTER LAKE
LICK CREEK
WASTEWATER
S ERVICE AREAS
Page 121 of 484
50 cstx.gov
STREAM
WATER TABLE WELL
UNCONFINED AQUIFER
BEDROCK
SOLID ROCK OR CLAYSOLID ROCK OR CLAY
ARTESIAN (CONFINED) AQUIFER
ARTESIAN WELL
FIG. 6.4 - CARRIZO-WILCOX AQUIFER WATER SNAPSHOT6,774 manholes • 357 miles of collection lines • 15 lift stations
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
> 2 million gallons per day of capacity
Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
> 9.5 million gallons per day of capacity
Carter Lake Wastewater Treatment Facility
> lagoon system with capacity of 8,500 gpd average daily ow
91,000 full-time residential consumers • Average consumption of 125
gallons per day per person • 448 miles of water distribution lines
DEEP AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WELLS
ON THE CARRIZOWILCOX AQUIFER
2 pump stations
2 ground storage tanks
2 water towers
Other Area Providers: Bryan Texas Utilities, Wellborn Water Supply,
Wickson Creek Special Utility District and Brushy Water Supply WASTEWATER SNAPSHOTSOLID WASTE
The Cities of Bryan and College Station
joined in 1990 to create the Brazos Valley
Solid Waste Management Agency.
BVSWMA operates from the Twin Oaks Landll on
Highway 30 in Grimes County. In 2011, the old Rock
Prairie Landll closed after reaching its capacity. The
Twin Oaks Landll, a Subtitle D landll, accepts an
estimated 1,000 plus tons of solid waste per day,
primarily from Texas A&M and Brazos, Burleson,
Grimes, Leon, Madison, Washington, and Robertson
counties. Since the landll is the only Type 1 facility
between Austin and Houston, it accepts solid waste
from 19 counties. In January 2016, the City of College
station partnered with a third-party franchisee to
provide single-stream recycling to residents and
commercial properties.
RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE22,355
TONS
RESIDENTIAL
RECYCLING
2,681
TONS
28
COLLECTION
TRUCKS
COMMERCIAL
GARBAGE39,103
TONS
COMMERCIAL
RECYCLING13,119
TONS
37
FULL-TIME
STAFF
TWIN OAKS
SH 30
S
H
6FM 60
FM
2
1
5
4SH 40TWIN OAKS LANDFILL
Page 122 of 484
51
1
2
3
4
5
10
9
8
11
12
7
6
13
18
17
16
14
15
10 WILDERNESS AWAKENED
11 MESA, CACTUS BIRD, SEA CORNUCOPIA,
PETUNIA, LIFE RHYTHM
12 XIGGEROTTS
13 SERVICE WITH HONOR
14 SKY CUTTER
15 TIGER PRIDE
16 CAMBRIA
18 DIANA’S QUEST
17 HOLD ON
1 GENESIS
2 FREE FLIGHT
3 AGGIE SPIRIT
5 SERVICE WITH COURAGE
6 ETERNAL WINDS
4 CHILDREN OF PEACE
7 RICHARD CARTER BRONZE SCULPTURE
8 WAR ON TERROR
9 BRAZOS VALLEY
VETERANS MEMORIAL
LIONS21
VETERANS PARK & ATHLETIC COMPLEX27
EASTGATE22
RICHARD CARTER25
MERRY OAKS26
BILLIE MADELY19
UNIVERSITY20
THOMAS23
PARKWAY24
BRISON29
CRESCENT POINTE28
OAKS30
WOLF PEN CREEK31
WINDWOOD32
LUTHER JONES33
W.A. TARROW34
ANDERSON35
JOHN CROMPTON36
SOUTHWEST37
GABBARD38
LEMONTREE39
BEE CREEK & ARBORETUM40
CY MILLER41
STEPHEN C. BEACHY CENTRAL42
ART & MYRA BRIGHT43
CARTER’S CROSSING44
EMERALD FOREST45
STEEPLECHASE46
GEORGIE K. FITCH47
LONGMIRE48
SANDSTONE49
THE BARRACKS II50
JACK & DOROTHY MILLER51
BROTHERS52
WOODCREEK53
BRIAN BACHMANN54
EDELWEISS55
EDELWEISS GARTENS56
CREEK VIEW57
BRIDGEWOOD58
CASTLEROCK59
SOUTHERN OAKS60
WOODLAND HILLS61
CASTLEGAT E65
ETONBURY64
PEBBLE CREEK66
WALLACE LAKE63
PHILLIPS62
LICK CREEK67
COVE OF NANTUCKET68
DEVELOPED PARKS
CITY PARKS AND
PUBLIC ART
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
61
62
63
64
65
66
68
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 67
DEVELOPED PARKS
UNDEVELOPED PARKS
SCULPTURES#
DEVELOPED PARKSSCULPTURES
1
2
3
4
5
10
9
8
11
12
7
6
13
18
17
16
14
15
10 WILDERNESS AWAKENED
11 MESA, CACTUS BIRD, SEA CORNUCOPIA,
PETUNIA, LIFE RHYTHM
12 XIGGEROTTS
13 SERVICE WITH HONOR
14 SKY CUTTER
15 TIGER PRIDE
16 CAMBRIA
18 DIANA’S QUEST
17 HOLD ON
1 GENESIS
2 FREE FLIGHT
3 AGGIE SPIRIT
5 SERVICE WITH COURAGE
6 ETERNAL WINDS
4 CHILDREN OF PEACE
7 RICHARD CARTER BRONZE SCULPTURE
8 WAR ON TERROR
9 BRAZOS VALLEY
VETERANS MEMORIAL
LIONS21
VETERANS PARK & ATHLETIC COMPLEX27
EASTGATE22
RICHARD CARTER25
MERRY OAKS26
BILLIE MADELY19
UNIVERSITY20
THOMAS23
PARKWAY24
BRISON29
CRESCENT POINTE28
OAKS30
WOLF PEN CREEK31
WINDWOOD32
LUTHER JONES33
W.A. TARROW34
ANDERSON35
JOHN CROMPTON36
SOUTHWEST37
GABBARD38
LEMONTREE39
BEE CREEK & ARBORETUM40
CY MILLER41
STEPHEN C. BEACHY CENTRAL42
ART & MYRA BRIGHT43
CARTER’S CROSSING44
EMERALD FOREST45
STEEPLECHASE46
GEORGIE K. FITCH47
LONGMIRE48
SANDSTONE49
THE BARRACKS II50
JACK & DOROTHY MILLER51
BROTHERS52
WOODCREEK53
BRIAN BACHMANN54
EDELWEISS55
EDELWEISS GARTENS56
CREEK VIEW57
BRIDGEWOOD58
CASTLEROCK59
SOUTHERN OAKS60
WOODLAND HILLS61
CASTLEGAT E65
ETONBURY64
PEBBLE CREEK66
WALLACE LAKE63
PHILLIPS62
LICK CREEK67
COVE OF NANTUCKET68
DEVELOPED PARKS
CITY PARKS AND
PUBLIC ART
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
61
62
63
64
65
66
68
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 67
DEVELOPED PARKS
UNDEVELOPED PARKS
SCULPTURES#
DEVELOPED PARKSSCULPTURES
Page 123 of 484
52 cstx.gov
BEE CREEK PARK
B E
E
C
R
E
E
K
PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of College Station provides parks and recreational opportunities through
its Parks and Recreation Department, whose mission is “to provide a diversity of
facilities and leisure services that are geographically and demographically accessible.”
The department is responsible for the design, construction, and operation of park facilities along with the
development and implementation of recreation programs.
A wide array of public art is available throughout the city, including ber art, sculptures, theater and
performing arts, and literature and poetry. More than 60 regional not-for-prot arts, culture, and heritage
aliate organizations are represented by the Arts Council of Brazos Valley.
1,444
ACRES OF PARKLAND
INCLUDES CEMETERIES
57
PARKS
70+
BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES
Page 124 of 484
53
POLICE
About 96 percent of respondents in the 2016 citizen
survey reported feeling safe in their neighborhoods.
The College Station Police Department, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas A&M Police Department,
federal law enforcement agencies, Brazos County Sheri’s Department, and the constables and Justice of
the Peace courts have jurisdiction in College Station.
The Police Department is divided into the Operations Support Bureau, Field Operations Bureau, and
Administrative Services Bureau. The department has 218 employees with 144 sworn ocers and 44 civilian
positions.
The city has three sectors, each under the command of a lieutenant. The sectors are divided into a total
of eight beats that are assigned a sergeant who is responsible for quality of life and crime issues aecting
their beats. The system ensures faster response time to calls for assistance and makes the ocers more
familiar with specic areas and residents. In 2017, the department handled 106,035 incidents.
10
40
80
60
70
3020
50
POLICE BEATS
10
20
30
40
60
70
80
50 EXISTING POLICE STATION
FUTURE POLICE STAT ION
FACILITIES
POLICE BEATS
AND STATIONS
Enforcement of criminal laws and ordinances
Providing education • Recovery of property
Animal control • Traffic enforcement
Criminal investigations
38%
22%
18%
82%
53 %
12%
6%
71%
6%
19%
75%
49%
7%
29%
2%0.04%
4%
RAPE , 53 MU RDE R, 1
0.28 %
FATALIT Y, 6
0.32%
COI N O P MA CHIN E, 4
2%
RO BBE RY, 49
T HEFT, 954
VEHICLE , 929
BU ILDING, 68
HABITATIO N, 232
VEHICLE T HEFT,
117
NON-REPORTABLE, 146
MAJO R, 452
WA RNING,
17,197
N ON-TRA FFIC,
1 ,782
HAZA RDOU S,
9,370
NO N-HAZARDOU S,
3 ,968
MINOR, 1,502
FELON Y, 494
MISDEMEANOR,
2,183
BURGLARY,
1,233
5%
A GG. A SSA ULT , 127
2017 CRIMES
FIG. 6.5 - MAJOR OFFENSES FIG. 6.6 - ACCIDENTS
FIG. 6.7 - BURGLARIES FIG. 6.8 - ARRESTS
FIG. 6.9 - CITATIONS
CRIME DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE CRIMES THAT OCCUR ON
THE TEXAS A&M CAMPUS.
PLEASE NOTE
PLEASE NOTE
% OF ACCIDENTS WERE ALCOHOLRELATED
Page 125 of 484
54 cstx.gov
FIRE
The College Station Fire Department provides prevention, suppression, advanced
life support, emergency medical services and transport, community risk reduction
programs, and special operations along with Advanced Life Support to the southern
half of Brazos County and fire suppression to the Texas A&M campus.
The department has 141 reghter/paramedics on shift and 19 sworn and civilian administrators. The
primary response area for EMS is College Station and southern Brazos County. Secondary response
includes automatic aid with the Bryan Fire Department and mutual aid to the Texas A&M campus. The
primary re response is College Station and the A&M campus. Secondary response includes automatic
aid with the Bryan Fire Department and mutual aid with Brazos County re departments. Mutual aid
agreements for both EMS and re are in place with Texas A&M EMS, St. Joseph EMS, Texas A&M Health and
Safety, and the Brayton Fire Training School in times of extreme need.
The College Station Fire Department has an Insurance Service Oce (ISO) Public Protection Classication
(PPC) rating of 2 (1 being best and 10 the worst), which can result in lower insurance premiums.
CSFD became an accredited agency through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International in 2015.
The department is one of only seven municipal re departments in Texas to attain that elite status.
FIG. . CALL BREAKDOWN
PATIENTS
TRANSPORTS
4,434
4,039
6,679
FIG. . EMS STATISTICS
ADVANCED
LIFE
SUPPORT
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
EMS
FALSE ALARM
GOOD INTENT
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
PUBLIC ASSIST/SERVICE
FIRE
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TECHNICAL RESCUES
OTHER
EXPLOSIONS/OVERHEATS
AIRCRAFT RESCUE
ANIMAL RESCUE 3
14
17
43
50
214
230
456
510
811
1,069
5,772
1
A
6
4 2
3
5
7*
FIRE DISTRICTS
2 5 #EXISTING FIRE STATION
3 6 *FUTURE FIRE STATION
1 4 A FIRE ADMIN
FACILITIES
FIRE DISTRICTS
AND STATIONS
54 cstx.gov Page 126 of 484
55
PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION
As College Station’s population has surged, the school district has grown accordingly.
Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2009, several school facilities have opened or are under
construction, including four elementary schools and one each at the intermediate, middle, and high school
levels. Elementary schools are set to open o Royder Road for the 2018-2019 school year and o Wellborn
Road at Holleman Drive for the 2019-2020 school year. In addition, College Station’s rst public charter
school o Graham Road is open for the 2018-2019 school year. The school district has also constructed a 44-
acre transportation facility o William D. Fitch Parkway.
Two other school districts serve a small proportion of students in College Station and its extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ). Generally, Bryan ISD serves College Station residents east of Carter Creek and on the west
side of Easterwood Airport. Navasota ISD serves the southernmost portion of College Station’s ETJ, just south
of Peach Creek.
FIG. . NUMBER OF CSISD STUDENTS PER ACADEMIC
LEVEL IN THE SCHOOL YEAR
43%
15%
14%
28%
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
5,691
INTERMEDIATE
SCHOOL
1,927MIDDLE
SCHOOL
1,899
HIGH
SCHOOL
3,671
FIG. . CSISD STAFF BREAKDOWN FIG. . CSISD STUDENT RACIAL POPULATION
TEACHERS
PROFESSIONAL
SUPPORT
EDUCATIONAL
AIDES
AUXILIARY
STAFF
869
124
45
CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATION
14
195
425
CAMPUS
ADMINISTRATION
8.2%
53.8%
21.9%
12.5%
WHITE
HISPANIC
AFRICAN-
AMERICAN
ASIAN/
PACIFIC
ISLANDER
TWO OR MORE
RACES
3.3%AMERICAN
INDIAN
0.3%
93.1%
GRADUATION RATE FOR
CSISD CLASS OF 2016
1
2
3
4
56
7
10
9
8
14
15
16
17
18
19
11
13
12
20
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
1COLLEGE HILLS
2CREEK VIEW
3FOREST RIDGE
4GREENS PRAIRIE
5PEBBLE CREEK
6RIVER BEND
7ROCK PRAIRIE
8SOUTH KNOLL
9SOUTHWOOD VALLEY
10SPRING CREEK
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS
11CYPRESS GROVE
12OAKWOOD
13PECAN TRAIL
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
14A&M CONSOLIDATED
15COLLEGE STAT ION
16WELLBORN
HIGH SCHOOLS
A&M CONSOLIDATED 17
COLLEGE STAT ION 18
COLLEGE VIEW 19
CHARTER SCHOOL
20INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP
OF TEXAS SCHOOL
K-12 EDUCATION
Page 127 of 484
56 cstx.gov
HIGHER EDUCATION
College Station is home to Texas A&M University,
a land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant institution.
During the 2016-2017 school year, 16,513 degrees were awarded at the baccalaureate, masters, doctoral,
and professional levels.
Also located within the College Station-Bryan MSA is one of four Blinn College campuses. The local campus
is in Bryan and conducts classes for nearly 12,000 students. Blinn oers transfer, technical and workforce
education programs. More students transfer from Blinn to Texas A&M than to any other college. The Blinn
system has experienced 33.4 percent growth since 2006.
The newest facility in College Station is the RELLIS Campus, which will be home to the Texas A&M
Engineering Experiment Station, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Blinn College, the Texas A&M
University System Academic Complex, and the Center for Infrastructure Renewal. The campus is
scheduled to be completed by 2020 with more than 560,000 square feet of vertical construction at the
corner of state Highway 21 and Riverside Parkway.
FIG. . TEXAS A&M ENROLLMENT
61,585
63,588
66,323
6,178 5,998 5,010 5,409 6,639
STUDENTS
56,255
66,069
80,000
FALL 2013 FALL 2014 FALL 2015 FALL 2016 FALL 2017
67,003
6,666
FALL 2018
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 FACULTY
100+
BUILDINGS
5,200
ACRES
130+
UNDERGRADUATE
DEGREES
1
2
4
3
5
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
BLINN COLLEGE
PROPERTY OWNER
MAIN CAMPUS1
ANIMAL SCIENCE COMPLEX2
HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER3
4 RELLIS CAMPUS
5 BLINN COLLEGE
W SH 21
FM 60SH
4
7
SH
6
SH 30
EASTERWOOD
AIRPORT
HIGHER
EDUCATION
Page 128 of 484
57
TRANSPORTATION
Page 129 of 484
58 cstx.gov
THOROUGHFARES
College Station’s economic vitality, character, and identity
depend on a well-connected transportation system.
The thoroughfare system utilizes context-sensitive solution principles designed to meet the community’s
multi-modal transportation needs while supporting surrounding land use and character objectives.
SOURCE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITIZEN SURVEY
2016 Citizen Survey Results
• Of the top 10 city services, citizens were least satised with the quality of trac management.
• “Managing trac congestion” and “maintaining streets and roads” were ranked as the No. 3 and No. 4
most important city services, just after police and re services.
• Of the 1,567 open-ended responses, citizens mentioned trac the most and requested more
enforcement of trac laws, improved trac ow, and mass transit.
• Ease of travel around town was ranked as the No. 7 most important community characteristic.
• When asked “If you could change one thing about College Station, what would it be?”, trac was the
most frequent response.
PLEASE NOTE:
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WAS ESTIMATED USING THE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION’S THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND
A TRANSPORTATION STUDY CONDUCTED IN BY THE
PLANNING CONSULTANT GROUP, KIMLEYHORN. THE
THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRESENTS THE LOCATIONS FOR
PLANNED AND EXISTING ROADWAYS CLASSIFIED AS MINOR
COLLECTOR AND GREATER WITHIN THE CITY AND ITS ETJ.
0-5,000
5,001-15,000
15,001-25,000
25,001-40,000
40,001-65,000
65,001+
NUMBER OF
VEHICLES PER
DAY GEORGE BUSH DRFM
2
8
1
8
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
SHARVEY RDS
H
6
F
M
2
1
5
4
ROCK PR
A
I
R
I
E
HOLLEMAN
DR
SBARRON RDGREENS PRAIRIE RD S
H
6WILLIAM D FITCH PKWYSH 30
UNIVERSITY DRESTIMATED DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAFFIC CONCERNS WERE
#1
IN OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
FROM 2016 CITIZENS SURVEY
Page 130 of 484
59
Traffic demand serves as the basis for the city’s collection of roadway maintenance fees.
Based on tr ip generation figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the
amount of vehicle tr ips per type of use and average length of tr ips generated by a
proper ty were used to estimate the vehicle miles generated for each parcel of land. The map
depicts the vehicle miles generated by a development on a per acre basis to indicate the
relative traffic intensity of each property.
N
TRAFFIC DEMAND
VEHICLE MILES GENERATED PER ACRE
MIDLOW HIGH
15 25 30 40 60 10 005 82 010250
TEXAS AVENUE CORRIDORNORTHGATE
UNIVERSITY DRIVE CORRIDOR
TOWER POINT
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD & SH 6
Traffic demand serves as the basis for the city’s collection of roadway maintenance fees.
Based on tr ip generation figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the
amount of vehicle tr ips per type of use and average length of tr ips generated by a
proper ty were used to estimate the vehicle miles generated for each parcel of land. The map
depicts the vehicle miles generated by a development on a per acre basis to indicate the
relative traffic intensity of each property.
N
TRAFFIC DEMAND
VEHICLE MILES GENERATED PER ACRE
MIDLOW HIGH
15 25 30 40 60 10 00 5 82 010250
TEXAS AVENUE CORRIDORNORTHGATE
UNIVERSITY DRIVE CORRIDOR
TOWER POINT
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD & SH 6
Page 131 of 484
60 cstx.gov
TOP 10 INTERSECTIONS WITH CRASHES
1 UNIVERSITY DR & TEXAS AV E
2 GEORGE BUSH DR & WELLBORN RD
3 FM 2818 & TEXAS AV E S
4 HARVEY RD & SH 6
5 HARVEY RD & TEXAS AVE S
6 UNIVERSITY DR E & SH 6
7 FM 60 & FM 2818
8 FM 2818 & HOLLEMAN DR W
9 FM 2154 & FM 2818
10 ROCK PRAIRIE RD & FM 21 54
*Based on the number of crashes
within a 1,000 foot radius
CRASH DENSITY*
MIDLOW HIGH
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
CRASH DATA
Crash data collected by the College
Station Police Department from 2010-
2017 was used to map traffic accidents
spanning all modes of transportation.
Incidents include injury and non-injury collisions
and their locations. The reports show that most
accidents occur at intersections and reveal a
correlation between higher trac volume/higher
speed roads and a higher density of
trac collisions.
Page 132 of 484
61
FIG. . WHAT KIND OF CRASHES ARE HAPPENING?
56%
OF INCIDENTS OCCUR
AT INTERSECTIONS
FIG. . WHERE ARE CRASHES HAPPENING?
FIG. . WHY ARE CRASHES HAPPENING?
76%
WERE MINOR CRASHES
(NOT INJURED OR
POSSIBLE INJURY)
40,206
TOTAL CRASHES FROM
2010-2017
24%
76%
MAJOR CRASHES
(KILLED,
NON-INCAPACITATING,
INCAPACITATING)
MINOR CRASHES
(NOT INJURING,
POSSIBLE INJURY,
UNKNOWN)
32%
28%
36%
4%
STATE
HIGHWAYS
CITY STREET
FARM TO
MARKET
NON-TRAFFIC
WAY
58%
41%
1%
INTERSECTION
RELATED
NON-
INTERSECTION
DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
Traffic Crash Data
Page 133 of 484
62 cstx.gov
THOROUGHFARE
PLAN
The Thoroughfare Plan provides a
long-term vision of the major street
network.
The Thoroughfare Plan locates and classies major
streets by access to adjacent land use, mobility for
through trac, and context. The Thoroughfare Plan
guides future investments and provides the public
and the development community with information
about the long-term plan for the road network.
Generally, the private sector constructs the portions
of the planned thoroughfare network located on
their property at the time of development.UNIVERSITY DRGEORGE BUSH DRF
M
2
8
1
8
FM 60F
M
2
1
5
4
PRAIRIEHARVEY RDWILLIAM D FITCH PKWYSH 30
HOLLEMAN DR
SBARRON RDGREENS PRAIRIE RD S
H
6
S
H
6
RD
ROCK
FM
2
1
5
4
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
S
FM 2818FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY
PROPOSED FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY
6 LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL
PROPOSED 6 LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL
4 LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL
PROPOSED 4 LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL
4 LANE MINOR ARTERIAL
PROPOSED 4 LANE MINOR ARTERIAL
2 LANE MAJOR COLLECTOR
PROPOSED 2 LANE MAJOR COLLECTOR
2 LANE MINOR COLLECTOR
PROPOSED 2 LANE MINOR COLLECTOR
CITY LIMITS
5 MILE ETJ
PROPOSED GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING
GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING
Page 134 of 484
63
The Thoroughfare Plan street
expansion map distinguishes between
thoroughfares that are built out and
those that have yet to be built out.
Thoroughfares that are built out are good candidates
bicycle facilities, and multi-use paths.
FUTURE
THOROUGHFARES
AND EXPANSIONS
CITY LIMITS
5 MILE ETJ
FUTURE EXPANSIONS
FUTURE THOROUGHFARES
FUTURE GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS UNIVERSITY DRGEORGE BUSH DRFM 281
8
FM 60TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
S
F
M
2
1
5
4ROCK PRAIRIERDHARVEY RDWILLIAM D FITCH PKWYSH 30
HOLLEMAN
DR
SLUTHER ST WBARRON RDGREENS PRAIRIE RD NORTH FORESTPKWYBIRD POND RDFM 215
4
S
H
6
S
H
6
S
H
6
LA
K
E
W
A
Y
D
R
P
E
B
B
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
P
KW
Y
for trac mitigation strategies such as transit,
Page 135 of 484
64 cstx.gov
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROPOSED GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS
FUNDED GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS
EXISTING GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS
EXISTING BICYCLE LANES
FUNDED BICYCLE FACILITIES*
PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES*
EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTES
PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES
EXISTING MULTI-USE PATHS
FUNDED MULTI-USE PATHS
PROPOSED MULTI-USE PATHS
CITY LIMITS
5 MILE ETJ
*Bicycle facilities could be bicycle lanes,
buffered bicycle lanes, or separated bicycle lanes.
The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master
Plan designates existing and proposed bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.
BICYCLE PLAN
The original master plan was adopted
in 2010, and the master plan update
was adopted in May of 2018. The master
plan reects the desires of College Station
residents and community leaders to
“improve mobility through a safe,
ecient, and well connected multi-modal
transportation system designed to be sensitive
to the surrounding land uses” as well as to
“protect environmental assets, both for their
ecological functions and as key elements of
community character and livability.”
Page 136 of 484
65!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROPOSED GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS
FUNDED GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS
EXISTING GRADE SEPARATED CROSSINGS
EXISTING SIDEWALKS
FUNDED SIDEWALKS
PROPOSED SIDEWALKS
EXISTING MULTI-USE PATHS
FUNDED MULTI-USE PATHS
PROPOSED MULTI-USE PATHS
CITY LIMITS
5 MILE ETJ
PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Page 137 of 484
66 cstx.gov GEORGE BUSH DRFM
2
8
1
8FM 60
F
M
2
1
5
4
PRAIRIEHARVEY RDWILLIAM D FITCH PKWYHOLLEMAN DR
SBARRON RDGREENS PRAIRIE RD S
H
6
S
H
6
RD
ROCK
FM 2154TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
WE
L
L
B
O
R
N
R
D UNIVERSITY DR E HSC PKWYF&B RDGRAHAM RDDEACON D RLUTHER ST WLINCOLN AVEFRANCIS DRM
U
N
S
ON
A
VE
PARK PLACEHOLLEMAN DRKRENEK TAP RDEAGLE AVELA
KE
W
A
Y
D
R
W
.S. P
H
I
L
LIPS PK
W
Y
ET
O
N
B
U
RY A
VE
R
O
Y
D
ER RD
MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS
SOUTHWEST PKWYThis map includes all mobility improvements
that have been completed since 2010, are under
construction or are in design as of September 2018.
These improvements can be projects that were funded by the City
of College Station, Te xas Department of Transportation (TxDoT),
or private development in accordance
with the Thoroughfare Plan.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
NEW STREETS
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
STREET RECONSTRUCTIONS
STREET WIDENINGS
C OMPLETE/UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
CURRENTLY
IN DESIGN
Page 138 of 484
67
BUS TRANSIT
Brazos Transit District
The Brazos Transit District was founded in 19742, originally providing services to the seven counties of the
Brazos Valley. The district has since expanded to 16 counties in Central and East Texas covering over 13,000
square miles with a population over 1.2 million. In 2017, the district estimates over 296,000 total trips were
made with an average daily ridership of 1,183 riders.
Texas A&M Transportation
Texas A&M’s Transportation Services department provides bus transit, parking, and eet services to the
campus community. Transportation Services provides over 80 buses used daily for transit routes.1 These
buses run eight on-campus routes and 10 o-campus routes. An estimated 7.6 million riders per year utilize
the transit system with daily average ridership estimated at 20,000 for on-campus routes and 32,000 for
o-campus routes.
SOURCES:
1 TRANSPORT.TAMU.EDU, BTD.ORG
E WJB PKWY
UNIVERSITY DRGEORGE BUSH DRF
M
2
8
1
8
FM 60
F
M
2
1
5
4
WILLIAM D FITCH PKWYHOLLEMAN DR
SBARRON RDGREENS PRAIRIE RD S
H
6
SH
6
GRAHAM RDTE
X
A
S
A
V
E
S
FM
2
8
1
8
SH
6
ROCK PRAIRIE RDDEACONDRSOUTH
WEST PKWY
S
CO
L
L
EG
E
A
V
E
TE
X
A
S
A
V
E
C
R
E
E
K
P
K
W
Y
C
A
R
T
E
R
N
T
E
X
A
S
A
V
E
F
E
A
T
H
E
R
R
D
F
IN
F
M
2
8
1
8 E SH 21W SH 21
SH
4
7 UNIVERSITY DR EHARVEY RDW VILLA MARIA RDBRIARCREST DRW 28TH S
T
BUS ROUTES
BLUE
GREEN
RED
LIGHT BLUE
MAROON
YELLOW
PURPLE
ORANGE
BRAZOS
T RANSIT
DISTRICT
ALL ROUTES
TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY
Texas A&M students & staff only
Page 139 of 484
68 cstx.gov
RAILROAD CROSSING
AT CAIN ROAD PLANNED TO
BE REMOVED & RELOCATED
TO DEACON DRIVE NRAILROAD CROSSING
AT CAPSTONE DRIVE PLANNED
TO BE REMOVED & RELOCATED
TO BARRON ROAD
RAILROAD CROSSINGSF&B RDFM 60GEORGE BUSH DR WGEORGE BUSH DRUNIVERSITY DRHOLLEMAN DRFM 2818HOL
L
E
M
A
N
D
R
S CAIN RDFM 2818DEACON DRROCK PRAIRIE RD WCAPSTONE DRBARRON RD S DOWLIN G R D GREENS PRAIRIE RD WGREENS PRAIRIE TRLROYDER RD SOUTHWEST PKWYTE XAS AVE S
SH 6
EXISTING AT GRADE RAILROAD
CROSSING TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING GRADE
SEPARATED CROSSING
EXISTING AT GRADE RAILROAD
CROSSING
PROPOSED GRADE
SEPARATED CROSSING
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF AT
GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING
* At Grade Railroad Crossing - Level with the street
* Grade Separated Crossing - An overpass or underpass
RAILROAD CROSSING AT
SOUTH DOWLING DRIVE PLANNED
TO BE REMOVED & RELOCATED
TO REALIGN ROYDER ROAD
Union Pacific operates the rail line that parallels Wellborn Road.
There are 18 trains daily along this corridor. Three grade-separated railroad crossings exist with
three additional separated crossings proposed. Commonly described as an overpass, these
crossings increase safety by separating vehicular trac from the railroad. There are 11 at-grade
crossings with the railroad and street on the same level. Three of these are proposed to be
relocated.
In January 2018, Union Pacic began construction on the Brazos Yard 20 miles outside of College
Station. The $550 million facility is located strategically at the convergence point of seven Union
Pacic Rail lines. Once completed, the Brazos Yard will be one of Union Pacic’s highest-capacity
rail yards, where rail cars will be separated, sorted, and assembled into new trains based on nal
destination.
RAIL DATA
SOURCE: UP.COM/MEDIA/RELEASES/BRAZOSYARD.HTM
Services offered
• Fuel 100LL and JetA+
• Hangar tie down and storage
• Charter
• Flight school/instructor
• Military rapid refuel
• Flight planning
• Commuter ights
• Fuel and ight planning for life ights
and military medi-vac ights.
AIR TRAVEL AT
EASTERWOOD AIRPORT
48,038
TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS
IN 2017
320.6
FEET ELEVATION
3
RUNWAYS
SOURCE: CLLADMINASTIN.US EASTERWOOD AIRPORT ADMIN
700
ACRES WITH A PLANNED
EXPANSION TO 733 ACRES
2
OPERATORS
(AMERICAN AIRLINES
AND UNITED
AIRLINES)
RUNWAY
4/22
WILL BE CLOSED
WITHIN 2 YEARS
2017 Operations
• 48,038 total operations
(take-os and landings)
• 5,010 Air taxi
• 172 Air carrier
• 7,429 general aviation local
• 20,209 general aviation itinerant
• 15,218 military aircraft operations
Page 140 of 484
69
NEXT STEPS
Page 141 of 484
70 cstx.gov
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Having assessed the existing conditions of College Station, the next step on the
Comprehensive Plan journey will be to engage citizens and stakeholders to answer
the question, “Where Do We Go From Here?”
A robust public participation process will take place and a joint Planning & Zoning Commission—City
Council sub-committee will be established to provide policy guidance. It is anticipated that several
important issues will be discussed, including:
• Exploring more exible Future Land Use and Zoning options, including re-evaluating the amount
and placement of Suburban Commercial land uses.
• Discussing issues related to neighborhood integrity and student housing.
• Evaluating the status of neighborhood, community and corridor plans.
• Anticipating the impact of RELLIS on city growth pattern.
• Recalibrating the Thoroughfare Plan.
With the assistance of the 2018 Existing Conditions Report as a baseline, the 10-Year Comprehensive
Planning Update process provides the opportunity for an inclusive and expansive community dialogue on
high-level planning decisions that will shape College Station.
2018 EXISTING
CONDITIONS
REPORT
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
& STAKEHOLDER
PROCESS
ADOPTION OF
10-YEAR UPDATE
REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION
TENTATIVE TIME FRAME COMP PLAN PROCESS
SPRING 2019 CONSULTANT
SELECTION
SUMMER/FALL 2019
LISTENING SESSIONS,
IDENTIFYING PRIORITY
ISSUES
WINTER 2020
SCENARIOS AND PUBLIC
INPUT FOR LAND USE AND
CHARACTER AND
THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAPS
SPRING 2020 DRAFT EVALUATION
AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMER 2020 ADOPTION OF 10-YEAR
EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT
FALL 2020 BEGIN
IMPLEMENTATION
FIG. . TIMELINE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Other Contributors
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Bridgette George
Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
Lance Simms, AICP
Molly Hitchcock, AICP
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Colin Killian
Jay Socol
Lacey Lively
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Anita Dorsey
Thomas Kulpa
PARKS AND RECREATION
David Schmitz
J.D. Wood
Nathan Hicks
FIRE
Stuart Marrs
POLICE
Brandi Norris
Martha Hennessey
Paula Roberts
Stormy Potter
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Debbie Eller
Julie Caler
PUBLIC WORKS
Emily Fisher
Heather Woolwine
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Jane Kee, P&Z Commission Chair
Dr. Karl Mooney, Mayor
COLLEGE STATION UTILITIES
Carol Baker-Roach
Jennifer Nations
Jennifer Springer
Travis Grohman
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
Aubrey Nettles
CSISD
Bridget Goodlett
Jon Hall
Mike Martindale
TEXAS A&M
Ashley Skow, Administrative Coordinator,
Division of Finance and Operations
OUTSIDE ENTITIES
Charles Martinez, Brazos Valley Economic
Development Corporation
Gerald Klassman, Texas A&M Real Estate Center
Jo Penn, Brazos Transit District
A special thanks to the following major contributors
for their countless hours of service preparing this report.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Alaina Helton, AICP, CPM
Alyssa Halle-Schramm, LEED GA
Jade Broadnax
Jason Schubert, AICP
Jenifer Paz, AICP
Julie Burden
Justin Golbabai, AICP, CNU-A
Laura Gray, AICP
Lauren Hovde, AICP
Rachel Lazo
Venessa Garza, AICP
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Kendra Gilts
Rachel Mayor
Page 142 of 484
71Page 143 of 484
72 cstx.gov Page 144 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Public and Stakeholder
Engagement Summary
October 31, 2019
APPENDIX B
Page 145 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
This document presents a summary and analysis of the first round of
public engagement for The Next 10 process. It represents input from
nearly 600 people including various stakeholder groups and the general
public through workshops, focus groups, interviews, and online
activities.
Key findings at a glance
The input in this report provides insight into:
• Issues and opportunities to address in the community (from stakeholders and the public)
• Perceptions of the City’s progress on goals in the existing Comprehensive Plan and the
public’s basis for those perceptions (public input).
• Potential locations in the City for future development, or where there are challenges that
should be addressed in the future (from stakeholders and public).
• Specific updates that should be considered in the Comprehensive Plan update (provided by
stakeholder interviews)
Major themes
The following points, listed in no particular order, summarize common themes from the input. They
reflect participant sentiments and perceptions but may not reflect consensus. They are not intended
to be statements of fact.
Transportation needs. Traffic is widely perceived as a major issue for the community. Many
participants believe that infrastructure improvements have not kept pace with growth. However,
they also acknowledged that these challenges cannot be addressed solely through road widening.
Participants generally support making a more complete transportation system with better public
transportation and opportunities to bike and walk.
Sense of place. A number of participants believe that the City lacks an identifiable center and a
historic downtown like Bryan. However, there are a few areas including Northgate, Century Square,
and some older neighborhoods that are identified as having a sense of place. Participants say that
creating more quality places, that are walkable, mixed-use, and attractive, would help the City to
remain competitive in the future.
Neighborhood integrity. There is a concern that neighborhoods near Texas A&M University are
seeing single-family homes being replaced by student housing. This redevelopment is perceived to
represent a significant change in physical character and to introduce traffic and other nuisance
issues into these neighborhoods. There is a belief that the City could be doing more to implement
neighborhood conservation areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Many older neighborhoods
were perceived to be in need of infrastructure maintenance.
Page 146 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
Quality of life, amenities, and “things to do.” Another major theme in public and stakeholder
comments is a desire for quality of life to be a bigger focus of City efforts. These comments reflect a
desire for amenities beyond simply managing growth, providing infrastructure, and City services.
These participants say that the City needs more things to do for all ages. Specific desires vary, but
include arts and cultural events, festivals, and venues; access to nature and places to run and bike;
locally-owned restaurants; and recreational facilities and programs.
Development opportunities. There are several locations identified by participants to encourage
development. These locations include the Biocorridor, Wellborn Road (west of the railroad),
Midtown, Northgate, Century Square, and Post Oak Mall. In general, there was more discussion and
comment about infill and redevelopment versus outward expansion.
Housing needs. Affordable housing to serve the City’s workforce, families, and young adults was
stated as being a critical need to many participants. Some of these housing needs were believed to
be potentially met within older neighborhoods. Some participants report that it is challenging to
provide new single-family homes to purchase at a price point that is affordable to first-time buyers.
Responsible, strategic growth. Many participants stated that they believe the City has been pro-
development at the expense of long-term fiscal health and the needs of existing residents. These
participants say that growth should be guided by an understanding of long-term fiscal benefit and
community needs. Many participants also would like to see a stronger emphasis on conserving
natural resources and mitigating environmental threats.
Page 147 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas
This document is organized into two parts:
Part I: Stakeholder Engagement
A. Overview and Purpose ........................................................ 1
B. Common Themes ................................................................ 1
C. Areas of Potential Conflict .................................................. 3
D. Opportunities for Plan improvement ............................... 4
Part II: Public Engagement
A. Overview and Purpose ........................................................ 6
B. What we did ........................................................................... 6
C. What we learned ................................................................... 8
o Rating of Existing Plan Goals ................................. 8
o Mapping Opportunities .......................................... 13
D. Who we heard from ............................................................ 18
Stakeholder Summary Notes ............................................................ 21
Public Comments ............................................................................... 42
Page 148 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 1
Part I: Stakeholder Engagement
A. Overview and Purpose
Between June 7 and August 28, The Next 10 consultant team
conducted dozens of individual and small group informational
interviews with key internal and community stakeholders. The
purpose was to identify community issues, assets, challenges
and opportunities regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Interview
participants included: City Council members, Departmental
Directors, Planning and Zoning Commission members,
applicable Boards and Commissions; and key external
stakeholders representing a wide range of community
interests. Over 32 distinct interviews were conducted covering
24 categories of stakeholders listed in the sidebar.
The interviews were facilitated in a consistent manner, but
some were tailored to the size of group, subject matter
knowledge, familiarity with the existing Plan, and role within the
community. Generally, the interviews touched on positive
progress the City/community has been making, and major
opportunities that the City should address within the next 10
years. Participants who were familiar with the Comprehensive
Plan provided specific suggestions for improvements, new
actions, or best practices to consider.
This report summarizes these interviews. It reflects
personal opinions and stakeholder perceptions.
B. Common Themes
Below is an outline of 12 themes distilled from all stakeholder
interviews. They reflect participant sentiments and perceptions
but may not reflect consensus. They are not intended to be
statements of fact. The themes are listed in order of most
mentions. The approximate number of stakeholder groups that
discussed each idea is noted in brackets: <24>.
STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES
1. Agriculture
2. Business community
3. City elected officials
4. City Planning and Zoning
Commission
5. City management team
6. County officials
7. Developers (Housing)
8. Economic Development
9. Environment
10. Neighborhoods
11. Parks, recreation, community
facilities
12. Public health and healthcare
services
13. Public safety
14. Realtors, real estate
15. Religious institutions
16. Social services, housing services
17. Schools (CSISD)
18. Tourism and cultural amenities
19. Transportation
20. Texas A&M University officials
21. Texas A&M University Student
Government
22. Utilities
23. Young professionals
24. Youth development
organizations
Page 149 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 2
1. Amenities, quality of life, and “things to do” <19>
o Desire for more “things to do”, particularly for families (recreation, parks and greenways,
events, venues etc.)
o Desire for more unique places to experience (walkable districts, locally owned
restaurants, retail)
o Desire for more access to nature
2. Housing, choice and affordability <14>
o Need to continue expanding options for affordable or workforce housing
o Need for housing options for types and settings that would appeal to families and young
professionals
3. Transportation, alternatives, a more complete system, smarter <13>
o Need to expand public transportation service area, frequency, and reliability
o Create more opportunities to walk and bike
4. Transportation, traffic, planning and coordination <11>
o Address concurrency with growth, and perceptions that the City is playing catch-up with
infrastructure (particularly roads)
o Address traffic issues / perhaps through better management of demand
5. Sense of place, quality of place <10>
o Desire to create more mixed-use, walkable places
o Desire to encourage more open space and amenities in new neighborhoods
o Recognition that quality of place is important in retaining and recruiting workers of all
types
6. Growth management and strategy <10>
o Concern about paying for growth, understanding fiscal impacts of development choices
and infrastructure investment
o Acknowledgement of recent State Legislation that impacts annexation
o Maximize City investments (of past and future infrastructure investments)
o Support for focusing more on infill and redevelopment
o Need for locations to support new business growth
o Understanding University growth, and improve coordination with University
7. Economic Development and community image <10>
o Focus on talent retention (wage competitiveness, opportunities for graduates)
o Need to diversify jobs (including more living wage employment opportunities)
o Continue to encourage entrepreneurship (progress has been made in this area)
o Need to better define and convey City image, vision, brand (for talent retention, job
growth, and tourism)
o Discussion of locations and sites for new business growth (Biocorridor, Midtown, Class-A
office space)
8. Neighborhood integrity and student housing <7>
o Need to better regulate student housing (character, use, and location)
Page 150 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 3
o Concern about mitigating student housing impact on neighborhoods
o Consider zoning standards to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible
development (neighborhood conservation areas as example)
9. Environmental stewardship and resiliency <7>
o Desire for fostering a greater environmental ethic and protecting natural resources
o Need to address standards for impervious surfaces and stormwater management
(reduce flooding)
o Desire for reducing clear cutting practices (aesthetics, mitigate urban heat island impact)
o Encouraging native plantings through landscape standards (reduce maintenance costs)
10. Services and facilities <6>
o Desire for more emphasis on health and wellness education
o Desire for more spaces available for events and meetings (for community groups / non-
profits)
o Concern about public safety impacts from growth
o Concern about growing needs versus limited funding
11. Plan shortcomings or improvements <6>
o Plan could be more strategic and actionable
o Plan could be written in a more approachable language
o Concern about continuity and perception that the Plan’s interpretation is inconsistent,
and it is too easy to change
12. Public engagement and communication <3>
o Recognize long-term nature of Plan (some flexibility is expected)
o Track Plan deviations and reasoning
o Communicate the rationale behind City decisions
C. Areas of Potential Conflict
The following are a few groups that seem to have potentially conflicting perspectives.
City / County infrastructure policy: Multiple stakeholders report that there are policy differences
regarding infrastructure between the City and County. It was reported that the County does not take
on debt, has a $90m reserve, and has bonding capacity. These Stakeholders believed that there may
be an opportunity to better coordinate between the City and County on infrastructure policy and
funding.
Neighborhoods / developers: Various neighborhood groups believe that the City is more
concerned with desires of developers vs. long-time residents. There are also perceptions that the
Plan is not always followed and there is little political will to do so. These groups perceive that there
are few zoning protections in place to implement the Plan’s idea of neighborhood conservation
areas.
Developers / City: Some developers stated that housing affordability is negatively impacted by City
fees, but others are not opposed to “reasonable” impact fees. Most developers interviewed, believe
Page 151 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 4
that process inefficiency and unpredictability are more problematic, creating unnecessary hidden
costs. Planning Commissioners report that more decisions are being made administratively (by
staff), which could streamline development. However, some developers stated that they perceive
staff guidance as inconsistent.
Environmental advocates / developers: Environmental advocates, many neighborhood groups,
and other stakeholders discussed the need for commonplace measures to improve environmental
resiliency. These measures include standards to reduce stormwater runoff, encourage native
plantings, conserve natural areas, or design buildings and sites to minimize heat impacts.
Developers and many other stakeholders did not discuss these issues and it could be speculated
that some would oppose some of these measures. However, most of the resiliency topics discussed
would have practical benefits for the City and pro-development community. These benefits include
reducing flood risks (through low-impact development) and reducing maintenance costs (native
plantings).
Students / community: The large number of Texas A&M students that reside in the city are a
significant part of the community. However, student leaders and others acknowledge that students
(particularly undergraduates) tend to exist in a “college-mindset bubble” and typically do not
acknowledge that they are part of a larger community. There is a perception among many students
that the broader community views students negatively. There may be an opportunity to improve this
relationship through more deliberate efforts to engage students, particularly those that live off-
campus. Students are not aware of programs that exist (or could exist) to welcome students to the
City or to communicate expectations about City policies, rules, etc.
D. Opportunities for Plan improvement
While many stakeholders were not familiar with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, those who were
suggested the following improvements:
a) Creating a more user-friendly Plan: Stakeholders reflected a desire for the Plan document
to be more user-friendly, strategic and actionable. Many stated it contains too much
unnecessary information.
b) Reduce or consolidate Future Land Use Categories. The Future Land Use map categories
were seen to be too complex and often confused with zoning. The suburban commercial
category was identified as one that has not met expectations.
c) Consider an action item regarding block length in the UDO: Stakeholders spoke of
ongoing disputes about the appropriate length of blocks.
d) Consider an action item regarding zoning to protect neighborhood character: Some
stakeholders reflected a desire for a Plan action for additional zoning protections such as
Neighborhood Compatibility Standards or a Residential Neighborhood Conservation overlay
district.
Page 152 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 5
e) Consider an action item about updating the short-term rental regulations: Some
stakeholders believe there is an opportunity to better monitor short-term rentals and their
impacts on neighborhoods and to capture hotel occupancy taxes.
f) Better address environment and resiliency: Another theme that developed was
addressing the relationship between quality of place and natural resources and to consider
ways to mitigate risks from climate change.
g) Consider action items with affordable housing strategies: Housing strategies such as a
land trust or equity pool were suggested as action items for the Plan.
Page 153 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 6
Part II: Public Engagement
Focus on the Future Workshops
A. Overview and Purpose
Between September 23 and October 16, 2019 approximately 500 people participated in the Focus
on the Future Workshop activities. This series of workshops was the first public input opportunity for
the Next 10 effort. It included four widely advertised open public workshops held in different
locations throughout the City, additional workshops that targeted university student populations,
and an online opportunity.
The purpose of the workshops was to introduce the Next 10 process and key trends facing the City,
obtain insight on the existing Comprehensive Plan’s goals, and identify locations in the City that
should be considered in the Plan evaluation.
B. What we did
The Focus on the Future workshops were interactive and
designed to obtain input from the community. Participants
were seated in small groups of 6-8 people at tables. Activities
were led from a key facilitator in the room and a City staff
member or volunteer at each table served as a recorder of
that group’s work. After a brief introduction to the Next 10
process, the workshop included three activities.
Activity 1: Did you know? The first activity was an interactive
presentation of key trends. Groups competed to answer a
series of eight multiple choice questions about current
demographic, economic, housing, and land use conditions.
Each answer was followed by additional context and related
facts. The purpose of the trivia game was to share key
findings from recent research in a fun, interactive format and
to serve as an "ice-breaker" for subsequent activities. To
review the full set of questions and answers, refer to the
report appendix.
Activity 2: Evaluating existing Comprehensive Plan goals.
Next, participants were asked to individually evaluate the
existing Comprehensive Plan goals. Score cards listing the
seven existing Comprehensive Plan goals were provided.
WORKSHOP LOCATIONS
Monday Sept. 23
7 PM – 8:30 PM
Southwood Valley Elementary
Tuesday, Sept. 24
11:30 AM – 1 PM
Municipal Training Facility (MTF)
Tuesday, Sept. 24
7 PM – 8:30 PM
Forest Ridge Elementary
Wednesday, Sept. 25
7 PM – 8:30 PM
Oakwood Intermediate School
SPANISH FACILITATION
At each workshop, City staff offered to
facilitate groups in Spanish with
translated recording forms and other
documents.
Page 154 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 7
Each participant was asked to rate, on a 5-point scale how
well they felt the City had progressed on that goal each
outcome and provide comments as to why they have
provided that rating. The rating scales ranged from one to
five, corresponding to “1 – very limited progress” to “5 – very
good progress”. Once individuals had completed their score
cards, they worked in groups to discuss ratings and why they
gave each goal that rating. The rating and response were
recorded by the group leader on a recording form.
Activity 3: Opportunity mapping. In this activity,
participants were given three green and three red dots to
identify locations in the City that they think are strong places
or opportunity places. The green dots identified locations that
are strong, reflect well on the City, should be protected, or
are positive examples to replicate. The red dots identified
opportunity areas which can reflect places that represent
conditions participants would like to see changed or offer
greater potential than what currently exists. Participants
numbered the dots to correspond with a separate comment
list where the participant wrote why they identified the
location.
Exit questionnaires. Before participants left the workshop,
they were asked to fill out an exit questionnaire. Those
responses provide insight into the overall satisfaction with
the workshops and characteristics of the participants.
Additional engagement. In the two weeks following the four
workshops, there were additional opportunities conducted to
obtain input. These opportunities included:
• Online activity. A website portal gathered individual
input between September 26 and October 16. The
tool included a survey on the existing Comprehensive Plan goals (that mimicked workshop
Activity 2) and an interactive map (similar to workshop Activity 3) for identifying and
describing strong places and opportunity places. The survey tool was promoted by email
and social media. Approximately 200 people participated online.
• University student engagement. At the invitation of the Texas Transportation Institute,
and in partnership with the Texas A&M Student Government Association, Planning staff
conducted the mapping activity from the Focus on the Future workshops on-campus at
Texas A&M University. The event took place in the hallway of the Memorial Student Center
on Wednesday, October 9th from 11 AM – 2 PM. Approximately 97 students participated.
COMMUNICATION
AND OUTREACH
To inform the public about the
importance of The Next 10 and Focus on
the Future Workshops, the City
conducted a communication and
outreach campaign. That effort included
traditional media and electronic media
communication, as well as word-of-
mouth outreach with the assistance of
the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation
Committee. Specific communication and
outreach activities included:
• Flyers and posters
• A social media campaign
• Presentations to civic groups
• Door-to-door canvassing
• Newspaper columns and letters to
the editor
• Radio interviews
• A project website
• Email
Page 155 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 8
C. What we learned
Rating of Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals
Below are the average ratings collected from the responses in the evaluating existing
Comprehensive Plan goals activity. The purpose of this exercise was to understand how successful
the City has progressed on each goal, based on the community’s perspective. Participants had the
opportunity to provide a rating out of 5 and a written explanation as to why they gave that rating for
each goal.
Overall findings
• Over the four workshops held in September and online participation, a total of 415
responses (both individual and group) were collected and analyzed.
• Goal 4: Parks, recreation, and the arts, received the highest progress rating with an average of
3.25.
• Goal 5: Mobility, received the lowest rating of 2.23.
• Goal 3: Economic development, Goal 4: Parks, recreation, and the arts, and Goal 5: Municipal
facilities & community services averaged positive ratings above 3.0.
• More than 140 written comments were collected to explain the ratings.
Participants provided many comments to explain the ratings and how the City could further improve
on the goals. The information is summarized below.
1. Future land use and character
Goal: To be a community with strong, unique
neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special
districts, distinct corridors, and a protected
and enhanced natural environment.
Average rating: 2.64
Reactions or ideas from 171 written comments:
• Most comments to Goal 1 relate to
neighborhood characteristics, and green
and natural spaces.
• Perceived lack of respect and protection
of older, family neighborhoods, as the
City seems to focus on newer and
higher-end developments.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Future Land Use and Character
In-person
Online
Page 156 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 9
• Concern that older neighborhoods are being infiltrated with student housing. Concern that
some housing products are specifically designed for student living, but not appropriate for
family occupancy.
• Concern that there is a lack of distinct character in certain areas (i.e. business areas,
corridors) and most new developments are similar in character (big box developments).
• Concerns with disappearing green and natural spaces. Participant felt that rural and
environmentally sensitive areas were being destroyed, unprotected and or fragmented.
• Other concerns include sprawl and cookie-cutter subdivision development, inadequate
infrastructure and repair (i.e. sidewalks), and parts of the City that are deteriorating (i.e.
South Side).
2. Neighborhood integrity
Goal: To protect the long-term viability and appeal of established neighborhoods.
Average rating: 2.43
Reactions or ideas from 179 written comments:
• Similar to responses for Goal 1, participants
expressed concern about higher density rental
housing infiltrating neighborhoods, creating
student housing centers. Some expressed
concerns about changing neighborhood
character, rising housing prices, and reducing
supply of affordable living options in the City.
• Concern with the City allowing demolition of
family-friendly single-family homes in favor of
student rentals. Participants would like zoning
code regulations (and enforcement of those
regulations) that protects family-oriented
housing from student housing redevelopment.
• Concern about parking becoming a challenge in residential neighborhoods. There is an
influx of parking in these areas from students, making it difficult to drive down the
residential streets, especially during game days.
• Perception that infrastructure is unable to meet the demands of new developments, while
older areas need infrastructure updates. The City should focus on improving municipal
services and infrastructure maintenance.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Neigborhood Integrity
In-person
Online
Page 157 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 10
3. Economic development
Goal: A diversified economy generating quality,
stable, full-time jobs; bolstering the sales and
property tax base; and contributing to a high quality
of life.
Average rating: 3.13
Reactions or ideas from 146 written comments
• Concerns that there are few full-time jobs
available for residents and that most are
minimum wage and/or university related
jobs. The diversity of employment levels is
unbalanced, as there are many entry level,
low skill jobs, and executive positions but
limited middle-range opportunities.
• Concern that the current employment market is dominated by chain restaurants and retail,
which are employ mainly college students.
• Belief that the City could do more to encourage new business development and diversify
industry sectors (manufacturing, technology, etc.). This would improve the tax base.
• Perception that residential property taxes are increasing to a point where first-time home
buyers are unable to afford a home.
• Concern that infrastructure repair and maintenance seemed to be falling behind. There is
little evidence of long-term infrastructure planning.
4. Parks, Recreation, and the Arts
Goal: Diversity of parks, greenways and the arts
for leisure and recreation as well as for
entertainment, education and culture to achieve a
high quality of life for all residents and visitors.
Average rating: 3.24
Reaction or ideas from 141 written comments:
• There were mixed responses related to
existing parks in College Station.
Participants generally commented that,
over the years, parks have improved. There
are good parks and park systems, sports
fields and good use of public spaces.
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Economic Development
In-person
Online
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Parks, Recreation and the Arts
In-person
Online
Page 158 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 11
Particularly, participants enjoy Lick Creek Park and Wolf Pen Creek Park.
• Participants expressed concern about the amount of green space, natural/wildlife space and
trails in the City. Some felt that Lick Creek could be improved by keeping up with
maintenance, and wildlife habitat has been destroyed by tree removal.
• Desire for more recreational facilities, dog parks, venues for performing arts and a
community center for senior citizens.
• Desire for more aquatic facilities and references to the Thomas Park pool closure.
5. Mobility
Goal: Improved mobility through a safe, efficient,
and well-connected multimodal transportation
system designed to be sensitive to the surrounding
land uses.
Average rating: 2.23
Reaction or ideas from 178 written comments:
• Most comments pertained to concern about
traffic congestion. Participants mentioned
the difficulty of driving during rush hour in
places such as Highway 6 and George Bush
Drive. Although development densities have
increased, transit services, and road
infrastructure have not kept up with the growth.
• The second most mentioned issue was concern about very limited transportation
alternatives, which could be a challenge for several segments of the community.
Transportation services are very especially limited on weekends and in the evening.
• Concern that active transportation options are limited, such as bicycle facilities (lanes and
paths) and pedestrian sidewalks. Sidewalks need maintenance or are unavailable in some
areas. Participants feel that the streets are unsafe for pedestrian and cyclists due to heavy
traffic volume and car-oriented design. Participants noted that improving “alternative”
transportation systems could alleviate some traffic congestion.
6. Municipal facilities & community services
Goal: Municipal facilities that meet community needs, contribute to community character, are
sensitive to the surrounding land uses, and provide exceptional municipal services.
Average rating: 3.11
Reaction or ideas from 150 written comments:
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Mobility
In-person
Online
Page 159 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 12
• Most responses were neutral for Goal 6, however
many indicated that they were unclear or unsure
what this goal meant. Participants mentioned
they did not have enough knowledge about
facilities to provide a written response.
• Desire for additional recreational facilities such as
a community center. There are perceptions that
community needs are not being met and there is
a lack of recreational facilities in certain areas (i.e.
Eastgate).
• Desire for additional facilities and venues for
concerts, for senior activities, to serve younger
adults (20s to 30s), and to serve children and
families.
• Other comments relate to infrastructure and park repair / maintenance.
7. Growth management
Goal: Ensure fiscally responsible and carefully managed development aligned with growth
expectations and in concert with the ability to deliver infrastructure and services in a safe, timely, and
effective manner.
Average rating: 2.56
Reaction or ideas from 160 written comments:
• Concern that infrastructure has not kept up with
increased population growth and new
development. As a result, traffic has increased,
and drainage issues and water problems have
occurred.
• Desire for the City to focus on street repair, and
not just in certain areas such as University Drive
and Texas Avenue, for example.
• Concern about growth not paying for itself.
Although taxes seem to be increasing, services in
existing neighborhoods seem to have decreased.
• Concern that taxes have gone to accommodating new development rather than addressing
issues with existing (aging) infrastructure.
• Concern that some feel developers are receiving benefits from City investment over
residents.
0
10
20
30
40
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Municipal Facilities and
Community Services
In-person
Online
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5Percent of ResponsesRating
Growth Management
In-person
Online
Page 160 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 13
• Concern about limited development diversity, for instance the majority of new retail is
chains, and residential is either single family or student housing. Some suggested that the
City should focus high density development towards the center.
• Concern about flooding that has occurred in some areas (i.e. Emerald Forest). Green
infrastructure such as a storm water management pond or sustainable practices (water
conservation, energy technology, etc.) could be implemented.
Mapping Opportunities
The mapping activity provides insight into strong places and opportunity places in the community.
This section notes general observations from the input, identifies the most frequently discussed
places, and summarizes participant comments for each place. All group and individual map
comments can be viewed on an interactive composite map available at the following links:
All dots from all participants: https://www.planning-next.com/cstxcomposite/
Only strong places: https://www.planning-next.com/cstxcomposite/?ptype=strong%20place
Only opportunity places: https://www.planning-next.com/cstxcomposite/?ptype=opportunity%20place
General Themes
The input provided insight on the general characteristic of strong places in College Station and
common themes among the opportunity places. It is important to note that participant comments
indicate that there is overlap between strong places and opportunity places; several places are both.
Some participants identified a place as an opportunity while others called it a strong place. In many
cases, the same issue, concern, or opportunity was discussed in relation to that place.
Strong Place Characteristics
Most of the strong places identified by participants were either parks or other community gathering
places such as Texas A&M University, Northgate, and Century Square. Common characteristics of
strong places based on comments include:
• Well-maintained parks and greenspace that offer recreational opportunities, access to
nature, community gathering spaces, and family-friendly programming
• Neighborhoods with a strong sense of character and identity
• Vibrant, walkable, mixed-use development
• Dining and retail amenities that offer good variety and span all price points
• Well-designed intersections or traffic improvements
Page 161 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 14
Opportunity Place Characteristics
Many opportunity place comments involved traffic and specific road safety issues. Other
opportunity places included neighborhoods that have changing character due to student housing
development, which need to be protected, and areas that could use redevelopment.
Common characteristics of opportunity places include:
• Traffic and safety concerns such as perceived poorly designed, inefficient intersections,
streets that suffer from high levels of congestion, or inadequately maintained streets.
• Neighborhoods that are facing student housing redevelopment or transition toward rental
properties. Participants say such change should be focused and neighborhood integrity
better managed.
• Need to address non-transportation infrastructure issues such as flooding.
• Lack of safe connectivity for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians across major corridors.
• Outdated, underachieving retail centers that present opportunities for redevelopment.
Strong Places
Page 162 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 15
1. Century Square & Northgate
• Century Square is a great example of mixed-use development that offers an
attractive, walkable place for both students and families.
• Northgate’s revitalization and redevelopment has reinforced a sense of place. It is
one of the strongest places in College Station with a walkable urban character. Its
development could offer restaurants and amenities that serve more than students.
2. Easterwood Airport
• Convenient location that has out-of-state destinations
• Seen as a potential economic benefit for the city
3. Texas A&M University
• Texas A&M University provides a strong sense of identity for College Station.
• Campus points of interest like the George Bush Presidential Library attract residents
and visitors alike.
4. Brison Park / Gabbard Park / Bee Creek Park Area
• The historic neighborhoods contain unique, quaint homes, and mature trees.
• Amenities like the neighborhood parks and Lincoln Center are positives for
residents.
• Compact, relatively walkable neighborhoods.
• Neighborhood integrity should be emphasized.
5. Wolfpen Creek Area
• The neighborhood parks provide amenities such as trail connections, recreational
greenspace, and special events to residents in the area
• Neighborhoods are attractive and relatively affordable
• Good concentration of commercial that is accessible to students
6. Veterans Park
• The sports complex attracts tournaments and provides a boost to the local economy
• Memorial “exemplifies College Station”
7. Jones Crossing
• Jones Crossing serves as a shopping hub that was needed in the area.
• The mix of commercial services and complementary amenities is appreciated.
8. Emerald Forest Neighborhood
• Emerald Forest serves as a good example of a neighborhood that could be replicated
elsewhere.
• Residents appreciate environmental preservation in the neighborhood’s
development.
9. Southwood Park Area
• Provides a good blend of parks, healthcare, and education in the neighborhood
Page 163 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 16
• Community pool is a nice amenity for the residents in the area
10. Midtown
• Feeling that the future development in Midtown offers a lot of potential for College
Station to create a strong quality of place.
• Midtown could serve as the city center for a place that never had one historically.
11. Tower Point / Caprock Crossing / Castle Rock Neighborhood
• Tower Point and Caprock Crossing boast a good variety of desirable restaurants and
retail. The two shopping centers are near adjacent neighborhoods like Castle Rock.
• Roads are well planned, but some intersections are congested.
• Surrounding neighborhoods are attractive / desirable.
12. Lick Creek Park & Pebble Creek
• Lick Creek is a unique park complete with a nature center and robust trail system.
• Pebble Creek is a distinct neighborhood and example community for the rest of
College Station.
Opportunity Places
Page 164 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 17
1. Northgate
• Lighting in Northgate could be improved to make the area feel safer.
• Observations made regarding a lot of congestion impacting pedestrian movement
2. University Drive Corridor
• Congestion and safety. Observations that University Drive is dangerous to cross for
pedestrians and difficult to turn for vehicles.
3. Thomas Park Area
• A strong desire to rebuild the neighborhood pool at Thomas Park.
• Both the neighborhood housing stock and infrastructure require maintenance.
• Desire to better preserve the neighborhood from redevelopment.
4. Harvey Mitchell Parkway Corridor
• Harvey Mitchell’s major intersections are noted as dangerous or inefficient with light
signalization and designated turns.
• Intersections identified included Raymond Stotzer Pkwy, George Bush Dr, and
Holleman Dr.
5. Wellborn Road Corridor
• Intersections along Wellborn Road south of the University are frequently identified
for traffic safety issues that relate to railroad tracks.
• Other challenging intersections were identified at Cain Rd, Rock Prairie Rd, and
William D. Fitch Pkwy.
6. Southside Neighborhood
• The single-family housing in the area has been steadily transitioning into student
rentals that has increased traffic and parking-related issues.
• There is a strong desire to preserve the overall neighborhood integrity.
7. Texas Avenue Corridor
• Texas Avenue is a perceived as a dangerous place for pedestrians and cyclists due to
the amount of traffic and number of U-turns. With surrounding neighborhoods and
proximity to the University, this area should be more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
• There is an opportunity to redevelop the corridor adjacent to the University. There is
a desire to encourage local businesses rather than national chains.
8. Post Oak Mall
• The Post Oak Mall is perceived as both an eyesore for the city and an
underperforming asset.
• The mall could serve as a redevelopment opportunity that could better adapt to the
changing retail economy.
Page 165 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 18
9. The Barracks Area
• Undeveloped land along Wellborn Road (southwest of the railroad) could be an
opportunity for affordable housing, workforce housing, or student housing.
However, that development could potentially be more attractive.
• The Barracks Townhomes has connectivity issues with the surrounding roads due to
the high density, railroad tracks, and overall traffic congestion.
10. Sebesta Area & Midtown
• Supportive comments about the Midtown development plans particularly the
potential to create a sense of place, new residential and employment areas,
recreational opportunities, and access to natural areas.
• Concern about flooding potential along Lick Creek.
• The Sebesta area could serve as a redevelopment opportunity.
11. Greens Prairie Road Neighborhoods
• There are no sidewalks for children walking to the adjacent school.
• The suburban development taking place is making the area lose its rural character.
12. Tower Point & Caprock Crossing
• Criticism that the area is not walkable, not adequately connected to neighborhoods,
and there are traffic issues at intersections.
13. Lick Creek Park
• Improvements need to be made to prevent flooding of the trails
D. Who we heard from
Attendance
Based on sign-in sheets, a total of 204 individuals attended the Focus on the Future workshops, not
including staff, consultants, and volunteers. Of those participants, 199 completed exit
questionnaires. Additionally, 199 people participated in the online survey, and 154 of those people
submitted exit questionnaires online. Approximately 100 students were engaged at the October 9
event and 97 exit questionnaires were collected. Overall, approximately 500 people participated in
this round of engagement and 450 exit questionnaires were received. The following summarizes the
demographic characteristics and experience of those who participated based on the exit
questionnaire responses. For a full summary of questionnaire topics please refer to the appendix.
Page 166 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 19
Demographics
The exit questionnaires provide insight into the demographic makeup of workshop participants
compared to College Station’s demographics reported by the American Community Survey, 2017 (5-
year estimates). The exit questionnaires reflect only those 450 participants who responded.
Age
• Participants mostly middle-age and older. Participants over age 45 made up 47% of
respondents, compared with 19% of residents according to American Community Survey
(ACS).
• Younger demographic under-represented. Only 26% of participants were between the
ages of 18-24, a group that makes up 41% of College Station’s population.
Race
• Racial composition roughly aligned with that of the entire community. Approximately
77% of respondents identified as White/Caucasian, compared to 78% in the ACS.
• However, minority groups were underrepresented. Approximately 3% of respondents
identified as Black/African American, compared to the 8% of College Station’s population
identified in the American Community Survey. Approximately 9% of respondents identify as
Hispanic or Latino, falling short of the 15% approximation set by the ACS.
Income
• Participants represented higher levels of income. Approximately 43% of respondents
identified their household income at a level above $100,000 per year, compared to 20%
reported by the ACS. Groups identifying with household earnings below $50,000 comprised
just 31% of respondents, in comparison to 58% of College Station’s households as according
to the ACS.
Educational Attainment
• Participants generally have high levels of education. Respondents had higher overall
levels of educational attainment including 30% with Bachelor’s Degrees and 38% with either
a Ph.D. or Master’s degree. This compares to 29% and 27%, respectively, from the ACS. 8%
of respondents had a high school diploma or less, while 19% fall under this category in
College Station.
Residency
• Most participants are homeowners. 69% of respondents indicated that they owned their
homes rather than rented (31%).
• There was a nearly even split of those who work within College Station. 51% of
respondents work within the City, with the remaining 49% working elsewhere.
• A mix of resident tenure but mostly long-time residents. Approximately 62% of
respondents have lived in the City for 10 years or longer.
Page 167 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 20
Motivation and Satisfaction
The exit questionnaires polled participants on their interests and opinions about the meeting. The
results indicated that most participants were both highly satisfied and willing to stay engaged with
the process.
How did you hear about this public meeting? Common responses
• Word of mouth / personal invitation 33%
• Social Media 22%
• Newspaper article or online news 20%
• Email from City 18%
• Community event 12%
YES
Were you comfortable completing the meeting activities? 99%
Did you feel your input was heard and recorded accurately? 96%
Will you continue to participate in the planning process? 96%
Too Long Too Short About Right
Rate the workshop length. 4% 10% 85%
Page 168 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 21
Stakeholder Summary Notes by
Category
1. Agriculture
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Culture. Agriculture is a big part of the community’s culture and identity. There is
need for this continue.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
b) Health and wellness. The rural part of the community is very underserved from
other perspective of health.
c) Sense of place. There is a crisis of sense of place on the City. There is no ecological
identity, so the built environment is critical.
d) Infrastructure coordination. The City needs to better coordinate development and
the provision of infrastructure.
e) Housing Affordability. If the City is to remain viable, must address affordability.
f) Amenities. The City needs to be more thoughtful about an amenity strategy,
including restaurants and the talent to run them.
g) Brazos River. How can this be better utilized? Is there potential for a “River Walk”?
h) Walkability. Pedestrian choices in the City are terrible.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• The City and the current Plan are not serious enough about the natural resources in
the community.
• Strategic development is needed, versus just anywhere.
• Traffic is going to continue to get worse, so address it.
2. Business Community (included bike and pedestrian advocates)
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Business has improved. The City’s growth has supported growth of small local
businesses.
Page 169 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 22
b) Bike culture developing. There has been growth in people interested in cycling as a
mode of transportation. A&M now has a bike share program.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
c) Bike routes. There is a need for designated low traffic (or no-car traffic) bike routes
or facilities. A “veloway” was suggested, which is a bikeway or greenway that is
separated from streets (but is only for cyclists or skaters).
d) Safe passing ordinance. There is no state legislation regarding safe distances for
vehicles passing cyclists. The City should consider this to encourage better sharing of
streets and safety for cyclists.
e) More things to do. Desire for more recreational, entertainment venues and events,
and community festivals. More amenities such as parks and retail to help recruit and
retain employees.
f) Affordable housing. Need for more attractive, entry-level homes for rent or
purchase. Ideally in locations that are close to jobs, retail, or recreation areas.
g) Paying for growth. It is believed that the City has a large sum of unfunded liabilities.
Growth should pay for itself.
h) Continuity and sticking to Plan. Due to the fast paces of growth and turnover with
City staff there has been challenges addressing long-term issues over short-term
needs. Also there seems to be weak institutional awareness of plans and policy
precedents (leading to perceived inconsistencies and deviations from plans).
i) Resiliency, fostering an environmental ethic. The climate is hotter than 30 years
ago. The City should encourage resilient design to reduce the effects of heat. For
example, maximizing shade through close building placement, design elements like
shades, awnings, green roofs, greywater recycling, and use of native plantings (Abu
Dhabi referenced as an example).
j) Public safety. Being aware of risks and potential threats in an age where mass
shootings are common. The City should have safety plans for all City facilities and
major community gathering spaces.
3. City Elected Officials (current and past)
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Park system. The parks—facilities and programs—are high quality and important
community amenity.
b) Community facilities. The new police station and City hall are important community
investments.
c) General direction. Not unhappy with the direction of the City.
Page 170 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 23
d) Staff. Council relies on staff and they are good.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
e) Student housing. There is a need to address the Aggie Shack phenomenon.
f) Fiscal health. The City needs to address its fiscal health. State policies will have an
impact. The City may need to consider new fees, e.g. road maintenance fee. The City
has not raised taxes in a long time. Perhaps this should be considered.
g) Traffic/transportation.
o Not concerned about City traffic issues.
o Slip lanes at key intersections could help.
o Need to accommodate bikers and scooters.
o People think it is ok to walk in the streets.
h) Family neighborhoods. The City needs to create residential places attractive to
families.
i) Neighborhood condition. The City’s older neighborhoods are suffering (student
encroachment).
j) Housing choice. There are not enough product choices (type and price) for young
families and young professionals.
k) Image development. The City needs to do a better job of defining and conveying its
image. Bryan has done a much better job of marketing itself.
l) Mixed use. The City needs more places where it is possible to live, work and play in
proximity (walkable). Northgate is only example. Need more. Midtown may be an
opportunity.
m) Vision. The City has no vision.
n) Location of development. Need to encourage more infill.
o) Talent. Recent graduates can earn more in other places. College Station is not wage
competitive. There are limited employment opportunities for recent graduates. Many
more would stay in College Station if there were jobs. The same is true for high
school students.
p) Amenities. The City needs more amenities, e.g. access to the river. More retail and
entertainment are needed.
q) Airport potential. The airport could be a greater asset. Need to increase capacity.
Create a regional airport. The land around the airport is not realizing its potential.
r) Lack of control. There are many forces of change that are out of the control of the
City. This includes decisions by TAMU (student enrollment, building construction).
s) Infrastructure planning. The City could do better planning and timing of
infrastructure delivery.
t) City services. Concierge service level is provided, e.g. trash pickup. Police and fire
services are very good.
Page 171 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 24
u) University benefits and consequences. The University’s growth (enrollment,
facilities and research) is a good thing for the City. There are negative consequences,
such as street maintenance, increased housing cost and student housing
encroachment in nearby neighborhoods.
v) Block length: There have been ongoing disputes about the appropriate length of
blocks. This needs to be addressed.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• The Plan cannot be fully “comprehensive.” Impossible to fully predict what might
happen, e.g. Northgate. The Plan cannot be locked in stone.
• Annexation must make sense fiscally.
• The comprehensive Plan is of no use. It is easy to change it and that happens too
often. There should be a significant threshold to justify a change. It is critical to
create predictability. We don’t “walk the talk.”
• The current version of the Plan is better. There haven’t been as many changes with
this version. It is used as a firm guide.
• Some residents think the Plan is permanent, fixed.
• Need to have greater consistency between policies and practices.
• There is fluff in the Plan. It could be more concise.
• Need to look at land constraints (getting land-locked in key areas.)
• Attention needs to be given to Wellborn Road. There is great pressure on the
corridor.
• Need to address climate change, global warming.
• Public transportation needs to be thoughtfully addressed.
• Need to better integrate transportation and land use recommendations.
4. City Planning and Zoning Commission
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) City initiative. The City has initiated rezoning to support economic development.
b) Quality schools (K-12). The City should continue to find ways to support schools.
c) Staff versus commission: A lot of review and approval has been moved to staff.
(Also a challenge.)
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
d) Housing affordability. This is a challenge in the City and has negative impact on
economic development. (Challenging for trailing spouses/significant others.)
e) Office space. There is not enough Class A office space in the City to attract more
business. Supply is dampening demand.
f) No center, no heart. The City lacks a heart, a central business district.
g) Housing choice. Young adults lack adequate choices. They do not want to live in
multi-family buildings/complexes with students.
Page 172 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 25
h) Parks and recreation. The City has great assets but could be better managed.
i) Traffic and congestion. This is increasingly becoming a problem for some residents
and employees. North/south connectivity is a challenge.
j) Developer-neighborhood divide. The City has long had two camps that creates a
polarized dynamic on growth and development issues.
k) Concurrency with infrastructure. The City needs to do better at coordinating
development and infrastructure.
l) Fees and affordability. Some developers claim high housing costs are due to high
development fees (They represent a barrier to entry.) There is also a perception that
the City is not serious about addressing housing affordability.
m) Park needs and issues. Generally, parks are well-maintained. (Thomas Pool is the
exception.) Parks are being built with revenue generation in mind. A large park is
needed in south part of the City.
n) County challenges. The county has zero debt and $90m reserve. County has
capacity (bond) to support more infrastructure investment. This reluctance creates
limitations for the City.
o) Fees. Impact fees are “bad news” in part because no one knows how to use them.
The delays in obtaining approval and the development fees represent hidden taxes
for developers.
p) Bryan situation. Bryan is a much more progressive City. Schools hold the City back.
College Station is losing businesses to Bryan (and to the county).
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Plan needs to be more user-friendly.
• There are too many land use categories.
• Land use map is too complex. It is now more like a zoning map
• There is mutual dependency between economic development and neighborhood
integrity. The Plan should more strongly address this relationship.
• There have been a lot of amendments (zoning), but rezoning has slowed.
• Traffic challenges are getting worse.
• A Plan update is an opportunity to think about alternatives to cars.
• City could use 200-acre business park.
• Post Oak Mall should be designated for redevelopment, perhaps with housing.
• High-speed rail could create annexation opportunities.
• Alignment is needed for zoning and Plan, especially south of southside. (Look at
restricted suburban vs. general subdivision.)
• Policies of the current Plan have driven developers to the ETJ.
• The UDO is ambiguous, rules change and, in general, there is a culture of “no.”
• The last (current?) comprehensive Plan tried to keep college students away. Tough to
be a college town without students. There is no place where, “This is for students.”
Page 173 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 26
5. City Management Team
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Plan is used by various City departments. The comprehensive Plan is used regularly
to inform City budget reports and capital plans.
b) Regular evaluations. The Plan has been regularly assessed, but this assessment
could be more robust (as described below).
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
c) Identify what to annex and why. The City needs to consider where to annex and
provide services that supports long-term fiscal health. Need to consider “cost to
serve,” utility revenue streams, and property/sales tax revenue impacts.
• Fiscal health. Maintaining fiscal health is a core responsibility of City
management. The City obtains most revenue from sales taxes, property
taxes and utility fees. State of Texas has capped sales tax rates while in-store
retail sales are declining nationally. Large areas of the City’s land are publicly
owned (not taxable).
• Maximize past investments. There is a need to understand where there is
existing capacity for growth and where it makes the most sense to develop
from a fiscal standpoint.
• School district plans. Improving coordination between the local schools and
the City. School location decisions impact growth and infrastructure needs
but are not timed to realistic provision of services.
d) Affirm and communicate core ideas in the Plan. There is some disagreement
among City leaders as to the meaning of some ideas in the Plan (such as
neighborhood integrity).
e) Consider ongoing public communication and input. There is a strong need to
continue to communicate externally (to the community) about why the City is
pursuing certain actions and how that relates to the Plan. Communication could go a
long way to managing expectations vs reality. Ongoing public input and engagement
opportunities could be provided. Also, there is a need to communicate about the
long-term nature of capital planning. City often requests large sums (which can be
scary) but those dollars are utilized or disbursed over a long period. It is essential to
carry out this long-term capital planning to finance infrastructure projects.
f) Track Plan deviations. Some deviations from a long-term Plan are to be expected
but need to be better tracked. In what cases were policy decisions contradicting Plan
or staff recommendations and why. Is it because the Plan direction was unclear, not
feasible, etc.?
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Establish a more user-friendly and actionable document.
Page 174 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 27
6. County Officials
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Collaboration has improved. There is a recognition of the value of regionalism –
that the College Station, Bryan, the county, the University, and school districts must
work together. There have been significant positive strides in the past 5-10 years.
b) School districts becoming closer in quality. While some old perceptions about
Bryan vs College Station linger, the schools are in fact becoming comparable in
quality.
c) Biocorridor. The biocorridor has great potential. Officials attribute the slow progress
to leadership personalities and market timing. Both situations have improved.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
d) Transportation and mobility. This is one of the biggest issues for the future –
maintaining and expanding road infrastructure and improving transportation
opportunities. The region got behind in funding transportation and is now playing
catch-up. Additionally, due to the region’s growth, the MPO is expected to be
designated a Transportation Management Area (TMA) which will reduce the amount
of federal subsidy for public transit.
e) Improving coordination between land use planning and transportation
planning. Ensuring that density is supported by roads or transit.
f) Resiliency. Tree planting, addressing flooding hazards, and urban heat island
effects.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Make Plan simpler, more user friendly
• Reduce number of land use categories
• Make sure to coordinate with Bryan on future land use near the Bryan/College
Station City lie (Northgate).
• Harvey Road may not need to be a Major Thoroughfare in the next 10 years
7. Developers (Housing)
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Demand. There is strong demand for housing due to many factors, including
schools, cultural offerings of TAMU.
b) A Citywide trail system has been proposed. Opportunities for growing a linear
system of parks is being explored.
Page 175 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 28
c) City management. Developers have regular meetings with City management and
development leadership and believe they are good partners.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
d) Residential types. Need something between 5,000 and 10,000 SF (in code). Going to
fewer categories made things more difficult.
e) A more consistent and predictable development process. Developers expressed
frustration that (in their view) they often received conflicting information from staff
regarding code requirements, process, and fees (such missteps are major hidden
costs for development). They attribute this largely to younger staff and turnover.
These developers wanted to do great work in College Station and were not opposed
to “reasonable” development fees.
f) Development review. “Bryan is blowing us away.” It takes less time (about one half)
for approval, rules are more friendly, and staff is friendly.
g) Suburban commercial. This category was a “fiasco.” City has stopped pushing it, but
it is still in the comprehensive Plan.
h) Reacting to Texas A&M. The University is a great asset, but the City is in a
reactionary posture.
i) Creating a sense of place. Projects such as Century Square, Midtown, etc. will give
College Station the high quality, walkable, setting that it has historically lacked.
j) Redevelopment challenges. There is a perception that high land prices will make
redevelopment difficult. It is easier to develop on the edge of town where land is
cheap.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Any amendments should be mailed to property owners.
• Need to be more intentional about the relationship and timing infrastructure
construction and development approval. (City has been short-sighted on
infrastructure investments.)
• Need to test the fiscal strength of land use recommendations. (Financial outlook is
bleak.)
8. Economic Development
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Job growth and diversification. The number of primary jobs has grown along with
population. That growth has been seen in companies of all sizes including small-
mid-size companies and entrepreneurs. Continue to diversify the job base from a
reliance on government jobs. Continue to grow entrepreneurship (A&M
partnerships, Midtown development “makers village”.)
Page 176 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 29
b) New development types. Century Square offers a new type of development with a
mixed-use experience.
c) Growth in retail. There has been a significant growth in retail within the City over
the past decade with new stores and restaurants.
d) New economic development strategic Plan nearly complete. Led by the Brazos
Valley Economic Development Corporation (BVEDC), the Plan identifies strategic
initiatives, regional partnerships, and specific actions. The BVEDC has developed an
economic benchmark index that is available on their website.
e) University collaboration in economic development. Texas A&M is now a member
of BVEDC. The University’s leadership is growth-minded and willing to form strategic
partnerships.
f) Promoting a business-friendly image. The City is perceived as business friendly.
g) Cooperation / collaboration has improved. The City of College Station and City of
Bryan have improved cooperation in recent years.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
• Talent retention. It is challenging to retain talented workers and university
graduates. This primarily is about quality of life and amenities. The City needs more
things to do (unique, attractive places to be, and recreational amenities to
experience).
• Housing affordability / Labor challenges. It is challenging to find unskilled or low-
skilled workers due to housing costs in the City.
• Lack of sites for businesses. There is a large amount of undeveloped land in the
City, but most is owned by the University or the local school district. There are few
sites that are development ready with utilities and suitable connectivity. The City
should identify areas for annexation / infrastructure investment.
a. Biocorridor. The Biocorridor vision is viable, but poor market timing has
limited development. The biomedical industry has recently begun to grow
again after a period of contraction.
• Focus on redevelopment potential. While growth in new areas is important,
redevelopment will be key to future economic development more than in the past.
9. Environment
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
a) Expanding public access to nature. There is limited public access to natural areas
in the region for active or passive recreation such as greenways, nature trails, natural
play areas. There is a need to expand opportunities to get people to experience
natural areas such as riparian corridors. Conservation areas with safe access can
Page 177 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 30
serve a to promote awareness and stewardship of the environment, strengthening
sense of place, and conserving habitat.
b) Creating a more transit-supportive, walkable, bikeable community. There is a
desire to creating or expand a connected system of on-street and off-street bikeways
and more pedestrian oriented developments. This would benefit personal health,
offering active recreational opportunities, and potentially reduce vehicle trips and
traffic. Transit service should be expanded.
c) Flooding and stormwater management. There are no impervious surface
restrictions in the zoning code which has contributed to flooding problems. Also,
better stormwater management practices such as on-site retention would improve
the quality and health of local waterways.
d) Low impact development standards. Related to stormwater management, Other
low-impact standards should be encouraged. There are limited standards to prevent
clearcutting, encourage permeable paving, raingardens, and native vegetation. The
City’s recommended plant list includes several species that are not native to the area
and are potentially problematic for our environment (invasive).
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Update the City’s recommended plant list to focus on native plants/trees.
• Consider best practices for low-impact development (pocket prairies – Texas friendly
yards.)
• Implement impervious surface limitations for development.
• Consider Austin’s “grow green” initiative.
10. Neighborhoods
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
a) Limiting tear-downs and maintaining neighborhood character. There are areas
designated in the Plan as “conservation neighborhoods”, but the character of these
areas is changing due to proliferation of student housing. These groups perceive that
there are limited zoning tools in place to protect neighborhood character. Some
believe these housing types operate more like commercial properties and are
incompatible with neighborhoods. Some believe conservation neighborhoods should
have their own plans/protections.
b) Student housing. Some believe that the City missed an opportunity to work with the
University to house more students on campus. Could the City collaborate with the
University to accommodate future student growth on campus?
c) Affordable housing. There are limited opportunities to live near where you work.
Student rentals inflate housing prices – middle income renters must compete in the
market with student rentals. It is difficult to build new affordable housing for
purchase (price points would need to be under $250k, so there is a significant wage
gap for most residents.)
Page 178 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 31
d) Few areas of “developable land.” There are few areas in which the City can
accommodate new residential growth which puts pressure on existing areas and
limits affordability.
e) Infrastructure concurrency. There is a perception that the City is always playing
catch-up in terms of road improvements. There is a desire to see road infrastructure
improved in advance of new development.
f) Negative perceptions. Various neighborhood groups believe that the City is more
concerned with desires of developers vs long-time residents. There are also
perceptions that leaders do not respect the Plan and there is weak political will to
follow the Plan.
g) Drainage and environmental stewardship. Some neighborhoods experience
flooding and drainage issues during storm events. They blame a lack of impervious
surface restrictions in the zoning code and inadequate on-site stormwater
management protocols. Greater landscaping and tree preservation requirements
and could be introduced in the zoning code to reduce heat island effect in the City.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Consider developing/adopting neighborhood compatibility standards in the zoning
ordinance.
• Consider a residential neighborhood conservation zoning overlay (reference Bryan.)
11. Parks / Recreation / Community Facilities
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) City conducted a community survey of parks. That survey found that the top
three desires are for more nature trails, bike trails, and open green spaces.
b) A Citywide trail system has been proposed. Opportunities for growing a linear
system of parks is being explored.
c) Open space set aside. There are provisions in the zoning ordinance to obtain land
for future parks through dedication or a fee-in-lieu when new residential
subdivisions are established.
d) Collaborative regional library system. The City contracts with Bryan for the library
system. This arrangement was audited five years ago and recommended
maintaining this arrangement. There is some need for library facilities in the south of
College Station.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
e) Generational shifts in preferences for “quality of life” amenities. More than
previous generations, people today place a high value on quality of life amenities in
their community such as parks and recreational facilities. Some stakeholders believe
that there has been an overemphasis on capital funding for infrastructure and not
enough emphasis on quality-of-life amenities.
Page 179 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 32
f) Lack of indoor facilities. The City lacks indoor recreational facilities for sports or
aquatics that exist in some similarly sized communities. There is a need to assess
whether the City should fund neighborhood pools.
g) Desire for more multi-use sports facilities. The City is not competitive as a major
location for youth sports events (state-level tournaments). Some see the multi-
billion-dollar youth sports industry as something the City should be a part of. Little
league fields were mentioned as a type of facility that the City needs more of.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Consider best practices for various entities working together to support youth
sports.
12. Public Health and Healthcare Services
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Contributions to health district increasing. The City provides funding to support
the Brazos County Health District.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
a) Transportation needs, particularly public transportation. There is a need to
expand public transportation connecting people to jobs, housing, and commercial
areas. The frequency and extent of the local bus system is challenging to many
users. It impacts the ability for people to access healthcare services such as
medication assistance.
b) Gap widening between needs and funding. There are increasing needs as
population grows, yet, funding from the City has not increased. Brazos County
Health District’s funding situation may change with the next Census.
c) Educating the community about healthy lifestyles. There is a need for more
prevention efforts to improve health outcomes. College Station ranks in the middle
tier of Texas communities on health. Funding does not account for the student
population, which is a challenge. There could be an app that encourages healthy
choices such as diet, exercise, mental health tips etc.
d) Wellness, recreational center. The community needs a place where residents can
access recreational resources, facilities, programs (YMCA, etc.).
e) Few affordable housing opportunities. It is challenging to find affordable rental
housing in College Station as there is pressure to rent by bedroom (for students).
Most affordable rentals are in Bryan. Also, utilities are less expensive in Bryan.
Page 180 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 33
13. Public Safety
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) High level of service. The City’s public safety services have provided a high level of
service despite resource constraints. 70-80% of City’s general fund goes to public
safety, but costs are rising.
b) Cooperative agreements. The City of College Station, City of Bryan, and the
University maintain effective cooperative mutual aid agreements. The City provides
fire service for the University. The University reimburses the City for “gameday”
services, but this is not believed to cover all costs.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
• Resource allocation to maintain service levels. Public safety officials note rising
costs of personnel, training, consumables (medical supplies), technology (cameras),
and equipment (vehicles).
• Personnel stress / morale. The growing number of special events brought by the
University (beyond football games) puts a burden on police units that are frequently
working overtime.
• Recruitment / quality of life / things to do. Officials note that recruitment is a
challenge – not because of pay, but due to community amenities. There is a need for
more “things to do” particularly for young families such as recreational facilities,
cultural venues, and unique places to live and shop.
• Limited affordable housing. Like many others, lack of affordable housing is a
concern for recruitment.
• Development and land use must consider public safety impacts. Public safety
officials expressed concerns about development density and concentrating crime.
They cite Northgate’s entertainment districts and older apartment developments
(that are no longer primarily student occupied) as areas experiencing high call
volumes.
14. Realtors/Real Estate
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Desirability. There is considerable demand for development in the City.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
b) Political dynamics. Positions swing violently, depending on the particular majority
at any given time. Current leadership appear less interested in development/growth.
c) Consistency. The comprehensive Plan and the zoning code do not align. They need
to be consistent.
Page 181 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 34
d) Site development cost. The City’s requirements drive-up the cost of housing and
impact development costs. The result is a negative impact on housing affordability.
e) Infrastructure cost. The county has the capacity to issue debt to support
infrastructure investments. They won’t do it. The City and school district should put
pressure on them to do so.
f) Housing affordability. There is a need, but it is unclear if this is a priority for the City
leaders.
g) Oversupply of apartments. There is too much product despite rents being high.
Park West “bombed the market.” (Similarly, there are four hotels in the City in some
phase of bankruptcy.)
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• The comprehensive Plan and zoning code need to be assessed more often than
every five years.
• The fiscal impacts of land use should influence policies and land use designations.
(Be clear of the return on investment.)
• The Comprehensive Plan should not be seen as a hurdle to developers.
15. Religious Institutions
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Student participation. Many students make their way to services of the
represented groups (in this meeting).
b) Needs versus taxes. Need to be good fiscal stewards.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
c) Relationship with University. More needs to be done to nurture the relationship
between the City and Texas A&M for mutual benefit.
d) Environment and Technology. More eco-friendly development and programs could
be more beneficial (busses, solar panels, electric car accommodations, etc.)
e) Quality of Place. More work is needed to create a sense of place, including a central
gathering place.
f) Access to Information. Improve internet speeds.
g) Contemplative Spaces. The community could benefit from more passive,
contemplative spaces versus all of the active parks.
h) Affordability. As we grow, need to be thoughtful about housing affordability.
Page 182 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 35
16. Social Services / Housing Services / Public Health
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Federal funding collaboration. City of College Station and Bryan collaborate to
allocate CDBG funding to address blight and fund many social services. The Brazos
Valley Council of Governments is working to update how money gets allocated.
b) Park system is improving. The City is created a “playground for all” which is a
facility designed for people of all ages and abilities, which opened August 2, 2019
c) Economic growth. The City enjoys new restaurants and retail choices.
d) Culture of community service. Residents of College Station help each other. This
includes college students.
e) Positive attitude. There is a strong sense of wanting to be positive and do positive
acts.
f) Diversity. The community—in part due to Texas A&M is diverse.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
g) Transportation needs, particularly public transportation. There is a need to
expand public transportation connecting people to jobs, housing, and commercial
areas. The frequency and extent of the local bus system is challenging to many
users. There is no public transportation on the weekends. There is no handicap
accessible transportation after 6 PM, M-F. Broken sidewalks are a challenge, as are
bus stops that are not covered.
g) Gap widening between needs and funding. There are increasing needs as
population grows, yet, funding from the City has not increased. In addition to
transportation, rent, food assistance, and childcare are mentioned as frequent needs
for low income residents.
h) Living wage employment opportunities. Limited growth in low-skill jobs. Students
drive down wages for low skilled workers, but cost of living is relatively high. At one
point the University hired laborers, but now works with a contractor for most needs.
i) Job training. There are not enough workers to fill job openings. Need more
vocational training.
j) Daycare. There is a lack of affordable daycare.
k) Lincoln Center neighborhood. The streets may need to be widening to allow easier
navigation for busses and or on-street parking could be eliminated.
l) Collaboration between agencies. While agencies work together on occasion, some
have overlapping services and at times compete for funding. Partners acknowledge
that collaboration could be improved. Opportunities to share should be explored.
m) Few affordable housing opportunities. It is challenging to find affordable rental
housing in College Station as there is pressure to rent by bedroom (for students).
Most affordable rentals are in Bryan. Also, utilities are less expensive in Bryan.
n) Redevelopment opportunities. Consider whether redevelopment could offer
settings for workforce housing proximate to employment areas and whether
incentives could support that intent.
Page 183 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 36
o) Expanding unique amenities. Participants mention that the City lacks unique
destinations (downtown) and has few locally owned dining options.
p) School rezoning. These are efforts are frequent and disruptive to the community.
q) Crime. There is a drug and mental health challenge. Regarding drugs, college
students are a key market.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Look at the Family Protection Center in Athens Clarke County, GA.
• Look at physical fitness initiatives in Fort Worth (Trail System, etc.)
• Consider a workforce housing land trust for affordable housing.
17. Schools (CSISD)
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Collaborative relationship. There is a great working relationship between the
planning staffs of the schools and City. This is valued.
b) Schools and pride. People love the schools. They are a major growth driver and
should be managed carefully. The pride translates to voter support.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
c) Continued growth. The District has had five straight years of opening a new school.
Also:
• More growth is expected, and property is needed for new schools.
• Growth brings with it the need to fund, Plan and construct infrastructure. (If a
bond fails, it takes three years for another chance.)
• Permitting process seems to be taking significantly more time.
d) Affordability. There is a housing affordability challenge in the City.
18. Tourism and Cultural Amenities
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Collaborative destination marketing. Experience Bryan College Station is the
destination marketing organization for the region and serves the City of College
Station and City of Bryan. It receives funding from hotel occupancy taxes.
b) Collaborative venues. In recent years, the University has become more open to
partnering and sharing its facilities with outside organizations (such as theater
space). In practice, however, availability of these facilities is limited and their capacity
is small.
Page 184 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 37
c) Diversifying experiences. As it’s grown, the City has added more “big City”
amenities like more public events and festivals, settings such as Century Square, and
unique places such as The Bush Library.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
d) Investing in tourism. The region could be doing more to promote itself. Tourism is
an import industry (brings outside money in), it is cleaner than most “industry,” and it
can give a place a competitive edge in economic development. There is a sense from
some that more could be done to invest in destination marketing.
e) Promoting what College Station is today. The City’s rapid growth has created new
opportunities and experiences in the area, but there is a need to continually
reeducate both residents and visitors about the City and what it offers. Most people
recognize the City as home of Texas A&M, but do not know where the City is located
or what it offers. Even past Aggies but they are surprised at the City’s growth.
Destination marketing focuses on much more than promoting the university
experience. Texas A&M has its own marketing initiatives.
f) Continuing to develop more amenities and unique marketable assets. Whether
it be cool mixed-use settings, unique venues, recreational features, there is a need to
continue developing attractions that set the City apart. The City lacks a unique
downtown like Bryan or signature features like the “Silos” of Waco. It could use more
unique places for “Instagram moments” that are not just tied to the University.
g) Funding. Hotel occupancy taxes fund most of the destination marketing and Arts
Council activities. Hotel occupancy is down, due to a combination of overbuilding of
hotel units and the short-term rental phenomenon (Air B&B etc.). The City does not
regulate or collect occupancy taxes on short-term rentals, which is a missed
opportunity.
h) Hotel capacity. Recent building of hotels has outpaced the market. This
overbuilding presents both a risk and opportunity. The risk is that high vacancy rates
lead to lower hotel revenue, which could lead to requests for reassessments of
property value, and therefore reduced property tax revenue. The opportunity is that
the City can support more visitor stays if destination marketing efforts are
successful.
i) Nurturing local businesses and restaurants. Related to the previous point, the
City needs to expand the number of locally-owned dining and retail options.
j) Creating walkable places. The City lacks a significant walkable place or area that
could be a destination connecting multiple experience opportunities.
k) Event spaces. There is a need for an event space or spaces for conferences or
performances that can accommodate more visitors than the available University
facilities.
l) Addressing transportation infrastructure. There is a need for a more complete
regional transportation system.
Page 185 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 38
19. Transportation
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Mapping alignments and up-to-date Thoroughfare Plan.
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
b) Funding of improvements
c) Right-of-way constraints – every road cannot be everything
d) Prioritization of projects
e) Incorporating safety into all transportation elements
f) The MPO becoming a Transportation Management Area (TMA) that requires a
transit funding decision from the City. Will the City fund transit?
g) TIAs currently do not address site specific elements such as circulation,
queueing, connectivity as well as bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure.
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• Tweak the goal for Mobility: “improved mobility through an innovative, safe, efficient
reliable and well-connected multi-modal complete transportation system serving all
user types that is designed to be sensitive support to the surrounding land uses.
• The list of strategies and actions blends processes and solutions. Separate them.
• Tie the strategies to the vision (Strategy 1: Innovation; Strategy 2: Reliable, Strategy 3:
Connected; Strategy 4: Complete; Strategy 5: Supportive to the Land use, etc.)
• More emphasis on access management, transit, prioritization, and TIA.
• Add the following:
Incident Management
Safety
Priority Corridor Evaluations
Comprehensive Intersection Evaluation Process
Connectivity
Core Bike Network
Public Outreach/Education to let the public understand the decisions
20. Texas A&M University Officials (and system)
PROGRESS TO MAINTAIN / CONTINUE
a) Working relationship. The City and university enjoy a mutually supportive
relationship. The City is responsive to infrastructure needs and fire support is
excellent.
Page 186 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 39
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
b) Market challenges. The City is overbuilt relative to hotels.
c) Talent retention. It is hard to retain talented employees. It is especially challenging
to address employment opportunities for spouses and significant others.
d) Housing choice. The City is missing housing that would appeal to young
professionals. They do not want to live amongst students. Many don’t desire large-
lot, single family detached units and the associated maintenance.
e) Master planned developments. Many do not have amenities.
f) Identity. There is work to be done to distinguish the identity of College Station. This
is especially true as it relates to comparisons to Bryan. (The realtors make the
distinction.)
g) More coordination. There used to be quarterly meetings with leaders from City,
university and school. (Not sure if this is happening, but would be beneficial to
conduct.)
Specific updates to the Plan mentioned
• More growth is expected. (There is significant construction underway and anticipated
on campus.)
21. Texas A&M University Student Government
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
a) Housing occupancy restrictions. City code attempts to limit occupancy to 4
unrelated individuals. However, many homes recently built in single-family areas and
marketed to students are designed for six or more people. No solution was offered,
but the disconnect adds to tension between students and neighbors.
b) Student / community relationships. Students perceive that the community
harbors negative views of students. Students are not aware of any existing programs
to inform those who live off-campus about City ordinances and expectations.
c) Perceptions of police. Students report generally negative perceptions of the City
police department, believing officers are intimidating and adversarial. As a contrast,
students report generally positive relationships with the A&M police.
d) Factors driving student housing choices. Student leaders reside in all parts of
College Station and Bryan in various types of housing. Various factors influencing
housing choices, but the group felt that cost and safety were the primary factors.
Being pet friendly was another major factor. Students rely on online rating websites
to assess potential properties.
e) Amenities and things to do. Students want more coffee shops, places to run or
access nature, and restaurant options. Century square was mentioned as a positive
Page 187 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 40
place which should be expanded or replicated. Entertainment and concert venues
were mentioned.
f) Transportation. Most students drive, yet at the same time bus ridership is very high.
There is a need to upgrade the A&M bus fleet with newer busses and there is
opportunity to collaborate on a regional level to provide bus transit.
g) Retaining graduates. While there may be some opportunities to retain more
graduates, these students noted that the University is very diverse and most will
leave. This group particularly all came from more urban places and were unlikely to
consider staying in College Station. The opportunity would be stronger if there were
more jobs and pathways into those jobs (engineering internships as an example).
There could be a local career fair or more programs to support or incentivize
startups.
h) Aggies returning home. There is a trend of Aggies buying homes in College Station
for their children to live in while they are students. These homes often become
retirement homes for the parents once their adult children graduate.
22. Utilities
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
a) Utilize / maximize existing utility capacity. There is significant existing capacity
with utilities in the ground today which could support redevelopment. There should
be an effort to make the most of utility capacity that exists before adding capacity or
expanding the network.
b) Address development standards to account for utilities. Recent development
standards have conflicted with the provision of utilities. For example, some zero lot
line homes did not account for overhead electric service lines.
c) Incorporate / consider University plans. The University’s plans should be
considered in making assumptions about the community’s growth.
d) Update impact fees. City’s impact fee structure should be evaluated to ensure that
it is reasonable to contribute to the cost of growth. Impact fee rates could be
discounted as incentives to encourage some types of economic development.
e) Consider strategic annexation and utility plans. There is a need to determine
where the City is going to annex and provide utilities and to communicate why or
why not. The west and southwest of the City is noted as the primary area in
question.
23. Young Professionals
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
Page 188 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 41
a) Things to do. Desire for more large events such as concerts or festivals.
b) Expand retail / services. Desire for higher-end grocery stores such as Whole Foods.
It seems there should be a market to support this. More locally-owned restaurants.
c) It seems that the City is reluctant to take risks. The “we don’t want to be like
Austin” may not be the mentality that attracts young people.
d) Transportation alternatives. More opportunities to bike, walk, or access transit.
e) Outdoor amenities / recreational opportunities. There is a sense that the City is
lacking in outdoor recreational opportunities such as parks, trails, and greenways.
24. Youth Development Organizations
OPPORTUNITIES / CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS
a) Lack of a downtown or center. There is a missed opportunity to create a center for
the City. For example, Fishers, Indiana, a suburban City in the Indianapolis region,
created “Municipal Park” a walkable mixed-use center around their City hall as part
of a public-private partnership.
b) Family oriented restaurants. Many restaurants are either fast food or cater to
students.
c) Meeting spaces. There is a need for spaces for meetings that are affordable and
accessible to non-profits.
d) Transportation (roads/traffic). Traffic congestion and safety are concerns.
e) Public transportation. Is needed for all groups but is critical to support the limited
resource population.
Page 189 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 42
Public Comments
Activity 2 Comments
The following are the ratings and comments from the Activity 2 Goal Evaluation, sorted by each goal.
Goal 1. Future Land Use & Character
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 1.5
No diverse neighborhoods, protected rural areas - haven't fought for 82 amendments in comp
place, natural environmental these cars dealerships big concrete blob no landscape ; protect trees;
positive Lick Creek Park
Group
Workshop 2 Planning process more reactive to growth as opposed to reactive; area around university most
precious, development has no consideration for long term Plan
Group
Workshop 2 Zoning has been bad in student housing; too expensive and poor quality in residential zones;
recycling is non existing; students being moved out further from town
Group
Workshop 3 They keep changing the zoning rubber stamping don’t stick to plans. It’s about money/land and not
neighborhoods instead of using existing building turn green space
Group
Workshop 3 Too easily changed. Amendments approved /processed with caution. Impossible to meet all these
goals with rapid rate of growth. Not doing well preserving special areas.
Group
Workshop 3 Water control is not efficiently managed. Too much flooding storm drain
Group
Workshop 3
We’re not maintaining / per serving natural resources, riparian, flood control, connectivity. Reserve
water where it is. Building in sensitive areas. Should engage higher density around campus, to
reduce traffic.
Group
Workshop 3
What are we doing to protect rural and natural areas. Need to inform public about stormwater
management efforts. Connect greenways, natural corridors, bike trails, etc. Better connect east and
west sides of the bypass, and between parks. Worry there's not enough people to support all the
additional commercial. Too many places to try and visit.
Group
Workshop 3 Wishes Bryan, College Station, A&M worked comp Plan process together, increase communication
Group
Workshop 5 University of Texas century square is so beautiful The Lowes shopping center even the apartments
she fought against look beautiful Lick Creek park, absolutely lovely
Group
Workshop Southside; disruptive bike and scooter traffic
Online 1
1. No goal from the prior committee.
2. The goals the City determined are not being followed
Online 1
Allowing apartments to be built on South college station, where we used to have "nature" on our
backyard is a mistake. People bought properties here because we wanted to be away from
students. The roads do not support the future traffic. I agree this send of town needs development,
but students apartments isn't equal to development
Online 1
Because commercial interests always seem to override neighborhood concerns and many City
council members seem to have never seen a strip center, fast food or apartment Plan they didn't
love.
Online 1
Because so many green areas, and especially those near streams, are being developed without
consideration of the need for green corridors that not only link fragmented habitats for the benefit
of wildlife but also provide nearby green areas for people to benefit from.
Page 190 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 43
Online 1
College Station is not doing a great job preserving green space and natural corridors. The long-term
closure of the multi-use path in South College Station (Lick Creek Greenway) is a tragedy. This
greenway was open for less than a year before it was blocked off for utilities construction.
Furthermore, the current destruction in Lick Creek Park - one of the only parks in town with
unpaved trails, and with valuable migratory bird breeding area, is unacceptable.
Online 1 Constant changes make it worthless resulting in no protection
Online 1 Constantly changing for development and not protecting neighborhoods.
Online 1
Devastation of Lick Creek Park.
An unmitigated travesty.
Online 1
Developments are being thrown up hodge podge without adequate infrastructure (planning for
traffic congestion, water/sewage, hike and bike pathways). 1000 houses at the Speedway? Where is
the planning?
Online 1
Green spaces are quickly disappearing and the natural environment is being destroyed, replaced
with strip mall-type developments and what appears to be significant overbuilding of rental
housing of poor quality that will degrade quickly.
Online 1
High occupancy, student rentals have completely overrun all neighborhoods. There are no "unique
neighborhoods" left. Protected and enhanced environment now means a "retention pond" which is
useless.
Online 1
I have lived here for 30+ years and am concerned. The natural environment is not being protected.
I see lots completely cleared of all existing vegetation and being paved over. We need more green
corridors. Unique neighborhoods are disappearing. Historic homes and areas are being torn down
to make way for student housing. Rural areas are disappearing at an alarming rate.
Online 1 I have not seen any indication that the City has any interest in anything other than commercial and
residential real estate development.
Online 1
I participated in the many many meetings, briefings, workshops, etc etc that were held almost 10
years ago, supposedly to get citizen/neighborhood input into the 10-year Plan. We were given a lot
of promises by City staff; a lot of assurances were made. We were told that "Ag-Shacks" would not
be allowed to intrude into the historic Southside neighborhoods. We were told that impermeable
cover would be limited over new construction and re-development. We were told that on-street
parking and traffic congestion in long-established residential neighborhoods would be managed
and discouraged. We were told that "soft curbs" would be used and expanded. We were told that
sidewalks and other safe paths would be established and expanded for children walking to
neighborhood schools. NONE of these promises were kept!! We have learned that NOTHING that
City staff says can be trusted or relied on. Whatever a developer wants to do, they are allowed to
do, even if it plainly violates code and zoning ordinances. City staff will look A PERSON IN THE EYE
AND TELL THEM ANYTHING JUST TO GET THEM TO GO AWAY. What good does it do to attend
meetings and hear a lot of platitudes when no one at the City has any intention of following what
the long-time residents want??? We have learned by sad experience NOT to rely on City staff --
many of whom are related to developers --- to do ANYTHING to protect our neighborhoods.
Online 1 I think the parks department is missing a huge opportunity for unique play equipment. With only a
few exceptions, they seem to be doing the same things at most of the parks.
Online 1
I would be hard pressed to identify any of the listed community "unique neighborhoods", protected
rural areas are being rezoned to suburban and commercial WEEKLY, I suppose is a "special district"
that works during daylight but at night more than half our police dept personnel is required to
maintain safety, distinct corridors might be Texas Ave as a commercial corridor, but the Medical
area is only Scott and White Hosp. (The Med now belongs to St Joseph-Bryan). What remains of
protected and enhanced natural environment are all "Flood Zones" which are barely useful as
green space and often results in a "retention pond".
Online 1
It feels as though all the green spaces in the City are disappearing and being replaced by retail
developments often duplicating things we already have. For instance: the green space that
disappeared on Wellbourne that is being developed for a car wash. Or the space on Texas Ave
opposite the cemetery, where a green space with beautiful trees has been cleared (a few trees are
currently still standing). I find this depressing and certainly not protecting and enhancing the
natural environment.
Page 191 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 44
Online 1
Landlords are taking over our family neighborhoods, even right around the schools. Although the
students are supposed to be limited to 4, there is no control for this. I had twelve living in one
house on one side and eight on the other (South Knoll). New neighborhoods are cookie cutter and
for the rich, or apartments for the students. True middle class is being run out.
Our City likes to find history and tear it down instead of embrace it and protect it.
Instead of redeveloping empty areas in the City, we continue to sprawl out with very poor
planning... so much for nature.
Online 1
More community pools are needed.
You have done a very poor job at having neighborhoods with enough sidewalks. There should be
sidewalks on every residential street in every neighborhood.
You need bike and running pathways around and throughout the City.
Online 1 My neighborhood is impacted & planners & developers never document those impacts or try any
fix our problems caused by development & rezoning.
Online 1
Neighborhood is quickly changing from the quiet family atmosphere it once was. A place to raise
your children and grandchildren. Beer cans, and other trash are dropped along the residential
streets by students, and loud parties at all hours of the night.
Online 1 Only certain neighborhoods are important to y'all...
Online 1
Our family neighborhoods are being destroyed, as City colludes with commercial interests to
rezone single-family neighborhoods, lot by lot, in violation of its own ordinances! Planning and
zoning commission's voting record speaks for itself - it makes a mockery of the law!
Online 1 Quit rezoning areas around neighborhoods that bring in traffic, ruining night sky with parking lot
lights.
Online 1
Stealth dorms are replacing single family housing and clogging up streets because of limited
parking. Not enough land is being made into recreational park areas for jogging/walking/open grass
areas. Apartment complexes are built without regard to the traffic congestion they will create. Lick
Creek Park is being decimated and is the only "nature park" in the area.
Online 1
Strong, unique neighborhoods? If they are, they have HOA's or deed restrictions to protect them.
The unique neighborhoods closer in are decimated by the proliferation of stealth dorms. Streets
west of the bypass have so many rentals that parking on both sides of the street is almost
prohibitive to emergency vehicles. These are largely student rentals in neighborhoods which used
to be predominantly families, but because of the stealth dorms and no protections, they fled. These
neighborhoods and many of the houses look rundown, but with lots of cars!
Lick Creek is nice, but at this point, is being overdeveloped. The swath cut across it recently is in no
way justifiable.
Midtown plans seem good, and Northgate seems to be have been a success. But not all areas
surrounding campus need to look like Northgate. Higher density areas need to be concentrated,
and those areas should be designated instead of neighborhoods always paying the price and
having to fight for any protections.
Online 1 The City is allowing micro-dormitories (ag Shaks) to be built and take over traditional single family
home neighborhoods.
Online 1
The City is being too greedy about making and squeezing more money, and making sweetheart
deals with developers, at the expense of creating concrete jungles, and removing green areas and
habitat for the wildlife
Online 1
The City should have intervened to prevent the destruction of Southside before it was too late.
Given that Lick Creek Park has suffered overuse for at least 10 years, the City should have kept the
land adjoining and expanded the park AS A NATURAL PARK, which we ALL need. Because the City
decided instead to turn it into a developed park, we need some kind of a natural park, with narrow
dirt paths through woods. I would argue that we need several, along a Metroparks model, given
the population growth.
Page 192 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 45
Online 1
The more established neighborhoods are no longer unique. They are a hodgepodge of Aggie
Shacks, rental property occupied by at least 4 unrelated occupants (I.e., students), and single family
residents struggling to maintain some semblance of single family neighborhoods.
Online 1 The older neighborhoods are being left behind.
Online 1 The only neighborhoods I see being protected are the high end well off people and wherever
council folks live
Online 1
We are failing our older neighborhoods by allowing multi-resident housing to infiltrate established
single family neighborhoods. Our historic neighborhoods could become something akin to the
area in Houston near Rice University, instead we are failing to maintain the infrastructure in those
older neighborhoods and leaving those residents who have and are restoring the older homes to
fend for themselves. Some neighborhood associations have spent many thousands of dollars in
legal fees to protect themselves against AgShacks because the City has basically sold them out to
developers. It's time to maintain and protect existing neighborhoods.
Online 1
We live on Neal Pickett and our street and the others around us (Carter's Grove) are always lined
with cars and overloaded with rental students in houses. It's hard to get up and down the streets
and the houses aren't kept up
Online 2
"Historic" neighborhoods are not being protected in any meaningful way. Elected officials in College
Station have exhibited strong suspicion at even the most basic efforts to protect the character of
older neighborhoods. Strong cities maintain aspects of their roots and that includes the places, the
neighborhoods. Research indicates that protecting historic places can add to the value (taxable
value included).
Enterprises like AirB&B and VRBO also threaten neighborhoods. The City should address these
types of enterprises and create legal policy to limit their use in established neighborhoods. In many
cases these are well organized outside owned commercial ventures and should not run unchecked
in singe family zones. The City is also likely to missing A LOT of uncollected occupancy tax on these
types of commercial lodging.
Online 2 50% lipservice and 50% reality in pursuing this goal.
Online 2
Aggie shacks that have more than four unrelated individuals in the home proliferated in established
neighborhoods since the last comprehensive Plan. The rural areas are not being protected. The
densities were increased in south College Station. The natural environment are being encroached
upon to make room or provide infrastructure capacity for development.
Online 2 Allowing the destruction of lick creek park habitat. Also, this town is not unique.
Online 2
Allowing too much development for retail space and housing, when there is no demand. I see land
being cleared for new homes, apartments, condo's, and retail space, and then these new buildings
sit empty because supply exceeds demand.
Online 2
Although progress has been made in this area in the last 4-5 years, prior to that I didn't notice much
in the way of protecting rural areas and the natural environment. New neighborhoods that are
constructed where houses are just a few feet from each other and streets too small for parking on
either side are helpful to the developer, but do nothing to enhance the community or provide a
unique neighborhood. This is why Southwood Valley, Raintree, Emerald Forest, Wood Creek,
Chimeny Hill, and even Shenandoah were great developments. They remain true neighborhoods.
Each very distinctive.
Online 2
Because the Council continues to allow rampant dismantling of older neighborhoods, subdivision
of large lot size and infill building of "homes" which are clearly designed, built and marketed as
student housing (parking pad, no garage, all BR each have adjoining bath), which will never be
occupied by a family raising children.
Online 2 Cause they need to focus more on the greenways and protect them and they are not. When ever
there is a need that "supersedes" the green space the green space goes away.
Online 2 City is too focused on keeping residents South of town happy. Doing great job in that area.
Page 193 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 46
Online 2
College Station is currently a very suburban town, with very similar chain stores in every part of
town, and very similar suburban single-family housing throughout most of it, with some scattered
apartments in parking lots. The entire City is auto-oriented, with no pedestrian-friendly areas
outside of the Texas A&M campus (and even some very large parts of the campus, west of Wellborn
are fairly hostile to pedestrians). The City has done a better job than Bryan at protecting the creeks,
and there are some good bicycle trails, but since destinations are still scattered very far apart at low
densities, and are always surrounded by vast seas of parking, it's rare for anyone to actually choose
to use a bicycle to get anywhere.
Online 2 College station is pieced together with poorly planned roads, no character, and no distinction.
Online 2 Developers are winning out...
Online 2 Developers have run amok...
Online 2
Every piece of undeveloped land in this town is being developed. To the point College Station is
starting to look more like Garland, Texas, than the unique looking town with plenty of green spaces
it was. The City Council also seems hell bent on selling any property they own for development as a
strip mall or restaurant.
Online 2 Everything feels very piecemealed together. You have commercial areas that look like they're being
built just to build something.
Online 2
generally the new developments remove all trees, and natural areas. i really wish we could develop
residential areas without bulldozing everything first. natural areas being left not only will benefit
the native plants/animals, but also mitigate flooding, etc.
Online 2
Holding rezoning hearings to rezone Lick Creek Park into Pebble Creek 2.0.
Sidewalks on thorpughfares where the speed limit is 40 but most people go 55 and the sidewalks
are themselves falling apart.
Far side of Rock Prairie is being torn up for two massive subdivisions and a third downtown area
while Thomas Park pool is closed due to disrepair.
The bluebonnet areas on highway 40 have heavy machinery parked on them and it appears as
though they're about to get paved over as well.
The trees at Deacon and Wellborn got torn up for yet another carwash and strip mall.
The fields at 2818 got torn up for student housing and an HEB and now Koppe Bridge no longer
had the quiet scenery for outdoor concerts over burgers because it's a parking lot.
Quiet neighborhood streets are suddenly main thoroughfares.
There is no Plan to enhance green infrastructure of any type. There are no incentives through the
City for homeowners to replant their yard with natives. All of the open spaces are being covered
with concrete, trees are being torn up and not replanted, all the lush greenery is turning into
concrete.
Online 2 I am not seeing improvement, but deterioration in many areas.
Online 2 I do not feel the City respects older established neighborhoods. Thomas Pool for example and Ag
shacks
Online 2 I do not think we are protecting enough of the natural environment or rural areas. Too many trees
are being torn down and too many green areas are being cleared for development.
Online 2
I don't believe there is much in the way of protecting our neighborhoods or rural areas by our City
government. It appears that business, especially builders and developers, have the most say in this
City.
Online 2
I feel like the rural areas could use more protecting. There has been a lot of development which is
good for the economy, but some of the rural areas are being pushed out to make room for more
development for retail and etc. It's understandable when it comes to growth, but there are still folks
that have small farms/ranches in and around the City. They would like to keep their land, but are
concerned with the extra traffic that more development brings. We have some unique
neighborhood communities however I would like to see more protected neighborhoods. There are
a lot of rent homes and almost always those homes are being rented out by college students.
Page 194 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 47
Online 2
I have continued concerns of rental property encroachment of non- family units in our
neighborhoods especially with the plethora of apartments built and being built around campus.
Infra structure for moving traffic well is an increasing concern. I am concerned about the
possibility of our community being forced, by the state, to install 5G towers all over town and in our
schools in coming years. There has been NO research or studies on the health effects of this more
powerful radiation on our children and adults and there is increasing concern by scientists (not
sponsored by the wi-fi industry) that current 4G does cause health issues in many people -all ages.
Fiber optics are proven safer by all studies.
Online 2 I think some areas are being overdeveloped and not in the best interest of green space for parks,
recreational facilities, etc.
Online 2 I think we have lost a lot of green space to development. The parks in this town are small and
scattered. Any loss of trees is a major detriment to the environment.
Online 2 I would be interested to see what is actively being done to protect natural environment.
Online 2
In the 50 years I've lived in my home, I've seen the area around me go downhill. Routine
maintenance on streets and infrastructure is planned and then suddenly canceled due to lack of
funds. The funds seem to be diverted to the new area which developers are planning. Our street
hasn't been resurfaced in over 25 years.
Online 2
In the City's core, North Gate has seen the most attention and change, but we need special
combining overlay districts to the East and South of campus as well. Without special designations,
our City's oldest treasures will be destroyed, rather than renovated or repurposed. A mix of old and
new, big and small, rather than just new and big is needed to give our City some character. I feel
like the natural environment has not been enhanced or protected whatsoever. Lick Creek is
experiencing detrimental development all around and it seems as if the goal of all the
neighborhood parks is to make them easy to mow rather than enhancing them with more
vegetation and trees. Our neighborhoods continue to be cookie-cutter with codes that support
more pavement/concrete/fewer trees/larger structures that can be built in three months.
Online 2 It doesn't seem like areas are being protected all, everywhere you look theres more new
construction rather than redesigning/rebuilding existing buildings/lots.
Online 2 It seems that developers are ruling the decisions. Everything is addressed to generating housing
that can be taxed.
Online 2
It seems that the preponderance of new development is cookie-cutter, single family housing and
student apartments with very little nearby land use for parks and public use. New roads do not
seem to be of the size to accommodate the growth and intersections are constantly having to be
upgraded. When I visit Austin, I see parks and public use land everywhere. It makes for a very
unique character.
Online 2
Lick Creek Park is the area's only 'nature' park, yet new development around the park have meant
encroaching on the park in order to provide utilities/easements for the new developments. The
park is well-used and enjoyed by all, so more effort should be made to protect it.
Online 2
Most of the newer neighborhoods tend to have a cookie cutter feel lacking in character, with the
natural environment being clear cut rather than integrated. Established neighborhoods with
diverse houses and mature trees are more and more being turned over to college rentals, resulting
in issues with street parking, noise, and lack of property maintenance that discourage families from
moving into or remaining in these areas. There has been a great migration to south College
Station, resulting in traffic issues and loss of families in older, established neighborhoods.
Online 2 Neighborhoods are cookie cutter and they offer boring amenities. Very limited natural environment
because trees are bulldozed anytime things are built.
Online 2 Neighborhoods are either cookie cutter subdivisions, or jumbled mix use. The neighborhood I live
in was unique and is now filled with student housing.
Online 2
Rural areas are being destroyed, are being cleared and built upon. Near us, a large open field with
lots of wildlife was cleared and now there are around a dozen house being built upon it. Where is
the wildlife? Looking for homes. Where will the rainwater go? Into our current homes. What is the
benefit? A dozen more families can move to the edge of town. We need to stop the growth if we're
keeping the natural environments.
Online 2
Seems like developers aren't considering the needs of all citizens, and cater to students. Poor
planning for retirees who want to relocate here. Neighborhood streets aren't wide enough and
parking isn't adequate.
Page 195 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 48
Online 2 Seems like there are several members on our City council that want to turn neighborhoods into
commercialized areas by letting more Aggie shacks to be built in family-oriented neighborhoods.
Online 2 Seems to be little in this area happening... Everything continues to be cookie cutter chain
development.
Online 2 Stealth dorms, heavy traffic, parks not funded, etc
Online 2 Steps have been taken slowly with the new development of century square. But the mass of large
chain box stores that are left empty only hurt the City.
Online 2 Stop building apartment complexes near elementary schools and subdivisions. We have moved
south to get away from the college students. Just stop.
Online 2
The City has been overly aggressive on annexing new areas without providing services. The City
has approved new subdivision designs that are unsightly and not enjoyable to live in - specifically
planned communities such as Castlegate II with its narrow streets and grid pattern layout.
ESPECIALLY THE GRID PATTERN LAYOUT.
Online 2 The City is selling out to developers. There is no attention to maintaining green spaces, sidewalks,
bicycle paths, reasonable zoning, traffic, or sewage or anything that makes a livable community.
Online 2
The City is too focused on college students or professionals moving in. There isn't focus on family
living areas and they aren't defined as much since the appearance of Ag Shacks in older
neighborhoods in town. It's driving the housing market way up when it shouldn't be.
Online 2
The sameness of the population assures that the neighborhoods end up being more or less the
same. I'm not sure how it'd be possible to establish a unique character to the massive apartment
complexes across town. I'm also not aware of many rural areas--the land is probably worth too
much. I'd be strongly in favor of that, of course, but I'm not sure how anyone would go about
making this more than just a college town. Maybe fewer chain stores and an actual downtown area.
Online 2
The student rentals are being allowed to sweep the City clean of families and children who cannot
live with, or buy among, the conditions created by 4-5 students per house. "Family Flight is real.
We are hollowing out the City and their will be a high price played in decay in the middle
neighborhoods. Neighborhoods need the right to control this and I think this has to be dealt with
as part of the 10 year update process.
Online 2 There is virtually no protection of older neighborhoods from the incursion of "stealth dorms" and
the rental of existing residential homes by large numbers of unrelated people.
Online 2
We have made some progress in protecting neighborhoods, but little is being done to protect the
historical areas of College Station from noncompliance with 4 unrelated occupants. There seems to
be no enforcement of this ordinance and little interest in upholding it.
Online 2
Well, I have a mixed response to this goal. On the one hand, I think College Station has nice
neighborhoods and distinct corridors. On the other hand, the City's steps to protect the natural
environment are absolutely insufficient. I'm speaking specifically when it comes to addressing the
current climate crisis. At the moment, College Station is powered by mostly fossil fuels. The small
fraction of wind power is simply not nearly enough. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change makes it clear that, to address the climate crisis, we, as a society, must stop our emissions
of greenhouse gases (or at least significantly reduce them). Therefore, it's imperative that the City
do its part by switching to electriCity sources that do not emit carbon. Whether that's solar, wind,
nuclear, or a mix is entirely up to the City, but it needs to be done. Will there be financial costs to
the City from making this transition? Probably. But if we do not make meaningful, substantial
changes, there will be financial costs associated with climate change in the future anyway. (These
are costs associated with stronger hurricanes, more intense heat waves, droughts, etc.) So, I submit
to you that money spent now will actually help mitigate future costs associated with climate
change's impacts.
Online 2
While there has been some attempt to maintain or create character (wellborn special district, soco
commercial area), there doesn't appear to be much consideration on protecting, enhancing or
connecting to the natural environment. Recent median additions to boulevards are just bricked in
instead of being landscaped. Median trees are known to calm and slow traffic, help reduce
temperatures and filter stormwater, yet we've left them out of the design.
Online 3 Aggie Shacks!
Online 3 As more students move into neighborhoods they lose the unique qualities. It feels like the City
mainly caters to TAMU too and not necessarily all citizens.
Page 196 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 49
Online 3
City is no way safe in this town because City has been growing quit a bit and more it grows the
more high crimes. I've never seen this town have been this bad before. Also, we have enough
hotels and apartment living for students, now we need family affordable living housing.
Online 3 Could have more natural environments promoting out door activities.
Online 3
Could use more nature trails/parks with less focus on playgrounds/sports, but more on the wildlife
and plants. Could also use a downtown/central City center to ground the City and give it more
character.
Online 3
District could be more enhanced with a few more distinct characteristics added to them. A social
community is a huge concept in College Station so that needs to be focused on and more attention
called to it through the City Plan and layout. I believe that a business district would also do very
well, provide a centralized location for business, restaurants, bars, etc that is more adult/upscale
Online 3
Doing well in protecting new areas with zoning, but using "code" that are not affective or
enforceable for student housing. Need to have protective neighborhoods for single family
residents and other areas for multiple tenants.
Online 3
For the kids safety, and even adults, every street/neighborhood should have sidewalks! Is absurd
that having the amount of college students and all the new schools and every construction fail to
do them, and the City fail to request it!
Online 3
I don't think I specifically recognize any of these things. Distinct corridors? What does that mean?
Special districts? I see commerce areas, more car dealerships on the highway, and neighborhoods
where they were. The parks are great!
Online 3 I feel like the City is moving towards having more personality. I love that the City is attempting to
interconnect bedroom communities with activities/stores to decrease the need to drive.
Online 3
I love places like Northgate, the historic south side neighborhood. But there Is not much
distinctiveness and charm to a lot of the other neighborhoods in College station. More
neighborhoods with Amenities, food, etc... within walking distance are preferred! There does not
seem to be a lot of distinct corridors. However, the plants and greenery around college station are
wonderful! it is a Very beautiful place.
Online 3
I see many areas being rezoned after petitions to the City to consider individual zoning
considerations without looking at how each of these decisions effect the long term value of the
neighborhood and not just the short term value of allowing businesses to throw up shopping
centers and corner stores that will be abandoned or neglected within 10 years. Land is limited
within the City limit and should be treated as the cities most precious commodity. Decisions on
land use need to be slow and methodical and not just pandering to the developer with the most
money at the time.
Online 3
I think much of the municipal goals are being executed well but protection and enhancement of
natural environments is failing colossally. I am specifically thinking of natural areas like Lick Creek
Park which has been operated well and enhanced with the nature center and the garden but the
recent destruction for a utilities corridor was thoughtless, lacked foresight and planning, and was,
ultimately, poorly executed.
Online 3
I think people are moving further and further out to "escape the college kids". So there's this kind of
divide - South College Station (I'd say ~Rock Prairie and down) and "toward campus". I think there
are definitely areas people try to avoid (looking at you Texas Ave). I don't think there are necessarily
unique neighborhoods, just some older, prettier neighborhoods that are discontent with students
living there. All that to say though, I am not against college kids living in neighborhoods. I just sense
a divide in this City. I do see some progress in the addition of Century Square and the pursuit of
Midtown.
Online 3 I think the strength of unique neighborhoods is dwindling but we do well with parks and
contemplating them in the design of new areas.
Online 3
I think there's good progress in new development, bike lanes and sidewalks, special corridors and
some parks work, but not strong protections or preservation efforts for older neighborhoods to
keep them unique.
Online 3 Integrity of historic landmarks and neighborhoods need to be protected!
Page 197 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 50
Online 3
It doesn't seem like the City does a good job of bringing in business and other entities to use land
properly. There are numerous buildings across the City that are not used, the Westinghouse
building on Hwy 6, the old Albertsons on University, the Silk Stalking on Hwy 6, the Academy on
Hwy 6. and other commercial buildings around the City. we also don't have any industry. So it
seems we are okay with different types of commercial property, but not industry. This is
unintelligent as industry, warehouse, shipping, manufacturing, etc. brings jobs, and income to the
City.
Online 3
Natural areas are very neglected, poorly maintained, invasive/aggressive species are allowed to
take over, potential land for natural areas are sold off, no public education is done, City plants non-
native plants, staff doesn't seem to know the difference. Some efforts to create bike trails, corridors
is evident--more needed.
Online 3 Neighborhoods are compromised and Lick Creek Park is threatened.
Online 3 No respect for the Eastgate area and its permanent residence.
Online 3
Personal opinion is a more comprehensive, more community centric Plan to develop/maintain the
integrity, and iniquity of our various neighborhoods, protected rural areas, special districts, distinct
corridors, and protected and enhanced natural environment, needs to be developed.
Online 3
Some areas are doing well. The Northgate area is developing into a high density student-oriented
zone which it good. The new midtown area seems to be progressing but it is too soon to determine
the outcome. Older neighborhoods with protective restrictions are declining into commercial rental
zones that discourage any traditional families from living there. Also, the streets are built to serve a
typical one or two car family. Now, there are 4, 5 or more people living in these properties and all
have vehicles and friends with more vehicles that visit or stay with them. The streets become
parking lots making traffic flow a real issue. Also, delivery services such as mail and UPS along with
garbage collection, sweeping and others basic functions are hampered.
Online 3
The City is growing and builders continue to buy up the rural areas for the folks who don't
necessarily want to be around the student population. Why not use existing buildings that are just
laying empty for student housing
Online 3 The City needs to carefully regulate replacement of buildings so neighborhood retain character and
aren't over built with investment properties.
Online 3 The established neighborhoods (East Gate, South Gate) are being neglected or drastically changed
in favor of development in south college station.
Online 3
The future of College Station needs to either stretch outward, or go upward. More skyscrapers
need to be allowed. Less road medians do not need to be added to the City streets. It is overkill,
and the City is obsessed with installing road medians.
Online 3
The neighborhoods are unique, but the districts and corridors are not distinct. We could stand to
gain more of a natural environment by incorporating more green spaces as new businesses and
buildings are introduced. I know nothing about whether or not our rural areas are protected.
Online 3
The neighborhoods are very uniform, separated only by price range. As a young family, we enjoyed
the many parks with playscapes, but aside from Lick Creek Park (which we do love) there don't
seem to be a lot of protected rural areas for public use. As my children have gotten older, we would
benefit from more special districts and distinct corridors, but the City council seems so averse to
any development or progress at all that they refuse to allow reasonable growth because of the fear
of disrupting neighborhood integrity.
Online 3 The rural areas are bot being protected, they are being incorporated.
Online 3
There is so much construction going on between Sams and 30. This is a flood zone that needs to be
protected, not paved over. I am furious just thinking about how the extra concrete could be the
reason my house floods one of these days.
Online 3 too many of the neighborhood parks are a flat slab of land with a playground. Give me some trees
for shade, some interest.
Online 3
Where the City is not doing well is protecting older established neighborhoods from encroachment
of multi-person buildings that are clearly businesses operating youth hostels. These should be in
areas zoned for them, not disguised as "single family" residences where between 4 - 8 people
reside. The Northgate district, on the other hand is very nice now and caters to young adults and
young families. There is also an area specifically zoned for the multi-person buildngs -- that is a
good idea, too.
Page 198 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 51
Online 3
Windwood sub div has trouble getting onto H30 or H6 access in am/pm and Football game day.
Need light with short timed light activated by pressure plate. The park was recently improved.
Needs more seating. It is kind of hard to monitor activity on trail.
Online 3 Would like to see more protected rural areas. Seems like the older, original ranch lands are being
developed at will. Left a metropolitan area and don't want to see this become similar.
Online 4
We have strong and unique neighborhoods and some protected rural areas. College station,
although working to improve, does not have distinct corridors in the town and is missing a central
or 'downtown' area.
Online 4 Century Square, Lick Creek bike trail
Online 4 Could always use more green space, but what we have is nice.
Online 4
I believe the City is trying to build our communities with all that this goal implies. But there is
always more that can be done. One of my concerns is the mixing of primarily student housing with
what was once mainly family homes.
Online 4 Neighborhoods are unique and produce a great atmosphere for community. The business areas
have remained distinct and separated from neighborhoods. We have good parks.
Online 4 Objective is to grow but at the same maintain the essence of the town and the culture of this area.
Online 4 Overall, I feel like this goal is being very well addressed. I see college station maintaining the parks
and natural areas that exist.
Online 4 P and enhanced natural environment could be better
Online 4
The City has grown rapidly & the major thing that has not been appreciated were the trees. I
realize they can't always be saved. But, left in clusters, they have a better chance. CS is not teeming
with physical beauty...other than trees & creeks & wildlife. When the required commercial
minimum landscaping is done after clear cutting, it appears no follow up is done to replace dead
landscaping, as was done in years past.
The need of north/south traffic arteries is clear. We have Hwy 6, Wellborn, & Texas. Ex., Welsh
could have helped, but development dictated it end before Bush on the north end & at Rock Prairie,
rather than continue on what is presently Victoria. So, every a.m. & p.m., it is a bottleneck for
families getting to school/work. Plan for the teeming traffic on Wellborn. Turn lane brick pavers at
Rock Prairie/Wellborn create a backup daily. Deacon/Wellborn needs to open asap to relieve Rock
Prairie/Wellborn & curtail all the U-turns. Closing the Cain Rd crossover has probably saved lives & a
good decision.
Lastly, we can't leave older neighborhoods behind. It will hurt us all in the long run. Who wants any
neighborhood in their beautiful City to not be maintained? Also, what about periodically having
designated neighborhood clean up days? Maybe with extra pick up of trash & old brush, dead
trees? Working as a group or HOA may inspire others & doing it by small areas makes it doable.
Maybe it could coincide with TAMU Big Event. As other Texas cities are clogged with rapid growth,
College Station is looking like a pretty nice place to live!
Online 4 The parks system in College Station is great! From my house I can walk to at least 4 parks.
Online 4
There are unique neighbourhoods and I see efforts to preserve natural areas. The effort to protect
these areas has been good in the past but recently I see the footholds established eroding. I still say
the goal deserves a 4 because it is not too far gone and there is still plenty to preserve.
Online 4
There has been a lot of good publiCity regarding new areas, opportunities, and economic
development within the City. Keeping CS feeling small while addressing and fulfilling the needs of
the community has been successful.
Online 4 Would like to see better protection of the floodplains
Online 5 I generally think we tend to overplan and regulate as a community, so this goal has been met.
Online 5 I've begun to see signage that tells about future development plans for a particular area and have
seen improvements in our natural environment spaces too.
Online 5 The City is well thought our and planned. There are some new corridors and districts that are
gaining momentum.
Online 5 There is a great balance of all of these items.
Page 199 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 52
Online Didn't attend the appropriate meetings, can't go further.
Goal 2. Neighborhood Integrity
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 1
Poor job of protecting appeal of neighborhoods. Poor maintenance of roads, services being
removed…ex pool closed/poor maintenance. Allowing MF style housing in SF neighborhoods.
Older neighborhoods not preserved. New growth/infrastructure funds targeted to new growth,
taking away from maintenance of older neighborhoods. Traffic congestion.
Group
Workshop 1 Small neighborhood had no tools or teeth; buyer income housing; many mult-family Ag shacks;
paved front yard park in front; Not happy; Where do we put families?
Group
Workshop 1.2 system cant be enforced; bad traffic, trash houses, property maintenance
Group
Workshop 1.5
No diverse neighborhoods, protected rural areas - haven't fought for 82 amendments in comp
place, natural environmental these cars dealerships big concrete blob no landscape ; protect trees;
positive Lick Creek Park
Group
Workshop 1.5 Concerns about single family neighborhoods being over taken w/renters and parking issues. Not
just limited to university area. 4 unrelated regulation is not enforceable.
Group
Workshop 2 speeding addressed; sigh in so-side; need to encourage strong HOA's; rental vs homeowner;
sidewalk maintenance
Group
Workshop 2
More and more multi-family and rental homes. Can't drive on own streets during game days.
Lincoln and Tarrow redevelopment and gentrification which spread throughout many established
neighborhoods surrounding TAMU.
Group
Workshop 2 Stealth dorms major concern; Ag shacks are a concern; maybe select 5 district neighborhoods to
protect - southside, Eastgate, emerald, forest, woodcreek
Group
Workshop 2
need higher percentages for overlay district; too much student housing; impossible to get
majority; lack of involvement from landlords; should be more protection; political will overbearing
and concerned with development; need better code enforcement; parking education for code
enforcement
Group
Workshop 2
Nothing has been done about Ag Shacks (student rentals) despite all the talk. People w/large
swams of rental homes are businesses not SF residential. Code doesn’t protect # of unrelated or
capacity. Code enforcement is not enforcing. Shoddy construction. lacking maintenance
Group
Workshop 2
cottage grove. Property value issues when land becomes more valuable than home. Lacked of
care/concern for lower SES; HUD housing residents forced out of college Station.
Incentivize/encourage affordable housing for this who work working class/ minimum wage jobs;
developers not making transferrable housing; incentivize home building that is not strictly
desirable to students, but may also work for families. lack of transparency from developer to end
product, ends up being student housing. better code enforcement.
Group
Workshop 2
Unqualified to speak on this issue (3) neutral. Not taking care of neighborhoods that were here
before growth (1) more emphasis on maintenance, not just new growth. Protection for students
saying fewer limits per household should protect students. viable asset as well (2) more pubic
transportation would allow for reduced parking.
Group
Workshop 2.3
Students shouldn’t be moving into SF neighborhoods. Lifestyle difference. TAMU privatizing
housing makes it worse. City isn't preserving southside like they should. Students should live close
to campus. Home and property value inflation because of underdevelopment of rental properties.
Variances and rezoning are granted frivolously. Schools are suffering because of families vacating
neighborhoods. The rate of TAMU growth is the issue. Too much too fast.
Group
Workshop 3
Inner neighborhoods redevelopment of student housing is causing loss of integrity. Slow
degradation of certain areas. Need to enforce rules regarding rental homes. Because rentals, it will
be harder to revitalize the older neighborhoods. How do you keep integrity with increasing
density. Should have groceries near high concentrations of student housing to cut down on traffic.
Nicer areas with HOAs only (Chimney Hill, N. Forest, Pebble Creek, etc).
Group
Workshop 3 Single family homes built for students not adaptive to neighborhoods; Torn "single family needs to
change
Page 200 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 53
Group
Workshop 3
Shenandoah, has kept great property value and the neighborhoods look nice, but the increase in
property value; property tax, which may kick some people out due to unaffordability, which may
change neighborhood
Group
Workshop 3
cant keep students out of neighborhoods near university; demolition of traditional homes for
single family student houses; and code enforcement not enforcing in neighborhoods; poor quality
of construction of homes in neighborhood; enforcement inconsistent
Group
Workshop 3
Developing homes into AG shacks and changing neighborhood feel and look. Rental property for
students encroaching single family neighborhoods. on street parking in single family
neighborhoods is an issue. Too many cars blocking traffic. Renewing parking pushes cars down the
street but the cars don't go away, they just move. Worse on game day. Maybe require parking fee
/permit
Group
Workshop 3
Doing well in areas w/HOA's. Students need off-campus, but maintaining the character. Doing well
keeping commercial lighting away from homes. Concentrated areas of student housing bring too
many cars, trash, unkempt lawns. Large scale rental (single-family) areas are an issue and take
space away from families in certain school zones. Concerned /curious about the correlation
between TAMU and B/CS
Group
Workshop 3.5
Code enforcement is an issue. No place where families are protected from AG shacks being
developed next to them unless maybe you're in a HOA that enforces its regulations. Ag Shacks &
game day rentals aren't being regulated. The older neighborhoods have some real character, and
it's important to maintain that. Historic buildings are torn down without consideration. ON the
flipside, this can impact economic development. Ag shacks need more regulation.
Group
Workshop 3.5
Ag shack parking A&M growth w/o support for housing w/o restriction. The screwed up the
neighborhoods; Predevelopment City council conversion single family homes Ag shack "family
isn't" destroys the street. Fight with P&Z and City Council don’t understand neighborhood integrity.
My neighborhood is families and that's a good thing. We don't live anywhere near A&M
Group
Workshop 3.5
(1-2)SFR Residential blocks are turning to student rental; too make way for student houses around
campus; street parking bad around campus; inability to enforce unrelated individuals. Diminishing
attendant facilities. (4-5) Frequent topic at council. Citywide some neighborhoods to SFR???HOAs
that are active providing effective restrictions. Some of the older neighborhoods are still intact.
Group
Workshop 4 The historic neighborhoods are being changed into Aggie shack town
Group
Workshop neighborhoods - should pay more taxes if they rent their homes; rental properties should be kept
nicer and upkept to high neighborhood standards; neighborhood living needs to be added
Group
Workshop
Neighborhoods/people pushed out by student; students rentals drive economy double edged
sword; parking issues trash issues; smaller homes not available for first time homebuyers, safety
issues for families and children, people running business in res neighborhoods
Online 1 1. Money speaks
Online 1 Aggie Shacks have been allowed into existing single family neighborhoods.
Online 1 Aggie Shacks have taken over some of the neighborhoods and the City has failed to help the
residents in those neighborhoods defend the integrity of those neighborhoods.
Online 1 Castlegates sidewalks and roads are already starting to look run down in some areas. Older
neighborhoods in town are being over run by rental properties that are not always well managed.
Online 1
Central and also outer neighborhoods are being destroyed by absentee landlord student rentals.
This, in turn, is destroying the City itself, and our schools. If the City is going to allow absentee
landlord rentals in single family neighborhoods, it should be confined and rezoned to a very
limited number of neighborhoods Single family neighborhoods should always have been ONLY
single families.
Online 1 City council is catering to developers not the citizens who live here
Online 1 Established neighborhoods are currently fodder for out-of-town or out-of-state developers. Money
trumps long-term viability.
Online 1 Existing neighborhoods are essentially just apartment centers after apartment centers. There are
older homes that were clearly once very beautiful that have turned to look more like run down ex-
government housing. Beautification of areas other than the University needs to be lifted.
Online 1 For older neighborhoods to be attractive to young adults (other college renters), resources need to
allocated to infrastructure (roads, schools, parks, etc.).
Page 201 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 54
Online 1 High-density rental properties are infiltrating most neighborhoods.
Online 1 I answered this above.
Online 1 I don't think the City is doing much that has been effective. The commercial rental industry has
taken over many neighborhoods and destroyed any concept of single family neighborhoods .
Online 1
I participated in the many many meetings, briefings, workshops, etc etc that were held almost 10
years ago, supposedly to get citizen/neighborhood input into the 10-year Plan. We were given a lot
of promises by City staff; a lot of assurances were made. We were told that "Ag-Shacks" would not
be allowed to intrude into the historic Southside neighborhoods. We were told that impermeable
cover would be limited over new construction and re-development. We were told that on-street
parking and traffic congestion in long-established residential neighborhoods would be manged
and discouraged. We were told that "soft curbs" would be used and expanded. We were told that
sidewalks and other safe paths would be established and expanded for children walking to
neighborhood schools. NONE of these promises were kept!! We have learned that NOTHING that
City staff says can be trusted or relied on. Whatever a developer wants to do, they are allowed to
do, even if it plainly violates code and zoning ordinances. City staff will look A PERSON IN THE EYE
AND TELL THEM ANYTHING JUST TO GET THEM TO GO AWAY. What good does it do to attend
meetings and hear a lot of platitudes when no one at the City has any intention of following what
the long-time residents want??? We have learned by sad experience NOT to rely on City staff --
many of whom are related to developers --- to do ANYTHING to protect our neighborhoods.
Online 1
If you live outside of South College station your neighborhood is supplemental to the goals of the
City Council. Even though people live there, like in Eastgate and the College Hills neighborhood
(which I might add has an elementary school, therefor a large child population, though much of
that population is lower socio-economic), to warrant the City not taking services and activities away
to either pay for what the developers in South College Station should be paying or to appropriate
for other uses down south.
Online 1 Just look around you. There are Ag Shacks in every neighborhood. If it weren't for individual
neighborhoods taking control there wouldn't be any "established" neighborhoods left.
Online 1 Lack of concern for older established neighborhoods....much more concerned about student
housing/development in general
Online 1
Long term viability is not being addressed as the current infrastructure is insufficient to cope up
with all the new development which is happening all around the neighborhoods, try traveling to
2818, university or tx ave, at rush hour, the City gave developers green light to make big housing
but failed to address the corresponding infrastructure needs, the City council and managers rip in
big financial benefits while the ordinary citizens suffer.
Online 1 No
Online 1 Older neighborhoods were not protected or helped. 75% of housing are now rentals in older
neighborhoods.
Online 1 Read above #1
Online 1 See above comment.
Online 1 See above.
Online 1 See goal 1
Online 1 See Goal 1
Online 1 Sidewalks are needed everywhere. You have families walking their babies in the street. You have
toddlers riding bikes in the street. It's not safe.
Online 1
Stealth dorms are replacing single family housing and clogging up streets because of limited
parking. Not enough land is being made into recreational park areas for jogging/walking/open
grass areas. Apartment complexes are built without regard to the traffic congestion they will
create. Code enforcement needs to enforce the unrelated people living together number limit.
Online 1
The City seems to value the developers more than the residents in the established neighborhoods.
I feel like the City has written off East Gate as student/rentals. There are a lot of permanent
residents in this neighborhood and increasing everyday. We should preserve the older unique
homes instead of tearing them down for cheap ag shacks
Page 202 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 55
Online 1
The City's Plan has done nothing to protect the Southside neighborhood. Nor the South Knoll
neighborhoods, nor the Eastside neighborhoods. And I don't remember if it was the McCullough
neighborhood, but the black neighborhood between Lincoln, Tarrow and University Drive is simply
gone. Only a few houses remain in this neighborhood. The old established homes are being torn
down and rebuilt as Aggie shacks. It's just a matter of time before it spreads to Southwood Valley.
Of course, the owner plays the most important role, but when they don't even live in town and
only own properties in established neighborhoods strictly for income purposes, of course, they
want as many students in one place as possible. 6 or more students in one "house" is NOT A
SINGLE FAMILY. The Southside residents had to beg, scratch and claw for a most minimal overlay
for their neighborhood, which has to do with trees and parking. It doesn't even touch the issue of
how many students can live in one "home". It's so sad to see what's happening to the oldest
neighborhood in CS. It's as if no one in the City cares anything about it at all. And after 9 months of
meetings and discussions, the South Knoll neighbors tried to add an overlay to their neighborhood
but was shot down by the City. I'd love to name the members on the City council that voted against
them, but that's neither here nor there at this time.
Online 1
The greed that is destroying our City and our neighborhoods is fueled solely by the "four
unrelated" rule for renting houses room-by-room. It is not localized in any one area of town. It has
artificially driven up our housing prices and tax rates to obscene levels. My tax valuation has
increased 2500% in 25 years. This is obscene. The code enforcement that is supposed to keep our
neighborhoods clean and orderly, is a farce. Every single time I have called in a code violation of
overgrown yards, I have received a DIFFERENT interpretation of the code. What do you call that????
Online 1
The more investors that buy houses for the purpose of renting the more the neighborhoods will
no longer be established for the long term. Investors are buying starter homes and are driving up
the prices of homes for young families that want to buy a house. The business community does
not have enough high paying jobs to buy the starter homes at the prices they're being sold.
Online 1
The older neighborhoods east and south of TAMU have not been protected in any way, and in fact,
the City seems to have purposely let those areas, and their parks (Thomas Park!) fall into disrepair.
Stealth dorms have overrun those areas, and what could have been areas where visitors to the
City could have marveled at unique older established neighborhoods, are areas which are fast
becoming eyesores - with the exception of a few streets, or a few houses on a few streets. The
overlays in the "tool box" offer no way to really prevent more than two-unrelated. Citizen who
have gone before City council to complain in the past have not been heard, and some council
members were condescending in responding to them, to the extent that one council member was
openly booed because of her attitude. Other cities have made more of an attempt to protect
neighborhoods in a university town.
Online 1 The Plan appears to be to sell off the older neighbors to the landlords/slumlords and let the
students trash them. So yeah, no.
Online 1 The student stealth dorms continue to encroach on family neighborhoods. These "dorms" create
huge paved parking places and foster crowded street parking.
Online 1
There has been no long-term viability of established neighborhoods. A quick drive through any
neighborhood built before 1980 is in poor condition, with constant rental turnover, property
owners that rarely live in the Brazos County, and little to no investment or upkeep of the property.
Where is the protection?
Online 1 They drive cut-thru traffic they our neighborhood because we are partly in ETJ. TIAs don't show
true impacts because they don't include all potentially impacted streets.
Online 1 To little is done in my neighborhood to protect it from loopholes in the system...
Online 1 Trashy & unkept lawns by student renters.
Online 1 unchecked rampant multifamily student-oriented housing development continues
Online 1
We have failed to protect the long-term viability and appeal of our oldest neighborhoods.
Southside has been overtaken by rental businesses in the form of AgShacks. The East Gate
community of neighborhoods is fighting a similar takeover, without any real help on behalf of the
City.
Online 1
We live on Neal Pickett and our street and the others around us (Carter's Grove) are always lined
with cars and overloaded with rental students in houses. It's hard to get up and down the streets
and the houses aren't kept up
Page 203 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 56
Online 1
Wow, really? Ditto answer in #1. On what information can I base my answer? In my nearly 30 years
here I have never seen the City actually support neighborhood integrity. In fact, it seems that the
City has gone out of its way to punish and destroy the older neighborhoods.
Online 2 AG Shacks
Online 2 Again, little to no enforcement of City ordinances which protect and preserve older
neighborhoods.
Online 2
Again, problems with the City holding areas as protected from what are clearly not "single family"
homes. Why has the City NEVER gathered together the impacted leadership of subdivisions, or
neighborhood associations and asked them to work on ways to address this situation? Instead, we
always end up at City hall after the fact, mad about the City's latest decisions. We could work
together to resolve this, but we don't. The City seems bent on developing everything well beyond
what we can actually support with City services and existing streets, too. Also, it has been 30 years
since the woman misunderstood what the neighborhood in Eastgate was trying to do and
misinformed everyone about Munson traffic calming efforts. Why can't the City ordinance be
changed/eliminated? Things have changed. This needs to be re-examined. With all the oak trees
dying off in established neighborhoods, the City could help us play a big role in re-planting in
conjunction with Master Gardeners and the City parks, perhaps on Arbor Day or even Big Event.
Think of how much we could accomplish!
Online 2 Aggie shacks in some of the most established neighborhoods
Online 2 Aggie shacks that have more than four unrelated individuals in the home proliferated in
established neighborhoods since the last comprehensive Plan.
Online 2 Aggie Shacks!
Online 2
Allowing commercial development right up against existing neighborhoods. Allowing the school
district to move kids out of the neighborhood schools in which homes were purchased and busing
them across town.
Online 2 Allowing small neighborhoods to be surrounded up to or back fence by commercial business after
20 years with no one behind them. Need a bigger buffer zone than 10-15 ft
Online 2
As more apartments come in near neighborhoods and students live in the neighborhoods they
lose appeal to families. The cost of houses is also ridiculous, as well as limited options for things
like restaurants and entertainment.
Online 2 Damage is done for some neighborhoods. Perhaps we can protect others from facing the same.
Online 2
Existing neighborhoods are largely being frozen in time, with very little growth in the central
neighborhoods. Instead there is growth in outlying areas, that causes more car traffic in the
central neighborhoods, and makes the central neighborhoods get more expensive. To preserve
neighborhood character, the neighborhoods in the center of town need to densify so that it is not
only the richest people that can afford to live in them.
Online 2
First, "Stealth dorms" went up all over the area along Welborn and George Bush. They were
primarily made of siding and had cute white columns that were painted with sub standard paint.
After 8 or so years, these "dorms" in residential neighborhoods are now eye sores, not properly
maintained by property owners and bring down the over all aesthetic of the neighborhood. There
seems to be no long term management by the City in enforcing the maintenance of what are
"oversized structures" in residential neighborhood areas.
Second, these "oversized multifamily structures" are not houses. They bring a property value to
the area that is unrealistic for the existing historical (original) housing in the area. The City has
done nothing to prevent the disproportionate increase in residential home taxes that result in land
being valued based on the ability of developers to house 10-12 students at a time versus a true
single family home.
Finally, it seems that the City is allowing these wealthy developers to take over the areas closer to
campus. It makes homeowners nervous about when the City will allow this to spread to other
neighborhoods destroying the integrity of the single family areas of town.
Page 204 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 57
Online 2
Growth at all costs, quantity over quality, newer and bigger has clearly been the mission/core
values of the City of College Station over the past 10 years. We need special designations/codes
that the City will actually enforce, such as 4-unreleated (the students are not the problem, but the
developers/investment property owners who build knowing the City is not going to enforce the
code. The system is continually taken advantage of.
The main fail is that the school system and the City are not working together to protect the long-
term viability and appeal of established neighborhoods or schoolsâ€. When families move south,
developers build student housing all over town, apartments deteriorate, new parking restrictions
encourage more pavement, etc. families won't move back in. The inner City schools are going
down (or at least perceived to be going downhill) alongside steep increases in property values.
Families can't afford to move to the core City and pay for private school at the same time and
therefore settle for the cookie-cutter home south, with the good price-point and better school
option.
Online 2
Historic houses are being torn down on a regular basis. I understand that the City Council has the
legal authority to designate areas historic and give that designation some meaning (as in Bryan, for
example), to prevent further teardowns. I do not understand why, if this is true, that the Council
has not done so. It may not be in the developers best interests, but it is clearly in the best
interests of the City, beyond just the interests of those who live in those areas to preserve them as
historic neighborhoods. I gave a 2 instead of a 1 because of the attention to the McCulloch
neighborhood.
Online 2
I can surely see that most neighborhoods around the university have been gentrified. Other,
older neighborhoods have been altered by becoming rental property mostly students and single
family homes are now rented to students. The neighborhoods in College Station are nothing like
what they were 20 years ago.
Online 2
I have lived in Eastgate for 17 years with my family. Over the past several years, there has been a
trend toward houses designed for student living at the expense of families, professionals, and
retirees. Many historic homes have become student rentals and are losing their maintenance and
character. Street parking, noise, garbage, and lack of home maintenance are a constant concern.
Please do more to preserve the historic and established neighborhoods in the heart of College
Station.
Online 2
I live in the southside historic district and while it is a very nice neighborhood, it's disappointing to
see how many students are living in what I was told were deed-restricted areas. The students are a
constant disruption to our neighborhood life during the school year especially with their erratic
driving behavior. I don't mind the new construction of homes, as I think they actually contribute to
the charm of the neighborhood but I am unsettled by the students. There are so many other areas
for them to infiltrate that I wish the southside historic district was off-limits to students, AND to the
leasing agents who rent properties to students.
Online 2
I see established neighbourhoods near the A&M campus becoming de-facto apartment districts
displacing low income housing and placing high property value taxes on long term residents.
Redevelopment of areas near campus may be a reality that must be faced but there needs to be
some effort to mitigate the impact that this has on the existing residents.
Failing to recognise this impact will raise the ire of the residents and discourage the dialogue that
is needed to create success.
Online 2 I see the old, established neighborhoods bordering the TAMU campus being taken over by student
housing, mainly in the form of "aggie shacks."
Online 2 It seems like replacing residences with Aggie shacks is what you can count on to happen to any
residential property within 5 miles of TAMU.
Online 2 My kids have to dodge traffic to use the neighborhood walking paths to get to the neighborhood
parks which are not being maintained. Green spaces get covered over with monstrosities.
Online 2
Neighborhoods change as they age - thats a simple fact however I believe that the City has not
done enough to limit rental properties, especially student rental properties to areas near the
campus.
Online 2
Rapid development in College Station is spoiling the character of established neighborhoods by
taking away rural and green spaces that those neighborhoods had previously enjoyed as a buffer
around them, from e.g., Highway 6.
Online 2 Same as the first.
Page 205 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 58
Online 2 See above.
Online 2 See above. I don't see that this has improved in the past six years; it has only gotten worse.
Online 2
Since the majority of the homes have become student rental properties, they are not maintained.
Several near me aren't rented lately as I'm told the interior is in bad condition but the landlord will
not do maintenance inside. I have been in one and I have seen what the previous tenants had
done.
Online 2 Some neighborhoods are going downhill.
Online 2 Stealth dorms rule.
Online 2
Streets and sidewalks are not maintained in older neighborhoods. Very little protection from Aggie
shack type structures being built in established neighborhoods, or students moving into
neighborhoods where single family residents have lived for years, causing loud parties and parking
problems.
Online 2 Student rental properties are expanding into family neighborhoods. Strip mall like restaurant and
retail developments are expanding.
Online 2 The (as it seems to me) unchecked allowance of single family houses being used to house 4-6
renters, ag shacks being built in established neighborhoods ruins moral of the full time residents.
Online 2
The bike lanes in Horse Haven are never enforced, rarely used. Students parking on Appomattox
and Windwood corner and street block vision into Horse Haven Lane. They park up to both
corners. Several neighborhoods have problems with students parking on grass and both sides of
street.
Online 2
The City is in a hard spot here. Very difficult to balance needed redevelopment and investment
with protecting the established neighborhoods and property rights. But, I also feel the
neighborhoods themselves could have been more proactive in protecting themselves through
organizing.
Online 2 The main historic neighborhood in town isn't even being preserved as such!!
Online 2 There is absolutely no integrity left in single family neighborhoods. None. Every family
neighborhood is being overrun with college students and rental houses.
Online 2 There is virtually no protection of older neighborhoods from the incursion of "stealth dorms" and
the rental of existing residential homes by large numbers of unrelated people.
Online 2 Two words - Aggie shacks
Online 2 We need to stop building student housing. Especially taking away family housing to do so.
Online 2
We see Ag shacks going up regularly. Residential areas are being threatened or are being
consumed by higher occupancy rates or commercial establishments. There has been effort to
preserve the established trees and that is good. Yea Southside!!! It is disappointing that Variance
committees are often heavily weighted by realtors and neighbors supporting requested variences
are ignored. Follow the money.
Online 3 A small amount of modernization would go a long way in brightening up some neighborhoods and
transforming their overall perceived value and viability to make them more attractive
Online 3
Artificially restricting property use (i.e. limiting ability to rent out property to students or peer-peer
vacation rentals) drives down property values. I believe this should be handled at the HOA or
Deed restriction, not City, level.
Online 3 Enforcement of number of residents restrictions could be better. Traffic should be improved and
alternative transportation encouraged to reduce congestion around campus.
Online 3 established neighborhoods are being changed with stealth dorms and changes not consistent with
long term residents views
Online 3 Few neighbors need updated streets, signs and much more in Bryan college station.
Online 3 Have not lived in the area long enough to evaluate.
Online 3
I am bothered by what appears to be gentrification happening in older neighborhoods. Student
housing goes up in the middle of residential housing that stands in stark contrast to the homes of
the neighbors. I'm concerned on the effect this is having/will have on more separated "minority"
and white neighborhoods.
Online 3 I believe that we are now electing officials who value this and are not just thinking of money but
we still have a long way to go
Page 206 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 59
Online 3 I don't think there has been action on the City in older established neighborhoods one way or
another.
Online 3 I don't think there should be any ag shacks near any houses in any neighborhood.
Online 3
I recognize that changing demographics and various economic pressures can make it difficult to
maintain established neighborhoods. However, I feel that the City could do more to support
efforts of occupants to preserve their neighborhoods.
Online 3 I see stuff going up all the time, and little being done to help those already there.
Online 3 I think development threatens this. The neighborhood around the Lincoln Center used to be
established and had real character but the property values keep going up and forcing people out.
Online 3 I think the City is doing their best to help with this, but more work needs to be done to ensure that
these established neighborhoods continue to be protected.
Online 3 I'm not sure what's specifically been done
Online 3
Individual neighborhoods have to struggle mightily to maintain their integrity. Southwood Valley,
for example, is just open season for multi-person rentals/leases because there's no HOA or
possibility of an organized effort for an overlay, for example.
Online 3
It takes me as long to get to the university from Pebble Creek as it does for my friends in new
Milligan/Wellborn areas. I think that putting a light (or ramp to not slow traffic) at Fitch and 40 or
figuring out what is causing 6 to back up every morning. Or at least put a light at entrance or fitch
or a back way to the highway for the pebble creek neighborhood to the highway (that does not
pass by the pebble creek elementary traffic). I only am mentioning Pebble Creek because I am
familiar with our issues. To make Midtown and biking connectivity great you need to make living
in closer communities more convenient that the continual move to south.
Online 3 Little worried about the older ones, like Southwood Valley
Online 3 Neighborhood integrity needs to be more closely addressed.
Online 3 neighborhoods are being taken over by agshacks that all look the same and have too many cars
parked on the streets
Online 3
Neighborhoods further into town where the space is as it were "used up" are largely being
preserved, and some useful work on sidewalks and pavement has been carried out. The protection
of established neighborhoods near any green spaces is wanting however.
Online 3 Overlay was a step in the right direction but sadly it may be too little, too late.
Online 3
Parking on lawns is ignored by enforcement unless a neighbor complains. Not good. No effort to
encourage landlords in family neighborhoods to landscape with native plants to
prevent/discourage parking on lawns, parking on wrong side of streets ignored by enforcement.
No effort to really stop overfilling trash cans, trash blows all over. New neighborhood development
could be improved, required trees/shrubs should ALL be natives, encourage better site
development so not all lined up, more walking trails to connect neighborhoods.
Online 3 Progress being made but not as strong as I would like!
Online 3 See #1
Online 3
see above Neighborhoods need to have green spaces and if they don't the quality of life goes
down. In addition, student housing needs to be zoned so that it doesn't appear everywhere and
destroys the overall out look of the existing neighborhood. Student housing should go more
vertical and should be on campus more then out in the community.
Online 3 some established neighborhoods in College Station don't look so good. In particular, I'm talking
about the Southwood Valley area with older homes that don't appear to be well maintained.
Online 3 some neighborhoods are doing well, some are not. But i understand how how hard this is here
with the need for student housing
Online 3 The City only protects those well off established neighborhoods and they won't come out to other
locations and make them appealing such maintenance services on rural communities
Online 3
The Eastgate & Southgate areas are already permanently changed & are student housing with
some families. There was no regulation on what was going up where existing older homes, some
of which were not salvageable, were leveled. It is a hodgpodge of Ag shacks, older rentals, a few
apts. thrown in. I realize the students need places to live & that CS would not be prospering
without them, but it seems haphazard at best. Rapid growth took over. Preserving older, densely
populated areas, such as Southwood Valley, for example, should be in the Plan. Parked, non-
Page 207 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 60
working autos, semi trailer trucks parked curbside where children play, & high weeds are not
uncommon, as many are rentals, with absent owners. Where commercial development abuts a
neighborhood, as has rapidly occurred along Wellborn Rd, could a buffer of trees be left where
possible? It's much more attractive & saves some of the disturbed wildlife. I do give a 5 star rating
to our neighborhood fire depts., esp in our older neighborhoods, that are densely populated. They
are the best!!!
Online 3
The lack of understanding of the importance of older neighborhoods and parks, The staff support
of those neighborhoods' need for preservation is not adequate and that's not necessarily their
fault. They are stretched thin and some may not have the experience . The high
investment/college aspect of our community makes this difficult, but experienced staff who have
seen what other communities have done might be able to help shape policy and support.
Online 3 The roads are in poor shape around Southwood Valley.
Online 3
This area needs a bit of work between the large population boom that is occurring. A lot of the
housing neighborhoods that were one considered desirable and affordable are now being rented
out to students, where families don't want to purchase and dwell. So it's creating a lot of new
subdivisions s that are all very nice, but not the most affordable for mid class and growing
families. Especially considering college station has once again raised the property taxes and also
applies a mud tax to some of these new communities. As the City grows in terms of year around
residents (and tax payers), I hope to see them address the lack of middle class housing options for
first time home owners and families.
Online 3
Two words - Ag shacks. I do not like driving through a neighborhood that has developed its own
character, just to see a row of giant, new, obvious Ag Shacks with a parking lot taking up space. It's
disruptive. However, I'm not sure what the solution is. I'm all for college kids living in established
neighborhoods - if they can be good neighbors and follow the same rules etc that non college
students follow. But I don't like the obvious insertion of the 5 bed 5 bath mini dorm in a space
that's meant for single family homes. I think special districts for these types of homes might be a
good idea. I don't like reducing freedoms on what someone can do with their property, but at the
same time, I am saddened by how many properties are being turned over in this manner.
Online 3 Unsure
Online 3 We are building to many new neighborhoods and this is making the current ones decline in
appeal.
Online 3
When there is no control on occupancy, the streets turn into parking lots in the evening. If
students live in a home, they need to live like homeowners and not park everywhere and mow
their lawns. I'm not sure it is students to blame, but I think so. Stop allowing "Aggie shacks" to
destroy neighborhoods.
Online 3
While most of the established neighborhoods are well established, the west side neighborhoods of
the train tracks need improvement. The neighborhood from the area of the Wellborn Road-George
Bush Drive intersection to George Bush Drive-Harvey Mitchell Parkway bridge to the Harvey
Mitchell Parkway bridge that crosses over Wellborn Road need more exits. In the morning and
afternoon rush hours, this area becomes an island unto itself as traffic clogs the roads leading to
the exits leading out of the area.
Online 4 As far as I have seen, the established neighborhoods are fairly appealing
Online 4 Avoiding the through cutting of streets in existing neighborhoods has helped this tremendously.
Online 4 Don't know the details but this would help people to trust the growth around
Online 4 Everything is built for short term residence with short term immediate needs.
Online 4 Fairly good here. Think more neighborhood rehabilitation grants and assistance from the City is
possible but overall, neighborhoods are defined and in good condition.
Online 4 greatly appreciate capital improvements in older neighborhoods. wish there was more
enforcement of residential property maintenance ordinances
Online 4
I'd say the majority of our neighborhoods have long-term viability and appeal, however, because
of the transient nature of the student population, there are neighborhoods that are not quite
established yet and are even older in nature.
Online 4 I'm very happy with our neighborhood services.
Page 208 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 61
Online 4
Most of the neighborhoods in this town are good, even the older ones. A lot of this is due to home
owners associations, and also due to the City ordinances in place thanks to the police officers and
code enforcement officers who enforce the ordinances.
Online 4 Road work in several neighborhoods has taken much longer than expected but, overall, everything
has been done reasonably well.
Online 4 See goal one
Online 4 Sometimes this is successful not at the cost of old neighborhoods turning into new student
housing
Online 4 The individual neighborhoods are very well set. Though it would be nice to see more public care or
"DIY City planning "
Online 4 The older neighborhoods around campus are adorable
Online 4 We need more parks or splash pads
Online 5 I think sometimes the neighborhoods are given too much say in development. You need to listen
to both sides.
Online 5 Neighborhoods are clearly defined and have unity
Online 5 Neighborhoods in college station seem to be very strong.
Online 5 The neighborhoods are expensive and exclusive.
Online 5 This seems to be the City council's only interest.
Goal 3. Economic Development
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 1 Retail is declining, were not going after industrial and manufacturing business that are needed to
create new jobs.
Group
Workshop 2 need more diversified business to pay into tax base; not generating enough business; not business
friendly; City paying above market price for development
Group
Workshop 2.75
diversity in job options and diversity in people service industry doesn’t have living wage; concern over
low wage; low education jobs. City doesn’t appear business friendly, desire for streamlined processes
for development, concerns over cost of living
Group
Workshop 2.8 Too hard for businesses to get established ex: concerns w/ building codes. Not enough local owned
businesses proportionately. Farm patch is example (see good examples in other parts of Bryan)
Group
Workshop 3 Jobs added outside of medical are primarily. Harder to find certain jobs with varying degree types.
Jobs for non 4 year.
Group
Workshop 3 land for places for industry - help with tax base recruit variety
Group
Workshop 3
Concerns about stable fulltime jobs. Out side of the university there's not a lot of full time jobs.
Retail/services businesses don’t have enough staff. In-experienced staff for service jobs, w/a
temporary mindset. A lot of turnover for service industry positions. Generational gap between
employees and customers. Better customer-service training. A lot of turnover and seasonal staff,
negatively affects customer service. Not a divers economy or variety in retail /service that makes the
City attractive for people that aren't students. not an adult economy. Doing great.
Group
Workshop 3
TAMU is a drawing factor for the cities growth. Bringing new development to the detriment of the
City. No infrastructure to support the growth and always playing catch up. A lot of emphasis on retail
not industrial or large scale commercial
Group
Workshop 3 Need higher paying jobs 70-120k, keep high performing students. Austin is doing a good job
attracting tech companies. Why cant we?
Group
Workshop 3 Not strategic enough with types of development / jobs
Group
Workshop 3.5 Make it easier for businesses perception that Bryan is easier for businesses growth of business going
east/west; congestion along major corridors; cross City bypass to access alternative businesses
Group
Workshop 4 Overall very healthy local economy
Page 209 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 62
Group
Workshop 4 Medical growth is great; TAMU/relies/ASC; more industry/bigger companies; more jobs of all levels;
TAMU paying their fair share
Group
Workshop 4 all the City cares about if they've been doing great; City to find local businesses and restaurants
encourage local development
Group
Workshop 5 Trying to push out middle class income households - need to cater to the middle class including
housing.
Group
Workshop Rely too much on retail; do not have diversified base
Group
Workshop New jobs don’t pay enough to afford overage rent or buy average home price. Roommates are almost
necessary to afford average housing. WE need things that attract higher paying jobs.
Group
Workshop Lots of new businesses, more help wanted ads, has seen the importance of football games as family
works in a hotel and saw the first hand importance of the economy of the university.
Group
Workshop increasing retail and part-time jobs not enough jobs for minorities; easier to hire college students
more stills; pay is lower, difficult being female in minority
Group
Workshop increasing retail and part-time jobs not enough jobs for minorities; easier to hire college students
more stills; pay is lower, difficult being female in minority
Group
Workshop increasing retail and part-time jobs not enough jobs for minorities; easier to hire college students
more stills; pay is lower, difficult being female in minority
Online 1
Although I think we're very fortunate to have a low unemployment rate, I wouldn't say the quality of
life is high. The air around the University Drive/Glenhaven/Francis Dr smells of sewage every time the
north wind blows. That's not a high quality of life for those living in the area. Student housing is
largely unstoppable and so often makes the neighborhoods feel like they've been taken over by
teenage boys. The trucks! The beer cars in the front yard! The lack of frontal lobe development!
Online 1 Do not see many real jobs created.
Online 1
Eroding our all our established, fully developed neighborhoods with the "four unrelated" rule leaves
no place that is peaceful, pleasant, and safe to live or even raise children. The monster trucks that
MOST students appear to drive in our tiny residential streets are a nightmare and a real safety issue.
Who would want to move here, unless they absolutely had to? What quality industry are you
attracting with your idiotic policy of "four unrelateds" in a house - a surefire way to destroy any
neighborhood. Seems you are shooting for "gated communities only."
Online 1 Hardly any good full time jobs.
Online 1 I am not interested in being a big City
Online 1 I understand that allowing St. Joseph's CHI to buy The Med hospital negatively impacted our tax base.
I do not agree with the continued increase in our property taxes every year.
Online 1 Jobs are that are being made have very minimal pay. Jobs with any type of substance or given to
people related to the Aggie system or commuters.
Online 1 No
Online 1 Our economy is based on student housing and student oriented business. This is understandable
considering Texas A&M University is located in the City limits, but there has been no diversity.
Online 1 Property taxes are being hiked to compensate for the loss of revenue from people who can't afford to
compete with either students or tourists.
Online 1
Speaking to business owners, and others in the community it appears that the City of College Station
is a tough place to do business because of the City and more importantly the community
development office. Funny, because I would think this division of the City would be responsible for
bolstering business, not hindering growth. This seems true since businesses go to Bryan or TAMU
properties rather than develop within our City. Our economic development office talks about
businesses that they are trying to get to come here, but they don't come here. No Costco, no
Buckees, instead these businesses go elsewhere this then hurts our cities ability to grow properly.
We can't constantly grow through increased property tax, we need business growth.
Online 1 Taxes to high in my neighborhood to to y'all loopholes...
Online 1 The appraisals of property go up, but the City also ups the tax rate. Shame on you.
Page 210 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 63
Online 1 the economy is totally student-focused, who spend little money locally. Sixty-nine percent of
employees in College Station can't afford to live in town. They take their income out of town.
Online 1 There is a shortage of jobs in College Station besides the University. NO large tax base!
Online 1
University jobs and minimum wage jobs. If you want an actual job, you have to work somewhere else.
In Bryan or farther. We do not encourage industry, tech, oilfield, construction...high taxes and permits
force good businesses out.
Online 1 We do NOT have a diversified economy in CS.
Online 1
We have done a poor job as a community of attracting, retaining, and supporting business
development. The City is difficult to work with and not accommodating. It is difficult to develop within
the City of College Station and very expensive. There is a ton of competition to attract and recruit
business and jobs. We have to be more accommodating and faster to respond in order to compete.
Online 1
We have many new businesses, but most of the jobs that have been added aren't at a living wage.
Those that are of a living wage often go to people who are being brought to town from elsewhere.
Why are we spending so much money to create jobs for other people to come here? Shouldn't we be
focused on bringing jobs that provide living wages to existing residents? We are spending an amazing
amount of money to attract low wage jobs. Our focus should be to bring high paying jobs that allow
our existing residents to live AND work here. Currently 1/3 of the workforce of BCS must work in
other cities (Houston or Austin) to afford to live here. And, even more people commute from lower
cost cities (Herne, Caldwell, Navasota) to work here. We need jobs with wages that will allow our
citizens to both live and work in College Station...$65K-$100K jobs.
Online 1 We may be bringing more jobs to town, but most of them seem to be low paying jobs that won't
enable current residents to continue living here.
Online 1 We need more jobs that pay $75K+ for existing residents. It's shocking that 1/3 of BCS workers have
to work elsewhere in order to be able to afford to live here.
Online 1 We're not attracting the businesses we need to support the City, and the high quality of life? Young
people have no incentive to move here except for a job, unless they are Aggies.
Online 2 As a new young professional who just moved to town, job hunting for a STEM position that wasn't
directly related to the university, was very difficult.
Online 2
College Station does not have a diversified economy. You can work at Texas A&M University or a
public school, a restaurant, or a car dealership. Where are the specialized skills jobs? There are
engineering consultants, but we need more unique employment to keep up with the growing
unemployment. There are residents that have lived here their entire lives and cannot even get a job
at Arby's because college students are getting the job offers. Bryan is starting an initiative to give high
school students specialized skills with machinery and technical knowledge. What is College Station
doing to bring jobs into this area so those residents don't move to Houston, Austin or Dallas as soon
as they graduate? College Station has the opportunity to grow as a metropolitan area, but the jobs
are not here for that, yet. We have the opportunity to bring jobs and employ our residents, not just
the students.
Online 2
Infrastructure is failing despite high taxes, because repairs are made patchwork and piecemeal to
react to situation, not fix as has been promised. The tax base is growing however taxes remain high.
Traffic is becoming worse every year, but there seem to be no plans to fix.
Online 2 Largest effort seems to be towards attracting restaurants and retail stores. Those only offer limited
high quality employment and at some point also just mostly have to out-compete each other.
Online 2 More focus is needed on increasing tourism & livability
Online 2
Most of the jobs in this town are near-minimum wage positions in chain stores/restaurants. Locals
who aren't college students and who don't already have a college education have limited prospects
for quality full-time work. It seems most of the town is set up for people who already have money
coming in and who don't need to work.
Online 2 Nothing changed except more low paying jobs at restaurants
Online 2 Property taxes are insane high
Online 2
The City has allowed rapid development with seeming no long-term planning in terms of aesthetics,
walkability, bikability, access to green space, or traffic. Go almost anywhere else! When people come
visit--from other cities in Texas, from other cities in the U.S., from other countries--they ALWAYS ask,
why is it so ugly, why are there no trees, why can't you walk anywhere. Why, indeed?
Page 211 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 64
Online 2 The City is visibly trying, but to much neglect has gone to this goal in the past letting us fall far behind
Online 2
The College Station City council is focused on the low-hanging fruit of retail and restaurants. While it
is true these bring jobs, they are not well-paying and satisfying jobs the citizens of College Station
would like or deserve. The City needs to seek out company headquarters and (what little remains)
manufacturing to develop a broad economic situation in College Station. Also, the City council makes
too many deals with developers. Its like they forgot that there is a reason those developers are
coming here, and the council holds the better bargaining position.
Online 2 The goal appears to be self-contradictory and fails to define what is meant by "a high quality of life."
For example, does a plethora of fast food restaurants contribute to a high quality of life or not?
Online 2
the quality of life is good for the developers and business owners with close ties to City officials, while
the ordinary citizens suffer from the burden of increased fees , taxes, and congestions while City
officials and council members have their taxes freeze or get exemptions by deploying loopholes in
the system, we the people pay the price.
Online 2
We have much more business than when I moved to College Station in 2012. Many of these
businesses are food establishments or entertainment venues. We continue to lack a growing sector
of high paying and high caliber jobs that function as careers for college graduates. I'll put it this way -
students may no more interest or viability to stay in College Station to work with their degrees than in
2012.
Online 2
What small amount of economic development has occurred has been entirely due to outside interest,
usually in the form of national chains, who come in and erect small- or medium- or big-box stores
that cater solely to the teenage and college-age crowds. I have seen nothing done by the City, except
to roll over and give out-of-town money whatever they want in terms of zoning, code exceptions, etc.
We desperately need fast, reliable, broadband internet service throughout the City. Instead we have
Suddenlink. Why has the City not taken aggressive pro-active steps to provide infrastructure for City-
wide broadband access?
Online 3 Again, have not lived here long enough to evaluate.
Online 3
Although everything doesn't revolve around A&M, the economy here is still geared primarily towards
students. Families can find things to do but is not as accessible as other cities. Home prices and
rental prices are not aligned with job wages and growth.
Online 3 Although we have made progress (through developments like Century Square & Midway), we are still
losing a lot of young professional (25-35) talent that is sorely needed in the workforce.
Online 3
As we are home to A&M, we should encourage and look to seek out more prominent business
becoming located in or near this area. As it is not a large City yet, it is expected to grow in and around
it tremendously and we need to Plan ahead so that there can continue to be not only jobs to support
the people, but high scale, successful companies that are nation wide to provide more real growth to
KEEP people IN college station during or after graduation.
Online 3 By destroying communities and constantly rezoning to permit Aggie Shacks and businesses, you may
be creating jobs but people will actually live elsewhere.
Online 3
diversity is improving to some degree but emphasis still is not equal enough to even out the event
driven income of many of the local industries like the hotel industry. Eco-tourism is one industry that
is totally ignored.
Online 3 Economy is growing but without addressing the quality of life part.
Online 3
Good effort here but it still seems like the college age population consumer is driving much of the
economy. I'd like to see the City move toward agreements with companies getting incentives from the
City to encourage a living wage.
Online 3 Great for upper income; not a great economy for working poor.
Online 3 House taxes are way too high. The job base is good.
Online 3 I guess things are better in this area than in homes in the older parts of the City.
Online 3 I like the effort being made to attract more sporting events to the area.
Online 3 I see some efforts in research and medical, but not sure that feels diversified necessarily
Online 3
I think this is just happening due to Texas A&M's growth and retired Aggies wanting to return. If more
is not done to enhance amenities like access to trails and park space, arts, cultural attractions, inter-
generational facilities. Sports are valuable but we can't be all about sports. The best cities diversify
their attractive qualities and host many different kinds of events.
Page 212 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 65
Online 3 I'm on the fence on this because I don't really know how the City is doing on this.
Online 3 In the middle as I am not aware of the main business other than health care, TAMU, and apartment
construction that are diversifying the economy.
Online 3 It's getting there but if they remodeled the mall and added more stores up here for game weekends
and locals to attract business it would be nice and create more jobs.
Online 3
Jobs? I'd give a 4
Sales tax? Again a 4
Bolstering property tax? Here's the problem. Residential property values (and taxes) are increasing to
the point that first time buyers find it difficult to get into the market. Properties with high commercial
potential are developed by tax exempt entities.
Land development can't be the number one commercial enterprise in College Station.
Online 3 Large developments with out-of-town investors should be taxed in proportion to their impact on the
City's infrastructure - traffic concerns, etc.
Online 3 Many of the jobs in the area are based around Texas A&M, and a majority of those that aren't lack the
pay to be sustainable for a proper livelihood.
Online 3 Maybe for students and grad students but what about the long term residence. My husband drives to
Houstons surrounding area to work in order to have a decent paying job
Online 3 Most jobs seem to be in the service sector. We need more high-paying jobs.
Online 3 Most of our economy is not really quality stable full-time jobs, we have a huge part-time service jobs
economy that keep the unemployment numbers low.
Online 3 Need to Plan for traffic flow.
Online 3
Not the City's fault but employers like Walmart and Texas A&M outsourcing it's housekeeping and
maintenance means we have a lot of people who don't have full time jobs. I'd like to see a City
ordinance that requires employers in our City pay a living wage.
Online 3 Property taxes are way too high.
Online 3 Raising property taxes by a combined 15% or so (combined with the county) is NOT smart.
Online 3 Really the only quality full-time jobs are through the cities or TAMU
Online 3 Same developments fostering student market
Online 3
See above. The property tax base may be distributed if we were able to undergo more commercial
development. The population of this City has grown considerably, but access to retail and commercial
offerings has been slow to catch up.
Online 3 Stable jobs are hard here. Most want to hire the college students and pay minimum wage, until they
move on, and hire the next.
Online 3 stop building apartments!
Online 3
Stop using the term increased tax base to promote growth. It is disingenuous. While the tax base will
indeed increase, the implication is that taxes for existing residents will not. New growth creates the
need for additional City/school services, whose costs inevitably exceed the additional taxes from the
new growth. Those costs are borne by increased taxes on existing residents.
I'm not against growth. I am against promoting it with erroneous implications.
Online 3 The City is getting there
Online 3
The City's identity than just the university, bars, restaurants, and the mall. More industries need to be
allowed to enter play for the City's identity. The tourism industry for example needs to be more than
just touring the university.
Online 3 The market isn't well balanced, there a many lower entry level jobs as well as higher
executive/tenured jobs but not a lot to offer for the middle income range.
Online 3 there are few jobs here outside of the university besides retail
Page 213 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 66
Online 3
There is a lot of economic growth, but it is mainly in low-value strip malls and power centers. Even
though some of the stores are quite high end, they take up a lot of land, and aren't as economically
effective as creating some walkable developments near campus with greater density. The Century
Square development is a good example - even though it is close enough to campus to walk, the
sidewalks are laid out in a way that discourages people from walking there and instead encourages
people to drive. (You have to zigzag around turn lanes and can't walk directly there, and the shops are
surrounded by parking.)
Online 3
There is almost no economic development independent of the university. If it grows we grow. The
problem is that growth at the university does not generate the tax revenue that a business does. All
cities know that residential never pays for itself and that commercial pays for more than it costs the
City. The two have to balance or you grow debt, which is basically what is happening. When the
university grows we get houses, but not the tax revenue we expect in the big balancing act. We need
commerce that grows more tax than growth at the university does. It is also obsurd that we
subsidize new housing at the same time we are going further in debt.
Online 3 There is some diversity in the economy, but more diversity id definitely desirable
Online 3 Too many chain restaurants, some improvement in how new businesses look is noticed but more
needs to be done. Plant fewer Crepe Myrtles--they don't help our enviroment--need native plants.
Online 3 Unsure and unknown.
Online 3 Very anti retail with little to no help and mostly roadblocks
Online 3 We are getting more medical businesses.
Online 4
A lot of fantastic businesses are in college station. The food options may be the most significant
improvement. However, there seems to be more diversity in the industries in BCS. The bio corridor
and other things like that are impressive. College station still needs to diversify beyond the university
though in order to keep graduates in college station.
Online 4 Agreed : typical growth cycle
Online 4
As the university grows, supporting industries are growing and becoming more "year-round" jobs that
are diversified. Still, if you removed the university from the situation, the economy would be
seriously altered.
Online 4 College Station has become a City more focused on establishing opportunities for the people that live
here full time and not just for the students.
Online 4 Enough things to see and do around town that we don't have to travel to the larger cities all the time.
Online 4 Good mix of businesses catering to students and TAMU events and established businesses for
residents. Would like to see more support for senior citizen activities.
Online 4 I am still satisfied that College Station is a great place to work and raise a family.
Online 4 I believe this is happening
Online 4 I don't know as much about this subject as I should. But I believe the City is diversifying the City as
quickly as they can and for the better. Bringing in new business is a must for this growing City.
Online 4
I see lots of new and varied businesses arriving in the area. Some of this growth has come, however,
at the expense of long term, local businesses. The restaurant market, especially, is saturated, and
many local restaurants are struggling.
Online 4
I think Baylor Scott & White instead of Walmart was one of the best decisions in recent history to
support a stable economy and provide the anchor for a distinct district for business and living that
will support additional business growth. The concern is the lack of taxes the hospital pays and that
possibly had something to do with The Med failure as they were a private business and paid more
than $1 million a year in property taxes.
Online 4
I think the economic development team in CS does a very good job of recruiting businesses that make
our economy stronger. I like the variety of shopping and restaurants available and am encouraged to
see all of the primary employers in our area, and the new construction going on everywhere to make
room for growth.
Online 4 I think there should be plenty of opportunities.
Page 214 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 67
Online 4
I'm happy to see the amount of new businesses being developed and brought to College Station, now
the City needs to shift their focus to creating more long term positions by partnering with a middle to
large sized company that would like to relocate its headquarters here. (Possible Aggie alumni that
understands how great the community is?) this will help to bring the population increase to a better
average in terms of age, diversity, and quality stable full time residents.
Online 4
More retail is great, but I would love to see more full time jobs, with good benefits, that can support
buying a house and raising a family. I'm not sure I've seen that, but I do believe the City is working on
attracting it.
Online 4
New businesses and retail shops have moved in and that is good. Unfortunately most of our Mom
and Pop restaurants or business have had to close due to the franchised companies ( restaurants in
particular) moving in.
Online 4
On the last 6 years I saw incredible progress. More still needed to be done, and done business don't
seem as necessary. How many taco places, ER, car washes, and hotels CS really need? Bring on better
restaurants, not fast food. The number of new hotels seem unrealistic to me. Do they have enough
business out of football season? I fear a crash in the future
Online 4
Over the years, CS has added so much in addition to TAMU, although, it will always be the engine that
drives our train. But the City has done a nice job overall in bringing in business & tech jobs. Retailers
& some light manufacturing would be nice. Health care availability has been good with our 2
hospitals and our strong school system & private schools are definitely an educational & economic
plus.
Online 4
The City has done a good job in planning for commercial spaces around campus, and around the
medical centers in town. The City has not presented a recent proposal for an update of the mall area
and the area across from the mall. The mall is deteriorating, and is starting to look sad from the
inside and out. The area across from the mall that used to house the Sears repair center and the old
Toys are Us are both in need of revitalization. The old Sears center is an eyesore that is what greets
participants that use the Wolf Pen Creek area. It is sad that the City holds great events but patrons
must pass by the dilapidated centers to access the park area.
Online 4 The City is great at this . . . almost to the detriment of everything else.
Online 4
The City seems to be doing pretty well economically. Regarding quality of life, make sure the City's
plans for the future consider the quality of life for future generations as well, and therefore include
an ambitious Plan to address climate change.
Online 4 The economic diversity is lacking it'd be nice to see more options for entertainment and food. We've
got a lot of chains, and only Grand Station for anything beyond a movie or bars.
Online 4 The local economy is becoming more diverse and is expanding. A&M is still the main generator but
other areas are thriving as well. The medical community is one very positive example.
Online 4 There are many things to do here.
Online 4 There do seem to be many job possibilities here.
Online 4 There's constant building and progress and I know y'all are working hard to recruit new biotech
conpanies... probably others too, but that's my industry so it's what I'm familiar with.
Online 4 This is a great community with multiple opportunities for cultural, educational, and spiritual
development.
Online 4 We do not like high property taxes.
Online 4 Would be nice to attract some larger corporations but overall a strength
Online 5 All aspects seem addressed
Online 5 Great! We are taxing College Station right out of development. I am sure Bryan is very happy too as
they did this in the 80s-90s and helped College Station grow. Good neighbors!
Online 5 lots of new enterprises, big name companies, etc.
Online 5 This is definitely where the attention has been focused. Century Square has definitely been a positive
addition to our City.
Online 5 This seems like the only thing the City is doing nowadays.
Online 5 We were booming since the last comprehensive Plan, and because of relaxing development
regulations plus providing tax payer paid incentives.
Page 215 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 68
Online
Here's a quiet neighborhood with small, locally-owned independent businesses. Let's rezone, tear
down the old buildings and build over-sized retail and entertainment structures with LOTS of
concrete for parking.
Goal 4.
Parks
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 2
New development not prioritizing existing trees. Inclusive parks and good fun for all. Panic in flood
plain not sufficient or reliable for users. Lack of connectivity to non care drivers to access park. Need
more natural parks rather than activated.
Group
Workshop 2.5 We need more maintenance in our existing parks, specifically on Victoria. They have become a pond
when it rains, parks become flood control not for actual active use
Group
Workshop 3 Diversity and well manicured/kept. Programs successful.
Group
Workshop 3 Park district activities for children more park amenities trails playgrounds good
Group
Workshop 3 Long term maintenance is an issue
Group
Workshop 3
concerns about parks budget, lack of improvement and concerns about miniatous; veterans park is
positive attractions and central park and fun for all; Lincoln center renovations, Lick Creek all positive;
but concerns about sewer expansion. Not enough recreation facilities, specifically baseball and
basketball
Group
Workshop 3
Rebuild Thomas park pool. More parks! Used dilapidated homes, acquire them and turn into pocket
parks. Put trees near sidewalks. Add trails and paths. More green on the maps and connect
development with them. Bike add flexible space (multi-use) at all parks.
Group
Workshop 3 Want so much more. Essential for increase in quality of life
Group
Workshop 3 Lick Creek Park. Lacking in location of parks and how the City is growing. Need to preserve more acres
for parks. Fire, police, and parks are fighting for money. Aging parks need to be maintained.
Group
Workshop 3.5
Thomas Park should have a swimming pool; pay to use soccer fields cancelled by staff for a larger
events; parks are beautiful, but management; Baseball fields - like Franklin Ranch brings in more
events tournaments; good policy to set aside by developers too many pocket parks longmore
inefficient
Group
Workshop 3.5 great improvement in 10 years; draining/green space should not be parks; positive Lick Creek, ???;
Good Shade; need better dog park; parks for activities
Group
Workshop 3.5 nice to have parks w/in neighborhoods. lick creek is hard to walk with the grave rock trails. Sidewalks
are easier. Water drainage is an issue
Group
Workshop 3.5 Abundance of diverse parks. Excellent facilities. Taxes bringing in sports tourism; pools are great.
Some of the parks aren't very functional Strip parks.
Group
Workshop 3.5 Happy with parks no dog parks further south
Group
Workshop 4 Absolutely love Lick Creek Park. The have been very well thought, with the animal prints in the
sidewalk and the trails.
Group
Workshop 4 Headed in right direction; more bike trails; more ??? Lamps
Group
Workshop 4 Parks competing with police and fire for budget; overall very well maintained
Group
Workshop 4
Loss of Thomas pool is going to change focus of water safety - quality of life doesn’t have to make a
profit. More family and teen activities needed - dancing hall for example water park. Protected bike
laws with more than lane paint use "not right turn on red in certain places. Safe way for cyclist to cross
Texas business
Group
Workshop 4 As much green space as possible, plant trees, obtain more parks. Need to consider green
infrastructure and reward of long term impacts.
Page 216 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 69
Group
Workshop 5 Like the number of parks. Parks have good variety. The aquatic dept is limited - loosing pools. Slash
pads locks community interest. Check out Franklin TX parks; need more dog parks
Group
Workshop Need to retain pools in parks. Need to maintain existing parks. Nice diversity of parks and numbers.
Park priority out of sync with the community
Group
Workshop H is busy and hard to use the fields; Parks are doing great
Group
Workshop
More parks good for children activities; parks and rec doing great job; attend often competing
between park activities over whelming; sport over people like fun for all but needs restructure not in
Phase 1 likes Christmas at the part; bathroom facilities head etc be better; updated some parks need
more lighting
Group
Workshop missing diversity; some bad some good
Online 1
College Station has very few parks and true greenways and green spaces compared to other cities.
And the ones it does have are not prioritized by the City - Lick Creek Park and Greenway are being
ruined by no concern for environmental or community impact of construction projects.
Online 1
College Station is sorely lacking in greenways. In most cities of our size and demographic there are
walking and bike trails that provide a safe, clean alternative way to get from place to place.
Connecting established districts like SoCo and Century square with green spaces like Wolf Pen and
Lick Creek through a hike/bike trail along existing drainage easements would bring this community
closer to the level residents expect. We can not afford to overlook what the Brazos River could offer
us long-term. It could be our Riverwalk, or at minimum, a recreational trail like it is in Waco.
Online 1
Currently, our Parks Department is using a very cookie cutter approach to parks. With the exception
of the Fun For All Park (which was funded with donations), they are often making broad decisions that
are neither efficient nor protect the individual integrity of the parks. It also decreases the likelihood
that residents will travel to parks outside their neighborhood when they are all the same. Outside
organized sports, there is also very little for adolescents and young adults to do at our parks. We have
put safety over fun to such an extent that there is nothing for our adolescents to do at most parks.
Online 1
I remember when wolf pen creek was hopping. Now it's three starlights a year if they don't get rained
out.
Thomas Park pool is closed.
Edelweiss area pathways are being crossed by major traffic that requires parents to act as crossing
guards in the mornings so their kids can get to school safely.
Online 1 If it's not the university it receives no attention.
Online 1 Look at comparable sized towns like Lawrence, KS for inspiration... So much more character, so many
more parks. We have a lot of room for growth here.
Online 1 More community pools are needed.
Online 1 Poor maintenance of parks
Online 1 See Lick Creek
Online 1
The woods so necessary for this area's role in flyways for birds, and for other wildlife, are being rapidly
destroyed. Existing parks are being transformed in ways that generate more profit but destroy the
natural environment at great and irreversible cost.
Online 1 there is such a dirth of this in these towns and it is always plays 2nd fiddle to everything else in the
community
Online 1
This is surely College Station's weakest area. There are barely any green spaces bigger than pocket
parks (to do even a 5k run you have to go round them endless times!). Lick Creek is the only "Nature
Park" in the City that I am aware of, and even that now has a new easement through it! There's a real
shortage of wilder green space and running/hiking trails that get further out into the countryside (and
are not just going through new housing developments) especially if you live a bit closer in (as opposed
to Pebble Creek etc). I'm also concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and places for migrating
birds throughout the City. Not to mention that the cutting of trees increases heat in the City! The arts
facilities are also pretty poor. There is no arts cinema, no performing arts venue (where would you go
to see a Shakespeare performance, even, in College Station? - Bryan has slightly better facilities than
College Station, but even that is not impressive).
Page 217 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 70
Online 1 try driving around 2818, Welborn, university, William d fitch, how many green spaces are left?
everywhere there is a new retail shopping center is being built or an apartment complex.
Online 2 Allowing lick creek park to be ransacked. Also the parks all seem to be geared toward sports and not
other uses.
Online 2 Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and other states have much better Greenway and parks.
Online 2
Closure of Thomas Pool and replacement with splash pads. It isn't as if the City didn't know it would
need to rebuild the pool - but made no plans to set aside capital reserves or funds. Another example
of not supporting the older neighborhoods.
Online 2
College Station is a rapidly growing town, so it still mostly has the cultural and entertainment offerings
of a town of only 100,000. It will gradually develop more. But it needs to have more varied
neighborhoods, including greater density, and walkable development near the university, so that more
artistic and cultural uses can find a home. The greenways and parks that do exist are underused
because you have to drive to get to them.
Online 2 More outdoor recreation opportunities are needed
Online 2 Not enough arts or culture. Much more is necessary on this end. I believe these areas will develop
once younger, highly educated people can be attracted to the area
Online 2
Not much going on unless it TAMU related. Bryan has more cultural events than CS. Wolf Pen has
potential, but not utilized for music, cultural and arts. No City murals on CS history. Not many statues
in parks to relate to history or culture of CS. No ties to RR, agriculture. Nothing on highway to
advertise upcoming events. No defining logo or yearly event that CS residents participate in. It seems
CS defaults to TAMU and just lets it dictate event schedule.
Online 2 Rebuild Thomas Pool. Crazy that a town this size in Texas only has two pools. Rebuild Thomas.
Online 2 We need more parks, more greenways, more outdoors for people to wander, and not just pretty areas
that are cleared. We need more trees and undergrowth.
Online 2 We need parks accessible and open to all residents.
Online 3 All attention has been geared towards the Park for Allâ€, which is great, but our neighborhood parks,
such as Thomas, need some attention as well.
Online 3 Developing things to cater to families are improving.
Online 3
First the most part doing OK job with this with the exception of older parks such as Thomas Park.
Need to update the park and maintain it. Need to put the pool back in. There are families that use it
in the surrounding areas.
Online 3
I love the cultural and educational work done at places like Lincoln Center and Lick Creek. These
programs are so important and interesting for the community. This is where you will find an ability to
develop a community center based on communal involvement, not a recycled thinly veiled commercial
development like "Mid-Town".
As far as parks go, most baseball fields are closed for public use (I know, I'm teaching my boy how to
play and we have to drive around to find an open one most times), which I honestly get because we
have so many tournaments and they are good for the City. But, what I don't get it how we can be so
good about taking care of the fields but College Station can't seem to find it within themselves to do
anything about the fire ants around playgrounds and available fields. Generally, Bryan does a much
better job of maintaining their parks and making them friendly for families.
The Thomas Pool fiasco is nothing less than utter stupidity. The reasons for taking it away from that
neighborhood fall flat as a lead pancake. Offering a dog park instead? While there are a lot of college
kids living in that neighborhood, there are still a lot of families with young kids. Kids who need a safe
place to play (I don't take my kids to parks near dog parks, because all too often the folks who bring
their dogs there do not control them properly), a pool to swim in and LEARN to swim in during the
summer, and a point of neighborhood centrality. I'll double down on the pool, Eastgate and College
Hills need a community center, even a small one, there. The apartments on Harvey have become a
haven for crime and the kids there need a safe place with safe influences to escape to. The City
Council has a responsibility for ensuring the future safety and well-being of our town, and that
includes the kids growing up here now. The Thomas Park pool fiasco shows that the City Council
doesn't care about the older, north part of town. It also shows that they are vastly more concerned
Page 218 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 71
with the upper middle-class to upper-class white folks who live in south College Station than they are
their middle-class and poor citizens who live in the north part of town (I'm white, for the record).
Online 3 It's pretty good.
Online 3
Neutral. We do a good job with parks, but community events are too crowded with no room for
expansion. Not enough for middle school/high school students to do. Not enough public pool/water
access.
Online 3 Parks are the saving grace of College Station, but so much more could be accomplished.
Online 3
Spending $25 M in a YMCA where rich kids will still have to pay $400 to use it doesn't make sense.
Why is the City in this business. We are also defunding existing neighborhood parks that are actually
an integral element in the character and fabric of our older neighborhoods. If leadership decides to
leave any part of our City behind there will be a price to pay.
Online 3 The amount and accessibility of the parks is wonderful. The upkeep of our parks is lack luster. Though
fighting the heat is a tough job.
Online 3 The City needs another competition size pool that's open to the public. Thomas park pool needs to be
replaced.
Online 3
The City parks and greenways are our only City attractions to citizens and visitors (excluding the
University) and these are exclusively from years past, except for Lick Creek Park which has been well
done.
Online 3 The existing parks are nice, but they cater heavily to children and athletics, and not necessarily to
those interested in nature/wildlife/hiking.
Online 3
The number of parks in the City is enough. College Station is obsessed with installing City parks, and
the diversity of the parks just doesn't seem like it's there. The diversity of the parks just isn't quite
there. The City seems to be obsessed with sports leading to more athletic parks than any other kind of
parks.
Online 3
There are some decent parks in town with things like basketball courts and drinking fountains, and the
number of parks is really nice. I'm not sure if there's anything approaching culture/art in town that
isn't immediately connected to the university though.
Online 3 There needs to be a more robust park system. And Splash pads. The phase one off 6 was a nice start.
Online 3 This question is hard to answer as stated. I believe there should more entertainment options for
young professionals and less emphasis on parks.
Online 3 we have some wonderful parks. Lick creek is a treasure. the greenbelt through midtown is wonderful.
Central Park needs a lot of help!
Online 3 We need more parks for kids, there is not so much to do with the in here!
Online 4
Can we maintain our older parks as well as new ones? A City with neighborhood parks is always a
winner! Parks that are unique stand out as well. Every park doesn't have to have the same standard
equipment & use. Some may have more biking trails, splash pads, tennis courts, etc. But, overall, we
are pleased with our parks & appreciate the holiday lighting at Central Park every year. It appears
efforts are made to preserve native trees & wildlife.
Online 4
College Station has a lot of parks and has done very well with some of them like Wolf Pen Creek and
Lick Creek Park. However, there are very few greenways in this area and they are not connected at all.
We have Lemontree Park, Wolf Pen Creek trails, the trail at Pebble Creek and the loop around Bee
Creek. There are thousands of bikes in this City and many people ride to work or class. Accidents
involving motorists and cyclists happen too often even with bike lanes and especially because the
town gets new 18 year olds every fall driving on unfamiliar roads. If our City had a path cut out that
ran from South College Station to the university that was totally protected from the road, we could
avoid a lot of the problems we've had especially during the busy traffic times. Less people would use
cars and thereby stop the emission of more greenhouse gasses. Instead of waiting for our City to grow
bigger and then introducing a large greenway, this City could build a greenway along with the growth
in an unprecedented way.
Online 4
College STation parks are really nice, unless you don't do organized sports. There are VERY few parks
set up for just sitting and enjoying nature. They are organized around softball, tennis, etc. We need
more parks that are green spaces in neighborhoods. Even taking a few vacant lots and turning them
into small green spaces with benches and areas to enjoy outside would be great. That's the good
thing about Thomas Park, for example -- great City park for multi-use activities in the one end of that
park. Also, would vote to put a pool back in there. The north end needs one -- the others are
overcrowded and it is too far for kids to go on their bikes to get to the others.
Page 219 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 72
Online 4 Could use more of these aspects
Online 4
Decently done however, with expansion, I think another dog park would be very appropriate as
College Station is home to people who are very dog focused and active, but also a big "state: park if
you will. There is no gorgeous park area here where people can picnic, walk dogs, hangout and bar b
q, relax, have family gatherings, etc. that should become a center point for people on weekends
looking to relax with friends, families dogs, etc.
Online 4 Great events and use of public spaces. Not sure if library is part of Parks department, but the length of
time it took to re-open was not good planning.
Online 4 It's time for the City to focus less on this subject and start addressing MUCH more pressing issues
Online 4 Parks get plenty of focus. How about roads which are used more.
Online 4 Parks have been kept up and there are plenty of them.
Online 4 Some of the best parks. Having lived in multiple cities, states, and countries, the parks here are above
par.
Online 4 The City has a lot of parks, I would like to see more parks that are meant for use by the residents.
Parks like Lick Creek Park, and the walkway off of Barron Road.
Online 4 The facilities at the current time are minimal. ie. The buildings for Senior citizens. They are adequate
for things like lectures, games, etc. However, for the exercise, dance, etc. do not have proper areas.
Online 5 Amazing parks and rec!
Online 5 green space is great as well as the cultural events that are available in the area
Online 5 I've noticed new programs going on at our City parks, and the recreation magazine that I get via email
is helpful to me to stay connected with these types of activities or opportunities within our City
Online 5 Our parks department is great! Really love the movement to add more dog parks near homes for easy
access and the Fun for All playground at central park.
Online 5 Very important! As these are outlet opportunities ... enables overall well-being of the City
Online 5 We have relatively good parks
Online 5 We love the free concerts. The parks are great.
Online 5
Yes, only bc the Central Park is finally being improved. It's been a long time coming! Very happy about
it. It'd be nice to have a better bigger and better splash pad in CS. Will there be one at the newly
renovated park?
Goal 5.
Mobility
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 1 George Bush drive busy; plans for improving travel
Group
Workshop 1 public transportation system; get tAMU/BC and University to come together poor walkability; traffic has
gotten worse; do the road after the development infrastructure terrible
Group
Workshop 2
New development not prioritizing existing trees. Inclusive parks and good fun for all. Panic in flood
plain not sufficient or reliable for users. Lack of connectivity to non care drivers to access park. Need
more natural parks rather than activated.
Group
Workshop 2 prioritize bile lanes/ improve safety
Group
Workshop 2 Event management of traffic. Better access to mass transit (rapid bus transit.)
Group
Workshop 2 We build up to keep up not get ahead. 3rd lane on 6. Texas Ave. Deacon and 6 with the island looks
beautiful
Group
Workshop 2 Overpasses; remaining could not read????
Page 220 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 73
Group
Workshop 2
Parking /lack of parking alternative modes (busing/cycling) Brazos Transit (no est routes, times, covered
waiting areas) behind in thoroughfare dev. Resident only parking in neighborhoods and major
thoroughfares, ped. And bicycle safety (Mont Claire, Welch, etc)
Group
Workshop 2
The state controls a lot of the roads. Not enough planning ahead. 2818 development, thought there
would be no direct access to 2818, and HOA it's a nightmare. Should be no direct access. The RR
impacts traffic and mobility. There should be no u-turns on major roads; Texas, University, Haney,
2818. Mobility has been declining and quality of life is suffering. Double travel time. Roads aren't
planned for future growth. George Bush and Wellborn improvements. Can TAMU change schedule to
increase traffic flow? More flexibility. More bike/pedestrian facilities, 6 months out of the year is too
hot. Move alternate modes of transportation are needed.
Group
Workshop 2
Dexter/Bryce Park speed limits need to be enforced and bikeways need to be connected. Happy about
changes coming to SH6. Is Brazos transit effective? Needs to be for low income riders. Pedestrian
crossing at SH6 are a concern.
Group
Workshop 2
Students want to bike and scooter to school more to reduce traffic. Delineate bike lanes with grade
separations, visual buffers, bike lines stop abruptly and are not contiguous. Make the railroad a
passenger train.
Group
Workshop 2 bike lanes; connection
Group
Workshop 2
University & Texas, George Bush roads around campus on gamedays. Railroad tracks (2) Roadway
maintenance an issue (2) enforcement/accidents with people/ pedestrians. Education for biking training
proper timing of street lights.
Group
Workshop 2
No Integration between public and TAMU transportation. Bike lanes are in the street, not safe.
Protected bake lanes are need, especially with on street parking. New development don’t connect
bike/pedestrian connectivity. Hollerman & 2818 not safe intersections. From George Bush, South
parking on the street has gotten out of control. Reserve parking from one side to increase safety.
Safety, Safety, Safety.
Group
Workshop 2.5
HWY is too slow during max use times. Public trans. Almost non existent for those disabled. more
services roads not keeping up with growing neighborhoods. Transportation should be easier to use,
especially services for disable.
Group
Workshop 2.5
Bike trails are chopped up (Lakeway) Routes don’t meet have more comprehensive bike ped plans.
Need bike lanes not much for scooters either - Bike lanes diminishing not walkable Uni has done a
good job for bus routes. Brazos county bus system hasn’t been well publicized. B Trans need
transportation - Bike lanes should be separated.
Group
Workshop 2.8
Bottlenecks around wellborn. I can bike faster than I can drive. Need more alternative modes of
transportation. TXDOT has underfunded projects in the City. More funding is coming but its delayed ;
what do we do until then? Safety is a concern amount our crashed each year. More creative solutions to
deal with safe driving.
Group
Workshop 3
Has experienced other similar-sized City that have less of an issue with mobility and transportation.
Compared to Houston or Austin, traffic in college station isn't bad. Existing infrastructure isn't planned
for future development. Development at TX and University was poorly blamed. Holleman and Texas is
grid locked when TAMU classes let out. ??? is always congested.
Group
Workshop 3
Its all relative - compared to other communities all pavement determined in conjunction with TXDOT;
I've seen better constructed Bake lanes; systems work well for own vehicle; w/o car very difficult cant
get to grocery "food deserts"; infrastructure barriers. I don't let my daughter bike cant get to Bryan on
bike; bike poorly maintained some of the cracks bigger than the wheel
Group
Workshop 3
Need improved bike facilities; upgraded maintenance to roads needed. Need improved water facilities
along bike routes. Need to follow pattern of strong …to uns, mixed use/dense development. Sprawling
development to promote walkable/bikeable areas rather than...
Group
Workshop 3
public transportation system areas/ hours limited to lower SES. Need expansion services and better
coordination with Texas A&M. More multimodal efforts to reduce congestion; safety concerns with
uturn signs; need no uturn signs; more T A&M students = more congestion. Lack of communication
with City to anticipate increase in traffic. more state to medium size cities. education persuasion use
public transportation or to stagger peak home incentivize. lack of connectivity between users. bike /
peds/ auto
Group
Workshop 3
TIA are useless and development drive. Public transportation is limited and difficult to catch. Need
more robust extensive bike/ped facilities. Connecting schools and neighborhoods. Need room for bike
lines. Bike lanes should be considered in the ETJ. North/South direction paths/roads are limited more
signage/education about sharing the road
Page 221 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 74
Group
Workshop 3 George Bush & Harvey off set 29th & Tarrow connection are poor and cause congestion. Lack of
alignment
Group
Workshop 3.5
1-2 Traffic has gotten very bad - Bus routes are terrible bike racks are needed near bus stops.
University moves ??? Students well but the City not so much. Lots of accidents. Intersections need more
lights. Compared to Houston/Dallas this is great! During Christmas and summer its great. Growth v
Traffic - game days traffic are much better ??? the traffic Timing better
Group
Workshop bike laws; bringing more central location for bike paths besides the university; sidewalks need more as
they dead ends; ADA accessibility; more buses are needed w/ shelters; park and ride areas
Group
Workshop
Bad traffic; streets need better maintenance esp. in older neighborhoods, potholes esp north of 2818;
light syncing not good. Widening Wellborn Rd Holleman Or bad; historical areas fallen behind;
neighborhoods not built for size; Fire/ ambulance cant get through
Group
Workshop bike lanes in middle of street bad; Dexter used major collection
Online 1 are you kidding me about improved mobility, the traffic problem is getting worst.
Online 1 Bike and running paths are needed. Start with a goal of 25 miles of bike and running paths weaving all
over with multiple off and on places. Look at Sioux Falls SD as an example.
Online 1 Does not exist as described.
Online 1 Getting around this town at rush hour is terrible. 2818 is really awful, not to mention University and
Texas Ave. I would never feel safe riding a bike in any major roadways.
Online 1
Haven't seen any "multimodal" transportation near where I live. Well, unless you count walking. Here's
a thought: at least align the lanes from one side of an intersection to the other. And STOP permitting
gigantic apartment complexes to be built on 2 lane country roads like Arrington that are clearly
inadequate to handle the resultant traffic.
Online 1 I have mobility concerns and if I were unable to drive, I would lose my independence. There is no viable
alternative here.
Online 1 I laughed when I read "well-connected multimodal transportation system" in regards to how its being
addressed today. It hardly exists. The development in this area would be a great thing!
Online 1
I think we are too big of a town to have the left turn yields be longer than left turn green arrows. You
have too many people pulling out in front of traffic on a left turn yield because they are seeing only 3 or
4 cars get through the left turn arrows. Especially in peak traffic hours including game days.
Online 1 If there are options other than driving your personal vehicle, I am not aware of them.
Online 1 It's all about cars and trucks. Bike lanes are limited, sidewalks are not to be found except in newer
residential areas. Public transport, except for university students, is unavailable.
Online 1
Lack of public transit in a community that is inching closer to urban and further away from suburban is
detrimental to the growth of the community. There could definitely be more sidewalks, especially wide
sidewalks to accommodate more than 2 people walking/riding side-by-side. Aggie Spirit buses and
bikes will only take us so far. The Brazos Transit District runs are a joke.
Online 1
Mobility for... ? People? Bikes? Cars, ok, yes, that's fine. But if you don't have a car, or you want to walk
for fitness or as a lifestyle, mobility is very very difficult. If you're handicapped, ditto. I've watched
visitors staying at hotels, as well as residents, risking their safety trying to cross University Drive, Texas
Ave, Southwest Parkway, etc, etc, on foot. I was nearly run over whole pushing my baby across Harvey
at Dartmouth/Munson. I had to RUN with a stroller to get across. I did that once, but I had the luxury of
choosing another route. Some people have to cross at that wretched intersection daily.
Online 1
Mobility issues come with population growth. As long as the University is the ONLY job in town, traffic
will continue to flow in that direction. You can not build wide enough roads to accommodate traffic
headed to one location at the same time every day. 8am and 5pm.
Online 1 no bus system in place aside from a&m buses
Online 1 Not at all. The streets are labeled something they were never intended to be - collectors. Just because
a street is there doesn't mean you should drive cut thru traffic there.
Online 1 Nothing meaningful for separate walking/bicycle paths. It is unsafe to just say "here's a narrow strip on
the side of a busy street" and what paths we have don't go into the university
Page 222 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 75
Online 1
Only geared for cars. Eldest kid has been hit twice and youngest once while obeying the law on bikes.
Public transportation is a joke. Sidewalks are cracked/broken or nonexistent in many areas, parking on
both sides of busy streets (glade for example) causes young kids to be weaving in an out of traffic on
bikes because the sidewalk is a nightmare to ride on. No one gets tickets for parking in "no stopping,
standing, parking" areas (say, south knoll elementary). This town is for drivers only, and its risky...no
feeders to apartments on 2818 near holleman...that area is crazy...and its not the only place.
Online 1
Oversized trucks owned by students parked on residential streets making it difficult for two-way traffic.
Vehicles parking across from a single driveway, making homeowner unable to easily back out of the
single driveway.
Online 1 Stop forcing everyone to turn right everywhere. Stop with the traffic lights.
Online 1 Street parking, limited biking options, and underutilized multimodal transportation offerings
Online 1 Students living in the main campus should not have cars. The bus routes should cover more area and
be frequent enough so the population would use them more. Traffic on Texas and hwy 6 are absurd.
Online 1
The City is constantly encouraging pedestrian and bike users bit have not provided system wide
mandated training. A lot of these people think that the kids are required to stop at their more so like on
campus. Im tired of people getting killed or injured.
Online 1 The public transportation is all but non existent.
Online 1 There is no mobility in College Station other than autos. Why can't the City reach out to A&M to
increase pressure on students to use buses, scooters, and bikes?
Online 1 This community would be very well served by light rail and/or by bus service that extended further out.
Online 1 To many Aggie shakes making almost impossible to get up and down roads...
Online 1 Traffic congestion has reached crisis levels due to near-sightedness of City planning, and follow-
through.
Online 1 Traffic grows worse every day, neighborhoods become cut throughs, even basic things such as
coordinated signal timing is not addressed.
Online 1 Traffic has become impossible during certain hours.
Online 1 traffic is a disaster.
Online 1
Traffic is bad, and is forced onto major roads because there are very few smaller crossroads that
people can take to relieve congestion. The train crossing at George W. Bush and Wellborn creates bad
traffic snarls. It would be nice if 2818 could be made into a true loop without lights with entrances and
exits like the Villa Maria intersection so that people can quickly get across town. Please bring back the
red light cameras, or provide more police to stake out red light runners, this community has a bad
culture of running red lights.
Online 1
Traffic is pretty awful for a City our size. Roads across town are limited in number and tend to be filled
with school zones, stop signs, and lights that aren't synchronized. Roundabouts in place of stop signs
could improve flow and please, please, please synchronize lights so that if you drive the speed limit on
major roads (Texas, 2818, Fitch), you can make most signals without stopping.
In most cities of our size and demographic there are walking and bike trails that provide a safe, clean
alternative way to get from place to place. Connecting established districts like SoCo and Century
square with green spaces like Wolf Pen and Lick Creek through a hike/bike trail along existing drainage
easements would bring this community closer to the level residents expect.
A light rail system that parallels the existing railway from Milican to downtown Bryan with a spur down
WD Fitch would help alleviate traffic and provide true alternatives.
Online 1
Traffic is terrible for such a small town. There is no multimodal transportation unless you're on campus.
Bus stops are few and far between. Bike lanes get filled by cars trying to turn bc there's not enough
lanes created at intersections during peak traffic hrs.
Online 1 Vehicular traffic is slow. Bicycle faster but dangerous.
Online 1 What transportation system other than Aggie buses.
Online 1
What? This question is so filled with jargon as to be difficult to understand. We have roads. We don't
really have any useful mass transit. Our roads are becoming more and more congested, and the City
keeps building barriers to "control" how we can use the roads. It is progress that the lights near
campus are now giving pedestrians their own turn.
Page 223 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 76
Online 1 You have to be kidding.
Online 2
Because the City is still pretty small, it has managed to avoid having any serious traffic congestion
problems. However, apart from students going from a few neighborhoods to the university, there are
very few options for anyone who wants to travel by any means other than an automobile, so traffic is
likely to get prohibitive very soon. Austin has followed this automobile-centric growth pattern, and has
achieved big City traffic problems while still being just barely a million people. College Station will be
there in a few decades if it doesn't Plan ahead. We need more development that encourages cycling
and walking, and better space for scooters and bikeshare and other options that don't require as much
land as automobiles.
Some day Bryan and College Station should start running a transit system that is designed to attract
riders (as opposed to one that serves as a very last resort for people who have absolutely no other
options). There should be a major bus route up and down Texas Ave, and there should be greater
residential and commercial density along Texas Ave to encourage more car-free living.
Online 2 Bike planning has been good. Enhanced bus system would be valuable for low-income residents.
Online 2 Bypass is awful and can not handle traffic.
Online 2 Cars only. Buses are schools or TAMU. No carpooling lots. If there were central lots for CS people that
work in Bryan or go to school at Blinn would be utilized.
Online 2 City not addressing much towards this goal
Online 2 Good effort on bike trails and paths. Very little planning around increasing use of public transportation.
Growth is fueling more driving and traffic problems.
Online 2
Huge room for improvement. The default is to design for cars, when alternative transport methods
should be encouraged instead. Improving bike infrastructure with safe protected bike lanes (especially
at intersections!!) is needed and would hugely reduce traffic and congestion around campus. It is not
enough to paint a stripe on the straightaways that just disappears at intersections - there need to be
protected bike lanes or bike/ped paths that connect through the City and to campus. More people will
use bikes if they feel safe.
Online 2 I am unaware of any way to get around except by car. Why isn't there a passenger train to Houston??
Online 2 I live very close to several parks with good walking trails and cannot safely walk or bike to either one. I
must get in my car to walk to them.
Online 2
I understand that many streets are under construction, but too many are at one time. One area needs
to be focused on to get it done fast instead of 10 at a time. Also, streets need to be expanded before
the growth happens. Wellborn, Hwy 6, Texas, etc needs to be expanded and tended too now before al
the new growth comes in.
Online 2 Lack of safe alternative pedestrian paths and bike lanes away from A&M campus, although the
improvements on University have helped, there needs to be more
Online 2
Mobility is degrading rapidly due to a lack of advanced planning for traffic growth. Too few arterials to
handle traffic volume and the arterials we do have are often only 3 lanes instead of 5. Too much high
density dwellings along major arterials, for example Holleman Dr can not take any more development
on either end it is already too congested for a 3 lane road.
Online 2
Multimodal is the key word above. We have a limited public transportation system and rely heavily on
the university to help with students to and from campus. Better choices for SAFE walking and cycling
are needed and would be used. Simple things like making sure that ALL traffic lights easily detect
cyclists would be a good start. Getting off of a bicycle to hit a button is not workable it is almost like
asking someone to get out of a car to activate the light. NO one would ever consider asking a motorist
to inconvenience themselves in this manner. Truly integrate the different parts of the system to make
them easy to use for people using all types of transportation. There are many great examples in cities
throughout the US.
Online 2 Need local and regional long-range mobility.
Online 2 No.. It's almost like driving in Houston. The City is slow at creating infrastructure bc they are more
concerned with being conservative with can be built
Page 224 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 77
Online 2
Public transportation could stand to be much better in this City. There are people who live here without
cars and they can't go to work on Saturday or Sunday because the transportation does not run on
those days. If they get off work after 7pm, they have to walk home or catch a ride. The people who are
living here without cars are not working 8-5pm jobs, they work at restaurants and retail, places that are
open later than 7pm and are busy on the weekends. Tell me why our public transit system does not
cater to those who are using it the most? Our transportation is not multimodal, it is designed for the
most efficient use of cars. It is a dangerous system for cyclists and it is a dysfunctional system for
buses. Honestly, our transportation system leans on A&M Transportation services too much. Go look at
places like Portland, Oregon or Denver, Colorado and see the difference that useful public
transportation has made on their cities and create a system that uses the strengths from those
transportation systems to uniquely fit the needs of our City.
Online 2
The corner of Rock Prairie and Hwy6 went through a major renovation that did very little to help the
traffic increase due the the Scott and White Center, the CSISD Bus Barn on Rock Prarie, the TP Dumping
ground on Rock Prairie and now the car dealerships that are being built along the frontage roads.
There are regular accidents at this corner and it is unsafe for children to cross HWY 6 at this point to
access Bachman and CSMS on bikes.
Online 2 There are very few bike lanes and when cars drive in them no tickets are issues. No e-scooters are in
town.
Online 2 There HAS been limited progress on adding bike lanes and giving bicyclists the ability to trigger a green
light.
Online 2
Those without cars can't go very far from home base. I'm fortunate to be able to drive where I need to
go, but if I had to rely on public transportation, I would be very limited in shopping, recreation and
church choices.
Online 2
Transportation will always be a significant issue for College Station. There is a long term aversion to
through streets going back to the City's founding. The City has relied on the state for major
thoroughfares such as Texas, University, Wellborn, Rudder, Fitch and Mitchell are all state roads. To my
knowledge, there is only one City street that goes from one City limit to another. Rock Prairie Road.
Also, all new neighborhoods are purposely designed to discourage traffic flow. Over the years, these
designs have created an extremely inefficient traffic flow that results in major impacts on the few
thoroughfares that exist. Solutions will be extremely expensive and unpopular.
Online 2 We need mass transit, not more highways for more cars. Less cars, please, and better ways to get from
place to place safely.
Online 2
We need more belts of walking/biking paths through the City going towards TAMU. If we could
establish these (perhaps taking some older buildings and creating pathways if necessary) we may be
able to get some of the cars off the streets. Right now, we have to ride bikes in the streets once we get
off campus, and it is not safe. Many people park in bike lanes and in some neighborhoods, bike lanes
disappear in favor of on street parking. I would ride more if I felt safe off campus riding a bike. These
greenbelts could also connect parks making it safer for kids to bike to/from homes to parks.
Online 2
When was the last time I saw City transportation? Hmm, I think it was about 7 years ago. I am currently
immobile due to an injured knee and a broken toe, on different sides. Yet there is no public
transportation near here, nothing to help, and yes, I'm within City limits.
Online 2
With the influx of so many students into both towns that they cannot keep up with the infrastructures
needed to make ease and safe movement through town. They do the best but the university just keeps
overwhelming it
Online 2
Yikes. Unfortanely this is one of the biggest issues in our community. The students use and have access
to a great busing system that runs all around town, but what about the rest of the residents?
Additionally, the traffic is horrendous and is not able to accommodate the amount of drivers on some
of the roads.
Online 3
2818 and wellborn rd are both over used and the design of the City has made those areas increasingly
difficult to traverse during 'rush hour'.
Great job on the new University pedestrian signals though, I feel MUCH safer crossing with the new
setup.
Online 3 A&M provides bus service but then students use City's Parks lots as a Park & Ride lot
Page 225 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 78
Online 3
All for being sensitive to the surrounding land use so this can always be improved however the bypass
needs to be addressed. The traffic is terrible especially during the morning and afternoon commute. I
know it was recently under construction with the ramps being moved, but something needs to be done
about the lanes there needs to be added lanes to help with the flow of traffic. Living here as long as I
have, I am accustomed to taking all of the back roads to move through the City.
Online 3 Getting better but still room for improvement eg George Bush and Wellborn
Online 3
I can't speak much to what it was like before. As a person who works with many individuals in poverty,
the latest update to transportation has been a downgrade in quality in their eyes. The bike lanes have
much improved and I would like to continue seeing more!
Online 3 I don't see an issue with any transportation so far.
Online 3 I don't understand the question.
Online 3
I feel like 6 is less safe after the on/off ramps have changed. Turning onto Graham off ramp issues, on
ramp issues with rock prairie and cutting over to Texas Ave. Further up going North on 6 I have had to
slam on my breaks multiple times and I have no idea why. This happens in the morning, night and
randomly in between. Getting onto 30 from Fitch is extremely dangerous, there is more traffic going
both directions on 30 and to turn into traffic going 70-80 mph.
Online 3
I have mixed feelings about this issue. Multimodal seems to mean busses and bikes in addition to the
usual cars. That is all good in concept but I see a lot of bike route infrastructure (stripes and signs) that
are in places where there is no bicycle traffic. I see trail systems that don't get much use. There is a LOT
of infrastructure that cost someone a lot of money and needs money dedicated to maintenance. These
multimodal facilities take money away from the City's maintenance of pavement in older parts of town.
Busses. A&M's shuttles are effective. Brazos Transit's busses seem to have low ridership but they may
be effective. The biggie in my opinion is School Busses. Our public schools operate expensive bus
systems yet the biggest traffic snarls I see are at schools in the morning and afternoon. Do parents not
consider those busses safe to ride? Do pick up and drop off locations encourage ridership? Does the
bus pick up so early before school that it seems unreasonable? There seems to be some room for
improvement here that could reduce traffic congestion.
Online 3 I'm not sure what is meant here so I really can't answer your question
Online 3 It seems like the mobility planners can never get out ahead of the increase in population. Always
seems like upgrades to roads are after-the-fact.
Online 3
Lack of more north/south travel addressed in goal # 1, keeping in mind, that when more natural area is
left intact, the more attractive, quieter & cooler, our City will be. Ex. nicely done on areas of WD Fitch.
Please buffer neighborhoods with existing screen of trees where possible. No one wants to live with
business lights & traffic in their back yard.
Just as on 2818 Harvey Mitchell, Wellborn should not have any blinking left turn lights. The volume &
speed of traffic & cars pulling U turns is dangerous.
Online 3 Lack of vision and planning for the future allows for challenges for development.
Online 3 Opting for mixed-use pathways INSTEAD of bicycle lanes has a negative impact on bicyclist (and
pedestrian) safety.
Online 3
Particularly students should be encouraged to utilize public transportation and public transportation
should be expanded. The cost for that should be charged to the university, which in turn can add a fee
to the tuition.
Additionally instead of de-risking more and more roads and intersections through expensive
reconfiguration, there should be a greater effort towards education students how to participate in
traffic safely.
Online 3 Pedestrian safety is a bug issue right now and I think the City needs to enforce texting and driving more
to eliminate pedestrian accidents. Red light cameras should also come back.
Online 3 Places should be marked by a sign or seat to indicate places one should wait for a bus. Few people
know anything about the system. Most know that little to nothing about the transportation in this area.
Online 3 Priority is given to cars for most places.
Online 3 Public transit is inconvenient so I'm part of the problem of traffic.
Page 226 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 79
Online 3 Public transportation could be better. Not sure if it was the City, County, or State, but the choice of tar
and gravel for Wellborn rd was a poor choice.
Online 3 Really need to address the traffic problem on 2818 between George Bush D and Holleman Dr
Online 3 Still a LOT of single commuters (not unique to CS)
Online 3 The bus system here is essential only for the university, we need a system that helps out the rest of the
population.
Online 3 the south side of town is way behind, but we are catching up.
Online 3
There are buses, bikes, and routes for all types of transit, but some of the block lengths (especially
around the university) are very long and make the City feel less walkable. Also, there are areas (in
northgate and eastgate in particular) where there are only sidewalks on one side of the road or where
they just disappear entirely. I once walked from campus to Wolf Pen Creek park and there were not
sidewalks the entire way and I felt unsafe walking near the traffic.
Online 3
There aren’t very many opportunities to increase the usability of the transportation system. The
established roadways don’t have many options for increasing traffic flow due to the limitations of the
existing structures in college station. Not sure there is much the City can do other than increase the
appeal of and create more opportunities for public transport.
Online 3
There has been improvement to sidewalks, especially for people in wheelchairs; the cycle lanes are not
bad though there could be better road marking, better traffic light sensitivity to cyclists etc. There's no
bus service except the university one (which is great if you live in some places and useless in others).
Online 3
There needs to be better mobility in place to help with traffic congestion - adding more bus routes,
making more bike lanes, etc. Working with TAMU and CSISD would also be ideal to help start a
campaign encouraging more people (parents, students, AND employees) to carpool, walk, bike, or ride
the bus.
Online 3
There needs to be more bike/walk lanes in south CS. It's so dangerous that people are biking down
roads where drivers are going 55 mph. I'm surprised nobody has been hit yet on the main road
between Forest Ridge Elementary and Pecan Trail Intermediate.
Online 3
This is one area where the City must move more quickly. Hour population is growing by leaps and
bounds. It is no longer a City that gets much smaller during the summer. For various reasons, more
and more students stay twelve months of the year. The work on the entire length of Texas and the
entire length of University can just be the beginning. There are so many other areas that need to be
addressed. The farther south the City grows, the more the need.
Online 3
Traffic is bad, but I think that's the university's fault for accepting too many students more than it's
anything that the City has done. I would like to see some more traffic circles at existing intersections in
town. Only being required to yield at a traffic circle and not necessarily stop can make traffic flow
through intersections more efficiently. Also, would it be possible to make Holleman Dr go under the
train tracks at the intersection with Wellborn Rd so traffic going straight can bypass the tracks and
Wellborn entirely?
Online 3
Traffic is becoming a problem, and unfortunately, it's very challenging to address the issue of traffic
once it's already begun to be an such an apparent issue. Please take action now, as quickly and
strategically as possible.
Online 3 Traffic is getting heavier all the time. Existing roadways should be improved to address this issue.
Online 3 Traffic is getting horrendous there needs to be more options for travel and increased accessibility to
bike lanes.
Online 3
Unless you are a student, there's really one mode of transportation - cars. I think the traffic in our town
is not bad and is manageable. A 15-20 min rush hour is nothing to cry over. I know the City is installing
more bike lanes, but to many they seem pointless as hardly anyone uses them. But that's not the City's
fault. Perhaps it would help entice those who may ride bikes for transportation to present and market a
network of bikes lanes and where they can get you to and from. I'm not sure we need multi-modal
transportation at our size.
Online 3 We need to come up with something for better road/transportation. HWY 6 becomes a parking lot
headed north in the mornings and south in the evenings.
Online 3
We're not in bad shape right now, but we need a different vision as to what we need to be in 10 years.
We can’t solve this with wider roads. We need to concentrate the students toward the open land to the
SW and at the same time provide unique and effective transportation to the area. If that is a feature
like light rail that would help create a progressive and cutting edge (and cool) reputation for A&M, I
Page 227 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 80
think they would help for a change. Anyway, we cannot solve the problem that is coming without being
bold, and I don’t see anyone doing that.
Online 4
Although not the City's responsibility, Hwy 6 will need to be expanded soon. The streets are well
conditioned throughout most of the City and much better than other cities. I do not use public
transportation so I cannot comment on it.
Online 4 Consider diverting funding of mass transit (i.e. Brazos Transit, paratransit) to subsidized private
ridesharing (Lyft/Uber)
Online 4 Except for the congested parking around the stealth dorms.
Online 4 Good progress on bike lanes and sidewalks. More connectivity is still needed. Public transportation still
lacking.
Online 4
It's really good for students. The Texas A&M bus system is imperfect, but it works well and helps a lot of
people get around without needing to add yet another car to roads with limited space. The bike paths
on some roads are nice as well.
Online 4
More freeways need to be installed. While the east, the southwest, and southern areas seem to have
good freeways to get around both morning and afternoon utilizing Highway 6, Wellborn Road leading
south, and William D Fitch Parkway, the most clogged road both morning and afternoon is Harvey
Mitchell Parkway when the long semesters of the university are in session. In more than a decade to
come, Interstate 14 will follow Highway 6/190 south into Bryan before turning northeast toward
Interstate 45. I believe that Harvey Mitchell Parkway should be upgraded and become Interstate 114
starting at it's northern terminus in North Bryan, continue south to Harvey Mitchell's southern
terminus, and then follow Highway 6 back northwest to end at Highway 6/190 where 190 turns
northeast. By making Harvey Mitchell, and part of Highway 6 interstate standard, it can help to reduce
stalled traffic in both morning and afternoon rush hours. Interstate 114 also has the potential to attract
more businesses to College Station alone based on the fact that the City would have an interstate.
Online 4 Need to have a better transit system from Downtown Bryan to TAMU campus.
Online 4 Side walks need to be built from the Windwood neighborhood to Sams.
Online 4
The town has a lot of traffic, but that is because we are growing so fast. I think TXDOT and the City are
doing the best they can. They seem to be constantly trying to improve. I do find it weird that we seem
to resurface roads when they are already in good condition. Maybe we could save money if we waited
longer to resurface some of the neighborhood roads that are already in good shape.
Online 5
I think there are very few problem areas with regard to transportation. However, south College Station
will have some severe growing pains if streets are not widened and created before development gets
out there.
Online 5 I've noticed more mobility focused efforts on building sidewalks and parking lots
Online 5 Yes, for drivers and residents and businesses... safety and ease
Online I don't see much besides cars and A&M busses.
Goal 6. Municipal facilities & community services
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 2 more for seniors; little for children; 20's and 30' little to do
Group
Workshop 3 New City hall a plus; more family facilities and park district program options; more shaded
options; more for families vs college students
Group
Workshop 3
Development should pay for itself. Reasons for rezoning for increases in business how doesn’t
impact the City as a whole; cost benefit net gain should be looked at. Rezoning should be looked
at more closely. The infrastructure and impacts of development should be looked at holistically;
mobility taxes, more strategic impact study. A lot of public infrastructure is ????? City, so not
enough control
Group
Workshop 3 Water and power on west side in need; Aging population need focus;
Page 228 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 81
Group
Workshop 3
The response to growth has been lacking because we don’t want to burden taxpayers w/raising
taxes to maintain facilities, and then we end up with needing to accommodate a new police
station and City hall at one time because the buildings are filling and it requires lots of money last
minute and cant afford fire state #7. We need to be competitive w/salaries to retain people.
Group
Workshop 3 Recycling access. Need a car to recycle (2) multimodal efforts need to be incorporated to facilities
Group
Workshop 3.5 Jobs for disabled; coordinate efforts for permits slow down school related constructions
Group
Workshop 3.5
Lack places (indoor) for concerts - always university. We need to maintain and improve facilities.
Don’t take them away, Fire, Police doing well, Pools not so much need concert venues. Shade
areas needed.
Group
Workshop 3.5
Need more amenity type City faculties we've made improvements were still not keeping up. Teen
center became senior center. City hall is a disaster. Library finally got caught up; but took over.
Need a centralized police force combine Brazos College Station Bryan and TAMU. Emergency
responders do coordinate and are a model for how it should be done. Response time is still
suffering. Property tax used to pay CSPD. Parks department used to have a bigger budget than
fire department
Group
Workshop 3.5 City hall needs upgrade; police quick response
Group
Workshop 4 add drive in recycling facilities
Group
Workshop Possibly make Lick Creek have an event hall for events for extra revenue
Group
Workshop utility building well utilized for voting and meetings. More places for meetings.
Group
Workshop more underground
Online 1
College Station has very few parks and true greenways and green spaces compared to other
cities. And the ones it does have are not prioritized by the City - Lick Creek Park and Greenway are
being ruined by no concern for environmental or community impact of construction projects.
Online 1
College Station is sorely lacking in greenways. In most cities of our size and demographic there
are walking and bike trails that provide a safe, clean alternative way to get from place to place.
Connecting established districts like SoCo and Century square with green spaces like Wolf Pen
and Lick Creek through a hike/bike trail along existing drainage easements would bring this
community closer to the level residents expect. We cannot afford to overlook what the Brazos
River could offer us long-term. It could be our Riverwalk, or at minimum, a recreational trail like it
is in Waco.
Online 1
Currently, our Parks Department is using a very cookie cutter approach to parks. With the
exception of the Fun For All Park (which was funded with donations), they are often making broad
decisions that are neither efficient nor protect the individual integrity of the parks. It also
decreases the likelihood that residents will travel to parks outside their neighborhood when they
are all the same. Outside organized sports, there is also very little for adolescents and young
adults to do at our parks. We have put safety over fun to such an extent that there is nothing for
our adolescents to do at most parks.
Online 1
I remember when wolf pen creek was hopping. Now it's three starlights a year if they don't get
rained out.
Thomas Park pool is closed.
Edelweiss area pathways are being crossed by major traffic that requires parents to act as
crossing guards in the mornings so their kids can get to school safely.
Online 1 If it's not the university it receives no attention.
Online 1 Look at comparable sized towns like Lawrence, KS for inspiration... So much more character, so
many more parks. We have a lot of room for growth here.
Online 1 More community pools are needed.
Online 1 Poor maintenance of parks
Page 229 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 82
Online 1 See Lick Creek
Online 1
The woods so necessary for this area's role in flyways for birds, and for other wildlife, are being
rapidly destroyed. Existing parks are being transformed in ways that generate more profit but
destroy the natural environment at great and irreversible cost.
Online 1 there is such a dirth of this in these towns and it is always plays 2nd fiddle to everything else in
the community
Online 1
This is surely College Station's weakest area. There are barely any green spaces bigger than
pocket parks (to do even a 5k run you have to go round them endless times!). Lick Creek is the
only "Nature Park" in the City that I am aware of, and even that now has a new easement through
it! There's a real shortage of wilder green space and running/hiking trails that get further out into
the countryside (and are not just going through new housing developments) especially if you live
a bit closer in (as opposed to Pebble Creek etc). I'm also concerned about the loss of wildlife
habitat and places for migrating birds throughout the City. Not to mention that the cutting of
trees increases heat in the City! The arts facilities are also pretty poor. There is no arts cinema, no
performing arts venue (where would you go to see a Shakespeare performance, even, in College
Station? - Bryan has slightly better facilities than College Station, but even that is not impressive).
Online 1 try driving around 2818, Welborn, university, William d fitch, how many green spaces are left?
everywhere there is a new retail shopping center is being built or an apartment complex.
Online 2 Allowing lick creek park to be ransacked. Also the parks all seem to be geared toward sports and
not other uses.
Online 2 Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and other states have much better Greenway and parks.
Online 2
Closure of Thomas Pool and replacement with splash pads. It isn't as if the City didn't know it
would need to rebuild the pool - but made no plans to set aside capital reserves or funds.
Another example of not supporting the older neighborhoods.
Online 2
College Station is a rapidly growing town, so it still mostly has the cultural and entertainment
offerings of a town of only 100,000. It will gradually develop more. But it needs to have more
varied neighborhoods, including greater density, and walkable development near the university,
so that more artistic and cultural uses can find a home. The greenways and parks that do exist
are underused because you have to drive to get to them.
Online 2 More outdoor recreation opportunities are needed
Online 2 Not enough arts or culture. Much more is necessary on this end. I believe these areas will develop
once younger, highly educated people can be attracted to the area
Online 2
Not much going on unless it TAMU related. Bryan has more cultural events than CS. Wolf Pen
has potential, but not utilized for music, cultural and arts. No City murals on CS history. Not
many statues in parks to relate to history or culture of CS. No ties to RR, agriculture. Nothing on
highway to advertise upcoming events. No defining logo or yearly event that CS residents
participate in. It seems CS defaults to TAMU and just lets it dictate event schedule.
Online 2 Rebuild Thomas Pool. Crazy that a town this size in Texas only has two pools. Rebuild Thomas.
Online 2 We need more parks, more greenways, more outdoors for people to wander, and not just pretty
areas that are cleared. We need more trees and undergrowth.
Online 2 We need parks accessible and open to all residents.
Online 3 All attention has been geared towards the Park for Allâ€, which is great, but our neighborhood
parks, such as Thomas, need some attention as well.
Online 3 Developing things to cater to families are improving.
Online 3
First the most part doing OK job with this with the exception of older parks such as Thomas Park.
Need to update the park and maintain it. Need to put the pool back in. There are families that
use it in the surrounding areas.
Page 230 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 83
Online 3
I love the cultural and educational work done at places like Lincoln Center and Lick Creek. These
programs are so important and interesting for the community. This is where you will find an
ability to develop a community center based on communal involvement, not a recycled thinly
veiled commercial development like "Mid-Town".
As far as parks go, most baseball fields are closed for public use (I know, I'm teaching my boy how
to play and we have to drive around to find an open one most times), which I honestly get
because we have so many tournaments and they are good for the City. But, what I don't get it
how we can be so good about taking care of the fields but College Station can't seem to find it
within themselves to do anything about the fire ants around playgrounds and available fields.
Generally, Bryan does a much better job of maintaining their parks and making them friendly for
families.
The Thomas Pool fiasco is nothing less than utter stupidity. The reasons for taking it away from
that neighborhood fall flat as a lead pancake. Offering a dog park instead? While there are a lot
of college kids living in that neighborhood, there are still a lot of families with young kids. Kids
who need a safe place to play (I don't take my kids to parks near dog parks, because all too often
the folks who bring their dogs there do not control them properly), a pool to swim in and LEARN
to swim in during the summer, and a point of neighborhood centrality. I'll double down on the
pool, Eastgate and College Hills need a community center, even a small one, there. The
apartments on Harvey have become a haven for crime and the kids there need a safe place with
safe influences to escape to. The City Council has a responsibility for ensuring the future safety
and well-being of our town, and that includes the kids growing up here now. The Thomas Park
pool fiasco shows that the City Council doesn't care about the older, north part of town. It also
shows that they are vastly more concerned with the upper middle-class to upper-class white folks
who live in south College Station than they are their middle-class and poor citizens who live in the
north part of town (I'm white, for the record).
Online 3 It's pretty good.
Online 3
Neutral. We do a good job with parks, but community events are too crowded with no room for
expansion. Not enough for middle school/high school students to do. Not enough public
pool/water access.
Online 3 Parks are the saving grace of College Station, but so much more could be accomplished.
Online 3
Spending $25 M in a YMCA where rich kids will still have to pay $400 to use it doesn't make sense.
Why is the City in this business. We are also defunding existing neighborhood parks that are
actually an integral element in the character and fabric of our older neighborhoods. If leadership
decides to leave any part of our City behind there will be a price to pay.
Online 3 The amount and accessibility of the parks is wonderful. The upkeep of our parks is lack luster.
Though fighting the heat is a tough job.
Online 3 The City needs another competition size pool that's open to the public. Thomas park pool needs
to be replaced.
Online 3
The City parks and greenways are our only City attractions to citizens and visitors (excluding the
University) and these are exclusively from years past, except for Lick Creek Park which has been
well done.
Online 3 The existing parks are nice, but they cater heavily to children and athletics, and not necessarily to
those interested in nature/wildlife/hiking.
Online 3
The number of parks in the City is enough. College Station is obsessed with installing City parks,
and the diversity of the parks just doesn't seem like it's there. The diversity of the parks just isn't
quite there. The City seems to be obsessed with sports leading to more athletic parks than any
other kind of parks.
Online 3
There are some decent parks in town with things like basketball courts and drinking fountains,
and the number of parks is really nice. I'm not sure if there's anything approaching culture/art in
town that isn't immediately connected to the university though.
Online 3 There needs to be a more robust park system. And Splash pads. The phase one off 6 was a nice
start.
Online 3 This question is hard to answer as stated. I believe there should more entertainment options for
young professionals and less emphasis on parks.
Page 231 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 84
Online 3 we have some wonderful parks. Lick creek is a treasure. the greenbelt through midtown is
wonderful. Central Park needs a lot of help!
Online 3 We need more parks for kids, there is not so much to do with the in here!
Online 4
Can we maintain our older parks as well as new ones? A City with neighborhood parks is always a
winner! Parks that are unique stand out as well. Every park doesn't have to have the same
standard equipment & use. Some may have more biking trails, splash pads, tennis courts, etc.
But, overall, we are pleased with our parks & appreciate the holiday lighting at Central Park every
year. It appears efforts are made to preserve native trees & wildlife.
Online 4
College Station has a lot of parks and has done very well with some of them like Wolf Pen Creek
and Lick Creek Park. However, there are very few greenways in this area and they are not
connected at all. We have Lemontree Park, Wolf Pen Creek trails, the trail at Pebble Creek and the
loop around Bee Creek. There are thousands of bikes in this City and many people ride to work or
class. Accidents involving motorists and cyclists happen too often even with bike lanes and
especially because the town gets new 18 year olds every fall driving on unfamiliar roads. If our
City had a path cut out that ran from South College Station to the university that was totally
protected from the road, we could avoid a lot of the problems we've had especially during the
busy traffic times. Less people would use cars and thereby stop the emission of more greenhouse
gasses. Instead of waiting for our City to grow bigger and then introducing a large greenway, this
City could build a greenway along with the growth in an unprecedented way.
Online 4
College Station parks are really nice, unless you don't do organized sports. There are VERY few
parks set up for just sitting and enjoying nature. They are organized around softball, tennis, etc.
We need more parks that are green spaces in neighborhoods. Even taking a few vacant lots and
turning them into small green spaces with benches and areas to enjoy outside would be great.
That's the good thing about Thomas Park, for example -- great City park for multi-use activities in
the one end of that park. Also, would vote to put a pool back in there. The north end needs one -
- the others are overcrowded and it is too far for kids to go on their bikes to get to the others.
Online 4 Could use more of these aspects
Online 4
Decently done however, with expansion, I think another dog park would be very appropriate as
College Station is home to people who are very dog focused and active, but also a big "state: park
if you will. There is no gorgeous park area here where people can picnic, walk dogs, hangout and
bar b q, relax, have family gatherings, etc. that should become a center point for people on
weekends looking to relax with friends, families dogs, etc.
Online 4 Great events and use of public spaces. Not sure if library is part of Parks department, but the
length of time it took to re-open was not good planning.
Online 4 It's time for the City to focus less on this subject and start addressing MUCH more pressing issues
Online 4 Parks get plenty of focus. How about roads which are used more.
Online 4 Parks have been kept up and there are plenty of them.
Online 4 Some of the best parks. Having lived in multiple cities, states, and countries, the parks here are
above par.
Online 4 The City has a lot of parks, I would like to see more parks that are meant for use by the residents.
Parks like Lick Creek Park, and the walkway off of Barron Road.
Online 4
The facilities at the current time are minimal. ie. The buildings for Senior citizens. They are
adequate for things like lectures, games, etc. However, for the exercise, dance, etc. do not have
proper areas.
Online 5 Amazing parks and rec!
Online 5 green space is great as well as the cultural events that are available in the area
Online 5
I've noticed new programs going on at our City parks, and the recreation magazine that I get via
email is helpful to me to stay connected with these types of activities or opportunities within our
City
Online 5 Our parks department is great! Really love the movement to add more dog parks near homes for
easy access and the Fun for All playground at central park.
Online 5 Very important! As these are outlet opportunities ... enables overall well-being of the City
Online 5 We have relatively good parks
Page 232 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 85
Online 5 We love the free concerts. The parks are great.
Online 5
Yes, only bc the Central Park is finally being improved. It's been a long time coming! Very happy
about it. It'd be nice to have a better bigger and better splash pad in CS. Will there be one at the
newly renovated park?
Goal 7. Growth Management
Source Rating Comment
Group
Workshop 1.5
We're trying to catch up not stay ahead. Very against the Wellborn annexation. Feels like gerrymandering
and people were upset. Apt bldgs. near Hollerman & 2818. Residential developments should not have
direct driveway access to 2818. Barron and Decatur monument for neighborhood blocks visitor. Barron &
Alexandria fences along Barron block all visibility and may be fatal
Group
Workshop 2 Spending too much on subsidizing new growth. Higher impact fees so growth pays for itself
Group
Workshop 2 Lower/Moderate income housing availability; growth primarily in student housing; many commute
because they ant find housing.
Group
Workshop 2 Water conserve/ natural areas / energy technology / new development; incentives rather than require;
infrastructure to keep growth inside / resp TAMU roadway
Group
Workshop 2 Infrastructure poor after the development
Group
Workshop 2 large ??? Infrastructure for more ??? Diversity in housing different housing options
Group
Workshop 2.5
detention-Emerald Forest seems to be flood more and more, should a regional pond be built near SH6 and
2818? Sometimes the comp Plan gets ignored need more scrutiny on comp Plan Amendments. Emergency
services and timelines are important smart traffic light. Systems not great. One sided parking on small
streets is necessary.
Group
Workshop 2.5 Rock Prairie; evolution sucks for City planning rebuilding 5 times; react rather than respond; where can
y'all put students without transforming neighborhoods; emergency response -so much traffic on HWY 6
even the backway has too much traffic; football traffic mitigated well - Real Accomplishment
Group
Workshop 3
not keeping up with infrastructure. Road condition/maintenance. Occupancy issue better info need to
communication with TAMU their # not accurate; negative influencing # of MF complexes built; water fresh
capacity concerns.
Group
Workshop 3.5 may be getting ahead on taxes somewhat area specific
Group
Workshop 4
traffic congestion public services are behind w/keeping up w/ the development not spent on infrastructure.
Compared to larger cities we are very good City v A&M City does its best to keep up w/A&M development.
Better intergovernmental mental cooperation.
Group
Workshop we need a drainage district
Group
Workshop Note: the meeting have not been properly advertised to attract the Latino or African communities
Group
Workshop Reactive to growth, larger developments limited access..???? And modifications a joke.
Group
Workshop develop for dev sake; good against comp Plan; A&Z members have; City land sold to non-revenue
producing entities
Online 1 Are you kidding?
Online 1 Don't see much careful management with this goal
Online 1 Growth is not paying for itself.
Online 1 Infrastructure lags behind construction causing traffic problems, drainage problems & water problems
Online 1 Our property taxes are going up so rapidly because we can't sustain the other two thirds of the population
here that we can't afford to live and work here.
Page 233 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 86
Online 1
Something needs to be done about the traffic! I know the university was the basis for founding our City,
but the student traffic is overwhelming. If I wanted to deal with traffic I'd move to Houston or Austin.
Highway 6 needs to be widened, and the police need to strictly enforce the no texting or using cell phones.
Too many people get away with this and it's very unsafe.
Online 1 The Comprehensive Plan has been amended so many times no one can claim "careful managed
development" unless you are a developer.
Online 1
TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE; it is 10 years behind the curve. I have waited 7 times to turn left from 2018 to
Holleman Drive South before on a weekday. We have a real crime/drug problem here! Focus on the real
tasks of what a City government does rather than on extra things; and quit working on a deficit budget -
live within your means!
Online 2
Growth is primarily being concentrated in sprawling single-family housing developments, and apartment
complexes in parking lots with fences to prevent the apartment-dwellers from walking everywhere. The
City needs to embrace density in its center rather than in car-oriented forms. The City is obviously growing
quickly. Bryan/College Station is currently at the population that Austin was at in 1970. Will we be prepared
to grow in a more sustainable way than they have? We can't pretend that we will never reach a population
of a million - the question is just what a City of a million people will look like in 2070, and how we will
become that.
Online 2 not fast enough...
Online 2
Seriously. You have to make sure all of the new building between 6 and 30 is being done with an eye to
flooding. The only place that flooded after Harvey was the entrance to Sams. The next time a big hurricane
like that comes along it is going to be so much worse thanks to the natural drainage being altered.
Online 2 Way too many apartments. Do we know the occupancy rate of all these complexes that we already have
before more go up?
Online 2 We are overrun with apartment complexes and Aggie Shacks. We are putting up retail while part of the
mall is empty.
Online 3
A lot of construction is always taking place in College Station but it always seems as if its behind.
Construction needs to be done in advance so that when expansion comes, it is not an issue to cause traffic,
etc.
Online 3 Construction in College Station is rapid and overzealous. This City needs to move to create greener
communities that take away from climate change.
Online 3 Development decisions creating unsafe traffic
Online 3 Don't know anything about this one.
Online 3
From what I've seen after returning to the area, growth of citizens has far outpaced the ability of the City to
provide adequate infrastructure. It seems that a lot of areas are mixed and being serviced by Bryan and
other surrounding entities for utilities. Basic, underlying infrastructure is important to have before growth
and building begins.
Online 3 I don’t know but we could use a grocery store or something in the Eastgate are while our taxes remain on
the rise.
Online 3 I don't know much about this issue.
Online 3 I have no idea of the finances.
Online 3 I'm not sure what this means either.
Online 3
Neighborhood roads and sidewalks are terrible in many older areas. Expanding too fast and ignoring
established areas. Old, failing water lines. Electric that should be buried. No ability to choose competing
cable/electric to get better service or maybe newer lines. Too much money spent on our lovely, but
expensive parks and too many ignoring middle-class families in favor of students.
Online 3 New developments should be required to also provide improvement to access roads. Road work shouldn't
take 3 years (University drive)! Nonsensical road work must be avoided (William Fitch)
Online 3 Some good road improvement choices
Page 234 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 87
Online 3
The City has grown so rapidly, it seems the roads are the same, but with twice the population we had 30
years ago. Fitch has been helpful to new areas, but what can we do about daily congestion at Harvey
Mitchell & Holleman & other areas near campus. The problem isn't really at Bush, it's at Holleman. Could
TAMU have some long term parking for students who want to bring a car to school, but use TAMU transit &
really only need their car to drive back to their home City occasionally? This is done at some universities,
ex, with freshman class & have long term pkg at a very low rate & transit transport for students to those
lots. With the news of an on campus grocery store, the need to have a car at hand at all times may not be
necessary. Maybe they just need a bike (where areas are safe) or TAMU transit. You have a complex job
ahead in accommodating our growth, esp the Wellborn Rd corridor.
Online 3
The City seems to be growing faster than the City government can keep up. The police department is short
people, the taxes have to constantly go up, and it never seems like enough. Maybe some commercial
development rather than constant residential would help.
Online 3 Unfortunately with TAMU's growth, it is difficult to grow the City as fast in terms of roads, bike lanes,
pedestrian walkways.
Online 4
I believe there is an effort to Plan ahead. The main thoroughfares that were laid out before building out
the sub div helps. Like Fitch and Boonville. But is there some way to bleed the commuters off H6 with a
second ramp that people driving straight through could take upper ramp and bypass the exits in Bryan/CS?
That would prevent the backups at H30 and University to get to TAMU events. Same thing morning and
afternoon rush hour. It would benefit school buses on their runs.
Online 4 Traffic is bad during certain hours, but it's difficult to do much about that
Online 5 Active communications with county and areas in the ETJ that face annexation within 20 years if they don;t
self-regulate is important.
Online City didn't get the jump on CISD, so they raise taxes to pay for new schools, while City continues to muddle
and struggle to keep up with demands caused by greater population
Exit Questionnaire (All) – Public Workshops, Online, Texas A&M
Workshop
The following are the summary results from the exit questionnaires. Of the approximately 500
participants, 450 exit questionnaires were received. Response rates vary per question.
1. How did you hear about this public meeting? Responses Percent
Word of Mouth / Personal Invitation 149 33%
Newspaper Article / Ad 45 10%
Poster / Flyer 28 6%
Social Media (Facebook/Twitter) 99 22%
Online News 47 10%
Email from City 82 18%
Community Event / Presentation / Organization 55 12%
The Next 10 / City website 21 5%
Other 5 1%
Total Count of Responses 531
Total Completed Questionnaires 450 118%
Page 235 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 88
2. Were you comfortable completing the meeting activities? If not,
explain why. (only asked at the workshops)
Yes 191 99%
No 1 1%
Total 192 100%
3. Did you feel your input was heard and recorded
accurately? If not, explain why. (only asked at the
workshops) Responses Percent
Yes 184 96%
No 7 4%
Total 191 100%
4. Was the meeting? (only asked at the workshops) Responses Percent
Too long 8 4%
Too short 19 10%
Just right 157 85%
Total 184 100%
5. Will you continue to participate in the planning
process? If not, explain why. Responses Percent
Yes 321 96%
No 15 4%
Total 336 100%
7. Gender Responses Participation ACS
Female 239 54% 51%
Male 203 46% 49%
Page 236 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 89
Total 442 100% 100%
8. Which racial group do you
most closely identify with? Responses Participation ACS
Asian 19 4% 10%
Black / African American 14 3% 8%
Two or more races 20 5% 2%
White / Caucasian 335 77% 78%
Other 10 2% 2%
Total - - 100%
Hispanic or Latino* 39 9% 15%
Total 437 100%
* “Of any race” as defined by the US Census (and American Community Survey). The Census treats Hispanic or Latino
ethniCity as a separate question from race.
9. What is your age? Responses Participation
ACS (Total
Population)
Under 18 12 3% 17%
18-24 113 26% 41%
25-34 45 10% 15%
35-44 62 14% 9%
45-54 50 11% 7%
55-64 71 16% 6%
65 or over 89 20% 6%
Total 442 100% 100%
10. Are you a student that attends Blinn College
or Texas A&M University? Responses Participation
Yes, Blinn College 5 2%
Yes, Texas A&M 110 38%
No 171 60%
Total 286 100%
Page 237 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 90
11. What is your highest
level of education? Responses
Participation
(25+)* ACS
Less than a high school
diploma 12 3% 6%
High school diploma 24 5% 13%
Some college /technical 102 23% 19%
Completed technical school 5 1% 7%
Graduated college 131 30% 29%
Graduate / advanced degree 166 38% 27%
Total 440 100% 100%
12. How long have you lived within the City of
College Station? Responses Percent
0-4 years 89 20%
5-9 years 74 17%
10-19 years 37 8%
20-29 years 68 15%
30-39 years 54 12%
40-49 years 111 25%
50+ years 8 2%
Live outside City 0 0%
Total 441 100%
13. Do you work within the City of College
Station?
Responses Participation
Yes 222 51%
No 215 49%
Total 437 100%
Page 238 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 91
14. Do you own or rent your home? Responses Participation
Own 298 69%
Rent 137 31%
Total 435 100%
15. Please tell us about
your annual household
income: Responses Participation ACS
Less than $10,000 62 15% 16%
$10,000 to $14,999 12 3% 7%
$15,000 to $24,999 18 4% 13%
$25,000 to $34,999 10 2% 10%
$35,000 to $49,999 28 7% 12%
$50,000 to $74,999 52 13% 13%
$75,000 to $99,999 52 13% 10%
$100,000 + 173 43% 20%
Total 407 100% 100%
16. In what area of College
Station do you live? Responses Participation
A 199 47%
B 91 21%
C 96 23%
D 38 9%
Total 424 100%
Page 239 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 92
The following are the expository responses from the exit questionnaire.
2. Were you comfortable today's meeting activities? If not, explain why.
1 Workshop It was great and informative
2 Workshop The group contributed many ideas and I learned a lot about issues from other parts of the City.
3 Workshop Working different areas of the community
4 Workshop Very! It was great to hear more opinions about the City!
5 Workshop open minded discussion
6 Workshop It was really difficult to hear during the group discussions
7 Workshop everyone was wonderful!
8 Workshop seats uncomfortable
9
Workshop Y’all did good icebreakers that made it easy for us to share with each other even though we disagreed on
some things
10 Workshop Yes! This was fantastic!
11 Workshop loved discussing and seeing how we all just love our town and want it to be the best
12 Workshop good group interaction
13 Workshop Liked the small group approach
14 Workshop Small group conducive to discussion with a facilitator
15 Workshop Liked how open and respectful group was
16 Workshop Lot more people speak out loud
17 Workshop Hard seat!
18 Workshop We had a great leader (Jade)
19 Workshop Relaxed, nice, non-threatening atmosphere
20
Workshop I just moved here a few months ago so I feel limited in providing much informed thoughts, but appreciated
the opportunity to participate in this event
3. Did you feel your input was heard and recorded accurately? If not, explain why.
1 Workshop Yes, but there is so much that wasn't covered because of time.
2 Workshop A lot of my ideas were already explained
3 Workshop A bit rushed
4 Workshop Working with two people
5 Workshop Just to be heard literally!
6
Workshop There was not a real analysis of whether the last 10-year Plan was actually good thing to do. No questioning
of the underlying assumptions
7 Workshop Too noisy - could not hear each other maybe groups of no more than 6
8 Workshop at first it was being compounded by one person but gradually got spread out to people got comfortable
Page 240 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 93
9
Workshop Somewhat we were strong armed by an individual who insisted on emphasizing his concerns in a matter
that did not meet us 1\2 way. Our recorder was excellent and did her best
10 Workshop Yes
11 Workshop There were obvious rental owners who were driving conversation
12
Workshop mostly we could have used more time this was a lot to cover not sure a longer time would have kept people
coming though
13 Workshop needed more time
14 Workshop she was good at calling on people so we each had a chance to be heard
15 Workshop Not sure if the input will be actually addressed, the City may still cater to developers
16 Workshop Great format. A lot of hesitation over survey format. Felt led & not effective
17
Workshop a very negative woman monopolized the conversation with her very negative comments so my positive
comments were not reflected
18 Workshop Everyone was allowed to express their opinion without interruption.
19 Workshop Good group site; just enough for diversified opinions
20 Workshop Not enough time for everyone
21 Workshop Justin C did a great job!
22 Workshop Well she heard us and wrote all whether or not it matters we will find out.
23 Workshop No way to judge this one
24 Workshop As long as the City uses the information
5. Will you continue to participate in the planning process? If not, explain why.
1 Online Survey Never heard about it, just stumbled on it through a friend.
2 Online Survey I will participate as a citizen but not in committee.
3 Online Survey Moving away from College Station but wanted to take the survey.
4 Online Survey Honestly, don't know if I will. This is my first time
5 Online Survey Will anyone listen, or are the zoning board and City council completely beholden to developers?
6
Online Survey I have participated for over 30 years. The council and staff do what they want with little to no concern for
citizens.
7
Online Survey I have done so in the last advisory capital campaigns. At this stage, 80 years old, it is time for me it to the
younger generation.
8 Online Survey Possibly
9
Online Survey Although I marked "Yes,” I will participate VERY LITTLE in the planning process. I wasted a lot of time
several years ago, participating in what was then advertised as a "planning process." It was all futile.
Almost NONE of our recommendations were followed, in spite of promises from City staff. I see little
hope that this time will be any different.
6. Additional Comments (optional)
1 Workshop Focus more on economic development, mobility and better infrastructure
2 Workshop Thank you- I appreciate having this opportunity to voice my thoughts
3
Workshop I was pleasantly surprised by the structure of the meeting and felt it was effective. I hope the input it
used.
4 Workshop Create second left turn lane at corner of Rock Prairie/wellborn
5 Workshop Thank you for making it easy to bring our kids. You made it possible for me to have a voice!
6 Workshop Well done! Engaging! Lauren did a great job!
7 Workshop Appreciated the format
8 Workshop Rebuild Thomas Pool
9 Workshop Well energized Laura was an excellent leader.
Page 241 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 94
10 Workshop Encourage local businesses
11 Workshop I do not think the City has developed confidence that they are listening to people who just live here
12 Workshop Stricter codes for developers when they open a new area regarding infrastructure
13 Workshop Figure out a way to reach the working class in this community
14 Workshop only 3 of 7 areas were discussed. Questions stemmed toward progress. Nothing for deterioration
15
Workshop yes, we understood how and fact this work help benefit other generations. 6. Lack of community. And
pedestrian friendly modes of transportation. This town has done well for the pressure and insane
size/growth that has been placed on it, but the input of current and past
16 Workshop good interactive meeting - well done!
17
Workshop Student input, given that A&M comprises 1/5 of the City, feels incredibly underrepresented in this town
hall, by #. I'd love to see students more engaged! And would love to make it happen. 6. Issues like the
insane traffic and sup-par slap-shack houses are only going to get much much worse. Biking/alternate
transportation is nightmarish. For the record I think you do amazing given the strong-arming pressure of
A&M's expansion. Keep up the good work!
18 Workshop Thank you for arranging this opportunity to be involved!
19 Workshop Thank you! Excellent and more fun/interesting than I anticipated.
20 Workshop Facilitator Alyssa did a great job
21 Workshop I would like to see more City Recreation facilities including pools
22
Workshop I feel there should be more information should be given to what the Plan is going to be. Then you should
ask for input
23 Workshop Good way for getting requested input
24 Workshop Not my area. #6 NA
25 Workshop Well put together meeting. I felt like I was actually heard and listened to
26 Workshop Easy to contribute and well planned
27 Workshop Love to talk about our future
28 Workshop Need to know how the date will be used and when
29
Workshop where are neighborhoods for families, don’t drive traffic to neighborhoods without sidewalks; ITA
process broke – driven by developer - should focus on neighborhoods to be impacted and those should
have input if developers promise something that isn’t in UDO - they still should be held accountable.
30 Workshop Neighborhood integrity is doomed until single family residence limit in UPO is lowered from 4 down to 2
31 Workshop is the quiz online? Way to show how much we don’t know
32 Workshop great start
33
Workshop It is important and I worry there are important stakeholders (students) that will be affected and maybe
not considered like they should. #6 Y’all made this way more productive than I expected.
34 Workshop great job
35 Workshop Shortage of trade personnel too
36
Workshop Good opportunity to add input. Would recommend taking this to local groups like Rotary and Lions club
to get more info
37 Workshop Need a topic that addresses taxes/affordability of living in OS in final updates to the 10-year Plan
38 Workshop loved our table facilitator!
39 Workshop NA
40
Workshop Concerned with tracking oil wells. There is one in Woodlake presently. What does CS/Bryan do about
this?
41 Workshop Jade Broadnax was very good @ directing the show!
42 Workshop My first experience with this kind of activity, and I found it very enlightening.
43 Workshop Thank you for doing this Very Informative. Very good process
44
Workshop I love this town and feel there's much that can be done to make it a standout, stellar college town,
starting with better green areas and tress along our streets
45
Workshop In general, for college station not Next10…Have a one stop shop for communications. I feel like I get
different info from next door, blog, neighborhood news, City Facebook page. Have all that flows on the
City Facebook feed flow into nextdoor.com
46 Workshop Thanks for engaging community
47 Workshop Very good idea for the meeting
48 Workshop Thank you for setting the process in motion
49
Workshop I don’t feel that the City should annex property if they can’t get City Services to the property, i.e. sewer
and water
50 Workshop I appreciate the opportunity to provide input. I felt like my opinions were heard.
Page 242 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 95
51 Workshop Nothing was mentioned about the state of family rental affordability. CSISB states this is a massive issue
52 Workshop Needed family affordable housing
53 Workshop Introduction to the comp Plan City fact was helpful
54 Workshop Effective program for engagement
55 Workshop Thank you for the opportunity would love to keep participating up!
56 Workshop Great job! Lot of enthusiasm!
57 Workshop Very pleased by the workshops. Informative. My comments were heard
58
Workshop Make it clear on the material that goes out that the process is formal and best done by being in the room
the entire time. Other activities have been "come and so".
59
Workshop many residents are not aware of concerns regarding low income residents, elderly and folks who
commute here to work, especially low wages for TAME employees
60 Workshop Please include ask recommendation from planning faculty students
61 Workshop Enjoyed having input on the Next 10 looking forward
62
Workshop More affordable housing; planning out road ways before approving residential building certificates;
adjusting 1st time home buyer program to benefit more families, not realistic numbers with current
home prices; have prices don’t match average income numbers ; encouraging? to have more self-policing
and do more for pressuring their communities
63 Workshop yes
64 Workshop Thank you
65 Workshop Great workshop. I enjoyed meeting different individuals from all over town. Waiting on my mug!
66 Workshop Justin C. was a great listener and helped with every question
67
Workshop Was on the past comprehensive Plan and view it as a waste of time because A. The committee was never
allowed to vote on site B. The Council had amended what they passed so many times
68 Workshop Political discussion on a local event will not concern me until I am 18
69 Workshop only here for a temporary time
70
Workshop 5. I really enjoyed this and appreciated the opportunity to learn and contribute. 6. I love our parks! Only
request is please add more bike lanes that connect routes around town
71 Online Survey We also need a Plan for climate change. I've been asking for two years now.
72 Online Survey Rebuild Thomas Pool. I was unable to post on the map because the instructions were blocking the map
73
Online Survey Please plant more trees. Medians, parking lots, City parks, new developments. The City is so bare and
desolated sometimes. More trees would help during the heat of the summer and help prevent flooding.
Also, an expansion on the recycling services would be fantastic. Maybe some policies on single use
plastics?
74
Online Survey wish the City would become pro-development with regards to transportation projects. complete them
prior to development/increased volume of traffic.
75 Online Survey Nice map of the City, yet I have no idea what to put where.
76
Online Survey Right now, College Station is like a suburb without the City attached. It's grown, but mostly in expanding
chain stores/restaurants and apartment complexes. Establishing a walkable area with shops (something
other than bars) would help give the town an identity beyond just being the location of A&M.
77
Online Survey Thank you for the opportunity to provide my feedback and I hope it's considered in future planning. I
have helped to share the opportunity with my friends and family through email and social media.
78 Online Survey We need more outdoor and exercise-oriented things: Pools, more sidewalks, running and biking paths.
79 Online Survey We need more outdoor and exercise-oriented things: Pools, more sidewalks, running and biking paths.
80
Online Survey I am glad we are doing this. But I worry that few residents believe in the process. I have tried to urge
people to complete the survey and about 50% of the people I tell have said "why -- they won't listen to us
anyway". The pattern established by the City in the last 7-8 years has been to do something, a crowd
comes to City hall and is upset, and little changes anyway.
81 Online Survey This is a great exercise. I wish I could have done it in a group.
82 Online Survey Thank you for the opportunity to offer feedback.
83 Online Survey Thank You to all members of the City council and administration for your service and dedication.
84
Online Survey We are too new here to have formed a lot of opinions about the community's needs, but we are
interested in being involved.
85 Online Survey I live in North Oakwood in Bryan (on the border of Bryan college station.)
86 Online Survey I'm grateful for this process and grateful to live in College Station!
87 Online Survey Would like to know more about why these kinds of questions.
Page 243 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 96
88
Online Survey I have been dismayed by the decline in College Station neighborhoods since 2010 and the development
of Century Square which could have taken lessons from similar developments in Austin and had
pedestrian friendly sidewalks, trees, and parking garages that you could get too. The corner of 6 and
Texas with its bad traffic set up, no setback from the street, and narrow sidewalks and unattractive brick
fortress style probably explains why they have trouble getting tenants. So giving in to developers does
not mean that we get the business.
89 Online Survey Quit rezoning to bring in car dealerships, banks and hotels.
90
Online Survey Thanks for going all out to get citizen input. I hope the citizens are listened to (unlike our neighbor to the
north)
91
Online Survey Years ago, there was talk of a regional park at Gibbons Creek Reservoir. What happened? Can the City
target land nearby for one (or several, given the population growth) nature parks?
92 Online Survey McCulloch Subdivision...
93 Online Survey I live in the ETJ
94 Online Survey Thank you for asking for our input. I hope that you will listen to us.
95
Online Survey I keep filling out City surveys, but not sure input is relevant to what the City plans on doing regardless of
our opinion.
96
Online Survey Despite my comments, I do love where I live. The best comment that I can compare how I feel is to say
that like a child, friend, loved one etc... that is not living up to their potential, we can do so much better!
Page 244 of 484
1
Implementation progress assessment tool
Updated 7/28/2020
The following is a tool for staff assessment of the Comprehensive Plan’s progress. It lists the actions
identified in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan (as amended in 2015) organized by the plan’s seven topics.
Each topic contains a goal and multiple strategies that organize the actions. The first topic chapter is 2:
Community Character.
This tool is similar to the Implementation Progress Report in the 5-year Evaluation, Appendix B. The
progress assessment from that report is pre-populated into the tables below.
For each action there is a progress assessment from the five-year Evaluation, a progress assessment for
the 10-year Evaluation and fields for progress description and Consultant Team notes. The Progress
Assessment uses the following scale:
Progress assessment ✔ Complete
-- No progress (future)
N/A – No longer applicable
OG - Ongoing
IP – Underway / In progress
For Ongoing or Underway items, please indicate whether the progress meets or does not meet internal expectations
+ Limited progress – does not meet expectations
++ Good progress – meets expectations
NOTES
A.This document contains all the recommendations as listed in the plan. There is considerable
repetition of action recommendations between chapters and between strategies within the
same chapter.
B.This assessment will be integrated with the consultant team’s review of the comprehensive plan
and potential updates.
C.To improve the Team’s ability to track specific recommendations in the plan, all action
recommendations have been assigned a number.
D.In the Team’s view, a recommendation (action) should be a specific project, policy, or program.
Many of the plan’s existing actions are more general and difficult to assess.
Actions have been color-coded by the Team as follows:
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
APPENDIX C
Page 245 of 484
2
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Chapter 2: Community Character
Goal: “to be a community with strong, unique neighborhoods,
protected rural areas, special districts, distinct corridors, and a
protected and enhanced natural environment”
Strategy 1: Develop and maintain, through regular review, a land use plan that identifies,
establishes, and enhances community character.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
1.1 Land Use Plan Application. Use the
Concept Map and the Future Land Use
& Character map in the development
of planning studies, development
review, capital improvements
programming, and economic
development efforts.
OG OG++ The Land Use Plan is regularly used by Planning staff
and works well overall. It is mainly used by staff to
determine staff support for Comprehensive Plan
amendments and identifying areas for future studies.
There is a desire for Future Land Use categories to not
be so aligned with zoning to allow more flexibility while
still providing density/utility sizing guidance.
1.2 Further Planning. Develop
neighborhood, district, corridor and
redevelopment plans to refine the
Concept Map and Future Land Use &
Character map.
OG OG+ Over the last 10 years, 5 neighborhood plans (Central
CS, South Knoll, Eastgate, Southside, and Wellborn)
were developed as well as the Medical District Master
Plan based on areas identified by the concept map.
Several other neighborhood, corridor and
redevelopment areas were not yet started over the first
10 years of the plan. Prioritizing the future of small area
studies to include the future status of neighborhood
plans that have or are set to expire needs to be a topic
of discussion in the planning process.
1.3 Land Use Tracking. Monitor the actual
acreage in various land use and
character types in comparison to the
amounts presented on the Future Land
Use & Character map.
OG IP/-- This item is not being monitored on a regular basis.
Acreages are calculated as part of the Existing
Conditions report for future land use, zoning, and
existing land uses. With that it’s difficult to determine,
actual existing land use acres and compare that to
future land use acres as there are different land use
categories for each of these.
1.4 Plan Adjustments. Refine the Future
Land Use & Character map through
additional planning studies and
periodic reviews as indicated in
Chapter 9: Implementation and
Administration.
OG OG+ The City conducted an annual review of the Plan. In
2014, a 5-year update was made to address changes
that required attention since the adoption.
A 10-year update is now underway to evaluate on a
deeper level what areas of the plan require additional
attention. The Future Land Use and Character map is
anticipated to undergo a number of adjustments to
accommodate for updated FEMA information and
changes in growth patterns since 2009.
1.5 UDO Amendments. Amend the Unified
Development Ordinance as
appropriate to establish zoning
classifications and related standards
consistent with the guidance provided
in this chapter.
IP OG++ The renaming of existing zoning districts and creation of
new districts to implement the Comprehensive Plan was
accomplished in 2012 and 2013. Further UDO
amendments will be needed after the Next 10
Evaluation and Appraisal report is completed.
1.6 Zoning Adjustments. Amend the zoning
map designations as appropriate for
identified growth areas.
-- -- Nothing to note.
Page 246 of 484
3
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 2: Establish and protect distinct boundaries between various character areas
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
2.1 Zoning Adjustments. Amend the zoning
map designations as appropriate to
reinforce the desired character areas.
-- OG+ City initiated rezonings are currently underway for
commercial preservation.
2.2 Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments. Amend the Unified
Development Ordinance as
appropriate to address scale and form
issues for neighborhood
commercial uses, such as buffering
between uses.
✔ ✔ The SC Suburban Commercial district was adopted in
2012 and later amended in 2018. Single-family height
protection was modified in 2018. Buffer and
landscaping requirements were updated with the Site
Design Standards.
Strategy 3: Promote public and private development and design practices that ensure distinct
neighborhoods, districts, and corridors.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
3.1 Further Planning. Develop
neighborhood, district and corridor
plans to refine the Concept Map and
Future Land Use & Character map.
OG -- Six Neighborhood/District Plans were adopted (2010-
2013). Since that time, there have not been the
resources to pursue additional plans.
3.2 Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments. Amend the Unified
Development Ordinance as
appropriate to address design issues
that arise through the neighborhood,
district, and corridor planning process.
OG OG++ Ordinances such as single-family parking, single-family
height protection, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay,
non-conforming structures/uses in annexed areas,
single-family tree requirements were all amendments
that came from the planning process.
3.3 Context Sensitive Roadway Design.
Adopt the context sensitive design
approach to thoroughfare planning
and roadway design outlined in this
Plan. Coordinate with the Texas
Department of Transportation to
implement these same provisions in
State corridors.
-- OG+ Revised right-of-way widths were provided in 2012
version of BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Street cross
sections were updated and simplified in 2015 but have
not yet been incorporated into the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines.
3.4 Public Facility Design. Design and
renovate municipal buildings to
establish or reinforce the desired
character. Coordinate with Texas A&M
University and the College Station
Independent School District to
implement these same practices as
they construct new facilities.
N/A N/A Several new municipal building have been under design
or construction. The redevelopment of City Hall is under
design. The new Police Station is under construction.
The Larry Ringer Library expansion was completed in
2019. The Myers Center was acquired from the Arts
Council, renovated, and opened to the public in 2019.
The Carter Creek Waste Water Treatment Plan was
expanded in for additional training space.
There is not a coordinated design plan with the
University or CSISD. The University has a Campus
Master Plan that dictates the character of campus
buildings.
3.5
Incentives. Develop a variety of
incentive mechanisms to promote the
preferred design practices where
-- -- Increased use of the PDD Planned Development District
has allowed developers to customize their product
according to their surrounds and to more efficiently use
Page 247 of 484
4
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
market conditions or regulatory
measures may not guarantee their
implementation.
property with physical constraints as developable
property within City limits because more scarce.
3.6 Greening of the City. Increase tree
planting and preservation efforts along
streets, in parks, and in private
developments.
OG OG+ In 2009, the City adopted an ordinance requiring each
new single-family house to be constructed with canopy
trees. Mature tree and native trees receive more points
on required landscape plans to incentivize protection.
Strategy 4: Promote public and private development and design practices that encourage
resource conservation and protection.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
4.1 Conservation Design. Encourage more
extensive use of cluster design in
portions of identified growth areas
through mandatory open space
conservation in exchange for
more development options than
currently entitled on properties.
-- OG+ The cluster provision has been updated and could use
further refinement to better incentivize cluster
development.
4.2 Preservation and Protection. Amend
the Unified Development Ordinance
and other ordinances to protect
significant natural features from
development. This may include
tree preservation and other ordinances
to provide for riparian buffers and other
environmental protections.
N/A OG+ NAP Natural Areas Protected zoning is used to protect
floodplain and wetland areas through the rezoning
process. No Adverse Impact regulations protect such
areas during the development phase.
4.3 Land Acquisition. Acquire land that is
valued for its natural features or open
space through purchase or through
conservation easements.
OG OG+ Property along Southland which was prone to flooding
was acquired and enhanced for trail system.
4.4 Green Building - Public Sector
Leadership. Continue the development
and implementation of the “Green
College Station” initiative. Coordinate
with Texas A&M University and the
College Station Independent School
District in the implementation of similar
efforts.
N/A N/A The City adopts the newest IBC and NEC when these
codes are revised. The preservation of mature trees and
the planting of native species have been incentivized
through additional point allotments in non-residential
developments. In FY2010, a rain water harvesting
program was in place with the City. Major outreach and
streamline recycling has made recycling a more
ubiquitous activity. The City created a grant-funded
Sustainability Coordinator position. That position no
longer exists, but “green” and sustainable practices
have been incorporated into city policies.
4.5 Green Building - Private Sector
Encouragement. Develop a variety of
incentive mechanisms to promote
green building practices for private site
and building design where market
conditions or regulatory measures may
not guarantee their implementation.
N/A N/A The preservation of mature trees and the planting of
native species have been incentivized through
additional point allotments in non-residential
developments. Over-sided eaves and recessed entries
are considered architectural relief elements through the
Non-residential architectural standards which decrease
sun exposure to windows and reduce utility
consumption. Decorative stormwater management is
also considered an architectural relief element to
encourage alternative means of rainwater dispersal.
Page 248 of 484
5
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 5: Focus community enhancement activities to promote a strong sense of community
identity.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
5.1 Right-of-Way Enhancements. Add
design features and beautification
enhancements within road rights-of-
way and at key highway intersections
to further a common identity
at important gateways and along
image corridors.
OG OG+ The City partners with Keep Brazos Beautiful each year
to enhance the intersection of George Bush and Texas
Avenue. A large project was undertaken through this
partnership to beautify George Bush from Texas to
Foster. Gateway signage has been added on Highway 6
at the intersection with University Drive and south of
the former Texas World Speedway.
5.2 Unified Wayfinding. Implement a
formal, City-wide wayfinding system,
providing a unifying and consistent
design element that assists residents
and visitors in locating community
attractions.
✔ ✔ The City coordinates with Experience BCS to develop
and install a City-wide wayfinding system that is highly
visible and leads to major attractions within the City.
Additional wayfinding was added to Northgate in the
way of a directory of businesses.
Strategy 6: Identify, protect, and enhance unique community assets in our natural and built
environment.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
6.1 Community Assets Mapping. Continue
to refine and amend, as appropriate,
the Community Assets Map contained
in this Plan to provide a visual portrayal
of the City’s unique natural and man-
made assets.
OG N/A Nothing to note
6.2 Further Planning. Develop
neighborhood, district, corridor and
redevelopment plans to refine the
Concept Map and Future Land Use &
Character map.
OG OG+ In 2009, the Neighborhood, District, and Corridor
Planning Guidebook was adopted to assist the planning
process. Examples of this can be found in each of the six
neighborhood/district plans. In Southside, details were
provided for the redevelopment area known as Area V
in great detail which later became adopted into the
UDO. The Eastgate Plan provides guidance for the
University Drive/Lincoln corridor, as well as other areas.
6.3 Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments. Amend the Unified
Development Ordinance as
appropriate to address explicitly the
protection and enhancement of
unique community assets.
-- ✔ The UDO was amended to add neighborhood overlay
options that can be used to protect neighborhood
character and integrity. The Landmark Commission was
also established to assist in the regulation of the
Historic Preservation Overlay District.
6.4 Texas A&M University Coordination.
Continue to coordinate with Texas
A&M University regarding the benefits
and impacts of University sponsored
development projects, and support
ongoing efforts to implement the
Campus Master Plan.
OG -- Nothing to note currently. Future coordination efforts
are desired.
Page 249 of 484
6
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Chapter 3: Neighborhood Integrity
Goal: “to protect the long-term viability and appeal of established
neighborhoods.”
Strategy 1: Identify, protect, and enhance elements that contribute positively to neighborhood
identity.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
1.1 Asset Mapping. Identify and map
community wide assets that
contribute to College Station’s identity
as exhibited in Chapter 2: Community
Character.
OG OG+ With the 2019 existing conditions report, features such
as art, public space, and places of interest were mapped
to provide an overall view of the community’s assets.
1.2 Neighborhood Specific Planning.
Utilize neighborhood plans to further
identify and outline protection options
for neighborhood-specific elements
that contribute to neighborhood
integrity.
OG OG+ Accomplished for Southside Area, Eastgate, South Knoll
area, Central College Station area, Wellborn
Community, and the Medical District.
We have updated the NCO provisions in the UDO and
created a Handbook to guide residents on the
application process (as of March 2020).
1.3 Strategic Long-Range Planning. Adopt
recommendations from the
Comprehensive Plan that help
establish and protect neighborhood
identity.
OG OG++ Progress has been made, but this is a continuous effort.
Amendments to address single-family parking, lot
coverage, parking locations, tree coverage, and other
items have materialized from specific recommendations
out of one or more neighborhood plans.
1.4 Sustainability. Promote sustainable
design of developing neighborhoods
by utilizing concepts such as those
included in LEED ND™ requirements.
N/A N/A Nothing to note. Incorporated through other strategies
and policies. The City may not pursue LEED ND
specifically.
1.5 Historic Preservation. Establish a
historic preservation program that
includes preservation ordinances,
design guidelines, and educational
and promotional programs.
✔ ✔ Accomplished. A Historic Preservation Overlay, in
addition to related regulations, was adopted along with
a governing body (Landmark Commission).
1.6 Neighborhood Associations.
Encourage establishment of
homeowner, neighborhood,
and tenant associations for all
residential developments to ensure a
direct, cooperative means for
residents of an area to maintain
neighborhood standards.
OG OG++ The number of HOA/NAs has increased to 103 at the
end of FY19 through the outreach and assistance
provided by Neighborhood Services. Services such as
the Neighborhood eNewsletter and Seminar Suppers
keep associations active and informed.
1.7 Predictable Infill. Continue to utilize
and adapt Single-Family Overlay
regulations to protect neighborhood
development patterns.
OG OG++ The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay was revised
and adopted in March 2020, along with a Handbook for
residents interested in pursuing a NCO for their
neighborhood. The amendments clarified and
streamlined the NCO process.
Page 250 of 484
7
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
1.8 Environmental Protection. Develop
regulations and incentives that
protect and preserve the natural
environment in and around College
Station including tree preservation,
floodplain and greenway
management, design flexibility, and
growth management policies.
OG OG+ NAP Natural Areas Protected zoning is used to protect
floodplain and wetland areas through the rezoning
process. No Adverse Impact regulations protect such
areas during the development phase. Linear parks are
now being accepted along floodplain and can
potentially act as a buffer area so people can access and
appreciate the natural features. Incentives area in
places for non-residential development to maintain and
protect mature trees.
1.9 Transportation Options. Promote multi-
modal, context sensitive
transportation connectivity to improve
safety on neighborhood streets
through the adoption of the
Thoroughfare Plan; the Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master
Plan; development regulations; and
capital improvement plans that insure
these facilities are constructed in
accordance with adopted plans.
OG OG++ The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan was
adopted in 2010. Sidewalk fund established in 2011.
Numerous CIP projects have been completed to fill-in
sidewalk gaps, add new systems, and support Safe
Routes to School.
1.10 Enhanced Aesthetics. Develop
standards for streetscaping, perimeter
treatment, and signage for new
residential subdivisions.
-- -- Ordinances were amended to require trees to be
planted with residential lots. Townhouse developments
may plant the required number of trees in groupings.
1.11 Neighborhood Funding Support.
Continue to fund and expand the
Neighborhood Grants program for
neighborhood activities such as
gateways, landscaping, and other
permit application fees.
OG OG++ Neighborhood Services works with HOA and NAs to
promote neighborhood identity and health. Area
signage has been added for both Southside and
Eastgate. Subdivisions, such as Foxfire, have utilized
programs like Strong & Sustainable Grant Program to do
signage and landscaping improvements.
1.12 Attractive Public Facilities. Enhance
the standards for maintenance of
public facilities such as streets and
parks to ensure that these facilities are
attractive assets for a neighborhood.
N/A N/A Nothing to note.
Strategy 2: Identify and minimize elements that detract from community identity.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
2.1 Neighborhood Specific Planning.
Utilize neighborhood plans to help
identify neighborhood-specific issues
that detract from neighborhood
identity and integrity, and develop
options to minimize those issues.
OG OG+ Six neighborhood/district plans were created with
varying stages of implementation success.
2.2 Housing Maintenance Trends.
Maintain inventories of housing
conditions by neighborhood to
monitor trends in housing
maintenance and upgrades, as well
as signs of deterioration.
OG OG+ Community Services provides grants funds to
repair/maintain single-family properties.
Page 251 of 484
8
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
2.3 University Growth. Monitor student
enrollment and student housing trends
to track impacts on the local housing
market, including pressure for
additional student-focused
housing in new locations.
OG OG++ Population estimates area calculated monthly which
include the student population. This is partially
accomplished by observing the number of single-family
and multi-family building permits issued. TAMU is also
providing additional housing options which impact the
utilization of the non-TAMU housing stock city-wide.
2.4a Code Enforcement. Create an
effective code enforcement program
that expediently and efficiently
resolves code violations, including:
o Develop methods to address noise
violations – including working with
Texas A&M University police – to
establish weekend patrols for noise, as
well as public intoxication and other
violations.
✔ -- Nothing to note.
2.4b o Create a system for the public to
monitor enforcement complaints and
track their resolution.
✔ ✔ A citizen portal was established (See-Click-Fix).
2.4c o Prioritization of enforcement
activities based on input from
neighborhood plans.
OG N/A Nothing to note.
2.5 Property Maintenance Standards.
Increase enforcement resources to
ensure that minimum property
standards are being upheld.
IP OG+ Nothing to note.
2.6 Public Maintenance Standards.
Enhance the standards for
maintenance of public facilities such
as streets and parks to ensure that
these facilities are attractive assets for
a neighborhood.
N/A N/A Nothing to note.
2.7 Absentee-Owner Housing Policies.
Adopt the strategies found in the
Strong and Sustainable
Neighborhoods Report for managing
the impacts of rental and absentee
owner housing.
✔ ✔ The City maintains a Rental Registration program.
2.8a Parking Standards. Develop programs
and policies to better manage on-
street parking
such as:
o Coordinate with Texas A&M
University regarding construction
activities and/or special events to
prevent excessive on-street parking in
adjacent neighborhoods.
IP IP Several streets in the Southside Area have had parking
removed due to safety concerns, specifically in regards
to Fire access. Public Works’ Traffic Engineering has
been working on an on-street parking removal process.
2.8b o Consider options to streamline
neighborhood traffic management
processes to address traffic calming
and parking concerns in established
neighborhoods.
✔ IP Public Works has been working on an update to the
traffic calming program.
Page 252 of 484
9
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 3: Identify and implement tools to ensure that infill or redevelopment adjacent to or
within a neighborhood is sensitive to its surroundings.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
3.1 Asset Mapping. Identify and map
areas for redevelopment as outlined
in Chapter 2: Community Character.
OG ✔ This initiative was accomplished in the Southside Area,
South Knoll, and Eastgate plans.
3.2 Redevelopment. Utilize neighborhood
plans to further identify appropriate
infill and redevelopment options, as
well as to develop appropriate
protection options for redevelopment
that is incompatible with
neighborhood plans.
IP OG++ This is reflected in the redevelopment area designations
in the Future Land Use map.
3.3 Gentrification. Create methods to
identify, track, and minimize the
undesirable effects of gentrification in
established neighborhoods.
N/A N/A Nothing to note.
3.4 Compatible Infill. Establish
development regulations to address
the compatibility of infill
or redevelopment in established
neighborhoods and the transition of
land uses around the fringes of such
neighborhoods, including regulations
relating to height, setback, buffering,
architectural style, lot coverage,
landscape protection, and other
development standards.
-- OG++ Buffering, landscaping, and height protection
ordinances added and refined in recent years. The
single-family height protection was modified in 2018.
3.5 Regulatory Obstacles. Evaluate City
codes to identify and remove
regulatory obstacles to desired,
compatible infill development and
revitalization activity.
-- ✔ For the last couple of years PDS has been working to
streamline the UDO under P&Z’s direction.
Strategy 4: Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review, neighborhood plans.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
4.1 Neighborhood Programming. Establish
a neighborhood program that
provides a single point of entry into
the City organization oriented to
addressing neighborhood issues and
coordination of all City programs.
✔ ✔ Neighborhood Services serves as the go-to point of
contact for residents.
4.2 Public Engagement. Create
communication, education, and
training programs for neighborhood
representatives to encourage stability,
cross-communication, and
development of skills to help
neighborhoods make the best use of
the resources available to them.
✔ OG++ Training is available. Services such as the Neighborhood
eNewsletter and Seminar Suppers keep associations
active and informed.
Page 253 of 484
10
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Develop programs to increase public
engagement in the planning
process to keep citizens aware of
development issues as they arise so
that there is adequate time for review
and understanding by the citizens
before construction occurs.
4.3 Data Monitoring. Improve data
collection and mapping regarding
neighborhood opportunities and
challenges.
IP --
Nothing to note.
4.4 Neighborhood Specific Planning.
Establish neighborhood-specific plans
which provide clear guidance for
evaluating the appropriateness and
compatibility of individual
developments and their particular
intensities and impacts within the
context of the existing, desired
community identity and conditions.
OG OG+ Accomplished for the six neighborhood/district plans
established.
4.5 Character-Based Development.
Adopt a character-based approach
to development regulation as outlined
in Chapter 2: Community Character
to increase flexibility and ease and
encourage the implementation of
planned developments which feature
mixing of housing types and
integration of other supportive uses
and neighborhood amenities in a
well-designed setting.
N/A N/A Not pursued.
Chapter 4: Economic Development
As recommended in 5-year Evaluation and Appraisal, Chapter 4 was replaced
with the adopted Economic Development Master Plan (2013). That master plan
contains a set of recommendations and actions around six strategic initiatives.
1. Sustain and Enhance Quality of Life
2. Support and Partner with Texas A&M University and the Texas A&M University System
3. Support Retail Development
4. Support and Stimulate Biotechnology Research and Advanced Manufacturing
5. Support and Stimulate Health and Wellness Market; and
6. Support and Stimulate Sports, Entertainment, and Hospitality Market
An update to the Economic Development Master Plan was adopted in May
2020.
Page 254 of 484
11
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Chapter 5: Parks, Greenways and the Arts
Goal: “diversity of parks, greenways and the arts for leisure and
recreation as well as for entertainment, education and culture to
achieve a high quality of life for all residents and visitors.”
Strategy 1: Maintain and expand the parks and recreation system as well as its facilities and
programs consistent with growth expectations.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
1.1 Plan Update. Complete an update of
the 2003 Recreation, Park, and Open
Space Master Plan.
✔ ✔ Accomplished in 2011. The current plan spans 2011-
2020. Another update is launching in late 2020 through
2021.
1.2 Needs Assessment. In addition to
periodic plan review and updates, a
comprehensive, community-wide
needs assessment should be
completed at least every five years to
evaluate facilities and programs
provided by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
OG OG++ Parks conducts needs assessments and will continue to
do so with their Master Plan update.
1.3
Secure more Parkland. Continue to
provide adequate land for future
neighborhood, community, and
regional park development. The
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
should continue to ensure community
and neighborhood parkland
dedication in the City limits
and the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.
Additional methods should be used to
supplement this effort in order to
acquire prime parkland that is quickly
disappearing through land
development. This can be achieved
through the Capital Improvements
Program, public and private
partnerships, and grants.
OG OG++ Linear Park are now being accepted for parkland
dedication which are helping to boost the trail system in
College Station.
1.4 Park Development and Enhancement.
Invest in the rejuvenation of existing
parks as well as complete
improvements already detailed in
previously approved master plans for
specific parks and recreation facilities.
Also develop additional master plans
as appropriate (e.g., for future park
development in the vicinity of the
Rock Prairie Landfill once it closes, and
for a skate park).
OG OG+ Parks such as Brothers Pond and Crompton, along with
many others, have undergone revitalization projects to
replace and enhance the on-site amenities. New parks
have come into the system since the Plan’s adoption
such as Castlerock and Reatta Meadows. Design for the
Southeast Community Park is completed and
construction timing is to be determined.
Page 255 of 484
12
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
1.5 New and Enhanced Programs. Pursue
new programs and ongoing priorities
that meet the needs of a growing and
changing population.
OG OG++ The Parks & Recreation Department provides
educational and activity-based programs.
1.6 Coordinated Improvements and
Programming. Implement new and
improved facilities and programs with
other agencies and entities where
mutually beneficial partnership
opportunities are available.
OG OG+ YMCA partnerships have been discussed.
1.7 Role of the Private Sector. Encourage
the provision of parks facilities and
programs that are unique or where
demand exceeds supply through
private sponsorship or investment
such as additional swimming pools, a
water park, or athletic fields.
OG -- Nothing to note.
1.8 Park Maintenance. Further refine park
maintenance standards that address
growing needs of parks and facilities
by optimizing and re-evaluating level
of service standards.
✔ ✔ Maintenance standards have been developed and are
included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
1.9 Communication and Marketing.
Enhance awareness and accessibility
to programs and facilities through the
City’s website, publications and
media outlets.
OG OG++ In 2019, the Parks webpage was replaced. The Parks
Guide is produced twice per year which provides details
on upcoming Parks events and facility information, as
well as additional information about other City services.
1.10 Resource Protection and
Sustainability. Continue to program
and budget for streetscape
and gateway projects that include
the planting of native trees and other
vegetation to improve
neighborhoods, transportation
corridors and other public places to
create a greener City.
OG OG+ The City has worked with TxDOT to provide street trees.
The City currently allows limited landscaping in the right
of way or adjacent easements.
Strategy 2: Preserve and enhance the greenways system of linear open spaces and trails for their
intrinsic and functional value.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
2.1 Plan Update. Complete an update to
the 1999 Greenways Master Plan.
✔ ✔ The Greenways Master Plan was incorporated into the
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways (BPG) Master Plan
that was created in 2010. The Plan was updated in
2018.
2.2 Target Natural Corridors. Designate
key areas as “natural corridors” for
phased greenway acquisition and
development (specifically, the portion
of Carter Creek from University
Drive (SH 60) to the confluence with
the Navasota River, and Lick Creek,
✔ OG++ Natural corridors were designated in the BPG Master
Plan. Property has been acquired along various creek
corridors including over 100 acres along Carter Creek..
Additional property is still needed in fee simple or
public access easements for proposed trails along
various corridors.
Page 256 of 484
13
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
from Pebble Creek Subdivision to the
confluence with the Navasota River).
2.3
Focus on Acquisition. Determine
additional methods to secure
greenways that will help to establish
the system. Utilization of grants, public
and private partnerships, and the
Capital Improvements Program should
continue. Building incentives that
encourage developers to design and
build greenway trails. Connections
between developments should be
explored, as well as overlay zones,
annexation opportunities and
conservation easements.
OG OG++ The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan
highlighted methods to protect greenways. They
include private ownership using land use and zoning
regulations, private ownership with public access
easements where trails are proposed and public
ownership when other methods won’t protect the
greenway. All methods are being used. Developers are
also now using parkland development funds to design
and construct trails.
2.4 Amend Ordinances. Amend the
drainage ordinance to include
corridor widths and channel
guidelines to protect greenways.
Amend the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance to complement recreation
opportunities available in greenways.
-- N/A Riparian area protection was explored by staff in 2009
but no direction was given to move forward at that
time. The Parkland Dedication Ordinance was updated
in 2019.
2.5 Implement Key Connections. Create
connections between key elements of
the parks and recreation system and
key destinations.
-- OG++ Key connections have been completed in different areas
of the City to link parks using the trail system. Examples
include the trail along FM 2818 that connects Bee Creek
Park and to Southwest Park and a recent connection
between Larry Ringer Library and Georgie K Fitch Park.
2.6 Careful Design and Accessibility.
Design and construct sustainable and
accessible trails that minimize
environmental impact and promote
scenic views and special features.
Encourage developments that are
oriented towards and designed for
accessibility to greenway trails.
OG OG On-going.
Trails are required to be built using concrete.
2.7 Attention to Maintenance. Develop
maintenance standards for
greenways and trails. Costs of ongoing
maintenance should be addressed
through initial budgeting for new or
extended greenway segments.
-- OG++ Draft standards were developed with staff and need to
be finalized
2.8 Coordination at all Levels. Promote
cross-jurisdictional and inter-agency
coordination on greenways
acquisition, maintenance, funding
and network expansion. Encourage
neighborhood associations and other
organizations to assist with upkeep
(adoption programs) and inventory
(wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and
other natural features).
OG OG++ The creation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization
Active Transportation Advisory Panel has created
additional inter-agency coordination and planning. This
includes collaboration with the City of Bryan and Texas
A&M University on planning key connections across
jurisdictions.
The Adopt-A-Greenway program was created to
encourage individuals and organizations to help keep
our greenways and parks clean.
Page 257 of 484
14
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 3: Create and promote the arts through entertainment, educational and cultural
opportunities that serve a variety of interests and abilities.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
3.1 Leadership and Partnership. Continue
the City’s direct engagement,
promotion and support of local and
regional arts through representation
on the Board of Directors of the Arts
Council of Brazos Valley (ACBV), and
through direct annual budget
allocations to the Arts Council of
Brazos Valley from the City’s hotel
occupancy tax revenue.
OG ✔ Art installations have been focused at Veteran’s Park
and Northgate since Plan adoption.
3.2 Facility Potential. Determine whether
the City, potentially in coordination
with one or more other partners,
should develop a performing arts
facility. It should also be determined
whether the City’s anticipated new
convention center (to be at the
redeveloped Chimney Hill Shopping
Center on University Drive) can and
will include a performing arts
component with appropriate space
and design (e.g., theater/stage size
and seating range, potential dual
large and small performance spaces),
either initially or through potential
future expansion phases.
✔ N/A Nothing to note.
3.3
Wolf Pen Creek District. Continue to
promote the multi-purpose mission of
the Wolf Pen Creek District, particularly
the City’s intent as an area to live,
work, and play.
OG N/A Nothing to note.
The portion of the park closer to Dartmouth was
developed as an outdoor event space with a trail and
lighting.
3.4 Northgate Promotion. Continue to
implement the Northgate
Redevelopment Implementation Plan,
particularly as it relates to promotion
of a live music scene in the
area, and especially to provide
opportunities for local talent.
N/A N/A Nothing to note.
3.5 Redevelopment Opportunities.
Through anticipated redevelopment
activity in coming years, especially
where older apartment blocks are
likely to be redone in similar or new
land uses and/or use mixes, monitor
opportunities to incorporate arts
space or other components into
redeveloped sites.
-- -- Nothing to note.
Page 258 of 484
15
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
3.6 Arts Related Programming. Continue
the City’s role in nurturing young local
artists and offering leisure and
educational activities to adults and
seniors, such as through the Senior Xtra
Education program.
OG OG+ Nothing to note.
3.7 Direct Promotion. Continue direct
promotion of local cultural and
entertainment offerings through the
City’s own website, and in
coordination with the Bryan-College
Station Convention & Visitors Bureau.
OG OG++ The City promotes local arts and entertainment through
the City’s updated website and social media. The City
collaborates with Experience BCS, the Arts Council, and
other organizations to promote local and community-
wide events and entertainment.
3.8 City Staff Support. Continue to provide
direct staff support for arts and
cultural offerings.
OG OG++ Nothing to note.
3.9 Public Art. The City should continue to
support a community-wide installation
and maintenance program in
conjunction with the Arts Council of
Brazos County, the City of Bryan, Texas
A&M University, Brazos Valley, and the
Texas Department of Transportation.
OG OG+ Installations have been focused in Veteran’s Park and
Northgate.
Chapter 6: Transportation
Goal: “improved mobility through a safe, efficient, and well-
connected multimodal transportation system designed to be
sensitive to the surrounding land uses”
Strategy 1: Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review, a multi-modal
transportation plan that supports the planned growth and development pattern.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
1.1 Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and
implement the Thoroughfare Plan.
OG The plan was adopted with the 2009 Comprehensive
plan and later updated with the MPO 2050
Thoroughfare Concept.
1.2 Future Planning. Amend the
Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as
neighborhood, district, corridor, and
master plans are adopted by the City.
OG OG++ Periodic amendments have been approved by Council
to make incremental adjustments to keep the plan
responsive and relevant.
1.3
Project Programming. Maintain and
amend as necessary the City’s various
programs (Bryan-College Station
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement
Program, Capital Improvements
Program, etc.) used to fund projects.
OG OG++ Updates are made as needed.
1.4 Monitor Trends. Continue to collect
and monitor transportation data
OG OG+ Limited monitoring occurs with Existing Conditions
reports, updates to the Bike-Ped-Greenways Master
Page 259 of 484
16
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
including vehicle miles traveled, traffic
counts, levels of service, transit
ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle
facility usage, crashes.
Plan, TIAs as submitted, and warrant studies as
performed by Public Works.
1.5 Context Sensitive Solutions. Amend as
necessary, the various tools used to
implement the Thoroughfare Plan to
ensure context sensitive solutions are
employed. These include the
Unified Development Ordinance, the
Bryan-College Station Unified Design
Guidelines, and the City’s project
development process.
OG OG+ Block length ordinance have been amended to increase
block lengths for medium-density residential
development (2013). A Public Way option was created
to allow for private street development to supplement
the Thoroughfare Plan while not adding to the City’s
maintenance (2011).
Revised right-of-way widths were provided in the 2012
version of BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Street cross
sections were updated and simplified in 2015 but have
not yet been incorporated into the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines.
Strategy 2: Reduce and manage traffic congestion.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
2.1 Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and
implement the Thoroughfare Plan.
OG ✔ The plan was adopted with the 2009 Comprehensive
plan and later updated in 2015 and 2017.
2.2 Monitor Trends. Continue to collect
and monitor transportation data
including vehicle miles traveled, traffic
counts, levels of service, transit
ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle
facility usage, crashes.
OG OG+ This is a continuous effort on behalf of the Traffic
Engineer. Additional data is collected in regards to the
bike and pedestrian activity through the annual
Community Survey conducted by the City Manager’s
office.
2.3
Access Management. Promote
access management strategies where
appropriate to preserve modal
efficiency throughout the
thoroughfare system.
OG Nothing to note.
2.4 Traffic Control Technology. Install a
state-of-the-art computerized traffic
control system including signal
synchronization.
IP ✔ A system is now in place and is monitored by City Staff.
2.5 Travel Demand Management.
Develop and implement a travel
demand management program
including real-time traffic information,
traffic incident alerts, ridesharing
programs, promotion of flexible work
schedules, and encouragement of
dense mixed-use development.
-- OG+ This effort has been aided by the popularization and
real-time traffic information available through phone
applications such as Apple Maps, Google Maps, and
Waze. Rideshare companies such as Lift and Uber have
been accommodated in areas such as Northgate to
promote ridership.
2.6 Intersection Improvements. Continue
enhancements and upgrades at
intersections to improve multi-modal
efficiency.
OG OG+ City has made strides in adding signalized pedestrian
crossings that are visually-impaired assessable.
Page 260 of 484
17
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 3: Develop and implement context sensitive transportation solutions.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
3.1 Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and
implement the Thoroughfare Plan.
OG ✔ The plan was adopted with the 2009 Comprehensive
plan and later updated in 2015 and 2017.
3.2 Future Planning. Amend the
Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as
neighborhood, district, corridor, and
master plans are adopted by the City.
OG OG++ Periodic amendments have been approved by Council
to make incremental adjustments to keep the plan
responsive and relevant.
3.3
Context Sensitive Solutions. Amend, as
necessary, the various tools used to
implement the Thoroughfare Plan to
ensure context sensitive solutions are
employed. These include the Unified
Development Ordinance, the Bryan-
College Station Unified Design
Guidelines, and the City’s project
development process.
OG OG+ Context Sensitive Solutions were added to the UDO.
Revised right-of-way widths were provided in the 2012
version of BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Street cross
sections were updated and simplified in 2015 but have
not yet been incorporated into the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines.
3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning.
Amend and implement the bicycle
and pedestrian system master plans.
OG OG++ The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan was
created in 2010 and amended in 2018.
3.5 Transit. Pursue opportunities with the
current transit providers to expand
and enhance transit services within
and between activity centers and
dense residential areas,
concentrations of student housing,
etc.
-- OG+ The Brazos Transit District has updated their fleet.
New covered bus stops have been added for TAMU and
limited district locations (i.e. Wolf Pen Creek on
Holleman Drive and at the Lincoln Center (under
construction)). BTD is working to transition from a “flag
stop” model to fixed-stop locations.
3.6 Project Programming. Maintain and
amend as necessary the City’s various
programs (Bryan-College Station
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement
Program, and Capital Improvements
Program) used to fund projects.
OG OG++ Block length ordinance have been amended to increase
block lengths for medium-density residential
development (2013). A Public Way option was created
to allow for private street development to supplement
the Thoroughfare Plan while not adding to the City’s
maintenance (2011).
3.7 Primary Mobility Corridors. Adopt and
implement the context sensitive
approach identified in this Plan for
identified primary mobility corridors.
OG OG+ Revised right-of-way widths were provided in the 2012
version of BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Street cross
sections were updated and simplified in 2015 but have
not yet been incorporated into the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines.
3.8 Rehabilitation Projects. Adopt and
implement the context sensitive
approach identified in this Plan for
rehabilitation projects located within
established neighborhoods or districts.
OG OG+ Revised right-of-way widths were provided in the 2012
version of BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Street cross
sections were updated and simplified in 2015 but have
not yet been incorporated into the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines.
3.9
Right-of-way Constrained Projects.
Adopt and implement a context
sensitive approach and decision
matrix for City projects where the
available right-of-way is constrained.
OG OG+ Revised right-of-way widths were provided in the 2012
version of BCS Unified Design Guidelines. Street cross
sections were updated and simplified in 2015 but have
not yet been incorporated into the BCS Unified Design
Guidelines.
Page 261 of 484
18
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 4: Promote and invest in alternative transportation options.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
4.1 Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and
implement the Thoroughfare Plan.
OG ✔ The plan was adopted with the 2009 Comprehensive
plan and later updated in 2015 and 2017.
4.2 Commuter Rail. Continue to
participate in the Texas High Speed
Rail Initiative and similar efforts to bring
commuter rail services to the City.
OG OG++ The City has publicly stated its support of the passenger
rail from Dallas to Houston. The anticipated stop
between these cities is Roans Prairie. The City will
continue to monitor these efforts.
4.3 Future Planning. Amend the
Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as
neighborhood, district, corridor, and
master plans are adopted by the City.
OG OG++ Periodic amendments have been approved by Council
to make incremental adjustments to keep the plan
responsive and relevant.
4.4 Context Sensitive Solutions. Amend, as
necessary, the various tools used to
implement the Thoroughfare Plan to
ensure context sensitive solutions are
employed. These include
the Unified Development Ordinance,
the Bryan-College Station Unified
Design Guidelines, and the City’s
project development process.
OG OG+ The UDO and BCS Design guidelines were updated to
include context-sensitive solutions. These requirements
have been reduced over time.
4.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian. Amend and
implement the bicycle and pedestrian
system master plans.
OG OG++ Adopted in 2010. Updated in 2018.
4.6 Transit. Pursue opportunities with the
current transit providers to expand
and enhance transit services within
and between activity centers and
dense residential areas, and
concentrations of student housing.
-- OG+ Community Development Block Grant funds have been
utilized to fund an additional bus stop near the Lincoln
Center. Additional adjustments have been made to the
Brazos Transit District and TAMU bus system routes to
accommodate for new development.
The addition of Veoride, and associated ordinances to
allow rideshare bicycles, has aided in availability of
transit options. Accommodations are made for
rideshare programs such as Uber and Lift in Northgate
thus reducing the number of intoxicated drivers and
alleviating the need for new parking options.
The District is moving to a designated-stop pick-up
system in lieu of the current at-will system.
4.7 Project Programming. Maintain and
amend as necessary the City’s various
programs (Bryan-College Station
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement
Program, and Capital Improvements
Program) used to fund projects.
OG OG++ On-going effort
The Planning and Zoning Commission was brought into
the CIP decision making process to oversee Comp Plan
implementation in 2010.
Page 262 of 484
19
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 5: Balance changes in land use with the capabilities of the transportation system.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
5.1 Use of Future Land Use & Character
Map. Adopt and implement the
Future Land Use & Character map
contained in this Plan.
OG ✔ Adopted with the Comprehensive Plan in 2009.
5.2 Land Use and Development Review.
Continue to evaluate the capacity of
the existing and proposed
transportation system in
Comprehensive Plan amendments,
rezoning requests, and site plan
reviews.
OG OG++ Both the existing conditions and future/proposed build-
out of the supporting roadway system is evaluated and
taken into consideration with each development and
Comprehensive Plan amendment request. This
evaluation is included in each Staff Report provided to
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to
enable informed decision making.
5.3 Traffic Impact Analysis. Require traffic
impact analyses for all development
proposals anticipated to generate
significant volumes of traffic.
OG ✔ A traffic impact analysis or letter is required to be
submitted with all qualifying developments as part of
Preliminary Plan, Final Plat, and/or Site Plan submittal.
5.4 Monitor Trends. Continue to collect
and monitor transportation data
including vehicle miles traveled, traffic
counts, levels of service, transit
ridership, and bicycle and pedestrian
facility usage, crashes.
OG OG+ Limited monitoring occurs with Existing Conditions
report, updates to the Bike-Ped-Greenways Master
Plan, TIAs as submitted, and warrant studies as
performed by Public Works.
Chapter 7: Municipal Services & Community Facilities
Goal: “municipal facilities that meet community needs, contribute to
community character, are sensitive to the surrounding land uses, and
provide exceptional municipal services.”
Strategy 1: Maintain existing infrastructure.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
1.1 Focus on Infill. Concentrate municipal
services and facilities in infill areas
versus fragmenting services.
IP OG++ The new Police Station is located off Krenek Tap Road
near other municipal facilities. The new City Hall is
currently under construction and located adjacent to
the existing complex. The Larry Ringer Library was
recently expanded on its existing site.
1.2 Rehabilitation. Invest in the sensitive
rehabilitation of older water, sanitary
sewer, electric, drainage, and other
infrastructure in the City’s oldest
neighborhoods to maintain their
viability and attractiveness for private
property owners and homeowners.
OG OG++ The 2010 Water System Master Plan identified existing
service areas needing rehabilitations. Since then,
numerous projects have undergone replacement in the
Southside and Eastgate areas. The master plan was
updated in 2017. Roadway maintenance fees were
adopted in Fall 2016 to help provide funds for street
maintenance and rehabilitation.
Page 263 of 484
20
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 2: Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review, facilities and service
master plans that support the planned growth and development pattern.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
2.1 Land Use Planning. Establish a Land
Use Plan that will meet the needs of
the growing population through the
planning horizon, while being mindful
of growth limitations such
as a lack of public infrastructure and
services.
IP ✔ Accomplished with the adoption of the Plan.
2.2 Rehabilitation. Invest in the sensitive
rehabilitation of older water, sanitary
sewer, electric, drainage, and other
infrastructure in the City’s oldest
neighborhoods to maintain their
viability and attractiveness for private
property owners and homeowners.
OG OG++ The 2010 Water System Master Plan identified existing
service areas needing rehabilitations. Since then,
numerous projects have undergone replacement in the
Southside and Eastgate areas. The master plan was
updated in 2017. Roadway maintenance fees were
adopted in Fall 2016 to help provide funds for street
maintenance and rehabilitation.
2.3 Service upon Annexation. Develop
plans for the expansion of municipal
services in conjunction with
annexation plans to ensure that the
City is prepared to serve its residents
upon annexation.
OG OG+ In 2010 the Water System Master Plan and Waste
Water Master Plan were adopted which identified
growth areas, these plans were updated in 2017. This
guidance has resulted in new facilities to accommodate
current and anticipated growth in the central and south
College Station area.
Per the Texas legislative changes to Annexation, utility
expansions will occur in the future through
development agreements and municipal utility districts.
2.4
Keep Master Plans Current. Continue
to re-evaluate and update, as
needed, key master plans every 3-5
years (water, wastewater, storm
water, drainage management, solid
waste, electric, Police, Fire).
OG OG++ The Water System Master Plan and Waste Water
Master Plan were updated in 2017. The Electric Utility
System Master Plan was revised in 2019, and is
currently undergoing an additional update.
2.5 Plan for Future Facilities. Develop a
comprehensive facilities plan that
meets the future space and functional
needs of City employees as well as
the desired community space
needs.
IP OG+ Though a comprehensive facilities plan has not been
assembled, individual departments have overseen their
needs.
Strategy 3: Maintain exemplary levels of municipal services.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
3.1 Accreditations. Pursue and receive
accreditations City-wide.
OG OG++ The City has national accreditations in police, fire, EMS,
public safety communications, parks, water, and public
works. Fiscal Services and Planning & Development
Services annually receive excellence awards.
3.2 City-wide Wi-Fi. Determine feasibility
of a City-wide, public “wi-fi” network
(possibly in partnership with the City of
Bryan and/or Texas A&M University).
IP OG+ The City provides free public wi-fi at Veteran’s Park and
City Hall.
3.3 Water Standards. Meet or exceed
State water quality standards for area
streams, and maintain exemplary level
OG OG++ Achieved annually. Continue to expand services with
new wells and above-ground storage tanks.
Page 264 of 484
21
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
of public drinking water quality and
associated monitoring.
3.4
Storm Water Management. Adhere to
and require effective storm water
management practices.
OG OG++ Adopted a No Adverse Impact requirement to limit run-
off from new development. The City developed a
Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) in
accordance with requirements of the municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4) program to
manage stormwater discharges.
3.5 Economical Service. Plan utility
infrastructure and services and
approve development only in areas
that can be reliably and economically
served within the City’s capabilities.
OG OG+ Nothing to note. By extending utilities to support
greenfield “growth areas” we have encouraged the
southward spread of College Station and its population.
3.6 Regional Cooperation. Continue
regional cooperation on solid waste
management, and consider
opportunities to consolidate or better
coordinate other utility services with
other area governments or service
providers.
OG OG++ The Rock Prairie landfill stopped accepting waste in
2011 and was replaced by the Twin Oaks, located on
Hwy 30 near Carlos, in 2011.
The City entered into an ILA with the City of Bryan to
serve the Biomedical District in west College Station.
3.7 Excellent Service. Maintain
commitment to an excellent level of
system operation and customer
service for all City utilities and services.
OG OG++ Achieved daily. Customer service is recognized for its
excellent dedication to public safety and information
security.
Strategy 4: Expand municipal services and facilities consistent with growth expectations and to
support the planned growth and development pattern
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
4.1 Consolidated Facilities. Establish
consolidated facilities for storage and
maintenance of service vehicles and
equipment, records storage, materials
storage and other needs in locations
that are accessible to areas served.
-- -- Nothing to note.
4.2 Character of Public Buildings. Design
and construct public buildings,
facilities and improvements, including
a new City Hall, which reflect the
character of their surroundings, blend
well into existing neighborhoods and
districts, and help to establish an
identity and quality standard for
newly-developing areas of the City.
IP OG++ All City projects are required to meet all development
standards. Since the adoption of the Plan, three fire
station of exemplary design have been constructed.
Each also provide additional small-scale meeting space
that may be used by the community. The new Fire
Station, Police Station, Larry Ringer Library expansion,
and City Hall, which is currently under construction,
exhibit an architectural style that will be carried
through future projects.
4.3 School Facilities. Communicate with
College Station Independent School
District on facility coordination
opportunities, especially to locate
new elementary schools within
neighborhoods whenever possible,
and to ensure safe/walkable areas
around schools.
OG OG+ The CSISD voluntarily complies with development
regulations for the City. Staff works with them through
the Safe Routes to School Program to install sidewalks
along areas utilized by students.
Page 265 of 484
22
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
4.4
Coordinated Improvements.
Capitalize on opportunities to achieve
multiple community objectives
through major infrastructure projects,
such as coordinated road
improvements, utility and drainage
upgrades, sidewalk rehabilitation /
installation / extensions, and
streetscape enhancement.
OG OG++ The CIP department coordinates the needs of all
services providers in the City of College Station network
to ensure communication is open and design/
construction funds are maximized to meet their needs.
4.5 Promote Infill and Redevelopment.
Program utility improvements and
extensions to promote infill and
redevelopment versus expansion of
the urbanized area.
OG OG++ Infill development is being encouraged through
rehabilitation projects and expansion is encouraged
through the extension of utilities.
4.6 Electric Infrastructure. Continue
phased implementation of the long-
range Electric Transmission Plan, along
with other area partners, to ensure
adequate and reliable supply
to serve anticipated growth and to
maintain College Station Utilities’
capability for rapid response to system
outages.
OG OG++ While a specific long-range Electric Transmission Plan
has not been created, the City coordinates with other
areas partners to provide adequate and reliable
services.
4.7 Water Infrastructure. Continue phased
expansion of water supply resources
and associated production
capabilities to meet shorter-term peak
demands, as well as forecasted
longer-term needs.
OG OG++ The City has constructed new water wells to increase
capacity and contacts high-demand water users to help
identify ways to reduce use.
4.8 Public Safety. Expand public safety
facilities, including a satellite Police
station in southern College Station and
strategically placed Fire Stations, in
order to provide adequate service
and response times.
OG OG++ Three fire stations have been constructed since the
adoption of the Plan. The satellite Police station idea
was explored and was not preferred. A new Police
Station has been constructed on Dartmouth Street.
Strategy 5: Promote facilities and services delivery practices that encourage resource
conservation and protection.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
5.1 Resource Conservation. Determine
practical ways to reduce energy
consumption and implement resource
conservation strategies in all areas of
municipal service provision.
OG OG+ Nothing to note.
5.2 Runoff. Limit the impacts of urban
runoff on area creeks and bodies of
water.
OG OG++ The City adopted a No Adverse Impact requirement to
limit run-off from new development. The City
developed a Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP) in accordance with requirements of the
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) program
to manage stormwater discharges.
Page 266 of 484
23
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
5.3 Green College Station. Implement
Green College Station initiatives and
use “green” technologies and
practices to reduce utility
consumption, operate more
efficiently, and limit facility impacts on
nearby areas of the community.
OG OG+ Solar panel and other rebates offered for energy
efficient appliances and upgrades
5.4
Water Conservation. Pursue and
support local water conservation and
re-use initiatives, specifically including
the reuse of water to irrigate City
facilities.
OG OG+ Continuous outreach and education is undergone by
City Staff to promote water conservation. A
proclamation was made by the Mayor declaring June
“Water Conservation Awareness” month. Veteran’s
Park has graywater reuse for irrigation.
5.5 Recycling. Promote solid waste
reduction and recycling by residents,
businesses, and local institutions,
through the creation of initiatives that
provide residents a convenient means
of disposing of household hazardous
waste.
OG OG+ The City has implemented a single-stream recycling
program and hosts semi-annual hazardous household
waste drop-off events.
5.6 Consolidated Services. Identify ways
to consolidate service delivery and
create efficiencies in City government
by minimizing sprawl and reducing
service delivery costs.
OG -- Nothing to note.
Chapter 8: Growth Management
Goal: “ensure fiscally responsible and carefully managed
development aligned with growth expectations and in concert with
the ability to deliver infrastructure and services in a safe, timely, and
effective manner.”
Strategy 1: Identify land use needs based on projected population growth.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
1.1 Strategic Land Use Planning. Delineate
planned growth areas and protection
areas by assigning appropriate
character classifications (e.g., urban
and suburban versus rural) for the 20-
year planning horizon, through the
Future Land Use & Character map in
the Comprehensive Plan.
OG OG++ Accomplished. The NAP Natural Areas Protected land
use designation could be further clarified with newer
FEMA information in applicable areas.
1.2 Holding Area Zoning. Ensure that the
growth timing aspect of municipal
zoning is employed effectively by
establishing a direct link between
character areas indicated on the
Future Land Use & Character map
OG OG++ Timing of development is taken into consideration with
a request to change zoning. This information is provided
as part of a professional recommendation given to City
Council by Staff.
Page 267 of 484
24
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
and the development intensity
permitted in these areas through the
zoning map and Unified Development
Ordinance provisions.
1.3 Zoning Integrity. Guard against zoning
map amendments that, cumulatively,
can lead to extensive residential
development in growth areas without
adequate land reserves for a balance
of commercial, public, and
recreational uses.
OG OG++ Accomplished.
This is taken into considered with each request to
change zoning. This information is provided as part of a
professional recommendation given to City Council by
staff.
1.4 University Coordination. Coordinate
with Texas A&M University and Blinn
College concerning their projected
enrollment growth and associated
faculty/staff increases to plan
effectively for the implications of
further off-campus housing demand.
OG OG+ Ongoing to the extent possible under current
communication constraints, which are reducing
constantly.
1.5 Monitor Trends. In conjunction with
periodic review of the Comprehensive
Plan, identify market shifts that could
have implications for desired housing
types, retail or other commercial
offerings, and particular public service
and recreational needs.
OG OG Accomplished.
The increased number of student-focused single-family
housing developments is impacting the mulit-family
market. Short-term rentals are impacting the viability
of the hotel stock. Online shopping is impacting the
brick-and-mortar retail establishments.
Strategy 2: Align public investments with the planned growth and development pattern.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
2.1 Coordinated Planning. Ensure that the
strategies and actions of this
Comprehensive Plan carry through to
the City’s master plans. The City
master plan updates should include
provisions that relate directly to the
City’s Future Land Use & Character
Plan (e.g., future utility master plans;
Recreation, Park, and Open Space
Master Plan; Bicycle, Pedestrian
and Greenways Master Plan).
OG OG++ Accomplished.
2.2 Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity Boundary Extensions. Extend
the City’s service area for sanitary
sewer (the Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity boundary) into
the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in an
incremental and carefully timed
manner, in concert with annexation
activity and defined growth
management objectives.
OG OG+ Sewer extension was made following the Wellborn
Community annexation and is also being extended to
serve the Southern Pointe Development through MUD
#1 at the former Texas Speedway location. There is also
MUD #2 at Millican Reserve. Limited extension of public
services have been made.
Page 268 of 484
25
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
2.3 Strengthen the Water/Sanitary Sewer
Extension Policy. Amend the
water/sewer extension policy to
require extensions to be consistent
with the Future Land Use & Character
Plan; the City’s ongoing growth area
planning; and the City’s utility master
plans and multiyear Capital
Improvement Plan.
-- ✔ The Water/Sanitary Sewer Extension Policy was
updated. Further updates may be desired based on
changes to state annexation laws.
2.4 Oversize Participation. Establish criteria
to evaluate the fiscal impact and cost
effectiveness of proposed over-sizing
commitments by the City.
-- ✔ The City provides funds to oversize infrastructure as
needed and appropriate to meet the City’s long term
water, sanitary sewer, and transportation plans.
2.5 Capital Improvements Programming.
Expand municipal facilities consistent
with growth expectations and to
support the desired growth and
development pattern.
OG OG++ Three new fire stations have been constructed to
serving a growing/spreading population. A new Police
Station has been constructed on Dartmouth Street. The
new City Hall, located adjacent to the existing site, is
currently under construction.
2.6 Impact Fees. Extend water and
wastewater impact fees into new,
targeted growth areas in the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Also,
establish road impact fees within the
City as authorized by Texas statute.
-- ✔ City-wide impact fees for water, sanitary sewer, and
roadways were adopted in 2016. Future evaluation of
impact fees will occur at regular intervals per Texas
statute.
2.7 Traffic Impact Analysis. Protect road
capacity and safety by strengthening
requirements for Traffic Impact
Analyses when proposed
developments exceed a designated
size or projected trip generation.
Provisions for analysis and potential
mitigation should be extended to
significant single-family residential
developments as requirements in the
Unified Development Ordinance
currently apply only to non-residential
and multi-family projects.
-- OG++ The ordinance to require TIAs for single-family
development was adopted in 2016. Further evaluation
should be undertaken to refine mitigation thresholds
and consider inclusion of site and multimodal
provisions.
2.8 Parkland Dedication. In follow-up to
the City’s extension of parkland
dedication requirements into the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, monitor the
program parameters to ensure desired
outcomes.
OG OG+ The monitoring of the Parkland dedication funds has
been tighter in recent years due to the expiration of
funds for a large development.
2.9 Interlocal Cooperation. Pursue
interlocal cooperation agreements
with Brazos, Grimes, and Burleson
counties; City of Bryan; Texas A&M
University; and other service providers,
as appropriate. Such agreements can
address coordination of subdivision
review, thoroughfare planning,
floodplain management, and utility
OG OG+ Communication and coordination between the City of
Bryan and Brazos County has improved in recent years.
Additional communication has led to better
enforcement of regulations in the ETJ and consistent
road design between the cities.
Page 269 of 484
26
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
and other service provision, among
other matters of mutual interest.
Strategy 3: Balance the availability of and desire for new development areas with
redevelopment and infill opportunities.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
3.1 Infrastructure Investments. Invest in the
necessary infrastructure to increase
redevelopment potential for areas
identified in Chapter 2: Community
Character. Concentrating property
development within the City makes
efficient use of infrastructure
and supports the City’s Green College
Station effort.
OG OG++ Major utility and street rehabilitation projections have
taken place in the Eastgate and Southside areas.
3.2 Holding Area Annexations. Use
annexation to incorporate and
appropriately zone areas
to protect them from premature
development. This strategy can also
be employed in areas where the City
wishes to maintain a rural character.
-- N/A Several minor annexations have taken place since the
plan adoption. However, in regards to strategic
annexation, that has been limited to the annexation of
the Wellborn Community in 2011. In recent times, MUD
#1 has been established at the Texas Speedway location
that requires development annexation at a future date.
There is also MUD #2 at Millican Reserve. Future
annexations have been limited by recent legislation.
3.3 Growth Area Targeting. Coordinate
zoning, capital improvement
programming, and municipal services
planning to prepare targeted growth
areas as identified on the Concept
Map in Chapter 2: Community
Character.
-- OG Water and sewer capacity has been increased to
prepare for the development of growth areas.
3.4 Zoning in Support of Redevelopment.
Together with other incentive
measures, apply targeted zoning
strategies to designated
Redevelopment Areas identified on
the Future Land Use & Character
map. Options may include items such
as reduced setbacks, waiver to height
limitations, increased signage,
increased density, reduced parking
standards, and reduced impact fees.
-- OG+ Non-conformities section of the UDO was revised to
allow more flexibility. Redevelopment areas have more
flexibility in buffer requirements and height
protections.
Page 270 of 484
27
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
Strategy 4: Identify and implement growth management techniques for areas within the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
4.1 Intergovernmental Cooperation.
Coordinate the City’s regulatory
strategy for rural lot sizes with efforts by
the Brazos County Health Department
to increase the minimum required lot
size for allowing on-site sewer
treatment systems from one acre to a
larger size, as needed, to address
public health and safety concerns.
N/A -- Nothing to note.
4.2 Pursue Development Balance.
Consider the development of
regulations and fees that
help level the playing field between
in-City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
development. Ensure that
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
development contributes its fair share
to the long-term costs of extending
public infrastructure and services to
fringe areas.
OG OG Nothing to note. Some parkland dedication
requirements apply to the ETJ.
4.3 Growth Area Annexations. Pursue
strategic annexations, if feasible from
a fiscal and service provision
standpoint, to extend the City’s land
use regulations to Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction areas facing immediate
and near-term development
pressures. This should also include
areas where City utilities have already
been extended.
-- OG+ Several minor annexations have taken place since the
plan adoption. However, in regards to strategic
annexation, that has been limited to the annexation of
the Wellborn Community in 2011. In recent times,
MUD #1 has been established at the Texas Speedway
location that requires development annexation at a
future date. There is also MUD #2 at Millican Reserve.
Future annexations have been limited by recent
legislation.
4.4 Conservation Area Annexations.
Pursue strategic annexations in areas
not targeted for significant urban or
suburban development in the near
term. This enables the City to apply
growth management measures to
discourage premature and
inappropriate development.
-- -- Several minor annexations have taken place since the
plan adoption. However, in regards to strategic
annexation, that has been limited to the annexation of
the Wellborn Community in 2011. In recent times, MUD
#1 has been established at the Texas Speedway location
that requires development annexation at a future date.
There is also MUD #2 at Millican Reserve. Future
annexations have been limited by recent legislation.
4.5 Voluntary Annexations. Utilize the
utility extension policy as a means to
encourage landowners to agree to
annexation by way of voluntary
petition to protect the City’s
long-term interests in significant areas
of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, such
as along key transportation corridors.
OG OG Access to sewer is primary driver for property owners to
petition annexation.
4.6 Non-Annexation Agreements. Target
certain annexation efforts to areas
OG OG Accomplished until 2019.
Page 271 of 484
28
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
where land owners maintain a TEXAS
TAX CODE exemption on their property
for agricultural use. In such cases, the
City must offer the property owner an
opportunity to enter into a non-
annexation development agreement
with the City in lieu of annexation. This
strategy can be an effective way of
assuring limited development on the
property for up to 15 years.
4.7 Fiscal Impact Analysis. Continue to
complete thorough cost-benefit
analyses to evaluate all proposed
annexations. Explore available fiscal
impact models that provide a more
robust analysis.
OG OG Accomplished with each annexation. The only large-
scale annexation that has taken place since the plan
adoption is the Wellborn Community. A fiscal analysis
was created at that time. In 2019, legislation was
passed limited the City’s ability to initiate future
annexations.
4.8 Land Conservation. In support of the
Green College Station Action Plan,
protect natural resources by recruiting
land trusts and conservation
organizations to consider acquisition
and preservation of targeted open
areas.
-- -- Nothing to note.
Strategy 5: Encourage and promote the redevelopment of land that is currently occupied by
obsolete or non-functioning structures.
Action Progress Assessment Progress Description 5-year Current
5.1 Redevelopment of Retail. Continue to
emphasize redevelopment and
revitalization opportunities for large
retail sites such as Post Oak Mall and
the vacant former grocery anchored
retail center along South College
Avenue near University Drive.
OG OG+ Economic Development is attuned to this effort.
The long-vacant science/research campus off State
Highway 6 has been filled with a commercial entity.
5.2 Parking Management. Encourage
residential, commercial and mixed
development models in the City’s
targeted Redevelopment Areas, as
identified on the Future Land Use
& Character map, that focus on
integration of structured parking to
enable more productive use of the
overall site in place of extensive
surface parking.
OG OG++ This option has been utilized, specifically in regards to
Redevelopment Areas, at the Northpoint Crossing
development, several others in Northgate, and the new
Embassy Suites site on University Drive. The UDO
parking requirements were revised in 2017 to be more
flexible.
5.3 Zoning in Support of Redevelopment.
Review the effectiveness of the
Redevelopment District (RDD) overlay
zoning. Specifically, determine
whether the minimum 20-year age
-- OG+ The RDD overlay currently applies to only one site
within the City (the Kohl’s shopping center).
Page 272 of 484
29
Complete, redundant, or not relevant / Consider removing or consolidating
Relevant / carry forward with refinements
requirement for pre-existing
development is excessive or an
obstacle. Consider applying the RDD
zoning to designated Redevelopment
Areas identified on the Future Land
Use & Character map to encourage
market-responsive development to
occur at intersections of arterials
within the City limits where there are
significant amounts of underutilized
lands.
5.4 Density/Intensity Bonuses. Use the
prospect of increased development
yield (retail/office square footage
and/or additional residential units in
mixed-use developments) to entice
redevelopment projects aiming for
increased development intensity.
-- -- Discussions have taken place for both infill and
redevelopment prospects. However, none have come to
fruition to date.
Page 273 of 484
1
Best Practices Report January 23, 2020
Part of The Next 10 process is to consider potential best practices and
planning innovations from other communities based on College
Station’s issues, assets, challenges, and future opportunities. Lessons
learned from this research will inform recommendations for the
Comprehensive Plan evaluation.
This report is intended as a resource to be used as the City considers updates to its Comprehensive
Plan. It provides a set of twelve case studies of communities that have pursued a strategy or set of
strategies that address one or more topics of interest to College Station. The case studies have been
selected to offer potentially valuable thinking about similar challenges and opportunities. However,
they should not be viewed as recommended solutions. While these issues exist in other
communities, College Station is somewhat unique in its scale, its location, physical character, its
culture, and the size and impact of Texas A&M University. Also, some topics that College Station is
most interested in addressing, are those where there is not a clear “best practice” solution. For other
topics, the complexity of issues requires multiple related strategies to be successful. In both of those
cases, this report will highlight actions that communities are undertaking, while emphasizing the
latest thinking about these emerging issues. The City should use this information to consider how it
might apply similar concepts or approaches within its unique context.
Topics
1. City-University cost sharing. How have other college towns engaged and convinced their large
public, State-run University to contribute to paying for the services they are using/needing?
2. City-University coordination. How could we continue to improve the University-City
relationship to better manage growth?
3. City-Student community building. How can we build a stronger sense among University
students that they are part of a larger community?
4.City identity. How could we create a stronger sense of place and community identity (internally
and externally) to distinguish our City?
5.Neighborhood character and student housing. How do we better maintain the character of
established neighborhoods with redevelopment pressure for student housing?
APPENDIX D
Page 274 of 484
2
6. Housing affordability. How could we create more opportunities for new housing that is
affordable to moderate income households, including families and young professionals?
7. Redevelopment and infill development. How do we encourage redevelopment or infill
development?
Report Organization
This report is organized by the topics above. Twelve case studies organized by these topics provide
examples of relevant strategies. Each case study describes the community challenge, the approach
that was undertaken to address the challenge, and the impacts of that approach. Resources that
provide further details and information of the case study are included in this report.
The first three topics and first four case studies address interrelated issues and are
grouped together. Topics four through seven are each followed by two case studies.
Case Studies Topics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strategic Development Plan Implementation, University of Florida |
Gainesville, FL
Creative Campus, Columbus State Community College | Columbus, OH
Collaboration Corvallis | Oregon State University and The City of Corvallis, OR
University of Alabama Master Plan Committee & Neighborhood
Partnership Committee, University of Alabama | Tuscaloosa, AL
Nickel Plate District | Fishers, IN
Branding Campaign | Albuquerque, NM
Student Home Licensing and Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative | State
College, PA
College and University Neighborhoods District | Waco, TX (Baylor University)
Georgia Initiative for Community Housing | Athens-Clarke County, GA
My Chatt House, online pattern book and building plans | Chattanooga, TN
Economic Development Partnership and Land Swap | Lexington, KY
Infill Incentive Program | Yuma, AZ
Page 275 of 484
3
Topic 1: City-University cost sharing.
How have other college towns engaged and convinced their large
public, State-run University to pay for the services they are
using/needing? For example: Streets, Drainage, PD, Fire.
Context
Large, prestigious universities provide significant economic benefits to their surrounding
communities. However, a rapidly growing institution, which is exempt from city taxes and most fees,
can make it difficult for a city to establish and fund timely improvements to infrastructure and
services. Texas A&M has been one of the fastest growing large public universities in the country over
the past decade, so the challenge for College Station is unique in its magnitude.
The examples of public universities contributing financially to their host cities is relatively
uncommon, but there are several different examples for College Station to consider. One method is
financial partnership involving a payment by the university to reimburse a city for a specific expense
(gameday policing for example) or to fund a specific project or program. Another method is a
“payment-in-lieu-of-taxes” (PILOT) program. PILOT programs mostly apply to private institutions,
however there are a handful of examples involving public universities (including Pennsylvania State
University, The University of Iowa, and The University of Minnesota). The case studies that relate to
this topic are examples of university’s contributing financial, intellectual, and programmatic
resources to benefit the community and institution.
Most examples of university-city cost sharing appear to be initiated by the university, rather than the
city. Financial partnerships arise out of a collaborative relationship (Topic 2) and or a university
identified need to address community issues that directly impact the university’s ability to recruit or
retain students, faculty, or research dollars.
Potential Strategies
1. Partnerships and cost-sharing agreements for a specific initiative – Collaborative programs
or funding to address specific city and community issues or to facilitate development in a
specific geography.
2. Development entity supported by the institution – A third party entity that receives funding
from the institution to support development in a specific area.
3. Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) program – Voluntary payments made by tax-exempt
nonprofits as a substitute for property taxes.
Page 276 of 484
4
Topic 2: City-University coordination
How could we continue to improve the University-City relationship
to better manage growth?
Topic 3: City-Student community building
How can we build a stronger sense among University students that
they are part of a larger community?
Context
University-community partnerships offer institutions and the communities in which they are located,
enormous potential for mutual benefit. Historically, many university-community relationships have
been fraught with tension, are sporadic or redundant in nature, or have been limited by the whims
of changing leadership. But that characterization may be changing. A 2019 study conducted by The
University of Virginia’s Thriving Cities Lab found that 95% of universities surveyed included a
statement of support for city-university partnerships in their strategic plans. Examples of these
partnerships have grown in the past two decades, but implementation success remains a challenge.
The City of College Station is interested in ways that it can build enduring, on-going relationships
with Texas A&M University at multiple levels that endure even with respective organizational
turnover. At another level is a desire to promote good relationships between students and
residents. Such student-level community building has been shown to improve the likelihood that
graduates will choose to stay in the area after graduation. It has also been shown to benefit the
educational institution by improving student academic outcomes.
Potential Strategies
1. Partnership and cost sharing agreements (as identified under topic 1)
2. Town / gown advisory boards or committees – Organizations of city and university
stakeholders that advise on issues of mutual concern.
3. Agreements to utilize university facilities – Sharing policies that allow community groups
access to university facilities.
4. “Good Neighbor” programs – Initiatives designed to engage students living off-campus and
other residents to improve relationships.
5. Signature events for students – Events that provide opportunities for students to familiarize
themselves with the community beyond the campus.
6. Community service opportunities or requirements – Programs for students to apply learning
and research within the community.
Page 277 of 484
5
Case Study
Strategic Development Plan Implementation | University of Florida
and the City of Gainesville
The Challenge
The University of Florida in Gainesville
is a large land grant institution with
many characteristics comparable to
Texas A&M and College Station. In the
summer of 2015, the University Board
of Trustees re-examined the over 100-
year-old, 2,000-acre campus and
environs with the goal of establishing
the institution as a top 10 public
university in the nation. To achieve
that goal, the University’s leadership
recognized that it must examine the
important relationships between the
University, City of Gainesville and
Alachua County, and create what it
described as the framework for the
“New American City”.
The Approach
To kickstart the Strategic Development Plan process, a 26-member Steering Committee was
established in February 2016. The Committee is made up of members from the University, the City
and County, and professional consultants were retained to undertake the nine-month study. The
planning process led to the development of four initiatives that emphasized City and University
collaboration:
1. New American City. To help align the City and University, the plan calls for a joint planning
group and a “Smart City Lab” to gather and analyze data to inform future decisions. The
plan also recommends ways to establish a presence in downtown Gainesville for some of
the university’s programs, especially its cultural amenities.
2. Proximity. The University will concentrate future development in a portion of the eastern
campus and coordinate with the City to encourage development between downtown and
campus.
3. Strong Neighborhoods. The plan recommends that the University and City collaborate to
preserve historic neighborhoods, creating a diverse housing stock and improving amenities
while defending them from gentrification, examining major corridor connections and
improving identity of specified areas.
4. Stewardship. Outdoor spaces emerged as one of the greatest attractions in the city. The
plan recommends studying elements that relate or impact outdoor spaces (i.e. open space,
landscaping, utilities, stormwater, etc.), and partnering with the City on related projects that
advance the region’s ecological health and outdoor amenities.
City College Station Gainesville, FL
Population 116,218 133,857
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 8%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 288,212
Median Age 22.7 26.0
City Land Area 51 sq mi 61.31 sq. mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 70-115 miles
(Jacksonville, Orlando)
University Texas A&M University University of Florida
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 56,079
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 12%
*since 2010
Page 278 of 484
6
In December 2016 the Board of Trustees endorsed the Strategic Development Plan. Since the
endorsement, the University has provided seed funding for each initiative. To support the new
American city initiative, the University has provided $250,000 for community research that will help
connect the University’s talent to community issues; to enrich strong neighborhoods, $50,000 has
been provided to the College of the Arts/City Arts Initiative and $250,000 distributed towards
community research that explores further monetary and talent resources to help preserve and
strengthen neighborhoods; and $50,000 has been provided to support the stewardship initiative, in
which the funding will be used to identify solutions that will address the University/City/County
environmental issues.
The Impact
Since the Development Strategic Plan was developed, the following specific actions that involve
both the University and the City have occurred:
• In April 2017 the university awarded over $300,000 of research awards to researchers
whose submitted proposals that utilize the campus and community as a living laboratory to
address real-world problems. A second call for proposals (March 2017) was announced with
a total award value of $250,000.
• To reinforce the University and City relationship, the University sponsored a grant to the
College of Arts to identify impactful ways to share arts with the city. In November 2017, the
artwork was revealed at Innovation Square and now stands as a permanent display.
• The Plazas of America was renovated to better serve both the campus and neighboring
communities.
• The University, the Florida Department of Transportation, and City partnered to launch the
advanced transportation technologies testbed I-STREET (Implementing Solutions from
Transportation Research and Evaluation of Emerging Technologies). The goal of the project
was to improve travel time reliability, throughput, and traveler information, as well as
deploy pedestrian and bicyclist safety applications.
• The University and City joined MetroLab Network, a network of regional city-university
partnerships focused on bringing data, analytics, and innovation to local government. The
City of Gainesville mayor noted that joining the network is a testament to the strength of
their partnership with the University of Florida, as they strive to realize their mutual goal of
becoming a New American City.
• The University released the June 2019 Framework Plan that guides the University’s physical
development. This plan aligns with the Strategic Development Plan.
• The City created a new department, the Strategic Initiatives Department, to expand
community engagement efforts and coordinate with the UF’s Strategic Development Plan
Initiatives
Resources:
• https://strategicdevelopment.ufl.edu/strategic-master-plan/
• https://www.cityofgainesville.org/Newsroom/tabid/805/PostID/1055/New-City-Department-Combines-
Efforts-to-Focus-on-Strategic-Initiatives.aspx
Page 279 of 484
7
Case Study
Creative Campus | Columbus State Community College and the City
of Columbus, Ohio
The Challenge
The northeast side of downtown
Columbus is home to a
concentration of major cultural and
higher educational institutions such
as Columbus State Community
College, Columbus College of Art and
Design, the Columbus Museum of
Art, major employers such as State
Auto Insurance, as well as students
and residents. The 2010 Downtown
Master Plan identified this area as
the Creative Campus,
but the area lacked a cohesive
planning direction and did not
reflect the potential that the City and
institutional leaders recognized.
Each institution has its own master
plan and initiatives underway within the area, but they have never coordinated on a large scale.
Columbus State adopted its most recent strategic plan in 2013. They recognized that
implementation of its vision would require collaboration. Working with The Mid-Ohio Regional
Planning Commission (MORPC), Columbus State initiated a process to convene area stakeholders to
discuss the various plans in the area. What came out of this process was a collaborative planning
effort, focused on making “The Creative Campus” into a more cohesive and unique downtown
neighborhood.
The Approach
In early 2015, Columbus State convened neighborhood and local government stakeholders in a
charette to discuss how to make the Creative Campus neighborhood a more vibrant and attractive
place. The participants included representatives from Columbus Museum of Art, State Auto
Insurance, Columbus College of Art and Design, and Edwards Companies (a major developer), the
City, the Columbus Downtown Development Commission, the Central Ohio Transportation
Authority, and MORPC. From this discussion, a 14-point action agenda that centered around topics
such as collaboration, infrastructure, safety and improving community character was created. In
order to realize the action agenda, the City asked Columbus State to lead this work.
In November of 2016 Columbus State entered into a formal three-year agreement with the City to
serve as the “quarterback” for the 14-point action agenda. The purpose of this collaboration was to
City College Station Columbus, OH
Population 116,218 892,533
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 13%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 2,106,541
Median Age 22.7 31.8
City Land Area 51 sq mi 217.17 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) N/A
University Texas A&M University Columbus State
Community College,
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 27,204
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% -11%
*since 2010
Page 280 of 484
8
implement the action agenda to make this area of downtown a more vibrant neighborhood. The
agreement outlined a scope of work based upon the action agenda.
The Impact
Columbus State Community College, an essential institutional anchor for Central Ohio recognized
that forming partnerships with the City and other institutional partners was critical to achieving the
goals and initiatives of the master plan. This partnership resulted in all parties leveraging their
collective powers to undertake the actions in the agenda. Once the City and Columbus State
formed this partnership, committing $300,000 funding across three years encouraged stakeholders
to get involved in the process. This process convened all partners around the table to not only
engage in discussion about shaping the future of the neighborhood, but also allocating time and
resources towards the planning effort.
The three-year partnership realized several accomplishments:
• Over the three years, the city and college contributed $300,000 to the coordination and
implementation of the neighborhood initiatives. The stakeholders collectively contributed
an additional $250,000 across the three years.
• Partner institutions have proactively engaged developers and generated significant interest
from the development community.
• The City and College collaborated on various neighborhood improvements to help define
Cleveland Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood as the opportunity corridor.
• Neighborhood stakeholders convened at least twice a year for updates and coordination of
initiatives.
• A market analysis on the Creative Campus neighborhood downtown confirmed that there
was a demand for workforce and some market rate housing and modest amount of office
and retail.
• A parking strategy included 33 specific actions to manage parking assets in the
neighborhood.
• Upon a request from the Creative Campus partners, $7.5 million was granted by the City
was spent towards a streetscape improvement project that included on-street parking, a
more generous sidewalk and street trees.
• A branding initiative that told the story of the neighborhood was developed.
Resources
• Robb Coventry, Director, Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, Columbus State Community
College | rcoventry@cscc.edu (614) 287-3662
• Rory McGuiness, Deputy Director, Department of Development, City of Columbus
ROMcGuiness@columbus.gov (614) 645-6253
Page 281 of 484
9
Case Study:
Collaboration Corvallis | Oregon State University and The City of
Corvallis
The Challenge
Oregon State University is in the Town
of Corvallis. Like many universities,
Oregon State’s enrollment began a
period of growth in the early 2000s. By
2015, the University had a total
enrollment of over 30,000 students, an
increase of nearly 30% since 2010. The
annual Corvallis Citizen Attitude Survey
of 2011 revealed negative impacts
experienced by residents including
parking issues, new student-oriented
housing sprouting up in formerly quiet
neighborhoods, and frequent late-night
partying.
The Approach
To address the negative impacts residents revealed in the 2011 Corvallis Citizen Attitude Survey, the
University and City came together to first form a campus-community collaboration, which
subsequently led to the formation of a partnership agreement, advisory board and several “town-
gown” initiatives.
In September 2011, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by the University
President, Corvallis Mayor, and campus and community leaders, pledging to address negative
effects associated with the University’s growing enrollment. The MOU led to the formation of
Collaboration Corvallis, a three-year agreement between the signing parties.
The first act of Collaboration Corvallis was a public meeting to launch the initiative. Over 140
residents attended and offered suggestions on how the collaboration could address issues.
Approximately a month later, Collaboration Corvallis officially got under way when the City Council
approved an intergovernmental agreement that mapped out a timeline and an equally split shared
cost of $300,000 to go towards the collaboration project. The agreement described how the
university and city would address three tracks: neighborhood parking and traffic mitigation,
neighborhood planning, and neighborhood livability.
City College Station Corvallis, OR
Population 116,218 57,961
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 7%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 86,591
Median Age 22.7 27
City Land Area 51 sq mi 14.3 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 35-45 miles
(Eugene, Salem)
University Texas A&M University Oregon State University
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment 68,603 30,986
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 30%
*since 2010
Page 282 of 484
10
The Impact
Since the formation of Corvallis Collaboration, changes at the City and University levels were made,
such as property managers meeting monthly to share information and strategize about improving
the quality of life in the Town. After the three-year agreement ended, joint efforts and initiatives
continued to solve issues such as parking and traffic and neighborhood livability challenges. These
initiatives and successes include:
• The formation of Community Relations Advisory Group in May 2015. Members include
individuals from: University faculty, staff and students; Corvallis Police Department;
neighborhood and businesses representatives; Benton Community College; and the
Corvallis Rental Property Management Group. This group meets monthly to monitor
progress of livability improvement projects and share policy recommendations with the
Corvallis City Council and University.
• The City adopted the Corvallis Livability Code in September 2016 “to address livability
concerns in neighborhoods throughout” the City.
• An education program for students about the community and how to be a good neighbor.
• The Preferred Renters Program which provides students the tools to be informed tenants
and responsible neighbors. Students who attend a workshop and pass a quick exam receive
a $50 rental deposit credit as a Preferred Renter. This program is hosted by the university.
The $50 credit is applied by a participating housing provider.
• In the area of community livability, calls for police and fire services have reduced. Programs
and coalitions have contributed to the reduction of student high-risk drinking. Finally,
students are held accountable for their behavior off campus, as a conduct-code system is
now in place.
• The university has hired staff to deal with student conduct and off-campus behavior.
• A group of property managers and landlords have organized training sessions, monthly
meetings and outside speakers to discuss rental housing issues.
• The university adopted a three-tiered pricing system for parking, paid for transit and bike
improvements and applied for approval on a parking expansion.
Resources
• https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/resources/case-study-strengthening-campus-community-
collaboration-oregon-state-university-and-city
Additional resources on town-gown partnerships
• Town-Gown: From Conflict to Cooperation, Michael Fox
• Field Guide for Urban-Community Partnerships, Joshua J . Yates & Michaela Accardi, Thriving Cities Lab,
University of Virginia https://iasc.typeform.com/to/toK2D5
Page 283 of 484
11
Case Study
Neighborhood Partnership Committee and UA Master Plan
Committee | University of Alabama and the City of Tuscaloosa
The Challenge
The University of Alabama (UA) is a
major driver of the City of Tuscaloosa’s
growth. In the early 2000s, UA began a
significant expansion initiative. From
2000 to 2016, the University grew its
enrollment from 18,347 to 37,665, an
increase of 19,318 students. UA was
considered the fastest growing flagship
University in the nation during that
period. The pressure from UA’s growth
created a strong need for both
coordination between the City and
University and programs to addresses
tensions between students and
neighborhoods near the campus.
The Approach
The City of Tuscaloosa and the University of Alabama have not always had a collaborative
relationship, but a few past and current leaders from both ends have recognized the value and
worked hard to nurture a positive relationship. The collaborative initiatives are showcased through
two programs, the Neighborhood Partnership Committee and the UA Master Plan Committee.
The Neighborhood Partnership Committee (NPC) was formed in 2003 as a result of a unique degree
of cooperation between the City and University. The NPC’s mission is to improve communication
between neighbors, business owners, students and law enforcement officials to proactively address
issues that are a mutual concern of the groups represented on the committee. Today the NPC is led
by staff in the University’s Division of Community Affairs and includes wider group of community
stakeholders comprised of students, off-campus neighbors, business owners, community leaders,
City officials, University police officers, City police, and University administrators.
The NPC meets twice a year with an invited group of 50-60 stakeholders. The meetings are casual,
informational, and involve presentations from the City staff, City Council representatives, University
police, and student government representatives. Meeting agendas are developed through a small
working group of stakeholders. When conflicts or questions cannot be adequately addressed during
the large meeting, separate smaller working meetings are convened to follow-up.
The UA Master Plan Committee is a group intended to coordinate on topics related to
implementation of the University’s Campus Master Plan. It includes University administrators,
City College Station Tuscaloosa, AL
Population 116,218 100,287
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 11%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 243,575
Median Age 22.7 28.6
City Land Area 51 sq mi 60.23 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 58 miles
(Birmingham)
University Texas A&M University University of Alabama
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 38,986
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 30%
*since 2010
Page 284 of 484
12
facilities planners, and leaders from the City’s Office of Urban Development. The group has met on
an as-needed basis, approximately twice a year. The focus of the group is to coordinate and share
information among the various University entities concerned with campus facilities and
infrastructure planning. The City’s role on the group is largely for the benefit of information sharing
and encouraging an ongoing spirit of collaboration. The meetings have allowed coordination on
areas such as City policy in its comprehensive plan update and the University’s parking study.
The Impact
The impact of these groups is difficult to quantify, but longtime stakeholders report that the
collaborative spirit between the City and University has improved significantly since the early 2000s.
Examples of the impacts include:
• Stakeholders report that they obtain pertinent information that they can use in their own
work, including insight about their own organizations.
• The NPC provides a unique forum for community leaders to hear directly from City and
University officials. Specific business owners are often invited to attend NPC meetings.
• The committees proactively seek to address conflicts. In the case of the NPC, a resident
concern about student behavior led to a separate working group that provided detailed
recommendations for a “good neighbor program” that was included in the City’s
comprehensive plan update. The working group further developed potential steps for
creating the new program. In another example, a presentation of crime statistics led to a
group of students engaging with City, University and County police to address a concern.
Representatives from the groups shared the following lessons learned:
• Be persistent, foster relationships. The success of these groups reflects the continued efforts of
the Mayor, leaders in the City’s Office of Urban Development, and key leaders at the University.
While not every interaction is productive, these individuals believe strongly in the importance of
collaboration and seek opportunities to foster relationships in both a formal and casual setting.
• Start small, allow the group to evolve. Identify and reach out to stakeholders from the
University that are currently working on areas of mutual interest.
• Be strategic and respectful of other’s time. For large groups of stakeholders, try to gather
people only when necessary, have meaningful and succinct updates, and arrange separate
meetings to address focused issues.
• Have a leader. Someone needs to own and manage the group. In the case of the NPC, the
University has staff dedicated to the effort. A strong facilitator is crucial to effective meetings.
Resources
• http://communityaffairs.ua.edu/neighborhood-partnership-committee/
• Ashley Crites, Director of Planning, Office of Urban Development City of Tuscaloosa
acrites@tuscaloosa.com (205) 248-5131
• Dr. Nicole Prewitt, Director of programs and partnerships for community engagement, Center for
Community-Based Partnerships, The University of Alabama | nbprewitt@ua.edu (205) 348-9819
Page 285 of 484
13
Topic 4: City identity
How could we create a stronger sense of place and community
identity (internally and externally) to distinguish our City?
Context
A community’s sense of place and identity is a combination of its physical attributes (both the built
and natural setting), its culture and people, and its unique amenities. Elements of a community’s
identity and sense of place are often intangible but they are shaped by that place’s physical
attributes and strategic messaging.
Community branding is one approach to shaping internal and external sense of city identity and can
be a strategy for economic development. A brand is deeper than logos and taglines. It is a set of
ideas that reflect emotions people might have about a product, service, organization or place. A
brand is expressed through visuals, written and spoken messages, and products or services. Like a
brand for a product or service, a strong community brand attracts new people to the brand (place)
while strengthening the emotional attachment that existing residents have to their community.
When branding a place, collaboration between many entities is essential. A strong community brand
should align with how organizations speak and write about the community, the visuals used to
convey those messages, and how and where those messages are applied (internal and external).
Unfortunately, studies show that the vast majority of city branding campaigns are unsuccessful.
Creating a successful city brand is much like creating a product or personal brand. It involves
embarking on a discovery effort to determine what your community can offer and or what it can
become. Distilling that discovery into a simple, clear, and compelling idea. Then creating elements
needed to support the idea such as communication material. If the community lacks physical
elements to support its brand, it should devise a plan to develop them.
Potential Strategies
1. A collaborative community branding initiative – A process of discovery and research to
define and strengthen the community’s internal and external image.
2. Create or revitalize distinctive physical places – Districts or facilities that reflect the brand
and create or strengthen a sense of place.
Page 286 of 484
14
Case Study
Nickel Plate District | City of Fishers, Indiana
The Challenge
Fishers is a growing suburban city in the
Indianapolis region. Initially called Fishers
Station, the community formed around a
rail depot and was a town of only a few
hundred people until the late 1960s.
Since the arrival of I-69, Fishers has grown
steadily following a primarily car-oriented
pattern. While successful in many
measures, the City lacked a downtown
center and struggled with a sense of
identity to distinguish itself from other
suburban communities.
The Approach
In 2012, then Town Manager Scott Fadness, initiated an effort to
develop a stronger sense of place in Fishers by planning for a
unique community gathering place, civic core, and economic
center in the downtown area known as the Nickel Plate District.
That effort created a downtown master plan that envisioned
offices, residences, retail, and a public amphitheater adjacent to
its municipal facilities. The conceptual master plan was followed
by the creation of the Nickel Plate District development code.
Fishers developed a public amphitheater, actively marketed its
plan, and sought public-private partnerships with developer.
Since 2015, when Fishers became a city and Fadness its mayor,
the community has cultivated an identity as “smart, vibrant, and
entrepreneurial.” Those words are a deliberate part of the Fishers
identity that are exhibited through its neighborhood
development, dedication to supporting high-growth companies,
and innovative city processes. Those words are included
throughout promotional material, used as organizational themes
in the Mayor’s annual State of the City address and even featured
throughout the Fishers2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Nickel Plate
District exemplifies each of these attributes.
To pursue the “entrepreneurial” aspect of its brand, the City helped create an entrepreneurial
facility with programs and co-working spaces to nurture “high impact” startups in the community.
City College Station Fishers, IN
Population (2018 est.) 116,218 93,362
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 20%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 1.9 million (11 county
Indianapolis MSA)
Median Age 22.7 35.2
City Land Area 51 sq mi 37 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 20-30 miles
(Indianapolis)
University Texas A&M University NA
*since 2010
Page 287 of 484
15
LaunchFishers was initially housed in a portion of the City library but has grown to a larger facility
within the Nickel Plate District. Launch claims to be the largest co-working space in the Midwest.
The City has also helped create the Indiana IoT Lab (Internet of Things) to elevate Fishers as a
center for tech innovation.
The Impact
The Nickel Plate District development has taken place much faster than anticipated. Initially
expected to take shape over a period of 10 to 30 years, the district has been transformed in the
past five years. The City’s planning and initial investments in infrastructure have led to hundreds of
millions of dollars of private investment. The mixed-use district composes less than one percent of
the City’s land, but it is part of an important economic development strategy for attracting
innovative businesses and creative, entrepreneurial talent to Fishers.
The success of private investment has allowed the City to move ahead with new initiatives. It has
recently created a greenway master plan to transform part of the Nickel Plate Railroad into a
recreational trail with amenities within the Nickel Plate District.
The City’s profile within Indiana and nationally has risen significantly in the past 10 years. It has
climbed the ranks as one of Money magazine’s best places to live, earning the top spot in 2017. The
City has also been recognized by International City / County Management Association (ICMA).
Resources
• Leah McGrath, Deputy Mayor of Community Development
• http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/fishers-in-npdc/doc-viewer.aspx?
• https://www.ibj.com/articles/71923-how-fishers-created-a-downtown-almost-overnight
• https://www.rqaw.com/7-developments-are-adding-vibrancy-to-downtown-fishers/
• http://www.fishersecondev.com/101/Entrepreneurship
Page 288 of 484
16
Case Study
Branding Campaign | Albuquerque, NM
The Challenge
During the 2008 to 2013 television
series run of Breaking Bad, the City of
Albuquerque, where the series takes
place, was put on the map and
experienced an influx of tourists.
However, City leaders wanted to be
known for more than just a television
show and its annual nine-day hot air
ballooning event that occurs in October.
It had been nearly 15 years since the
City’s visitor’s bureau revised its
branding strategy.
The Approach
In 2015 The Albuquerque Convention
and Visitor’s Bureau engaged an advertising agency to lead the branding effort. That year-long
process involved stakeholder engagement and market research to identify community assets and
its aspirations, and to develop a brand message. Early on it was important to City leaders to
promote an image of innovation, unpretentiousness, and openness.
The branding process led to a comprehensive
campaign to highlight the City’s distinctive blend of
culture, history, cuisine, art, blue skies and high-desert
terrain. It included:
• A new marketing tagline “change your
perspective”
• a new name for the visitors bureau - Visit Albuquerque.
• A modern logo that represented the city, its strong native American roots and beautiful
artwork; and
• An advertising campaign across a variety of channels, including print publications,
billboards, websites, social media, direct mail and airport kiosks.
In 2017 the City began a campaign that focused on raising awareness about how the City benefits
entrepreneurs. The campaign included:
• A content and information hub and a biweekly newsletter on the City’s economic
development organization’s website;
• Utilizing social media (Facebook and Instagram), search engine marketing, digital
advertising and content marketing were used as promotional opportunities;
• Sponsored relevant conferences in New Orleans, New York and California to reach
entrepreneurs around the country;
City College Station Albuquerque, NM
Population 116,218 560,218
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 3%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 915,927
Median Age 22.7 36.2
City Land Area 51 sq mi 187.7 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) N/A
University Texas A&M University University of New Mexico
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 24,393
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% -15%
*since 2010
Page 289 of 484
17
• A 26-page advertorial buy in Southwest Airlines’ in-flight magazine;
• Press releases when the City was ranked number one in the country for gender equality,
education, pay and homeownership; and
• Organization of a downtown music festival;
These marketing efforts built on other initiatives underway
in the city. In 2014, the University of New Mexico purchased
a seven-acre site near downtown to create an innovation
district. The district, called InnovateABQ, is anchored by a
$35 million, 160,000-square-foot mixed-use building, created
as a public private partnership. The building will house
students, office space, and the University of New Mexico’s
Innovation Academy.
The Impact
Initiating the rebranding process was done in phases and focused on tackling small parts of the
brand each year. This process allowed the City not only to be successful in the rebranding process
but also sustain the initiative. Since the rebrand, Albuquerque is gradually becoming a tourist spot
for more diverse things including arts, culture and heritage, cuisine, film and most notably,
entrepreneurship.
In a place where there were no previous start-up accelerators, Albuquerque is now home to a few
venture capitalists investing in new based businesses. According to U.S. Census Bureau Data, the
state had the fourth-highest percent increase in the number of startups from 2013 to 2014. The
effort to utilize social media and other tactics paid, as for example, the ABQic videos featuring
different entrepreneurs and organizations have earned 44 million views as reported by Forbes.
On the tourism side, the City has seen an increase in visitor spending, hotel occupancy, and
number of conventions. Visit Albuquerque reported that the 2018 fiscal year ended with a 7.3
percent increase in the hotel tax revenue.
Resources
• https://www.visualfizz.com/blog/branding-a-city-albuquerque-new-mexico/
• https://www.abq.org/innovation-central.aspx
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveolenski/2017/10/23/how-to-rebrand-a-city/#33e1abf63bdf
• https://www.inc.com/anna-hensel/how-albuquerque-new-mexico-is-becoming-the-next-
entrepreneurial-hot-spot.html
Page 290 of 484
18
Topic 5: Neighborhood character and student housing
How do we better maintain the character of established
neighborhoods with redevelopment pressure for student housing?
Context
Like many college towns, College Station has faced challenges from students living off-campus in
traditional neighborhoods. Similar to other college towns, there are two core issues occurring in
College Station: 1) conversion of single-family homes to student occupancy; and 2) redevelopment
pressure to create student housing that is out of scale with surrounding development.
When large numbers of “single family” homes in a neighborhood are occupied by students, there
can be to conflicts with other residents due to noise, traffic, parking, and other nuisance issues.
Redevelopment pressure in neighborhoods for student housing can also leads to negative changes
the neighborhood’s physical character. In some places, the zoning in single family residential areas
allow for redevelopment of housing intended for single family occupancy with housing designed for
students (5-6 bedrooms) that is significantly different in scale from existing homes. In other places,
this redevelopment brings multi-story buildings that do not relate well to their surroundings.
Potential Strategies
1. Rental Licensing Programs – Mandatory licensing to track and manage the supply and location
of student occupancy.
2. Neighborhood Compatibility Zoning Standards – Design and form standards to ensure
redevelopment or infill development fits in to the existing context. They may regulate the size,
scale, and number of bedrooms in homes, on-street or front-yard parking, and accessory
dwelling units. For larger development, they may limit the width of a building, façade
articulation, or address transitions when adjacent to single family development.
3. Neighborhood Conservation Overlays – Special zoning provisions that in seek to maintain a
specific area’s existing character, such as historic districts.
4. Discretionary review processes – A board of commission reviews projects for design quality;
sometimes applied to specific types of projects or locations;
Page 291 of 484
19
Case Study:
Student Home Licensing, Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative,
and Neighborhood Compatibility Standards | State College, PA
The Challenge
The Borough of State College developed
along with Penn State University. Like
many college towns, the campus is
adjacent to the historic downtown and
older neighborhoods. Also like many
college towns, State College has a large
number of students living off campus.
The borough has several well-organized
neighborhoods near the University that
have pushed hard for protections from
high levels of student occupancy,
gameday rentals, and changes to
physical character amid redevelopment
pressure for new student housing.
The Approach
State College has put several programs in place and is considering adopting others. These
initiatives include:
Student Home Licensing (SHL). The SHL program began in 2015 and requires all one and two-family
properties being used as a Student Home (more than one unrelated student living in the property)
be licensed, and license renewal once a year. The total number of licenses are managed through a
quota system with limits per district to prevent concentrations of student housing in certain areas.
Neighborhood Sustainability Program. The Neighborhood Sustainability Program is a related,
exploratory project for converting student duplexes and houses into single family homes in areas
that are on the verge of shifting away from primarily resident housing. Competition for houses in
the neighborhoods around Penn State University Park drives up prices and investors renting to
students can often afford to pay more for houses than families can. The goal of the Neighborhood
Sustainability Program is to maintain diversity in the neighborhoods near downtown, keeping
students from taking over. The initiative was established by the Borough’s Redevelopment
Authority in 2014 to advance opportunities for home ownership and to maintain safe, stable and
attractive neighborhoods in the Borough. Through this program, the Redevelopment Authority
purchases homes in the four State College neighborhoods that are registered as student homes.
Prior to resale, the Redevelopment Authority will forfeit the student home license and place a
restrictive covenant on the property to ensure the home is maintained as an owner-occupied
residence or rented for single family residential purposes. The program has focused on blocks
deemed at risk of transitioning to student occupancy.
City College Station State College, PA
Population 116,218 42,352
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 1%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 162,805
Median Age 22.7 21.6
City Land Area 51 sq mi 4.6 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 85 miles
(Harrisburg)
University Texas A&M University Penn State University
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 46,803
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 4%
*since 2010
Page 292 of 484
20
Neighborhood Compatibility Standards. Amid considerable redevelopment pressure, the borough
has currently achieved its neighborhood compatibility and other design goals through a Design
Review Board and a set of design guidelines for development in various context areas. Both the
Planning Commission and Design Review Board currently review development plans for
compatibility. However, this process means that design quality is achieved through negotiation on a
per-project basis. The borough is considering updating this discretionary review process to include
more design standards within the zoning ordinance and to streamline the plan review process. The
neighborhood compatibility standards address building height, massing, and placement; parking
location areas; roof forms; and transitions between development types. The rewritten ordinance is
currently in the adoption phase.
The Impact
The student home licensing program has been successful in limiting the proliferation of student
rentals within traditional neighborhoods where it is not desired. The community’s strong
neighborhood groups and the Borough’s thorough enforcement of the licensing requirement mean
that there has been a high level of compliance (residents report suspected violations).
The Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative to convert student rental homes to resident occupancy
has seen modest success. The program has bought and sold a half dozen houses between 2014
and 2018. This low number is partly due to the cost of acquiring properties and available funding.
The properties that have sold, have received for more than asking price. The numbers alone
however, do not reflect the potential impact. A block can quickly transition from mostly resident
occupancy to mostly student once it reaches 10-15% student occupied. One property could be
enough to change the trajectory of an entire block. The program has been successful in maintaining
resident occupancy in designated areas. The borough is considering other, potentially cost-effective
changes to the program, including buying the student rental permits instead of the homes.
Resources
• Edward LeClear, Director of Planning & Community Development, Borough of State College
(814) 234-7109 | eleclear@statecollegepa.us
• http://www.statecollegepa.us/2847/Student-Home-License
• https://statecollegepa.us/2750/Neighborhood-Sustainability-Program
Page 293 of 484
21
Case Study
College and University Neighborhoods District | Baylor University,
Waco, Texas
The Challenge
Enrollment at Baylor University is
approximately 17,000 and has grown
by more than 2,000 since 2010. It is
estimated 65% of students live off-
campus. The University growth has
driven interest in student housing
development, with a number of
student housing project built in the
City in recent years.
Existing residential neighborhoods
has been disrupted by large student
housing development as it brings
parking, traffic and noise to the
neighborhoods. To mitigate these
negative impacts, the Waco City
Council sought to better manage the
development of student housing and
protect existing neighborhoods.
The Approach
Waco’s approach is similar to many
university communities. The City
created zoning standards to address
the location and compatibility of large
student housing developments. It also
has special standards to protect the
character of certain existing
neighborhoods.
In 2014 the City created a special
zoning overlay district for areas around the university that may be prime locations for student
rental housing projects. The College and University Neighborhoods District is located within
approximately a 2.85 mile radius around the University. The overlay was developed to protect
neighborhoods and not displace existing neighborhoods in favor of development. It has three
context zones with different standards regulating front yard parking, building heights, landscaping,
and architectural features such as requiring windows front major streets.
In zone 1, which includes part of campus and downtown, permitted building heights are greater,
which allows for large-scale student housing developments. In zones 2 and 3, the standards are
more in keeping with the scale of single-family residential development.
City College Station Waco, TX
Population 116,218 138,186
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 11%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 271,942
Median Age 22.7 28.6
City Land Area 51 sq mi 88.96 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 95-100 miles
(Austin, Dallas)
University Texas A&M University Baylor University
University Type Public Private
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 17,217
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 16%
*since 2010
Page 294 of 484
22
The Impact
The regulations initially faced some skepticism and received a 5-5 vote from the City’s planning
commission. Although there was some concern that the regulations would reduce affordability and
lead to higher property taxes, those fears were unfounded. There was criticism was that the City
waited too long to put the policies in place. A 2018 City study highlighted several larger projects
(undertaken in zone 1) including:
• URSA – 3 story, 250 units student housing community with on-site amenities. The
development is located in an area where it is compatible with adjacent properties that are
also of similar nature.
• The view on 10th – 4 story, 178-bedroom housing with amenities and reserve parking. The
development is located at an intersection, with windows and entrances facing the street,
promoting pedestrian activity. The development is scaled to “step down” to the heights of
adjacent existing properties, and height transitions between properties are appropriate or
are similar to existing buildings. In parts of the development that are adjacent existing
single detached homes, proper landscaping treatment has been applied to prevent parking
along the student building.
• West Campus Lofts – 3 story, 180-bedroom student project that received Tax Increment
Funding for public improvements in the amount of $465,000. The building has an
appropriate front yard setback, parking on site and is compatible in height with the
adjacent two-story rental units and single-family homes located across the street. Side
street parking has been provided at the front.
While “neighborhood compatibility standards” are a “best practice” in college towns, it is worth
noting that many communities’ standards address things that Waco’s regulations do not.
Specifically, most have different standards for building height and setbacks when student housing
is adjacent to single-family properties. They may also limit building width and include other
architectural standards such as for façade articulation.
Resources
• https://www.waco-texas.com/planning-special-zoning-overlay-districts.asp
• https://www.wacotrib.com/news/government/controversial-baylor-area-overlay-district-gets---council-
vote/article_10065868-3678-5cdc-8070-7457ce5d5df2.html
• https://www.waco-texas.com/economic-
development/pdf/12.26.18.Downtown%20Market%20Study%20Final%20Report.pdf
Other university communities that have recently implemented new zoning regulations related to the
location and character of student housing include:
• Columbia, SC
• Columbia, MO
• Ann Arbor, MI
• Chapel Hill, NC
• Bloomington, IN
Page 295 of 484
23
Topic 6: Housing Affordability
How could we create more opportunities for new housing that is
affordable to moderate income households, including families and
young professionals?
Context
The challenge of providing housing that is affordable and desirable to young adults, families, and
moderate-income households is one facing most communities today. Following the Great
Recession, housing construction trailed population growth while costs of construction exploded. In
most markets today, it is now impossible to build market-rate housing that is affordable to most of
the population without subsidy. Beyond rising housing costs, lifestyle factors, and high rates of
personal debt are compelling many young adults to delay purchasing a home. Desirable and
affordable rental housing is important. But rents are also increasing, particularly in growing cities
and those with large universities where students disrupt the market.
This is an extremely complex issue and there is not a single strategy that solves it. Most
communities having any success are addressing multiple cost drivers (some of which are difficult for
a city to solve). These cost drivers are: price of land, capital and financing costs, construction costs,
development soft costs, and expected return on investment.
Potential Strategies
1. Regulatory incentives – Such as fee reductions (development soft costs) or density bonuses
(expected developer return on investment).
2. Pre-approved building plans – That reduce the uncertainty in the development process and the
risk in building new housing types (development soft costs).
3. Land banking or land acquisition – Where the city or another entity acquires land for future
redevelopment (price of land)
4. Community land trust – Where a public entity owns and leases land for affordable housing
(price of land).
5. Workforce housing capital pool – Where a public entity establishes a fund that is used for
various types of affordable housing initiatives (capital costs). Source of funding varies.
Page 296 of 484
24
Case Study
Georgia Initiative for Community Housing | Athens-Clarke County,
GA
The Challenge
Between 2000 and 2016, the Athens-Clarke
County population grew by 7,000
residents. The City is a high poverty
community with 37% of residents
(including students) living below the
poverty line. Approximately one in four
families earn less than the low-income
threshold ($58,000).
Nearly half of Athens residents are
considered “cost burdened,” meaning they
pay more than 30% of their gross income
on rent. To put the issue in perspective, a
two-person household earning minimum
wage ($7.25/hour) would require working
97 hours a week to afford a fair market
rent two-bedroom apartment (average rent is $911 /month) and not be qualified as a cost burden.
Homeownership is also out of reach for many low to moderate income residents. Based on the city’s
median household income of $32,162, affordable home prices should range from $130k to 150k.
However, the average sale price for a home is between $200,400 and $338, 028.
Rental availability has also been a challenge. Nearly 30% of residents are students and about 50% of
rental units are student occupied. Newly constructed units that have been built recently have been
dedicated to student occupancy.
The Approach
In 2015, Athens-Clarke applied for and was accepted into the Georgia Initiative for Community
Housing (GICH), which is a preeminent source for housing best practices, information and training.
The program helps communities improve their quality of life and economic vitality though
development of locally driven and revitalization strategies. The local Athens GICH is composed of
members from the public, private and non-profit sectors who, as part of the three-year program,
developed a plan to address the affordable housing needs in the community.
The planning process involved a detailed study of the local housing market and best practices. The
resulting plan includes a set of priority recommendations and actions. In developing the
recommendations, the team realized that a variety of options was important in addressing the
systematic nature of the challenge. The recommendations include five initiatives that are supported
by specific actions or policies.
City College Station Athens-Clarke County, GA
Population 116,218 125,964
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 9%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 211,306
Median Age 22.7 26.2
City Land Area 51 sq mi 116 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 70 miles
(Atlanta)
University Texas A&M University University of Georgia
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 38,652
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 11%
*since 2010
Page 297 of 484
25
The initiatives are:
1. Investing in the housing trust fund – involves creating a fund for affordable housing from
a special sales tax and a payment-in-lieu from a density bonus incentive.
2. Incentivizing inclusionary development – involves evaluating development processes,
fees, and other regulatory standards to incentivize housing affordability.
3. Identifying opportunities for redevelopment – Involves inventorying opportunity sites
and considering specific rezonings to promote redevelopment.
4. Solidifying code enforcement practices – involves using the housing trust fund to
establishing a property maintenance fund strengthen code enforcement to maintain the
existing rental housing stock.
5. Combating displacement – involves developing a tool for tracking neighborhood change
and evaluating a property tax freeze on low income residents/landlords.
The Impact
Since joining the Georgia Initiative for Community Housing and establishing its plan, the City has:
• Received a Georgia Dream award in the amount of $881,015. This award is given to help first
time home buyers purchase a home.
• Evaluated the feasibility of an inclusionary zoning ordinance in Athens-Clarke County. By
doing this, they were able to establish a housing trust fund, and other mechanisms for
creating accessible, affordable rental housing.
• Partnered with the Athens Land Bank Authority to meet with the Center for Community
Progress and discuss the viability and feasibility of voluntary inclusionary zoning in Athens-
Clarke County. Vital elected officials and community members attended this meeting and
discussions continued to progress for the potential implementation.
• Approved a memorandum of understanding for affordable housing. The MOU provides a
non-binding basis for negotiations between Athens-Clarke County and the Athens Housing
Authority. To help an area Athens that has struggled in the past, approximately $39 million
of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) money will go towards the
renovation or redevelopment of the low-income Bethel Midtown Village apartment complex.
The funding comes out of the proposed $44.5 million SPLOST Affordable Housing Project
budget.
Resources
• https://www.accgov.com/DocumentCenter/View/57881/GICH-Final-Report?bidId=
• https://www.fcs.uga.edu/fhce/gich-program-reports
Page 298 of 484
26
Case Study:
My Chatt House, Online Pattern Book and Building Plans |
Chattanooga, TN
The Challenge
The City of Chattanooga sought to
address two related issues: 1) residential
infill and redevelopment in its desirable
traditional neighborhoods that is not in
keeping with the existing character of
the areas; and 2) an imbalance between
housing supply, demand, and
affordability.
The Approach
After completing an analysis of “missing
middle housing types” in 2016, the City
set out to create a pattern book with
design guidance to encourage
development of new housing that
addresses those two challenges. Unique to
Chattanooga, this pattern book took the form of a
website.
“My Chatt House” as the website is called, is a resource
developed for the Chattanooga community to
encourage appropriate development in two of their
central neighborhoods. The two neighborhoods are
outside of the city’s downtown form-based code and
are not protected by historic districts. The effort was a
collaboration involving the Chattanooga Neighborhood
Enterprise, the Chattanooga Design Center, and the
City. The site contains design guidance and resources
pertaining to landscaping, additions, renovations, and
new construction to help homeowners and developers
uphold the characteristics of these unique
neighborhoods.
A key component of this program is the preparation of building site plan, floor plans, and elevations
for a variety of single-family and small multi-family homes. The homes are based on common
architectural styles of the neighborhoods from colonial to craftsman and include details for the
minimum lot size, floor plans, gross square footage, and design elements such as porches, patios,
etc. These plans streamline the process for developers and homebuilders by providing the baseline
requirements for a variety of residential homes that integrate into the neighborhood context. Local
City College Station Chattanooga, TN
Population 116,218 180,557
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 6%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 547,776
Median Age 22.7 37
City Land Area 51 sq mi 137 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 125-134 miles
(Knoxville, Nashville)
University Texas A&M University The University of
Tennessee at
Chattanooga
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 11,587
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 10%
Page 299 of 484
27
manufacturers are listed with building material specifications to further encourage high-quality
design.
The Impact
The website has been active for nearly two years, but the direct impact is unclear. The idea behind
a pattern book is to communicate expectations and provide ideas for potential development. For
small developers, the resources should reduce effort, uncertainty, and streamline the development
process. These factors all reduce “development soft costs,” which is one small factor behind the
costs of development, albeit one that a City can potentially impact.
Chattanooga is also pursuing additional initiatives to address the affordable housing needs. These
include a Neighborhood Reinvestment Fund and an Affordable Housing Fund.
Some communities have taken the idea of pattern books a step further by establishing formally
pre-approved plans. In addition to reducing effort and uncertainty, a builder can enjoy an
expedited permitting process by selecting a pre-approved plan. Roanoke, Virginia, and Knoxville,
Tennessee are two examples.
Resources
• Martina Guilfoil, President and CEO, Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise.
• Eric Myers, Executive Director, Chattanooga Design Studio
• http://www.mychatthouse.com/
• Report: Missing Middle Housing Types for Chattanooga
Page 300 of 484
28
Topic 7: Redevelopment and Infill Development
How do we encourage redevelopment or infill development?
Context
College Station has several geographic areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as intended
“redevelopment areas” as well as other places that are appropriate for infill and redevelopment. Yet,
aside from a few small areas, actual redevelopment activity has been limited. With the rising long-
term costs of infrastructure and recent state laws making annexation more challenging, growing
inward through infill and redevelopment is increasingly important for the City. Encouraging
redevelopment or infill development typically involves a combination of factors including marketing
and communication, financial incentives, removing regulatory barriers, or leveraging catalytic public
or private investment.
Potential Strategies
1. Establish or refine incentives – Such as fee or tax reductions, density bonuses, or more
flexible development standards for specific types of development (reducing costs, reduce
developer risk).
2. Create catalytic investments – Such as proactive infrastructure improvements or a public-
private partnership to create development momentum and leverage limited funding.
3. Prepare and communicate a vision – A conceptual plan or vision for a district that may be
accompanied by a marketing/communication component (like a development prospectus,
clear vision, etc). An important part of the vision is political alignment in support of the vision
(getting politics in order, to reduce uncertainty).
Page 301 of 484
29
Case Study
Economic Development Partnership and Land Swap | Lexington, KY
The Challenge
The City of Lexington has an
extraterritorial boundary, its urban
service area. It was established in 1958
to limit sprawling development from
the unique Bluegrass landscape and
horse farms surrounding the city. The
boundary was last expanded in 1996
when 5,400 acres were added. In 2017,
the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Council held a public hearing to vote
for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan recommended that the urban
service area boundary not be expanded
for the next five years and instead the
City should focus on its recent policy of
infill and redevelopment within existing
urban land.
At that time, staff’s recommendation not to expand the urban service boundary had raised
concerns about the potential impacts the city may face. For example, business leaders felt that
Lexington did not have enough land available to accommodate growing businesses or attract new
ones. As well, the existing 100-acre Bluegrass Business Park was full, and City Officials had
expressed concerns that a lack of publicly controlled industrial park land would decrease job
growth and business recruitment.
The Approach
A day before the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council was to vote for the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan, an announcement of a land swap between Lexington and the University of Kentucky was
made. The City of Lexington would allow the University of Kentucky (UK) to control 13 acres of
roadways sections of 26 streets and alleys near campus. UK would contribute $3 million and the
City $1 million for the next 10 years towards traffic safety improvements in the area. In exchange,
UK transferred (at no cost) 250 acres of land at Coldstream Research Park to the City.
As part of the land swap, the City received 50 acres of “shovel ready” land within the Coldstream
Research Campus plus 200 acres located close to the Coldstream Research Park and the Bluegrass
Business Park. These lands are located within the designated urban service boundary.
The City intended to sell land within the 50-acre site to potential businesses. Proceeds would then
be split 50/50 between the City and University. The City profits would be spent on improving roads
and infrastructure on the 200 acres of land, while the University would use their share towards
relocating the agricultural research operations from the 200-acre site.
City College Station Lexington, KY
Population 116,218 323,780
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 9%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 516,697
Median Age 22.7 34.3
City Land Area 51 sq mi 283.65 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 75 miles
(Louisville)
University Texas A&M University University of Kentucky
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 29,182
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% 5%
*since 2010
Page 302 of 484
30
The University agreed to develop a transportation safety improvement plan that will discuss
enhanced wayfinding, improvements to intersections, infrastructure and safety, and traffic
mitigation (i.e. speed tables). The study will focus on the neighborhoods surrounding the campus,
and street avenues and corridors. Other issues that would be addressed as expressed by the
community include parking on lawns and trash cans that have been left out for days.
The land swap transaction required state approval. On December 12, 2017 both the state and the
University of Kentucky Board of Trustees approved the proposal for the land swap. A
memorandum of understanding, which sets the conditions and time-line for the land swap and the
Master Development Agreement for a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district was approved and
signed by the parties.
The Impact
The partnership has opened opportunities that will benefit both the City and University. For the
City, the deal preserves farmland, limits long-term utility infrastructure costs, revitalizes an
important gateway, brings new employment and commercial growth to expand the tax base, and
creates new job opportunities will benefit residents (including students). On the University’s side,
the partnership advances the institution’s campus development and demonstrates its interest in
public-private partnerships and in strengthening and community connections.
The land swap was praised locally as an important partnership for economic development in
Lexington and increasing safety in the campus areas. In 2019 the land swap initiative received
national recognition as a finalist in the 2019 University Economic Development Association (UEDA)
Awards of Excellence for their impactful and creative initiatives. The UEDA Awards validate and
promote innovative programs that contribute to economic prosperity and encourages other
institution and communities to adopt similar programs.
The global headquarters for A&W Restaurants Inc. will likely be the first company to located in the
new industrial park. The city sold properties to the company for $585,000 and an agreement is
planned to be finalized by January 2020.
Resources
• https://www.lexingtonky.gov/economicdevelopment
Page 303 of 484
31
Case Study
Infill Incentive Plan | Yuma, AZ
The Challenge
As the City of Yuma grew over the years,
development codes changed to
accommodate automobile-centric
development and new construction in
existing areas of the City became more
difficult. Today, many properties in the City
sit vacant or in disrepair.
The City realized that as government
budgets become tighter, there was a
strong need to grow through infill and
redevelopment, rather than expanding
outwards.
The Approach
Encouraging infill development has been a topic of discussion
amongst the City of Yuma Council and staff for several years. In
2016, Council directed planning staff to develop incentives that
would encourage infill development. Staff prepared a draft
ordinance to identify the twelve targeted areas within the Infill
Overlay (IO) District, which is located in the historic heart of the
City and the Infill Incentive Plan that outlines incentives related to
the development within the IO. The Infill Incentive Plan explored
issues associated with infill development and identifies potential
incentives available to those who develop or redevelop within the
Infill Overlay District.
The plan and the designation of the IO was prepared as per the
Arizona State Statute (ARS 9-4999.10) which allows areas to be
designated as an Infill Incentive District if they meet at least three
of the six State requirements. The following three requirements,
are met and applicable to the City:
• Large number of vacant older or dilapidated buildings or structures;
• Large number of vacant or underused parcels of property, obsolete or inappropriate lot or
parcel sizes or environmentally contaminated sites; and
• Absence of development and investment activity compared to other areas in the city.
City College Station Yuma, AZ
Population 116,218 97,908
Pop. Growth Rate* 23% 8%
Metro Pop. (2019) 273,101 229,957
Median Age 22.7 34
City Land Area 51 sq mi 120 sq mi
Proximity to larger cities: 95-100 miles
(Waco, Austin, Houston) 185-237
(Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa)
University Texas A&M University Arizona Western College
University Type Public Public
Total Enrollment (2017) 68,603 11,493
Enrollment Growth Rate* 63% -16%
*since 2010
Page 304 of 484
32
As part of the plan, The City prepared an Infill Incentive Toolkit that describes the thirteen incentives
available for development within the IO:
1. Reduced setbacks
2. Increased lot coverage
3. Accessory dwelling units
4. Reduced landscaping
5. Reduced parking
6. Alternative Alleyway paving
7. No-build easements
8. International existing
building code
9. Fire code flexibility
10. Utility fee waivers
11. Development fee credits
12. Reduce permit and review
fees
13. Lease excise tax
The toolkit functions as a “deck of card” where staff can help developers assemble their best hand
for each project. As such, not all incentives apply to every project, but staff can determine the
appropriate incentives on a case by case basis.
The Impact
Since the Infill Development Plan was passed by council in June 2017 the following development has
occurred:
• After a year since adoption, there have been 68 predevelopment meetings (62% increase
since the previous year) for potential projects in the target areas.
• There were 67 planning cases (almost double from the previous year) and 18 new homes
versus seven from the previous year.
• Developers have been purchasing property within the IO and proposing projects.
• Applicants have met with the City for improvements to existing buildings ranging from patios
to building additions.
• Interest to redevelop smaller commercial properties.
• Larger developments including an apartment building and hotels such as the Hilton 2 Suites
have been constructed.
• Schools have been supportive, as they anticipate increased enrollment to counter the
impacts as families moved to new subdivisions on the outskirts of the City.
• New residents are moving in and improving the neighborhood.
Resources
• https://www.yumaaz.gov/community-development/community-planning/infill-yuma.html
• https://www.yumaaz.gov/documents/community-
development/miscellaneous/Infill_Incentive_Plan_ADOPTED_20170621_LowRes.pdf
• https://www.yumachamber.org/documents/attachments/YumaBIZ_05May_2019_sm.pdf
Page 305 of 484
AUGUST 2020
Scenario Analysis Summary
APPENDIX E
Page 306 of 484
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SCENARIO REPORT CARDS
Project Introduction
Recommended Subareas
Performance Metrics
Land Use Categories
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area
Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall)
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area.
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M
2
2
4
6
8
12
16
20
24
28
Page 307 of 484
2 3
Introduction
!5
!1
!2
!3!4
!6
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Project Introduction Recommended Subareas
Scenario planning is a performance-based
planning technique used to compare a set of
alternatives based on an agreed upon set of
evaluation criteria. Scenario planning is typically
a step in a planning process that can help illustrate
trade-offs between different potential futures
for an area. The process should empower the
community to make informed choices regarding
a path forward.
Specifically, for College Station, the scenario
Potential subareas were identified by City staff and the planning team using input from the first round
of community engagement and discussions with the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee. From
these potential areas, six were selected. These areas were chosen in part due to potential opportunities
for infill and redevelopment, importance to the community, and questions about the effectiveness of the
current policies in those areas. The selected areas are shown below.
Subarea Location Acres Current LUP Category
1 Post Oak Mall Area 169 Urban Mixed-Use
2 Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall)84 Urban Mixed-Use
3 University Drive East of Texas Avenue 92 General Commercial, Urban,
Neighborhood Conservation
4 Texas Avenue across from A&M 89 Urban
5 George Bush Dr and Wellborn Rd Area 52 Urban
6 George Bush Drive across from A&M 97 Neighborhood Conservation
3
4
1 2
6
5
planning process considers six geographic locations to illustrate and measure differences between three
land use scenarios:
A. Existing Development: The existing development represents how the area is developed today.
B. Anticipated Scenario: The anticipated development is a possible scenario under the current
Comprehensive Plan’s policies.
C. Alternative Scenario: The alternative development is a scenario that may be possible with
changes to existing policies.
These scenarios are conceptual and are based on a set of assumptions. The intent is inform potential
updates to the Comprehensive Plan or to make recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan for changes
to other city policies.
This document serves as the presentation of results for the scenario planning analysis. It describes:
• The six subareas,
• The performance metrics used to score the three scenarios for each subarea, and
• The land use categories used for the existing and future scenarios.
Public feedback on the scenarios was obtained through the Community Choices online workshop and is
integrated into the Ten-year Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
Page 308 of 484
4 5
Introduction
Review of Performance Metrics
For each of the six areas, three scenarios were evaluated using a uniform set of performance metrics.
The eighteen metrics are organized into the following six categories:
Metric Description Existing Scenario Calculation Future Scenario Calculation
HOUSING
Housing
Units
Number of housing units within the
subarea
Count of housing units within the
subarea based on existing land use
shapefiles provided by the City
Count of existing housing units
within the subarea that did not
redevelop, plus the acreage of
new residential multiplied by the
residential density assumptions
(Table 2)
Population Number of residents living within
the subarea
Number of housing units within the subarea multiplied by an average
occupancy rate of 90.2% and an average household size of 2.48 people
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs
Number of jobs provided by the
office and retail businesses within
the subarea
Existing square footage of non-
residential land uses within
the subarea multiplied by an
employment factor determined for
each land use type (Table 3)
Existing jobs that did not redevelop
within the subarea, plus the
acreage of new non-residential
land uses multiplied by a floor-area
ratio and an employment factor
determined by land use (Table 3)
Commercial
Square
Footage
Square footage of retail space
provided within the subarea
Existing square footage of
commercial buildings within the
subarea based on existing land use
shapefiles provided by the City
Existing commercial square
footage for properties that did not
redevelop within the subarea, plus
the acreage of new commercial
multiplied by a floor-area ratio
determined by land use (Table 2)
Property
Tax Revenue
(Annual)
Estimated amount of revenue
generated from property taxes
within the subarea. Based on 2019
actual revenues.
2019 actual property tax revenues
within the subarea
2019 actual property tax revenues
within the subarea, plus property
tax revenue projected using an
excel-based tax model developed
by Kimley-Horn
Sales Tax
Revenue
(Annual)
Estimated amount of revenue
generated from sales tax within
the subarea. Based on 2019 actual
revenues.
2019 actual sales tax revenues
within the subarea
2019 actual sales tax revenues
within the subarea, plus sales tax
revenue projected using an excel-
based tax model developed by
Kimley-Horn
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips
(all modes)
Total number of person trips
generated by the subarea’s land uses
Input the existing land use program
into the Institute of Transportation
Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation
spreadsheet
Input the future land use program
into Institute of Transportation
Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation
spreadsheet
Vehicular
Trips
Total number of vehicular trips
generated by the subarea’s land uses
Total Trips (all modes) multiplied by one minus the Multimodal Trip Rate
reduction
Intersection
Density
Average number of intersections per
acre within each subarea
Total number of roadway intersections divided by the acreage of the
subarea
Internal
Capture Rate
Number of trips captured internally
by the mix of land uses within the
subarea
Total Trips (all modes) divided by land use type, input into an excel-based
internal capture calculator developed by ITE
Multimodal
Trip Rate
Reduction
Percent of total trips that are
estimated to be non-vehicular Excel-based multimodal trip rate calculator developed by Kimley-Horn
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/
Wastewater
Demand (gal/
day)
Total demand of water and
wastewater gallons per day
generated within the subarea
Land use program multiplied by the Water Master Plan’s land use
equivalents (LUE’s) and average demand by land use
Cost of
Water/
Wastewater
Upgrades
Total cost of upgrades to the existing
infrastructure system based on
Water/Wastewater Demand (gal/
day) within the subarea
Determined by the City based an infrastructure demand model
Annual
Water/
Wastewater
Revenue
Estimated amount of revenue
earned based on the increase in
water/wastewater demand
Determined by the City based an infrastructure demand model
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix A balance of mix of uses on a scale
from low to high
Qualitative examination of the land use program by scenario on a scale
from low to high
Meaningful
Open Space
Integrated into the area with
opportunities to create synergy
between people and uses on a scale
from low to high
Qualitative examination of the open space by scenario on a scale from
low to high
Street Level
Activation
Active and inviting storefronts,
building location and massing, and
priority ped activity on a scale from
low to high
Qualitative examination of the street level activation by scenario on a
scale from low to high
Connectivity Ratio of nonvehicular facilities to
vehicular facilities
Miles of sidewalk and bicycle facilities divided by miles of roadway
facilities
Detailed Performance Metrics
Page 309 of 484
6 7
Introduction
Land Use Categories
Urban Center
Areas that are appropriate for the most intense development and mix of uses arranged in
a compact and walkable pattern. These areas will tend to consist of multi-story residential,
commercial, and office uses that may be mixed vertically within mixed-use structures or
horizontally in an integrated manner. Urban Centers should also incorporate consolidated
parking facilities, access to transportation alternatives, open space and recreational facilities,
and public uses.
Neighborhood Center
Areas that are appropriate for a mix of uses arranged in a compact and walkable pattern at
a smaller in scale than Urban Centers. These areas consist of residential, commercial, and
office uses arranged horizontally in an integrated manner and may be mixed vertically within
structures. Neighborhood Centers should also incorporate consolidated parking facilities,
access to transportation alternatives, open space and recreational facilities, and public uses.
General Commercial
Concentrated areas of commercial activities that cater to both nearby residents and to
the larger community or region. Generally, these areas tend to be large and located along
regionally significant roads. Due to their context, these areas tend to prioritize automobile
mobility.
Urban Residential
Areas that are appropriate for a range of high density multi-family and attached residential
development in various forms including townhomes, apartment buildings, mixed-use
buildings, and limited non-residential uses that are compatible with the surrounding area.
Mixed Residential
Areas appropriate for a mix of moderate density residential development including,
townhomes, duplexes, and small (3-12 unit) multi-family buildings, and limited small-lot
single family. These areas are appropriate for residential infill and redevelopment that allows
original character to evolve. These areas may serve as buffers between more intense multi-
family residential or mixed-use development and suburban residential or neighborhood
conservation areas.
Suburban Residential
Primarily single-family residential areas that consist of low to moderate density single-family
lots. These areas may also include limited townhomes, duplexes, other housing types,
and some non-residential uses that are compatible with surrounding single-family areas.
Development types tend to be highly consistent within a subdivision or neighborhood.
Neighborhood Conservation
Residential areas that are essentially “built-out” and are not likely to be the focus of
extensive infill development or redevelopment. These areas often were platted before
current development regulations were in place often resulting in non-conforming situations.
These areas are appropriate for overlays or zoning classifications that provide additional
character protection and address non-conforming issues.
Institutional/Public
Areas that are, and are likely to remain, in some form of institutional or public activity.
Examples include schools, libraries, municipal facilities, and major utilities.
Parks and Greenways
Areas that are permanently protected from development. Such areas are preserved for their
natural function or for parks, recreation, or greenways opportunities. These areas include,
publicly owned open space, conservation easements, and public parks.
The following nine land use categories were used when building the land use programs for the scenarios.
These categories were created during the NextTen planning process, and represent only a portion of the
full list of land uses in the plan.
The table below provides a description of each land use as well as the land use code color, and an
example photo of the development type.
Page 310 of 484
HARVEY ROADSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Land Use Types*
8
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories HARVEY ROADSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Post Oak Mall remains intact
• Develop empty or
underutilized parcels into
urban center
Zone 1
• Urban center developments along the
corners and edges of sub area
• South-western developments to link
in high density residential to create
the feel of one contiguous walkable
development
Retail: (15,000) sqft
Office: 245,000 sqft
Residential: 215 units
HARVEY ROADSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Assumes major rework of
Post Oak Mall
• Adds new minor collector
between Harvey Rd &
Holleman Dr
Zone 1
• Redevelopment of Post Oak Mall into
a large urban & neighborhood center
• Increased access points from
surrounding thoroughfares
• Replaces a large amount of
commercial square footage with office
and residential
Retail: (265,000) sqft
Office: 735,000 sqft
Residential: 1,209 units
9
1
1
1
1
1
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Urban Residential:
Apartment complexes
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Institutional/Public
General Commercial:
Retail, office, & commercial uses Unimproved/Vacant
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
Context Photos
Page 311 of 484
10
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-21%55%
--23%
70%67%10%
13%9%9%
4%4%4%
13%--
---
594 units 809 units 1,803 units
1,125,000 sqft 1,110,000 sqft 860,000 sqft
15,000 sqft 260,000 sqft 750,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Urban
Center
General
Commercial
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area
11
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 594 809 1,803
Population 1,329 1,811 4,033
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 2,299 2,731 3,219
Commercial Square Footage 1,140,027 1,364,825 1,608,665
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $771,000* $1,158,000 $2,217,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $1,974,000* $1,946,000 $1,477,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 28,543 59,626 70,312
Vehicular Trips 24,427 48,419 45,928
Intersection Density 0.06 0.06 0.11
Internal Capture Rate 0.20%5.30%12.70%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 14.25%14.25%25.18%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)277,920 351,120 566,040
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $1,911,325 $2,055,850 $3,037,060
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$886,004 $1,114,169 $1,754,912
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Low Medium High
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low High
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Medium High
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
1.31 1.56 1.91
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Neighborhood
Center
Page 312 of 484
HARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Land Use Types*
12
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
HARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Carries over urban style
mixed use from mall
redevelopment
• Mixing in more commercial
with existing multi-family
Zone 2
• Expanded general commercial
development along Harvey Rd across
from Post Oak Mall
Retail: 116,000 sqft
Office: 96,000 sqft
Residential: (163) units
Zone 1
• Smaller pocket of urban center
development towards the center of
the sub area
HARVEY ROADGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• A portion of existing
apartments converted to
neighborhood center
• Providing a buffer
between urban center and
neighborhood
Retail: 436,000 sqft
Office: 296,000 sqft
Residential: (308) units
13
2 1
1
Zone 1
• Neighborhood center along Harvey Rd
• Commercial and office located near
highway, residential in the back closer
to the neighborhoods
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
General Commercial:
Retail, office, & commercial uses
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Urban Residential:
Apartment complexes
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall)SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
Context Photos
Page 313 of 484
14
Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall)
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-11%-
--38%
19%26%26%
81%63%37%
---
1,501 units 1,338 units 1,193 units
114,000 sqft 230,000 sqft 550,000 sqft
4,000 sqft 100,000 sqft 300,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Urban
Residential
Neighborhood
Center
Urban
Center
General
Commercial
15
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 1,501 1,338 1,193
Population 3,358 2,993 2,670
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 252 677 1,700
Commercial Square Footage 117,848 158,566 850,053
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $342,000* $395,000 $727,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $113,000* $331,000 $931,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 12,426 17,689 31,310
Vehicular Trips 10,427 11,905 22,195
Intersection Density 0.19 0.19 0.19
Internal Capture Rate 1.00%20.60%13.80%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 15.24%15.24%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD) 287,880 290,340 342,240
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $2,009,913 $2,085,113 $2,526,294
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$843,808 $865,994 $1,052,546
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Medium Medium Medium
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low Medium
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Medium Medium
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
1.29 1.52 1.56
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Page 314 of 484
U-V R
O
W
T
A
R
R
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T E
A
S
T
W-X R
O
W
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y C
O
U
R
T
C
E
N
TU
R
Y S
Q
U
A
R
E D
RIV
E
FLORICULTURE ROAD
C
H
A
P
P
EL ST
R
E
ET
T
U
R
N
E
R STR
EET
PA
SLE
R S
T
R
E
ET PRESTON STREETS
O
U
T
H C
O
LLE
G
E AV
E
N
U
E
ARGUELLO DRIVE
M
A
C
A
RTH
U
R ST
R
E
ET
N
O
R
T
H
P
OINT LA
N
E POPLAR STREETC
H
U
R
C
HILL ST
R
E
E
T
TA
R
R
O
W STR
EET
NUNN STREET
B
ALL STR
E
ET
EISE
N
H
O
W
E
R ST
R
E
ET
JA
N
E ST
R
E
ETCOONER STREETNIMITZ S
T
R
E
ET
PURYEAR DRIVEF
R
O
N
T STR
E
E
T LINCOLN AVENUEASH STREETBANKS STREETCOLUMBUS STREETAVE
N
U
E B
HENSEL STREETMOORE AVENUEMONTE CARLO
AV
E
N
U
E A
W
ALT
O
N D
RIV
EPEYTON STREETHENSEL DRIVEWELLESLEY COURTVASSAR COURTHAR
RIN
G
TO
N AVE
N
UE
T
E
X
A
S A
V
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY DRIVEUNIVERSITY DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Land Use Types*
TE
X
A
S AV
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY DRIVEUNIVERSITY DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Northern commercial to be
redeveloped
• New urban residential
housing in place of duplexes
Zone 2
• Redevelopment of underutilized
low density commercial sites into
focal points that serve as a gateway
between the university and its
surrounding commercial
Retail: 120,000 sqft
Office: 170,000 sqft
Residential: 152 units
Zone 1
• Focused on redevelopment of larger
tracts that are underutilized for
enhanced gateway at University Drive
U-V R
O
W
TA
R
R
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T E
A
S
T
W-X R
O
W
C
E
N
TU
RY C
O
U
R
T
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y S
Q
U
AR
E D
RIV
E
FLORICULTURE ROAD
C
H
A
P
P
EL STR
EE
T
TU
R
N
E
R ST
REET
PASLE
R ST
REET PRESTON STREETS
O
U
TH C
O
LLE
G
E AVE
N
U
E
ARGUELLO DRIVE
M
A
C
ARTH
U
R STR
E
ET
N
O
RTHP
OINT LAN
E POPLAR STREETC
H
U
R
C
HILL S
T
R
E
E
T
TA
R
R
O
W STR
EET
NUNN STREET
B
ALL ST
R
E
ET
EISE
N
H
O
W
ER STR
E
ET
JA
N
E S
T
R
E
ETCOONER STREETNIMITZ ST
R
E
ET
PURYEAR DRIVEFR
O
N
T STR
EET LINCOLN AVENUEASH STREETBANKS STREETCOLUMBUS STREETAVE
N
UE B
HENSEL STREETMOORE AVENUEMONTE CARLO
AVE
N
U
E A
W
ALT
O
N D
RIV
EPEYTON STREETHENSEL DRIVEWELLESLEY COURTVASSAR COURTHAR
RIN
GTON AVE
N
UE
TEX
A
S AV
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY DRIVEUNIVERSITY DRIVE EASTSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• More redevelopment with a
mixed-use pattern
• Adding residential on
top of the proposed new
commercial
Zone 1
• Neighborhood mixed use
development that offers access to
both vehicles and pedestrians
• Increased amount of office uses
Retail: 140,000 sqft
Office: 480,000 sqft
Residential: 313 units
Zone 2
• Urban mixed use, creating strong focal
points moving away from university
campus to draw people in
• Corners are set to frame an entrance
into the northern section of University
Drive
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
16 17
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Suburban Residential:
Single-family homes
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Neighborhood Conservation:
Established Neighborhoods
General Commercial:
Retail, office, & commercial uses Institutional/Public
Urban Residential:
Apartment complexes Parks and Greenways
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
Unimproved/Vacant
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
2
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
Context Photos
Page 315 of 484
18 19
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 255 407 568
Population 570 911 1,270
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 1,410 1,804 2,464
Commercial Square Footage 603,125 862,955 1,192,943
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $849,000* $1,229,000 $1,662,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $412,000* $637,000 $675,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 23,320 39,637 42,401
Vehicular Trips 19,477 31,745 31,242
Intersection Density 0.28 0.28 0.26
Internal Capture Rate 2.60%6.60%10.40%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 14.25%14.25%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)139,725 212,865 293,760
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $4,068,657 $5,364,315 $6,087,918
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$445,545 $670,549 $923,953
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Low Low High
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Medium Medium Medium
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Low High
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
0.50 0.67 0.75
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-16%14%
--40%
67%52%15%
-8%22%
13%15%1%
10%--
4%5%4%
3%3%3%
2%1.5%2%
1%0.5%-
87 units 35 units 35 units
168 units 372 units 533 units
530,000 sqft 650,000 sqft 670,000 sqft
70,000 sqft 240,000 sqft 550,000 sqft
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Suburban
Residential
Mixed
Residential
Parks &
Greenways
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Urban
Center
Neighborhood
Conservation
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Page 316 of 484
NEW M AIN DRIVELOT 55 DWPOLO ROADR
O
S
E
M
A
R
Y LA
N
E
L
O
T 1
5
ARMISTEAD STREETMILLIFF ROADSTALLI
NGS DRI
VEPOPLAR STREETLOT 54 DW
NUNN STREET
KYLE AVENUEF
O
S
T
E
R A
V
E
N
U
E
EISE
N
H
O
W
E
R ST
R
E
ET
NIMITZ S
T
R
E
E
T
PURYEAR DRIVEJAMES PARK
W
AY GILCHRIST AVENUEMIL
N
E
R D
RIV
E
MOSS STREETR A M P
WILLIA
M
S STR
E
E
T
AV
E
N
U
E A
W
ALT
O
N D
RIV
E
BOLTON AVENUEA
S
H
B
U
R
N A
V
E
N
U
E WOODLAND PARKWAYBROOKS AVENUEHA
R
RIN
G
TO
N AVE
N
U
EUNIVERSITY DRIVEHARVEY ROADG
E
O
R
G
E B
U
S
H D
RIV
E E
A
ST
TE
X
A
S AV
E
N
U
E
GEORGE BUSH DRIVESource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityLand Use Types*
20 NEW M AIN DRIVELOT 55 DWPOLO ROADR
O
S
E
M
A
R
Y LA
N
E
L
O
T 1
5
ARMISTEAD STREETMILLIFF ROADSTALLI
NGS DRI
VEPOPLAR STREETL O T 5 4 D W
NUNN STREET
KYLE AVENUEF
O
S
TE
R A
V
E
N
U
E
EISE
N
H
O
W
E
R ST
REET
NIMITZ S
TR
E
E
T
PURYEAR DRIVEJAMES PARKWAY GILCHRIST AVENUEMIL
N
E
R D
RIV
E
MOSS STREETR A M P
WILLIA
M
S STR
EET
AV
E
N
U
E A
W
A
LT
O
N D
RIV
E
BOLTON AVENUEA
S
H
B
U
R
N A
V
E
N
U
E WOODLAND PARKWAYBROOKS AVENUEHAR
RIN
GTO
N AVENUEUNIVERSITY DRIVEHARVEY ROADG
E
O
R
G
E B
USH D
RIVE E
A
ST
TEX
A
S AV
E
N
U
E
GEORGE BUSH DRIVESource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• City Hall redevelopment with
plaza space
Zone 1
• Neighborhood center mixed-use to
compliment City Hall redevelopment
Retail: 86,000 sqft
Office: 121,000 sqft
Residential: (19) units
Zone 2
• New general commercial
development along George Bush DriveNEW M AIN DRIVELOT 55 DWPOLO ROADR
O
S
E
M
A
R
Y LA
N
E
L
O
T 1
5
ARMISTEAD STREETMILLIFF ROADSTALLI
NGS DRI
VEPOPLAR STREETL O T 5 4 D W
NUNN STREET
KYLE AVENUEF
O
ST
E
R A
V
E
N
U
E
EISEN
H
O
W
E
R ST
REET
NIMITZ STR
EE
T
PURYEAR DRIVEJAMES PARKWAY GILCHRIST AVENUEMIL
N
E
R D
RIV
E
MOSS STREETR A M P
WILLIA
M
S STR
EET
AV
E
N
U
E A
W
ALT
O
N D
RIV
E
BOLTON AVENUEA
S
H
B
U
R
N A
V
E
N
U
E WOODLAND PARKWAYBROOKS AVENUEHARRIN
GTO
N AVENUEUNIVERSITY DRIVEHARVEY ROADGE
O
R
G
E BUSH D
RIVE EA
ST
TE
X
A
S AVE
N
U
E
GEORGE BUSH DRIVESource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• More neighborhood center
uses to compliment City Hall
redevelopmentRetail: 176,000 sqft
Office: 211,000 sqft
Residential: 11 units
21
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
2
1
1
1
Zone 1
• Townhomes and mixed residential
along edge of sub-area to buffer
between neighborhood center and
single-family neighborhood
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Neighborhood Conservation:
Established Neighborhoods
General Commercial:
Retail, office, & commercial uses Institutional/Public
Urban Residential:
Apartment complexes Parks and Greenways
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
Unimproved/Vacant
Suburban Residential:
Single-family homes
1
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions
2
2 Zone 2
• Increased neighborhood center uses
with structured parking
• Moss St area consolidated to
neighborhood center
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
Context Photos
Page 317 of 484
22
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-28%48%
27%17%17%
3%--
5%9%21%
17%--
22%21%-
16%16%10%
8%8%4%
1%--
82 units 49 units -
56 units 70 units 149 units
94,000 sqft 180,000 sqft 270,000 sqft
9,000 sqft 130,000 sqft 220,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus
23
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 138 119 149
Population 309 266 333
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 370 890 1,239
Commercial Square Footage 102,987 313,656 487,965
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $231,000* $399,000 $581,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $1,245,000* $1,406,000 $1,575,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 5,553 8,118 10,230
Vehicular Trips 4,627 5,152 6,065
Intersection Density 0.28 0.28 0.25
Internal Capture Rate 1.00%24.60%25.30%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 15.83%15.83%20.63%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)40,290 67,920 100,320
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $1,521,838 $1,643,638 $1,772,960
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$128,740 $221,536 $325,087
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Medium Medium Medium
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low High
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Medium Medium
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
1.55 1.74 1.78
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Suburban
Residential
Mixed
Residential
Parks &
Greenways
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Neighborhood
Conservation
Page 318 of 484
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE WESTHOLLEMAN DRIVEGEORGE BUSH DRIVEWEL
L
BORN ROADSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityLand Use Types*
24
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categoriesGEORGE BUSH DRIVE WESTHOLLEMAN DRIVEGEORGE BUSH DRIVEWELLBORN ROADSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Representative of Southside
Area Neighborhood Plan
• More density along George
Bush and Wellborn
• Assumes Bush-Wellborn
interchange construction
Zone 1
• Urban and neighborhood center along
George Bush and Wellborn
• Designed to be easily accessible to
both TAMU campus and nearby single
family residential
Retail: 46,000 sqft
Office: 70,000 sqft
Residential: 109 units
Zone 2
• Medium density residential to buffer
between new urban center and
existing Southside single-family homes
• Duplexes and fourplexes that match
the nearby suburban contextGEORGE BUSH DRIVE WESTHOLLEMAN DRIVEGEORGE BUSH DRIVEWEL
L
BORN ROADSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
• Assumes Bush-Wellborn
interchange construction
• Additional urban center
areas with removal of some
local streets
Zone 1
• Creating an enhanced pedestrian-
friendly neighborhood center on
the south side of campus (similar to
Century Square)
• Road closures along Highland St and
Grove St (marked on map) due to
Bush-Wellborn interchange
• Highland St from George Bush Dr to
Grove St closed to vehicular traffic,
similar concept to College Main
Retail: 90,000 sqft
Office: 124,000 sqft
Residential: 97 units
25
1
1
1
2
1
Urban Residential:
Apartment complexes
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office,
& residential
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
General Commercial:
Retail, office, & commercial uses
Suburban Residential:
Single-family homes Parks and Greenways
Urban Center:
Vertical mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Unimproved/Vacant
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Scenario Assumptions
Scenario Assumptions= intersection closure
= intersection closure
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
Context Photos
Page 319 of 484
26
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
-33%55%
-20%16%
5.5%--
0.5%--
7%47%26%
83%--
--3%
4%--
170 units --
17 units 296 units 284 units
34,000 sqft 80,000 sqft 124,000 sqft
-70,000 sqft 124,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
27
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 187 296 284
Population 418 663 635
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 68 317 497
Commercial Square Footage 33,851 158,566 104,620
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $331,000* $521,000 $599,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $253,000* $339,000 $422,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 1,771 9,264 13,659
Vehicular Trips 1,536 6,751 9,839
Intersection Density 0.48 0.42 0.42
Internal Capture Rate 0.00%16.00%12.40%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 13.25%13.25%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)42,500 81,700 94,000
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $1,014,176 $1,435,018 $1,534,613
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$128,648 $236,950 $279,854
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Low High High
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low Medium
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low High High
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
0.29 0.96 1.02
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Suburban
Residential
Mixed
Residential
Parks &
Greenways
Vacant/
Unimproved
Urban
Residential
Urban
Center
EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Page 320 of 484
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
WELLBORN ROADTEXAS AVENUEHARVEY
R
O
A
DGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EAST
HOLLEMAN
D
R
I
V
E
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE WEST
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Land Use Types*
28
*Land use types are for scenario development only and do not represent the existing Land Use Plan categories
ANTICIPATED SCENARIO
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
WELLBORN ROADTEXAS AVENUEHARVEY
R
O
A
DGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EAST
HOLLEMAN DRIVE
GEORGE
B
U
S
H
D
R
I
V
E
W
E
S
T
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Scenario Assumptions
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
•Full residential buildout of
neighborhood conservation
area
Zone 1
•Matches existing Southside Area
Neighborhood Plan
•Neighborhood conservation, historic
suburban context
•Development of currently vacant lots
Retail: -
Office: -
Residential: 4 units
WELLBORN ROADTEXAS AVENUEHARVEY
R
O
A
DGEORGE BUSH DRIVE EAST
HOLLEMAN DRIVE
GEORGE
B
U
S
H
D
R
I
V
E
W
E
S
T
GEORGE BUSH DRIVE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Scenario Assumptions
Proposed Land Use Change
(net new) Overall Notes
•Redevelopment of select
areas with frontage along
George Bush Dr
Zone 1
•New neighborhood center
development
•Old town style to match the character
of the surrounding neighborhood
Retail: -
Office: 20,000 sqft
Residential: 10 units
29
1 1
1
Mixed Residential:
Duplexes, townhomes, and small-scale
apartment
General Commercial:
Retail, office, & commercial uses
Neighborhood Conservation:
Established Neighborhoods Institutional/Public
Neighborhood Center:
Horizontal mixes of commercial, office, &
residential
Unimproved/Vacant
Zone 2
•New mixed residential along George
Bush Dr that matches the character of
the Southside Neighborhood
•Brownstone style homes
2
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus SCENARIO DESIGN CONCEPTS
Context Photos
Page 321 of 484
30
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus
SCENARIOS AT A GLANCE
EXISTING
4%4%11%
40%41%31%
--3%
10%10%10%
45%45%45%
1%--
98 units 102 units 76 units
52 units 52 units 84 units
90,000 sqft 90,000 sqft 90,000 sqft
--20,000 sqft
300,000 sqft 300,000 sqft 300,000 sqft
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Office
Education
31
SCENARIO SUMMARY EXISTING ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
HOUSING
Housing Units 150 154 160
Population 336 344 358
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Jobs 834 1,201 1,218
Commercial Square Footage 95,827 95,827 104,620
Property Tax Revenue (Annual) $254,000* $257,000 $281,000
Sales Tax Revenue (Annual) $309,000* $309,000 $309,000
TRANSPORTATION
Total Trips (All Modes) 10,968 11,823 12,021
Vehicular Trips 8,636 8,357 8,225
Intersection Density 0.33 0.33 0.33
Internal Capture Rate 10.90%12.30%12.30%
Multimodal Trip Rate Reduction 15.24%15.24%17.76%
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water/Wastewater Demand (GPD)39,750 40,450 44,500
Cost of Water/Wastewater Upgrades $658,675 $727,250 $765,922
Water/Wastewater Revenue (Annual)$265,356 $267,666 $278,967
QUALITY OF PLACE
Land Use Mix:
A balance of mix of uses Medium Medium Medium
Meaningful Open Space:
Integrated into the area with opportunities
to create synergy between people and uses
Low Low Low
Street Level Activation:
Inviting storefronts, building location and
massing, and pedestrian activity
Low Low Low
Connectivity:
A ratio of multimodal facilities to roadway
facilities
0.86 0.89 0.94
*Tax revenue assumptions were based on actual 2019 revenues
Neighborhood
Center
General
Commercial
Mixed
Residential
Institutional/
Public
Vacant/
Unimproved
Neighborhood
Conservation
ANTICIPATED ALTERNATIVE
Page 322 of 484
Page 323 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 1
Community Choices
Engagement Summary
August 11, 2020
APPENDIX F
Page 324 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 2
This document presents a summary and analysis of the second round
of public engagement for The Next 10 process. It represents input from
approximately 200 people through the online Community Choices
workshop.
What does this report contain?
The input in this report provides insight into:
• Public input on potential changes to the City’s Future Land Use Map including updates to the
categories and example locations where the change could apply.
• Public input on conceptual development scenarios for six locations in College Station.
This document is organized into the following sections:
A. Overview and Purpose (what we did) ............................... 3
B. What we learned ................................................................... 4
I. Evaluating the Future Land Use Map .................. 4
Level of support
General comments from the public
II. Evaluating Scenarios ............................................... 13
Scenario preference
Reactions to the scenarios
General comments from the public
C. Who we heard from ............................................................. 25
Public Comments ........................................................................ 27
Page 325 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 3
A. Overview and Purpose (what we did)
Between July 13 and August 3, 2020, The Next 10 team hosted the
Community Choices online input activities to gain insight on specific
elements of the Comprehensive Plan evaluation. The purpose was to
measure support or concern for potential recommendations, gather
reactions on conceptual scenarios, and identify opportunities to
enhance the Comprehensive Plan. Due to COVID-19, the workshop
was conducted entirely online to protect the health and safety of the
community. The workshop sought feedback from the general public
and was widely promoted. Approximately 200* people participated,
generating over 1,900 data points (ratings and open-ended
comments).
The Community Choices online workshop was composed of two
major parts. Part 1 involved evaluating potential changes to the City’s
Future Land Use Map driven primarily by proposed updates to the
categories on the map. These changes were organized into four
themes which included two maps showing example locations where
the change could apply. Part II focused on evaluating three scenarios
for six unique locations in College Station conducted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan evaluation. These conceptual scenarios
illustrated and measured the differences between existing
conditions, a future supported by the current Plan, and an alternative
future that may be possible with changes to City policies. Additionally,
participants were asked to respond to a set of questions about their
demographics and background.
Participants had the choice to complete all three activities in its entirety or select specific activities
and associated questions of their choice. Although roughly 200* people participated, not all of those
individuals may have completed the entire three activities.
This report summarizes the results of the workshop. It is qualitative research. It is not
intended to be representative of overall community opinions. It reflects personal opinions
and perceptions of participants.
* Conservative participant counts have been used. These are estimates due to:
• Participants were not required to register or provide identifying information
• Each workshop activity could be submitted independently and most participants did not complete all activities
• Tracking cookies show some participants completed the activities in multiple sessions on different devices
WORKSHOP OUTREACH
To promote the online workshop, City
Staff coordinated a wide range of
communication methods. This publicity
strived to reach a broad audience,
notifying them of the opportunity to
participate and provide input.
Communication methods included:
• Social media posts
o Facebook
o Twitter
o Linkedin
• Creation of a Facebook event
• Posts to the City’s website
• Update to the City’s Calendar
• Inclusion in the City Council’s
Weekly Update
• Newsletter updates
o Parks & Recreation
o Neighborhood
o Planning & Development
Services
• Interview on radio station WTAW
• Digital and print ads in the local
newspaper, Eagle
• Personal emails to previous
participants, The Next 10 mailing
list, and CPEC members
Page 326 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 4
B. What we learned
This section summarizes feedback received for each of the workshop activities. They reflect
participant sentiments and perceptions but may not represent consensus. The results are organized
by activity and corresponding theme. The number of responses varies as not all participants
completed every activity or prompt.
I. Evaluating the Future Land Use Map
Part I: Evaluating the Future Land Use Map included four themes for potential changes to the
future land use categories with two corresponding example locations of where the change could
apply.
Note, while the potential changes shown were intended to represent examples that could
apply to multiple locations in the city, comments indicate that most respondents focused
on the specific change in the location shown.
Page 327 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 5
Theme 1: Introduce a new Neighborhood Center category
Example 1
Many participants felt it was difficult to understand the difference between the existing
character and what the Neighborhood Center category would encourage.
Those who support the potential change…
• Like the idea of having a walkable
Neighborhood Center which is
sensitive to the scale of the adjacent
neighborhoods
• Note that Urban (Mixed Use) would
result in higher density developments
which could bring additional concerns
to the neighborhood
• Encourage flexible areas that can allow
for a variety of land uses from
residential to commercial
Those who opposed the potential change…
• State that the existing development character in this location was appropriate and
should not be changed
• Feel the new category permits too broad a range of land uses for this area
• Are concerned with the potential loss of natural areas to new development
63%
21%
16%
0%20%40%60%80%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 1,
Example 1
Page 328 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 6
Example 2
Those who support the potential change…
• Are in favor of providing walkable
activity centers with a mix of
residential and commercial uses
• Emphasize the importance of
connecting activity centers to existing
parks and green spaces to provide
more robust destinations
• View mixed-use development as an
improvement from the Suburban
Commercial designation which limits
development types
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Feel that a commercial oriented area in this location is more appropriate given the
surrounding context and access
• Note that the intersection is not supportive of the Neighborhood Center as defined, being
a challenging area for pedestrians
• Are concerned about the type of development intended for the Neighborhood Center,
allowing large multi-family buildings or suburban commercial designs
54%
28%
18%
0%20%40%60%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 1,
Example 2
Page 329 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 7
Theme 2: Introduce a new Mixed Residential category
Example 1
Those who support the potential change…
• Share their hope in revitalizing the
area by providing a variety of
housing types
• Feel the Mixed Residential land use
designation matches the existing
character
• Support new housing options across
the City allowing both for-rent and
for-sale options
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Express concerns around the
number of existing multi-family units and quality of housing units that the Mixed
Residential category would encourage
• Feel the Mixed Residential category is more appropriate in new development areas rather
than established neighborhoods
• Are concerned with the potential for integrating student housing in these neighborhoods
and the impact on the current residents
• Want to ensure that commercial or urban areas are not changed to the Mixed Residential
category to allow for multi-family units
57%
27%
16%
0%20%40%60%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 2,
Example 1
Page 330 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 8
Example 2
Those who support the potential change…
• See benefit in providing
opportunities for mixed residential
housing types
• Feel it would promote aging in place,
provide housing for all income levels,
and help revitalize the area through
new development opportunities
• Prioritize retaining neighborhood
character with new development by
ensuring new development
maintains high-quality design that
accents the community
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Are concerned with mixed housing options encouraging student housing in additional
areas of the City
• Feel that increasing density would result in further congestion leading to traffic concerns
and impacts on the school district
• Promote new single-family housing in the Mixed Residential category as it is more
appropriate than multi-family units
• Emphasize that the Mixed Residential category would encourage any type of residential
regardless of surrounding context
59%
23%
17%
0%20%40%60%80%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 2,
Example 2
Page 331 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 9
Theme 3: Re-evaluate Suburban Commercial and General Commercial locations
Example 1
Those who support the potential change…
• Comment that the commercial
character in place today is
appropriate with access to major
thoroughfares
• Encourage additional commercial in
this area to support business growth
provided that improvements are
made to support increased traffic
• Support an appropriate transition /
buffer to the adjacent neighborhoods
as development approaches the
single-family homes
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Are concerned with increased traffic congestion at this location and excess commercial
areas around the City
• Encourage implementing a Neighborhood Center in this area given the proximity to
surrounding neighborhoods
• Promote a mixture of land uses such as office or residential alongside the commercial
• Endorse creating buffers between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas to
protect residents
51%
32%
17%
0%20%40%60%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 3,
Example 1
Page 332 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 10
Example 2
Those who support the potential change…
• Feel the Neighborhood Commercial
is appropriate given the new
development within Wellborn
• Identify a need for commercial areas
to provide services to the adjacent
neighborhoods
• Encourage access from the collector
streets to minimize traffic concerns
on the major thoroughfare
• Promote convenience commercial
services for the nearby residents
with opportunity to provide mixed
housing options
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Identify the surrounding existing commercial areas as sufficient for the residential
growth
• Feel that this area is inappropriate for commercial use adding to traffic concerns and
removing potential open space from the community
• Believe a minimum buffer zone should be established between residential
neighborhoods and non-residential areas
• Are concerned with drainage issues from new development being directed into
residential neighborhoods
56%
27%
18%
0%20%40%60%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 3,
Example 2
Page 333 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 11
Theme 4: Update the Natural Areas boundary
Example 1
Those who support the potential change…
• Support preserving natural areas
while allowing opportunities for park
improvements and recreational
activities
• Want to ensure that natural areas are
protected from development using
available data to support greenways
and parks such as FEMA regulations
• Promote greenway development and
improved pedestrian access across
the city
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Are concerned with the potential loss of natural areas and open space
• Feel that changing the boundary results in the potential for additional development
which would remove natural features from the community
• Are concerned with drainage issues and the potential for flooding as a result of new
development altering the natural area
57%
24%
19%
0%20%40%60%80%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 4,
Example 1
Page 334 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 12
Example 2
Those who support the potential change…
• Feel that the natural areas should
relate to floodplain zones or
specific natural features for
protection and preservation
• Discourage the removal of natural
areas for new development but
support redevelopment in certain
areas provided there are protective
measures in place
• Believe that this change reflects the
existing conditions of the area
Those opposed to this potential change…
• Are concerned with losing natural areas and green space to new development
• Encourage additional open spaces across the City to provide unique amenities and
recreational opportunities such as bike trails
• Endorse retaining protective measures for natural areas focusing development to other
areas of the City
55%
23%
21%
0%20%40%60%
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support this
potential change
No opinion / skip
Level of Support -Theme 4,
Example 2
Page 335 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 13
II. Evaluating Scenarios
Below is a summary of the responses received for Part II: Evaluating Scenarios. This activity
illustrated and measured three conceptual development scenarios for six locations in College
Station. Participants were asked to respond to preferable scenario, scenarios to avoid, and
reactions to future development in each specific location.
For each area, participants were asked to select one of the three scenarios they thought was
most preferable. Also, participants could select any of the scenarios that they felt the City
should not support. In the charts that follow, while everyone indicated their preference,
only 60% of the people responded to the second question, indicating which scenario
they did not like.
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area
13%
19%
68%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies encourage? (Area 1)
38%
10%
15%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies NOT encourage?
(Area 1)
Page 336 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 14
Comments summary for Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area
Participants that prefer scenario A
• Are concerned about traffic from additional development
• Believe urban mixed use is not feasible and is unlikely to be successful
• Do not like the other scenarios
Participants that prefer scenario B
• Recognize that the existing condition is not viable but believe scenario C does not offer
enough retail
• Believe a major retail center is important
Participants that prefer scenario C
• Support significant redevelopment in the mall area with vertical and horizontal mixing of
uses
• Believe that this type of change could benefit residents and the city economy
Page 337 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 15
Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall Area)
Comments summary for Area 2: Harvey Road (Opposite Post Oak Mall Area)
Participants that prefer scenario A
• Are concerned about loss of existing affordable housing options
• Are concerned that commercial development may take away demand from other, more
important development areas
18%
26%
55%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies encourage? (Area 2)
35%
9%
18%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies NOT encourage?
(Area 2)
Page 338 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 16
Participants that prefer scenario B
• Acknowledge that the area needs some redevelopment
• May support the limited “urban” area as a compliment to the area’s residential and nearby
retail
• Feel scenario C would not be viable across from the mall (too much retail)
• See little benefit with the increase in cost and traffic in scenario C
Participants that prefer scenario C
• Support neighborhood center redevelopment and mixed use
• Feel it is potentially more compatible with existing areas
• Have varying opinions on urban centers vs neighborhood centers
• Like that it would provide more revenue and jobs
• May support scenario C for the Mall site (Area 1)
Page 339 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 17
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue
Comments summary for Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue
Participants that prefer scenario A
• Do not feel the area needs to change. It provides affordable single-family housing and viable
businesses.
• Express concerns about high density development
Participants that prefer scenario B
• Support the zones 1 and 2 urban centers
15%
30%
55%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies encourage? (Area 3)
30%
7%
13%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies NOT encourage?
(Area 3)
Page 340 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 18
• Support mixed use redevelopment opportunities while supporting existing viable general
commercial areas
• May also be comfortable with scenario C or a hybrid
• May be concerned that scenario C is not realistic for the market
Participants that prefer scenario C
• Support denser and more walkable development
• Believe scenario C provides the most opportunity for redevelopment
• Believe this is the most appropriate place in the City for mixed use redevelopment
• May be opposed to this type of development in other parts of the city
Page 341 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 19
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus
Comments summary for Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus
Participants that prefer scenario A
• Are concerned about changes to the character of the corridor that negatively impact
adjacent neighborhoods
• Desire existing single-family areas to remain
• Feel the existing commercial development is successful
Participants that prefer scenario B
• Feel it is more realistic than the Alternative Scenario C
• Do not like that Alternative C removed the parks and open space area
• Do not like that Alternative C removed the neighborhood conservation area
18%
43%
39%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies encourage? (Area 4)
27%
6%
25%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies NOT encourage?
(Area 4)
Page 342 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 20
• Feel that Scenario C diminishes the significance of the new city hall site
Participants that prefer scenario C
• Like the neighborhood center mixed use concept around the city hall site
• Observe that much of the existing residential within the area has already changed and the
proposed “mixed residential” category is a good reflection of reality
• Support redevelopment with appropriate transitions to the adjacent neighborhoods
Page 343 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 21
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area
Comments summary for Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area
Participants that prefer scenario A
• Suggest leaving this area as-is until the timing of the Wellborn-George Bush intersection is
known
• Are opposed to the Alternative Scenario C
• Are opposed to any changes to the existing character of the area, including those that may
be supported by the Southside Neighborhood Plan (Scenario B)
• Are opposed to any commercial or increasing residential density away from the Wellborn
and George Bush corridors
36%
25%
39%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies encourage? (Area 5)
22%
6%
16%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies NOT encourage?
(Area 5)
Page 344 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 22
Participants that prefer scenario B
• Are opposed to the Alternative Scenario C
• Acknowledge that additional planning in the area is needed but are concerned about
deviations from the Southside Area plan which required a lot of community buy-in.
• Express concerns about the viability of the neighborhood center shown in this scenario
Participants that prefer scenario C
• Support mixed-use walkable areas and greater density and housing options close to campus
• Observe that the larger scale of mixed-use center in this scenario would make it more viable
• Acknowledge that additional planning in this area could offer improvements and still protect
nearby neighborhoods
• See either Scenario C or B as better than A (existing)
• Suggest hybrids between scenarios B and C
Page 345 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 23
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus
Comments summary for Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus
Participants that prefer scenario A
• Do not think changes are needed to the area as it exists today
• Did not like the anticipated or alternative (the alternative is not very different)
• Are concerned about losing the existing historic character and adding traffic
• Are opposed to commercial growth or residential redevelopment along the corridor
• Note that the analysis shows very little benefit to change from existing conditions
• Express concern about the motivation for analyzing scenarios for this area
54%
23%
23%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies encourage? (Area 6)
8%
3%
45%
A: Existing
B: Anticipated
C: Alternative
Which scenario should City
policies NOT encourage?
(Area 6)
Page 346 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 24
Participants that prefer scenario B
• Think this scenario is most compatible with protecting the existing neighborhood character
• Selected B because the analysis showed the most single-family housing units
• Are opposed to changes to the use and character shown on Alternative Scenario C
• Observe that that there is no financial benefit to the City in Scenario C
Participants that prefer scenario C
• Feel this scenario allows for limited redevelopment that could improve the corridor
• Observe that traffic on George Bush is not supportive of single family residential that exists
today, so this is a reasonable and market-supported scenario
• Say the character of redevelopment is important to maintain the integrity of the
neighborhood (neighborhood integrity is still important)
• Like the idea of a small “neighborhood center” or “brownstones” across from the University
Page 347 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 25
C. Who we heard from
Participation
170 participants completed the exit questionnaire (part III). The following summarizes the
demographic characteristics and experience of those who participated based on those responses.
Demographics
The exit questionnaires provide insight into the demographic makeup of workshop participants
compared to College Station’s demographics reported by the American Community Survey, 2017 (5-
year estimates).
Age
• Participants mostly middle-age and older. Participants over age 45 made up 68% of
respondents, compared with 19% of residents according to American Community Survey
(ACS).
• Younger demographic under-represented. Only 3% of participants were between the ages
of 18-24, a group that makes up 41% of College Station’s population.
Race
• Racial composition roughly aligned with that of the entire community. Approximately
90% of respondents identified as White/Caucasian, compared to 78% in the ACS.
• However, minority groups were underrepresented. Less than 1% of respondents
identified as Black/African American, compared to the 8% of College Station’s population.
Approximately 3% of respondents identify as Hispanic or Latino, falling short of the 15%
approximation set by the ACS.
Income
• Participants represented higher levels of income. Approximately 61% of respondents
identified their household income at a level above $100,000 per year, compared to 20%
reported by the ACS. Groups identifying with household earnings below $50,000 comprised
just 12% of respondents, in comparison to 58% of College Station’s households as according
to the ACS.
Educational Attainment
• Participants have high levels of education. Respondents had higher overall levels of
educational attainment including 39% with Bachelor’s Degrees and 51% with either a Ph.D.
or Master’s degree. This compares to 29% and 27%, respectively, from the ACS. Less than
1% of respondents had a high school diploma or less, while 19% fall under this category in
College Station.
Page 348 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 26
Residency
• Most participants are homeowners. 78% of respondents indicated that they owned their
homes rather than rented (11%). An additional 11% of respondents live outside the city
limits.
• There was a nearly even split of those who work within College Station. 58% of
respondents work within the City, with the remaining 42% working elsewhere.
• A mix of resident tenure but mostly long-time residents. Approximately 67% of
respondents have lived in the City for 10 years or longer.
Motivation and Participation
The exit questionnaires polled participants on The Next 10 process and their participation in
previous workshops or activities.
How did you hear about this public meeting? Common responses
• Word of mouth / personal invitation 33%
• Email from City 15%
• Online news 13%
• Social Media 13%
• Community event / presentation 12%
YES NO
Did you participate in any of the in-person workshops or online
activities for The Next 10 process between July-October 2019? 43% 57%
Page 349 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 27
Public Comments
The following are all comments collected. They are organized as follows:
1. Evaluating the Future Land Use Map
a. Theme
• Participants who support the potential change
• Participants who do not support
2. Evaluating Scenarios
a. Area
• Participants who prefer scenario A
• Participants who prefer scenario B
• Participants who prefer scenario C
3. Other input
a. Comments on the themes
b. Exit questionnaire responses
Evaluating the Future Land Use Map
Theme 1: Introduce a new Neighborhood Center, Example 1
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
n/a
I generally support this
potential change
We need to maintain traditional neighborhoods in the heart of the city
I generally support this
potential change
On one hand this looks like simply a change in names, but the differentiation of
neighborhood center from urban center is significant. It adjusts the scale of the old mixed
use designation so that inappropriate developments can be discouraged in neighborhood
areas.
I generally support this
potential change
I value reduced traffic by bringing commercial closer to residential
I generally support this
potential change
In all changes OR new development in the coming years, serious plans must be
implemented to mitigate water shortages, resulting from severe droughts that are predicted
to occur within "The Next 10". Guidelines for developers, investors and landscapers must be
enforced to ensure that all new technology is implemented for water conservation and
recycling.
I generally support this
potential change
I support any building changes that give the city more walkability
I generally support this
potential change
Friendlier approach than just more apartments
I generally support this
potential change
Mixed use area should be walkable and bike-able. Should include bike lanes.
Page 350 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 28
I generally support this
potential change
I like the idea of walkable neighborhood centers.
I generally support this
potential change
Due to proximity to Wolf Pen Creek Park, this is an excellent candidate for Neighborhood
Center, emphasizing walkability. Neighborhood Center is preferred for this region over
Urban Center because of the general character, and transforming this area into Urban
Center could quickly overshadow Wolf Pen Creek Park.
I generally support this
potential change
Like that is walkable and has business mixed in with residential.
I generally support this
potential change
I don't see this area generating the demand to require vertical density.
I generally support this
potential change
It would add more housing
I generally support this
potential change
Should not have commercial mixed with residential
I generally support this
potential change
Why can't this be left blank? I don't have any comments
I generally support this
potential change
This change makes sense based on the existing neighborhoods in the area.
I generally support this
potential change
I 100% endorse the further development of pedestrian friendly areas with mixed residential
and commercial activity.
I am somewhat concerned about the removal of the "reserve" status in the example. I'm not
sure what the difference is but I hope that these changes will have minimal effect on local
wildlife.
I generally support this
potential change
Might like some more natural areas
I generally support this
potential change
I believe that is what is there currently.
I generally support this
potential change
That area could be nice, but it does not seem well used. Maybe calling it a neighborhood
center will help.
I generally support this
potential change
Support more walkable pedestrian scale developments that encourage us to know our
neighbors, live denser, and provide a variety of affordable housing stock.
I generally support this
potential change
I support this change since that area is mostly residential.
I generally support this
potential change
(Structured) neighborhood center would be preferable and potentially more sustainable
than proliferation of existing.
I generally support this
potential change
Focusing on walkable neighborhoods is a great idea!
I generally support this
potential change
I concur with this potential change.
I generally support this
potential change
It looks like an effective use of space
I generally support this
potential change
As long as natural areas are preserved (or increased), I support this potential change.
I generally support this
potential change
This area could use some revitalization
I generally support this
potential change
More sidewalls needed.
I generally support this
potential change
I like the walkable pattern that is possible in this theme. It seems like a good mix of the city
but pocket sized.
I generally support this
potential change
I particularly like the idea of a 'walkable activity centers' that's accessible by bike (with bike
racks) and accessible by public transit. Also I like the limited parking behind or to the side of
buildings, so that the main walkable area is attractive. Multi-level, small shops sounds
appealing.
I generally support this
potential change
Having multi-level buildings of either housing or shops/eateries sounds delightful around
this area.
I generally support this
potential change
It was unclear to me what the differences were except that the Neighborhood Center
seemed to be buildings with less height. I could not find anything in the category definitions
Page 351 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 29
called "Urban Mixed Use". However, based on what I could surmise, this change seems
reasonable. I doubt if there will be a big demand for high-rise buildings in this area.
I generally support this
potential change
We need more options for affordable middle class housing. We have very limited options for
under 300k.
I generally support this
potential change
I think specific plans and definitions should be provided for generalized terms.
I generally support this
potential change
I support the concept of a neighborhood center
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood centers are more attractive and consistent in use and physical presentation
and would improve the utility and value of the older, surrounding area.
I generally support this
potential change
This would be a good transition area between the commercial development along Harvey
and the residential development to the southeast.
I generally support this
potential change
Urban Mixed would be better served with more traffic access, like closer to Hwy. 6 or
University Drive.
I generally support this
potential change
Urban centers or neighborhood centers will be an upgrade when compared to more rows of
single family homes or duplexes. The city should be aggressively seeking the placement of
concrete-frame high-rise residences with mixed use lower floors. The value of moving from
urban sprawl to a more compact, efficient environment is immediately seen in the increase
in property taxes without the increase in needed infrastructure.
I generally support this
potential change
Any changes related to this need to truly support biking/walking/other-non-auto options as
the primary mode of transportation. Furthermore, this needs to focus on young/working
professionals who might be able to grow into the surrounding neighborhoods rather than
allowing student creep into traditionally non-student areas.
I generally support this
potential change
Support the smaller scale.
I generally support this
potential change
Support contingent upon how "walkable" the intended use model is.
I generally support this
potential change
It is not clear what the difference is from "urban center" which is not a use I see on the map,
but in general I support planned land use that integrates the community and supports
walkability
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood Centers encourage neighbors to get to know each other and strengthen the
community.
I generally support this
potential change
It would be better if the neighborhood residents themselves participated in the
development of this proposed change.
I generally support this
potential change
is urban mixed use different from an urban center? what difference would this change
mean? more and denser housing? the area is the same: what does the "smaller scale" of a
neighborhood center have or lack from an urban center?
I generally support this
potential change
Provides more flexibility
I generally support this
potential change
Would prefer more commercial than residential
I generally support this
potential change
No large buildings in this area. Maintain neighborhood character as much as possible
I generally support this
potential change
The change shown appears to be nothing more than cosmetic use of a new term name. The
area is too developed for much effect on the future use.
I generally support this
potential change
Seems similar to before
I generally support this
potential change
I like this option
I generally support this
potential change
I like it.
I generally support this
potential change
Anything that creates more opportunities for mixed use development
I generally support this
potential change
I would be a little concerned if some of the existing urban areas that abut older
neighborhoods were turned into this category. It seems like it would need to have some
sort of buffer between a traditional neighborhood and this type of land use to keep them a
little separated. Perhaps consider a small walkable greenbelt between them?
Page 352 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 30
I generally support this
potential change
It will bring the neighborhood together more.
I generally support this
potential change
Knowing this part of town pretty well, I would support the change because this area is
already developed with residential uses. Mixed use would not be appropriate.
I generally support this
potential change
Is this only a name change? What is the difference between UMU and NC? With what is
presented, I do not have an opinion but I could not ask questions with that option.Why the
lack of explanation?
I generally support this
potential change
this area has never been successful as a high-dense urban area. neighborhood center
seems more appropriate for that area.
I generally support this
potential change
This area has expanded with many new people, neighborhood area will be welcome
I generally support this
potential change
I don't see much of difference?
I generally support this
potential change
I like the concept of thoughtful integration instead of delineated commercial, suburban
commercial, multifamily, etc.
I generally support this
potential change
The difference between Urban Mixed Use and Neighborhood Center is somewhat vague, but
if the Potential Future Land Use calls for denser development with integrated retail and
social services then it would be an improvement.
I generally support this
potential change
This zoning classification needs to be flexible and adaptable as the market changes
I generally support this
potential change
I support increased walkability
I generally support this
potential change
Please ensure mobile homes or government housing are created.
I generally support this
potential change
Great plan
I generally support this
potential change
This seems like it would allow more flexibility for redevelopment in this area.
I generally support this
potential change
I like the idea of neighborhood centers.
I generally support this
potential change
No reconfiguring existing communities! But this may be a better use of the current array of
townhouse complexes
I generally support this
potential change
This area is very nice and any interest in additional development is likely to be appropriate
to the existing properties under either definition "Urban Mixed Use" or "Neighborhood
Center."
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
What is the difference between "Urban Mixed Use" and "Neighborhood Center?" If it allows
a greater leeway for property owners to figure out what to put on their property, I am for it.
But it is difficult to tell with this description what the difference is.
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with this change, the neighborhood center development would be an asset to the
area.
I generally support this
potential change
I support this.
I generally support this
potential change
Seems to be more or less the same. Neighborhood Center seems to clarify the original
intent of Urban Mixed Use in this area.
I generally support this
potential change
In trying to create walkable areas, the current restrictions and buffers make it difficult if not
impossible to develop mixed use areas that are usable by pedestrians
I generally support this
potential change
The mixed use and walkability for residents to stores, restaurants and parks makes sense.
I generally support this
potential change
This area would be ideal for a neighborhood center.
I generally support this
potential change
Although I would prefer this area not be developed and is kept as green space around Wolf
Pen Creek, this change from Urban Mixed Use to Neighborhood Center is appealing because
it would be a smaller scale development (3 story average height buildings instead of the
currently planned 5 story average height buildings).
I generally support this
potential change
3 stories is better than 5 to be less of an eye sore.
Page 353 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 31
I generally support this
potential change
3 stories look better around a park compared to 5 stories. The current building cannot even
support business under the three stories.
I generally support this
potential change
three stories is less of a distraction to the park than 5 stories. Currently, 3 stories are having
a hard time being filled. I never wanted for the Wolf pen creek park area to even go
commercial
I generally support this
potential change
This is OK. It should have never be 5 stories in this area, 3 is better than what it is now. As it
is, no one has seen it to be viable to put 5 stories here anyway.
I generally support this
potential change
it makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
The change to Neighborhood center provides an area more inviting of foot traffic and
quaint. It would be supportive of the social/business and living of residents in the area and
surrounding, more than the urban mixed used description
I generally support this
potential change
good
I generally support this
potential change
We need more space available for the Urban/Neighborhood Center development type. It
would be nice if we also could have some of those developments for non-students? Or at
least older students? Some of us "olds" are no longer interested in living in a suburban
house, but almost all of the dense developments near restaurants, etc are for students.
I generally support this
potential change
Please know that I relocated from the Houston area to College Station And please do
whatever you can to ensure homeless Camps DO NOT enter the city. I know this is a
sensitive topic however homeless camps bring so much pollution and drugs along with
crime to the city.
I generally support this
potential change
I am a little unclear as to the major differences in these two types of plans - but I like hearing
"neighborhood" and "walkable" and "smaller scale" so therefore it sounds like something I
would support.
I generally support this
potential change
Reasonable land use considering roadway network and surrounding land uses
I generally support this
potential change
Looks good but would be nice if there was more natural green space
I do not support this
potential change
I like the idea of a more intimate neighborhood center that an urban mixed use area.
I do not support this
potential change
The current development has a predictable usage of infrastructure, traffic and density. I see
no advantage to change the future land use, however I would encourage the economic
development dept to advertise suburban commercial opportunities for business in this
already established area.
I do not support this
potential change
No or very little raw land in that area.
I do not support this
potential change
Seems like a residential location not a retail location
I do not support this
potential change
This is a beautiful area of town where many people enjoy walking and feeling close to
nature. Adding more retail to this particular would be very disappointing.
I do not support this
potential change
Removal of fire department would cost more to taxpayers because city would then need to
build a new fire department.
I do not support this
potential change
It seems like a good use of the land.
I do not support this
potential change
This area is already established as a neighborhood center with commercial and residential.
I do not support this
potential change
An urban mixed use area would be more appropriate for this area to entice traffic which
stops in this area vs just passing through. The vehicular traffic is not conducive to a
neighborhood center.
I do not support this
potential change
Is there an example drawing/elevation of what this could entail? Very broad and at
description as "areas consist of residential, commercial, and office uses arranged
horizontally in an integrated manner and may be mixed vertically within structures." How is
that a neighborhood center? To me, a neighborhood center is more in line with the Lick
Creek Park with an amphitheater and walking trails that is walking distance to residential
uses. Is that the same thing?? Need a better description.
I do not support this
potential change
College Station has grown too fast. The city should better control the growth and the loss of
natural areas. There should not be a nail shop in every strip center.
Page 354 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 32
I do not support this
potential change
The potential change appears benign, however; the need for the change is unclear.
I do not support this
potential change
It is very difficult to evaluate what the difference between the two examples would REALLY
be when it is built out.
I do not support this
potential change
It is not good to mix residents with commercial unless you want it urban.
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhood Center allows too many alternatives for a Neighborhood
I do not support this
potential change
Any further development along Holleman Dr. should be frozen until Holleman can be
widened to 5 lanes along its entire length. It is already too congested and developing this
area in any residential or commercial use will only make the current situation worse.
I do not support this
potential change
I'm not supporting anything you do....you don't listen....you just do what you want! Example:
THOMAS PARK POOL!
I do not support this
potential change
EXISTING OFFERS BETTER FLEXIBILITY
I do not support this
potential change
There is no such thing as "existing future" and "potential future", the future does not exist
yet, therefore it is all potential. This area is more-or-less developed already and isn't that
old. Calling it something different won't change that.
I do not support this
potential change
There's not enough information here so, at this time, I feel I cannot support the change to
Neighborhood Center from the existing Urban Mixed use in these neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
I don't know a lot of detail on this but it sounds like a lot of sidewalks and additional costs to
develop. I would think if this style of connectivity was deemed appropriate the market
would make it this way. Too much required additional costs will be passed on to us citizens.
I do not support this
potential change
Not needed
I do not support this
potential change
Quit adding shopping centers and yet another damn burger, fried chicken, or pizza
restaurant! CS is ruining the small town vibe
I do not support this
potential change
this is all apartments and mostly student housing. I don't believe they'll walk to places.
I do not support this
potential change
Need more buffer to protect existing " single family residential", and I use that term a lot
tighter than the city does.
I do not support this
potential change
Not a dramatic change, but naming indicates more focus on the neighborhood scale and an
improved sense of place
I do not support this
potential change
We do not need more housing here in BCS!
I do not support this
potential change
1. Retaining the word "Reserve" has much stronger connotations regarding Natural Areas
that should be retained.
2. Neighborhood Center is better than and not the same as Urban Mixed Use. Changing to
Neighborhood Center without fundamentally changing the requirements is whitewashing
the same old crap.
I do not support this
potential change
My concern is the difficulty of making a Neighborhood Center attractive. It will be an ugly
mess of apartments, strip malls and tacky office space.
I do not support this
potential change
I do not believe that there is enough infrastructure in terms of roadways to support this kind
of development. The City has, in the past, passed on making changes to intersections of
Holleman that would allow those roads to support increased traffic. Traffic is already a
major problem on that road and until that's fixed there is no sense in even talking about it.
I do not support this
potential change
The city did a poor job of the suburban commercial zoning- why would this be any different.
This classification only works if the residential (not Aggie Shack or apartment) neighborhood
is the largest land use, not the "center" commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
Residential areas should be separate from commercial and office spaces.
Page 355 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 33
Theme 1: Introduce a new Neighborhood Center, Example 2
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
The neighborhood center designation allows more flexibility in the development of this area.
While there is a need for commercial development; the reality may be that "the market"
would make this location more salable as multi family or some other medium density
residential development.
I generally support this
potential change
I generally support reducing traffic by bringing business closer to residential
I generally support this
potential change
College Station is in a position to lead the way to renewable energy for all changes and new
development, both residential and commercial. Solar and wind energy are becoming
cheaper, while providing for a cleaner and healthier city life, and should be mandated for all
upgrades and new development. We also have a major university that has the knowledge
and resources to share, and also benefit, in this endeavor.
I generally support this
potential change
I support any building changes that will create more walking & biking areas.
I generally support this
potential change
It is a natural linkage to Bee Creek Park
I generally support this
potential change
Agree, this location has the potential to be a centric location of importance, due to the two
large roadways intersection.
I generally support this
potential change
This is a great idea. I would love to see more neighborhood & walkable uses near all the
East Side existing neighborhoods.
I generally support this
potential change
Support the move from Suburban Commercial, especially as new developments come online
on the South side of Harvey Mitchel from this region. I don't know if Neighborhood Center is
the best option, seems like a better candidate for Neighborhood Commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
This area will likely continue to develop with the new road opening of Dartmouth and
apartments currently under construction. My concern is the water runoff which will be
directed into Bee Creek and the properties to the south of this location.
I generally support this
potential change
mostly raw land so I can support the change.
I generally support this
potential change
This area could use some revitalization and a neighborhood center would serve that area
well.
I generally support this
potential change
Seems like a place for retail or higher density uses.
I generally support this
potential change
That area is not at all a neighborhood currently. It seems like a good area for mixed use.
I generally support this
potential change
Good location.
I generally support this
potential change
I support this potential change since that area is a location that would be good for different
uses together. So having a integrated pattern allows for that location to not only be
commercial, but residential as well.
I generally support this
potential change
We do not need more suburban style development.
I generally support this
potential change
A likely area for commercial but will probably be developed with housing
I generally support this
potential change
This would be a great use for that property.
I generally support this
potential change
It’s good that the natural environment is being kept on the edge
I generally support this
potential change
More mix of commercial and residential is nice than just purely commercial area
I generally support this
potential change
I would prefer the majority of the green area there be developed as a continuation of the
other portion of bee creek walking/biking trail.
I generally support this
potential change
Once again, I do not know the current definition of "Suburban Commercial". However,
based on the definition of "Neighborhood Center", this seems like a logical change. It seems
like this area is already moving in that direction anyway.
Page 356 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 34
I generally support this
potential change
This area is already commercialized so having a mixed used mid rise development isn’t a
bad option at all
I generally support this
potential change
More community programs would be good. We've had an exponential growth in businesses
that have subsequently gone out of business due to the pandemic, allowing a decrease in
building commercial locations and utilizing recently vacated buildings.
I generally support this
potential change
I support the concept of a neighborhood center
I generally support this
potential change
Same comments as #1 above...more attractive use and consistent environment with a
neighborhood center.
I generally support this
potential change
This allows for more flexibility.
I generally support this
potential change
It’s good that the natural environment is being kept on the edge
I generally support this
potential change
I generally support the potential change with the caveat that adequate drainage retention is
incorporated into any site plan to mitigate any potential flooding downstream.
I generally support this
potential change
I see no reason for this area to be commercial only given its proximity to the park
I generally support this
potential change
It would be better if the residents in this area were part of the decision making process.
I generally support this
potential change
so essentially, denser, more mixed-use development, yes? makes sense to increase density
and variety of businesses there.
I generally support this
potential change
provides more flexibility
I generally support this
potential change
I don’t like suburban commercial. If commercial has to be introduced then residency would
help contain it.
I generally support this
potential change
I'm going to repeat my main points on probably the bulk of these specific sites. CS needs
green space, well thought out infrastructure upgrades, bike/ebike/bus specific lanes to
TAMU, and WIDE (i.e., 60") sidewalks.
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood center is preferable to suburban commercial in concept.
I generally support this
potential change
If the Neighborhood Center really contains quality residential areas for single family
dwellings, and not merely high density apartments and "stealth dormitories."
I generally support this
potential change
Removing the commercial aspects of this area will strengthen property values and
neighborhood pride.
I generally support this
potential change
I support the Neighborhood Center concept in this area.
I generally support this
potential change
any changes that support walking areas and green spaces are good ones
I generally support this
potential change
I support this change if it leads to more density
I generally support this
potential change
I like it.
I generally support this
potential change
Suburban commercial has been an ineffective Land Use. I support anything that makes
mixed-use developments more economical
I generally support this
potential change
I believe we need more family housing not just businesses and student housing.
I generally support this
potential change
Any departure from the use of Suburban Commercial is an improvement.
I generally support this
potential change
Hard to tell what types of homes would be in such an area. The type where apartments are
on top of restaurants, businesses haven't gone over well at Wolf Pen Creek and other
locations such as the corner of TX ave. and University drive.
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood centers being more compact and and walkable is a very good thing. (Also, my
response for the previous example should have been "generally support", but may have
errantly been marked "do not support". Apologies, if so. I support neighborhood center
mixed use.)
I generally support this
potential change
Mixed use for this area would be appropriate
Page 357 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 35
I generally support this
potential change
This change allows for more density and flexibility than what Suburban Commercial
provides
I generally support this
potential change
Again, without more explanation of the distinction between these land uses it is difficult to
offer an opinion.
I generally support this
potential change
this area is susceptible to flooding, so the future property owners need to alerted of this
fact.
I generally support this
potential change
My view that commercial should stay out by the highway
I generally support this
potential change
This makes sense to redevelop the specified area.
I generally support this
potential change
The current developments along Harvey Mitchell East are disappointing (Motor Part Stores,
etc) so a denser mix with integrated neighborhood services would be an improvement.
I generally support this
potential change
This new zoning classification should be flexible and able to adapt to the changes in the
market.
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood center seems more flexible
I generally support this
potential change
This depends on the specifics of Neighborhood Center vs Suburban Commercial land uses.
I generally support this
potential change
I like this improvement
I generally support this
potential change
good
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
Again, I don't know what the difference between "suburban commercial" and
"neighborhood center." If you are talking about allowing owners having a greater ability to
put the right things on their property, I am for it.
I generally support this
potential change
I think this would be a good change for the area
I generally support this
potential change
I support Neighborhood Center.
I generally support this
potential change
The suburban commercial district has been very difficult to implement in an economically
viable manner, and the resulting plans have not increased pedestrian access
I generally support this
potential change
This area would need better traffic management and multi-modal transportation.
I generally support this
potential change
This change is generally better, although I would prefer that this area be left alone. The
increase in traffic if this is developed continues to make it harder to get around town. There
are almost no streets left to cut through for those of us who live here all the time to avoid all
the extra traffic.
I generally support this
potential change
If this was going to be only commercial, then a neighborhood center would be beneficial to
more parties. If we need more living spaces, then make them in this modern way of
intermixing with varying business and convenient pedestrian access.
I generally support this
potential change
Feels like in 2020 anything north of Rock Prairie is no longer "suburban". In future this line
will move southward; this seems like a good recognition of reality.
I generally support this
potential change
I love College Station and I am happy that I relocated from a large city. Please ensure the city
stays safe and Clean.
I generally support this
potential change
May be an improvement
I generally support this
potential change
Reasonable land use considering roadway network and surrounding land uses and
previously described potential future land use
I generally support this
potential change
same as last question - seems like more green space/natural areas would enhance the
beauty and create a calming environment for citizens
I do not support this
potential change
too dense
I do not support this
potential change
This is a fairly commercial area and should remain that way.
I do not support this
potential change
What's going to happen to IL Texas?
Page 358 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 36
I do not support this
potential change
This area would be better suited for commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
With Post Oak Mall site so close I do not see how this site could compete successfully to
become a neighborhood center. Let's make Post Oak Mall a strong center (it is largest of
potential centrally located redevelopment sites) and not try for nearby neighborhood
centers.
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces!
I do not support this
potential change
I think there is a lot of existing commercial development in that area and no additional
businesses are needed.
I do not support this
potential change
I would rather a majority of this area be a continuation of the Bee Creek Walking Biking Trail,
and be converted to natural area - reserve. I'm okay with the already developed portion
being converted to a neighborhood center, but I'm not sure it would be beneficial since the
area is so isolated from foot traffic. I'm also worried about the noise pollution from and the
unattractive view of Texas Ave/Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. Removing the trees is only going to
make the noise and appearance worse.
I do not support this
potential change
Without first increasing/updating transportation infrastructure adding more residents into
this area will just put increased pressure on a major intersection.
I do not support this
potential change
What neighborhoods would this neighborhood center be supporting? Neighborhood center
should feature commercial and a trail system are walkable from . . . neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
Suburban commercial should be reserved for Texas Ave. location, like presently zoned.
I do not support this
potential change
Due to its proximity to the existing commercial district, the amount of visiting traffic that
passes this area, Suburban commercial is more appropriate
I do not support this
potential change
Prefer not to have the increased housing and taller buildings.
I do not support this
potential change
It is very difficult to evaluate what the difference between the two examples would REALLY
be when it is built out.
I do not support this
potential change
Not a friendly intersection for neighborhood center definition
I do not support this
potential change
neighborhood center is too broad and allows too many options
I do not support this
potential change
More "suburban" sprawl means more harm than good over the course of time.
Vertical/high-rise housing is the way of the future.
I do not support this
potential change
With much of the land in this area already developed and given how busy the area already
is, this would likely not add to the quality of life in the area.
I do not support this
potential change
If there were a neighborhood anywhere close, a neighborhood center might be a good idea.
But this will end up being commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
This area will be more inclined to support the commercial use, rather than a neighborhood
concept
I do not support this
potential change
This change would increase traffic along in neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
Depends on the location. This example doesn't make sense for a new Neighborhood Center
I do not support this
potential change
I don’t wish to increase Tx ave traffic
I do not support this
potential change
Quit adding shopping centers and yet another damn burger, fried chicken, or pizza
restaurant! CS is ruining the small town vibe
I do not support this
potential change
FOCUS ON WHAT WE HAVE!!! How about Thomas Park?
I do not support this
potential change
ok
I do not support this
potential change
Leave some commercial business along Texas Ave. Looking at just the first 2 options, it looks
as if your proposals is to change everything to neighborhood areas which I assume means
more high rise apartment complexes.
I do not support this
potential change
do not like Neighborhood center concept
Page 359 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 37
I do not support this
potential change
This is a very busy intersection and should stay more commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
We do not need more housing here in BCS!
I do not support this
potential change
Commercial seems better. Leave as is.
I do not support this
potential change
There is so much traffic that walkability in this area is questionable. It might be possible to
zone or build, but I doubt people would accept it. Walmart would destroy most economic
potential for new small business.
I do not support this
potential change
Poor choice, bad traffic pattern
I do not support this
potential change
We do not need more multifamily housing in this area.
I do not support this
potential change
I don't think having a walkable focused environment along Texas and 2818 is generally safe.
While SC may be a little to soft, I think GC and commercial uses should be used on this hard
corner area.
I do not support this
potential change
Same comment as prior:
1. Prefer the stronger term "reserve" for its more permanent connotations.
2. Only support switch to "Neighborhood Center" if associated with meaningfully different
design standards than "Suburban Commercial." Otherwise it is whitewashing with a more
appealing term for traditional big box without real change. If it is going to be regular old
strip shopping and big box, call it what it is: "Suburban Commercial." If really Neighborhood
center designs, with squares and green space, by all means make the change.
I do not support this
potential change
With the new apartment community being built on Harvey Mitchell Pkwy near Dartmouth I
would expect suburban Commercial would be the best use of this land
I do not support this
potential change
Do we really need more offices and apartments?
I do not support this
potential change
I do not support this. This area does not need 3 stories in the neighborhoods that adjoin
this area. It s very out of character with the surrounding areas.
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhoods do not want to be next to 3 story buildings.
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhoods do not want more than 2 stories next to them!!!!
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhoods do not want more than 2 stories next to them!!
I do not support this
potential change
This sounds like code for "more apartments" at the expense of commercial so I am not in
favor of this.
I do not support this
potential change
Suburban commercial areas should not be developed into neighborhood centers consisting
of residences. Although redevelopment of suburban commercial areas to include both
commercial and office spaces can be done.
Theme 2: Introduce a new Mixed Residential category, Example 1
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
n/a
I generally support this
potential change
Developement closer to the university needs to allow for denser residential choices.
I generally support this
potential change
What type of building typologies are proposed?
I generally support this
potential change
I like the idea of including more housing options that aren't catered toward students. Young
professionals, families, retirees, may not be able to afford a suburban house, or may not
Page 360 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 38
need the space. Offering more affordable housing options away from student populations is
a move in the right direction in my opinion.
I generally support this
potential change
I support mixed residential , perhaps it will blur some of our socio economic lines.
I generally support this
potential change
I would like to see this area of town revitalized with new housing options
I generally support this
potential change
Height allowances for urban are not in keeping with the character of this area
I generally support this
potential change
I support, allow the market to dictate what residential use is most preferred.
I generally support this
potential change
This area of town is in need of redevelopment, and this seems like a good idea.
I generally support this
potential change
Looks like this is taking the existing Land Use Designation and not changing anything, but
realigning it with the new Land Use Designations. Provides a little bit of flexibility and adds
important density near a new large shopping area.
I generally support this
potential change
Is this just a name change to reflect what is already there?
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
I don't imagine this area will become "urban" but can see it being successful as Mixed
Residential.
I generally support this
potential change
It is very good
I generally support this
potential change
I think this potential change could help revitalize the area, although it may overburden the
school district zone.
I generally support this
potential change
This makes sense for this area.
I generally support this
potential change
I like this
I generally support this
potential change
support
I generally support this
potential change
Product types are evolving.
I generally support this
potential change
N/a
I generally support this
potential change
I would clarify if this is to be student housing or family.
I generally support this
potential change
This already is already built out so the change is aporilriate
I generally support this
potential change
I am surprised that the current designations do not include a level between "urban
residential" and "general suburban". It seems important to acknowledge and plan for areas
that are somewhere between single family homes and giant apartment complexes.
I generally support this
potential change
Seems to be more flexible.
I generally support this
potential change
Already a lot of duplexes in this area, good redevelopment strategy.
I generally support this
potential change
This area has been growing as residential and would be nice to integrate more housing
types.
I generally support this
potential change
It is a great idea to get rid of suburban style development. Mixed residential is great.
However, aim to create a sense of place by providing activities within walking distance of
these homes (i.e. parks, restaurants, coffee shops, etc..)
I generally support this
potential change
no comment
I generally support this
potential change
In general I think we should allow a greater density in neighborhoods without existing HOAs
I generally support this
potential change
n/a
Page 361 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 39
I generally support this
potential change
Prefer mixed residential.
I generally support this
potential change
I think there needs to be more single-family homes to help persuade future A&M graduates
to stay here.
I generally support this
potential change
I guess I am a little confused by the "change". My limited knowledge of this area would
indicate it is already more "Mixed Residential" already. Question.......Has the city allowed
this to happen already under a different land use category? This appears to have happened
in other areas of the city, which is disturbing.
I generally support this
potential change
This isn’t a bad option at all and offers a mix of options for students and residents
I generally support this
potential change
If we continue to grow and build more rental properties/ multi family dwellings, then it's
imperative for healthy growth to support the creation of a tenants council for fair treatment
and ethical housing.
As it is, we have potential slumn buildings, apartments that do not upkeep their properties,
and no significant way to hold the apartment managers, owners, and rental companies
accountable for providing decent, healthy homes, while they're capitalizing off students and
families.
I generally support this
potential change
Would this be for future redevelopment since it's pretty built out right now? I agree with the
"mixed" concept to introduce some diversity in construction and residential options.
I generally support this
potential change
This would allow for incremental development.
I generally support this
potential change
This area is developed as residential and change would better serve this area.
I generally support this
potential change
I generally support the change as long as there are no additional flooding risks to existing
structures as a consequence of development activities.
I generally support this
potential change
This area seems perfect for that pursuit.
I generally support this
potential change
I support Mixed Residential over Urban
I generally support this
potential change
Again it would be better if residents in this area were a part of the decision making process
to confirm the change.
I generally support this
potential change
more varied options
I generally support this
potential change
It is very difficult to evaluate what the difference between the two examples would REALLY
be when it is built out.
I generally support this
potential change
This mix of living spaces fits all pocket books and would help with school zoning. We came
from Ann Arbor, MI and Scio Township, MI. They required that all new developments have
apartments, Townhouses condos, Single family houses, large single family houses, and
luxury single family house neighborhoods within their plans. They were very nice with big
nature preserves and trails. The whole thing was then zoned to a single school.
I generally support this
potential change
Good location for Mixed Residential from what I know
I generally support this
potential change
Since it's all rental anyway, might as well call it the same thing.
I generally support this
potential change
It would be nice to see a similar design, but again it appears to be nothing more than a
name change in this particular area. The challenge going forward is the commitment of the
City to honor this land use plan when development wants an exception.
I generally support this
potential change
support if this encourages redevelopment
I generally support this
potential change
I do see a need for duplexes and small multifamily.
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
Anything to increase density in areas and stop the urban sprawl is a good thing.
I generally support this
potential change
I like it.
Page 362 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 40
I generally support this
potential change
As we grow, additional density is important... especially in infill areas.
I generally support this
potential change
I don't live in such an area, so I don't have a lot of ideas about this.
I generally support this
potential change
Na
I generally support this
potential change
More flexibility for transitional density is a good thing.
I generally support this
potential change
good suggestion
I generally support this
potential change
Allows for more flexibility based on what is needed
I generally support this
potential change
Unfortunately, the issue here has less to do with land use and more to do with poor
connectivity.
I generally support this
potential change
N/a
I generally support this
potential change
this area is already being used in the potential future land use manner.
I generally support this
potential change
The need for additional single family housing
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
This is a great way to redevelop an area with a variety of housing options.
I generally support this
potential change
Would be good to see some comprehensive (single developer) design for such areas, with
integrated services and recreation space, with walkable access to small-scale retail.
I generally support this
potential change
It appears that this area contains a variety of housing types currently.
I generally support this
potential change
This new zoning classification should be flexible and able to adapt to the changes in the
market.
I generally support this
potential change
a mixture of residential type structures is beneficial
I generally support this
potential change
This is dependent on the differences between urban and Mixed residential land uses.
I generally support this
potential change
good
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
good idea!
I generally support this
potential change
You didn't describe the differences between the categories. If you are saying that this would
allow landowners to have more ability to figure out the type of building to put on their
property, I am for it.
I generally support this
potential change
The area appears to be primarily student housing and rentals. Allow it to mold overtime into
a dense concentration may take off pressure for single family neighborhoods. Although by
denoting such an area, it may rise the price of properties which is good for existing overs,
but may push away investors interested in student rentals and they'll just go back to SF
neighborhoods where land valves could be cheaper if a "premium" gets placed on this area.
I generally support this
potential change
The proposed change will help to provide a mix of residential redevelopment options in
what is generally considered a student housing neighborhood. unfortunately several units
in this area have been poorly maintained, but it is not economically feasible to update them
due to the current land use restrictions
I generally support this
potential change
This is ok since it allows for single family homes, townhomes, and duplexes. I am against
including small multi-family buildings in this area.
I generally support this
potential change
there are already duplexes in that area
I generally support this
potential change
I support this change.
Page 363 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 41
I generally support this
potential change
No 5 story buildings near our neighborhoods!
I generally support this
potential change
Again, the nearby neighborhoods do not want silhouette of 5 story building looming in the
near distance.
I generally support this
potential change
Again, the nearby neighborhoods do not want the silhouette of 5 story buildings looming in
the near distance.
I generally support this
potential change
No problem
I generally support this
potential change
Reasonable residential land use considering flexibility in development density
I generally support this
potential change
looks good
I generally support this
potential change
As long as residences are separate from commercial dwellings, this is a doable proposition.
I do not support this
potential change
We have too many apartments already.
I do not support this
potential change
Increased traffic issues with more dense residential areas.
I do not support this
potential change
The current density is balanced with current infrastructure and traffic. I see no advantage to
increasing the density at this location.
I do not support this
potential change
Not sure we need the addition of more townhomes and apartments
I do not support this
potential change
If you mix urban and suburban it takes away the safety feeling from any sort of suburban
area
I do not support this
potential change
Here you see the problem with some of the new land use categories. A 12 nit multi-family
building is a very different thing than a single family home. You say you're just aligning what
is already there with the new definitions. No, you're allowing someone to propose an
apartment in the of houses on Pronghorn. like many categories, the new definition may
make sense for new areas. They just don't work for those that are already developed. They
are allowing uses in the future that are incompatible with the promise you made these
people when they bought. Will it happen? Doesn't matter. This is bad planning.
I do not support this
potential change
Despite my "vote" to "not support" I would support this if we have assurance that it would
not become an area with a mix of "cheap" SF detached, townhomes, duplex-quadraplexes,
Aggie shacks, apartments/condos, If it is just more like recently redeveloped parts of
Southside then I oppose.
I do not support this
potential change
Renovation of current housing is needed
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces!
I do not support this
potential change
Mixed residential land use makes it sound like there are more spaces to shove people into. I
like the area as is with affordable single-family housing. Think about families instead of
students.
I do not support this
potential change
The urban area is in an appropriate location (close to the city center and A&M) and provides
affordable housing. There needs to be more clarification on what changing to Mixed
Residential means.
I do not support this
potential change
This area has no need to be changed, the amount of housing and the location it is in are
perfect for affordable housing, and the general suburbs are fine.
I do not support this
potential change
Changing would allow development of high density housing in an established area leading
to a potential larger population of off campus housing. With more students living alongside
single family housing would put higher pressure on upkeep from the renters of these
dwellings, as well as the city that would need to deal with the potential code violations and
noise complaints. By keeping the existing land use it would allow established residents to
maintain their status quo and not feel like their livelihood is being intruded upon and feeling
like they are no longer welcome in their neigborhood.
I do not support this
potential change
This concept is a threat to the whole notion of suburban allowing existing suburban areas to
"evolve' into much higher density.
I do not support this
potential change
Putting the potential for apartments to abut single family homes detracts from
neighborhood stability given the influx of ag-shacks and off-campus "dorms." Seeing the
Page 364 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 42
changes to the neighborhoods in eastgate, expanding areas where this could take effect is
detrimental to the community.
I do not support this
potential change
Multifamily buildings can easily degrade into student "stealth dormitories" including
excessive vehicle parking and party and noise generation offensive to single family dwelling.
I do not support this
potential change
don't know if I support or oppose: from what I remember, there is not much "urban"
development there. what would a completely mixed residential area look like? what would
be the advantage?
I do not support this
potential change
I dont see any parks
I do not support this
potential change
Against Aggie shacks
I do not support this
potential change
Low cost housing
I do not support this
potential change
Why are new categories being introduced?
I do not support this
potential change
mixed residential must be from somebody smoking pot
I do not support this
potential change
More mixed residential is not beneficial to the city.
I do not support this
potential change
We don't need any more infringement of apartments and rentals in single family home
areas.
I do not support this
potential change
Too broad. A mix match within an area would look chaotic.
I do not support this
potential change
We need to keep our family homes the way they are. There is plenty of student housing
elsewhere. This is making current residents want to leave their current homes.
I do not support this
potential change
ok
I do not support this
potential change
Seems like a very broad land use. Many different types and sizes of residential development
would occur here. It would be hard for this neighborhood to develop any kind of identity.
I do not support this
potential change
No reconfiguring existing neighborhoods! This is a residential area and you want to stuff
multi-family dwellings into it and make it into a new low-income neighborhood. "allows the
original character to evolve" Boy, does it ever. What BS.
I do not support this
potential change
College students and families dont mix.
I do not support this
potential change
I am against increased density
I do not support this
potential change
Please ensure mobile homes or government housing are NOT created.
I do not support this
potential change
The change from Urban to Mixed Residential is ok. The change from General Suburban to
Mixed Residential is not ok.
I do not support this
potential change
I am worried that this approach will bring low price homes/apartments which will decrease
land value. Please ensure College Station DOES NOT allow homeless camps. Thank you for
your understanding.
I do not support this
potential change
There is way too much flexibility in the proposed plan to be fair to current landowners in
protecting their investments. Once the city staff is given authority to make changes
according to a "plan" then in actuality the homeowner has very little say in what happens
next. That's historically what happens in this city and there is no reason to believe it will be
any different in the future.
I do not support this
potential change
With the proposed ROO, it would negatively effect the ability of students to use these
properties.
I do not support this
potential change
This area seems like it is already a mixed residential area
I do not support this
potential change
This area is already a great mix of single and two family homes. We should not open the
door for larger multifamily buildings; as the area is already built around single family homes.
Multifamily rentals are also way overbuilt in College Station.
I do not support this
potential change
College Station needs affordable single family homes in the heart of the city that are not
manufactured housing. It should not be only the rich that can have a yard.
Page 365 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 43
I do not support this
potential change
I understand the need for a "mixed residential" zone descriptor. I do not support changing
general suburban or urban zones to this. I do not support putting in duplexes and small
apartments in neighborhoods with single family homes.
I do not support this
potential change
This sounds very hodgepodge and "anything goes" - sounds messy and something I would
not support.
I do not support this
potential change
The multi-family means that it will be taken over by thinly disguised Aggie Shacks- the
neighborhood will be lost. Give us a classification that actually has teeth and limits the use
to what is intended.
Theme 2: Introduce a new Mixed Residential category, Example 2
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
n/a
I generally support this
potential change
The location would further keep residential development closer to the heart of the city and
further reduce commuting traffic
I generally support this
potential change
No comment
I generally support this
potential change
This would make sense for this area.
I generally support this
potential change
I like the idea of revitalizing the area, but not with AgShacks. Quality, affordable housing
needs to be a priority. I think those living in the neighborhood long term should have an
input on what happens in the development.
I generally support this
potential change
The proposed mixed residential designation seems reasonable for this area but it is not
clear to me what is allowed in "urban" and how changing it to mixed residential might
change it. I s Urban a commercial designation?
I generally support this
potential change
I support mixed residential , perhaps it will blur some of our socio economic lines.
I generally support this
potential change
This area of town has a lot of beautiful trees, large lot sizes and historical value. I would like
to see updated housing options available but still maintain the trees and historical integrity
of the area.
I generally support this
potential change
I support
I generally support this
potential change
This area could also use a facelift.
I generally support this
potential change
Maps existing land use onto new land use designation. No issues, I support this change.
I generally support this
potential change
The Mixed Residential option would rule out the likelihood of commercial development in
this area with the existing "urban" land use. This area of town is in desperate need of well
constructed, low cost housing for families with or without children.
I generally support this
potential change
Is this just a name change to reflect what is already there?
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
This area could use an upgrade, but without apartments.
I generally support this
potential change
The proposed change makes sense.
I generally support this
potential change
I think the proposed change could help revitalize the area, but could overwhelm the current
CSISD school zone.
I generally support this
potential change
more continuity
I generally support this
potential change
Mixed residential is a good step forward
Page 366 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 44
I generally support this
potential change
I think this would be a wonderful change.
I generally support this
potential change
support
I generally support this
potential change
I think there needs to be more single-family homes to help persuade future A&M graduates
to stay here.
I generally support this
potential change
This area needs some modernization.
I generally support this
potential change
Urban is really MF - whitch does not fit the context here. positive change.
I generally support this
potential change
Adding mixed residential to this area is great!
I generally support this
potential change
given the proximity to schools and the nature of the area, the mixed residential is
appropriate
I generally support this
potential change
It looks like the city has allowed this to happen already anyway.
I generally support this
potential change
It would be better if staff would get buy in from the residents themselves on this change.
I generally support this
potential change
More residential over there would be good give it all a more neighborhood feel especially
with the CISD schools and offices there
I generally support this
potential change
Creating specific requirements for multi family dwellings that remain affordable and in
relation to costs of living for families, as opposed to capitalizing off students, including
increasing minimum a/c unit sizes to lower electricity costs, increase requirements for multi
family dwellings insulation ratings, and overall livability ratings.
I generally support this
potential change
Same comment as example 1...introduces more diversity in construction and housing
options.
I generally support this
potential change
This would all for a variety of housing types within a single neighborhood and promote
'aging in place'.
I generally support this
potential change
Area is already residential and should stay the same.
I generally support this
potential change
This is another area that could only benefit by having mixed residential building.
I generally support this
potential change
I support Mixed Residential over Urban
I generally support this
potential change
better options for redevelopment
I generally support this
potential change
It is very difficult to evaluate what the difference between the two examples would REALLY
be when it is built out.
I generally support this
potential change
A good model for this type of land.
I generally support this
potential change
Any and all development must have upgraded infrastructures to handle increased traffic. A
designated bus lane TO the university would help traffic flow. Returning buses are not
pressed for time to return passengers. There should be adequate parks, NOT sports parks
that allow people to get out, walk the dog, etc....like my Brother's Park in Southwood valley.
I generally support this
potential change
Mixed Residential seems appropriate for this type of area, allowing for more density, but no
fear of abrupt change to allowed fully urban-type uses.
I generally support this
potential change
This area is smaller than the previous scenario. Mixed residential might be a better fit here.
I generally support this
potential change
Allows flexibility while buffering the existing neighborhood
I generally support this
potential change
This designation is OK on an area that has made this change
I generally support this
potential change
support if this encourages redevelopment
I generally support this
potential change
I do see a need for duplexes and small multi family.
I generally support this
potential change
Anything that increases density and stops urban sprawl is a good thing.
Page 367 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 45
I generally support this
potential change
This is closer to the University therefore compatible for those who don't mind living around
all the students.
I generally support this
potential change
I am supportive as long as current residents want it.
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
Again, you didn't describe the differences between the categories. If you are saying that this
would allow landowners to have more ability to figure out the type of building to put on
their property, I am for it.
I generally support this
potential change
this area is already being used in the future manner
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
Again, this provides with flexibility to support mixed residential redevelopment that may
actually attract investment.
I generally support this
potential change
With this area being close to the high school and an elementary school it would make sense
to offer a variety of housing types.
I generally support this
potential change
This new zoning classification should be flexible and able to adapt to the changes in the
market.
I generally support this
potential change
More flexible land use
I generally support this
potential change
mixed residential use may work better than urban with just multi-family
I generally support this
potential change
This is dependent on the differences between urban and Mixed residential land uses. This is
highly dependent on how this correlates with the zoning process.
I generally support this
potential change
The character of Swiss Ct and Chalet Ct is already appropriate for a new multi-dwelling unit.
I generally support this
potential change
Definitely appropriate.
I generally support this
potential change
No real problem
I generally support this
potential change
Reasonable residential land use considering flexibility in development density
I generally support this
potential change
The change on Swiss and Chalet make perfect sense. However, I do think that Urban, turning
into MF, makes sense here as this whole area is generally speaking apartment complexes
and solely rentals. Tearing down the existing rentals to put up MF wouldn't be a bad thing in
my opinion. But Mixed Res also works just fine to redevelop with basically the same uses.
(duplexs, triplexs, etc.)
I generally support this
potential change
Updating the land use will allow property owners options to update the housing in this area
rather than continuing to let it run down.
I generally support this
potential change
This area does not want 5 story building backing up to them!!
I generally support this
potential change
I support getting rid of 5 story buildings near our neighborhood.
I generally support this
potential change
Please know that 5 story buildings near neighborhoods are UGLY!!! First Wolf Pen creek got
raped by the previous zoning and now Gabbard park is suggested to follow suit, NEVER will I
support that plan.
I generally support this
potential change
Please know that 5 story buildings near neighborhoods are UGLY!!!
I generally support this
potential change
The mixed residential appeals to me here, and I think is an improvement from Urban. This
looks like mostly duplexes and likely rentals, they would probably enjoy a close by mix of
small business establishments accessible by foot or bike
I generally support this
potential change
As long as residences are separate from commercial dwellings, this proposition is doable.
I do not support this
potential change
Too many apartments.
I do not support this
potential change
Prefer single family neighborhoods. Limited multifamily areas.
Page 368 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 46
I do not support this
potential change
The mixed residential here will cause more population density in this area
I do not support this
potential change
Increased density in this already saturated area will cause more congested streets close to
campus and this area is an area with an active Neighborhood Overlay to the west.
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces! Too many apartments.
The old apartments such as The Pearl look like drug dens.
I do not support this
potential change
I would rather families not have small-lot options with multiple families per building. These
are elementary and high school areas and should be family-focused, not university student-
focused
I do not support this
potential change
I do not think it should change.
I do not support this
potential change
We need more urban land use area close to Texas A&M because it provides affordable
housing for students and Texas A&M staff. Again, it's vague as to what Mixed Residential
means. If anything, there should be an increase in urban around Texas A&M and along bus
routes.
I do not support this
potential change
This is good as affordable housing for students and those who work at Texas A&M, I see no
reason to change it. I believe we need more designated urban zones closer to the school like
this for students and staff.
I do not support this
potential change
Do not favor original character to evolve.
I do not support this
potential change
These are residential neighborhoods that do not need to see additional apartment/multi-
family growth.
I do not support this
potential change
We need more single family homes in the area. Not rental property.
I do not support this
potential change
Why promote "mixed residential" degradation of housing towards multi occupancy?
I do not support this
potential change
Any change will be exploited by developers to build multi-story structures, probably Ag
Shacks, thereby helping to ruin the single-family neighborhoods surrounding it.
I do not support this
potential change
Mixed use/urban builds are the best way to control the growth of the city.
I do not support this
potential change
again, I cannot understand what the impact and advantage or disadvantage of turning that
entire area into a mixed residential area. more realistic, smaller (3- vs 5-story buildings)?
hard to envision - a ground-oriented view would be helpful.
I do not support this
potential change
Against Aggie shacks
I do not support this
potential change
Looks like low cost housing coming in - not supportive of that
I do not support this
potential change
How will this actually encourage redevelopment?
I do not support this
potential change
same comment on mixed residential
I do not support this
potential change
Again, give the existing neighborhoods a chance to organically grown - if you keep 'fencing
them in' with commercial entities, you are discouraging people from moving into those
surrounding neighborhoods - you don't want to buy a home close to a commercial area.
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhood overlay conflicts with zoning
I do not support this
potential change
Mixing up the zone rather than definitive separate areas would not look good.
I do not support this
potential change
Mixed is a very different outcome than general suburban
I do not support this
potential change
Single families don’t want student neighbors.
I do not support this
potential change
With the proposed ROO, this would greatly effect the ability for students to make use of
these properties.
I do not support this
potential change
No need for higher density multifamily. Multifamily is overbuilt.
I do not support this
potential change
Please ensure mobile homes or government housing are NOT created. Please do NOT turn
College Station into Houston.
Page 369 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 47
I do not support this
potential change
There is no protection for current or future property owners who live next to what could
become a higher density housing area. Once approved then as long a something new
meets the "plan" there would be nothing that anyone could do to object. All the power
would rest with the city staff.
I do not support this
potential change
Can you please explain “mixed residential”. I am worried that mixed residential may be low
income homes/apartments which unfortunately at times bring crime. I am saying this from
experience- I lived in Houston many years and saw the city go down hill very fast bc of
“affordable” housing. “Affordable” housing turned into rows of homeless camps.
I do not support this
potential change
Again, "mixed residential" sounds very hodgepodge and "anything goes" which sounds really
messy and I do not support this.
I do not support this
potential change
I prefer "mixed residential" but I don't trust the commitment to the zoning.
I do not support this
potential change
There are plenty of areas with apartments and duplexes in College Station. Single family
homes should be preserved. This area has enough traffic problems already.
Theme 3: Re-evaluate Suburban Commercial and General Commercial locations, Example 1
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
n/a
I generally support this
potential change
Already a heavily commercial area.
I generally support this
potential change
the freeway can support larger commercial
I generally support this
potential change
As a resident that lives close to this area, I would like to see the land be used for something
purposeful; whether that be housing, parks, walking trails, or commercial use; I am open to
any and all of it. I feel like this land has set unused for too long.
I generally support this
potential change
We need more businesses.
I generally support this
potential change
Seems driven by commercial already, don't see many adverse impacts of all commercial
I generally support this
potential change
I support, potential future land use looks to be less complicated then the previous plan
I generally support this
potential change
Considering proximity along major thoroughfare, the entire area should be designated
General Commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
Because the land use plan has been rezoned around this location already, I generally
support this potential change.
I generally support this
potential change
ok since along highway and not too close to residential
I generally support this
potential change
It makes sense to simplify the zoning
I generally support this
potential change
This is close to a neighborhood, so businesses would need to be closed by 9 during the
week. Also, a light needs to go in at the 2818 and Emerald Forest intersection.
I generally support this
potential change
I think this is a good future land use for this location.
I generally support this
potential change
General commercial dominated area provides a wider variety of opportunities while social
distancing
I generally support this
potential change
I think it is better to have commercial development along the highway feeder road.
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with this based on the descriptions of general and neighborhood commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
Brings more centralized business area
Page 370 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 48
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with General Commercial when adjacent to major thoroughfares.
I generally support this
potential change
more general commercial is needed
I generally support this
potential change
Very much needed as commercial revenue generators!
I generally support this
potential change
Since one of the goals is to create a stronger sense of place, "neighborhood commercial"
seems like a better fit than "suburban commercial".
I generally support this
potential change
Yes, this needs to be GC. Coopers BBQ needs some friends out there, and an art studio
doesn't exactly fit into the context of the sweeping landscape of the highway.
I generally support this
potential change
This area is has access off of major arterials which is a good area to place commercial
development.
I generally support this
potential change
...although it may be difficult for the City to control separating neighborhood from general
commercial since the use can change simply through tenant changes. Is this controllable?
I generally support this
potential change
This area needs to be Commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
Earl Rudder s/b general commercial where possible, it is our main business highway.
I generally support this
potential change
Making this area General commercial will produce more traffic to the Harvey Mitchell
corridor.
I generally support this
potential change
Although I live near this area and don't really want there to be increased traffic, I agree that
it makes sense for the city to consider this change
I generally support this
potential change
This allows for more commercial opportunities and more entertainment options would be
great in town
I generally support this
potential change
Commercial use seems appropriate for this area
I generally support this
potential change
Suburban Commercial does not make sense along a freeway.
I generally support this
potential change
Its a natural commercial area. Will need better traffic controls.
I generally support this
potential change
not directly adjacent to private homes
I generally support this
potential change
Suburban commercial has been largely a failure, so getting rid of it probably makes sense. I
do not know what the other options are for this area so can't evaluate if this is the best
option for this area.
I generally support this
potential change
Good for business
I generally support this
potential change
appropriate
I generally support this
potential change
I generally prefer the option for denser commercial areas.
I generally support this
potential change
The city lives (and dies) too heavily on sales tax. General commercial-light industrial zoning is
superior in the fight for revenue.
I generally support this
potential change
suburban commercial is very restrictive and doesn't allow for many development
opportunities.
I generally support this
potential change
I feel that suburban commercial is very limiting.
I generally support this
potential change
This is a great idea!
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
I like it.
I generally support this
potential change
eliminate suburban commercial
I generally support this
potential change
Unclear what is different between suburban and general commercial.
Page 371 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 49
I generally support this
potential change
I like this suggestion.
I generally support this
potential change
Being located adjacent to the freeway, General Commercial would be best
I generally support this
potential change
Makes more sense for the use
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
seems logical
I generally support this
potential change
All of that can be General Commercial
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
Suburban commercial has not been a successful concept in CS. I think neighborhood
commercial and general commercial need to be carefully considered, but may be more
useful definitions than suburban commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
I would want to know what variances will be allowed or not allowed for each to determine if
it makes sense.
I generally support this
potential change
I strongly support this change. The entire Rudder Freeway frontage should be General
Commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
Please ensure mobile homes or government housing are NOT created. Please do NOT turn
College Station into Houston, Texas.
I generally support this
potential change
I support changing to general commercial, Suburban Commercial on major roads is not
appropriate. Where there is high traffic counts there should be more intense development
I generally support this
potential change
This is great!
I generally support this
potential change
All Suburban Commercial should be General Commercial
I generally support this
potential change
i think it makes more sense to have the same LU type for the area shown. Recognizing that
the plot will get developed by different owners, it still doesnt make sense to have different
standards for the pink and red areas of current map.
I generally support this
potential change
Appears it needs to be zoned general commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
This would be a good place for commercial development
I generally support this
potential change
More reasonable commercial development considering freeway/arterial interchange
location
I generally support this
potential change
I think highway frontage should be General Commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
It's SH6. And with some pretty unfortunate access when paired with the visibility as it is.
Needs all the help it can get. GC.
I generally support this
potential change
The number of commercial districts and the differences between them has resulted in a lot
of unnecessary land use changes in order to get the right category for the proposed
development
I generally support this
potential change
This is a reasonable change.
I generally support this
potential change
This is fine.
I generally support this
potential change
If neighborhood commercial is still a zoning option, I don't see why not.
I generally support this
potential change
Areas that are currently Suburban Commercial along major transportation corridors could
be reclassified as General Commercial = welcome change.
Additional areas within the City may be classified as Neighborhood Commercial = as long as
residences are separated from commercial dwellings, this is doable.
Page 372 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 50
I do not support this
potential change
Designate the north-most area as Business Center and the remainder General Commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
We already have too many "strip" shopping areas in our city. Hate them. More shopping
could be incorporated within housing developments to discourage excess automobile traffic
on roads that are already overused and do not accommodate the heavy traffic we are
experiencing.
I do not support this
potential change
Changing this area to general commercial will create too much extra traffic in connected
neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
This change will put too much pressure on existing residential neighborhoods, including
traffic, crime, and the potential for flooding.
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces!
I do not support this
potential change
The change would not be good for the existing residential area.
I do not support this
potential change
Detailed definitions detailing changes and expectations should be provided.
I do not support this
potential change
By changing the land use seems like the entire area will be paved over without much
consideration to preservation of the natural environment. Also keeping the existing plan
would give business owners the freedom to build their businesses with architecture of their
choosing and not being forced to work within the confines of a prebuilt strip mall.
I do not support this
potential change
suburban comercial is better that straight general commercial
I do not support this
potential change
Extension of general commercial would not be acceptable and would represent too
intensive development.
I do not support this
potential change
Simply because an area is adjacent to the highway doesn't make it unsuitable for it to be a
neighborhood commercial area. Given the large number of established subdivisions in the
area, this area could significantly benefit from a neighborhood center development with
ease of access from biking and walking.
I do not support this
potential change
Entrance to a subdivision and Is currently a very busy 2 4-way stop sign area
I do not support this
potential change
Why expand General Commercial status at the expense of more limited Suburban
Commercial?
I do not support this
potential change
The area in question is being over-developed with insufficient attention given to future
flooding as climate changes and severe storms and rain intensify. The proposed change
would adversely affect nearby residential developments.
I do not support this
potential change
Calling something Neighborhood Commercial sounds like an excuse to get commercial
development into neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
It would be more appropriate to keep the general commercial and change the pink area to
neighborhood commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
Pros and cons of keeping or changing? Advantages and disadvantages? It just seems like
the changes would make an area more homogeneous
I do not support this
potential change
No. Not all general commercial so close to emerald forest.
I do not support this
potential change
No no no... quit rezoning and encroaching residential life. We don’t want it
I do not support this
potential change
Suburban commercial has been almost entirely rezoned to general commercial recently.
Why are we revisiting this?
I do not support this
potential change
No supporting ANYTHING y'all are doing.....you can't be trusted!
I do not support this
potential change
That area would be served well with general and suburban commercial
I do not support this
potential change
do not like this change at all but the city will find a way around whatever the plan is
I do not support this
potential change
This area already has enough large commercial. It would look over crowded into a nice
neighborhood.
I do not support this
potential change
I do not want our area to look like Houston. Too much development along the highway is
ugly. Once you allow development everywhere there is no undo button.
Page 373 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 51
I do not support this
potential change
Suburban commercial is a good designation for spacing with moderate to heavy traffic close
to a
residential single family designation area.
I do not support this
potential change
I don't like this 'creeping' strategy that the city is using. We fought to stop the "General
Commercial" in this area several years ago and, from the numerous meetings that were
held, I inferred that the rest of the land (that you now want to turn into full General
Commercial) would remain Suburban Commercial. Hopefully, this ten year plan will help
eliminate this "let's change our minds every other year" mentality.
I do not support this
potential change
Many of the existing areas along the major corridors back up into established
neighborhoods and the residents of those neighborhoods have been to P&Z and city council
many times to beg the stoppage of increased commercial areas in their backyards. Each
time, they have lost. So, I know this is a losing cause. There needs to be a buffer of some
sort between existing neighborhoods and these areas. Without that, how can you expect
people to support it?
I do not support this
potential change
Leave it the way it is. Somebody has realized their property values could be worth way
more, but that's not a good reason. Access to this area could be improved, and there are
many clinics/medical offices at Emerald Parkway. Leave it.
I do not support this
potential change
General commercial allows big box retail, which kill small businesses, walk-ability and a
sense of place and the development of community.
I do not support this
potential change
I support having restaurants in that area.
I do not support this
potential change
No one would shop there.
I do not support this
potential change
Too much density along the feeder road.
I do not support this
potential change
This area is heavily used by the surrounding neighborhoods for walking and biking. We have
been severely impacted by the 3 auto dealerships that were developed recently: Constant
noise from music being piped over loud speakers. Dangerous water runoff on to the
sidewalks causing algae growth and slippery walking conditions and excessive lighting from
these businesses to surrounding private homes.
I do not support this
potential change
The existing developments are best described as Neighborhood Commercial. The proximity
to a neighborhood that is very vocal about this area suggests that previously "Suburban
Commercial" lots should be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Additionally, there is
not sufficient space here for a large box store or other General Commercial development.
I do not support this
potential change
We already have too many General Commercial designations near developed
neighborhoods. This is another piecemeal change. It’s like death by a thousand cuts.
Emerald Forest, Foxfire, Sandstone area and others will strongly oppose this proposed
change. Don’t let it happen.
I do not support this
potential change
The 9 neighborhoods that surround this land want either suburban commercial or
neighborhood commercial development.
I do not support this
potential change
too close to an established neighborhood
I do not support this
potential change
We should not back up to the emerald forest subdivision with massive parking lots like
those that would be found around general commercial classification
I do not support this
potential change
Emerald Forest residents do not want General commercial because of the scale of
businesses are larger than Neighborhood commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
Emerald forrest doesn't want to have huge amounts of concrete parking lots that could be
developed in General commercial. Smaller areas found in Neighborhood commercial are
preferred.
I do not support this
potential change
Emerald Forest doesn't want to have huge amounts of concrete parking lots that could be
developed in General commercial. Smaller areas found in Neighborhood commercial are
preferred.
I do not support this
potential change
The suburban commercial was a great idea that gets changed anytime a landowner says
they can't sell the property (real-estate is speculative). I would prefer to see that zoning
actually used as intended.
I do not support this
potential change
like what is already planned
Page 374 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 52
I do not support this
potential change
Good grief - this sounds like a trick to get more land zoned as general commercial. If you do
plan to create something called Neighborhood Commercial - then this existing section of
Suburban Commercial should be changed to Neighborhood Commercial - not to General
Commercial. It is close to neighborhoods and light traffic should be a priority given the high
speed of the highway and its arteries nearby.
Theme 3: Re-evaluate Suburban Commercial and General Commercial locations, Example 2
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
More business is great
I generally support this
potential change
I would not support this if the multi-family had not been allowed to be built 15 years ago (as
it shouldn't have been).
I generally support this
potential change
No comment
I generally support this
potential change
in ten years, I think wellborn will be big enough to support commercial, it would be a
challenge to have your house on wellborn
I generally support this
potential change
Good idea.
I generally support this
potential change
This seems like a reasonable use for this land area.
I generally support this
potential change
Supports small scale retail near new population centers and is set off from the main road
(2154) enough to not cause traffic impacts.
I generally support this
potential change
ok
I generally support this
potential change
Allows more options for use it seems
I generally support this
potential change
would provide small restaurants and services to this area where there is not a lot around
I generally support this
potential change
In time, I think there could be a future need for some kind of commercial pad sites in this
location.
I generally support this
potential change
This will keep suburban dwellers within a more compact area which will keep them from
spreading germs to other areas of the town
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with this based on the descriptions of general and neighborhood commercial.
I generally support this
potential change
no comment
I generally support this
potential change
Good corner for this proposal.
I generally support this
potential change
Not many people will be interested in living that close to the railroad tracks unless you can
get quiet zones established. No horn.
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood commercial seems like a more focused descriptor than "general suburban".
I generally support this
potential change
SF development trending in this area, neighborhood commercial is very desirable.
I generally support this
potential change
This area would be great for a neighborhood commercial because there is a community
already existing adjacent to said property. The location is also at a busy intersection.
I generally support this
potential change
My concern is with the retention ponds in the area. Drainage is a concern not covered with a
change in the future land use plan.
I generally support this
potential change
Will work well as a transition area for an existing single family neighborhood
I generally support this
potential change
As this area is generally residential in character, neighborhood commercial is appropriate.
I generally support this
potential change
It would be good to have more businesses on the outskirts of town where more families are
living.
Page 375 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 53
I generally support this
potential change
this makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
Nothing there and that housing could use a cute little eatery/relaxation place nearby.
I generally support this
potential change
It would be an appropriate location for a park and small businesses.
I generally support this
potential change
There is not much convenient shopping near these residences, so this seems like a good
change to allow for cleaners, groceries, etc. However, if I lived nearby, I would want to better
understand what is meant by "Neighborhood Commercial".
I generally support this
potential change
The conversion to neighborhood commercial seems to fit with the existing and future
growth of residential patterns in the area and would serve those communities.
I generally support this
potential change
Adding more residential and commercial property in the proposed undeveloped area will
allow for more off campus housing along with more local job opportunities to the area. It
would also lessen the commute of those in the area to other commercial centers decreasing
both vehicular traffic as well as emissions by use of walking or bicycling.
I generally support this
potential change
It makes sense to have commercial development at the intersection of 2 collector streets.
I generally support this
potential change
Neighborhood commercial use should be of limited density.
I generally support this
potential change
As population grows towards this area, this might be an appropriate place for business
locations.
I generally support this
potential change
The area west of Wellborn Rd is barren of any amenities, making it unattractive to students,
which is where they should be housed.
I generally support this
potential change
"Earmarking" some parcels/areas for commercial development provides better direction for
locating such developments in the most appropriate places, such as main road intersection.
I generally support this
potential change
Also next to a major road, commercial would be best
I generally support this
potential change
This is a hard corner with significant traffic counts. This makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
This is a better designation for this plan, as it encourages a land use that compliments the
existing area.
I generally support this
potential change
If change has to be made, this area may be appropriate.
I generally support this
potential change
I feel that suburban commercial is very limiting.
I generally support this
potential change
Highest and best use
I generally support this
potential change
This should be a positive change.
I generally support this
potential change
I like it.
I generally support this
potential change
commercial zoning makes sense on major thoroughfares
I generally support this
potential change
Seems like a modest change
I generally support this
potential change
Nice suggestion.
I generally support this
potential change
Probably a better use of land right next to the tracks.
I generally support this
potential change
Again, you have said that you welcome nonprofessional input yet you are providing no
information for the layperson. This frustration is exacerbated by being forced to provide a
binary choice in order to communicate frustration in the question.
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
Very little demand for suburban commercial as currently defined; neighborhood commercial
may actually allow some thoughtful development ad integration to occur.
Page 376 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 54
I generally support this
potential change
Increased density probably appropriate
I generally support this
potential change
It would make sense to have a more "community" feel, no big box type of commercial simply
because of the rural nature of the area.
I generally support this
potential change
This new zoning classification should be flexible and able to adapt to the changes in the
market.
I generally support this
potential change
That is a good place for neighborhood commercial
I generally support this
potential change
Please ensure mobile homes or government housing are NOT created. Please do NOT turn
College Station into Houston.
I generally support this
potential change
general suburban use next to the railroad and at this intersection is not appropriate
I generally support this
potential change
This is great!
I generally support this
potential change
This area is appropriate for neighborhood Commercial rather than General as it is small and
so adjacent to a neighborhood. That area of FM2154 would likely be negatively impacted by
a high traffic development from a General Commercial area.
I generally support this
potential change
good
I generally support this
potential change
Seems like a good place to make this change.
I generally support this
potential change
More appropriate commercial development considering location and surrounding
residential
I generally support this
potential change
While I'm sure the surrouding estate lots like won't like the change. With the GS next door,
being at the corner of wellborn and Barron, and next to the train tracts. Something not res
makes the most sense.
I generally support this
potential change
This seems reasonable.
I generally support this
potential change
This open area going to neighborhood commercial would be OK. This brings commercial
development along the RR tracks, where suburban building is not likely.
I generally support this
potential change
Services in this under developed area would benefit new neighborhood development.
I generally support this
potential change
Services in this area would help the people living in Tree Line apartments.
I generally support this
potential change
Services in this under developed area would benefit new neighborhood development.
I generally support this
potential change
yes, seems appropriate being surrounded by neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
I support leaving it a pasture. Wellborn Road cannot support any additional traffic further
south.
I do not support this
potential change
I realize that the development just to the north is outside the city limits and is shown as
rural. In fact this area is Estate Residential and existed prior to the apartment development.
The adjacency of the higher density residential and commercial development was and is
inappropriate
I do not support this
potential change
There is already major shopping area on Wellborn and 2818 (Jones Crossing), and more
"strip" commercial (still!) under construction now, just South of Jones Crossing on Wellborn.
Why more - is this for tax income only?
I do not support this
potential change
Developing traffic problems in this area, we should limit business activities that exacerbate
traffic
I do not support this
potential change
This property has a huge retention pond that probably drains the water runoff in the area.
Any Neighborhood commercial development will be pushed to the exterior of the area and
too close to the neighborhood to the west. If the southwest corner were established as NAP-
R, I would support this potential change.
I do not support this
potential change
Y’all need define these terms better
I do not support this
potential change
May be best to have more separation between neighborhoods and commercial
development.
Page 377 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 55
I do not support this
potential change
Not unless Wellborn Road is widened
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces!
I do not support this
potential change
Prefer residential.
I do not support this
potential change
I’d leave this area as residential
I do not support this
potential change
There needs to be a distinct plan and definitions put in place
I do not support this
potential change
I prefer the neighborhood center concept over the neighborhood commercial concept
whenever possible.
I do not support this
potential change
This shift of suburban to commercial is not acceptable.
I do not support this
potential change
Why expand Commercial status areas?
I do not support this
potential change
In this particular area the citizens of Wellborn did not like the density of the student
housing. They would be more at ease if this was Wellborn Commercial instead of
neighborhood commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
What's the rationale?
I do not support this
potential change
It is very difficult to evaluate what the difference between the two examples would REALLY
be when it is built out.
I do not support this
potential change
Stop making everything commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
Quit rezoning... we bought homes here and don’t want general commercial
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhood commercial appears to be the same as Suburban commercial, with the
option of housing alone. How do we encourage businesses if all our land is zoned for
housing options?
I do not support this
potential change
not appropriate
I do not support this
potential change
Barron and Capstone need to be connected
I do not support this
potential change
Putting small commercial into this area would be a shame. this area has nice higher end
homes.
I do not support this
potential change
Unless the "neighborhood commercial" includes mixed use buildings as well as mixed
residences and businesses, I am against it.
I do not support this
potential change
this corner should be less restrictive
I do not support this
potential change
Again, there is no mention about strips of adjacent land between such areas serving as a
buffer. A 20 foot strip of land with trees, fencing and hedges that could also serve as a small
community walkway may be enough to create a zone between them that would allow more
privacy for the homes.
I do not support this
potential change
Too close to many homes
I do not support this
potential change
I would not support any plan that does not specifically say what the buffering requirement
would be in a situation like this. They would have to be a lot more clearer than what the city
currently has as developers seem to be able to find work arounds that allow establishments
to be built close to existing housing.
I do not support this
potential change
I currently live downstream of the apartment complex on Capstone (The Reserve). When it
rains, our entire front yard and back yard are flooded. If this is changed to commercial,
more concrete, (run-off) will occur to the houses downstream and further damage our
poorly draining creek. Shiloh Subdivision, has been severely neglected in regards to
drainage. I believe this needs to be addressed before further development is established.
I do not support this
potential change
I live in Shiloh, we receive the runoff from The Reserve development which drains into Peach
Creek. The watershed for our entire neighborhood is directed through a ditch onto our
property and into Peach Creek. If more developments with concrete space and more runoff
Page 378 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 56
water are added it will be at a great cost to the residents of Shiloh. When I contacted the city
about our flooding and drainage problems they said that there isn't anything they could do
because of budget cuts. The city then came out and put a few pieces of bull rock on one of
our fence lines where the soil is being eroded and our fence is falling over. No soil was
replaced and we still have flooding during heavy rains.
I do not support this
potential change
General Suburban areas need to be surrounded by general suburban development.
I do not support this
potential change
functions well as is
I do not support this
potential change
The neighborhood commercial designation has not been very effective, the tract above
would be even less developable once you take out the section of Barron Road running
thought the center.
I do not support this
potential change
there are some nice rural neighborhoods that would be too close to commercial
I do not support this
potential change
This is a dangerous area already and I do not support adding commercial businesses to this
area. It would only increase the dangers already posed by high speeds, lots of traffic, no
stop lights or protected turns, etc.
I do not support this
potential change
Again - this is just trying to suggest more commercial - right next to a neighborhood. I do not
support this at all - and I think the name Neighborhood Commercial is a trick to make you
think it's okay to rezone neighborhood areas to commercial.
I do not support this
potential change
Additional areas within the City may be classified as Neighborhood Commercial = as long as
residences are separated from commercial dwellings, this is doable.
Theme 4: Update the Natural Areas Boundary, Example 1
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
I'm moderately concerned that Parks and Greenways will be developed parks and no natural
areas will be protected.
I generally support this
potential change
Includes more protected land.
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with updating natural areas with new FEMA data.
I generally support this
potential change
harvey road is a great place for commercial
I generally support this
potential change
I do support increased green areas, but why more commercial?
I generally support this
potential change
As our family frequently uses Veteran's Park, I would like to see more general commercial
options available in that area, however, I would love it if some of the trees could be saved.
The area across from Veteran's Park would be a great place for an outdoor
restaurant/venue of some sort. After sporting events at Veteran's Park, parents/families are
always looking for fun places to eat with the team that accommodate large groups w/
outdoors areas for kids to play.
I generally support this
potential change
Ok with me.
I generally support this
potential change
It seems like this lets Harvey Rd be a clear dividing line between areas, rather than have uses
cross over the road
I generally support this
potential change
Natural areas to control runoff should be increased.
I generally support this
potential change
I'm not really sure what the difference is here.
I generally support this
potential change
Just need to make sure the city is not infringing on property rights
I generally support this
potential change
I am not sure that there will be a lot of commercial demand but if there is, it should be
allowed.
Page 379 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 57
I generally support this
potential change
Keeping the urban and commercial areas closer will allow for fewer reason to step outside
of quarantine
I generally support this
potential change
no comment
I generally support this
potential change
more protected is good
I generally support this
potential change
I will always support parks and greenways.
I generally support this
potential change
love more green space
I generally support this
potential change
If it results in more parkland and less natural areas where nothing can be done, then all
good. As long as it doesn't take away someone's private property rights to develop if they
had the right to develop as it stands today. That should never happen in America.
I generally support this
potential change
I would increase the "red" commercial area all the way down Harvey Rd. all the way to the
city limit boundary.
I generally support this
potential change
-
I generally support this
potential change
We should use science-based approaches to keep the Natural Area boundaries correct. In
particular, floodplains may be critical with the changing climate.
I generally support this
potential change
Need to update FEMA map, good change.
I generally support this
potential change
a no-brainer. Just updates per updated data.
I generally support this
potential change
Generally, I am concerned when Natural areas are changed.
I generally support this
potential change
Expanding General Commercial in this area make sense.
I generally support this
potential change
I generally support this if it does not mean losing green areas
I generally support this
potential change
Updating natural areas boundaries, and having more natural areas would be wonderful.
I generally support this
potential change
This would seem to make sense since there are a lot of activities in Veterans Park that could
be served by commercial entities.
I generally support this
potential change
This gives a good mix I would also look at the potential for a firehouse to be built near there
in the future as this is an outlying area for any of the existing 6 companies. With the natural
area a potential for a tifmas apparatus may be good as well as a med cart or bike medics to
aid in supporting community events in the park. Also having more community events there
would be good too
I generally support this
potential change
Parks should have their own designation, especially if they are not always located in the
floodplain.
I generally support this
potential change
ok
I generally support this
potential change
This change is needed and necessary, and should perhaps go further to help ensure that CS
has enough greenspace so as to absorb abnormal weather events and not put the City in a
position like Houston and its surrounding communities who didn't include enough
greenspace to help offset effects from events like Harvey.
I generally support this
potential change
I support the extension of natural areas, but I question the creation of more General
Commercial. We need to preserve as much natural area as possible to protect against
excessive runoff and flooding from future storms, that are guaranteed to intensify as
climate changes.
I generally support this
potential change
The only reservation to this change is how can the City guarantee this area would be
protected.
I generally support this
potential change
The addition of urban residential is probably a necessary use in the future.
I generally support this
potential change
Ok
I generally support this
potential change
general commercial is fine here as long as it stays out of the flood plain. Not adjacent to and
residential homes. Need some commercial near Veterans Park.
Page 380 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 58
I generally support this
potential change
If you're trying to evaluate changes in Natural Area, why would you present a scenario in
which lots of things change?
I generally support this
potential change
I prefer the untouched land to be left alone.
I generally support this
potential change
Good for business
I generally support this
potential change
I support the additional Natural Area- Protected
I generally support this
potential change
More accurately incorporating FEMA floodplain information is important, though the
emphasis should be on protecting larger areas and directing development to less vulnerable
places. An area just outside the demarcated FEMA floodplain is not automatically "safe"
from flooding, and this needs to be reflected in College Station's planning and development
policies.
I generally support this
potential change
Anytime you can expand parks is great.
I generally support this
potential change
I think the general commercial area should include some mixed use
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense to update the maps to effectively use the space that we have
I generally support this
potential change
required verbiage.
I generally support this
potential change
updating with FEMA maps is good.
I generally support this
potential change
Sounds good
I generally support this
potential change
I like it.
I generally support this
potential change
there is no need to remove developable land from the community if FEMA hasn't already
done so.
I generally support this
potential change
Strongly support this change, flood plains need to be kept as current as possible. An
increase in the density of use in one part of the City may impact other parts of the City that
are far removed from where the increased density is taking place.
I generally support this
potential change
up to date
I generally support this
potential change
looks like a good change
I generally support this
potential change
May be wiser choice.
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
as long as no one from the rural areas get kicked off their private land due to them
becoming natural areas, I'm good with this.
I generally support this
potential change
I like the idea of greenways
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
I generally support this
potential change
Using the best and most current data is important and appropriate.
I generally support this
potential change
Appropriate expansion of parks and greenways and down grade to urban residential
I generally support this
potential change
Updating to current FEMA maps is a good idea.
I generally support this
potential change
This new zoning should be flexible and able to adapt to the changes in the market.
I generally support this
potential change
more protection for natural areas
I generally support this
potential change
Whatever you do, please ensure mobile homes or government housing are NOT created.
Please do NOT turn College Station into Houston, Texas.
Page 381 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 59
I generally support this
potential change
all the infrastructure is in place for development along Harvey Road so limiting development
in this area is not appropriate
I generally support this
potential change
no comment.
I generally support this
potential change
More realistic combination of land uses considering location and surrounding development
I generally support this
potential change
While I agreed it should be cleaned up in some area, it may be useful to keep in mind BPG
master plans to ensure that MUPs along floodplain areas do not end up located within the
floodplain it if possible. Also would allow for the visual flexibility/expectation for
existing/potential property owners and staff in areas where the floodplain depicted through
MapMod and the actually floodplain using contours and BFEs differs
I generally support this
potential change
Seems reasonable.
I generally support this
potential change
not much change
I generally support this
potential change
The park area want not changed.
I generally support this
potential change
I do not want 5 story buildings around our parks.
I generally support this
potential change
I do not support the changing of natural areas there toward the south to rural and enlarging
general commercial into it. Don't cut down trees and use undeveloped land before using
land already treeless, like all that "natural area" north of Harvey that doesn't look natural at
all.
I do not support this
potential change
Need to preserve natural areas as much as possible and not build in or around them.
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces!
I do not support this
potential change
Not sure about adding homes here, or adding businesses in around a park/natural area. Is
that side of Harvey flood-prone?
I do not support this
potential change
keep more green space
I do not support this
potential change
The changes are unnecessary and the map shouldn't change colors unnecessarily.
I do not support this
potential change
The changes are unnecessary. Also, the map needs improvement--particularly the legend
and colors.
I do not support this
potential change
Our protected green areas and natural areas are important to the health of the city and
should remain protected and not ruined by commercial buildings. We have plenty of
commercial areas, especially when utilizing the vacant spaces caused by the pandemic.
I do not support this
potential change
By changing the designation of the protected natural areas sounds as though it would be
easier to redesignate the areas for development in the future.
I do not support this
potential change
Expansion of general commercial to this extent would not be desirable nor is urban
residential.
I do not support this
potential change
Change tends to promote more commercial areas as well as shift from a "Natural Area" to
more developed Park and Greenway. Why promote more development?
I do not support this
potential change
This looks like a good way to put commercial in a flood plane and ruin the natural character
of the area. Dumb.
I do not support this
potential change
How realistic are the new maps? Houston demonstrates the problems of maps that
understate the reality of potential flooding. I firmly favor upgrading floodplain maps - better
safe than sorry: Are these maps realistic?
I do not support this
potential change
Seems incongruent to increase greenways AND increase general commercial. How about for
specific parts of the city, such as this huge sports park, that we not fill in the periphery with
commercial development. Greenspace should be just that.
I do not support this
potential change
Stop rezoning
I do not support this
potential change
Drainage areas should remain as currently mapped. Runoff during heavy rain or heavy
watering seasons is unpredictable.
I do not support this
potential change
not necessary
Page 382 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 60
I do not support this
potential change
Nothing the city does preserves or protects anything!
I do not support this
potential change
Why do you want building in the flood plain. Commercial would just be layers of concrete
which could lead to more flooding of other land in the area.
I do not support this
potential change
too much commercial
I do not support this
potential change
I don't know enough about the potential effects of making these changes so I'm going to go
with "Stay the course."
I do not support this
potential change
No need to cut into the Protected Natural Areas. They are supposed to be protected.
I do not support this
potential change
This goes well until a flood destroys all the businesses that then want to get bailed out.
I do not support this
potential change
Not in support of this change.
I do not support this
potential change
flood plain left as is
I do not support this
potential change
As evident by the boundary's curved nature and adjacency to the Natural Area, this area is
too low for development. I do not support anything previously deemed best for a natural
area to be developed. Any change from a Natural Area to Parks and Greenways is in
harmony with the nearby floodplain and welcome to connect to other Parks and Greenways
for a future goal of connecting neighborhoods along HWY 6 with walking and biking trails.
I do not support this
potential change
hate to be so negative but before increasing the amount of paved area there has to more
thought before approval is granted. Retention ponds don't always work.
I do not support this
potential change
An increase in natural areas would be welcome due to FEMA floodplain; but then there
should not be a corresponding increase in General Commercial. It would be counter
productive.
I do not support this
potential change
Does this actually change anything? If it increases development, I am not for it.
I do not support this
potential change
flood plain natural areas protected I support
I do not support this
potential change
That narrow road cannot support the stops and starts and incoming/outgoing traffic of
more commercial and residential along that road. What a cluster that would be during
events.
I do not support this
potential change
Protected is better! More natural areas in College Station.
I do not support this
potential change
The potential future land use seems to markedly reduce areas "natural areas - reserve" and
redevelop "natural areas - protected" into Parks & Greenways. This is highly detrimental to
the natural environment and should not be pursued. Furthermore, there seems to be a
marked increase in "Urban (Residential)" and "General Commercial" areas again highlighting
the proposed changes are not keeping in mind the serious consequences of environmental
degradation.
Theme 4: Update the Natural Areas Boundary, Example 2
Please tell us your level
of support for the
potential change above
Share your comments about this potential change below
I generally support this
potential change
A good opportunity to contain residential growth closer to heart of city and the university
which will result in less commuting traffic.
I generally support this
potential change
I like the expansion of neighborhood conservation and parks and greenways.
I generally support this
potential change
The proposed change is more realistic. Designating the entire floodplain as natural areas -
reserve isn't feasible unless the City is willing to buy up all of that existing development. The
floodplain regulations can deal with the technical aspects of future development in those
areas.
Page 383 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 61
I generally support this
potential change
Don't understand difference between "Natural areas - protected" conversion to
"Neighborhood Conservation". Also need to add that there are future plans to add
commercial areas (i.e. Capstone & Wellborn) to locations that currently already have major
traffic issues, in what are now residential only!
I generally support this
potential change
I have been driving my kids to the schools in this area of town for the last 8 years. While I
would like to see updates to the area, I would be so sad for any of the natural areas to be
taken away. I do see an increase on the Parks & Greenways map, so that would be great. I
am in support of the changes to this area but would like for as much of the natural areas to
stay protected as possible.
I generally support this
potential change
Increase park and Green space to control flooding, no new buildings in flood prone areas.
I generally support this
potential change
This area could definitely use some redevelopment to make it feel attractive & safe and to
help traffic flow on school days.
I generally support this
potential change
There are multiple changes to this area, some of which make sense and others do not.
Decreasing the natural areas is always taking a chance but changing the "urban" area to
"urban residential" assures no commercial development in this residential area, which I
believe should continue to serve residents.
I generally support this
potential change
Better planned growth with added arks and greenway areas as well as residential areas.
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with updating natural areas with new FEMA data.
I generally support this
potential change
Again, the more parks and greenways, the better.
I generally support this
potential change
More parks and more developable land, and less natural areas reserved is all good. We
have millions of acres of natural areas in Texas, we don't have to keep a large amount inside
our cities.
I generally support this
potential change
I agree. This area needs to be cleaned up.
I generally support this
potential change
We should use science-based approaches to keep the Natural Area boundaries correct. In
particular, floodplains may be critical with the changing climate. I support the updating
based on new information and better analyses, but not shrinking natural areas just because
the city has grown.
I generally support this
potential change
Yay channelization! let's get some trails along the floodplain and invest in active recreation
near the water. Enhanced paving, multi-use paths.
I generally support this
potential change
Incorporating more residential space next to natural areas would be better to develop in
that location.
I generally support this
potential change
As an EXAMPLE this concept makes sense.
I generally support this
potential change
This seems like it is just an update of terms.
I generally support this
potential change
General concern with "adjustments" of natural areas and greenways.
I generally support this
potential change
Urban Residential is a better plan than Urban as it will better fit with the parks and
residential in the area.
I generally support this
potential change
Upgrading this area's parks and residential areas could be an improvement.
I generally support this
potential change
More parks is always a nice way to beautify the city
I generally support this
potential change
As long as it does not reduce green space
I generally support this
potential change
Good. but try not to change the colors on the before and after. Makes it hard for other
people to follow.
Page 384 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 62
I generally support this
potential change
Updating natural areas boundaries, and having more natural areas would be wonderful.
I generally support this
potential change
I’m curious what would go there though for public services, another firehouse, or
community recreation facility?
I generally support this
potential change
Support expansion of parks, would prefer neighborhood center to neighborhood
commercial
I generally support this
potential change
Adding the designation to a larger area of well established and older
housing/neighborhoods makes it less likely for rampant gentrification due to low property
values without removing current residents that might otherwise be forced to leave. It also
allows for more off campus housing without having to mix rental property with permanent
residents and keeping the integrity of these neighborhoods.
I generally support this
potential change
This paints a much clearer picture of what land is used for.
I generally support this
potential change
Are greenways and parks synonymous at this point? The changes appear benign in this
specific instance.
I generally support this
potential change
It would seem that the change has already occurred. Call it whatever you want.
I generally support this
potential change
This zoning seems irrelevant
I generally support this
potential change
It would be better if the residents in this area were part of the decision making process on
this change.
I generally support this
potential change
And the difference between general suburban and suburban residential is?
Justification?
I generally support this
potential change
Better matches property lines.
I generally support this
potential change
It is nice to see preservation of an older neighborhood and the green space possibly being
preserved.
I generally support this
potential change
The neighborhood commercial is too large considering the amount of commercial that is
within a few blocks.
I generally support this
potential change
Updating the flood areas is good.
I generally support this
potential change
Perfect example of how these can coexist with some green space between them that allows
for people to have their tiny piece of woodland and still access the amenities that some of
the restaurants and businesses would bring. We need something in the code that requires
these green spaces for ecological means, too. We are a hot zone. We need to keep bands of
green throughout the city.
I generally support this
potential change
this will improve the city.
I generally support this
potential change
This is not a significant change and I do not oppose it.
I generally support this
potential change
the new parks and greenways areas will need to be designed in a way that is minimally
invasive to the environment, due to them being previous natural areas. I feel more park
area in this neighborhood is a good idea otherwise.
I generally support this
potential change
Fine with me
I generally support this
potential change
Much bigger area for parks and greenwways
I generally support this
potential change
Makes sense
Page 385 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 63
I generally support this
potential change
Again, proposed change makes more sense in the specific area.
I generally support this
potential change
This will really help to retain some lower density residential with park and greenway spaces
that should raise land values and encourage investment in higher quality housing as in Oak
Park.
I generally support this
potential change
This new zoning classification should be flexible and able to adapt to the changes in the
market.
I generally support this
potential change
increasing neighborhood conservation and protection of natural areas
I generally support this
potential change
Whatever you do, please ensure mobile homes or government housing are NOT created.
Please do NOT turn College Station into Houston, Texas.
I generally support this
potential change
The new definitions are better descriptions of existing development.
I generally support this
potential change
still no comment (I should be able to respond without adding a comment??)
I generally support this
potential change
This new plan looks nice- please ensure College Station stays safe- if that means increasing
college station police force in these efforts when these plans are built please know that
would be appreciated. I relocated from Houston to escape the crime! Please do whatever
you can to ensure college station stays safe and beautiful.
I generally support this
potential change
I like the increase in parks and greenways
I generally support this
potential change
This seems to support the usage already present.
I generally support this
potential change
Would repeat a concern of the depicted floodplain versus the BFEs. Additionally, if the future
land use is intended to be fluid and not parcel base, I would think the Natural Areas use
should not be "snapped" to the Mapmod depiction of it.
I generally support this
potential change
More flexible land use options based on location and surrounding land uses
I generally support this
potential change
I agree with removing urban designation for the areas shown, on balance it is a good plan.
I generally support this
potential change
Not really a change.
I generally support this
potential change
The change represents the building that are already place. So, not too much of a change.
I generally support this
potential change
This looks protective of established neighborhoods and expanding on green areas. I am in
favor.
I generally support this
potential change
Am inclined to support the potential future land use only because I see more space for
natural areas and parks and greenways as well as what I think is neighborhood
conservation.
I do not support this
potential change
This looks like too much of our natural areas left unprotected and allowed to be developed.
A ball field does not provide the same human health benefits as natural settings.
I do not support this
potential change
No comment
I do not support this
potential change
Please cut back on building apartments.
I do not support this
potential change
I am in favor of reducing Urban, however, I feel this is too radical a change in terms of use
areas and size of area
I do not support this
potential change
N/a
I do not support this
potential change
Control the growth and the strip malls. More green/natural spaces!
I do not support this
potential change
Do not decrease the natural areas of Bee Creek Trail. Stop developing in this area.
Page 386 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 64
I do not support this
potential change
Is this just for relabeling? The places that are "to be developed" are already developed into...
Stop expanding into the natural areas.
I do not support this
potential change
Green and protected natural areas should not be compromised for commercial growth.
I do not support this
potential change
I support the expansion of the Parks and Greenways on the Future option but not so much
the shrinking of the existing Natural Areas to expand residential into that area.
I do not support this
potential change
Things are crowded enough. We need more natural areas.
I do not support this
potential change
Shrinking natural areas to allow for future development does a disservice to those who build
in those areas that might be affected by unusual weather events and to those who would
otherwise not be affected but subsequently are due to the inability for the land to help
mitigate the impacts.
I do not support this
potential change
still needs more single family development in the area, not rental property.
I do not support this
potential change
Again, reduction of Natural Areas in favor of more development and more commercial use.
Not necessarily beneficial.
I do not support this
potential change
This appears to eliminate a park with a beautiful bike path near the core of the city. WHAT A
TERRIBLE IDEA!!!
I do not support this
potential change
Leave our natural areas as green space. These areas are connections between
neighborhoods in College Station. Possibly bike routes, pedestrian paths and greenways.
I do not support this
potential change
not appropriate
I do not support this
potential change
I do not support the decrease in Natural Area -Reserve. I do not support the increase in
Urban Residential, Suburban Residential and Neighborhood Commercial land use. Natural
areas are important to neighborhoods.
I do not support this
potential change
keep as much protection as possible for the single family
I do not support this
potential change
This type of land use mix appears to enable encroachment of on otherwise protective buffer
zone along the creek, which at the very least gives decision-makers (staff, etc.) a chance to
take a closer look at (re)development proposals in such areas. It may be conforming better
to the development that has (disconcertingly) already been allowed, but that's not a good
enough reason to reduce potential land-use-based safeguards.
I do not support this
potential change
Neighborhood commercial says "primarily automobile." Since it's surrounded by park space,
it should be primarily walking and biking
I do not support this
potential change
Without more information on potential consequences of changing natural areas, I cannot
agree to this change.
I do not support this
potential change
This would take away way too much housing.
I do not support this
potential change
I wouldn’t wish to decrease natural area
I do not support this
potential change
No reconfiguring existing neighborhoods to shift to multi-family dwellings.
I do not support this
potential change
We do not need more housing in BCS
I do not support this
potential change
The city does not have proper funding for a large park.
I do not support this
potential change
It is hard to tell. I favor more green space and more residential.
Page 387 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 65
I do not support this
potential change
Opposed to the loss of Natural Areas. There is plenty of land to be developed without
encroaching on green space.
I do not support this
potential change
i prefer how it is now
I do not support this
potential change
Do not support as I like the natural areas to remain in a town where natural areas are rare
I do not support this
potential change
The proposed changes in this example are again highly detrimental to the natural Brazos
setting with marked increases in "General Suburban", "Urban", and "Suburban Commercial"
areas - all encroaching into "Natural Areas - Reserve". Redevelopment of "Natural Areas -
Reserve" into Parks and Greenways is unnecessary and will only contribute to increased
degradation of the natural setting.
Evaluating Scenarios
Area 1: Post Oak Mall Area
Which scenario best
reflects the direction
you think the City
policies should
encourage in this area?
(choose one)
Why did you respond this
way?
Are there any of these
scenarios that you think
the City should NOT
support? (select all that
apply)
Did you envision something
different for this area?
A: Existing Development Again dumping more traffic on
the end of Holleman Dr.
before it is widened to 5 lanes
along its entirety is only
making traffic in the city
worse.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
no, except 5 lane Holleman Dr.
A: Existing Development Less development is better
development
C: Alternative Scenario Over concentration of use,
even though supposedly open
area is greatest.
A: Existing Development The Alternative scenario
seems like a pipe dream for
the Holleman area that has
failed to attract much
attention over many years
after Post Oak Mall was built.
Lining it with multi-story
structures will only lessen the
appeal of Wolf Pen Creek.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development It’s fine No
A: Existing Development It seems as if all the city is
concerned is building more
student housing.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
A: Existing Development vertical mixed uses are not
feasible in College Station,
none have been successful
C: Alternative Scenario no
A: Existing Development Vertical Mixes of Commercial
and Residential don't seem to
be sustained.
B: Anticipated Scenario
A: Existing Development From a historical view this city
had neve held to what they
said how the city would
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 388 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 66
develop areas. No plan can be
set in concrete but the
developers get their way and
what gets built never turns out
to be what was sold to the
public in 10 year plans.
A: Existing Development I don't believe we need
new/additional housing in this
area.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development That borders on Wolf Pen
Creek and that green space
and residential uses should be
protected and increased, not
flung over for another failed
mall or big box. Or too-dense
apartment buildings or Aggie
shack.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
green space
A: Existing Development Too soon to give up on the
only area mall. Existing Urban
Centers have much vacant
ground floor space. I question
the commercial viability of the
Anticipated and Alternative
Scenarios
C: Alternative Scenario Give the mall time to reinvent
itself or return this area to an
empty field until the existing
inventory of retail and office
space is filled.
A: Existing Development Don’t want the other options,
especially the alternative
version
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development I like the way it is now. B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
I like the green areas.
A: Existing Development don't like the other options. B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Keep the green area it adds to
the wolf Pen creek park.
A: Existing Development Do not like the other options. C: Alternative Scenario Keep the green area it adds to
the wolf pen creek park.
B: Anticipated Scenario There are many apartment
complexes surrounding the
area that need to be
redeveloped into multifamily.
Let's not promote multifamily
here. If the mall isn't here,
where will the mall be? I
realize they aren't as popular
but they are still a part of
every city.
C: Alternative Scenario We need a mall. We should
help the mall owner's bring the
mall up to date.
B: Anticipated Scenario The undeveloped space
should be used, but the mall
still serves the need of being a
destination shopping area for
the type of store one generally
finds in malls. The land it is on
could be re-developed, but
those stores would still need a
place to be, so it seems to
make more sense to leave
them as they are.
B: Anticipated Scenario College Station needs to
continue to attract
department store type
shopping venues, without the
A: Existing Development,
C: Alternative Scenario
The Woodlands has developed
an area to run alongside their
mall area that appears to be
successful. Freestanding stores
Page 389 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 67
cost of entirely replacing the
entire mall area. We have no
shortage of housing but lack
local long-lasting enterprise.
like "outlet malls" with outdoor
parking, restaurants and
grocery shopping.
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticipated scenario
allows for more commercial
development. It does not
seem like many individuals like
to spend time outdoors in that
area so creating a outdoor
mixed use development
wouldn't be helpful in this
case.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario I think this area makes sense
somewhere between the
Anticipated and Alternative
Scenario. I don't see this area
being able to absorb the lofty
amount of office space and
residential units proposed in
the Alternative Scenario.
B: Anticipated Scenario I like the anticipated scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Existing Development is not
viable to sustain and the
alternative scenario has too
little Commercial.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
I would envision a more even
mix of commercial and urban
center. This property is highly
visible to Rudder Freeway and
easily accessible from Veterans
Park. It would seem that the
commercial aspect is logical
and should be emphasized, but
it could probably be reduced
somewhat to allow for more
urban center.
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticipated scenario will
give the area a much needed
update. It also does not add a
large spike in population to
the area allowing other
infrastructure to be updated
and expanded prior to
expected increases in demand
for the area.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Post Oak Mall will dramatically
influence the development
options in this area.
Anticipating a redevelopment
of the mall area is logical for
single story commercial.
C: Alternative Scenario Economic realities will not
justify vertical development in
this area.
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticipated scenario
provides an option for vacant
land that is less intensive than
the alternate scenario.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario 1
B: Anticipated Scenario Increased use of Urban
development is hgh traffic
area.
A: Existing Development Moat of my answers are based
on Urban Commerical
development should be
encouraged in high traffic
Page 390 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 68
areas with close proximity to
A&M, so my choices usually
reflex this opinion. The
anticipated scenario on Area 1
was chosen, mostly because of
the mixed urban increases.
B: Anticipated Scenario Less neighborhood, more
business, renovate mall
A: Existing Development Less office space more retail
and restaurants
B: Anticipated Scenario because the mall is not viable C: Alternative Scenario the city will go with what
makes them the most money.
Why bother because all the
planning in the world us
wasted time
B: Anticipated Scenario I like the shops C: Alternative Scenario We do not need more housing
in BCS
B: Anticipated Scenario Gives a better variety
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticipated scenario
allows for additional
development in the area
without blocking the
alternative scenario at a future
point.
B: Anticipated Scenario Seems inevitable. I still don't
think the parking will be
worked out.
B: Anticipated Scenario Will malls /office / urban
density be used in the future?
Human-contact health risk is
not going away.
Urban center developments
have not been successful in
this area to this point. (Texas /
University and the Lofts of
WPC)
B: Anticipated Scenario I do not think that the city has
proper funding to develop the
area without going into
further debt. It is a risk if the
development will create
enough revenue to pay its self
off in an appropriate amount
of time. Allowing housing into
the area will cause more
parking congestion to an
already frustrated city.
C: Alternative Scenario No, the mall parking lots are
well used and putting housing
in them would create a parking
deficit.
B: Anticipated Scenario good mix of residence and
business
A: Existing Development improved appearance for a
very unattractive area of town
B: Anticipated Scenario Increase in urban centers C: Alternative Scenario More shopping areas
C: Alternative Scenario Something has to be done to
bring the mall area into
modern times.
A: Existing Development I'd love to see outdoor
walkable shopping. The close
proximity to Wolf Pen Creek
and trails makes this a prime
outdoor mall.
C: Alternative Scenario No comment A: Existing Development This is probably not a realistic
exercise. The message sent on
the land use plan should
probably just be that the
objective iis to redevelop it and
we will entertain zoning that
Page 391 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 69
accommodates a viable plan.
Beggars can't be choosers.
C: Alternative Scenario The mall currently appears to
have too much available
commercial space as many
stores are vacant. This
scenario makes the area more
desirable for a multitude of
uses and could encourage
redevelopment.
C: Alternative Scenario I really like the proposed idea
of turning the mall into an
urban and neighborhood
center. These layouts have
proven popular in other cities
and provide a place for people
to gather. Malls are outdated,
and to be honest, the building
just needs to be torn down.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario It is aesthetically pleasing. A: Existing Development Yes - the alternative scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Post Oak Mall needs to be
updated and accommodate
more residential.
A: Existing Development N/A
C: Alternative Scenario Looking at the numbers it is
the best option. However, I
wonder how likely this
scenario is to happen. The
market dictates so much
about commercial
development. We could see
the bug investment in
infrastructure without the
payback in property and sales
taxes.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
I think that the collector
connecting Holleman and
Harvey as a key to making this
area work. How about the
anticipated scenario with the
addition of the collector?
I can see giving the property
owner the maximum amount
of latitude in development of
an area like this where the
adjacent development would
be compatible with pretty
much any type of commercial
development. The City needs
to look at adjacent
development, mobility, and
infrastructure and make sure
that works but leave the rest to
the market.
C: Alternative Scenario I would like to see the Mall
area repurposed. The Mall is
outdated and there could be
something better there that
can be seen from Hwy 6.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative plan would
look and feel better in that
area. The mall kills a useful
chunk of needed
developments. No one goes
to the mall anymore.
A: Existing Development Commercial and restaurants
would be a great addition.
Also revitalization of the old
run down residential is much
needed.
C: Alternative Scenario Malls in general are not the
future of retail. The land the
mall is on is valuable to a
developer but not a long-term
A: Existing Development
Page 392 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 70
viable option. Most likely the
mall will be bought and
redeveloped. The city should
push for an alternate scenario
so that the land is utilized
versus becoming an eyesore
based on changes in how land
is being used
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario allows
the city to encourage
attractive development
without trying to find a use for
the entire mall building.
C: Alternative Scenario Neighborhood Center is a
better fit than Urban Center
around the Wolf Pen Creek
Area.
B: Anticipated Scenario Southwest Corner of region
(NE corner of Dartmouth/
Holleman intersection) should
be developed into
Neighborhood Center.
Region South of Holleman and
North of Wolf Pen Creek Park
should be developed into
General or Neighborhood
Commercial.
Northwest Corner of region
(Harvey and Dartmouth) and
existing mall area are great
candidates for Urban Center or
stay as existing General
Commercial.
C: Alternative Scenario I want better connectivity and I
kind of want department
stores to die. Shop small, shop
local. Would love the mall to
be a destination with third
spaces.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario "encourage" is fine, but
property owners should not
be forced to change.
City should support property
owners and not force any
change via new or changed
laws.
C: Alternative Scenario Post Oak Mall needs to be torn
down and remodeled into an
open air outdoor mall like La
Cantera. It is embarrassing,
unsafe, and underutilized
mall. Most people go out of
town to shop because this
mall is so bad.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Need more modern updating
to area.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario I like the idea of a larger urban
center
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario The effort to
revitalize/improve that area
should be done "all the way".
It will modernize and uplift
that area of the city,
C: Alternative Scenario Post Oak Mall is not a
successful commercial area
A: Existing Development It would be good to upgrade
this area into something more
Page 393 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 71
and the neighborhoods need
an upgrade.
attractive with consideration to
how close these areas are to
the local parks while also
providing more free public
parking-to-shuttle options.
C: Alternative Scenario Malls are dying. Might as well
get ahead of it
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Malls are becoming more
unnecessary. Use that area for
community centers.
C: Alternative Scenario More mixed used. Good.
C: Alternative Scenario Because of the larger urban
center.
C: Alternative Scenario Malls are no longer a usual
gathering place and massive
department stores are
replaced with internet
shopping. A bunch of smaller
boutiques and shops (similar
to Fredericksburg) would
reinvigorate this area. The
portion cutting into the Wolf
Pen Creek Trail goes a little
too deep though. I feel the
trail should be preserved.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I would be excited to see the
Post Oak Mall being
redeveloped into a
neighborhood center and
urban center. I hope there
would be much more outdoor
seating and greenery, possible
with water features
(fountains), and less parking
lot. Also, making the
neighborhood center a
walkable/bikeable area with
shops on either side would
great. Preferably something
far more aesthetically pleasing
than the current mall and
parking lot. It would be nice to
see buildings that conserve
space so that you don't have
to walk forever just to reach
another shop (maybe even
multilevel shops?). Also,
definitely need some greenery
and trees to stay cool. I was
hoping this redevelopment
could attract more local, small
businesses as opposed to
giant corporations.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
I'm disappointed seeing that
the patch of trees next to the
United States Department of
Agriculture would be converted
to an urban center. I was
hoping these trees could be
preserved. Maybe we could
hold off on developing it and
instead use it as a dog park
with butterfly gardens later?
Also, I was hoping more
trees/wildlife could be
added/maintained along the
Wolf Pen Creek Trail. I do enjoy
the idea of having shops
accessible along the trail, but I
would hope they wouldn't ruin
the trail by placing buildings
directly next to it.
C: Alternative Scenario Post Oak is okay but there is a
lot of wasted space too.
Having a more mixed used
development would allow for
greater traffic of stores and
more community growth. This
also would attract more
A: Existing Development The mall needs a rework one
way or another there’s a lot of
unused space. Better shopping
and food options or the total
rework are both viable options
Page 394 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 72
companies to college station. I
work in Spring as a firefighter
and the mixed use areas seem
to be growing rapidly by us
there.
C: Alternative Scenario The urban and neighborhood
center concept seems to be
the way of the future. It has a
lower environmental impact.
People living in multifamily
housing can walk to grocery
store, salon, gym, and work as
opposed to driving.
Often have a much more
aesthetic appeal.
College Station will seem old
and outdated without this sort
of redevelopment.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario If left alone (Existing or even
anticipated) this area will
continue to decline as trends
shift away from large malls,
etc. This is prime area along a
major thoroughfare so the
Alternative scenario is a good
attempt to revitalize the use to
the community and add value.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This would be an excellent
location for MXD more like
The Domain in Austin
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
See comment to above right.
C: Alternative Scenario I believe this is the highest and
best use of the property.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Dedicating massive amounts
of land to parking lots and car-
centered modes of
transportation do not make a
city better, it makes it worse.
While it takes time, investing
in human-oriented
development is a much better
investment and improves
quality of life over time.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Allows for better vehicular and
pedestrian access in the are.
A: Existing Development The current layout is outdated
and conducive to an active,
walkable community.
C: Alternative Scenario Alternative scenario looks to
provide the most sustainable
form of long-term
development.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Progress A: Existing Development Na
C: Alternative Scenario Malls nationwide are fading.
Planning for what's next
seems prudent.
A: Existing Development Convention Center
C: Alternative Scenario The mall property has to
redevelop. Suburban malls in
general around the country
A: Existing Development I think the scenario has to
much office space it needs
more entertainment venues
Page 395 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 73
are disappearing or becoming
empty store front property.
Brick and mortar can no
longer compete with shopping
on-line. In order for people to
patronize this area it needs to
be a destination.
and this would be a good place
to put a transit oriented
development if the Bravos
Transit District could be
brought in to build a transfer
center and a parking garage.
C: Alternative Scenario This looks like a good place to
build the Neighborhood
Centers.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario big malls will be increasingly
challenged in the next decade
good area for higher density
chance to redo area that
would otherwise decline
good central location
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario I like that a park was added. B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I think malls are a thing of the
past. I'd like to see a nice
development along the
freeway rather than just more
big box or mall retail.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario need to create a scenario for
this part of town to be
redeveloped - we need to
make that as easy as possible
for the market
C: Alternative Scenario Increases opportunity to
redevelop highly valuable mall
area and increases property
tax rolls
No
C: Alternative Scenario Urban commercial has not
worked in College Station and
I see no reason to believe it
will in this area. Successful
transition of this area will
require a huge investment. For
the next decade the city needs
to ask, what's going to happen
at this huge empty space.
C: Alternative Scenario This is the front door step to
so many people visiting CS.
This style of development
would benefit the City.
A: Existing Development Existing is an eye sore and
does not benefit the City.
C: Alternative Scenario If it worked it would be cool. B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario It provides for more options
for people, more jobs locally,
and doesn't just keep it all a
sea of concrete. I also links
the neighborhood center to
the Wolf Pen Creek area,
which could be a very
attractive place to live for
many.
A: Existing Development It is a decaying space -- more
retail is going to go online vs.
face to face.
Page 396 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 74
C: Alternative Scenario Better mix of open spaces and
more interesting possibilities
A: Existing Development This area needs to change -- it's
a depressing part of town as is.
Either Anticipated or
Alternative would be a great
improvement.
C: Alternative Scenario It appears that housing is
needed and the mall is dying.
This would be an attractive
solution to both problems.
A: Existing Development Most of the current mall area
ava
and surrounding
neighborhoods are deterring
people from coming there. I
had an employee that moved
away due to crime.
Redevelopment will hopefully
raise everything above the
current standard.
C: Alternative Scenario The existing development in
that area is pretty dated, not
very welcoming, and
seemingly not conducive to
encouraging even the
development in the
anticipated scenario. The
large, mixed-use
redevelopment would turn
this well-situated part of the
city into a real draw, and
would provide a more inviting
atmosphere for live-work-play.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Increased density of land use
in this part of the City should
generally be ok. The
transportation system will
probably support additional
travel volume and additional
transportation capacity can
probably be provided at a
reasonable cost. Since the
roadways surrounding this
area are largely TxDOT owned
the TxDOT planners and their
travel modeling expertise
should be brought into the
planning process now. Trip
ends are only a part of the
story. The trip origins and
destinations are needed for a
demand and capacity analysis
of the supporting
transportation system. How
much additional roadway
capacity will be needed to
support the Alternative
Scenario? Need to know this
to reach an informed opinion.
C: Alternative Scenario A lot of people are shopping
online and the large malls are
going to be obsolete. Open air
A: Existing Development
Page 397 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 75
malls and making them apart
of nature would be nicer.
C: Alternative Scenario The development of mixed
uses next to wolf pen creek
park is a great idea. Turn this
mall area into a work/live/play
area with plenty of outdoor
opportunities.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Retail is a dwindling industry
and if we want to have this
area be a vibrant part of the
city than we need it to be
more experiential mixed-use
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Increasing high density at the
core is always desirable.
Avoiding big box commercial
is always desirable.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Large box retail is not a viable
land use going forward.
College Station should
progressively move to use this
space for attracting high-tech
businesses.
A: Existing Development Obsolete land use.
C: Alternative Scenario the alternate scenario would
get much more use by the
general public and help boost
college station's economy.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Existing mall concept is dated
and will continue to flounder
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Because it is a better way.
C: Alternative Scenario additional density makes
sense in this already urban
area.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario There is a need for destination
development that can mix
commercial and other uses
with a comprehensive
approach. The changing
patterns of shopping are
rendering malls obsolete and
this will encourage a more
vibrant area at a critical
junction.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I believe the alternative scenic
would spur on new
development but the new
zoning classification should be
flexible and able to adapt to
the changes in the market.
C: Alternative Scenario Whatever you do please
ensure HOMELESS CAMPS DO
NOT TAKE ROOT as in
Houston, TEXAS.
C: Alternative Scenario See my comments on Area 2 A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
See comments on Area 2
C: Alternative Scenario I like this option as it seems to
be a departure from the norm
which seems to be more and
Page 398 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 76
more four-story apartment
buildings
C: Alternative Scenario This would be a good area for
utilizing space to a much
better degree, and for shifting
commercial traffic away from
Texas / University .
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario If POM is redeveloped, it
would be nice to promote
denser mixed uses. My
concern is that - given our
historic reluctance to tell
developers to do anything
they arent already inclined to
do - the Alt Scenario is too
much change.
Is something like the Urban
Center development possible
within the general commercial
type?
I think the Mall building will
generally remain, but some
residential and restaurants will
develop around the edge. Is
that possible within the Urban
Center designation?
C: Alternative Scenario The total economic value of
the alternative scenario is the
highest of all three maps. The
character of the area is most
appropriate to choosing to a
Neighborhood Center. The
need for increase in affordable
rental housing in College
Station could be best done
with our best with
Neighborhood Center
developments as well as
services would support those
limited in transportation.
A: Existing Development This area is already under
served by the Aquatics
Department of the Parks and
Rec Department. The Park's
Department would need to
add a splashpad or swimming
pool within walking distance of
the anticipated increased
residences.
C: Alternative Scenario It looks like this gives the most
choice to the landowners to
figure out the best thing to do.
What do the landowners want?
They are probably in the best
position to figure out what is
the best fit and mix.
C: Alternative Scenario The retail portion of Post Oak
is all but dead- the restaurants
in the parking lot are keeping
it open. This is eventually
going to happen anyway, so
just make it happen.
C: Alternative Scenario The City of College Station
needs new retail area updated
to capitalize on business.
A: Existing Development No.
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario
seems to be the best area for
a "walkable community" in the
City of College Station. The
area could have a "new mall",
office space and living space,
all while close to a park.
I would be worried about
traffic generation along
Harvey and the intersection
Page 399 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 77
with Texas as that is already a
little rough, but if the area is
true a walkable community,
there would be hope of little
need for people to be driving
around.
Existing scenario Is also
perfectly fine in my opinion if
the Mall is simply reworked.
C: Alternative Scenario Like the neighborhood center
concept. As long as it really is
that and not a white-wash of
traditional big box, do it!
C: Alternative Scenario The economic impact of the
Alternative Scenario is very
beneficial and uses best
practices for increasing
population density while
bringing additional benefits to
this area that currently is
desperate for change. This
area has significant potential
and is well located on HWY 6
to benefit the entire
surrounding area. It is
currently underutilized and
can benefit the lack of
affordable or government
subsidized housing.
A: Existing Development The Wolf Pen Creek District's
requirements for walk-ability,
landscaping, unpaved surfaces
and significant trees should
continue in any nearby
development.
C: Alternative Scenario More job opportunities, more
diversified land use mixes
A: Existing Development The alternative scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Post Oak Mall has been fairly
useless for a very, very long
time. This scenario would be a
much better use of the space
for shopping, offfices, etc.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario The mall area is tired and
outdated.
A: Existing Development The new modern ideas in
development would be well
showcased in this location right
next to our through highway. I
think the ideas look very
promising. Our old mall is only
inviting to our residents.
People driving though from
other places have nothing to
dazzle them with a need to
stop, except for the cool
restaurants that have popped
up in the parking lot.
C: Alternative Scenario The "alternative" scenario to
me is the least worst of the
options - b/c the "anticipated"
scenario is just an veil for
allowing high rise apartment
complexes (with commercial
or retail on the ground floor
that is likely low performing) -
B: Anticipated Scenario Honestly I don't have the
solution, as the future of malls
is generally in jeopardy -
however in this town we have
unique needs and
opportunities with the high
percentage of young people. I
believe the former Highland
Mall in Austin should be looked
Page 400 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 78
something we do not need
more of. Thank you.
at - the mall has been
converted for multiple uses
including Austin Community
College facilities, theater space,
etc. You should also look at the
former Northcross Mall in
Austin - which has been
converted for multiple uses.
One is a vast indoor beautician
facility where individual
operators can rent their own
small space and share
amenities. Another is a small
scale Wal-Mart which I would
not advise as it was hotly
contested. Thank you.
Area 2: Harvey Road Area (Opposite Post Oak Mall Area)
Which scenario best
reflects the direction
you think the City
policies should
encourage in this
area? (choose one)
Why did you respond this
way?
Are there any of these
scenarios that you
think the City should
NOT support? (select all
that apply)
Did you envision something
different for this area?
A: Existing
Development
I accidentally submitted my
comments for Area 2 in the
Area 3 feedback. This is a great
area for multifamily, and more
retail here would hurt mall
redevelopment efforts.
C: Alternative Scenario Too much retail, will take 30
years.
A: Existing
Development
I do believe the commercial
areas in this map need to be
upgraded, they don't seem very
successful. But I do not like the
idea of taking away residential
land inside the city.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
I do not envision converting
residential land to urban
centers/commercial.
A: Existing
Development
Both scenarios decrease the
amount of housing in this area.
By creating either
urban/neighborhood centers
would also increase property
values that would force lower
income individuals to leave
their residence.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
Traffic at max capacity now. B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
No growth in traffic compared
to the the new numbers
projected.
A: Existing
Development
This is an area of lower cost
housing and strip malls.
Gentrifying the housing will not
help anybody. It'll wind up
being a glorified strip mall
regardless.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
The other scenarios reduce the
population density, but its
proximity to A&M and the mall
Page 401 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 79
make it a good place for
density.
A: Existing
Development
With an "higher than 80%"
residential, we should keep
things as they are.
A: Existing
Development
Improves chances of
redevelopment of aging multi
family and strip center
properties
A: Existing Development I think Alternative C would be
improved with addition of
corner shown in Anticipated B
shown as urban center
A: Existing
Development
Leave all those folks alone. B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
provides more buffer for
residential
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
A: Existing
Development
The current area is completely
developed by multiple land
owners. The anticipated or
alternate scenario would
require the city purchasing land
to assemble the proposed
areas, or forcing multiple
landowners into a very specific
redevelopment pattern.
A: Existing
Development
the demand for office and
commercial in this area is not
going to increase so it needs to
stay primarily multi-family
no
A: Existing
Development
This is a good development now
and should be combined with
Area 1 Alternative Scenario.
There are different housing
styles already and urban and
neighborhood centers might be
easier to form. This is a high
density area for traffic and
needs to be encouraged to
remain out there rather than
moving toward the University.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
Shopping in Malls is no longer
the fun it used to be. Online is
easier, faster, more choices. I
do not like having many
overgrown buildings.
There must be some way to
design the two areas to allow
families, children, visitors, etc.
can walk and enjoy different
activities.
A: Existing
Development
Why would you reduce the area
for housing unless you going to
have more high density housing
which would be more pressure
on existing streets and
landowners in the area. If you
follow this king of progression
in 20 years there wouldn't be
any single family hosing left
close to campus.
C: Alternative Scenario Less not more high density
housing. Where is all of the
traffic going to go.
A: Existing
Development
Retail development should first
occur at the mall instead of
being spread out on Harvey
road. No more Urban Centers
should be build until the
current ones are fully occupied.
C: Alternative Scenario I see the Mall being converted
into on open air design that
could be an area destination.
Perhaps hosting a community
theater and a variety of
restaurants.
A: Existing
Development
Don’t take away existing living
areas in the apartments there
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 402 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 80
now to increase general
commercial - non-housing
A: Existing
Development
Don't take away family housing
that is affordable.
C: Alternative Scenario Where are you pushing families
to move? Further out away
from their jobs without
providing good public
transportation.
A: Existing
Development
don't reduce apartments across
from the mall where people
who work near the highway live
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
Keep it the same as it is. It is
not a bad arrangment.
A: Existing
Development
don't take away family housing
that is affordable.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
Where are you pushing families
to move? Further out away
from their jobs without
providing good public
transportation.
B: Anticipated Scenario I'm really indifferent about this
area, but I think the anticipated
scenario is a more likely reality
for how this area would be
developed.
B: Anticipated Scenario While I like the Alternative
Scenario, I choose the
Anticipated Scenario because I
do not one to see anyone lose
their home if the apartments in
that area are removed.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario It offers the best diversity to a
living area. There should be
commercial areas in walking
distance to residential. This
gives a neighborhood feel and
identity. It also makes is super
convenient to not have to drive
for daily necessities.
A: Existing Development In all actuality I think the Harvey
road frontage should be all
commercial with the residential
behind.
B: Anticipated Scenario Makes good use of the land
while changing the mall area to
allow for great change in how
the land is used
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario The current usage of that area
seems under-used. Harvey Rd is
a prime thoroughfare, but that
area is not well developed.
Adding some urban center
would give it a stronger
pull/usefulness. The idea of
making it a neighborhood
center does not make sense to
me if we expect that area to
continue to grow. If that area
stays roughly as it is, then
neighborhood center makes
more sense. But given the
recent growth of the city, it does
not seem right.
B: Anticipated Scenario In the next 10 years, I think
promoting the alternative
scenario will lead to
gentrification. Let century
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 403 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 81
square be the century square.
This area of town houses
working class families that
deserve to have a modest, yet
attractive shopping and dining
experience.
B: Anticipated Scenario Let property owners decide C: Alternative Scenario Why support fewer apartments
- city keeps saying there are not
enough
B: Anticipated Scenario Most economically viable in
next 20-50 years.
C: Alternative Scenario I think it will continue to be a
mix of apartments and retail
B: Anticipated Scenario The cost and increase in traffic
with the alternative scenario is
unlikely with current
circumstances and long term
effects.
A: Existing Development,
C: Alternative Scenario
I believe the "anticipated
development" represents a
more reasonable growth
expectation in this area. If a
"neighborhood center" is
encouraged rather than
"urban" growth in the
"anticipated development", we
avoid increased traffic to the
area, while increasing taxes to
the city and maintaining
housing choices for students.
B: Anticipated Scenario This Alternative Scenario would
create an astronomical amount
of retail space when also taking
into account the Post Oak Mall
site. Large retailers are
struggling as is, I don't see all
this space being absorbed.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario this works for that area.
B: Anticipated Scenario The existing area is a
hodgepodge of inconsistency
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario There needs to be more vertical
development. I'm also
concerned about the amount of
affordable housing that will be
available after all the changes.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario The residential and commercial
areas along Harvey Road do
need to be modernized, but
believe the alternative scenario
is too much urban/commercial.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario This is a logical projection
without the Urban Center
vertical mix area. The
remainder is viable.
B: Anticipated Scenario I would change the Urban
Center Vertical Mix area to
General Commercial. The
alternative scenario has
potential but will require more
than 10 years and
redevelopment of Post Oak
Mall.
B: Anticipated Scenario 1
B: Anticipated Scenario Less concentration of people
living in the area.
C: Alternative Scenario Greater concentration of
residency.
B: Anticipated Scenario This seems most likely to be
able to develope.
A: Existing Development This area is an eye sore for the
community and does not
benefit the City.
Page 404 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 82
B: Anticipated Scenario Vertically mixing businesses
and residential is more efficient
and more attractive.
C: Alternative Scenario Horizontal mixing just leads to
strip malls mixing into
residential neighborhoods
B: Anticipated Scenario Cannot answer this question in
isolation to the answer to the
Area 1 selection. Will the
transportation system support
both Area 1 and Area 2
Alternative Scenarios? I think
not and you don't tell me. I
prefer Area 1 Alternative
Scenario to the Area 2
Alternative Scenario.
C: Alternative Scenario Cannot support without
additional analysis. The Area 1
and Area 2 Alternative
Scenarios are probably not
both feasible. I support the
Area 1 Alternative Scenario and
consequently not the Area 2
Alternative Scenario.
B: Anticipated Scenario This area needs modernizing. It
looks old and run down.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Good mix
B: Anticipated Scenario This should work with the
rethinking of the mall to create
as much mixed use density as
possible.
C: Alternative Scenario Re-imagining this entire area
increasing mixed use density
could considerably change
some of the assumptions. If
done right your trip numbers
will be way off. A high density
self-sustaining area can be
developed where most needs
are within walking distance.
This will decrease not increase
trips.
B: Anticipated Scenario I like this one better C: Alternative Scenario We do not need more housing
in BCS
B: Anticipated Scenario The addition of some vertical
elements will add interest to
this important street. The
alternative proposes too much
development that should be
pushed to the Post Oak Mall
site (Area 1).
NO
B: Anticipated Scenario Proposed urban center in an
already urbanized region
C: Alternative Scenario No residential areas around
commercial settings
B: Anticipated Scenario It seems like the alternative
scenario is simply like more of
the same of the anticipated
scenario. I’m fine with the
current path/proposal
B: Anticipated Scenario The area does need
redevelopment. Urban Center
development provides more
affordable rental units. We
should not reduce the number
of affordable rental units as
significantly as the
Neighborhood Center
development. If the older
apartment developments are
replaced within walking
distance, they will need to be
equally affordable.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Affordable housing should not
be removed without being
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 405 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 83
replaced. Priority should be
given to redeveloping other
commercial areas first such as
the Post Oak Mall, University
Drive and Welborn and George
Bush area.
C: Alternative Scenario Anticipated scenario might
work, too.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario This is too detailed. A: Existing Development No
C: Alternative Scenario I think this option gives the
most freedom for
redevelopment for all
residential, commercial and
office uses.
C: Alternative Scenario With multiple Greek housing
units near that area, this looks
to be the safest option.
A: Existing Development Yes - the alternative scenario.
C: Alternative Scenario Harvey Road needs to be
updated and accommodate
more residential.
A: Existing Development N/A
C: Alternative Scenario Just looking at the numbers the
alternative scenario is the best
choice. Again, how likely is this
to occur?
I also note that there is
apparently a need for
substantial water and
wastewater improvement
regardless of the scenario.
C: Alternative Scenario Having a neighborhood center
could reinvigorate the historic
neighborhoods nearby, and
reducing the number of
apartments in the area would
be beneficial.
C: Alternative Scenario Perfect option not to outgrow
region, provide flexibility.
Consolidates Commercial into a
denser area and allows for
more residential
redevelopment.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario This entire strip needs
revitalized, including the
apartments.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I prefer the larger urban center
and denser development
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Better to do a horizontal
development in that area than
vertical.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This area is very ugly and about
anything to improve it would be
good. I liked the additional
vertical development and green
space
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario More resources for residents. A: Existing Development More affordable housing.
Page 406 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 84
C: Alternative Scenario Because of the larger
neighborhood center.
C: Alternative Scenario It doesn't look to me like Urban
Center fits into this location and
the Alternative Scenario might
be more attractive by pushing
the apartments off of the main
thoroughfare.
It seems to me that this would
be a good area for more
commercial, but I am not a city
planner.,
C: Alternative Scenario This looks close to what it is
already.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario The apartments and businesses
are run down looking this
detracts from the area. The
alternative maximizes use of
the area and it also is a major
exit from the highway and
entrance from Huntsville via
Hwy 30. Having more
entertainment and shopping
options as well as areas for
business growth would allow
for more growth and in turn
more revenue for better service
delivery and pay/benefits of
services like police, fire, or
public works
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Alternative scenario appears
best in terms of aesthetics and
revenue.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario The Alternative scenario
maintains a level of consistency
with the Alternative for Post
Oak mall area. This site needs
to evolve to improve the visual
appeal and utility of the area
and, as stated, create an
effective buffer with residential
areas that also improve the
land value.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario allows
for more growth for a mixed
used development.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Creating 'livable places' should
be the goal. Build
neighborhoods that benefit the
people living in them not the
people who want to drive
through them.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Allows for more flexibility and
variety of housing types.
B: Anticipated Scenario Too much concentration of the
same housing type.
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario
provides a better mix.
C: Alternative Scenario More responsible and
sustainable development. Why
does the anticipated scenario
allow for multi-story
commercial development into
B: Anticipated Scenario
Page 407 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 85
areas where it wouldn't match
the surrounding aesthetic.
C: Alternative Scenario Na A: Existing Development Na
C: Alternative Scenario Chose Atlernative Scenario
because of the increased
comericial and urban
development planned and
hopefully the Post Oak Mall
owners will respond with an
upgrade on their property as
well.
A: Existing Development We need to protect the trails in
this area.
C: Alternative Scenario This area needs to be tied to
the post oak mall
redevelopment effort.
A: Existing Development Again you need entertainment
venues as opposed to office
space. This needs to be tied to
the Post Oak redevelopment
effort. With entertainment
venues complementing the
retail and general commercial
areas.
C: Alternative Scenario This choice allows for 'as
needed' changes - with the
amount of dormitory space
being built at A&M, the city may
not need to keep adding multi-
family units.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I like this approach at this
location.
C: Alternative Scenario This is an eye sore, and Harvey
needs to be commercial.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario this area is aging and should be
a place where the city helps
motivate the market to invest in
redevelopment
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Whatever happens here needs
to be coordinated with the
development of Post Oak Mall.
C: Alternative Scenario Less apartment A: Existing Development Needs to be redeveloped. More
retail and commercial less
apartment
C: Alternative Scenario More compatible with the
neighborhoods that abut it.
Putting a lot of apartment
complexes there would mean
another set of empty apartment
complexes. More young people
want to live in areas similar to
this neighborhood center area
you have described.
B: Anticipated Scenario That concept is not compatible
with the conservation
neighborhoods that abut it.
Just creating more density of
people in these spaces doesn't
link the existing with the new in
a way that would be beneficial
to all. There would need to be
consideration for creating a
barrier so that light and noise
pollution doesn't seep over into
the backyards of the homes
that are adjacent, though.
C: Alternative Scenario Better balance and meaningful
open space prioritized. Less
potential of creating just
another strip mall.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
Such potential for this area --
walkable open space /
entertainment / higher end
shopping and restaurants /
nicer condos and apartments
Page 408 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 86
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario seems
to fit the area, and would
complement the alternative
scenario for the Post Oak Mall
area nicely.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario They seem about the same Get a grocery store in this area
to meaningfully reduce traffic.
C: Alternative Scenario maybe switch neighborhood
center with urban center for the
alternative scenario
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Like neighborhood horizontal
use.
No
C: Alternative Scenario To match mall alternative plan A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario a mix of land uses would bring
more safety/security to this
area, plus make the land more
usable.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Because it is a better way.
C: Alternative Scenario I think commercial should be on
the highway
C: Alternative Scenario additional density B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I believe the alternative scenic
might spur on new
redevelopment but this new
zoning classification should be
flexible and able to adapt to the
changes in the market.
No
C: Alternative Scenario Whatever you do please ensure
HOMELESS CAMPS DO NOT
TAKE ROOT as in Houston,
TEXAS.
C: Alternative Scenario It seems like if you want to
encourage more infill you
would want commercial on the
main thoroughfares instead of
residential.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Same thing as before. This
becomes a very active area,
near the bypass, away from
Texas/University.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario It looks like this gives the most
choice to the landowners.
What do the landowners want?
They are in the best position to
figure out what would be the
best fit and mix.
C: Alternative Scenario This area might be redeveloped
a few times - better to be less
restrictive, but encouraging
more dense mixed use in the
area. Rather than trying to
guess where it will happen.
Prime area for new ideas, but
no clear idea of what will be
developed.
C: Alternative Scenario Increased jobs and tax revenue
would be beneficial in this area.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario This area would benefit from
neighborhood centers and
some more commercial space.
Most of the buildings are
Page 409 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 87
dilapidated and the shopping
areas are struggling.
C: Alternative Scenario This makes the most sense b/c
it adds some commercial in a
spot that makes sense. I believe
the neighborhood center makes
more sense than the urban
center - b/c again we have
enough high rise apartment
complexes in this town and
apartments are way overbuilt.
It's getting ridiculous.
B: Anticipated Scenario I do not envision something
different for this area. It would
be great to have an enclave of
restaurants and outdoor coffee
shops with lots of trees and
foliage in some random spot
like this - but I guess I'm
dreaming. It could serve the
high density population nearby.
C: Alternative Scenario I think this is better use.
C: Alternative Scenario Because a buffer is provided for
existing residential
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Going hand in hand with
Alternative Scenario 1, I think
having the option to reduce the
mutlifamily apartment
complexes and allow a range of
more commercial along Harvey
Road is the best use of the land
there.
C: Alternative Scenario one of the best improvements
to the city's appearance
A: Existing Development for obvious reasons
C: Alternative Scenario Increased sales tax revenue,
more jobs, more appropriate
land use mix
A: Existing Development Alternative scenario
C: Alternative Scenario As time goes on this old
apartment complex will be hard
to fill.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario This is a better use of this land. B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario this area needs an update. C: Alternative Scenario they are pretty similar. I don't
think anyone will be put out in
the long run and and the area
will be improved. Yall are
consolidating some of the
smaller the commercial
areas...it looks good!
Area 3: University Drive East of Texas Avenue
Which scenario best
reflects the direction
you think the City
policies should
encourage in this
area? (choose one)
Why did you respond this way? Are there any of these
scenarios that you
think the City should
NOT support? (select
all that apply)
Did you envision something
different for this area?
A: Existing
Development
N/A
A: Existing
Development
Keep the multifamily here. The mall
doesn't need immediate competitors
across the street for retail.
C: Alternative Scenario Too much retail. This will
take 30 years before it is
viable.
A: Existing
Development
Any changes that increase auto trips
into and out of this area is to be
discouraged. There has been no
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
If current locations for
business (bottom floors of
Century Square buildings)
Page 410 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 88
good data to indicate commercial
business will move into the CURRENT
developments much less building
more. The cost of infrastructure and
increased traffic makes this
unreasonable.
begin to show leasing
agreements, and demand for
location on University Drive,
there may be reason to
consider the "anticipated
scenario". But only after a
move toward more interest in
the area.
A: Existing
Development
I think increasing the population in
this already too busy area is a bad
idea. Too many apartment buildings.
I do think some of the
alternative scenario options
could be good, but I don't
think single-family homes
should go. This area has too
much traffic already.
A: Existing
Development
Preserving maximum single family
dwellings.
C: Alternative Scenario What happened to single
family dwelling? We all can't
live in apartments
A: Existing
Development
Do you really want to have multi-
story buildings lining the streets of
what is already the busiest
intersection in the county? Still
another example of gentrification.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
Keep single family units B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
I don't understand why the density
all has to become so high. The
streets and other infrastructure is
already overloaded in many
scenarios. Let's have some areas that
aren't all high high structures.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
no
A: Existing
Development
It is perfect how it is. It seems as if all
the city is concerned is building more
student housing.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned
is building more student
housing.
A: Existing
Development
The proposed area is completely
developed currently, the anticipated
and alternate scenarios would
require either purchase of multiple
properties by the City or spending
years trying to get multiple land
owners to bend to the City plan.
A: Existing
Development
Get a grocery store in this
neighborhood to meaningfully
reduce traffic on Texas.
The Uhaul is convenient for me.
I live near this area and the urban
center / neighborhood center would
not benefit me due to obtuse
parking.
A: Existing
Development, B:
Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Get rid of the AgShacks. That
is low density crappy home
values. terrible parking and
traffic.
A: Existing
Development
I believe growth still needs to respect
the older neighborhoods near the
campus.
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 411 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 89
A: Existing
Development
I don't believe we need more
housing in this area.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing
Development
B and C reduce the number of single
family homes in the only lower
income housing in this area of town.
Where are our lower income people
supposed to live?
I'd like to see the
development on Texas Ave
while leaving single family
homes. That really does
mean single family homes,
not homes that are rented by
the room which are not
homes at all.
A: Existing
Development
Existing development meets the
current and future needs of this area
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
Residential areas are
separate from commercial
dwellings.
A: Existing
Development
There is no need to change this area
at all. It would only add major
congestion to an already overly
congested area. The Texas
Ave./University Drive intersection is
horrendous when A&M is in session
and this would only make it worse.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Allow the residential redevelopment
that is already occurring to continue
(Stealth Dorms and apartments). Do
not attract more commercial traffic
to this area!!
A: Existing
Development
Need to be aware you are
displacing a minority rental
neighborhood. This is not
intentional, but it's a general
pattern in all areas near the
center of the city. It's not that
you want to stop the market,
but you do need a plan to
avoid driving low income
resident out of the city.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Makes best use of the way the
development is in that area. High
commercial area so residential may
not be as necessary unless it is part
of a Mixed development (commercial
on lower floors and residential on
upper floors)
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
The central location of that area
(Texas Ave & University), makes it a
prime candidate for urban center.
Both Zone 1 & 2 could be amazing
urban centers. Neighborhood
centers make more sense to me
further away from such busy roads.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
This existing area does not have a
area to gather. Allowing for the
anticipated scenario to develop
allows for more urban centers.
A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
C is not realistic; how many
neighborhood centers can you have
in one vicinity? How large does a
neighborhood center need to be to
serve its purpose? Also, is there a
need to have big box type retail at
both Texas-University and Texas-
Harvey locations? There is big
potential to upgrade this high-
visibility area.
C: Alternative Scenario See comment to upper right.
Page 412 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 90
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I am torn between the Anticipated
and Alternative.
There are aspects of both the
Anticipated and Alternative
that I think are very good. I
do not think vertical mixed
use on the corner is the right
move for the corners of Texas
and University on the East
side of the intersection
(UHAUL and the gas station).
You can look across the
street at North Point Crossing
and realize this is not an
intersection that is conducive
to retail on the ground floor,
the whole retail square
footage is vacant. There is not
enough pedestrian traffic to
drive urban retail sales. That
being said, Neighborhood
Center for the old Albertson's
site is more realistic than the
idea of an Urban Center in
that location.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
works well
B: Anticipated
Scenario
B or C is fine A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
1
B: Anticipated
Scenario
It seems like a good way to draw
people in.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I think this area is ideal for urban
development and should include
some Urban Center.
A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
The anticipated scenario allows for
the development of new commercial
property while allowing established
business the ability to remain as they
are. While also creating more
residential housing closer to campus
for students.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
This anticipated scenario is likely
without the Urban Center vertical
mix areas. Office space in our
market is too weak to drive the
project and has not significantly
changed in 10 plus years.
C: Alternative Scenario The Urban Center vertical mix
areas in both plans is
unrealistic for our market
over the next 10 years.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
This is commercial real estate and
should stay that way.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Pro vertical commercial C: Alternative Scenario Less residential single or
multi
B: Anticipated
Scenario
changing the zoning/future land use
will not make this happen
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Increased density and more
appropriate uses, especially at the
University Drive/Texas Avenue
intersection. The Alternative might
NO
Page 413 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 91
over-stress the traffic, but is worth
considering.NO
B: Anticipated
Scenario
It is more consistent with the current
use of the land and the density of
people in residential areas are not
needed there.
C: Alternative Scenario This puts too much strain on
existing older neighborhoods
that abut it. This land is
better suited for the
anticipated scenerio.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
This area looks run down with the
U'Haul store on the corner and some
run down businesses. This is what
people see when they are looking at
the beginning of the University area.
A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I like the shops C: Alternative Scenario We do not need more
housing in BCS
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Seems most likely to be developed
this way.
A: Existing
Development
no
B: Anticipated
Scenario
a mix of the anticipated and
alternative scenarios would work
best.
A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Makes better use of this area with
multi-family housing and easy
transportation
B: Anticipated
Scenario
this area is likely to become more
urban so I think this scenario is
appropriate
B: Anticipated
Scenario
The areas around campus need to
include higher density residential
and not single family residential.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
FIne with B or C actually A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
My fear is that the "urban" toehold
will take over.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Good plan.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I don't think allowing MF on the hard
corners while also potentially
increasing them down the corridor
makes sense. If you end up putting
mixed use on the hard corner of
Texas/University then I think the
University corridor needs to be
painted with GC like the existing
shows. I personally feel that that the
anticipated scenario makes the most
sense overall.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Like the gateway focal points A: Existing
Development
Love the B and C options but
like the C option best
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I like the zones one and two
descriptions. I don't like the
transition from single family homes
to something else in alt. C. We have
enough land to leave these alone.
Why encroach?
C: Alternative Scenario no. But I am not in favor of
changing neighborhoods
zoned with single family
homes. Change things
around them. Houses will
always be in style.
C: Alternative Scenario Providing housing allows people to
live where they work and play and
helps reduce the transportation
problem.
A: Existing
Development
Page 414 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 92
C: Alternative Scenario This option seems like it would allow
for more student housing- which is
great as this area is close to the
university. It also still allows for
commercial uses along major ROWs.
C: Alternative Scenario I like the proposed idea of creating
more neighborhood centers than
strictly general commercial space,
since there is a lot of unused space
there right now.
A: Existing
Development
I would really like to see an
HEB where the old
Randalls/Albertsons use to
be. If not a standard HEB,
how about a Central Market
or a Trader Joes. I think the
city can support such a
boutique grocery store and
the only grocery store really
in the middle of town is the
HEB on Texas. It is
overcrowded and hard to get
into.
C: Alternative Scenario I like the incorporation of pedestrian-
friendly developments.
A: Existing
Development
alternative scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I choose the Alternative option
because it mentioned creating more
walkways for pedestrians. I fully
support any changes that create
more opportunities to walk instead
of drive.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario The city should venture away from
creating the same thing in every
region.
A: Existing
Development
Nothing of use east of
highway 6. Too much
potential to not take
advantage of.
C: Alternative Scenario Having more mixed uses in this area
would be great, plus I think it would
make the area more walkable.
C: Alternative Scenario Enables the most density in a key
area of the city that needs dense
walkable residential and commercial
redevelopment for current and
future demand from university
population.
For urban center to thrive, it needs to
have a large area and not set off by
un-walkable general commercial.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This area is surrounded by students
with wealthy families. Builds on the
character of NG and provides a
connection and sense of arrival to
our version of "downtown". We
should incentivize
development/redevelopment in this
area but ensure housing types for
the historically black neighborhoods
aren't disturbed. A lot of those folks
need help but make just barely too
much to qualify for HUD assistance.
Tax increases are a substantial issue
there.
C: Alternative Scenario Seems to be more what is demanded
in the area
A: Existing
Development
Either option would be great
long term
Page 415 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 93
C: Alternative Scenario I like more of the mixed use being so
close to the university. But do need
to keep in mind traffic. I hope the u-
haul business goes away.
B: Anticipated Scenario,
C: Alternative Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I am in favor of denser
developement
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario I think it is better to leave the vertical
development to the corner of Texas
& University and the rest horizontal
development (those high rise
buildings are ugly! so the less of
them, the better).
C: Alternative Scenario I like the idea of encouraging
residential here and this part of town
becoming more walkable
C: Alternative Scenario More neighborhood centers would
be good idea.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario I like the urban/vertical development
in the center combined with
neighborhood center around it.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario more income, jobs & housing A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario This plan allows for a better look and
feel coming into the campus area as
well as creates an opportunity for a
“downtown” which we don’t really
have. This would be great for
community events as well as
commercial growth. The public use
spaces could also be developed into
a substation for law enforcement for
that area to enhance service delivery
specific to that high traffic area. This
would also provide a centralized
location for community policing by
having more officers in a CSTEP type
of unit which enables greater
communication opportunities with
the public than working solo in a
patrol vehicle.
A: Existing
Development, B:
Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Aesthetics and revenue as well as
keeping pace with what other cities
are doing.
B: Anticipated Scenario City needs to be careful
about spending money with
no real economic return.
C: Alternative Scenario I prefer the aesthetics and efficient
use provided by the Alternative
scenario with use of neighborhood
centers, urban centers, and urban
residential. This is probably THE
major intersection of College Station
and should reflect a desirable place
to live, shop, and dine.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario After recently moving back to College
Station, this area is my least favorite
area. I am not a fan of the towering
multifamily residential buildings and
sea of concrete commercial
development areas.
B: Anticipated Scenario Wish I could think of
something, but agree this
should be a focal point.
Page 416 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 94
C: Alternative Scenario Again, creating 'livable places' should
be the goal. This type of
development would give college
station an incredible sense of place.
By eliminating surface parking, you
make better use of the land and give
the people that live here a great
space to be. It is also obvious that
the massive parking lots in this area
are NEVER full. Our parking
minimums are wayyyyy to high.
Eliminate them. They hinder the
types of businesses that we love!
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario Concentrates residential density
around commercial nodes and
creates a place where people can
work, live and play.
C: Alternative Scenario Keeping high rise residential near
TAMU makes sense.
no
C: Alternative Scenario Provides greater options
C: Alternative Scenario Alternative seems to allow for better
long-term growth around campus,
provided that those vertical spaces
can actually be filled with adequate
parking. The current zoning in the
area can be cleaned up, significantly.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario Na A: Existing
Development
Na
C: Alternative Scenario This area is the proper place for
increased commercial and urban
development
C: Alternative Scenario CS needs office space, not more
residential or commercial - however,
the mall may become mostly vacant
due to COVID at which time we will
have too much empty space to fill.
A: Existing
Development, B:
Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This is an important gateway to our
city that should be visually attractive.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This area need sits own district plan
to make sure the residents and
business owners agree moving
forward.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario This area could support this
development.
C: Alternative Scenario good location for higher density
C: Alternative Scenario I like the direction of both B and C,
but I'd like to see more office along
Texas rather than big box retail.
C: Alternative Scenario this area is the most likely area for
future vertical development
additionally, we should expand the
vertical development areas further
east down university drive several
more blocks - limiting to such a small
area doesn't allow for market
competition on the land - this could
A: Existing
Development, B:
Anticipated Scenario
more area that allows for
vertical - need a enough land
to create competition for
deals
Page 417 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 95
inhibit development from occurring
with just a couple of owners
controlling all of the develop-able
land
C: Alternative Scenario better use of land and options for
redevelopment in the long run
A: Existing
Development
no
C: Alternative Scenario Fine I guess
C: Alternative Scenario better use of open space and
walkable urban area. Need a
gateway area built here to frame this
valuable part of town.
A: Existing
Development
This area needs better traffic
flow and more potential for
pedestrian traffic being so
close to the university. Needs
to be a focal point and right
now it is an area that gets
ignored.
C: Alternative Scenario damfino B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Mixed use with pedestrian access
sounds attractive. Cavalry court
showed what this could mean.
though, I’m not sure if it is
economically successful
A: Existing
Development, B:
Anticipated Scenario
Currently the area is
underutilized.
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario is what this
important and central part of the city
ought to look like -- especially the
Texas/University intersection. The
other corners of that intersection
should reflect the height/density/mix
of uses in the Northpoint Crossing
development. The other transitional
land uses make sense for the area,
too.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario more urban center near the
intersection of university and Texas
avenue is good
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario Provides much better flexibility for
good mixed-use projects and for
developing what makes sense
instead of forcing it to be developed
in a certain way
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario It is the lease bad. A: Existing
Development, B:
Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
No more Strip malls or Big
Boxes!!! This should all be
Urban and the City should be
seeking mixed use
developers. The best way to
keep students ut of single
family neighborhoods is to
create great mixed use
student areas. Also Cooner
should be put through.
C: Alternative Scenario Like neighborhood center No
C: Alternative Scenario Dated space that needs significant
upgrading
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative Scenario Because it is a better way.
C: Alternative Scenario this is our urban core. should be
urban
B: Anticipated Scenario
Page 418 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 96
C: Alternative Scenario I believe the alternative scenic might
spur on new redevelopment but this
new zoning classification should be
flexible and able to adapt to the
changes in the market.
The Neighborhood
Conservation area should be
Neighborhood Center too.
C: Alternative Scenario Less commerical space which seems
to be something we will need less of
in the future. Like the neighborhood
center feature
C: Alternative Scenario It looks like this gives the owners
more choice in what to do with their
property.
What do the landowners
want? They are in the best
position to figure out what
would be the best fit and mix.
C: Alternative Scenario "Northern part of Univ Drive" LOL -
out of town consultant speaks!!!
Lets build on the Campus plan which
shows denser development along
University Drive (and existing
Northpoint). Seems tough to push
for a new density center between
A&M and the Univ Dr East/Bypass
center.
C: Alternative Scenario The area would benefit from
additional neighborhood centers.
The Century Square development
has been so successful I would like to
see something similar in this area.
C: Alternative Scenario The economic value of the
alternative scenario and the addition
of affordable rental units is a perfect
fit for the proximity to our largest
employer. This is excellent
placement of population and
commercial density near the
intersection of our largest streets.
Due to the current lack of affordable
or government subsidized rental
housing in College Station, affordable
or government subsidized rental
housing should be included in the
new development. This is especially
important in walking distance of so
many wage jobs.
This area is under served by
the Aquatics Department of
the Parks & Rec. A significant
community access pool
should be included in this
development or in nearby
Thomas Park. In Texas'
summers, no other city
amenity is so utilized.
C: Alternative Scenario Again, too much "urban" is appearing
everywhere I look - and I don't
believe we need more high rise
student housing. Alternative scenario
is the least worst option b/c it has
some neighborhood context, at least.
B: Anticipated Scenario This area you outline covers a
LOT of land and a lot of
different types of uses. Traffic
is already a concern there -
so whatever you allow there
is going to add to the mess
and create havoc for the
existing infrastructure. I'd
advise caution and care and
thoughtful planning instead
of rolling over to whichever
developer comes along and
demands carte blanche to do
whatever.
Page 419 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 97
C: Alternative Scenario I adamantly oppose the commercial
encroachment in Areas 5 & 6 but it
makes sense here. I am not all anti-
development!
C: Alternative Scenario This is an ideal area to increase
population density for the efficiency
of our city plan. Existing single family
dwellings are less historical and in
need of redevelopment. This highly
commercial area within walking
distance of wage employment
should also include affordable or
government subsidized rental units.
Best practices of mixing residential
and commercial locations should be
imposed upon the developer for the
long term benefit of the City of
College Station. Careful
consideration to landscaping,
existing trees and a high percentage
of unpaved areas should also be
maximized.
C: Alternative Scenario Increased sales tax revenue, more
jobs, more appropriate land use mix
including residential above
retail/commercial
A: Existing
Development
Alternative scenario
Area 4: Texas Avenue across from A&M Campus
Which scenario best
reflects the direction
you think the City
policies should
encourage in this
area? (choose one)
Why did you respond this
way?
Are there any of these
scenarios that you think
the City should NOT
support? (select all that
apply)
Did you envision something
different for this area?
A: Existing Development Double the trips to this area
just increases the traffic issues
and the infrastructure
expense to change the current
development is not fiscally
responsible. There has been
nothing to indicate business
will infill in these locations
with the associated expense.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
The best scenario for the
location of the College Station
City Hall is to purchase the
street frontage behind, to the
south and north and make it
parkland. (Large live oaks,
pedestrian areas, benches,
fountains, etc.) Currently there
is little to recommend the site
for City Hall except it's position
in regards to TAMU.
A: Existing Development The area does not need to be
redeveloped.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development There is not enough
pedestrian traffic to justify the
Anticipated or Alternative
Scenario in this area. The golf
course and small
neighborhood don't generate
enough customers.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Page 420 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 98
A: Existing Development Preserving as much single
family dwelling as possible
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
What happened to single family
housing?
A: Existing Development Not all space should be
monetized - this city lacks
green space. Until we know
the number of empty stores
and apartments next year we
should put this planning on
hold. Adding more retail
space seems very out of touch
with current conditions.
When Council voted to redo
the City Hall as an ugly high
school I lost all hope for
something good looking. Now
all I want is a buffer between
ugly and the rest of the area - a
walking or biking route would
be nice. We do not need more
retail, we need more computer
and engineering firms.
A: Existing Development It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student
housing.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
A: Existing Development It would be nice to see some
part of College Station have
some "original" look and not
everything high density and all
built about the same time with
the same look .
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
keep it original looking. I was
sad to see the original city hall
building not preserved but
turned into commercial
business.
A: Existing Development do not need to compiment city
hall
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development The ugliest facades on the
street belong to the city.
Clean those up.
Blue baker, whataburger,
cains, laynes, and torchy's are
some of the highest use
restaurants in the city. Leave
them alone!
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
higher density encroachment
on the neighborhood is not
helpful
A: Existing Development I am going to be consistent in
my responses to changes in
Areas 4, 5, and 6. Increasing
the density of trips on the four
main roadways that enclose
the main campus is nuts,
crazy, a bad idea. The
University will attract
additional trips in the future as
the density of campus land
use increases. See the
adopted TAMU long-range
plan. For the City to further
increase the density of the
adjacent land uses adjacent to
the campus in clearly not in
the Cities or the Universities
interests. Why is this even
being evaluated as a Scenario?
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Yes, less density, more open
space, more landscaping, a
larger park, more parks, less
density. TAMU will benefit the
most by having adequate
capacity on the roadways
providing immediate access to
the University. Have you
thought about what this might
look like? Have you visited
other major university
campuses where you cannot
tell where the university starts
and the city begins? These
campuses have no eye appeal
and vehicle access is terrible.
Surely this is not what the City
wants. Use the roadways we
now have to provide access to
the campus and do not use
them to serve new commercial,
office, high-rise apartments,
and other high density uses
that are not already in place.
We need less density in Area 4
not greater density. And, don't
Page 421 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 99
buy the walk-trip alternative
argument. This is not going to
happen.
A: Existing Development I don't like any of these A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Expand neighborhood
conservation
A: Existing Development I disagree with the sales tax
projection, the option with the
most General Commercial will
generate the most sales tax.
C: Alternative Scenario no
A: Existing Development This seems to very satisfactory
at present.
A: Existing Development Townhomes is just another
term for apartment house.
They do not belong to be
classified as a buffer to single
family homes
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development It would be unfortunate for
the single family residents in
the proposed areas to be
zoned neighborhood centers.
However, it would beneficial to
utilize the city hall property
and parks and greenway
property, that is outlined in
the alternative plan.
A: Existing Development I refer you to my comments
below. Some of what has
been suggested might be
beneficial, however, to make
Lee Avenue and any of
Oakwood commercial or
mixed use is not a good plan,
to the extent that this changes
the quiet residential quality of
this neighborhood.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
My wife and I own a home at
207 Lee Avenue. This is a
special, and very quiet street
and neighborhood. It is
considered historic and is an
area which adds charm to
College Station as a whole, to
someday make College Station
more of a destination, and to
add to the overall economic
health of the community.
Please do not implement any
suggested change which would
affect the quiet residential
quality of Lee Avenue and the
surrounding Oakwood area.
Such a change is misguided
and a very bad idea.
A: Existing Development I'd hate to live in the adjoining
single family homes if multi
story buildings were put in my
front yard or back yard.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development The area focuses on
commercial property and
meets the current and future
needs.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Commercial development. No
residential housing.
A: Existing Development Existing Urban Centers are
almost unoccupied. Currently
businesses are fully occupied.
See no benefit in changing use
at this time.
C: Alternative Scenario Let the businesses organically
change.
Page 422 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 100
B: Anticipated Scenario I really hate to see more
AgShacks or student housing
encroaching on the historic
part of the neighborhood. I
like that the anticipated
scenario proposes
conservation.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Commercial needs updating C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario It follows the look and feel of
the new city hall.
B: Anticipated Scenario anticipated scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario I choose the Anticipated
Scenario because I would like
to see an updated City Hall
with a nice plaza. I would not
be happy to see Town-homes
built across from campus as I
think that would create more
traffic accidents with students.
A: Existing Development,
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Good use of the area in
proximity to campus. Golf
course is on highly valuable
real estate and possibility that
TAMU could repurpose and
close/move the golf course
becomes increasingly more
likely as main campus land is
being built on
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario I like having more
neighborhood conservation
and parks in this option.
B: Anticipated Scenario Best option in order to
preserve neighborhood
conservation in a treasured
neighborhood while allowing
substantial redevelopment
along Texas Ave.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Best mix of residential and
retail
A: Existing Development Present residential is
unattractive
B: Anticipated Scenario This area is right across the
street from campus and
students like to eat at a couple
of the existing restaurants.
Incorporating more office, and
residential space along with
the existing commercial would
complement the area.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Either B or C would be good.
Need buffer between
neighborhood residential and
commercial fronting on Texas
Ave. This could be great place
to strengthen for a
neighborhood center.
Given commitment to locate
new City Hall here this could
also become a government
center location (for offices
serving visitors to city
departments).
B: Anticipated Scenario I think either option is good.
Maybe need to allow for more
vertical development along
Walton and Texas to capitalize
on land values.
A: Existing Development Prime area for redevelopment.
Page 423 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 101
B: Anticipated Scenario Like this area for new
businesses but not homes that
close to A&M entrance.
B: Anticipated Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticipated plan is very
reasonable and realistic.
B: Anticipated Scenario more purposeful
B: Anticipated Scenario Any improvement is better
that what’s there.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Good balance between
refurbishing the commercial
area and keeping parks and
green areas intact.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario I think the businesses here
could stand to be upgraded
but do it without taking away
residential areas as much as
possible.
C: Alternative Scenario This area is difficult for people
who live on the other side of
town to get to, but I think the
business are successful being
so close to TAMU and it could
have more of them if it does
not take away too much from
residential land areas.
B: Anticipated Scenario Less clear that this area is
good for increased residential
B: Anticipated Scenario n/a B: Anticipated Scenario Don't displace the local
commercials and residents.
B: Anticipated Scenario Conserve the neighborhoods.
B: Anticipated Scenario The mix-use neighborhood to
compliment city hall
redevelopment seems better
than townhomes.
B: Anticipated Scenario Adding more housing just off
campus is a huge plus for the
students and staff, plus
keeping that green space
makes the area look nicer.
A: Existing Development,
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Don't develop the strip of Park
and Greenway. It would be
better used as a park or
garden area. Having that strip
of greenery improves the
appearance from Georgebush
drive the neighboring
residential areas.
C: Alternative Scenario In the Anticipated scenario, I
would have preferred that
Zone 2 not be converted
entirely to general commercial.
Instead, leaving the suburban
residential strip in Zone 2 as
some form of residential would
maintain a nice appearance
from the road/intersection.
B: Anticipated Scenario By doing this option
entertainment options can be
enhanced near the campus
allowing for options in other
parts of the city to be focused
more towards residents and
not just students.
A: Existing Development,
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Not enamored with either the
anticipated or alternative
scenario. So much
neighborhood center areas in
these scenarios that include
office space. . .is College
Station truly lacking in office
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 424 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 102
space and neighborhood
commercial. We have a lot of
empty strip centers as it is.
The development near the
new City Hall looks like it could
be promising, so I went with
the anticipated scenario.
B: Anticipated Scenario So more intentionality to
Eastgate.
C: Alternative Scenario Too high a density for true
campus East Gate.
B: Anticipated Scenario Prefer neighborhood
commercial to expansion of
general commercial and do
not think increasing
population density adjacent to
established neighborhood
(town homes) is desirable.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Anticipated and alternative
scenarios seem to give a
significant effort towards
establishing a "downtown"
area surrounding the new city
hall, something the city could
benefit from.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Na C: Alternative Scenario Looks like loss of green space
for multi residential
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticiapated scenario for
this area is good because it is
part of the look and feel the
college area needs. We the
planned public grounds and
neighborhood conservation
the area will give residents
and visitors the feel the city is
aware and protective of our
college and our history.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Plaza space would be nice
there.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario The Eastgate plan needs to be
completely implemented
including the redevelopment
of Thomas Park (pool, James
Parkway and Puryear). If
changes are proposed
especially the neighborhood
conservation the City needs to
revisit with the neighborhoods
for approval.
C: Alternative Scenario Stick with the Eastgate plan
B: Anticipated Scenario It looked best C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario City hall needs renovation A: Existing Development Less residential
B: Anticipated Scenario The Anticipated Scenario
supports the integrity of the
City Hall site, and provides for
some higher density retail
between George Bush East
and Dominic. The Alternative
weakens the presence of City
Hall.
C: Alternative Scenario I would have preferred City Hall
to be developed on land
further south, coordinated with
the Municipal Court, etc,. but
that is now water under the
bridge. The access to City Hall
will be forever limited and its
appearance from Texas Avenue
Page 425 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 103
will be permanently marred by
the needed parking area. The
result will be an old-fashioned
shopping center building with
cars as the primary view, and a
building that was quite
obviously designed by a
committee.
B: Anticipated Scenario We need the green belt that
separates these areas. To put
more density in this area,
abutting a conservation
neighborhood is
unconscionable. It devalues
the property for all who live
there in single family homes.
People imagine that this area
is all rental and just students
or old people hanging on to
homes. It is NOT. There are
many families moving back
into these areas because of
their proximity to campus and
the easy access to amenities.
C: Alternative Scenario It could be left as it is. Certainly
not building a raft of
townhomes and higher density
to dump more people out into
a neighborhood without the
water/sewer, etc. capacity to
handle it. We already have
serious drainage problems in
Eastgate because there is so
much concrete and everything
drains into the creeks vs. a city
wastewater management
system underground. If you
put more concrete and take
away green space, it will be a
worse nightmare.
B: Anticipated Scenario Keep changes minimal with
recognition of some changes
necessary.
C: Alternative Scenario Unnecessary
commercialization.
B: Anticipated Scenario Commercial expansion is likely
needed and welcome in this
area, but the approach should
be balanced to not drive local
residential away.
C: Alternative Scenario The city shouldn’t sell its
parking lot for commercial
expansion.
B: Anticipated Scenario This area needs
modernization, it's a mish
mosh of different styles.
Needs uniformity. Looks bad
right in front of the University.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Looks like a good plan to me A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario I like the idea of maintaining
the park area
B: Anticipated Scenario The proposed land uses allow
development to happen
organically and do not require
land purchase or
condemnation to work. The
alternative scenario will be a
difficult fight with the
neighborhood association.
B: Anticipated Scenario Let's try to move this to nice
walkable stores but NOT
destroy the neighborhood.
The high rises with small
sidewalks, no bike paths, and
no green spaces were terrible,
terrible choices and should
not be repeated. Make the
area like the area around Ann
Arbor (U Michigan).
C: Alternative Scenario
Page 426 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 104
B: Anticipated Scenario This one is really tricky. It's
super annoying that
neighborhood conservation is
something you want to
remove so that's why I chose
"anticipated." I also think it's
super annoying to try to
squeeze in more dense
housing in this prominent
location right across from
campus. Traffic is a mess and
the pedestrian/bicycle
interchange is dangerous.
Stick to light commercial and
stop trying to cram people into
sardine-like situations.
C: Alternative Scenario I would not support the
alternative option simply b/c it
shows removal of a
neighborhood conservation
area.
B: Anticipated Scenario Anticipated is fine. Ever since
GB East was widened it was
inevitable.
C: Alternative Scenario Anticipated is fine. Ever since
GB East was widened it was
inevitable. Any moves to ease
the single family conservation
line eastward is a HORRIBLE
planning idea.
B: Anticipated Scenario B fair (to the residents and
businesses) and improved
(structures and orgaization) . C
doesn't include neighborhood
preservation and I don't like
that. C also reduces greenway
and parks. Dont like that.
C: Alternative Scenario no. I envision the maintenance
of greenways and parks.
C: Alternative Scenario I like the neighborhood
centers for here but I'm
uncomfortable with removing
parks and greenways
A: Existing Development I really prefer a combination of
Anticipated and Alternative.
C: Alternative Scenario No comment A: Existing Development No
C: Alternative Scenario There are already many
Aggshacks in this area, and
this scenario embraces that
and encourages these
developments. This makes
sense with the area's
proximity to the university.
C: Alternative Scenario Great strip of land and the city
has their new city hall in the
middle of it. Push this
towards the hot new trends
and highest land values. It has
the highest chance of
developing out sooner than
any of the other locations,
other than Midtown.
A: Existing Development This area is prime for
redevelopment and there is no
reason to set our sights low in
this area. The city has a major
investment of public dollars
going into the area for an
anchor with city hall. Go big
here.
C: Alternative Scenario Nothing to me ties the city hall
closer to its citizens than a
community feel. The
alternative plan adds
residential on Texas Ave. with
mixed use commercial behind.
this would be a neat focal
A: Existing Development Needs to change. It has looked
the same for over 40 years.
Page 427 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 105
point of the city since we don't
have a down town.
C: Alternative Scenario That strip of land to the East
makes more sense as Mixed
Residential.
A: Existing Development I'm not sure what sort of
neighborhood center would be
expected along Texas Ave. At
best it seems like a strip
mall...but then I didn't think
anything along University Ave
would ever have any sort of
draw either.
I guess I envision that Texas
Ave in the future should be
more Urban Center. It's not far
from the University and is
centrally located. Or General
Commercial if that area won't
support Urban Center at this
time.
C: Alternative Scenario I am in favor of denser
development.
I live in this neighborhood and
I support the denser
development scenario.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario The Neighborhood Center
designation makes more
sense that Urban Residential
A: Existing Development There are currently very few
Suburban Residential homes in
this area. It is mostly rental
property. We might as well call
it what it is.
C: Alternative Scenario College Station needs more
Neighborhood Center type
development, where people
can walk more and drive less.
Would like to see more park
area included if possible.
C: Alternative Scenario Next to the Texas
Ave/University Ave, I think this
area is ripe for
update/upgrade. With the
university being the origin of
College Station, this area
across Texas Ave could almost
represent a small "downtown"
and, as such, would benefit
from the Alternative planning
with neighborhood centers
and mixed residential. If done
right, it could be a nice
complement to Century
Square.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Development like this would
make Texas Ave an extremely
desirable place. It would
encourage walking and biking.
A: Existing Development
Page 428 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 106
C: Alternative Scenario This is more realistic of how
this area is developing.
C: Alternative Scenario This area needs to be better
utilized. The buffer between
commercial and residential
… if it actually happens …
is a good idea.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This area lends itself to this
type of development.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Texas already has a lot of
traffic; this development
would provide reasons for
people to visit and work there.
Denser housing is a good use
for that location.
C: Alternative Scenario I like the alternative scenario
much more to the current or
anticipated development. I
think it would help create
more of a downtown feel
along Texas near the
university.
C: Alternative Scenario area is perfectly located for
redevelopment
we need to make it easy for
this to happen
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Allows for redevelopment and
transition zone to residential
A: Existing Development no
C: Alternative Scenario Because it is a better way.
C: Alternative Scenario this is our urban core. should
be urban
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario More meaningful open spaces
and better design with buffer
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
Take advantage of this location
to do something really
meaningful and unique for this
town.
C: Alternative Scenario The alternative scenario
makes a lot of sense for this
area across from campus and
surrounding city hall.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario developing commercial uses
along this stretch of Texas
avenue is good
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Makes the most sense for
maximizing density closest to
campus, minimizing traffic,
and keeping students closer to
the university and out of the
regular neighborhoods
C: Alternative Scenario Shops across from campus
makes sense. Though zoning
should be controlled to make
it more connected and walk-
able.
C: Alternative Scenario It looks like it gives the most
choice to the landowners.
What do the landowners want?
They are in the best position to
figure out what would be the
best fit and mix.
Page 429 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 107
C: Alternative Scenario Like neighborhood center No
C: Alternative Scenario I liked it A: Existing Development We need to improve the area.
C: Alternative Scenario Keep students close to the
school
C: Alternative Scenario I believe the alternative scenic
might spur on new
redevelopment but this new
zoning classification should be
flexible and able to adapt to
the changes in the market.
All Texas Avenue frontage
should be all be General
Commercial.
C: Alternative Scenario Seems more pedestrian
friendly than B
C: Alternative Scenario There needs to be more
general commercial along
Texas Ave.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I’m OK with B or C
C: Alternative Scenario Makes a lot more sense for
this area to end up looking like
this. The residential will go
away - question is 'will we plan
for it, or will it just happen?"
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario The park area could provide
the city with income instead of
sitting as an empty space that
is not often used. There is a
large park that is well utilized
in the same area.
C: Alternative Scenario I think greater density closest
to TAMU is the most
beneficial.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Much of the single family
home area is in need of
redevelopment. Careful and
collaborative consideration
should be made in creating an
ideal buffer between
commercial/city center areas
and existing neighborhoods.
The aesthetics of the current
green space along George
Bush east should be
continued in the transition to
a Neighborhood Center and
the General Commercial area
should be likewise
symmetrical with landscaping
and green requirements.
Existing trees of moderate size
should be preserved.
Affordable or Government
subsidized rental housing
should be included in this
development within walking
distance of wage employment.
This area is under served by
the Aquatics Dept. of the Parks
and Rec Department. This
development should include a
swimming pool or support the
replacement of the pool at
Thomas Park.
C: Alternative Scenario The change to neighborhood
center between Moss and
Page 430 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 108
Gilchrist makes a ton of sense
and makes good use of the
frontage while transitioning to
the sensitive neighborhood
area towards the back. Calling
out the Mixed Res in the
alternative is really just
classifying whats there in my
opinion, but it visually will look
nice on a map as a transition
between commercial/office
along Texas and the
neighborhood. While I can
appreciate wanting to create
another Century Square like
area, I worry about it's success
with the Student population
since it is much further away
from A&M buildings to be
walkable from there like
Century Square and that
whole strip along University is.
Could still be a great potential
development.
C: Alternative Scenario Many existing single family
dwellings are less historical
and in need of redevelopment.
Mixed residential zoning
should provide an appropriate
buffer. Existing recent
development should be able
to be grandfathered as it also
includes lawns and mature
trees keeping a harmony
between the development and
the nearby historical
neighborhood. As this is within
walking distance of TAMU and
the City Offices, this
development should also
include affordable or
government subsidized rental
units. Best practices of mixing
residential and commercial
locations should be imposed
upon the developer for the
long term benefit of the City of
College Station. Careful
consideration to landscaping,
existing trees and a high
percentage of unpaved areas
should also be maximized.
Existing green space along
George Bush should inspire
the future landscaping of both
sides of George Bush. A
walking path from the City of
College Station offices and the
nearby Thomas Park should
Page 431 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 109
also be included in the
development for a significant
benefit to our quality of life
and pedestrian/bike use.
C: Alternative Scenario Increased sales tax revenue,
more jobs, more appropriate
land use mix considering
urban density and proximity
to City Hall redevelopment
A: Existing Development alternative scenario
C: Alternative Scenario This would be a better use of
the land and would spruce it
up.
A: Existing Development
Area 5: George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road Area
Which scenario best
reflects the direction
you think the City
policies should
encourage in this
area? (choose one)
Why did you respond this
way?
Are there any of these
scenarios that you think
the City should NOT
support? (select all that
apply)
Did you envision something
different for this area?
A: Existing Development the intersection not being
funded is a big deal, and will
need to be done prior to
redevelopment. I suggest
leaving it alone until then so
you have a clearer picture of
the potential.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
These may be possible but you
need to know when the
intersection will be done and
that may not be until the
2030's.
A: Existing Development I don't like any of these. See
comment to lower left.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
To me this looks like a
neighborhood center (or just a
couple of convenience retail
businesses) plus residential.
The interchange will limit
accessibility for retail and there
are more versatile and larger
locations at Wellborn at
Holloman and Southwest
Parkway.
A: Existing Development The current development is the
agreement made when the
Southside Neighborhood Plan
was formulated in 2012. The
agreement was established
with the understanding no
alternative development until
the Wellborn/Bush interchange
is complete. At that time, the
agreed plan is still the
"anticipated scenario" not
shown here.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Any vision of commercial
business in this area other
than along Wellborn and in the
current location on Bush, is an
unwelcome change to an area
of Southside where single
family houses have existed for
almost 100 years.
Recommendations should be
considered to encourage the
construction of housing near
the University in this particular
location even if it is high
occupancy student housing.
Our campus houses have been
lost in this area and cannot be
recovered.
A: Existing Development I don't know how a developer
could realistically acquire all of
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Page 432 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 110
those residential houses to
establish anything near the
size of Century Square. George
Bush and Wellborn don't have
the residential density nor
traffic counts to drive a project
of that scale. Also without any
lighted intersections, the site
would not be easily accessible.
None of the density of A&M is
on this side of campus. I could
envision student housing on
the corner but retail on the
ground floor would be tough.
A: Existing Development I think this area is often
crowded already and we don't
need more tall apartment
buildings to stuff more people
into this location. I do not
agree with taking away single-
home family areas when these
are so close to CSISD.
C: Alternative Scenario I think the focus should maybe
be on the roads and traffic
lights and not more business
and apartment buildings; look
for ways to make traffic pass
more freely in this area.
A: Existing Development Keep residential. Moving will
displace people.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development This area is developing in a
way that makes sense.
Students need to locate close
to campus and Southgate
offers this. The redevelopment
for this section of town is
taking place as it should, but
the student housing needs to
be restricted to the area as
defined on your map.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Stop with all the vertical! It is
getting claustrophobic.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Restrict change of non-single
family homes in an existing
neighborhood.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
continued rape of existing
neighborhoods
A: Existing Development Maximum single family
dwelling commitment.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
No single family housing areas.
Way too much apartment
housing in limited area close to
already congested campus
area.
A: Existing Development Replacing a sea of Ag Shacks
with commercial and multi-
story will further threaten
Southside.
B: Anticipated Scenario
A: Existing Development Adding more density next to
Wellborn and Bush makes NO
SENSE - too many cars going
too fast. The only way for cars
to get out of this area is to
dump onto already congested
streets. The ugly parking
structure next to the State
Streets is a double insult.
Instead a buffer zone could
have been used to make the
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
This area looks terrible as it
has been developed -
structures are too big for the
space and there is no green
space to allow for trees to help
absorb the noise and exhaust.
There should have been a wide
setback between the road and
structures to buffer the look
but greed got in the way.
Page 433 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 111
place more attractive and
more enjoyable for the people
who end up renting.
A: Existing Development I chose the Existing
Development becaseu I di not
like the Neighborhood
Commercial area on the West
end of the Alternative Scenario
. This area is very good
excepted for the 1960's homes
ranch style homes on the
Eastern end of the area neat
Texas Ave. I this Condos or
small luxury apartments in the
area are better fit than
Existing. If I was offercced a
Scenario with out the
Commerical I would have
selected C.
C: Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Again, stop disrupting
neighborhoods.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Why is College Station
constantly destroying
residential areas? There is so
much poorly utilized land
already! Drive down
University... an old Albertsons
that has been abandoned for
the 14 years we’ve lived here.
What about the strip mall with
the closed Cenare and Mr. G?
Drive from Easterwood down
University and imagine that as
a person’s first impression. (I
almost refused to relocate
here after seeing that!) Yet
we’re encroaching residential
areas and developing beautiful
cattle grazing lots?
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development This has recently redeveloped
and should remain until any
intersection construction is
complete.
A: Existing Development It is laughable to consider this
"single family homes".
Everyone already knows it is a
sea of mini dormitories. That
density serves a purpose,
though. Adding more density
is just adding more strain to
the abutting conservation
neighborhood.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
The people who live in
Southgate don't need more
density there. The apartment
capacity in this town is not at
full occupancy now. Yet, you
are providing two scenarios
that will create more
apartment space that people
don't want.
A: Existing Development once again why does
everything have to do to high
density. there doesn't have to
be offices and commercial
space in every section of town.
I am opposed to closing streets
to make more room for
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
no, keep it as it is
Page 434 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 112
development. If the city allows
very high density as it has done
for the complex at the corner
of Texas Ave and University, if
there is some sort of major
disaster , how can help get the
the occupants with closed and
narrow passage ways between
buildings?
A: Existing Development other alternatives have way
too much commercial
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development I believe an Urban center
would completely change the
character of Old College
Station. Due to the eventual
changes to the major
intersection at GBD and
Wellborn, there might be some
necessity for change, but an
Urban Center is too drastic.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Renovating the existing
commercial structures is all
that is needed. Any vertical
development would be a major
distraction for the area. The
campus should stand out in
this location.
A: Existing Development It preserves our oldest
neighborhood. I might be
inclined to suggest changes
that would reduce residential
at the Bush facing areas but
unfortunately we have seen
Developers push variances
that harm the neighborhood
so those areas should be
maintained as residential as
defense against aggressive
developers.
C: Alternative Scenario The city should make more
investments to enhance this
old university neighborhood.
A: Existing Development I do not agree with the plan B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
This is the oldest
neighborhood in College
Station - the heart of
Aggieland. The streets are
named after cattle breeds to
honor the agricultural part of
Texas A&M. The area should
be preserved and developed
single family residential to
honor the history of the city
and the area.
A: Existing Development Too much traffic congestion
there already
B: Anticipated Scenario
A: Existing Development It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
It is perfect how it is. It seems
as if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
A: Existing Development This area already high density
enough
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Reduce commercial
encroachment of a beautiful SF
Residential neighborhood.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Get rid of the AgShacks.
A: Existing Development It is premature to evaluate the
Anticipated and Alternative
Scenarios for Area 5. The
TxDOT roadway interchange
and grade separation project
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
See the above discussion. Wait
for the interchange and
evaluate its operation before
making decisions that will
result in the increased traffic
Page 435 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 113
needs to be completed and its
operation evaluated before
adding trips to the Wellborn-
George Bush intersection.
There is no reason to rush this.
Many, maybe most, of the
student housing units in Area 5
have been replaced in the last
five years. These units ought to
be good for another 10 or 15
years, time for a new comp.
plan. The Southside
Neighborhood Plan says to
leave Area 5 alone until the
interchange project is
completed. I strongly
recommend we follow the
recommendations of this City
Council adopted Plan.
volumes caused by increasing
the density of land use in Area
5. There is no need to do this
in this update to the comp.
plan.
A: Existing Development See past responses. Destroy
existing neighborhoods,
destroy middle-class values,
destroy the core of society.
No.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Greedy campus leave our
neighborhoods alone!
A: Existing Development It currently looks as if it is
already filled with everything
that can be handled. We don't
know when the big intersection
of George Bush Drive,
Wellborn RD and the railroad
will take place. There does not
need to be more traffic at any
time for any reason at this
time.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
We cannot envision anything
about the use of George Bush
Dr. without the interchange of
Bush & Wellborn in existence.
Planing for street removals,
street closures, deciding to
close off cars going West on
Bush turning left onto Fairview
Ave. makes for very difficult
access to the neighborhood.
A: Existing Development I don't think it would be
beneficial to remove the single
family homes. Also, Wellborn
road to the south would need
a major overhaul to
accommodate the amount of
traffic in the area with the
proposed changes. Without
redirecting the Union Pacific
Railroad and making use of the
land to enlarge Wellborn road,
this area will be congested for
the foreseeable future.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Alternatives need to be
consistent with the historic
district. No more aggie shacks
A: Existing Development Alternatives need to be
consistent with the historic
district. No more aggie shacks
A: Existing Development We want the maximum buffer
between commercial and
single family residential to the
east.
The City already has abdicated
in not enforcing existing
C: Alternative Scenario I have absolutely NO faith that
Montclair will remain a magic
buffer if the alternative
scenario is approve. High
density student housing will
creep that much further to the
east.
Page 436 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 114
occupancy codes. Going to
anticipated or alternative
scenarios would encourage
senior planners to write off
southside all the more.
A: Existing Development Nice quiet setting with no
commercial interference
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Focus on preserving the
natural setting and residential
setup of the area.
A: Existing Development Prefer less density and not
removing streets
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Wait for the Interchange
construction. Leave all of
Southside as residential.
Already too much commercial
on the Northside.
C: Alternative Scenario Leave Southside as a Historic
District. Plenty of room for
Urban Centers around College
Station.
A: Existing Development Please leave this area alone!
This area does not need to be
turned into businesses. It is a
high density/high traffic area
already and on football
weekends it's absurd. This
area does not need to be
changed at all. As well, if you
mess with this area you are
starting to mess with the
historic area and that is NOT
acceptable.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Keep the neighborhood
protected.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Keep the neighborhood
protected
C: Alternative Scenario no
A: Existing Development Keep the neighborhoods
protected
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
No
A: Existing Development Protect the current
neighborhoods.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development As this is a 10 year plan people
will still be using private
transportation in the next 10-
20 years. Any development
along these lines would
increase congestion in that
area. It's already not possible
to drive down many of those
streets during the semester
with all of the student parking.
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
A: Existing Development Both the anticipated and the
alternative are terrible b/c they
would allow more high rise
apartment complexes. If you
end up going with "anticipated"
- at least freeze the existing
houses to mitigate the impact
of high density. Good grief -iIt's
like we want to be Shanghai.
C: Alternative Scenario Well it's already been allowed
to rezone itself to stealth
dorms - which let's be real are
not single family dwellings.
Maybe just allow more of
those up in there and call it a
day with some extra
commercial on the parameter.
"Alternative" would be terrible.
A cluster of high rises.
Concrete jungle. Awful.
A: Existing Development If B or C are chosen, we are
completely wiping out the
B: Anticipated Scenario, C:
Alternative Scenario
Perhaps the "Ag Shacks"
currently within the
Page 437 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 115
history of this community, in
addition to adding to an
already untenable
transportation issue by
increasing the car trips of that
area.
neighborhood could used as
group homes for assisted
living, and owners be required
to landscape.
B: Anticipated Scenario It is appealing to both TAMU
students and families.
A: Existing Development anticipated
B: Anticipated Scenario Provides a buffer, with urban
center zoning, from train to
neighborhood without
encroaching too much in to the
neighborhood
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario These scenarios both assume
interchange work. It is hard to
imagine what that intersection
will be like after such work.
However, if the daily traffic
jams on that road reduce to
the point that people could
actually get to an Urban Center
there, it would be nice to have.
I am cautious about making it
bigger because I worry about
the traffic.
B: Anticipated Scenario Best fits the space and traffic
concerns.
B: Anticipated Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario The alternative scenario
incorporates a green space just
in the middle which I think isnt
necessary.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario like this one the best
B: Anticipated Scenario B or C A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario I think this is something the
southside residents should
have the most say in
B: Anticipated Scenario much preferred.
B: Anticipated Scenario Based on the way this has
been allowed to develop, this
makes sense. The larger Mixed
Residential allows a larger
buffer from the Single Family
Residential. I don't understand
how this area was allowed by
the city to develop with the
existing zoning. It appears the
city ignored the zoning and did
whatever they wanted to do.
Surely the Single Family
Residential designation does
not allow the Aggie Shack type
development. If this is allowed
through some type of
technicality, there needs to be
some way to prevent this. I am
not necessarily opposed to this
A: Existing Development This seems to be a moot point
because this development has
already happened.
Page 438 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 116
type of development, but not if
it violates the current
designation. Otherwise, this
whole exercise is a waste of
time. The existing
development should not have
been allowed until the
designation was changed.
B: Anticipated Scenario The area does need more
formal planning and I think
introducing some element of
urban center is good.
However, the Alternative would
seem to overbuild the area and
the street infrastructure and
not adequately accommodate
a "Century Square" in addition
to being so close to suburban
residential areas. A "sized-
down" compromise would
seem to be better which is why
I selected the Anticipated
scenario.
B: Anticipated Scenario This could be possible over 20
years but the Neighborhood
Center area is overly
optimistic. The vertical
residentail/student housing
area is possible over time.
C: Alternative Scenario The economics will not justify
this type of density and depth
off George Bush.
B: Anticipated Scenario Unless upgrades are made to
the transportation system, a
mid-density of residential is
more appropriate in this area.
B: Anticipated Scenario This neighborhood should not
be substantially modified as
would be the case of the
alternate scenario. I do not
think the character of the
neighborhood should be
completely changed.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario Has the highest number of
residents; this is where we
want increased density.
A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario There were many
compromises made during the
development of the Southside
Plan. A lot of effort went into
getting buy in from the
residents of this area. If
changes are envisioned the
City needs to go back and
create another neighborhood
plan with the participation of
the residents.
C: Alternative Scenario Stick with the Southside Plan
B: Anticipated Scenario one side of the university
should be low density to avoid
creating an urban island.
heavy
C: Alternative Scenario why so much traffic increase
with both scenarios? the
existing approach is the most
neighborhood friendly and low
traffic, but already endangered
Page 439 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 117
by the proliferation of Aggie
shacks.
lower congestion on Welborn
and Bush would be desirable
and important for safe
commuting by car and bike.
B: Anticipated Scenario Allows for some urban center
along Welborn road but does
not intrude too far into the
residential area where mixed
residential provides for a
transition to more historic
area.
A: Existing Development,
C: Alternative Scenario
no
B: Anticipated Scenario The anticipated scenario would
create a more gradual
transition to traditional
neighborhoods to the east of
this area
C: Alternative Scenario Why are there no scenarios
evaluating areas of the city that
are undeveloped or were
developed since 1980?
B: Anticipated Scenario More vertical commercial A: Existing Development
B: Anticipated Scenario Commercial expansion should
be allowed, but limited
C: Alternative Scenario Commercial expansion should
be allowed, but limited
B: Anticipated Scenario Good Balance
B: Anticipated Scenario Prefer neighborhood centers Hate the Ag shacks. Don’t
pretend they are single family
dwellings.
B: Anticipated Scenario I like this one because this area
is a great residential
neighborhood, and I think
maintaining more residential
would be best. the green park
space of the alternative
scenario might be something
to consider adding to the
anticipated scenario.
B: Anticipated Scenario I'm not in this area a lot
B: Anticipated Scenario Plan is consistent with current
HOA expectations
B: Anticipated Scenario Some redevelopment of this
area to provide neighborhood
retail (e.g., non drive through
restaurants, small grocery
store) can help make the area
more walkable and attractive
to residents.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario the value of the housing that
has been recently constructed
is going to deter the change of
the area to more Urban type
development, even though I
think it should be developed
no
B: Anticipated Scenario The alternative scenario didnt
have enough residential
specific areas.
C: Alternative Scenario
B: Anticipated Scenario I think more density closest to
TAMU is the most beneficial.
I recommend Urban plan on
the first block of land from
Page 440 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 118
George Bush Drive as well.
Currently all options show
Neighborhood Center, but
highest density in the first
block across from TAMU would
be the most beneficial and
provide more space for
walking traffic and use.
C: Alternative Scenario Makes it more walkable and
livable.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario There needs to be a larger
commercial area or it isn't
viable. This shape also helps
to get traffic in and out of the
are.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
This area needs to be designed
to be the neighborhood center
for Southside. That may mean
bringing safe bike lanes and
walking paths over from the
east. Southside generally
supports this (now) and the
city needs to ride that horse.
At this point, the problem is
that it's already been
redeveloped to $ 550k student
rentals. The intact area to the
north needs to seed this as
soon as the exchange is built.
The city might consider
sponsoring a dialog with the
neighborhoods on how to get
this small area going. You also
need a plan to get access off
Wellborn, not Bush.
C: Alternative Scenario This would encourage more
student housing close to the
university.
C: Alternative Scenario I like the idea of brining in
commercial areas near
campus. With the hotel not far,
it allows guests walking
distance to shopping.
C: Alternative Scenario N/A B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I am a big supporter of any
family friendly/pedestrian
areas like Century Square. I
believe creating more areas for
the families that actually live
here instead of Town-homes
for students is a much better
use. While I want enough
housing for students, I would
imagine that housing for them
is not as important right now
because of COVID and so many
students are now doing online
learning.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Area needs to be welcoming to
game day visitors and not
congested with crowded gas
stations and souvenir shops
with no parking.
A: Existing Development Public pay Parking garage for
game day.
Page 441 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 119
C: Alternative Scenario Provides scale needed for a
successful Urban Center.
Promotes density near TAMU
campus for students. Adds
greenspace to enhance
livability of region. Increased
proposed Sales tax revue is
beneficial.
C: Alternative Scenario go big or go home - this is our
student area let's make quality
development a priority. Not
fast, cheap ag shacks.
C: Alternative Scenario Adds more density in a
location close to campus
A: Existing Development I think higher density walkable
small apartment and hotels is
perfect
C: Alternative Scenario The creation of new green
space is always nice. Also,
denser more compact housing
is a better use of land typically.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario I am in favor of denser
development
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario Attractive to have an area like
Century Square on the other
side of campus that is
pedestrian friendly (closed to
traffic).
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario An area like century square
there would be in walking
distance for a lot of people.
C: Alternative Scenario Na A: Existing Development Na
C: Alternative Scenario More housing next to campus
is a major plus, and possible
work right there is also great!
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario I like the added urban center
being an a good location as
well as an addition of
park/greenway. A few more
park/greenways in other
Urban/Residential Centers
would be nice as well.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario This offers options for current
businesses to stay in town and
grow as well as gives a second
entertainment district even
closer to the sports venues at
TAMU. This would offer even
more revenue from sales tax
during campus events and
throughout the year too.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Assuming there will be enough
commercial demand to
support this... hope city has
done studies indicating
sufficient demand prior to
spending the money.
C: Alternative Scenario It already seems to be moving
in this direction, but smarter
p&z should help facilitate the
A: Existing Development
Page 442 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 120
smart growth and
development in the area. An
area similar to century square
could be beneficial.
C: Alternative Scenario This area is near campus, and
students need to live here. We
need to make it as dense as we
can to save other
neighborhoods.
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario this areas should be
redeveloped into higher
density housing that is more
attractive than the 'ag shack'
this currently can't happen
with existing restrictions
A: Existing Development this area should be mid-rise
high end condos and mf with
some walkable to Kyle Field
retail along Wellborn and GB
C: Alternative Scenario Because it is a better way.
C: Alternative Scenario this is our urban core. should
be urban
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario There is obviously a need to
rethink this area, in which
much of the housing is
obsolete and in poor condition.
The Alternative is a bolder
proposal, based on creating a
new urban environment with
some park space. Hopefully it
will still buffer some of the
older neighborhood.
A: Existing Development NO
C: Alternative Scenario takes advantage of this
location and the beautiful area
for walkable open spaces.
Enhances Southside
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
Potential here for a beautiful
place for residents to gather
outside
C: Alternative Scenario Anticipated and alternative
scenarios both make sense for
the area, though alternative
gives a bit more room for
neighborhood- and city-
focused service offerings.
C: Alternative Scenario The Alternative scenario seems
a bit of overkill, but the
addition of a bit of green space
is attractive.
If you had asked me 20 years
ago, I might have said to leave
the existing development. At
the time there were small
historic houses and many
mature oak trees. The
"development" of the last
decade, which has involved the
cutting down of most of the
trees, the destruction of the
historic homes, the
construction of cheap student
Page 443 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 121
housing, and the paving of the
yards, is soulless (not to
mention hot as hell to bicycle
through on a sunny day).
C: Alternative Scenario Needs to be cleaned up and
modernized. Looks
unorganized.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario I like the idea of adding a park
in there
A: Existing Development,
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario I like the park area A: Existing Development We need to improve this area.
C: Alternative Scenario I believe the alternative scenic
might spur on new
redevelopment but this new
zoning classification should be
flexible and able to adapt to
the changes in the market.
No
C: Alternative Scenario Like the pedestrian friendly
aspect
C: Alternative Scenario It’s nice to have large
pedestrian areas.
A: Existing Development
C: Alternative Scenario We do not need another urban
center with start up business
that start and then go out of
business. there are lots of
empty buildings in College
Station. Not another urban
center.
How in the world will
businesses on George Bush
have adequate access?
Why can we not keep College
Station a smaller town in
Texas. I do not like this push
to make it Dallas or Houston.
And I am sure this is a waste of
time.
I only answered alternative
scenario as you gave me no
other choice. Do not like
alternative either.
B: Anticipated Scenario
C: Alternative Scenario It looks like it gives the most
choice to the landowners.
What do the landowners want?
They are in the best position to
figure out what would be the
best fit and mix.
C: Alternative Scenario The area would benefit from
mixed use instead of Ag
Shacks. I do not think that a
park in the area would be
necessary.
C: Alternative Scenario The change between
anticipated and alternative
Page 444 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 122
isn't all that much. And the two
additional blocks of Urban
Center could be used to
redevelop a large area into a
cohesive development
potentially. If that doesn't
happen, the area is still large
around to do something with
each block.
C: Alternative Scenario A hybrid of the Anticipated and
Alternative Scenarios should
be chosen. The closure of the
two intersections and the
possibility of transforming the
spaces nearest George Bush
and Welborn should be fully
maximized as has been done
with Century Square and
consequently benefit the entire
surrounding area. Priority
should be given to those lots in
this development. Office or
commercial space in the blocks
between Maryem St and
Highlands St. between Luther
St and Fidelity St will not be as
effective as Mixed Use
Residential. Many existing
single family dwellings are less
historical and in need of
redevelopment, but some
existing recent development
should be able to be
grandfathered as it also
includes lawns and mature
trees keeping a harmony
between the development and
the nearby historical
neighborhood. Extending the
beauties of the historical
neighborhood should be
expected of the Mixed Use
Residential area as more
buffer would be ideal. We
simply do not need that
amount of office space and
additional commercial space in
those blocks would be less
advantageous than
development in other areas of
the city. Best practices of
mixing residential and
commercial locations should
be imposed upon the
developer for the long term
benefit of the City of College
Station. Careful consideration
to landscaping, existing trees
and a high percentage of
Careful consideration to
landscaping, existing trees and
a high percentage of unpaved
areas should also be
maximized to be in harmony
with the TAMU campus and the
nearby historical district.
Page 445 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 123
unpaved areas should also be
maximized.
C: Alternative Scenario Increased sales tax revenue,
more jobs, more appropriate
land use mix with existing
historic neighborhood and
across from A&M campus
A: Existing Development alternative scenario
C: Alternative Scenario Preserve the historic area. B: Anticipated Scenario Prefer existing or alternative
with the caveat that limited
commercial development is
included.
C: Alternative Scenario B and C are both similar. my
concern again is for the single
family housing. Yall would raze
the entire neighborhood and
rebuild?
A: Existing Development I am not familiar with the
neighborhood behind this strip
mall/business center. But why
cant you renovate the business
area and leave the homes
alone? Are the homes run
down? Sorry, I don't think Im
much help.
C: Alternative Scenario The pedestrian paths sound
nice and would help have the
A&M north gate feel/ambience.
Please ensure homeless
individuals do not infiltrate the
area- this will cause businesses
to leave and increase crime! I
moved from Houston to
College Station to escape the
homeless camps that have
taken over Downtown
Houston, Midtown and the
University of Houston.
C: Alternative Scenario There will be a lot of
development pressure in this
area. It would be better if more
of the new development were
ped/bike friendly areas that
didnt rely on autos to serve the
commercial. Century Square is
a nice goal, but I would settle
for Rise/Stack style housing
that generates few car trips
during daytime.
C: Alternative Scenario loved this plan A: Existing Development need a change to keep the city
moving forward
C: Alternative Scenario The intersections blocked off
should be utilized by the
development and the
thoughtful amenities of
Century Square should also be
included in the Southside area.
However, there is not a need
for increased office space at
that amount. That much office
space is far above our demand
including future demand. I
support a hybrid of scenarios B
& C. The blocks between
Maryem St. and Highlands St.
The blocks between Maryem
St. and Highlands St. fro Luther
to Fidelity St. should be Mixed
Use Residential rather than
Urban Center development.
Careful consideration to
landscaping, existing trees and
a high percentage of unpaved
areas should also be
maximized to be in harmony
with the TAMU campus and the
nearby historical district.
Page 446 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 124
from Luther to Fidelity St.
should be Mixed Use
Residential rather than Urban
Center development.
Preserving existing trees and
more mixed use residential
buffer is an important
consideration this close to a
historical neighborhood. Office
and commercial space will not
be well utilized tucked into
small streets. Mixed use
residential areas should also
grandfather lots that have
recently been redeveloped and
are fitting with the mixed use
redevelopment. Careful
consideration to landscaping,
existing trees and a high
percentage of unpaved areas
should also be maximized to
be in harmony with the TAMU
campus and the nearby
historical district.
Area 6: George Bush Drive across from A&M Campus
Which scenario
best reflects the
direction you
think the City
policies should
encourage in this
area? (choose one)
Why did you respond this way? Are there any
of these
scenarios that
you think the
City should
NOT support?
(select all
that apply)
Did you envision something
different for this area?
A: Existing
Development
College Station needs the market identity of
this area. Without it we are just a bunch of
bedrooms for the University
C: Alternative
Scenario
It's not obvious why you would
show this area when you don't
even have a scenario that uses it
all. It just looks like another
attack on Southside. The city
needs to stop opening this door
to developers. If a scenario were
proposed it should be to greatly
enhance the character to make it
a more prominent part of our
city's market identity. We have
no market identity that is warm
and attractive other than what
people see across Bush on game
Page 447 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 125
day. How about a brick wall
with Southside written on it?
Maybe include visuals in city
promotionals (like Bryan does
with downtown). We could get
great value out of this for our
city, but not unless we actually
plan to. Where is that scenario
plan? Where is it's value
assessment?
A: Existing
Development
The existing development of Southside has
shown over 82 years of change that College
Station has a place for an older, historic
neighborhood.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
No rezoning in Southside for any
commercial development should
be encouraged. Deed
restrictions, both current and
lapsed have sought to maintain
this area as a residential area
alongside Texas A&M University:
an area "finally protected" and
appreciated for the short history
it holds.
A: Existing
Development
Leave as is, not worth changing this part of
town.
C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
Alternative scenario will change the
neighborhood---single family to multi-family
with commercial development along George
Bush Drive calling the changes a
Neighborhood Center. This is only a NC in
the creative minds of planners. This is a
neighborhood destroyer. Think camel in the
tent.
C: Alternative
Scenario
First off the long awaited
overpass (I have watched for
over 35 years) is still at least 6
years away if it ever happens.
The traffic problem will only be
exasperated by adding more
housing units and commercial
developments. Of course this
type of development will by
construction remove existing
single family dwellings and push
the remaining ones into
competition with multi housing
units. Good bye classic
neighborhood.
A: Existing
Development
This neighborhood is a treasure which many
people enjoy, even if they don't live here. By
going to the alternative scenario, you are
changing the neighborhood from a single
family area to mixed housing with business,
which will totally change the character of the
neighborhood. Most of this city is just
housing developments with houses all very
similar or strip malls. This is one part of the
city which has history and character.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I envisioned the area being a
living historical area - much like
cities developed with urban
renewal areas. It is unique within
the city - and once lost can not
be replaced. I envisioned the city
supporting and continuing to
protect the area, not seeking to
enhance the pockets of
developers.
A: Existing
Development
Leave it alone, proposed changes not
significant enough to make a difference.
A: Existing
Development
do not like the other 2 choices C: Alternative
Scenario
brings more traffic onto Geo
Bush
A: Existing
Development
It is not broke, don't try to fix it. C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
The existing land use is very cohesive and
working with the current pattern of
developments that are already there. No
change is needed.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Page 448 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 126
A: Existing
Development
Stop destroying neighborhoods with
multifamily and commercial creep.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Stop destroying neighborhoods
with multifamily and commercial
creep.
A: Existing
Development
Neighborhood integrity B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
No. Leave it as it is.
A: Existing
Development
There is not much of a change in these 3
options but I would rather there be single-
family homes than duplexes or fourplexes or
apartment buildings or townhomes.
A: Existing
Development
great the way it is! I see little difference
between existing & anticipated.
A: Existing
Development
This area is beautiful butI did not like the
idea of a Commerical in the Western area in
the Alternative Scenario, so I chose existing. I
would like the homes on the Eastern end of
this area be re-developed as town homes or
small luxuury apartments, rather than the
1960's model ranch homes currently in that
location.
A: Existing
Development
preservation of existing neighborhoods. fear
that adding offices and townhouses would
compete with other areas (especially on
University and Post Oak which are
underdeveloped or in greater need of
change), increase traffic and accidents, and
increase the blandness of architecture.
C: Alternative
Scenario
residential
A: Existing
Development
Leave existing as is C: Alternative
Scenario
No addition of multi residential
A: Existing
Development
Leave residential areas alone. B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
1. I strongly oppose the commercialization of
George Bush Dr.
2. College Station needs at least ONE historic
residential area next to the University!
2. Alternative scenario would destroy the
historic southside residential neighborhoods.
3. Residential redevelopment of George
BUsh is already underway.
4. Recent high-density housing has a "project
look" and destroy the charm and character
of College Station.
5. "Brownstones" may fit in NYC or Chicago,
but are out of character with the historic
southside neighborhood.
6. Commercial mixed/residential-commercial
development will be difficult to access from
George Bush, and traffic will come through
established historic residential
C: Alternative
Scenario
1. College Station needs at least
ONE historic residential district
next to the University! I strongly
oppose the commercialization of
George Bush Dr.
2. Alternative scenario would
destroy the historic southside
residential neighborhoods.
Access to commercial
development or so-called
"neighborhood center" - mixed
residential/commercial
development - at the corner of
Bush and Wellborn Road and all
along Bush Dr. will be difficult to
access - ingress and egress. I
AVOID difficult to access
businesses like the plague! In
this proposed scenario,
commercial traffic will spill over
into residential area behind
development, disturbing existing
southside neighborhoods.
Page 449 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 127
neighborhoods.
7. Alternative scenario makes no sense from
a fiscal perspective for the city.
3. Alternative scenario makes no
sense from any perspective.
a. Existing mixed
commercial/residential projects
have been failures elsewhere.
Storefronts remain vacant, such
as at the corner of Texas Ave
and University Dr. as well as in
the projects in Wolf Pen Creek,
to name just a couple. To what
extent these high-density
"project-looking" residential
units are filled is anyone's guess.
We do not need another such
fiasco - let alone at the expense
of our only remaining historic
residential district!
b. The current southside
residential area provides the
highest tax revenue for the city,
anywhere. It does not make
sense from a fiscal perspective
to open up Bush Dr. for
commercial development,
destroying the historic southside
residential area.
c. Brownstones are "NYC," or
"Chicago," not Bryan College
Station! They will be as
mismatched as the salt box-type
homes and "ag-shacks" that
belong on the eastern seashore!
4. Residential development is
already underway along the
Bush corridor.
5. The city needs to consider
newer areas of town for
commercial development.
A: Existing
Development
The existing development has been
established for over 70 years. It is stable and
provides steady property taxes for the city,
as well as a welcome sight for University
visitors.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Have the city embrace it's only
remaining history. Place
Southgate waysigns and
neighborhood gateways.
A: Existing
Development
Since this area has historic overlay, it should
stay the same. leave the undeveloped land
the same. by changing this area you will
destroy the small historical part of College
Station which has managed to still exist.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
no keep it intact
A: Existing
Development
need way more protection of homes here B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Page 450 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 128
A: Existing
Development
This is a quiet family neighborhood and
there are far too few of them in College
Station.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
This area does not need more
commercial development. It is
already dense with traffic from
rental properties. If the city
wants to help the Southside
area, then they should be more
concerned with growing it into a
more affordable, single-family
residential area to support the
influx of new workers that the
university is anticipating with its
newest development. Not
everyone in this town wants to
live in 3,000+ square foot houses
or rent 5 or 6 bedroom places to
live. We DO NOT NEED more
commercial establishments in
this area. There are plenty of
vacant and available business
locations throughout other parts
of the city.
A: Existing
Development
This is a historic area and should stay that
way.
A: Existing
Development
A: Existing
Development
The south-side area is one of the most
desired single family home areas in the city
and the price per square foot of land reflects
that. It gives the city an identity, is
performing at its highest use and it should
be preserved. There are plenty of other low
performing areas along Texas Ave and
University that the city should look at to re-
develop. Leave this area as is.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I envision the city working
harder to preserve and protect
this area as it currently exists. It
gives the city an identity that the
city council should be proud of
and should protect instead of
trying to destroy. Protect the
integrity of one of the oldest
neighborhoods in College
Station. NO commercial
development should be allowed
on George Bush south of the
campus.
A: Existing
Development
Any change in use along Bush will only result
in increased traffic and further
encroachment into College Station's only
remaining historic neighborhood.
Neighborhood Center is just another name
for commercial encroachment. If protected
from commercial development and further
conversion to student housing, Southside
WILL become the most sought-after
neighborhood in the city. If not protected, it
will become student slums.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
No business or office space should exist in
this area as it will cause accidents and traffic
on Bush drive and put more traffic in the
Southside residential streets. This area also
has deed restrictions. Someone is clueless
regarding the desires of the neighborhood.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Yes, College Station has almost
no character - the only unique
older areas that exist are under
attack from stealth dorms.
College Station will have to
decide either to stand up and
protect the these areas or it will
be left with nothing. Once you
ruin the sense of place it will be
gone for good. In contrast Bryan
has really done a terrific job.
Page 451 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 129
A: Existing
Development
This is College Station. It's where it started.
It's our history.
C: Alternative
Scenario
The alternative scenario (or
anything similar) is like a leak in
the dike that goes un-corrected.
There is too much history in Area
6 that would be potentially
compromised by any land-use
changes. I know this area. It is
frequented by many walkers,
joggers, and cyclists on a daily
basis. The population is diverse
and the owners take care of their
property, their city, and their
neighbors. Though mostly
residential, the area economy is
vibrant with all sorts of trades
(landscaping, electricians,
contractors, painters, etc.). The
area should be showcased as is,
not hidden behind some
contrived "city center" or other
pleasant sounding category
renaming scheme.
A: Existing
Development
Stop trying to get rid of our Historical
Neighborhoods - every city needs a piece of
their history -- by comparison to Bryan, CS
has so very little. Without a 'downtown', CS
appears haphazard.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
The administrations in the past
made a mistake when they
allowed the Aggie Shacks to
invade the Historical area.
Please think of a way to
discourage future Aggie Shacks,
particularly in this area.
A: Existing
Development
It is perfect how it is. It seems as if all the city
is concerned is building more student
housing.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
It is perfect how it is. It seems as
if all the city is concerned is
building more student housing.
A: Existing
Development
This is a lovely and historic residential area.
Leave it alone so that single family homes
can continue to house families successfully
as they have for many years. It is a vibrant
successful neighborhood!
C: Alternative
Scenario
Keep it for single family housing!
These home are beautiful and
have high value. Leave it alone.
A: Existing
Development
3 religious institutiions now in this area need
to remain this close to A&M Campus.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Absolutely not! No need here for
commerial establishments.
Enough already. More
commercial would increase
already enough traffic. Leave
this area for the history
necessary for/to A&M. Many
A&M professors, their families
and students live and lived in
this area.
A: Existing
Development
The people in Southgate already said what
they wanted in the Southgate plan. Why
should the rest of us overthrow that?
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
if the people of Southgate would
agree to these, i would support
it. Otherwise no.
A: Existing
Development
The existing development is a combination of
single family dwellings, churches and
institutional (schools). As someone who lives
one block south of George Bush, I don’t
believe the area could handle more traffic
that would be generated by the alternative
scenario. This area already produces high
C: Alternative
Scenario
No, I believe the existing uses
are good.
Page 452 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 130
taxes for the city. I see no advantage to
increasing traffic with no clear gain in taxes.
And since TXDOT controls George Bush,
further access to these properties is
extremely problematic.
A: Existing
Development
George Bush Drive already has as much
traffic as it can handle getting drivers from
one side of campus to the other. The current
use of this area is NOT an underperforming.
The mix of residential (not in disrepair),
church, schools (public and church-related),
and county usage provides a pleasing view of
College Station to anyone exiting the A&M
campus. Converting some of the properties
on Lee and Pershing to average commercial
use would result in LOWER tax revenue than
is currently being generated! The property at
107 Pershing was recently purchased at a
price over $500,000 and is being extensively
updated to be used as owner-occupied
home. That is redevelopment that is leading
to immediate increased tax revenue. The
Oakwood and College Park area contains a
number of houses that need to be
celebrated as a core part of College Station.
Purchase and updating these home should
be encouraged, not opening strip malls
between them and the University.
Commercial development at the Wellborn
Road and Texas Avenue ends of George Bush
can handle the needs of the area. These
need to be developed in a logical manner
rather than encouraging haphazard
development along a narrow strip. Why
doesn’t College Station promote a driving
tour of historic and notable homes in the
areas South and East of campus to show
visitors some of its history and current
attractive inner neighborhoods. Not
everyone wants to live on a golf course.
C: Alternative
Scenario
George Bush Drive across from
TAMU should NOT be
commercialized. It is not needed
by residents living elsewhere in
the city, and it is not needed by
residents living in the area. Why
is it even being considered???
A: Existing
Development
These are established neighborhood areas C: Alternative
Scenario
No
A: Existing
Development
Our neighborhood is unique in that we have
preserved many of the original homes that
were relocated from the TAMU campus. Our
passion is to preserve the historical
significance and nature of this area .
C: Alternative
Scenario
We do not support development
that will infringe on our
established neighborhoods or
jeopardize the values of our
homes.
A: Existing
Development
I do not agree with the plan B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
This is the oldest neighborhood
in College Station - the heart of
Aggieland. The streets are
named after breeds of cattle
honoring the Agricultural side of
Texas A&M. The area should
remain residential and be
upgraded to additional single
family residential to reflect the
history of the university and the
town. This can be seen at other
Page 453 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 131
SEC towns/campuses such as
Old Miss and Alabama.
A: Existing
Development
This is a very bad idea and comes with the
added problems of creating more
commercial traffic in this area.
C: Alternative
Scenario
The city should avoid making
plans that change the character
of residential neighborhoods.
Turning housing areas on the
south side of George Bush Drive
into commercial property
creates dangerous traffic
patterns and endangers
everyone who travels down
George Bush Drive. The
suggested encroachment of
commercial property into the
residential neighborhoods is a
violation of deed restrictions that
currently only allow
neighborhood-oriented
commercial businesses in any
part of the neighborhood.
General commercial should not
be allowed to build in any part of
these neighborhoods.
A: Existing
Development
Single family homes are being built and
remodeled in the area; oldest neighborhood
in CS and should be preserved.
Historical overlay should have been
established but could still help preserve
many solid and attractive older homes.
TAx rebates or incentives for rental owners
to rent to single families in first responder or
other categories--who want to live in the city
the y work and protect but cannot afford to
do so.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Historic overlay
Incentives for single family
renters versus by the bedroom
rentals.
Stop the proliferation of poorly
constructed college rentals
(e.g.AgShacks, Ag Pads)
A: Existing
Development
This area is the historical heart of CS. Lee Ave
was the first paved street replacing a corn
field. Several of the remaining homes in Area
6 were the first homes for faculty built off
campus. Some of the homes were actually
moved off campus to Southside/ Oakwood
subdivision. Nationally recognized architects
designed homes in this area. Streets are
narrow and designed for single family
dwellings with one or 2 cars. This was
adequate back then. Now with increasing
rental properties and increased density,
traffic has become an issue. Parking is
frequently allowed on one side only to allow
emergency vehicles to pass. Homes
belonging to Maj. Gen Earl Rudder, (Pres.
TAMU 1925-1943) Dr. Thomas O. Walton
(President of TAMU 1925-1943) along with
distinguished faculty and city fathers built
homes on Lee Ave. It was considered the
"Silk Stocking"area of faculty and
administrators.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
I would like to see better traffic
control at Lee Ave and Geo.
Bush: Do not block the
intersection would be very
helpful and allow traffic to exit or
enter Lee Ave. I am very
concerned that the city will put
medians from Welborn to Texas
Ave. and remove all the existing
trees to do that. How will
emergency vehicles get through
the traffic if raised medians are
placed in the middle of Geo.
Bush? Traffic is a primary issue
in this part of CS.
Page 454 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 132
Increasing by 11% the mixed residential and
by 3% the mixed commercial areas would
further increase the traffic problems and
erode the established neighborhoods.
Property values and taxes in Area 6 are
among the highest in CS. There is significant
pride of ownership in this area. To make
higher profits than property taxes currently
bring the city, the land would have to be
converted to something like NorthGate.
Imagine the traffic and noise with those
changes. It would be a night mare. The
property values of residential areas would
tumble and beautiful, established
neighborhoods would be ruined. From an
economic perspective, the anticipated and
alternative changes make no sense.
I passionately recommend permanent
preservation of the existing development-
NO CHANGES.
A: Existing
Development
In one of the photos posted, there is a
picture of the sign that shows it as The
College Station Southside Historic Area. If
anything, there should be more efforts to
preserve this area , rather than make
changes that would negatively impact it.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I've always envisioned that this
area would have more
protections. It seems it's always
having to try to protect itself
over and over and over from
threats of development. For
what should be a jewel of a
neighborhood, with a huge nod
to CS history, the city should be
the one more proactively trying
to "Save Southside."
A: Existing
Development
The neighborhood is one of only two historic
neighborhoods in the city. Each individual
house has a history that many residents
know and value. People who do not live in
this neighborhood come to it to bike, run,
and walk. Much has already been lost.
Please preserve what remains.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Old Jersey is a lovely route that
many people use who commute
by bike to and from campus. It,
West Dexter, and Ayreshire
contain many mature oaks.
Converting the area into a
commercial "Neighborhood
Center" would, in face, shrink the
actual neighborhood and
compromise the neighborhood
character of Southside.
Brison Park is a treasure, for
people and for wildlife. It is the
real neighborhood center of
Southside. The birds that use
the park as a migratory resting
spot do not distinguish between
the park boundary and the
surrounding wooded lots.
Allowing for the development of
a neighborhood center abutting
Brison Park would reduce its
character as a natural park and a
destination for walking,
birdwatching, picnicking,
Page 455 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 133
introducing children to the
natural world, studying, etc. It
may also ruin the park's role in
bird migration. There are
breeding pairs of Great Horned
Owls and Mississippi Kites in
Brison Park. The construction
involved in development of a
neighborhood center would
disturb them.
Also, if the city permits the
construction of a "Neighborhood
Center" at Wellborn and George
Bush, where the neighborhood
has already been destroyed, an
additional one just to the east
would be redundant.
A: Existing
Development
If football / in-person classes go away, you
will wish you did not have so much high-
density housing adjacent to campus
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Leave them be!
A: Existing
Development
Area 6 is the north border of the College
Station Historic District. This District is a
unique part of College Station and it needs to
be supported. This is the original part of the
City developed when the facility homes were
moved off the Campus in the 1940s. Some of
these homes remain and efforts need to be
continued to help them survive. George Bush
is one of the four main roadways serving the
Campus. George Bush today provides
adequate access for most, but not all hours
of the day. There is no need to increase the
intensity of land use that is served by George
Bush as the Anticipated and Alternative
Scenarios do. To do so is NOT a good idea.
Instead, encourage the redevelopment of
any substandard house to become a quality
student or non-student house, quality
neighborhoods adjacent to a quality
Campus.
A: Existing
Development
Keep Area 6 as it is currently
being used. Help upgrade its
identity. Encourage and increase
in the numbers of canopy trees
and work to preserve the mature
trees. Improve walking and
bicycle facilities. Find alternatives
to unsightly front-yard and on-
street vehicle parking. Improve
walking access to several public
schools. Find ways to encourage
residents to be responsible for
the appearance of their homes.
Work to encourage the congenial
coexistence of students and
traditional families living in the
same neighborhoods. Encourage
and work with neighborhood
associations. Work to minimize
the need for code enforcement.
A: Existing
Development
This is the highest quality, marquee
neighborhood in College Station and has the
most character. The studies show that there
is virtually no economic benefit to either of
the proposed plans. Even putting this out for
comment is a dangerous path. You should
be protecting neighborhoods like this as
opposed to "going out for comment" and
eroding confidence in the path and direction
of this area.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No, I don't. This neighborhood
is the heart and soul of College
Station and should treasured as
such. The property values are
the highest in the City and this
area should be protected as it is.
I am a perfect example of
someone that comes in and
invests in the area. I recently
made a significant investment to
buy a house in the Southside
District. Subsequently, I also
invested a considerable sum of
money in the property. The
taxes on the property went up
300% after we completed the
project. I'm not sure under
Page 456 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 134
what legal authority the City
believes they are operating as
these are deed restricted
neighborhoods but I stand
prepared to challenge any action
to change the single family
status of my home/lot. I knew
my rights when I purchased my
home, I know my rights now, and
I will defend those rights. The
City's own economic study
shows how little impact either of
the proposed scenarios will
have. This was discussed on
multiple Zoom calls and
acknowledged so I'm not sure
how the City Council feels they
can change direction at this time.
There is absolutely no argument
that this area is
"underperforming." Quite the
opposite. The highest and best
use of this area is as single
family homes - just check your
own tax rolls.
A: Existing
Development
The Existing neighborhoods contain some of
College Stations most historic homes and
they will contribute to College Station
continuing to build high quality city with a
sense of depth and history.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Its hard to understand what
planners were thinking about
when this was developed. If the
existing neighborhoods are not
maintained where do the city
leaders think the city's history is
located?
A: Existing
Development
As a relatively new homeowner in the
Southside District, I don't want to see either
of the proposed alternatives come to
fruition. We have invested heavily in our
home there and plan to spend many more
years here. This is the finest neighborhood
in College Station and I see no reason to
change that. There is no financial reason to
change anything as your own studies
indicate. The land values are as high here as
anywhere in the City of College Station and I
don't see that trend reversing unless you
make the mistake of putting in some high
density housing. I don't see how the City
Council has a legal leg to stand on here
either but hopefully it won't come to that.
This is truly the neighborhood with the most
character and charm of any in College
Station and the values of the homes are
reflective of that.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No. I think this area should be
left as is. It is unique and all
those visiting Texas A&M get a
chance to see and enjoy the
Southside District. Don't be
fooled by the short term
promises of developers. If you
truly want to preserve the heart
and soul of CS, please take these
alternatives off the table and
end this process now. Again, I
am not sure what legal rights the
City or Council believes they are
acting under here, but based on
the meetings I have attended
and the materials I have
reviewed pertaining to this, the
current use of this land is the
"highest and best use" of the
property. There is no way to
classify this area as
underperforming. Allowing this
process to continue undermines
the confidence of buyers in the
area. I ask that you do your job
and protect the interest of those
Page 457 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 135
that have purchased property in
this area.
A: Existing
Development
It gives a little bit more choice to the
landowners. They are in the best position to
figure out what would be the best fit and
mix.
Why does it keep so much of the
area around campus as single
family housing? Shouldn't there
be higher density and a mix
there to reduce traffic and help
with housing affordability and
improve livability?
A: Existing
Development
We moved here in 1968 for graduate school
with 3 children. This is a beautiful place to
live and raise children, huge trees, gardens,
people on bicycles, walking dogs and in 2020
mothers and fathers pushing their babies in
carriages. We had a 4th child and couldn't
find a better place to live as a family. A&M
main campus is a short walk. People like to
park here for football and Ring Day, spend
time on campus visiting and they like walking
here and hearing about the history. Our
house was moved off campus in 1941, lived
in by Coach Frank Anderson, across the
street from President D.W. Williams. A&M
needs this neighborhood and its history as
much as it needs Sul Ross, General Earl
Rudder, some of the fantastic early Black
football players who have been recognized.
We need the current schools and churches to
continue being available to AGGIES and
young families.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
I envision this area to being seen
as part of the main campus of
Texas A&M. It's history and how
it grew to be the size it currently
is. Why do we have names of
varieties of cattle on our streets,
some are State streets, where is
Billy Goat Griff bridge?
A: Existing
Development
I do not think it would be best to change the
existing nature of this area
C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
These neighborhoods and historic homes
need to remain protected. Mixed
development would mean more congestion
on game days.
A: Existing
Development
Leave the historical district alone. C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
Aggie Shacks and Neighborhood Centers are
not consistent with the Eastside Historic
neighborhoods.
Do not build anymore multifamily units in
this area.
C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
Southside represents the most expensive
residential dirt in all of Brazos Valley, setting
the high end of lot value for every single
residence. I believe the anticipated scenario,
essentially turning the Southside into a
quasi-North side, will have a negative impact
on the value of the remaining residential
homes in Southside. And if the residential
value of Southside falls, the value of every
single home in College Station will fall. No
amount of value created from several
hundred yards of commercial real estate can
make up for the tax loss from property value
reduction that will be caused by the
B: Anticipated
Scenario
No. Do the math on lot value in
Oakwood. It sets the high end
for lot value in all of CStat. If
that high end falls, you lower the
value of EVERY SINGLE HOME IN
COLLEGE STATION! Is it worth
that risk for just a few
commercial opportunities for a
few developers? I have spoken
to numerous real estate
specialists and developers who
have no dog in the hunt- and
they can't believe that we
potentially are risking so much
for so little value creation.
Page 458 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 136
anticipated scenario. Don't sell out to a few
developers!
A: Existing
Development
The Southside is a RESIDENTIAL
neighborhood, one which houses many of
the original, historical cottages moved from
the A&M campus (as noted in a historical
marker located on campus). This area
provides the City with income from some of,
if not THE highest property values in the
area. Though there are many choosing to
raise their families here, there are others,
such as my husband and myself, who
choosing to retire to this neighborhood in
particular. Despite the high property taxes,
we as individuals and a collective group have
poured millions of dollar into renovating
these historical homes, and where not
possible to save, have built homes that
continue the traditions of the area. Changing
the zoning along Bush will destroy our
residential and neighborhood identity; we
bought within this area based on the current
zoning promise to support residents. In a
movement that would destroy our
neighborhood and greatly decrease the value
of our homes, the mixed use proposed
would NOT increase income for the City. I
oppose the destruction of our neighborhood,
which will in turn decrease our value and
remove the historical heart of College
Station. We should be able to trust our
governing bodies to protect us as well as our
neighborhoods from business ventures that
do not add value or a critical identity.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No!!! This is a residential area,
which should be maintained as
such. We have realized our
dream to retire in this
neighborhood, choosing this
historical area with the promise
by the City that this is a zoned
residential neighborhood. It is
time for the City to recognize,
protect and build upon its
historical heart, and to keep its
promise to its taxpaying
residents that we will be
protected from investors and
commercial developers who do
not value the impact of their
ventures on our home, our
families, our community.
A: Existing
Development
The area is already a thriving neighborhood
with a mix of owner occupied and rental
property. Almost all properties are in good
condition. There is already a good mix of
residential, commercial, and public property.
I don't understand why the city seems
compelled to envision a different future for
an already diverse successful neighborhood.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I envision the area continuing to
be a diverse, successful
neighborhood of families,
retirees, and students. In
addition to Hillel, St. Thomas
church and pre-school, and the
LDS Center, the area includes
the College View High School,
Oakwood Intermediate School,
and the A&M Consolidated
Middle School. There are
commercial areas near the
intersections of George Bush Dr.
& Wellborn and George Bush Dr.
and Texas Ave.
A: Existing
Development
I am a citizen of College Station and resident
of the historic South side. I respond to
support the existing integrity of the South
Side historic area and to support integrity of
neighborhoods. Families need the continued
commitment from the City to support zoning
that preserves neighborhoods to guarantee
each citizen's financial and community
investment in their homes.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Tradition defines the character
of TAMU, and history provides
the foundation of tradition. The
Historic South Side is the unique
area that sets College Station
apart from other cities. The
historical buildings and
character provide a sense of
community to Texas A&M
University students and families.
Page 459 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 137
The families living in the South
Side Historic area have spent
time and money carefully
restoring and preserving history
and culture of this community.
As a citizen, I have also invested
in long term plans for continued
residence in this community
based on previous
comprehensive plans. I and
other citizens create long term
plans and investment into our
personal homes based on the
City's commitment to
neighborhood integrity.
A: Existing
Development
There is a lot of history in this area of town.
This area has done well in appreciation and
increasing tax dollars. It’s be a shame to
developer this further.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Yes leave it as it is and allow the
historic significance and
character remain. There’s no
reason to develop these areas
more.
A: Existing
Development
As a 40 year resident of this area I have seen
first hand the assault previous councils have
made upon our neighborhoods on behalf of
developers wishing to cash in on A&M
students and it's proximity to the
neighborhood. Actual residents of each
neighborhood invested their money, time,
and energy into their property. They did this
with the understanding that their compact
with the city would be honored. The fact that
developers have bought property for uses
other than those designated by this compact
DOES NOT void that agreement. Nor does it
justify changing it for the supposed benefit of
the City or individuals. To do so is to put ALL
neighborhoods in the City in jeopardy. You
will not be in your position forever. Other
councils will look at your actions as license to
change your neighborhood someday for the
"benefit" they seek. I would ask you to
enforce the rules on the books that protect
my AND your neighborhood. Laws and rules
can be changed. But ONLY if they benefit
everyone equally and not the few.
Thank you for your consideration.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
A revitalization of the
neighborhoods.
Perhaps a tax incentive program
for owner occupied properties
to encourage individuals and
families to move into the
neighborhoods.
The City enforcing the laws and
regulations on the books.
Holding non resident investors
to the same standard for
upkeep i.e. yards, trash, parking,
etc.. Instead unoccupied rental
property is allowed to go
unattended. This is an
inappropriate
application of the ordinances.
A: Existing
Development
do not mess with a long standing
neighborhoods and places of worship
C: Alternative
Scenario
developers could destroy the
integrity of longstanding
neighborhoods and places of
worship
A: Existing
Development
The proposed anticipated/alternative
scenarios do NOT preserve the historic
nature and ambience of the historic
importance of the area. This is where College
Station began -- many of the homes were
built before College Station even existed.
The proposed scenarios merely continue and
accelerate the gradual downhill slide of the
neighborhood, giving in to narrow financial
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Preserve the historic character of
the area as a RESIDENTIAL
neighborhood. Allow NO further
encroachment by commercial
developers who seek only
private financial gain. It is time
for City Council to make good on
dozens (even hundreds) of
broken promises that have been
Page 460 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 138
advantages of (mostly) out-of-town owners
and developers. When will we move beyond
the assumption that College Station is merely
a sort of colony, to be exploited and drained
financially by private individuals with little or
no connection to or interest in, the existing
community who call this home????
made and then ignored over the
past 25-30 years. We have found
to our disappointment that we
cannot rely on or trust
statements made by city staff,
many of whom now and in the
past, have family connections to
private developers or investors
with no interest in this historic
district over than exploiting it for
short-term, private extraction of
wealth.
A: Existing
Development
Having lived in this neighborhood for almost
25 years, I have had the opportunity to
observe firsthand, the growing interest and
commitment to restoration and preservation
of our neighborhood.
As a child my family moved into this
neighborhood in 1961, so for me, I have a
longstanding relationship with this area and I
care very deeply about its future.
The historic value of the area is important
and valuable to the residents and the city. It
has seen renewed interest in the last 15-20
years of people purchasing homes to restore,
remodel, and improve. As a result, the
property value has grown significantly and
has increased tax funding, benefitting the
city.
With close proximity to the university and the
historic value of the homes, this
neighborhood continues to be actively
sought by home buyers. There are a number
of homes in this area that were moved off
campus to the neighborhood.
Preserving the history of College Station has
obviously been important to the city as we
have a Historic Preservation Committee. We
need to hold on to our roots, the beginnings
of this city, this community. A sense of place
matters. The sense of this place matters, not
just to the people who live in the
neighborhood but also to others. We hold a
bit of a snapshot of what early College
Station neighborhoods looked like. Let's
work to preserve what we have.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No.
A: Existing
Development
This is a slippery slope to open this historic
neighborhood to the possibility of future
commercial development. Do you really want
a potential North Gate on the south side of
the campus, too?
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
How about some
acknowledgement of the good
residential development that is
happening in this area now?
Why even entertain the
possibility of more
commercialization here?
A: Existing
Development
There are very few areas in town that retain
the character and history that is found in this
C: Alternative
Scenario
I think that what is left of this
historic area should be left as is.
Page 461 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 139
Southside neighborhood and I think
everything that can be done to preserve it
should be done.
A: Existing
Development
The existing residential development
enhances the university environment, and it
avoids an even worse traffic situation on
George Bush Drive.
C: Alternative
Scenario
The alternative scenario detracts
from the adjacent residential
areas. It detracts from the
university as a place for
students. It creates an even
greater flow of traffic along
George Bush Drive.
A: Existing
Development
I am opposed to any scenario that opens up
the historic preservation district to
commercial development in any fashion. This
area has already been co-opted by the
building of Aggie shacks everywhere (which
aren't single-family homes in spite of their
classification as such). I grew up in College
Station and then came back after forty years
away. The high school I attended had been
razed, and we found out at a big anniversary
of A&M Consolidated High School that all the
memorabilia had been tossed, leaving no
history behind to be found. I feel as though
the alternative scenario is aimed at doing just
that--tearing down all CS's history and
dumping it. Isn't it bad enough that we are
allowing development in all the remaining
natural areas in town? (I'm talking about, for
example, the area around Harvey Mitchell
between Texas and Highway 6.) Must we
destroy all our historic homes as well?
C: Alternative
Scenario
The historic preservation area
has some of the most valuable
land and houses in town. Why
not treat it like Houston treated
River Oaks? Close parts of it to
traffic, build up the housing
stock, and make it a walkable
town area. It's close enough to
the campus to be one. I do NOT
want it turned into strip malls;
we've got plenty of those.
Thank you.
A: Existing
Development
I love the older neighborhoods and how in
"cool" cities like Atlanta and Austin they are
preserved and add quality of life. I am very
tired of slash and burn developers and
everything being turned into Aggie shacks
with no trees, sidewalks, bike paths, or no
parking. Let's keep it nice and livable for
different incomes.
C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
When people visit the neighborhood from
elsewhere in town or from out of town they
admire the unique character, old homes and
old trees.
The alternative scenario's plan can be found
and could be put anywhere. Why go out of
your way to destroy the one unique part of
our mostly aesthetically boring city for the
umpteenth cookie cutter new construction
project that could be anywhere in College
Station or Texas?
It doesn't even make sense from a tax
perspective.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Single family homes. No mass
parking. Churches surrounded
by homes instead of commercial
development.
Page 462 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 140
A: Existing
Development
This part of College Station is one of the only
truly historic areas of the city. Several homes
in these neighborhoods were moved off of
the TAMU campus as it grew. This university
and it's community hold up values related to
the importance of history and tradition. A
move toward commercial and high density
housing developments would significantly
eat away at those values. To date there has
been a good deal of reasonable
redevelopment of homes on on the
southside of campus that has supported
both student and single family living. These
property values are now among the highest
(if not the highest) of any residential area in
College Station. The current land use
provides the city with significant tax revenue
- at or close to a "highest and best use" -
given that measure. To begin redeveloping
the area into commercial and high density
housing ignores the values of both history
and tax revenue. Much of the historical
meaning of College Station as a city is in its
value as a place that supported Texas A&M
as it grew and changed. The neighborhoods
on the southside of the campus are the very
best examples of this history that we have
left. To compromise that history would be
short sighted for many reasons.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No I do not envision something
different. I envision an area that
represents the city's vision of
protection of historic
neighborhoods to be valued in
their own right. That historic
value has led to a gentrification
and greatly increased property
values and tax revenue over the
past 20 years. Why the city
would want to risk damage to
this value does not make sense.
A: Existing
Development
Turn the vacant lots into natural areas or
community gardens. Not every vacant lot
needs to be developed.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
When we purchased our home 40 years ago
we understood that this area would always
be residential , both from the City
designation, and the deed restrictions in our
contract. As the subject of "new rules" have
been broached, on more than one occasion,
we were assured our area would stay
residential. During one of these times the
Southside Historic Area was created to
assure us that the intentions of the City was
to keep our area as homeowner residential.
We have invested in our home & property
based on these assurances by the City.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
We based the purchase of our
home & the improvements to
our property in keeping with the
area's designation of single
family residential. In the past,
we have been assured by the
City that we would remain a
single family residential area.
The Southside Historic
designation for our area was put
into place to assure us of the
City's intentions. Through our 40
years here though we have
watched the continued efforts of
developers try to change our
restrictions for their financial
benefit. Some have made
purchases of property with the
knowledge that we are a single
family area, though their goals
are different. Once they
purchased the property all of a
sudden they are being
mistreated because they cannot
build their project. We, the
neighborhoods, then undergo
Page 463 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 141
another series of meetings and
pressure to make changes suited
to the developer, not the
homeowner. The developer
petitions a change of the "codes
& rules" for the area of their
projects since they already have
invested money for the land
purchase. Though we have been
given assurances by past City
Councils, we have also watched
other City Councils try to slide
through changes that would
allow for commercial properties
to be placed adjacent to our
homes, our neighborhoods.
Though this specific input is for
the area bordering George Bush
Drive, other neighborhoods in
College Station need to realize
that their residential
neighborhoods might be the
next targets for developers,
future City Councils and the
City's support for a higher tax
base.
Thank you for your time,
Patricia Bingham
A: Existing
Development
Give priority to other areas.
A: Existing
Development
The city needs to make clear that this
neighborhood is an important, irreplaceable
part of the city. Changes to the
neighborhood that would bring more
commercial development along Bush will
bring additional and detrimental traffic to the
neighborhood and Bush. We would hate to
lose the churches, schools and child
development center that are part of the
neighborhood. There is no need for more
commercial development along Bush.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No
A: Existing
Development
Do not agree with city plan B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
The existing area is historic and
should be preserved.
A: Existing
Development
I would prefer that the George Bush Drive
corridor NOT be used for any additional
commercial purposes. Parts of this
neighborhood are nearing 100 years old (by
2022) and it is important to maintain the
history of these original neighborhoods and
houses.
C: Alternative
Scenario
In 2022, members of my family
will have lived on Dexter for 100
years. As a direct descendant of
one of the developers of the
College Park subdivision I very
much want this area to not be
subject to any additional
commercial development. This
history cannot be replaced.
Please help us keep in intact.
A: Existing
Development
I do not live in the historic district, but I
cannot state strongly enough how I feel
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Please leave this area alone!! Do
not change anything!!
Page 464 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 142
about this.....please DO NOT change anything
in this area at all. George Bush Drive should
be left completely alone. The historic
neighborhood has significant emotional
value to our city. We do not want
development along George Bush at all - it
would increase congestion, it would take
away from the peace and serenity and value
that the historic neighborhood offers. There
is SO much development happening all over
the city and many other places to develop.
You do not need to do anything here and if
you do anything it will be harmful to College
Station. Even the empty lots are helpful. We
need green space and right now every inch
of green is being turned into concrete all
over the city.
Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
Don’t you dare take away the historic area
housing to put in commercial development,
that would really be reprehensible!!!!
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
No, keep the neighborhoods protected and
never challenge this again.
C: Alternative
Scenario
No, keep the neighborhoods
protected
A: Existing
Development
When we relocated to College Station over 10
years ago from the East Coast, we specifically
wanted to live in a neighborhood with
historic character and proximity to the
University. This neighborhood is unique in
College Station and nothing should be done
that might endanger its future. If changes are
allowed that allow commercial use to
encroach on the neighborhood or increase
traffic, the loss to the city would be
tremendous and irreplaceable. I am also very
concerned about traffic and safety on Bush. I
would hate to see the south side of campus
look anything like Northgate in terms of
traffic and congestion. Additionally, I would
like to see the city invest in supporting
commercial development in existing
commercial areas which are plentiful,
diversely located and in need of additional
attention.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I would like to see development
continue as existing and a strong
message from the City
supporting this historic
neighborhood.
A: Existing
Development
We need to keep the old neighborhoods the
way they are, they are part of our history.
We need to keep our single family dwellings
with neighborhoods where children play.
C: Alternative
Scenario
A: Existing
Development
This area has so much history for the
development of College Station around the
campus. I think its important to preserve this
as it adds to the appeal of our city. Single
family homes are the backbone of the
community as the student population is
always influx
C: Alternative
Scenario
I’d like to see it more single
family residences
A: Existing
Development
Our City needs a historic center. do not
destroy the well-established neighborhoods
which currently exist here. I live here full time
and want to honor the historic character that
exists here.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
A historic neighborhood-friendly
center enhancing rather than
changing the existing
development. Georgetown, Ft.
Worth, West University Place,
Page 465 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 143
Highland Park, are Texas cities,
which have well-established
neighborhoods near universities
that have preserved and
enhanced original structures.
Planting more trees, creating
more green/wildlife space, better
walkways and bicycle paths,
encouraging renovation and
adding onto the original College
Station homes that still exist.
Having an annual festival in
Brison Park to celebrate the
establishment of our city.
Redeveloping the EXISTING
commercial sections to serve the
neighborhood (free-standing,
house-like coffee shop,
restaurant, farmer’s market, bed
and breakfasts rather than strip
malls ). Murals, signage,
landscaping that all have a
historic, old-town feel, that
honor and tell the story of our
city’s first 100 years. Pedestrian
and bicycle friendly
enhancements (trees creating
shade, narrow roads with bicycle
lanes and pedestrian
paths).Keeping this a
neighborhood that encourages
people to buy a home here (NOT
just a monetary investment
property) without the continued
threat of the house next door
being torn down and the mature
trees being bull-dozed over.
A: Existing
Development
It appears existing and anticipated are the
same thing here, if I'm viewing this correctly.
I believe the current scenario should remain -
because there are great neighborhoods at
stake. These neighborhoods would suffer if
they were ripped up for commercial or if
commercial was placed right next to them.
Thank you.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Do not support alternative - too
much high density that
encroaches into established
neighborhoods and threatens
their neighborhood integrity.
A: Existing
Development
Southside should remain residential, as a
historical area this will be in jeopardy with
commercial development
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Loss of identity for Southside
Place
A: Existing
Development
If the buildout is done with rent by the room
single family homes, this area will be gone as
a desirable neighborhood.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
No, other than remodeling any
rent by the room homes into
something that a true single
family would want to live in.
A: Existing
Development
Always protect the heart of the old
neighborhoods.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
Page 466 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 144
A: Existing
Development
No, keep the neighborhoods protected and
never challenge this again.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
No, keep the neighborhoods
protected
A: Existing
Development
The southside historic area is one of the
nicest residential area in the city. These
alternative scenario seem foolish and short
sighted.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
I envision maintaining the
integrity of this residential
neighborhood. This is some of
the most expensive and sought
after real estate in town. Why is
the city even considering these
alternative
A: Existing
Development
My wife and I oppose the redevelopment of
the southside neighborhood into a
commercial development.
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Has lot development been looking at creating
mini parks within the historic area instead of
trying to build houses that fit the historical
area?
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
N/A C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Preserves historic area of city while allowing
for good access to campus.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Keeping the neighborhood conservation
makes more sense than reclassifying a
couple of pieces of it.
A: Existing
Development
Convert the current
neighborhood conservation to
neighborhood center and/or
mixed residential.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
They are all very similar, chose B because it
had the largest percentage of single family
units
B: Anticipated
Scenario
See comment at lower left. C: Alternative
Scenario
No need for office space (only
small amount) at this location.
Let's put office with supporting
uses to facilitate walk
connections with those uses.
CSISD offices are far way so
some here would be inefficient.
Too small for A&M.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
leave this area historical and single homes A: Existing
Development,
B: Anticipated
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
makes the most since.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
This scenario combines best with the historic
area.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
This helps protect one of the older, historic
neighborhoods in town and will hopefully
allow it to develop much like the Lee and
Pershing areas. One thing I cannot tell is
where the cut-off to the south is. Should this
be expanded further?
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Having a historic district would be awesome
and adding to that it’d be cool to have a
Museum of some kind there honoring the
history and growth of college station over the
years as well as TAMU.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Page 467 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 145
B: Anticipated
Scenario
It is critical to preserve the HISTORICAL
character of this neighborhood.
The city will probably receive LESS revenue
from Scenario C than Scenario B.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
It is critical to preserve the HISTORICAL
nature of this neighborhood.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
It keeps the integrity of the neighborhood
while allowing for new development.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
We should keep with the southside plan C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I have friends that live in this area and they
would like less dense development along
Texas
A: Existing
Development
B: Anticipated
Scenario
There is so little difference between these
three scenarios. For all the grief and stress it
caused residents, I wish it were just not
included.
Land this close to the university
should welcome students.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Stick with the Southside Plan. Many
compromises and a lot of effort was spent
getting buy in from the residents of
Southside. There are many historical homes
that need to be protected in this area. This
area has high property values and produces
a good amount of property tax revenue with
out having to include the commercialization
of this area.
A: Existing
Development,
C: Alternative
Scenario
Stick with the Southside Plan
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Allows for modest change only. C: Alternative
Scenario
Should not allow the major
change in South Side as
indicated by this plan. There is
no significant gain and will lose
significant value of high end
residential in this area directly
across from campus. The
residential green space is
valuable from and aesthetic
point of view along George Bush
Drive.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
The Alternative Scenario would have
devastating consequences for the historic
southside. This proposal should never have
been put on the table, as members of the
Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Committee
asked.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Neighborhood conservation should be of the
utmost importance.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Slight increase in single family housing. C: Alternative
Scenario
Too much apartment
development in area already
congested close to campus.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Does not include new commercial
development .
C: Alternative
Scenario
The alternative jeopardizes
neighborhood integrity by
allowing for possible future
commercial development. I also
note the increased anticipated
water usage.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Would be nice addition without crowding.
Want single family homes.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Page 468 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 146
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Good
B: Anticipated
Scenario
The Southside and Post Oak subdivisions are
historically significant and have become
some of the most valuable areas of the City,
bringing in substantial annual taxes. Brison
Park and the religious properties adjacent to
Dexter and George Bush are a fine
complement to Texas A&M University plans
along George Bush.
C: Alternative
Scenario
NO, the conservation of these
areas will maintain a significant
area of the City's heritage, some
of its best and earliest residential
development, provide a fitting
complement to the university
development to the north. The
area should be promoted and
celebrated as much as areas
adjacent to Rice University in
Houston, and areas like Swiss
Avenue in Dallas. The home I
sold for $65,000 in 1988 is on the
market today for $750,000! It
was designed by former mayor
Ernest Langford, who would be
as surprised as I am!
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Less commercial and more residential. C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Commercial expansion should be allowed,
but limited
C: Alternative
Scenario
The overall market isn’t large
enough for a commercial
expansion in this whole area
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Liked it better than the alternative. C: Alternative
Scenario
We do not need more housing in
BCS
B: Anticipated
Scenario
The Alternative Scenario will make TAMU will
feel like a gigantic community college instead
of the oldest land grant university in Texas.
It is essential for the academic soul of
Aggieland that a quiet historic residential
area remain next to the University as
"professor" housing.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
the character of the older houses needs to
be maintained. it is one older area that has
been well-kept, and that is rare for any
community. don't mess with a good thing.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Keep students close to the school, easy
transportation
B: Anticipated
Scenario
good. C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
It makes no changes to the existing land uses
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Will this scenario have sidewalks?
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Preserving the single-family neighborhood
aspect without office build up is more
appealing to me.
C: Alternative
Scenario
B: Anticipated
Scenario
like the types and numbers of residental C: Alternative
Scenario
not really
B: Anticipated
Scenario
absolutely do not favor changing these old
homes into brownstones or any other
modern construction, in any small part. I am
familiar with this area, not because I can
afford any of the homes or will ever see the
inside, but they are beautiful and have
character and history. please don't change
C: Alternative
Scenario
Fix up the shopping area there in
red, on Texas avenue, make it an
urban mix. But please leave
those old homes and big trees
alone.
Page 469 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 147
this area. Go elsewhere to "improve". This
area is special and unique as it is.
C: Alternative
Scenario
The concepts are attractive. This only works
if indeed what is constructed is as
depicted...brownstone style and true
neighborhood center.
C: Alternative
Scenario
This would allow for more student housing
near the university.
C: Alternative
Scenario
It looks modern but aligns with the
neighborhood conservation look and feel.
C: Alternative
Scenario
alternative
C: Alternative
Scenario
I understand a bunch of old Aggies don't
want their old homes going away, but this is
great strip and some of it needs to be
commercial.
Not a big deal either way.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I like the thought of creating more historical
looking homes
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative
Scenario
Again, we need community or village areas
that tie a section of the city to its populous.
A: Existing
Development
I like the neighborhood center. I
think it needs to be bigger in this
area, possibly offer food for
game day.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Best of the three options Switch land use for the two
changes on the Alternative plan.
Mixed residential near campus
and Neighborhood Center near
the George Bush/ Texas
Intersection
C: Alternative
Scenario
There is barely any change - support any new
option to incentivize increased commercial
tax base and to create a more attractive
commercial area at the corner of a major
entry point. it's ugly right now.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Allows for some neat retail / restaurant
development across from campus
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Looks good
C: Alternative
Scenario
I like the addition of a neighborhood center
across from Kyle field. Plus, adding mixed
housing along George bush is nice.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative
Scenario
I think either the Anticipated and Alternative
plans are good options.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Bringing this area up to date with pleasant
scenery and neighborhood would so improve
the current view.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative
Scenario
Most of the residential is kept, but a few
mixed for apartments is added.
A: Existing
Development
More mixed in this area. and Fix
roads.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Adding more housing units next to campus
will assist students and staff.
A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative
Scenario
The brownstone style homes in the photo
used for the mixed residential zone are
gorgeous. I like the idea of old town style in
the neighborhood.
A: Existing
Development,
B: Anticipated
Scenario
I think it would be preferable to
continue the brownstone style
mixed residential zone along
George Bush Dr. (On the
otherside of the school). Also,
more greenery/trees along the
side walk for shade would be
helpful. Maybe greenery could
separate the walking
area/sidewalk from George
Bush Dr. somewhat, since that
road is extremely busy, noisy,
and hot. A large sidewalk would
Page 470 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 148
be nice as well, since college and
highschool students would be
using it often.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I would support the Alternative because it
preserves the historical nature of the area
but adds some formal elements like the
neighborhood center and mixed residential.
Very important would be the planned
aesthetic maintaining the historic personality
of the area.
C: Alternative
Scenario
This scenario is a realistic redevelopment
idea and economics could drive it over the
next 10 years.
A: Existing
Development
This area should transition and if
so would dramatically improve
the community.
C: Alternative
Scenario
A very interesting idea. Could be attractive to
new faculty to live in a redeveloped area here
C: Alternative
Scenario
Na B: Anticipated
Scenario
Na
C: Alternative
Scenario
Bush is becoming too busy with traffic to
continue being a viable option for homes. It's
also dangerous for people living there. I'd
much rather see some nice retail that caters
to visitors to campus and the neighborhood.
A: Existing
Development,
B: Anticipated
Scenario
C: Alternative
Scenario
The alternative scenario makes more sense.
Low density single family does not belong on
George Bush Drive.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Alternative scenario allows for some
accommodation of development needs on
this side of campus, especially in the
underdeveloped western section, while
keeping things mostly the same. Anticipate
fierce resistance from the residents, though.
C: Alternative
Scenario
neighborhood center across from Kyle field
will provide good opportunities
C: Alternative
Scenario
this is minor change to a sensitive area of
town - these proposed changes would
enhance not take away from this area
the area to east end of GB
should be redeveloped into
brownstones - much nicer than
the aging SFR there today
C: Alternative
Scenario
Because it is a better way.
C: Alternative
Scenario
should have more commercial / urban B: Anticipated
Scenario
the entire George Bush frontage
should be commercial / urban.
C: Alternative
Scenario
This could revitalize parts of Southside that
are now overrun with rentals while
maintaining the character of the family
homes there. Love the Brownstones.
A: Existing
Development,
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Will probably be controversial
for Southside neighborhood, but
this area would be a fantastic
draw for everyone with the
Alternative plan.
C: Alternative
Scenario
not much changing in my view
C: Alternative
Scenario
Higher density across from TAMU better.
C: Alternative
Scenario
I believe the alternative scenic might spur on
new redevelopment but this new zoning
classification should be flexible and able to
adapt to the changes in the market.
All George Bush frontage should
be General Commercial.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Like the brownstone homes as well as urban
center so long as current homes are not
taken. Just use the vacant lots like you are
suggesting. As an overall theme, to ALL of my
Page 471 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 149
responses: keep the homeless out of College
Station. The homelessness problem was one
of the major issues that drove my family and
me out of Houston.
C: Alternative
Scenario
this scenario provides for some
redevelopment. Redevelopment of the land
on George Bush Drive to be more dense and
urban should be highly encouraged, this
corridor may be a location that vertical mixed
use could have some success
A: Existing
Development
yes
C: Alternative
Scenario
There needs to be some commercial or
urban density along GBD.
A: Existing
Development,
B: Anticipated
Scenario, C:
Alternative
Scenario
C: Alternative
Scenario
The brownstone homes look very nice. A: Existing
Development
C: Alternative
Scenario
I think adding the mixed res along George
Bush again is just painted the land use place
to match existing redevelopments, so it's
basically already in place.
I would be worried about the neighborhood
center area taking access to Old Jersey.
Seems like it would create a large contrast as
well between brand new redevelopment and
neighborhood conservation areas since the
street is so small.
But do think along any of our major roads
should be some type of commercial
development.
C: Alternative
Scenario
Alternative scenario maintains the overall
natural setup of the area with minimal to no
degradation.
B: Anticipated
Scenario
Preserve the natural setting and
arwas
C: Alternative
Scenario
Increased sales tax revenue, more jobs, more
appropriate land use mix with residential
compatible with historic area
A: Existing
Development
alternative scenario
C: Alternative
Scenario
I'd like to see a place for the development
that wants to occur to happen. Attempting to
defend the residential developments along
Bush seems pointless.
Other Input – Comments on the themes
Theme Reactions
Which themes would you consider a priority? Please explain why. Is there anything missing from
this list that should be included? Maintaining the small-town feel but
with city amenities. Making sure that
and changes made, are not just for
the now but for the future (building
a school but not considering or
working on road structure at the
same time).
Page 472 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 150
Creating stronger sense of place. Not sure this is the correct category but the
problem is actual adhering to the plan developed. I served on P&Z in the 90’s and
the Plan was always the guiding force and basically drove the future decision
because the what people relied upon when making their personal and business
decisions. Since that time, in my opinion, council and boards have succumbed to
growth and development to easily and now take action like the Plan is simply a
“guide” that can be easily manipulated. Actually heard those words in council
meetings where decisions were made because properties were in the “fringes” of
developed areas so the Plan in place is changed to accommodate. This mind set
leads to movement of the fringe until no fringe is left and the property has
changed character. Also, with the “new normal” staff and planning needs to focus
on how And if City character will change ie erosion of University culture, traditions
and pageantry of sports, online classes leading to change “Ags” coming back here
to retire cause never were tied to being here, fear of parents placing kids in
dorms/apts with stack housing if no cure for virus etc. lots of collateral damage
and change associated with 2020.
Also, believe City is missing opportunity to develop alternative transportation ie as
simple as putting a one track of light rail system down Texas avenue from Tower
Point to downtown Bryan that the future could build spurs off of if need be.
Lesson is AUSTIN that decided not to do this 40 years ago
Quality of life, amenities, “things to do”:
#1 this city needs at least 1 new pool! With the closure of Thomas park pool the
crowded chaos of Bee Creek is almost unbearable, And young children in the
community are being short changed on their ability to learn to swim! We need
enough space for swimming lessons every summer so that every child in this town
is given that opportunity. it’s a life skill! And the majority of parents will not have
the means or resources to provide that without the public pools and instruction
Building a more complete transportation system: A more complete transportation
system is probably the only way to solve congestion in some areas, but making the
entire city more bike-able or walk-able would be even better.
Maintaining fiscally responsible growth: This is a no-brainer.
Addressing environmental resiliency and “green” initiatives: For the health of the
community and the world, we should always be moving toward a "greener" world.
Creating a more actionable, strategic, and user-friendly Plan: Being able to
understand any plans for the city is necessary for the peoples who live here and
may encourage help through volunteer efforts.
Expanding Housing choices: But only if this means more affordable housing. This
is a college town after all, and students have a hard enough time affording tuition.
I would consider these six themes a priority for me, with the top three the most
important:
1. Addressing environmental resiliency and “green” initiatives
a. Expanding areas for wildlife.
i. One place that I can think of that would benefit from expanding in greenery is
along the Wolf Pen Creek Trail, especially the North-East section along Holleman
Dr. (Search these Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.622449, -96.300153) and (Search
these Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.620347, -96.302387)
b. More butterfly gardens!
c. Improving/adding recycling facilities.
Seeking more input and benefits for
underrepresented populations.
Page 473 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 151
i. There are not enough locations to drop off recycling.
ii. Students at apartments or without cars have little choice when it comes to
recycling.
iii. Maybe there could be funding programs that could encourage apartment
complexes to start recycling.
d. Community Garden
i. There could be several community gardens, but one good location might be
along Bee Creek Trail, near the volleyball court south of the Adamson lagoon Pool
(Search these Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.600961, -96.309557).
e. Along the Wolf Pen Creek water way, there needs to be appropriate landscaping
for erosion control. (Search these Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.618078, -
96.306218)
f. More drought tolerant, native landscaping in general
g. Funding programs or other incentives for solar panels on houses, apartments,
or businesses.
2. Building a more complete transportation system
a. I would like to see College Station become a more bikeable and walkable city.
b. Identify and connect incomplete bike lanes and sidewalks.
i. By making it easier for others to get around without cars, that will reduce the
number of vehicles on the road, therefore reducing traffic for everyone.
ii. Also, with less vehicles on the road, we can reduce air pollution, water pollution,
and noise pollution.
iii. Holleman Drive has an incomplete bike lane for example. (Search these
Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.608229, -96.320204)
iv. It would be nice if there was a sidewalk along Village Dr., especially since it’s
next to Village Drive Kinder Care (Daycare center). I worry a lot that the parents
and children have to walk on the road to get to the daycare, especially since
people drive way too fast down that road. (Search these Coordinates in Google
Maps: 30.610474, -96.321202)
c. Public transportation provides these same benefits as well.
i. It would be nice to have more public buses with more routes/stops. It’s difficult
getting places using the buses with the current number of routes/stops.
d. Crosswalks at bus stops.
i. People are crossing at the bus stops either way, and in some cases, it’s
dangerous. Cars pull around buses that are letting people off (even if it means
pulling into the turning lane and playing chicken with oncoming traffic). Crosswalks
would at least make it safer for pedestrians.
ii. One place for a possible crosswalk would be next to the HEB along Holleman Dr.
(Search these Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.611889, -96.318480)
Page 474 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 152
e. More bike racks everywhere, but especially at shopping centers.
f. With an expanding city population, we cannot keep up with traffic and parking
space by making roads and parking lots bigger. I think our city would really benefit
from taking ideas from walkable cities that attract a lot of tourism and people in
general. My favorite cities have tons of hole-in-the-wall style shops along
walkways. The buildings don’t have to be huge and it’s isolated from the noise of
car traffic.
3. Expanding housing choices
a. The support staff at Texas A&M University don’t have enough affordable
housing options nearby.
b. For more information on those at A&M that are being overlooked for housing,
check out or contact the REACH project.
4. Improving coordination between the City and University
a. I know that faculty and students--such as myself--would be more than happy to
coordinate with the city of College Station to benefit our community using our
knowledge and expertise. I just spoke with a Texas A&M professor today that is
looking to test a software next year that helps the user understand the downfalls
of value engineering and improper design decisions in housing construction. For
example, homeowners can see how pitch, orientation, and material of roofing
impacts energy consumption.
b. The REACH project mentioned above was created by two Aggies.
5. Creating a more actionable, strategic, and user-friendly Plan
a. This theme would help faculty, students, and community members understand
how to help. I know many people that would love to provide a helping hand and
input, but don’t know how to or whether that input is welcome.
b. There is a lot of jargon used throughout this Next10 workshop. It would be
helpful if jargon was avoided or if definitions were given and easily accessible
throughout the process.
6. Encouraging infill and redevelopment in strategic location
a. I’ve noticed areas in this city can feel like parking lot deserts. For example, at the
end of Wolf Pen Creek Trail (Search these Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.622832,
-96.298932), there is a mostly empty parking lot, except for Cavender’s Boot City. I
think it would be great if this lot could have more areas for small businesses and
an outdoor seating/eating area. It’s just kind of disappointing to have this beautiful
park trail not end at an area where I might be able to eat, study, or relax.
b. The same goes for the start of the Wolf Pen Creek Trail (Search these
Coordinates in Google Maps: 30.616742, -96.315519). There is a small spot for
eating, but next to it is mainly another giant parking lot (other than a Fazoli’s and
Church/Coffeehouse). It would be nice if this parking lot could have areas for small
businesses so you could do something before or after a bike ride or walk. Rudy’s
Bar-BQ and Ozona Grill are nice for a sit-down, but I was imagining food/coffee to
grab or something to browse while walking around (other than fast-food). It’s only
worth while walking around though if the area is pleasant though.
c. Leach Teaching Gardens and The Gardens at Texas A&M university are some of
Page 475 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 153
my favorite places to walk and sit for lunch. It would be great if there were more
areas throughout the city that took inspiration from these gardens.
1. Creating a stronger sense of place.
2. Encouraging infill and redevelopment in strategic locations.
3. Focusing on quality of life, amenities, and “things to do”.
Because the students have A&M and north gate, but there isn’t a great area like a
downtown to hangout as adults. No real bar district. No established downtown
area. We need more places like Century Square but bigger. Need more breweries
too. What about water parks? What Bryan is doing with the old golf course is a
good start for the BCS area. That top golf kinda place is going to be cool. Like do
we really need anymore apartment complexes?
4. Building a more complete transportation system
How about another airport or move Easterwood as it is too close to town and
doesn’t allow expansion towards the west side of town. It needs to move to like
RELLIS campus or something.
What about the Texas bullet train? Haven’t seen anything about how that impacts
(good or bad) BCS area?
Creating a stronger sense of place. Everything revolves around the college. I thing
we need more family inclusive venues.
Maintaining fiscally responsible growth. We as a city should be headhunting major
companies to bring jobs and tax base to our city. Tesla is one. I would have our
planning people in active talks with Elon Musk now! I think we would be a perfect
fit with Tesla.
Improving coordination with city and university. There is an us and them feel
here. The two entities need to improve and foster relationships and share
projects to make both of us stronger and resilient.
Protecting the character of established stable neighborhoods. Insure landlords maintain property,
and landscaping.
Expanding house choices, Focusing on quality of life amenities and things to do,
and addressing environmental resiliency and green initiatives.
Protecting established neighborhoods.
Quality of life- a downtown. Better restaurants. More restaurants.
fill- leave untouched land as green space.
With regards to infill, note of the
current wooded areas need to be
made into parks, not more auto part
stores like in 2818 and the bypass.
There’s loads of empty places along
University and Texas, but instead
some of the prettiest land, which
backs right to Central Park was
rezone for commercial. In six
months all those will go out of
business and we’ll have more
abandoned infrastructure when the
gorgeous land could have been
preserved.
1. Building a more complete transportation system- There has to be more
connectivity and transit oriented development that incorporates the local transit
system of Brazos Transit District and the Texas A&M buses.
2. Expanding housing choices- I am a young professional and it is important to
diversify housing options that arent just aimed for students.
Page 476 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 154
Addressing environmental resiliency and green initiatives-I believe green initiatives
should be incorporated into new design as well as existing locations like lakes and
ponds around the city. Majority of these areas are heavily polluted.
1. Focusing on quality of life, amenities, and things to do.
2. Creating a stronger sense of place
3. building a more complete transportation system
Stop building/expanding new roads -
focus on improving and maintaining
current infrastructure.
Building a more complete transportation system
Creating a more actionable, strategic, and user-friendly Plan
Encouraging infill and redevelopment in strategic locations
The Protecting of Estatblished Neighborhoods is a ruse by which you are STEALING
property rights from your constituents. If I purchased the property and it was not
"protected" from rentals then I understood the property next door may be rented.
You are now allowing for neighbors to steal my right to use my property in a lawful
and reasonable manner. This is fascist and should not be tolerated. I hope
someone sues the city and wins. I will certainly support them.
Creating a stronger sense of place
Be more inclusive (from a diversity and inclusion standpoint) in advertising,
marketing, and offerings in CS.
encourage infill and redevelopment not inhibit growth / economic
development
Building a more complete transportation system.
This is most important to me and my family because walking, a bike, and one car
are the transportation options available to us. If buses were cheaper and easier to
understand, I’d consider using them. Not at this time. More bike infrastructure is
always welcome! It is my preferred mode of travel for me and my kids.
Please make sure the housing
choices are affordable and not more
expensive houses and expensive
multi family developments. Our
family needed something that was
below $1000 in a mortgage and it
was difficult to find a house in that
price range. But I do want to note we
were incredibly grateful for the
down payment assistance
program!!! Without it our goal
would’ve been even more difficult to
achieve!!
I hope that when you are assessing all of the areas that you will be sure to
consider the existing neighborhoods and the impact of your decisions on them.
Many neighborhoods have suffered negative impacts from commercial
development both within them and encroaching around them. Thank you.
I think this is a strong list of
considerations and I can't think of
anything else you might add.
-Protecting the character of established stable neighborhoods: By maintaining the
character of established areas, not just neighborhoods, allows long time residents
a feeling of home, as well as not pricing them out of their residences due to
increases in property values that come with replacing older housing with brand
new construction.
New housing in older neighborhoods change more than just the visual aesthetics;
it also the culture. By protecting this neighborhood you are by default protecting
the community the residents have created.
-Addressing environmental resiliency and “green” initiatives: because climate
change is real and also this would put a demand for new jobs that goes with new
technology while creating a more healthy economy.
Page 477 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 155
Established neighborhood character protection
Focusing on quality of life, amenities, and "things to do"
Not that I can see.
Focusing on quality of life, amenities, and “things to do”, Building a more complete
transportation system, Expanding housing choices. These are a lot of the issues
that have arisen with this pandemic. Our city needs to be more livable and
inclusive. We need different options for broadband access, more open spaces,
and more walking and biking paths. Now more than ever, people need affordable
housing, and they also want more parks, different modes of transportation, and
amenities aside from dine-in restaurants and bars.
Other Input – Exit questionnaire responses
1. How did you hear about
The Next 10?
Responses Percent
Word of Mouth / Personal Invitation 83 33%
Poster / Flyer 3 1%
Online News 33 13%
Community Event / Presentation /
Organization
29 12%
Newspaper Article / Ad 15 6%
Social Media (Facebook / Twitter) 32 13%
Email from City 39 15%
The NEXT 10 / City website 18 7%
Other 0 0%
Total Responses 252 100%
2. Did you participate in any
of the in-person workshops or
online activities for The Next
10 between July - October
2019?
Responses Percent
Yes 73 43%
No 95 57%
Total 168 100%
3. Are you: Responses Percent ACS
Male 86 51% 51%
Female 74 44% 49%
Prefer not to answer 8 5%
Total 168 100%
Page 478 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 156
4. Which race / ethnicity groups
do you most closely identify
with?
Responses Percent ACS
Asian 1 1% 10%
Black / African American 1 1% 8%
White / caucasian 148 90% 78%
Latino 5 3% 15%
Two or more 6 4% 2%
Other 3 2% 2%
Total 164 100%
5. What is your age? Responses Percent ACS (Total Pop.)
<18 0 0% 17%
18-24 years 5 3% 41%
25-34 years 21 13% 15%
35-44 years 26 16% 9%
45-54 years 26 16% 7%
55-64 years 40 24% 6%
65 or over 46 28% 6%
Total 164 100%
6. Are you a student that
attends Blinn College or Texas
A&M University?
Responses Percent
Yes 3 2%
Blinn College 0 0%
Texas A&M University 3 100%
No 164 98%
Total 167 100%
7. What is your highest
level of education?
Responses Percent ACS
Less than a high school diploma 0 0% 6%
Completed high school 2 1% 13%
Some college / technical 11 7% 19%
Completed technical school 4 2% 7%
Graduated college 65 39% 29%
Graduate / advanced degree 85 51% 27%
Total 167 100%
Page 479 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 157
8. How long have you lived in
College Station?
Responses Percent
< 3 years 12 7%
3 - 6 years 15 9%
7 - 10 years 17 10%
11 – 20 years 38 22%
21 - 30 years 27 16%
30+ years 49 29%
Live outside the city limits 11 7%
Total 169 100%
9. Do you work within the
City of College Station?
Responses Percent
Yes 97 58%
No 70 42%
Total 167 100%
10. Do you own or rent
property within the City
limits?
Responses Percent
Own 130 78%
Rent 19 11%
Live outside the city limits 18 11%
Total 167 100%
11. Please tell us about your annual
household income: *This information
will be cross referenced with the Census
data for College Station to ensure we
have representative input from the
community, answers are anonymous
and used for research purposes only.
Responses Percent ACS
Less than $10,000 1 1% 16%
$10,000 to $14,999 1 1% 7%
$15,000 to $24,999 4 3% 13%
$25,000 to $34,999 2 1% 10%
$35,000 to $49,999 9 6% 12%
$50,000 to $74,999 16 10% 13%
$75,000 to $99,999 29 18% 10%
$100,000 + 95 61% 20%
Total 157 100%
Page 480 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 158
13. Additional Comments (optional)
The introductory videos were great.
I would prefer to have larger, overall questions asked such as Do you favor more protection of General Suburban or less?
Do you favor more Natural Areas preserved or less? Do you favor more parks and greenways? 'The maps given in Part 1
are somewhat difficult to read and most citizens do not have working definitions of all of these areas to compare but if
given a definition and then asked for preferences I think more would respond more accurately.
I lived in College Station from 1966 until 1992, then we moved west of Wellborn Rd., but within the CS school district,
where our daughter attended Rock Prairie Elem., Oakwood and A&M Consolidated HS. I worked in College Station for over
25 years.
No comments.
The street names on the maps in the survey are extremely difficult to read. I found I needed to cross reference the map
with a Google street map to identify the area.
The building height metric for the areas seems a little misleading. For instance, an average height of 5 stories could be
achieved with a uniform mix of 4-6 story buildings, or 99% of 1 story buildings with 1 high rise. The latter may be
unacceptable for some areas.
Thanks for planning our City's growth!
Would love to participate in the planning process. Im a current Graduate planning student.
Thanks for taking public comments into consideration.
I have lived in College Station for nearly 65 years and have lived in 4 different subdivisions and I believe it is a great place
to live. The development of this town means a lot to me. It has been disappointing to me to see how some of the growth
has been allowed to develop without proper transportation routes. A good example is the area bordered by Rock Prairie,
Holloman, Wellborn Road, and Harvey Mitchell. The city should have never allowed that to develop without more entrance
and exit points. That is poor city planning. There have been some good things things that have occurred through previous
planning processes, but the foresight to require proper transportation routes is not one of the strong points, in my
opinion.
CPEC member
I live in Bryan. I love the alternative ideas that are being pitched here. Especially the ones around A&M. If those types of
developments were made over the next 10 years, I know that the families & students of college station would love them.
Also, eliminate parking minimums (parking lots are pretty arbitrary, waste land and are ugly too look at).
I have an incontinent handicapped child and I wish there was more consideration in regards to accessibility at parks,
businesses and public areas, particularly access to bathrooms with adult-sized changing areas (for changing diapers). We
cannot leave our house for more than an our or two because there is nowhere to change my child (she is 10 and weighs 55
lbs - too big for baby changing tables). I also know there is a lack of living options for the handicapped population at any
age (larger doorways, accessible bathrooms, flat floor plans and accessible entrances). Students in CSISD's special
education program, TAMU's "Aggie Achieve" program and the number of elderly needing care is only increasing in this
community.
12. In what area of
College Station do you
live? (Locate your area
of residence on the Map
of College Station below)
A 66 40%
B 38 23%
C 31 19%
D 11 7%
Live outside the city limits 19 12%
Total 165 100%
Page 481 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 159
I recently moved back to College Station becasue of family and football. I owned a newspaper, The Press in B-CS before
selling out to the Eagle in 1989. I work out of my home for a newspaper/web site media company headquartered in
Brenham with 39 locations in Texas including every weekly newspaper between B-CS and Waco, except The Eagle.
thanks for all the work behind these scenarios
The comprehensive plan needs to be comprehensive. Areas where there is more growth, such as south of the City were
not part of this effort. The implications to roadways, water and waste water needs to be carefully analyzed City wide. Any
increases or decreases in density needs to be analyzed as they are tied to the impact fee rate determination. The
scenarios presented in my opinion should have their own neighborhood or district plan.
I work in College Station part time, my wife works here full time. We want to make it our permanent home and raise our
kids here. I work full time in Spring as a firefighter. I’d love to work here as a firefighter closer to home but I don’t see the
career options I have currently being present here either with our more growth and increased revenue streams and
budget increases to FD and PD
My son and his family live in zone C on your map. We are planning to move to zone C as well.
We are planning to relocate to College Station. My son and his family live in College Station. We plan to live in zone C and
lease office space near zone C as well.
We will be relocating from the Naperville IL area. The downtown area of Naperville should be looked at as an example of
an urban center. The city of Naperville did a great job of creating an attractive area with a river walk, parks, pavilions, etc...
and a number of small retail and office spaces mixed with restaurants/bars. It has become a destination for people from
surrounding cities as well.
The Village of Rosemont did something similar with their entertainment district. The city had purchased land for a casino,
but the casino license was later denied. It looked like they would be stuck with a large piece of land with no use as a result
of the loss of the casino. They decided to build an entertainment district with a movie theater, bowling alley, Joe's Live
concert venue, music hall/theatre, comedy club, hotel, numerous restaurants, and an outdoor area at the center for an ice
skating rink in the winter, and multiple events in the summer including free concerts, corn hole tournaments, etc... This
entertainment district has been tremendously successful and attracts people from a large footprint, generating significant
revenue for the Village. College Station is a little different in that the city is more of an island in terms of populated area. I
don't know the population statistics of surrounding areas, but it seems like the surrounding area is somewhat rural.
Would be good to look at other ways to draw people to College Station in addition to the University.
I am very supportive of this project. I work at A&M and just like the Campus Master Plan that was developed for the
growth and architecture of the campus, the City of College Station needs the same thing on a larger scale. If College
Station is to continue to be a desirable place to live, work, and raise children, we need to ensure that it has consistency of
usage areas instead of random pockets of diverse usage, and that we do not allow areas to be seen as "dead and dying";
i.e. prevent "urban decay" whether in commercial areas or multi-family residential areas.
An innovative solution is also needed for affordable housing. We have mobile home parks on South Texas Ave that
provide essential low-income housing but these would blend with the environment more if they were villages of equivalent
size cottages, etc. like the homes built for Habitat for Humanity. Just a thought.
Single family housing in town is under threat of development of the "stealth dorms" multi non-related housing model.
These houses have excessive parking and tend to produce excessive noise and nuisances.
The length and complexity of this survey is utterly absurd for general public use. Find someone who can translate "city-
planner-ese" into a language normal people can understand. Not my first experience with this.
This site demonstrates a lot of hard work on the part of many people so I thank you for your efforts to include us.
I think I messed up my choice for the area along north side of Harvey Road, but I could not find a way to edit after I
submitted it. But my comment is correct. I wanted the Alternative C, but may have clicked on the wrong button.
The lack of scenarios outside of the oldest sections of town was disturbing. This survey seemed to ignore the areas where
change is possible and where a majority of our residents live.
Leave residential areas alone. Develop the abandoned places along University
This town is growing, no doubt about it. I've seen too many apartments go up without any upgrades on roadways
servicing said apartments. If the planning does not seriously think about the increase in traffic that 10 years of growth will
produce, then you are missing out on those crucial infrastructure ammendments that can't be retrofitted after the fact. I
think that there should be a designated "bus lane for buses, bikes and ebikes" that quickly shuttles folks TO the university
in a timely fashion WITH an accompanying parking lot for commuters. In addition, we have plenty of apartment projects
implemented; single family homes lots are in short supply in CS, not in Bryan. The mid-cities house project is a joke. Tiny
Page 482 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 160
homes scrunched together with all the unsightly utility boxes in the front, narrow streets, narrow driveways. This place is
not the new home development that this town deserves.
Everyone I know was so excited over the new midtown area. Now, everyone is disgusted, embarrassed, and mad over
what is being built by D.R. Horton, so sad. Those cookie cutter shacare not what we thought was going to be built. Ugh.
Please preserve some of the small town living which still manages to exist here. I know change is inevitable but College
Station needs to preserve some areas which still have evidence of it's earlier homes and other buildings. Don't destroy this
in the name of growth. Spread the population density and growth outward.
Does not matter what the committee decides, the city will change whatever they want to. It is so much to do about
nothing because the last plan was never voted on by the members of the committee. Staff and consultants made the
ultimate plan, council approved it and then made whatever changes they wanted to.
Any new development in College Station needs to consider that college students do not make-up the majority of citizens
in our community. While it is admirable to want students to have places for fun and relaxation, in the years we have been
here we find that students are not opposed to travel to find these amenities. Having retail stores and restaurants within
walking distance is not essential to college life. To me it seems that having areas where families can feel safe and enjoy a
neighborhood along with their student residents is critical to a growing city.
Great work to all involved. This was a very intuitive and user-friendly process, with well-thought-out options and scenarios.
Excited to see what comes of it! Keep up the great work, College Station planning staff!
It is difficult to read where I am on this map. I live directly across from the campus on Lee Ave. It was the first paved street
in College Station south of the campus and the first 3 houses built south of the campus are on Lee Ave. I am hoping to
preserve the historical district since the council seems to ignore the importance of history in our city. I have already written
a letter to the city council detailing my concerns.
i have been very engaged in the city's planning process for many years
I hope you get some good responses to this survey. It is hard to get such a wide-ranging set of development proposals in
to an online instrument. This is about as good as I would have expected, but quite tricky navigate.
PS I have responded to the 2020 Census!
Received my PHT in 1953 at A&M.
Granddaughter is 4th generation Aggie.
Thank you for doing this. I hope if you don't have a strong response, you will consider keeping the workshop open for a
while. I didn't realize it was happening until a few days ago. I tried to share information with others, but I am betting a lot
of people will want to participate but don't know about it either. Thanks for all the effort on this. I am sure that it has
been a very long, stressful process. The planning team for the city is really great. Some of these new ideas are really
interesting. Too bad there is not a way to have had a Zoom meeting about this so we could have asked questions.
Living in a 1940’s house built by the family of current residents.
It would be nice to see one of these urban center / neighborhood center schemes 'work' before investing more in them.
Figure out traffic issues (or mass transit) before trying to make higher density/higher traffic areas.
Protected bike / pedestrian lane parallel with 6 will be a good start. a protected bike/pedestrian lane parallel to the RR
tracks would be very helpful. And then E-W connectors near university and harvey.
Long exercise. Not at all sure why these alternative scenarios were selected. Where is the interest in the developing parts
of the City? Where are the grand strategies for the long-term development of College Station? What do we want the
developing southern portion of the City to look like in ten or more years? How to we grow and not have traffic that looks
like Austin does today? How do we maintain quality access to TAMU? Surely with sound planning and a well-done Comp.
Plan we can maintain the current character of our city.
The work shops offered in 2019 were reported to be we are telling you "the way its going to be" rather than taking input
and evaluating the input for its subtance.
Live in South Brazos county but operate multiple businesses within the city.
I work in College Station but live in Bryan, close to Kurten
In evaluating the various scenarios, it is essential to gather the input from and try to build consensus with the residents (
owners) who live there.
We have a constant swing between pro- commercial/development/financial council members/candidates and hard line
Page 483 of 484
THE NEXT 10 | College Station, Texas 161
anti-development council members and candidates. We need to engender some civility, mutual respect and
statesmanship as these scenarios are explored. To the extent that staff can facilitate such, it may help us achieve a more
cohesive and widely supported comprehensive plan and respect for the process.
New stone signage coming into CS from Houston on TX Ave S. is very attractive but would be greatly enhanced with some
nice landscaping. Our parks are very nice and the median along Texas Ave is attractive. the sculptures and colorful foliage/
flowers are so inviting and a welcoming sight to all entering our fair city. Traffic is really a problem- We are always behind
the ball instead of anticipating problems and addressing them in a timely fashion.
The east and south areas next to TAMU should be high density urban areas so that students and faculty can live close to
where they spend the majority of their time. This would reduce traffic and infrastructure stresses and keep students out of
suburban neighborhoods.
Please whatever you do- do NOT turn College Station into Houston, TX (High crime, homeless camps everywhere, failing
public schools). We relocated to College Station (Mission Ranch Community) to flee the Houston problems. Also- Please
DO NOT overwhelm the city with mobile homes or with government housing- this unfortunately creates high crimes.
I would like everyone in College Station to think how they would feel if the city was to advertise the idea that their
neighborhood should no longer be allowed to exist as is but instead should be opened up to anyone and everyone to
make proposals on what they think your neighborhood should be like.
I completed the census the day it arrived. Thanks for your work on this, you don't have an easy job. Having lived here for
so long, I've seen a lot of changes, but the one that has the most impact on me as a home owner is the ruling allowing
commercial property, i.e rent-by-the-room homes, to be located within single family zoning. Our property value has
already declined because of their presence in our neighborhood, and our home has been our major lifetime investment.
We should have chosen more wisely.
Please follow with increased funding for the Parks' Aquatics Department to give more access to pools in the northern part
of College Station along with this increase in population density.
Please know I relocated from Houston to College Station to partially retire. I selected the city because it is safe, clean and
beautiful. Please ensure homeless areas DO NOT sprout up in this city. I hate to sound so negative- but I have lived in a city
where All city officials turned their eye to the destruction that homeless camps bring to a city. Thank you for this
opportunity.
Thanks for doing this. This is a very well done website. And i like the ideas you're offering for the future - even the ones I
didn’t like the best!
CS will be a better place in the future because of your efforts!
I hope you received all my responses - for some reason on the evaluation of the 6 areas - I completed 4 on one page and 2
on another - so I'm not sure if they all landed properly. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to participate in this
process.
College Station needs to preserve both green spaces and historic districts around TAMU. Planners should focus on
improving ingress/egress to TAMU from HW6 and HW2818. Much improvements have been made over the years but the
Bush/Texas intersection is a real nightmare.
Thank you for gathering input from the community and thank you for all the time an effort that went into this survey. I
realize this is a difficult process with lots of competing voices. I have lived in CS for 38 years. The development that
started in the early 90's added to the quality of life in CS at first. However, it is completely out of control and our quality of
life has plummeted over the last 20 years. Instead of minimal traffic, almost no crime, lots of "breathing room" to get
around the city, and lots of peaceful spots/green space/pastures/etc, we have absurd traffic, lots of crime, no "breathing
room" to get around the city, and every inch of green grass is being turned into concrete. Other than widening Texas
many years ago, and widening Wellborn Rd. many years ago, the city has not kept up with adjusting roads/adding
lanes/etc to accomodate the new and heavy traffic patterns that have resulted from overdevelopment. We are overbuilt in
terms of rental property and apartment buildings, and we do not need more restaurants and shops. The investors that
want to continue to build here do not live here and do not care about our quality of life. Please get control of the growth!
I’m a nurse, in private duty. My patient is in far north Bryan and that is where I go 99 percent of the time. But my office is in
College Station, near 6 and Emerald Parkway. So, I didn't know how to answer that. :)
I am very opposed converting residential near George Bush Dr.
I don't know if I chose question #12 ("In what area of College Station do you live? (Locate your area of residence on the
Map of College Station below)" ).
Converting the southside residential district to commercial would be as foolish as if the Downtown Bryan area had allowed
bingo halls and pawn shops.
Page 484 of 484