HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3354 - Ordinance - 06/23/2011
ORDINANCE NO. 20':335
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ADOPTING THE EASTGATE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY UNIVERSITY
DRIVE EAST, TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH, DOMINIK DRIVE, AND MUNSON AVENUE;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND
CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1: That the College Station Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by adding a new
section B.12, the Eastgate Neighborhood Plan, as duly adopted herein and as
incorporated into such Comprehensive Plan by reference thereto as if recited in
full and as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PART 2: That the City Council of the City of College Station hereby adopts the Eastgate
Neighborhood Plan as set out in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
PART 3: That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or
unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining
provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in fill force and
effect.
PART 4: That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 23`d day of June, 2011.
ATT ST: APPROVED:
City Secretary ayor ` Yd j-z'QT j
APP D:
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 2011 33 "~5Lli Page 2
EXHIBIT "A"
A. Comprehensive Plan
The College Station Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 3186) is hereby adopted and
consists of the following:
1. Existing Conditions;
2. Introduction;
3. Community Character;
4. Neighborhood Integrity;
5. Economic Development;
6. Parks, Greenways & the Arts;
7. Transportation;
8. Municipal Services & Community Facilities; and
9. Growth Management and Capacity.
B. Master Plans
The following Master Plans are hereby adopted and made a part of the College Station
Comprehensive Plan:
1. The Northgate Redevelopment Plan dated November 1996;
2. The Revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan dated 1998;
3. Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan dated July 2003;
4. East College Station Transportation Study dated May 2005;
5. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan dated May 2005;
6. Park Land Dedication Neighborhood Park Zones Map dated January 2009;
7. Park Land Dedication Community Park Zones map dated April 2009;
8. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan dated January 2010;
9. Central College Station Neighborhood Plan dated June 2010;
10. Water System Master Plan dated August 2010;
11. Wastewater Master Plan dated June 2011; and
12. Eastgate Neighborhood Plan dated June 2011.
C. Miscellaneous Amendments
The following miscellaneous amendments to the College Station Comprehensive Plan are
as follows:
1. Future Land Use and Character Map Amendment:
a. 301 Southwest Parkway - Ordinance 3255, dated July 2010.
Q a
ORDINANCE NO. 2Ol I - 335.9 Page 3
D. General
1. Conflict. All parts of the College Station Comprehensive Plan and any amendments
thereto shall be harmonized where possible to give effect to all. Only in the event of
an irreconcilable conflict shall the later adopted ordinance prevail and then only to
the extent necessary to avoid such conflict. Ordinances adopted at the same city
council meeting without reference to another such ordinance shall be harmonized, if
possible, so that effect may be given to each.
2. Purpose. The Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a guide for growth and
development for the entire City and its extra-territorial jurisdiction C'ETY. The
College Station Comprehensive Plan depicts generalized locations of proposed future
land-uses, including thoroughfares, bikeways, pedestrian ways, parks, greenways,
and waterlines that are subject to modification by the City to fit local conditions and
budget constraints.
3. General nature of Future Land Use and Character. The College Station
Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Future Land Use and Character Map found in
A.3 above and any adopted amendments thereto, shall not be nor considered a
zoning map, shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning boundaries
and shall not be site or parcel specific but shall be used to illustrate generalized
locations.
4. General nature of College Station Comprehensive Plan. The College Station
Comprehensive Plan, including the Thoroughfare Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan, Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, Water System
Master Plan and any additions, amendments, master plans and subcategories
thereto depict same in generalized terms including future locations; and are subject
to modifications by the City to fit local conditions, budget constraints, cost
participation, and right-of-way availability that warrant further refinement as
development occurs. Linear routes such as bikeways, greenways, thoroughfares,
pedestrian ways, waterlines and sewer lines that are a part of the College Station
Comprehensive Plan may be relocated by the City 1,000 feet from the locations
shown in the Plan without being considered an amendment thereto.
5. Reference. The term College Station Comprehensive Plan includes all of the above
in its entirety as if presented in full herein, and as same may from time to time be
amended.
ORDINANCE NO. 201 ".'~J`4 `'r Page 4
EXHIBIT "B"
EASTGATE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
EXHIBIT B
i
ti.
Eastgate
Neighborhood
7
Plan
tee?
Adopted:
2011-2018
tR
1~
Now
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E
/ 11~
'xa 4 YY F
NEIGHBORHOOD WAWMIMM ~,C u' 41 ' 1;41
{ x .u*-y e t rP`S
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & ZONING CU1~t;,~lVt ra
Nancy Berry, Mayor Scott Shafer, Choi-
Blanche Brick, Place 1 Mike Ashfield
Jess Fields, Place 2 Craig Hal
Karl Mooney, Place 3 Bo Miles
Katy-Marie Lyles, Place 4 Doug Slcr.-,k
Julie Schultz, Place 5 Hugh Steo,r,_
David Ruesink, Place 6 Jodi Wari-!
FORMER CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION
John Crompton David Neeley, City Mc~
Dennis Malor
Jana McMilk-
NEIGHBOPHOOD i:ESOURCE TEf=.?,'t
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND
GREENWAYS ADVISORY BOARD David Boatcallie
Sherry Ellison, Acting Chair Marcus Ken F Cope!, n
Marcy Halterman-Cox Quint Foster
Alan King HunterGood~,,in
David Russell Mildred Martin
Greg Stiles Leslie Miller
Jeff Young Stephen Mi', Kam Owen:_
David Sahr
Ben Spel
Hugh Stearns, P&L D _sur
The e
• individuals • contributed the
Tres Watson
preparation • a adoption of this document: Brooke Woodruff
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROJECT TEAM
Jason Schubert, AICP, Senior Planner - Project Mana,, --Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director
Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manage!
Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Coordinator
Barbara Moore, Neighborhood Services Cooed nc~ior
Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
Lindsay Kramer, AICP, Senior Plal
Michael Trevino, GIS Technic, r
Kristen Hejny, Staff Assistar `
OTHER SUPPORTING CITY STAFF
Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Plann
Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administ otcx
Lauren Hovde, Staff Planner
Stephen Maldonado, Graduate Civil Eng n
Jenifer Paz, Planning Technician
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner
Troy Rother, Traffic Engineer
David Schmitz, Park & Recreation Direct
Lance Simms, P&DS Assistant D;,ector
Eiifn-v ~`:'e rtf ~e~s, In+err i
ADOPTED 06-23-11
r.. r/
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T
N E I G H B O R H O O D' k a}~~,~g i€a'tu 5C ri
>x'.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES...
INTRODUCTION -1
ABOUT EASTGATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..1-1
SELECTION --------------1-3
PUBLIC INPUT 1-4
PLAN COMPONENTS....... 1-7
CHAPTER 1: COMMUNITY CHARACTER 1-1
PLANNING INFORMATION 1-1
FUTURE LAND USE... ----------------------1-4
ZONING--------------- ---.1
SITE DEVELOPMENT 1-15
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT -•--._1-16
CHAPTER 2: NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY 2-1
EFFECTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS,___________________________________ __2-2
CONSERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES 2-3
ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY AND INVESTMENT 2-5
PROACTIVE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT 2-8
EMERGENCY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES---------------------------------2-9
CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY .........3-1
PLANNING INFORMATION 3-1
THOROUGHFARES 3-2
LOCAL STREETS 3-6
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY 3-11
BUS TRANSIT- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-_3-15
CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY ------.....4-1
RECYCLING 4-1
UTILITY CONSERVATION ------------------------------4-3
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4-6
GREENWAYS AND OPEN SPACE ------------------------------4-7
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE 4-9
EDUCATION. 4-10
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION 5-1
TIMEFRAME 5-1
IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION ROLES 5-1
FUNDING 5-2
TASKS -----------------------------5-4
ONGOING EVALUATION--------------------------- 5-5
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS A-1
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARIES ........................................................B-1
APPENDIX C: JAMES PKWY AND PURYEAR DR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS C-1
i i
ADOPTED 06-23-11
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E
x~~vxex"~`F3`
NEIGHBORHOOD ' ' "~a g
R [ { N
} S 1rG`~ Yid..
PLAN
CHAPIER 1: COP f1 JJNITY CHARACTER
EXISTING ZONING Mop EC.1
FUTURE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER____________________ Map EC.3
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREAS OF CHANGE Map 1.1
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 1...................................... Map 1.2
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 2,____________________ _____________Map 1.3
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 3.................................................. Map 1.4
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 4_________ _ _____________Map 1.5
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 5.................................................. 1.6
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 6........ _ -_-Mop 1.7
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 7............ Map 1.8
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION AREAS _____________Map 1.9
ZONING AREA 1.... Map 1.10
ZONING AREA 2... Map 1.11
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS Map 1.12
SITE DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 Map 1.13
SITE DEVELOPMENT AREA 2........................................................... Map 1.14
FLOODPLAIN AND OPEN SPACE. _.Map 1.15
CHAPTER 2: NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY
SINGLE-FAMILY OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE BY STREET, Map 2.1
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS Map 2.2
COLLEGE STATION HISTORICAL MARKERS IN EASTGATE.••_------------- Map 2.3
POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS________________________ Map 2.4
BURGLARY AND THEFT ACTIVITY IN 2009 AND 2010_____________________••Map 2.5
CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
THOROUGHFARE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Map 3.1
THOROUGHFARE CONTEXT, Map 3.2
THOROUGHFARE TYPE_______
- -------------Map 3.3
STATUS OF EASTGATE LOCAL STREETS Map 3.4
INTERSECTION EVALUATION AREAS •--Map 3.5
2010 STREET INVENTORY Map 3.6
PLANNED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS-_________•___________________••--.--_---------Map 3.7
PLANNED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS _Map 3.8
BUS TRANSIT NETWORK------------------------------------------------------------------- Map 3.9
EASTGATE THOROUGHFARES Figure 3.1
EASTGATE LOCAL STREET NOT MEETING CURRENT STANDARD Figure 3.2
STREET MAINTENANCE RATINGS FROM 2010 ST. INVENTORY Figure 3.3
INTERSECTION EVALUATION AREAS Figure 3.4
CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY
NONE
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION
COMPLETE TASK LIST Figure 5.1
i I i
ADOPTED 06-23-11
r.r ..r
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E
NEIGHBORHOOD
~t
PLANT
APPENI D I X A: EXISTING C:ONDITJONS
EXISTING ZONING-------- -----------------------------------------------------------------Map EC.1
CONCEPT MAP . Map EC.2
FUTURE LAND USE AND CHARACTER MAP__________________________________ Map EC.3
LAND USE CONFORMANCE Map EC.4
VACANT PROPERY -----------Map EC.5
RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY________________________________________________ Map EC.6
KEY DESTINATIONS, Map EC.7
PUBLIC PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS____________________________________________ Map EC.8
MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES-.,-,. Map EC.9
SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY VALUE (2009)_ _________Map EC.10
AGE OF SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE Map EC.1 1
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CASES EC. 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES BY TYPE (2007 - 2010)____.......... -Map EC. 13
PARKING AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (2009-2010)........ Map EC.14
SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY (2009-2010) ____________________________________________Map EC.15
NOISE VIOLATIONS (2009-2010)...... Map EC.16
STREET LIGHTING ---------Map EC.1 i
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES_______________________________________________________________ Map EC. 18
BICYCLE FACILITIES-__ Map EC. 19
BICYCLE PARKING Map EC.20
TRANSIT ROUTES .................................•----------------...------------.Map EC.21
FLOODPLAIN........... Map EC.22
EASTGATE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA ___Figure EC.1
1990 AND 2000 CENSUS COMPARISON Table ECA
EASTGATE ESTIMATED POPULATION Table EC.2
EASTGATE SUBDIVISIONS Table EC.3
ZONING Table EC.4
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND FUTURE LAND USE................... Table EC.5
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY SUBDIVISION Table EC.6
SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY DATA Table EC.7
AGE OF SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES Table EC.8
REGISTERED RENTAL PROPERTIES BY SUBDIVISION (2010) EC.9
CODE VIOLATIONS PER LOT (2007-2010) Table EC. 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES BY TYPE (2007-2010).................. Table EC.1 1
STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Table EC. 12
SURVEY RESULTS OF SELECT STREETS Table EC.13
LOT COVERAGE BY SUBDIVISION Figure EC.1 4
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARIES
OVERALL VOTES BY PLAN ELEMENT
OVERALL PRIMARY ISSUE VOTES BY PLAN ELEMENT Chart B.2
VOTES BY INDIVIDUAL TOPIC Chart B.3
VOTES BY GENERAL CATEGORY Chart B.4
rrcl~,~n TI / t 1C, (ETC cl V/Ci
ADOPTED 06-23-11 iv
i
E A S T G A T E EXHIBITB
N E I G H B O R H O O D e j
S
P LAN .z
S~ M1
....,a.rued:-tse#LVn`nmcclz .-.-,-"x9 ..t ~•3'_...
3riu
,1 1.. ~n Itatat m 3 S j
3317Ba?i t~tA
i~ t c ~+ea+s- fti~iilAt~pa i Y
Eli
!n $QR9~ ~--~mcoinn~I MyPtiii# )b ~
•a
Iwo s Y - - xaR
A ~ p
at ' t d~ }
= 111 -
y } $,c t
K ~dE: A `+:j ~ 1 3
~1 d ,_z h ~ ~ rtc~ j5 ~
N' It Rltp~ 1t 1.4 ~ A' ~
-t2`ir-ir'ei6r~j c.,o E1 ES7?w S .a. 'ti. J
V P::re.vf 5 y~~~`~l•!`~\`w~~ ,y~t _ ,U . - a 1 ( ~ ~'_~-t 1
oo
The Eastgate Neighborhood Plan is the second neighborhood plan in an on-
going series of neighborhood, district, and corridor plans that will assist in
implementing the goals and strategies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
neighborhood planning process offers the opportunity to develop an in-
depth knowledge of an area and develop area-specific approaches to
implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
ABOUT EASTGATE
The Eastgate Neighborhood Pianning Area is made up of X07 acres locafe~_;
in the original core of College Station. Loosely bounded by University Drive
East, Texas Avenue South, Dominik Drive, and Munson Avenue, this area
includes 25 residential subdivisions, and is home to more than 2,789 residents.
The area is includes a redevelopment district along the northern and western
perimeter and the Hospitality Corridor along portions of the northern border
as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan Concept Map (See Map EC.2,
Concept Map). This section outlines some of the existing conditions in
Eastgate; however, more in-depth information can be found in the Existing
Conditions Report, v a ~r r_i i0 Appendix A - Existing
Conditions;.
Housing and Business
The Eastgate Neighborhood is one of the earliest residential areas in College
Station, but experienced a major development boom following World War ll.
Recent additions are the University Preserve gated residential subdivision and
Dominion Townhomes, but the earliest development began in 1919 i! th=
residential neiahborhood bety,/een Lincoln Avenue and University Drive.
EXHIBIT B
INTRODUCTION I ADOPTED 06-23-1 1
The area holds more than 518,000 square feet of
commercial and business space and 799 single-
family homes, 110 duplexes, and 359 other multi-
family units. The planning area is primarily
residential, but is surrounded by commercial
;pace along the perimeter. Commercial
establishments are located at Texas Avenue
youth, University Drive East, and Dominik Drive.
s r-~ The commercial activity along these
thoroughfare ranges from office, retail, and
restaurant uses.
` Education and Institutions
All neighborhoods in the planning area are
zoned for attendance at College Hills
Elementary, Oakwood Intermediate, A&M
Consolidated Middle Schools, and A&M
'f Consolidated High School,
Eastgate is home to College Station City Hall,
and several public parks including Eastgate Park,
Lion Park, Parkway Park, and Thomas Park. The
City will be erecting Fire Station #6, located next
to Lions Park at the intersection of University Drive
s East and Tarrow Street, to serve the entire
awl,
planning area. For community policing, the area
is located in Sector A, Beat 20.
Natural Features
in the planning area, approximately 40 acres are
identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan as
Natural Areas - Protected and Natural Areas -
Reserved. These areas generally cover the floodplain for two Wolf Pen
Creek tributaries that touch the south and east section of the planning
"r area. Overall, the planning area is
relatively flat, with two FEMA-
identified floodplain areas
associated with Wolf Pen Creek.u
The City of College Station
maintains approximately 21 acres '
_ of park space in this area. The
planning area is part of
Neighborhood Park Zone 2 and
Community Park Zone C. Overall
there are about 7.5 acres of parr
for every 1,000 residents.
Mobility
Eastgate is served by 17 miles of
road. The area is bounded by two
arterials -Texas Avenue South and University Drive East. Within the
planning area, Eisenhower Street, Foster Avenue, and Tarrow Street
provide north-south collector connectivity, while George Bush Drive
V
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
East, Dominik Drive, Foster Avenue, Francis Drive, Lincoln
Avenue, and Walton Drive provide east-west collector
connectivity. There are numerous local roads that traverse
the planning area, most notably: Gilchrist Avenue, Kyle
Avenue, Munson Avenue, Nimitz Street, and Puryear Drive.
The planning area is served by three bus systems. Texas A&rv'
University serves students living in this area with bus routes that
run between 7am and midnight on weekdays during the
regular fall and spring semesters. College Station
Independent School District (CSISD) provides buses in thi_
area for students attending College Hills Elementary.
Oakwood Intermediate, A&M Consolidated Middle, and A&M Consolidated High schools.
The Brazos Valley Transit District provides limited general
public service to this area along Texas Avenue, Tarrow Street
George Bush Drive East, Lincoln Avenue and University Drive
The area is also served by a sporadic network of bicycle
lanes, bicycle routes, and sidewalks.
Community Investment " °
There are a few public projects underway or planned for
construction in the near future in Eastgate. The Lincoln Avenue sidewalk
and utility rehabilitation of Eastgate Phase IV are slated to begin in 2012.
Sidewalks will eventually extend from future Eisenhower Street to Grand
Oaks Circle along the north side of Lincoln Avenue. Funds from the 1998
capital bond have been budgeted for the signalization George Bush
Drive East and Dominik Drive intersection. This installation is anticipated
for fall 2011. Construction of Fire Station #6, located at the intersection
of University Drive East and Tarrow Street, has been budgeted and
design has been approved. The Fire Station is anticipated to begin
construction in fall 2011.
SELECTION
The Eastgate Neighborhood Planning Area was selected for the r~
development of a neighborhood plan because of its diversity of housing
type and age, mix of residential and commercial uses, opportunities for
redevelopment, and the importance of this neighborhood for the
overall character of the community. This planning area also offers the
opportunity to better understand the factors leading to changes from
owner- to renter-occupied homes.
The physical boundaries of this planning area were based on the
contiguous area of neighborhood conservation identified in this area of
the City in the Comprehensive Plan, and the surrounding
redevelopment areas. Major roads serve as effective boundaries to
delineate this area from other areas of the City. Though a fev.,
subdivisions comprise the majority of the area, there are over two dozer
total subdivisions within the planning area. While none of these
subdivisions are exactly alike in age or character, they all share the
same network of public infrastructure and are similarly affected by the
same infill, redevelopment, and commercial development.
14W ~
EXHIBIT B
INTRODUCTION I ADOPTED 06-23-11
PUBLIC INPUT
?ublic input is critical in the planning process. Receiving feedback
?rom the community enhances the process by allowing the experts
:vho live in the area to provide the information and issues that are
;valuated in the plan. Opportunities were provided for members of
the community to voice their opinions on the direction of their
neighborhood and begin to strategize ways in which to change or
naintain that direction.
•
• • • • s li • • • - • • - - - •
• • - - • •
s• • - • - - - •s • • • • •
• - • - - . • - - • •
The plan - ent • • - focused on
~-M • 1
- - • - • - • - ess • • - • • • • • -
- •o-• s + - • - • • • - i • s -e - • • • • - - - •
• • • • - • • • - • - •e • • s • - • • • • • •
• • • - • • • - • • o • - • •ess - • •
• - • • - - s • • •e • • - • • • •
• • • • - ' O - • - - • • • • • - • ° • • - .0 -0 - •
Project Teams
The advice and expertise of three advisory teams were used
throughout the planning process - the Neighborhood Resource Team,
the Planning Resource Team, and the Staff Resource Team. These
teams met throughout the process to offer input and advice, and
assist with the planning process including public outreach.
Neighborhood Resource Team
The Neighborhood Resource Team consisted of 13 individuals that
included residents located in the College Hills Neighborhood
w4w
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Association, College Hills Estates Homeowners Association, College Hills
Woodlands Neighborhood Association, and University Preserve
Homeowners Association. The Neighborhood Resource Team served as
an advisory board during the planning process, and helped encourage
neighborhood participation in the planning process.
Members were chosen out of the group of interested individuals that
represented the various geographic parts of the planning area.
Generally, the Neighborhood Resource Team met on a monthly basis
during the process to provide feedback on the direction of the plan.
Members
David Boatcalie, Churchill Estates
Marcus Copelyn, Lloyd Smith subdivision
Ken Fogle, College Hills Estates
Quint Foster, College Hills Estates
Hunter Goodwin, University Preserve
Mildred Martin, Prairie View Heights
Leslie Miller, College Hills Woodlands
Stephen Miller, Woodland Acres
Kam Owens, Prairie View Heights
David Sahm, College Hills Estates
Ben Sperry, Student Representative
Tres Watson, College Hills Estates
Brooke Woodruff, College Hills Woodlands
Project Planning Team
The Project Planning Team worked throughout the planning process to
provide technical assistance as well as oversight and guidance
throughout the planning process. This team assisted in the development
of the plan timeline, neighborhood outreach, maps, facilitators and
group leaders during public meetings, and was responsible for the
general development of the Plan. This team was made up of City
employees within the Planning and Development Services (P&DS)
Department. In addition, there were several other members of City staff
that contributed or assisted in the development of the Plan.
Members
Jason Schubert, AICP, Senior Planner - Project Manager
Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director Planning & Development Services
Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager
Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coordinator
Barbara Moore, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
Lindsay Kramer, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Trevino, GIS Technician
Kristen Hejny, Staff Assistant
Neighborhood Plan Kick-off Meeting
In September 2010, the first neighborhood-wide event was held at
College Hills Elementary. The Neighborhood Plan Kick-off Meeting way `
I~
EXHIBIT B
INTRODUCTION ADOPTED 06-23-11
attended by more than 75 residents from the area. Residents were
asked to choose their top priorities for the plan and to provide
feedback about why they chose a specific topic. The meeting also
erved as a way to introduce the planning process to the
neighborhood.
summary of the feedback that was received from this
ick-Off Meeting and other public meetings is provided as
n appendix to the Plan (Appendix B, Public Input
ummary). Members of the community were made aware
of the event through postcards, notification signage, City
j. `V elevision channel, flyers sent with utility bills, and information
hat was distributed to neighborhood organizations.
i
Surveys
fter the Kick-off meeting, an on-line survey was made
y vailable for residents at the plan's website:
ittp://www.cstx.gov/ndcplanning. Responses were
recorded with the documentation from the Kick-Off
meeting.
Issues and Opportunities Meeting
second neighborhood-wide event was the Issues and Opportunities
neeting held on October 26, 2010 at College Station City Hall. The
>urpose of the meeting was to collect more in-depth information
about what is positive about the neighborhood and where there is
room for improvement.
Participants from the Kick-off Meeting were provided information
«bout the date and time of the meeting, and promotional materials
,vere provided to the Neighborhood Resource Team for distribution.
Neighborhood Area Meetings
,s residents contributed to the planning process, it was realized that
areas of the neighborhood faced different pressures or were
expressing different responses to similar concerns. As a result,
neighborhood area meetings were held in late January 2011, one
. ach at College Hills Elementary, City Hall, and College Hill Missonary
'~Iaptist Church. The purpose of these meetings was to receive more in-
depth feedback from each of the neighborhood areas regarding the
concerns of their area. Residents of each area were sent a postcard
vitation for the meeting held in their part of the neighborhood.
Open House
,leighborhood-wide Open Houses were held at College Hills
Elementary on April 26 & 27, 2011 to receive feedback on the draft
Flan. With more than 80 in attendance, participants were able to view
the draft language, maps, and strategies, as well as converse directly
A!ith Staff about any of the Plan components.
Pesidents were notified through postcards, notification signage, and
piorriotional materials provided to the Neighborhood Resource Team
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
for distribution..
PLAN COMPONENTS
The plan is broken down into four subject areas that represent each
chapter in the plan and a final implementation chapter. Below are
summaries of each of the chapters.
Chapter 1: Community Character
This chapter focuses on strategies that will maintain a diverse mix of
housing types, preserve larger lot sing-family development patterns,
reduce character impact from rental housing in the neighborhood, and
promote redevelopment around the perimeter of the neighborhood
that meets community needs and is complimentary to the
neighborhood.
The strategies proposed in this chapter include Comprehensive Plan
amendments, zoning changes, the establishment of new zoning districts,
and that are needed to ensure that development and redevelopment
in this area are compatible with existing residential subdivisions in the
neighborhood.
Chapter 2: Neighborhood Integrity
This chapter focuses on strategies relating to effective neighborhood
organizations, conservation of neighborhood resources, enhanced
neighborhood identity and investment, proactive property
maintenance and code enforcement, and targeted emergency and
law enforcement services to enhance the appeal of the Eastgate
neighborhood as a desired, family-friendly destination.
The strategies in this chapter are intended to help encourage owner-
occupied housing and stabilizing the neighborhood by strengthening
neighborhood organizations, prioritizing community investment, and
creating focused code enforcement programs, and in the area.
Chapter 3: Mobility
This chapter focuses on strategies relating to vehicular, bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit networks to maintain a safe and efficient street
network while improving multi-modal transportation options by
increasing bicycle and pedestrian connections to key destinations within
and around the neighborhood.
The strategies in this chapter focus on infrastructure analysis and
improvements like traffic warrant studies, street rehabilitation, and
bicycle lane and sidewalk improvements that will improve connectivity
and encourage multi-modal transportation options where possible.
Chapter 4: Sustainability
This chapter focuses on strategies that relate to resource conservation
efforts like recycling, stormwater management, and utility consumption
in an effort to increase awareness and participation in resource
conservation efforts.
EXHIBIT B
INTRODUCTION I ADOPTED 06-23-1 t
he strategies in this chapter are focused on creating tracking
methods and programs to help increase responsible use of natural
esources by residents in Eastgate and throughout the City.
Chapter 5: Implementation
he final chapter is a listing of the strategies and actions that are
>roposed in the Plan. The plan implementation period is five to seven
ears. Specifically, this chapter assigns the cost of implementing a
r)articular strategy, a timeframe for when the strategy will be
implemented, and the entity that is responsible for implementing the
rategy.
i~
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E COMMUNI
N E I G H B O R H O O D
PLAN CHARACTER
'':ors • . • • ae • s s • • • • • • •
Y
~g
character with some areas having more urban characteristics. Thc
neighborhood is bounded by commercial uses along Texas Avenue on,--,:
University Drive East with much of this perimeter area identified fog
redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of this chapter is to outline a set of strategies to support the
preservation of the neighborhood's character. Public input relating to
character illustrated concerns of retaining the single-family character of the
neighborhood, minimizing the impact of commercial and multi-family
redevelopment, and encouraging compatible infill development. Based on
these concerns, the following goals were developed for this ci,apter:
• Maintain a diverse mix of housing types;
• Preserve larger lot single-family development patterns;
• Reduce character impact of rental housing in the neighborhood; and
• Promote redevelopment around the perimeter of the neighborhood
that meets community needs and is complimentary to the
neighborhood.
This chapter focuses on four land use components that influence character.
• First, the anticipated, or future, land use assumptions within tl
neighborhood;
• Second, the existing zoning, or land use regulations, that impact ho`..
property is currently entitled to be developed;
• Third, site and redevelopment opportunities around the perimeter
the neighborhood; and
• Fourth, floodplain and greenway conservation.
This chapter first outlines basic planning information relating to each of the fo_,
components listed above. This information is in addition to the pertiner
information found in Appendix A, Existing Conditions Report. Following tI
information, the chapter outlines changes recommended for fh
Comprehensive Plan, zoning options available to the neighborhood, site one
development considerations for redevelopment areas, and floodplo
management and greenway policies to support the overall goals of fr
chapter. This chapter outlines the details of strategies and actions to achiev.
the stated goals. Specific information about timelines, responsible parties, on`:
estimated costs are reflected in Chapter 5, Implementation.
PLANNING INFORMATION
This section identifies key information that impacts the character of the
Eastgate Neighborhood. It outlines public facility investments made in the urea
and a description of the land uses that were considered during the
development of the strotegies and actions fo- the Plan.
ADOPTED 06-23-11
r ~aw
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Capital Investments
Fire Station #6 - Funding to construct Fire Station #6 to serve the
northeastern portion of College Station was approved in the 2008
pond election. The Fire Station will be constructed on vacant City-
owned property located adjacent to Lions Park at the intersection of
f arrow Street and University Drive East. The project has been designed
. nd construction is anticipated to commence in mid-201 1.
Types of Land Uses
I he following are descriptions of the existing character designations
sound in the planning area based on the City's adopted
C omprehensive Plan. The locations of these designations are shown in
Map EC.3, Future Land Use and Community Character Map (Appendix
A, Existing Conditions).
Institufionol/Pt,blic - land use designation is generally for areas that
are, and are likely to remain, in some form of
- institutional or public activity. Examples
r * s y : include schools and libraries.
Natural Area - Protected - This land use
designation is generally for areas
permanently protected from development.
Such areas are preserved for their natural
function or for park, recreation, or greenway
opportunities. These include areas such as
regulatory floodway, publicly owned open
space, conservation easements, and public
parks.
w+"" Natural Area - Reserved - This land use
designation is generally for areas that
represent a constraint to development and
• _ • • _ _ • should be preserved for their natural function
or open space qualities. These areas include
- • floodplains and riparian buffers, as well as
recreation facilities.
Neighborhood Conservation - This land use designation is generally for
areas that are built-out and are not likely to be the focus of extensive
infill development or redevelopment. Further, these areas were
typically platted before current development regulations were in
place which often results in non-conforming situations. These areas are
appropriate for overlays or zoning classifications that provide
additional character protection and address non-conforming issues.
Redevelopment Area II: Texas Avenue, University Drive, and Harvey
Road - This area includes a number of underperforming land uses that,
due to their proximity to two of the busiest corridors in the City, are
poised for redevelopment. Much of the area is currently subdivided
into small lots, making it difficult to assemble land for redevelopment.
A portion of this area includes the current City Hall, which offers the
opportunity to redevelop a larger parcel if City Hall is relocated to the
municipal Center District. The proximity of existing neighborhoods and
V
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
the Texas A&M University campus requires careful site planning and
appropriate building design. These efforts should be complimentary to
the Area V: Hospitality corridor plan, the neighborhood plan for the
Eastgate area, and the Texas A&M University Campus Master Plan and
should focus on bringing vertical mixed-use and other aspects of urban
character to this portion of the City.
Urban - This land use designation is generally for areas that should have
a very intense level of development activities. These areas will tend to
consist of townhomes, duplexes, and high-density apartments.
Urban Mixed Use - This land use designation is generally for areas that
should have the most intense development activities. These areas will
tend to consist exclusively of residential, commercial, and office uses in
vertical mixed-use structures.
Existing Zoning
The following are descriptions of the existing zoning districts found in the
Eastgate Planning Area. The locations of these zoning areas are
identified in Map EC.1, Existing Zoning (Appendix A, Existing Conditions).
Single-Family Residential (R-1) - This district includes lands planned for
single-family residential purposes and accessory uses. This district is
designed to accommodate sufficient, suitable residential
neighborhoods, protected and/or buffered from incompatible uses, and
provided with necessary and adequate facilities and services.
Duplex Residential (R-2) - This district contains land that has been
planned for duplex residential purposes and associated uses.
Characterized by moderate density, it may be utilized as a transitional
zone.
Townhouse (R-3) - This district contains land that is to be used for a
unique type of dwelling, typically designed for individual ownership, or
ownership in-groups of single-family attached residences constructed on
individually-platted lots.
Multi-Family (R-4) - This district provides land for development of
apartment and condominium units at low to medium densities. This
district may serve as a transitional zone between lower density
residential areas and other residential or non-residential areas.
High Density Multi-Family (R-6) - This district contains land used for a
variety of housing types, but primarily multiple family dwellings. This 4
district is designed to provide the highest density in the community for
developments in close proximity to the University.
Administrative-Professional (A-P) - This district accommodates select
commercial businesses that provide services rather than sell products,
either retail or wholesale. The uses allowed have relatively low traffic
generation and require limited location identification.
General Commercial (C-1) - This district provides locations for genera'
commercial purposes that is, retail sales and service uses that function to
serve the entire community and its visitors.
Commercial-Industrial (C-2) - This district provides locations for outlet,
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I ADOPTED 06-23-11
:;ffering goods and services to a limited segment of the general
>ublic. The uses included primarily serve other commercial and
idustrial enterprises.
Light Commercial (C-3) - This district provides locations for commercial
tes that are too small for many permitted uses in the C-l, General
`commercial District. These are moderately low traffic generators that
have little impact on adjacent areas or on adjacent thoroughfares.
Planned Development District (PDD) - The purpose of the Planned
Development District is to promote and encourage innovative
development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the
atural environment. If this necessitates varying from certain standards,
he proposed development should demonstrate community benefits.
he PDD is appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects the
pecific commercial, residential, or mix of uses proposed in the PDD. A
'DD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts in land
,tilization not permitted by other zoning districts. While greater flexibility
is given to allow special conditions or restrictions that would not
otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are
established to ensure against misuse of increased flexibility.
KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Future Land Use
_and use is a key component of describing and establishing the
;character of an area. In determining appropriate land use
lassifications, the existing uses, zonings, and current land use and
character classifications are all considered. As part of preserving the
esidential character of the interior Eastgate area, this plan identifies
everal areas where discrepancies in the existing Comprehensive Plan,
oning, and other factors could lead to unintended development
scenarios that are contrary to the character desired by residents that
/e in the neighborhood.
Future Land Use Assumptions - Community Character
During the planning evaluation process, a number of areas were
dentified where the future land use designation conflicts with the
xisting zoning, existing development, or existing surrounding uses.
In evaluating the existing Comprehensive Plan, there are seven areas
dentified for modification (See Map 1.1, Community Character Areas
of Change). Strategies for preserving the character of these properties
locus on amending the City's Future Land Use and Character Map to
reflect more appropriate future land uses that are reflective of market
opportunities for the property and future land use needs while being
responsive to neighborhood compatibility.
Community Character Area 1 - Pasler Area
This area generally consists of four subdivisions - Lloyd Smith,
Lauterstein, Pasler, and Prairie View Heights and is bounded by Pasler
_ Street, Lincoln Avenue, Tarrow Street, Peyton Street, and Chappel
Street and the single-family properties that have frontages to these
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
streets. Some of the properties within this area were originally platted in
1919 and are some of the oldest subdivisions in College Station. The
neighborhood has been historically African-American since its early
development, and is still home to second and third generations of the
original families that have made this neighborhood their home.
This area has seen major changes in the past decade with several
houses demolished after purchase to convert to rental property.
Because of this shift and the proximity to the
University, this area has been designated for
high density single-family or urban multi -
family uses on the City's adopted plans since
1997.
Feedback from owner-occupants in the
area during the planning process made it
. ®
clear that additional rentals or potential for
multi-family units would be detrimental to = ® 1!
preserving the history and character of this 1 t
core area. To assist in the preservation of this
r.:
area as a single-family neighborhood,
several strategies must be implemented to
retain the existing single-family zoning,
reduce the impact of rental properties on *
the community, and promote maintenance
and home-ownership. • • • ' - - •
To help protect the existing character in this
area, the future land uses should be
amended to reflect the existing single-family land use. Second, public
and private neighborhood protection standards should be explored to
establish expectations for new development that occurs within the
defined area (See Neighborhood Conservation Area 3: Pasler Area for
more discussion on this topic). Map 1.2, Community Character Area 1
illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the proposed
character, as recommended in the strategy for this area. Additional
strategies for investing in public infrastructure and property
maintenance will be explored in Chapter 2, Neighborhood Integrity and
Chapter 3, Mobility. Amending the Comprehensive Plan will ensure that
future development opportunities will be limited to zoning districts that
support single-family use of the area and set the stage for additional
protections for owner-occupied homes.
Strategy CC1.1 - Amend the Future Land Use and Character Map in the
Comprehensive Plan in the Pasler area from Urban and General
Suburban to Neighborhood Conservation. Also, move the
Redevelopment line to the west so that it is behind the single-family lots
that have frontage to Pasler Street and Banks Street.
Community Character Area 2 - Lincoln Avenue
The area along Lincoln Avenue between Tarrow Street and University
Drive East consists mostly of homes that front Lincoln Avenue with rear
alley access. These homes are separated by a vacant 7.5-acre tract
that backs up to the University Town Center. This area also faces large
residential lots across Lincoln Avenue on Ashburn Avenue and Munson
EXHIBIT B
: , CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER ADOPTED 06-23-11
,venue.
-urrently, these properties along Lincoln Avenue are designated as
lban in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This designation supports a
hange to denser, multi-family development. Based on feedback from
l he neighborhood and land owner, increased density in this area is not
o desired character directly across from single-family residential. To
help ensure the character remains compatible with the existing single-
amily in the area, while acknowledging market opportunities and
adjacent non-residential development, a change to the Future Land
Use and Character Map is necessary. Map 1.3, Community Character
Area 2 illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the
proposed character, as recommended in the strategy for this area.
,dditional issues of site access and configuration of land uses are
discussed later in this chapter (See Site Development Area 1 - Lincoln
Avenue).
Strategy CC1.2 - Amend the Future Land Use and Character Map in
the Comprehensive Plan for the properties in the planning area along
incoln Avenue east of Tarrow Street from Urban to General Suburban
,.it an approximate depth of a single-family lot.
Community Character Area 3 - Grand Oaks
iv,/o lots in the Grand Oaks residential subdivision were incorrectly
-Designated when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2009. The
uroperty at 903 Grand Oaks Circle was designated General
,-ommercial but developed as a single-family home in 1999 and
hould be classified for a residential use compatible with the
>urrounding residential uses. The property at 926 Grand Oaks Circle
vas designated both Neighborhood Conservation and General
suburban and should be designated entirely General Suburban to be
consistent with the rest of the subdivision. Map 1.4, Community
Character Area 3 illustrates the existing character and zoning as well
as the proposed character, as recommended in the strategy for this
area.
Strategy CC1.3 - Amend the Future Land Use and Character Map in
the Comprehensive Plan from General Commercial to General
Suburban for the single-family lot at 903 Grand Oaks Circle and from
General Suburban and Neighborhood Conservation to General
Suburban for the single-family lot at 926 Grand Oaks Circle in the
Grand Oaks subdivision.
Community Character Area 4 - Gilchrist Avenue
Three residential properties located adjacent to College Hills
Elementary School on Gilchrist Avenue are identified as Institutional on
the City's Future Land Use and Character Map. This designation is
typically reserved for uses such as schools or other community
institutions that are unlikely to relocate. The designation of these
properties was most likely a mapping error, and should be corrected
for continuity with the surrounding residential land uses. Map 1.5,
Community Character Area 4 illustrates the existing character and
%oning as well as the proposed character, as recommended in the
strategy for this area.
WOW
EXHIBIT B
ADOP'FED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Strategy CC1A - Amend the Future Land Use and Character Map in the
Comprehensive Plan from Institutional to Neighborhood Conservation for
the residential properties along Gilchrist Avenue adjacent to College
Hills Elementary.
Community Character Area 5 - Properties north of George Bush Drive
East
With the extension of George Bush Drive East,
several properties were acquired by the City
to accommodate the larger right-of-way. The
remainder of these properties are vacant and ;
are being developed in partnership with Keep
Brazos Beautiful as a demonstration garden for
the community. The area is currently
designated for Urban and Redevelopment.
Map 1.6, Community Character Area 5 k
illustrates the existing character and zoning as..
well as the proposed character, as '
recommended in the strategy for this area. i
W4 -
Strategy CC1.5 - Amend the Future Land use
and Character Map in the Comprehensive
Plan from Urban to Natural Areas - Protected
This area along George ; Drive East is prinnairily utilized as
for the properties along the northwest side of Keep Brazos Beautiful
George Bush Drive East between Texas
Avenue South and Foster Avenue.
Community Character Area 6 - Block south of George Bush Drive East
The block bounded by George Bush Drive East, Texas Avenue South and
Dominik Drive is split with two character designations. The lots on the
north side of the block that front George Bush Drive East are designated
as Urban and Redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan and are
developed as single-family residential. The lots on the block face fronting
Dominik Drive are designated as Urban Mixed Use and Redevelopment
and are developed with commercial uses. With aging commercial
properties and single-family rental dwellings, the area is poised for
redevelopment and consolidation of property on both sides of the
block. In addition, given the block's location in the City and proximity to
major thoroughfares, Texas Avenue South (six-lane major arterial) and
George Bush Drive East (four-lane major collector), more intense
development is anticipated. To create more consistency in the future
development pattern, both block faces should be designated Urban
with an emphasis on creating mixed-use opportunities. Additional
description regarding the general scale, orientation, and relationship to
nearby Neighborhood Conservation areas is discussed later in this
chapter (See Redevelopment Areas). Map 1.7, Community Character
Area 6 illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the
proposed character, as recommended in the strategy for this area.
Strategy CC1.6 - Amend the Future Land Use and Character Map in the
Comprehensive Plan from Urban Mixed Use to Urban for the lots along
the north side of Dominik Drive between Texas Avenue South and
George Bush Drive East.
•.r
EXHIBIT B
Ul"AWININ A-M&MMAMM
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Community Character Area 7 - Dominion on Dominik
=xcept for one Neighborhood Conservation area at the intersection of
~,eorge Bush Drive East and Dominik Drive, properties located along
Loth sides of Dominik Drive east of this intersection have an Urban
designation. Prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2009,
he property was rezoned to R-3 Townhouse and developed as multi-
Aory townhomes in 2007. This development pattern is consistent with
he Urban designation of other properties along Dominik Drive which
are zoned and developed for multi-family and non-residential uses. In
iddition, since the Wolf Pen Creek tributary is located on the opposite
ide of Puryear Drive, there are no natural features located on the
ownhome properties; therefore, the Natural Areas - Reserved
lesignation can be removed. Map 1.8, Community Character Area 7
illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the proposed
.haracter, as recommended in the strategy for this area.
Strategy CC1.7 - Amend the Future Land Use and Character Map in
the Comprehensive Plan from Neighborhood Conservation and
!otural Areas - Reserved to Urban for the townhome properties
located at the intersection of George Bush Drive East, Dominik Drive,
ccind Puryear Drive.
Zoning
Compatibility with Land Use & Character Designation
his section outlines areas where the existing zoning does not support
the future land use assumptions for the area.
Neighborhood Conservation Areas
he majority of single-family residential areas in the planning area are
designated as Neighborhood Conservation. These areas are made up
f three main subareas, each with a unique character and
development pattern. Map 1.9, Community Character Neighborhood
Conservation Areas illustrates the three identified neighborhood
t:onservations areas.
Neighborhood Conservation Area 1 - Woodland Acres/College Hills
Woodlands
,Voodland Acres/College Hills Woodlands is an area platted in 1939
Ind 1940 that is made up of larger wooded lots along Munson
-;venue, Ashburn Avenue, and Marsteller Avenue. Properties to the
i orth of Francis Drive are large lots with an average lot size of 41,500
{ware feet, while those south of Francis Drive are smaller with an
overage lot size of 19,400 square feet.
In 2010, this area was the subject of a citizen-initiated rezoning effort
for a Neighborhood Prevailing Overlay. The proposed overlay would
Dave placed additional requirements on all new development in order
to maintain a pattern of development. The application was ultimately
Withdrawn due to opposition regarding several provisions of the
ordinance. The primary objections to the rezoning were restrictions on
building height and expansions into the backyard. Other concerns
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
orientation requirements.
During the process of this plan, the residents of this area identified
several defining characteristics of the neighborhood that could be the
focus of a conservation district - mature trees, open space around the
houses that are not all paved, and large lots. A new type of
conservation overlay could be created to incorporate development
standards such as:
1. Increased lot size to minimize subdivision of lots into much smaller
building lots;
2. Preservation of large trees such as those along the first fifteen
feet of property depth of a property (20-inch caliper or greater);
3. Limited size of parking "pads" in front yards;
4. Allow rear yard expansions to not be subject to maximum lot
coverage requirements;
5. Require new home construction to meet maximum lot coverage
requirements that is complimentary to the existing developed
character; and
6. Allow new homes to reduce front contextual setback
requirements if they maintain greater side setbacks.
Wildlife and nature conservation were also areas of concern to residents
in this neighborhood. In addition to the above standards, conservation
easements could be established by the property owners along the
floodplain behind the Ashburn Avenue lots to protect sensitive wooded
and natural areas from future development (See Floodplain
Management Area 1 - Ashburn Avenue). All of the property located
within Neighborhood Conservation Area 1 is currently zoned R-1 Single-
Family Residential.
Strategy CC 2.1 - Develop/amend the single-family overlay ordinance
options for Neighborhood Conservation Area 1 to incorporate items
such as those referenced above and work with neighborhood
associations to pursue a new overlay rezoning.
Neighborhood Conservation Area 2 - College Hills Estates
The College Hills Estates subdivision began development in 1938. It has
an overall density of 2.83 units per acre and is generally made up of
single-family residential properties between Lincoln Avenue and Dominik
Drive and Walton Drive and Foster Avenue. This subdivision surrounds
Thomas Park, which is in an integral part of the neighborhood.
The percentage of rental properties is higher in this area than in the
Woodland Acres/College Hills Woodlands area to the east, and many
homes are being redeveloped or restored for rental investment
properties, particularly west of Puryear Drive toward Texas Avenue.
Redevelopment of older properties has generally been viewed positively _
by many residents, bringing much needed improvements to
substandard structures. Most input received from this area during the
public input process emphasized the need to maintain different housing
types, including student rentals. The need to minimize the visual impact
associated with rental properties was emphasized such as excessive on-
street parking and property maintenance. These issues are generally
resolved through appropriate code enforcement and monitorin(
\n• „m*
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I ADOPTED 06-23-11
policies and procedures which are covered in Chapter 2,
Neighborhood Integrity.
Items such as parking pads, building placement, and lot
coverage could be addressed through a neighborhood
conservation district. A neighborhood conservation district
could be established for the College Hills Estates area that
incorporates the following elements:
Redevelop properties using previous structure setbacks
to maintain eclectic layout of structures within the
subdivision;
Decrease the allowable density from eight dwelling units
per acre to five units per acre to maintain the existing
developed density of the subdivision; and
3. Limit size of parking pads in front yards to maintain single-
family visual character of neighborhood.
Strategy CC2.2 - Develop/amend the single-family overlay ordinance
)ptions for Neighborhood Conservation Area 2 to incorporate items
Bch as those referenced above. Work with neighborhood residents to
-lentify and resolve roadblocks to adopting or implementing a new
ype of neighborhood overlay.
Zoning Area 1 - Foster Avenue
portion of Neighborhood Conservation Area 2 is not currently zoned
1 Single-Family Residential. Nine properties located on the east side
>f Foster Avenue between Walton Drive and Francis Drive are currently
oned R-6 High Density Multi-Family. Eight of the nine properties are
ieveloped as single-family and one is developed as a duplex. The
angle-family properties are currently non-conforming uses, as single-
fcmily is not permitted in R-6 High Density Multi-Family districts. If
edevelopment to more intensive multi-family uses were to occur, it
nay begin a trend that negatively impacts the integrity of this
I,leighborhood Conservation area. Based on the configuration of these
properties however, large scale multi-family development is not likely.
'ezoning to R-3 Townhouse district would allow most of the current
uses to become conforming, as single-family is permitted in R-3
i ownhouse, while preserving additional development potential that
xists with the current zoning. Map 1.10, Zoning Area 1 illustrates the
xisting zoning and character as well as the proposed zoning, as
ecommended in the strategy for this area.
Strategy CC2.3 - Approach property owners to discuss rezoning the R-6
digh Density Multi-Family zoned portions along Foster Avenue between
Walton Drive and Francis Drive to R-3 Townhouse to allow most of the
existing uses to become conforming and encourage future
development activity to be consistent with the single-family nature of
the neighborhood conservation designation.
Neighborhood Conservation Area 3 - Pasler Area
I he Poster area is a residential neighborhood made up of portions of
four different subdivisions - Lloyd Smith, Lauterstein, Pasler, and Prairie
iew Heights with an overall density of 7.62 units per acre. This area
was developed as a single-family neighborhood and has been
EXHIBIT B
ADOPI-ED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
k.
historically African-American since its development.
This area has a higher percentage of rental properties than other
portions of the planning area, but remains home to many families that
originally purchased property in these subdivisions.
The area began developing in 1919 and has average lot sizes between
the four subdivisions that range between 5,100 square feet in Prairie
View Heights (Columbus Street to the northwest) to 8,300 in Lloyd Smith
(Churchill Street to Tarrow Street).
The area has seen a number of properties demolished or converted for
rental or investment. Residents of the area commented during planning
process on the desire to minimize additions! encroachment of rental
properties into the neighborhood. Strategies
supporting home-ownership are discussed in
Chapter 2, Neighborhood Integrity, while this
Chapter will focus on the zoning aspect to
ensure that new development is compatible
in form and size to the existing homes. u
Many of the concerns raised about the new €
construction in the area relate to buildings
being built too close to the street due to
existing non-conforming conditions, new _I" x
structures being too tall compared to older r ~4 F~
structures, and the amount of paved or built
area being too large compared to older a. IN
structures and lot configurations. With an amendment to the single-family
overlay ordinance, this area would be -
eligible for a conservation district that could -
provide additional standards for new
development. It is important to consider that given tine developr7ient
pressure for this area, a conservation district may have an impact on
housing and property values in this area.
If a neighborhood conservation district were pursued, the following
standards are example of items that could be appropriate for this area
1. Height limitations to minimize privacy and massing concerns for
new development and expansions;.
2. Adjusted setback requirements for structures to better
compliment the surrounding area;
3. Maximum lot coverage restrictions to preserve open spaces on . -
the perimeter of lots; and
4. Increased minimum lot size to limit new subdivisions of properties.
Strategy CC2.4 - Work with neighborhood representatives in
Neighborhood Conservation Area 3 to develop/amend the single-family
overlay ordinance to create an appropriate neighborhood overlay
district for the area. Provide information to residents about potential
impacts of implementing an overlay and support efforts by residents to
pursue a zoning overlay.
V4W
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER ADOPTED 06-23-11
Zoning Area 2 - 604 Tarrow Street
portion of the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Area 3 is not
currently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential. While the R-1 Single-
f=amily Residential district by itself does not guarantee fulfillment of
potential neighborhood conservation objectives described above, it
provides an important underlying zoning for which an overlay can
supplement. Approximately 0.20 acres at the northeast corner of
Banks Street and Tarrow Street is zoned C-3 Light Commercial. While
he 0.20 acres does not have much development potential, if a
commercial use were developed, it may impact this Neighborhood
Conservation area in a negative fashion. Map 1.11, Zoning Area 2
illustrates the existing zoning and character as well as the proposed
%oning, as recommended in the strategy for this area.
Strategy CC2.5 - Approach the property owner at 604 Tarrow Street to
discuss rezoning from C-3 Light Commercial to R-1 Single-Family
residential to encourage any development activity to be more
compatible with the neighborhood conservation designation.
Redevelopment Areas
i he areas designated for redevelopment along the University Drive
.And Texas Avenue corridors on the edges of the planning area have a
°,,ide range of uses, lot sizes, and zoning classifications. In order to
mplement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to create
edevelopment opportunities in these areas, the consolidation of
properties, infrastructure investments, and creation of zoning districts
hould be explored to ensure appropriate and compatible
edevelopment of this area.
Based on the proximity to major thoroughfares or neighborhood
onservation areas, parts of the redevelopment area should allow
varying degrees of vertical mixed use, commercial, or multi-family
opportunities. Increasing density and creating more attractive
edevelopment opportunities within the core of the City can reduce
pressure on greenfield development for apartments and other
student-oriented rentals toward the fringe of the City. However, in
order to facilitate this redevelopment, the City's infrastructure will also
need to be upgraded to meet the increased demands - including
i f r.. water and sanitary sewer infrastructure upgrades, extension of
Eisenhower Street, improvements to Lincoln Avenue and Foster
Avenue, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities to move residents
in and around the area.
In addition to investment in public infrastructure, various land use tools
could be implemented to facilitate appropriate redevelopment. For
example, a redevelopment overlay could be created to specify items
such as type and scale of uses, building orientation, design criteria,
and building height requirements that are appropriate when
considering the adjacent neighborhood conservation areas. A
graduated density zoning tool could also be considered. This would
allow for scaled density by lot size, allowing greater densities with
larger lot sizes and thereby providing incentive for consolidation of
property. The graduated zoning tool could help minimize impact to
existing single-family residences until such a time when properties are
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
consolidated for redevelopment.
Additional descriptions and details regarding specific
portions of the redevelopment area are provided in the
three general subareas identified below. Map 1.12,
Community Character Redevelopment Areas illustrates the
three identified redevelopment areas. While this Plan
provides some guidance to the redevelopment areas, it
not intended to constitute a comprehensive •
redevelopment plan for the area, which will be necessary
to assist in making the desired redevelopment opportunities •
a reality.
Redevelopment Area 1 - Texas Avenue to Foster Avenue • •
Redevelopment Area 1 consists of the first block of • • •
properties parallel to Texas Avenue between Lincoln •
Avenue and George Bush Drive East. This area was
originally platted as part of the College Hills Estates
subdivision and contains a mixture of commercial, office,
multi-family, and single-family uses. Walton Drive is a
primary gateway into the neighborhood with small-scale
commercial uses and Eastgate Park opposite New Main
Drive into the Texas A&M University campus. The block
containing the College Station City Hall and the Economic
& Community Development building (old Fire Station #1) has become
more prominent over time as City Hall has expanded and additional
properties have been acquired along Foster Avenue. The blocks
between Gilchrist Avenue and George Bush Drive East (old Kyle Avenue)
contain single-family uses that are largely utilized as rental units.
While these blocks have frontage on Texas Avenue and are across from
the University campus, the block are roughly 400 feet deep and are
adjacent to the front edge of Neighborhood Conservation Area 2 -
College Hills Estates. While consideration should be given to market
opportunities that exist with the location, these opportunities must also
be balanced with the impact redevelopment will have on
Neighborhood Conservation Area 2.
The properties fronting Texas Avenue along the two blocks north of
Francis Drive provide smaller scale neighborhood and regional serving
commercial uses. Though aging and somewhat underutilized, the
businesses at Walton Drive serve as a gateway to the neighborhood and
appear to compliment it well. Redevelopment or expansion of these
properties will likely be hindered as much of their parking is located in
public right-of-way. Additional study of this area and its related parking
should be initiated to assist in maintaining its vitality as a commercial
area.
Although this plan does not recommend whether City Hall should remain
in its existing location or moved to the Municipal Center district off of
Krenek Tap Road, public input was received on the potential
redevelopment of the City Hall block and other nearby commercial
areas. Many residents expressed the desire for City Hall to remain in its
current location. One idea included the possibility of locating a satellite
branch of the library in the area, potentially as part of City Hall. When
EXHIBIT B
M1901,
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I ADOPTED 06-23-11
redevelopment options were discussed, feedback included the desire
hat non-residential uses have more emphasis on being businesses that
operate during daytime hours and are lower traffic generators,
!-)articularly for areas closer to single-family, with more intense uses
,;-ntecl to~,%,ard Texas Avenue. Large scale and big box type
commercial development would not be
A s'.
appropriate in this area. Residential uses
. r could occur as part of vertical mixed use
on Texas Avenue and would have more
x w emphasis along Foster Avenue.
.r Neighborhood-oriented commercial uses
would be possible along Foster Avenue if
they were less intense, served the
neighborhood, utilized design criteria, and
were subjected to height restrictions.
The blocks between Gilchrist Avenue and
George Bush Drive East consist of single
-
family uses. The lots facing George Bush
`;a• Drive East were acquired for the widening
of the street with the remaining portion of
the lots used by Keep Brazos Beautiful as a
' • • " • ' ' demonstration garden in partnership with
the City. While most of the remaining
single-family units are rental, a few of the
properties are still owner occupied. It is
anticipated that these single-family blocks will face increasing market
pressure to convert to other uses. Though a City-initiated rezoning is
rot recommended as part of this Plan, these blocks could receive
further considered as part of the redevelopment plan for this area.
graduated density zoning could also be utilized to help these blocks
minimize the impact to existing single-family residences until such a
lime when properties are consolidated for redevelopment.
Redevelopment Area 2 - Eisenhower Street to Pasler Street
>pecific consideration should also be given to this redevelopment
area due to its close proximity and influence to Neighborhood
Conservation Area 2 - College Hills Estates and Neighborhood
Conservation Area 3 - Pasler Area. This Urban and Redevelopment
area consists of commercial uses along University Drive, duplexes and
single-family at the core of the area, and a couple of multi-family
complexes along Lincoln Avenue. This area should have lower
density allowances and greater height restrictions than other Urban
and Urban Mixed Use areas in order to help create a transition to the
more suburban residential character in the adjacent neighborhood
areas. Uses in this area should be primarily oriented towards single-
family lot configurations rather than multi-family structures except for
the commercial properties fronting University Drive East, where mixed
use opportunities, may exist and for the existing multi-family
;,omplexes fronting Lincoln Avenue. The graduated density tool may
be appropriate to help incentivize redevelopment of the existing R-2
Duplex-zoned properties along Poplar Street, Live Oak Street, and Ash
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Redevelopment Area 3 - Cornerstone Areas: Texas Avenue, University - ,
Drive, and George Bush Drive East
This redevelopment area consists of the remaining portions not included
in Redevelopment Areas 1 or 2 that are at the corners of the planning
area. Redevelopment Area 3 includes two parts, one area is north of
Lincoln Avenue between Texas Avenue and Eisenhower Street and the
other is the block south of George Bush Drive East to Dominik Drive. With
proximity to major thoroughfares, the University campus, and major
shopping areas, these redevelopment areas will contain the most
intensive development patterns in the Eastgate. While much of the
redevelopment area is currently developed in a single-story suburban
commercial pattern, it is anticipated that they will convert over time to
multi-story commercial and mixed use developments with an emphasis
on vertical mixed use. To promote the redevelopment, upgrades and
rehabilitation of utilities, including water and sanitary sewer infrastructure
and the extension of Eisenhower Street will need to occur.
Redevelopment Area Strategies:
Strategy CC 2.6 - Incorporate the guidance identified in this Plan, into
the redevelopment plan including a market analysis for the areas
identified in Redevelopment Area II: Texas Avenue, University Drive, and
Harvey Road in the Comprehensive Plan. The market analysis for the
redevelopment plan should include a concept plan for the block
containing City Hall to gauge the development potential of the block
under multiple development scenarios including redevelopment of the
entire block, expansion or relocation of City Hall within the block, and
redevelopment of only portions of the block.
Strategy CC 2.7 - Identify strategies regarding the existing parking in the
right-of-way for the commercial properties at the intersection of Texas
Avenue and Walton Drive to help maintain and increase the viability of
these neighborhood serving areas. This may include removal or
reduction of off-street parking requirements for this area since the
existing parking serves the uses.
Site Development
Site Development Area 1 - Lincoln Avenue
Based on input received during the planning process, specific
consideration should be given to the area north of Lincoln Avenue.
between Tarrow Street and Munson Avenue. The existing developed properties fronting Lincoln Avenue consist of single-story homes with rear y,
alley access. Given the recommended General Suburban designation
(See Community Character Area 2 - Lincoln Avenue), this single-family
and rear alley pattern should continue across the portion of the vacant
7.5-acre tract that fronts Lincoln Avenue.
The remainder of the vacant 7.5-acre tract may develop with multi-
family and/or non-residential uses. Vehicular access between these
uses and the future single-family homes fronting Lincoln Avenue will be
restricted so the potential for additional through traffic movements con
be mitigated. The multi-family and commercial uses will receive
vehicular access through the private drives of University Town Center as
well as Vassar Court and Wellesley Court that are stubbed along the
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I ADOPTED 06-23-11
'western edge of the tract. When the tract develops, Wellesley Court
and Vassar Court should be looped together to provide additional
alternatives for vehicular access. In addition to these routes, bicyclists
and per!- - accommodated through the planned multi-
use path to connect Lincoln Avenue and
University Town Center. Map 1.13, Site
t_ Development Area 1 illustrates the general
location of this area.
Strategy CC3.1 - Ensure that future
development proposals address land use
and access concerns through a PDD Planned
Development District zoning that
incorporates single-family along .Lincoln
Avenue, multi-family and/or commercial
f
behind these uses to University Town Center,
= the extensions of Wellesley Court and Vassar
Court, and the identified access restrictions.
Site Development Area 2 - Avenue A
Avenue A is located along Lincoln Avenue
Conter is • ° property ` between Nimitz Street and the future
extension of Eisenhower Street and consists of
17 single-family lots. The street is roughly 500
feet in length and currently dead ends without a cul-de-sac bulb or
-,tub for future extension. Fire code regulations require turnarounds on
<treets or fire lanes in excess of 100 feet in length. As part of
redevelopment Area 2, the properties on this street are designated for
Urban character. The properties near the end of Avenue A may
edevelopment for more intense uses such as duplex, townhouse or
multi-family if Avenue A is extended to the future Eisenhower Street to
the west or a cul-de-sac bulb provided to help facilitate compliance
with the fire code. Map 1.14, Site Development Area 2 illustrates the
general location of this area.
Strategy CC3.2 - Ensure that future development proposals near the
end of Avenue A address emergency access concerns through a PDD
Planned Development District zoning that could incorporate duplex,
iownhouse, or multi-family uses and extends Avenue A to future
Eisenhower Street to the west or provides a cul-de-sac for the street.
Floodplain Management
his section identifies properties located in areas that are designated
floodplain or should be reserved for environmental or recreational
purposes. Map 1.15, Floodplain and Open Space highlights the
properties in the area that are identified as Natural Areas - Reserved
-,r Natural Areas - Protected.
i iie planning area is impacted by two tributaries of Wolf Pen Creek
c_,nd a small finger of a tributary to Burton Creek. Proposed strategies
focus on the creation of conservation easements to preserve these
j
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Floodplain Management Area 1 - Ashburn Greenway
The most significant tributary of Wolf Pen Creek in the planning area is
designated as Natural Areas - Reserved and can be generally
described as the creek area behind or within the lots along the west side
of Ashburn Avenue. The City currently owns two lots that are part of this
tributary, Lots 17 & 18, Block 5, University Oaks subdivision at 733 & 801
Dominik Drive. All of the remaining Natural Areas - Reserved portions in
the planning area are currently zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential on
privately owned property as part of single-family lots, on the College Hills
Elementary property, or within the 7.44-acre property owned by Texas
A&M University System at 906 Ashburn Avenue.
Residents in the area have stated some of the unique features of the
neighborhood include the mature trees, wooded areas, and wildlife. To
help protect these features, a conservation easement could be
dedicated along the floodplain of the creek so that it and associated
wooded areas are preserved in a natural state while staying in private
ownership. Completion of this effort will help the residents protect this
important characteristic of the neighborhood while reserving the
remainder of their lots for typical single-family use.
Strategy CC4.1 - Develop a conservation
easement program to help preserve l-
floodplain and riparian areas for their natural
function.
S' wsryh ~d~'.a
Strategy CC4.2 - Encourage and assist
property owners along the Ashburn
Greenway to voluntarily participate in the=h`,
dedication of conservation easements tc,
help preserve the creek, floodplain, and
wooded riparian areas. 7 3
Floodplain Management Area 2 - 400 Kyle
Avenue and 401 Dominik Drive 1
The second Wolf Pen Creek tributary in this
planning area is contained mostly in Thomas
Park. As discussed in Chapter 3, Mobility,
installation of curb, gutter, and underground _ • _ • • • -
stormwater system are proposed on portions
of Puryear Drive and James Parkway in part
to help resolve drainage issues in the area. Downstream of Thomas Park,
a church currently owns the properties at 400 Kyle Avenue and 401
Dominik Drive which include wooded areas located in the floodplain.
Conservation easements on the floodplain portion of these properties
will help maintain the natural function of the creek and protect the
wooded area.
Strategy CC4.3 - Encourage and assist the property owner at 400 Kyle
Avenue and 401 Dominik Drive to voluntarily participate in the
dedication of a conservation easement to help preserve the creek.
floodplain, and wooded riparian areas south of Thomas Park.
L
-I- Q
0 v
~ C-
p c v Q, Q
a o r-Us ~u Q ciO
m
o r)~ -
fl.) o i
x c<4 0
W t D n r o
C C j tJ
4) E _ T
z O Q r E a, r~ c
u oiu■'■a■i^
-ja pe4S
,Gt
4p,
~J
w 3S-JOAOISOM
U i O
m U ~ ~ 'T
N O O
u co
a
J
,s. i. AV UOSUn(rv
A C vi
/,o AV ~a Y
N ooh SjC3 C: Ja-su04ltd_0
,
Ay iung4sy - ME
AM.eidwAl0>
U
Q
M <S I
~S nnojael ~S suae!II....
1
\tor Dr ryA
m - w
_~S ~31sed .`'y o Q
aS ~aturtl D ''d Y f
m MAW - _ O
IS-zltwl =mss _ - f6 AV uo36uiJJeH y a J~ ~~~~~d ~
+ > h
a.~. Cam~d~~uany~ o
Q 7.
~S nn~ by~sS1 3; as Iaulivy o°p N o
RIM
~ 1~~ • < 0
' s IL
S-auef-~ c
> INS r~y~ ~ o
lime
>°c-
p ~ a
g o t
to
~n
•m ~ ul-tiewasoa_ ~-~0
2 !
EM-01OA--,
. . . .
I1
II U D O a d E O
CL II a c _ N
` N T
N a N ° y 3- - v O ti
II O r U ° C O N L O
N
II E Qi OQ
Q ° C A T V U c N O d
w Q U 6 L ti a L
C_ D o r o aO O
! C t p, p C U U 0 O
N E a' ? a t C;) _ ~ a a o<<
c Q (5
z75 c c a C _a n O
L) O cv
Y_ U C Q U U S U S
DON o ~
'-U' " ~ ~ Ot+,~'~ • - • ¢ rte.' r' r*r-~ -i
OF I
-.m jl c-r f f ~r~.r•r~: ~'aTi~,,,, ~ ~.a ~b..t> tf
_ .I1
1 L
C r c i 'i I tr 9 r O~
MOJ F
J¢l f
C'~fJ~ Syr, t _ ' acs,'
AAOJI~j
~TJY-3S-111 M43 - roty_g an;any
-3S II l4Sin4 • ti F A a~ a, s„ ,~'ni t,
j u 1S 11!yDjn<)
1I I x~ a.r s b r• iS llIyDiny~ .
iS`ja!sed s P CO C(+r,
Nun T f 1 ,t
=m
l N p r
141 F ---Turner, $t c r • t iS`iajsed
N JW:~ RTulrnerSt a,~f` K, ran
1 I
:
ua~ Nimitz St ~1- Q r Y - ' c
nuGA '7
( V- V / ► } ro
-rIL1 I _LJ
~ s Nimltz 5i Q n•••.,:,.6:
anuany .
is or St ~$IJaMO~I~UaSl3J--
tT JQ4
15
Ashburn v ~
i M
Y
U l
» N Q y - >
~~i.'C N N ~C3 3 > 0
c ,
J - v
°~S•MOJJ¢1 N H J -
sn c g anuany _ v~
Y g anuanV
N, s
m V !
C __j
D a~ 3S 11!yo~ny0 3S II!4~~ 4~ 4J m s 3S 11!43jngO a ~
c S 11.4 4~
I 0
'm
m d Nunn iS~aa!sed n st .a
~4 gip.. ~ ~ ~ Nun
c 9 Turner St C
N _ ___i C Turner St
x y N «
_ Nimttz St O ~ an' _ m r '
~ Q V uanV - _ imitz St ~ Q i s-
~ ~ V anuanV ' _
'N'
UDIJ .pooqjoq4AION .
s _
c
a~ c
$ -9
M .I > P o a)
y ' T"
G 4 ~t C U O k3 O
Cr ^
CL 0
O U v 13 (9-
E o s E
U r~ p
Z3i C Q -C Q ? -C
Z = L! to C t= C c aj c ~t
(7) c -3 c i-2
O U N f? Q? is C 1
C ct c U U cL ~ r z t:) <7 L
0
~ r
.Y pay OLD I ~ m O"y r ! Cc% ufLO
L .
Munson A,v~i
p. t x t (Munson Av s4
{t 36 .l , f.-r t f Y.'*` rte, *;SP
a
fff~ ~ \ C ~ f i3x•~ ~
C14,\
O I Ashburnl1tl~ ~s"
A51 blirri A I
o 4
51,
m ` t M
X I ♦
Is,moijej
~Y F-- r I e UeA
I I ;
J uo;lem t a .r~~' Ch irchill Sit °n ry • Ynr a ~ s ads '
a
a' m - 1114oJnU~ F.. ,\1 1-=a .4.
iU v P,
.w'~► m m~ L
LLr / Munson
Munson Av r
O Ashburn Ayy~_ i 0 Ashburn v
U
LL.
J l •a J
U. y- 3S N10JJ'2j ~$MOJJL'j1
H puany I y Tnueny n Dr
`~ti0 LL
Y Jauo3leM
a J_`1 a' I ~n i._x
N
Li
70
M
v 0
w s C Q ¢ i U r-0
an
o P ! !
a
111 . - . ♦ ; f V
v:
la H i m
> _ I >
LL. i
~ c ✓ c
~ o ~ ~ vp1 0 ~
CL - c
I
W
R, z
C C C C LL-
Z3 U a. C
CI)
CL O Q rf
N D LO U a w a
0 -C
U Q;
D O
L) .C _ O U q
CL N V
C
W C Q Q LL. O O d d
E C 5) Q C Q
Z O n LU C '2 r7 t
° o~
~ Y "tt~ ~T '1 I
112
/ t S a 4 ~r -r ,
e
\ (0 % / ~'i~ I ~ • ice. 7 , ~y t,"*~.~~' °r~~
\ I
H /
Williams St
X
w Williams St
w
fill,
ZS U OC O
N
N Williams St Q- Williams St
J _
-
X
T777
I
- O
f.Y~"e Yw`.rv...,.:: ~'4.~.~_ ~ ,.::..yt ..:__"-•..T~. kY_,~'?P_'v.. R"1'.
_ - u
Zj U Q~ LS C - -r; _
CL O a a' dJ
N Q Q\ N d\ 1
D O o c. O
i Ql U C 0 _0
-0 C c Q U n o C,
w C C Z) Q `y' V r d O
c o
N
c a Z' r] O
c cm
Z O = 5 c~~ 8- O
U c - S] O
7z fj , £~i
E
'T►ri ° f ° all
0
04
03
Q d y t r=
N L a 0 9plt ! d-
'x -Texas AV 0'} a
W ''C7
~'-Texas _
T I,
:-'go
-
_ o
`cam `
J ID
i
~ ~ - O D Q y
C
Y_
07
LL yf o d C
N EE
C Y o > 0 M Q
L
W Texas Av v~
° ° Texas AV
T
v C, O Li-,
U a O C -
OF 10
D Q u w s
O ^ .y u '0
-c Q) U CL C-1-
0 -C C.
9 LU -C ¢ 2-' a N U .G N Vi i. O
,2) 'j Q, GLl~ Q Q 4:
Q p PvoA O -
S-j
x,13,
71, A 40 Jeatind r Q,
s
4 r
001, .Q 3 ~„f'I~luilU l+f
r 1
n 4joa sod_
~m~ 'a r` B' tx -Y * T a~'r
a- K 0 9-
- Ql ,c u i r- a i el - 10. 1 .l'
- m LE AAA
l
Lu!
xas
sAV
JTexa n , t~,I, 1 r„ i v
puryear-Dr~
G ~
/ c
rj w
D \ / 0 0
D 7 ti m
~ D ~a;so j m
~ m
u. o o a' x
c to y api E
C !Q c m 0 o
to a f ~ O
W Texas Av
Texas Av
N O - c
U Q n V
UT > W d
CO D a. a - v U
OO U 'p ~ - c u c
~ t O E? U w N d a tL
N L CL v L E E c a
0
w c Q U o U° x o a`, `a °o m E a o
-C N a ar c v s r a ` `
0) E
Z) 0
a o 'n P m * v o a O
Z c E C~ ~ n i c r c c `y
U c ri M .Q a a w 2 O
or E w a a
Z Z Lr)
c~ ~ > ~ U U ~ rr ~ ~ E Z > > C7
w A. +f
14
. ~d aeaAjnd
G
.
'j.
r
c s
j o
{II !
Q
o ~a
Y \ ~m
jQ leatind
N
H > >Q jean And
Ot 'O Ot
rn Jyr H 0°~r
o
W ~
hiffli"i Le
O
Q
Q O
G o = ar3i
0 o
v.0 °
p Q .UO o ? a
W t o 4 o O
m o s U
c f ni iv r;
Z C C
O N p Q, 'v
-~a- PeyS ~
c
"o
- -3S-Jano3saM - - J
C? -00
E k o J
o
_,...4 . Aid uOsunkV
41 L- m
/,o AV 10/1,
0* asiety ja-suayid-O
o
AV ujngys V + 0
o AM.eldwAjo>
v
ep N G V
m ~ `o ~ `\y~. ~ ~p_s6
is MOJJel J------ is II.M
_
c N c
\t OnDr`« ,mac
o y o ~ ~
T Y
C y >
m a V)
iS Jalsed~-_o Q> j
° d t
-3S jauin-L 0 Ndsau+er Y I
>
is- PIN ) Ay uO)Bu'JJeH Q ~O d
-v-enuaA%
~a ° o
3S nnolyuas~3- as ADull W C0 H
in ✓ -
L cn .1C LL
0 G - N ai o
J G
2 Ay sexel
M
o M O
4l
O m
ccro u~.tiewesoa"
C ~0 d
-o o - z
via*
o
v
d o ~ N
O Q c
n 0 Q N o m
a a c Q ~
LU C d
Z
0011
€ w. n
AV.UOJBUIJ }
1.
ra t - 1 R
A,, _Ira
fit`-'
r ..a . ~r •r` ~t tax s d
•
7
i
.:a
h
':r ~i~ etc:? f t r•; .
4.. AL
lay
.1, 4t
~r-r
41: Yl
y
All to y;
=N ~r AV Ja~so~
M r~ e ,
f s..b
. -'y"'am"'---- v._;i a rat Y ! . s.~,,_
K• _a~u.
74,
rasa. .r 'rte'-•?.. ~ . +t [ ~_3-. {
r y~~. kS
?::ti~~.,nlMx.-:-i~...A?:=9i~_ir,•_1M.79r ,;Y.- sc M.,~'MAf- ,?x,ln~w'tT'!-c.-;.. -
T' ~ Exr. ~ R : rrt
- nY/tsexal
`ANO
ME:
a c,I
a
N D f- Q
0 Q a a
N o Q N
a.0 a c
LU -E a-
L
d _ I.
00t?
Mr,
g~ ■ r
of P r * ar air,`
lAr r_;
~wr
wj- al!
t, I' a •T _
yr, fF
oft
q `C ,w
_ I
aka = t ~ ~ ~ + .
_ 5'•{ ^~i€ ~ 4 `t . a ~.;~~~~'a ~ ~~~"x. ~
C
>
14O.In
IT`w
.
t s
.
N
Q
° r a
o Q:
W = (D <
_C
J C}7
C! 3 7
Z m C r q;
a---ja- PeyS_
.G< u~
0
lS-Jano)saM
Z
d I ~ ; 3 x
o E = o
i ~ m w A
.1
A4-uosunjV
I 1 L _m
L - \'00 O rn
0ae//aJs,ew e-jQ-suay;d_o
E
_ -`~-nb-wngysy_
L AM-eidwAio>
m L Q y A
H y _C V }t
t0 ° eQ i~~ ,0 46 14
Is-moiiell 3 J 3s-swelil!M
v~ N
Y o WaKon Dr
G N >
A Q
m d N
Y >
iS J3~SE:~ 0O S(
L .J, m
lS ~auanl D 'O'•s~er Y
O
ny-uoIBulJJeH- Q'O,eeNnd
- ~g:'~anno.yuas3. ~pJauyyy
c,
r-- o
LL
-auer L
S r'
SO : = o
LJO
® AV
R MIN
~
cu ~
WIND,
u - a m=
nysexal -
c ~
_ Y o ~ Q
O m ° t
ro U71-tiewasod
J ~0
r
a ~
w0 N N ~ a
W~ v 'vQ ~ ~ Q
a~ c
y if
Z L
71.
v> _
oo
4 r•
fir
.04
~~a~, ~f _ ' El 2~ ' .'4jr~r~ri.~i'd Y:`»' Y'~~~;_4~_...
end uosunW
sue...'
I
L t",
Art
.
A` - ...._.+e
~-_.:i w,., _.~2_sta ~ ,rye, ~ ~ »r~ ,
r _~t i Xw. - .772--.- M t 'F dt bi r d .
3 _w ...i i t •"'o' ~ ° Ji:.,~. ~ y. ~ ~'y3~y, . ~2
-Lia
{w 6r ~ s. l' H
'1 ttT1'r ` ''R s~ ( -,,AMY
ryry ,
4OU
. x.
y,' C • ~ ••..:3~ Ci `s;~u. vs _ QLl0A, ~ ~ .
o.~-s,t.. o r
a N ~ a
d
a
0 P7 Q N
a O O v CL
W O Q N N N
(3)
W a v a~ Q Q
N 0~~
win w
01 P f a St~ i
ILT
a
D71! } jr ~f
~atun
1S;.r.lea 1.~ . ~ P fF a ~
P.
A~l
r~a#ai s.:r.~ f err uryear
.
k J-
.l s ` r
Alice- n". .;{x i"~..~J'"q°•'a#
e yy 11-7
7 s '"ro
' k Yf 1 hl x„S ~'•F T _ f ,y~' fl 1{~ +°Jd~]~~• ~T'-`"~ O ~ 4 .
1 J
41
ex,
P P
- 66
r""~,'~ a~'° FI tt ~tl~R ~ j P-t-!' t 5'~ P 1tr ! ~ ~ -
n
is la ~ .q z
fit
it it- A
16
r.
}m
{1
a
70
T as,
G
U G Q E
LUs Q "V QQ
°00 Imo :5 :5
Z ~ ~ N
02■7
-jQ- Pe4S 0 ;S-JBAO)saM-
O
J-- ~Q U 3
1
0 o E 0
V-y m
J
AV-uOsunw
f~ y
a601V Jo/ -0 Y ~o
uien c-J0-suay;d-o
o
Y -----___AV-ujngy O L~
AM.e!dwAlo>
cv > 0 7
` 4 N a j
76
>
Mo~ael 3 3S-swelll!M
` PAS j
~ N C
Y « WaIton-Dr
C Q
a m 0-
Y
3S ialsed- o Q
;S-iauwn i O Md•r I Y
o
;S-z;!w!N w - C13-Ad-uo;6ul.ueH- ~O aea~~nd~
--v-anueAV k
3S-Jeh►oiyuasl3- ~p Jaul!W O°
A
S-aue~ ro Y ti _ LL
0 C Ad-aa;so-4
o
} J o
> i
p J,
exe
c ~AV-S
o m
r
rI ul -ti eweso~li
m
-o o - z
y.r
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E
NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
IN
PLAN
INTEGRITY
f _ t e t ~ Y Y r"=t
F
To improve neighborhood integrity, the goals of this chapter are effective
neighborhood organizations, conservation of neighborhood resources,
enhanced neighborhood identity and investment, proactive property
maintenance and code enforcement, and targeted emergency and law
enforcement services to enhance the appeal of the Eastgate neighborhood
as a desired, family-friendly destination. Through citizen engagement efforts
area residents have affirmed their interests in maintaining Easty.- c,s c
unique neighborhood in the core of the City.
This chapter focuses on multiple strategies to achieve the stateu goal-.
Encouraging owner-occupied housing and stabilizing the neighborhood arc
important components to increased quality of life in Eastgate. This chapte
describes some of the key issues facing Eastgate and outlines strategies to
meet the goals set by this Plan.
Key Planning Considerations
The majority of issues raised by re 6-Je-''ts ire EGstgata reg iing n~igh~~ rhoo~i
integrity are tied to the impact of renter-occupied properties within anc!
around the neighborhood. Owner-occupants have expressed concerns witi
lawn and property maintenance, traffic and parking impacts, as well as othe
behavioral issues of some renters. While not having the ability to restrict renfe
units, strategies within this Plan can provide influence that become n-,-,-
effective when used in conjunction with action by neighborhood partners.
Limited on-campus housing for area college students and an increasing I
in market forces to satisfy student housing demands via investor-owned single-
family property is a significant threat to neighborhood integrity in many part
of the City. The Eastgate area is home to 359 multi-family and 110 duplex unite
(almost 40% of all dwelling units in the area). Approximately half of the single-
family housing units in the planning areas are currently used as rental unite
Map 2.1, Single-Family Ownership Percentage by Street, illustrates the amours
of rental single-family property in the area.
This chapter is organized into five broad categorie_
• Effective Neighborhood Organizations;
• Conservation of Neighborhood Resources;
• Enhanced Neighborhood Identity and Investment-,
• Proactive Property Maintenance and Code Enforcement: and
• Targeted Emergency and Law Enforcement Services.
ADOPTED 06-23-11
..I'
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY ADOPTED 06-23-1 1
Effective Neighborhood Organizations
In considering strategies to strengthen the integrity of the
neighborhood, this Plan recognizes that the success of neighborhood
and homeowner associations significantly impact the future success of
irnproving the neighborhood. Without effective citizen-partners in the
area, strategies will be difficult to implement and less effective in
achieving the goals of this Plan.
There are four registered neighborhood
organizations in Eastgate representing a variety
of different property types. Two are homeowner
associations while the other two are
neighborhood associations (see Map 2.2, Existing
• • • • Neighborhood Organizations).
Neighborhood organizations play a valuable role
• • • • ° • • - • • • in helping maintain neighborhood integrity.
• • • • ' • • • • • • • • " • Neighborhood groups registered with the City
• ' ' • • ° ° • " receive information related to development
' ' - ' ° ' - - " • activity in the area and are eligible for
- . - , - _ • neighborhood matching grants to assist with
• • _ _ • • _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ various projects. Effective neighborhood groups
are important for promoting the integrity of a
• • , • ° - • . • neighborhood since they provide existing
• - . • - organizational structure capable of effectively
• ° - • ° • - • • - • • • - • and efficiently addressing problems that may
arise in and around the neighborhood. More
specifically, homeowners associations have the
ability to create and enforce covenants and
_ deed restrictions for types of neighborhood-
appropriate regulations for which the City does
• , , , , not have the authority.
• . , , , _ , , Effective training can help build and improve
these organizations in the Eastgate area. In doing
so, the City has opportunities to help address
neighborhood and subdivision level issues, and
can build more effective working relationships
with its citizens.
Currently, the City works with neighborhood and homeowner
associations through the Neighborhood Partnership Program run by
Planning and Development Services through its Neighborhood Services
division. Registered partners are eligible for small grants, have access to
special training and seminars, receive updates about development
activity in their area, and other support from Neighborhood Services.
The Neighborhood Services Coordinator also works closely with Texas
A&M University (TAMU) organizations through Aggie Up to address on
student and student-rental issues that negatively impact
neighborhoods.
Effective Organization Strategies
The strategies in this section focus on increasing organizational
capacity for the existing organizations within this area. These strategies
V ~f
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 I Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
outline opportunities to provide new training and activities for
neighborhood partnerships to increase leadership and participation.
• Program Continuation (N11.1) -
Continue to implement strategies and
programs in the Strong and
Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative.
- • • • • • - - ea; .
• Provide effective organization support
and training opportunities (N11.2) • • • • • • • •
Where there is interest at or near 1000 • ' • • • "
owner-occupancy; work with
residents through the Neighborhood ® - ® • " `O® -
Partnership program to convert the _ _ • • • • +
neighborhood associations to
homeowner associations. - . - , . - - • - -
• Provide technical support to . - . - - . • . . . • . .
homeowner associations (N11.3) • - • - sf6dents + - • • • • • • •
Work with homeowner associations to
create deed restrictions and Strong and Sustainable Neighborhood Initiative
covenants that seek to address The neighborhood integrity issues that the ` ` • ` ` " Neighborhood ' -_.~begbn in-Faj('2007.'The: program focuses on the
City does not have the authority to
regulate and/or that compliment City • , _ , _ _ , • ,
regulatory efforts. - - • . - . - . ,
• Provide effective organization support
- -
and training opportunities (N11.4) - - • • - • • - + + - -
Develop training on effective deed • • • - • • ' • • • • • • '
restriction enforcement. • " • • • " • • " • • • "
• Ongoing evaluation and indicator
program (N11.5) - Create an ongoing
evaluation process of neighborhood • _ _ • _ • ® • • • •
characteristics to readjust service
provisions and evaluate effectiveness.
This should be included as part of a
comprehensive indicator program for
neighborhoods.
• Program Continuation (N11.6) - Continue to work v, ith F,g lie Up and
other TAMU and Blinn College student groups to find prccacti~e
methods to reach out to off-campus students.
Conservation of Neighborhood Resources
As one of first developed areas of the City, Eastgate is home lo
buildings and places of local architectural, historical, and cultura'
value. Preservation or protection of these resources can stabili7e
development pressure, enhance property value, promote heritaa ;
conservation, and provide educational opportunities. Two initiatives
have been undertaken in the City: a historical marker program and
historical preservation enabling ordinance. Other aspects of the
conservation of neighborhood characteristics are considered as part
of the Neighborhood Conservation areas identified in Chapter 1,
Community Character.
In 1986, the City of College Station Historic Preservation Advisory
Committee was created to aid in the collection and preservation of
items of historical significance in the City. One initiative created by the
me
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Committee is the College Station Historical Marker Program that
recognizes sites, persons, objects, events, or buildings that are
significant to the history of College Station, yet may not meet the
criteria for historic marker designation at the state or federal level. As
such, the program is separate from the federal inventory of historic
properties (National Register of Historic Places) and separate from the
state marker program (Official Texas Historical Markers). Unlike possible
historic preservation measures discussed later, the College Station
historical markers are solely for historical interest and educational
purposes and do not provide regulatory limitations regarding the ability
to alter or add improvements to the properties or structures. Properties
in the Eastgate planning area that have received a College Station
Historical Marker are identified on Map 2.3, College Station Historical
Markers in Eastgate.
The City recently initiated a windshield
Op" survey of potential historic resources in
select areas of the City. The study, City of
College Station Historic Resources
Windshield Survey of the Eastgate and
Southside Neighborhoods, was completed
a in September 2008. This survey identified
! rr,
three potential historic districts and two
individual landmarks in the Eastgate
1r _
neighborhood. The potential district and
w r landmark are identified on Map 2.4,
Potential Historic Districts and Landmarks.
In 2008, the City adopted a comprehensive
historic preservation ordinance that
provides the opportunity for additional
historic preservation protections. The City's
Comprehensive Plan identifies historic
preservation as an important component
of community character. Preservation of
historic properties provides for the
protection and preservation of places and areas of historical, cultural,
and architectural importance and significance, as well as promotes
sustainability through the reuse or adaptation of historic structures for
contemporary uses.
Conservation of Neighborhood Resources Strategies:
Program Continuation (N12.1) - Continue the College Station Historical
% orker Program to promote the recognition and retention of structures
of historical significance.
Neighborhood Resource Education (N12.2) - Conduct educational
sessions with potential historic district and landmark property owners to
goi_7e it it et es' in pursu~nd histo' ic pre se, ~=:ati [ e~u_i~i~r
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Enhanced Neighborhood Identity and Investment
Neighborhood identity is made up of a variety of elements including
public and private landscaping, community gathering places, pork
development and maintenance, fencing, drainage, sidewalk and
public facility maintenance, and signage that serves to enhance an
area's aesthetic quality. Together these elements can provide a
distinct image for an area. Maintaining or improving that identity is
important to promoting the long-term viability and attractiveness of a
neighborhood. Overall, these elements should work together
providing a safe and inviting public realm.
Plan participants provided input during the
planning process regarding neighborhood F• =!r l 1r~~
image and identity, including a desire for
community gardens, community bulletin
boards, and park improvements. In addition,
public investments such as utility and street
A,
rehabilitation, drainage improvements, and .
streetlight programs can support
t -
14
neighborhood investment. Building on these
elements throughout the neighborhood can
strengthen its overall image and identity.
The City currently offers matching grants to
partnership organizations for beautification
projects such as signage and landscaping with
funding available on a semi-annual basis. ,
Various factors may impact whether or not an i
a r v a *111 Oil-
organization a s• as•
takes advantage of the grant
program. Neighborhood associations are
generally at a disadvantage because of on-
going maintenance costs associated with installation of landscaping a_
these organizations cannot require membership or dues for thei,
organization. Other factors such as organizational capacity to
complete a project, and lack of knowledge about developing projects
for which funding would be available may also be contributing factors.
Community Facilities
An important aspect of neighborhood integrity is a sense of community
and place. Public and private community facilities can provide unique
identifying features to a neighborhood area and provide places to
gather and interact. Through discussions that occurred during the
planning process, an effort to initiate a community garden in a vacant
lot on Pasler Street behind the College Hill Missionary Baptist Church
has begun. This effort should be supported as it will provide an outdoor
place to gather and an opportunity for neighborhood residents to v:ork
together toward a common goal
The need for community bulletin boards w -js also identified. These
could be used to help promote communication of and participation in
events and activities in the neighborhood. The potential community
garden site and Thomas Park, which has an existing board, are possible
locations for community bulletin boards.
..01
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY ADOPTED 06-23-11
Park facilities provide significant identity to the Eastgate neighborhood.
Though smaller than a typical community park, Thomas Park serves as a
community park for this quadrant of the City. As part of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, individual park master plans, or development
plans, are anticipated. These plans could identify needs that a specific
park may have while seeking to achieve the goals of the overall Master
Plan. These plans will also identify possible opportunities for investment
in the Eastgate neighborhood parks of Thomas Park, Lions Park,
Woodland Park, and Eastgate Park. During the planning process,
providing additional parking, upgrading of the pool bath house area,
and fixing drainage-related issues around Thomas Park were identified.
Solutions to parking and drainage issues are proposed with the
rehabilitation of James Parkway and Puryear Drive in Chapter 3,
mobility. A previous effort to remodel the Thomas Park bathhouse area
was not successful as funds needed to be
C, transferred to the Adamson Lagoon bathhouse
h. F project when it exceeded its expected budget.
The need for remodeling the Thomas Park
x L ~ rb e , 'Q.
bathhouse area still exists and should be
explored with its park plan. Increased access to
Lions Park, which only has access via Chappel
Street, was also acknowledged.
The Eastgate planning area consists of about
thirty separate subdivisions, which results in a
lack of consistent identity for the area. The
f presence of neighborhood signage may help
t - - unify the area and indicate to visitors that they
are entering a neighborhood. This opportunity
could be supported by the City's Gateway
ART
Grant program to offer matching funds. Signage
• ffi~ - - _ could be placed at gateways into the
ark neighborhood, which include the following
• '
possible locations: Eastgate Park on Walton
Drive between Texas Avenue and Foster Avenue, Munson Avenue at
Dominik Drive, Lincoln Avenue at Munson Avenue, Lincoln Avenue at
Foster Avenue, and George Bush Drive East in the Keep Brazos Beautiful
clemonstration garden area east of Texas Avenue.
Public Facilities
Reliable utilities and adequate public services are significant
components of maintaining the vitality of a neighborhood area;
therefore, continued public investment in maintaining water,
wastewater, electric, stormwater facilities, and street lights are
"important.
In 1998, an Eastgate Utility Master Plan was created to identify utility
rehabilitation needs for the aging water and wastewater infrastructure
_ of this area. Portions of the Master Plan have been completed as
immediate issues were resolved, though many of the recommendations
Dave not yet been accomplished. Funding for rehabilitation of Phase IV
\vater and wastewater facilities is anticipated in the budget for the
?01 1-2012 fiscal year. The Phase IV area is generally bounded by Texas
venue, Lincoln Avenue, Walton Drive, and Francis Drive to the south.
Other Eastgate phases should be prioritized to provide reinvestment
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
into this area of the City. Specifically, Phase V, which includes the
Thomas Park area south of Francis Drive, should be funded to coincide
with the proposed rehabilitation of James Parkway and Puryear Drive
as discussed in Chapter 3, Mobility.
Besides the southern portion of Thomas Park already described, a few
intersections were identified for potential drainage improvement. After
further inspection of these intersections, however, it was determined
that significant drainage impmvements did not appear to be
warranted.
Two primary types of street lighting exist in Eastgate, standard lighting
and decorative lighting. Decorative lighting was installed on several
streets as part of the implementation of the 2000 Eastgate-
Neighborhood Plan; however, opposition to the decorative lighting has
limited full implementation of the lighting plan. Input received durin`!
the planning process confirmed that there was not a consensus to
attempt to continue the decorative lighting program.
Enhanced Neighborhood Identity and Public Investment Strategies-
• Program Continuation (N13.1) - Continue to provide technical
assistance to neighborhood organizations applying for
neighborhood grants. Incorporate training for organizations on
developing projects that would be available for funding.
• Support Neighborhood Community Facilities (N13.2) - Support effor s
for a community garden on Pasler Street by providin~-j
organizational assistance as needed.
• Support Neighborhood Community Facilities (N13.3) - Support
community bulletin board concept by providing organizational
assistance and possible neighborhood grant funding. Potential
locations could include the existing board at Thomas Park and the
proposed community garden site.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (N13.4) -Implement the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan by performing individual park
master plans in the Eastgate area to identify park needs and
opportunities for park facility improvements.
• Support Neighborhood Community Facilities (N13.5) - Encourage
neighborhood organizations to pursue common neighborhood
signage for greater neighborhood identity and image.
Neighborhood grant funding opportunities should be supported.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (N13.6) - Implement the
Water Master Plan and Waste Water Mater Plan by completing
Phase IV of the Eastgate Utility Master Plan water and wastewater
upgrades. Prioritize funding for Phase V in future years to coincide
with proposed rehabilitation of James Parkway and Puryear Drive
south of Francis Drive.
• Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (N13.7) - Identify
and apply for funding opportunities to increase grants and
matching funds available for sustainable landscaping projects.
• Community Partnership Opportunities (N13.8) - Identify and work
with key community partners like Big Event, Aggie Replant, and
Keep Brazos Beautiful to assist with neighborhood beautification
projects.
NNW
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Proactive Property Maintenance and Code Enforcement
Property maintenance and code enforcement play a significant role in
the perception of neighborhood integrity. Issues like lawn
raintenance, trash around yards, and upkeep of homes play a role in
how surrounding property owners make decisions about investments for
irnproving their own property.
The City receives federal funds from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Grant.
These funds are managed through the Economic and Community
Development Department where programs are offered to provide
assistance for minor repairs, rehabilitation, and other programs to
owner-occupied single-family housing. As these programs involve
federal funds, there are many eligibility and usage limitations. Where
possible, availability of these programs should be expanded to provide
targeted assistance to owner-occupied dwellings in the planning area.
The City has minimum requirements
t 3 regarding how properties should be
maintained to meet basic health, safety,
and welfare needs. These include standards
for the upkeep of structures on the property
''y w =r through the International Property
- Maintenance Code, as well as standards
r,_ ! I for yard maintenance, junk vehicles,
r parking, and trash. Compliance with these
,1 regulations is monitored through a joint
effort between Code Enforcement, Police,
and residents. Code Enforcement officers
typically visit each property in their area on
a weekly basis, but also investigate citizen
complaints. College Station's Police
Department works closely with Code
Enforcement and Neighborhood Services to
• • • ensure safety within neighborhood specific
areas, called beats.
Code Enforcement Trends
The most frequent code violation cases the City deals with are
r
sanitation cases. These violations include trash on lawns, garbage cans
that are not removed promptly, or other issues regarding trash. Since
2007, there were 1,020 sanitation code violation cases investigated in
Eastgate, making it the most common violation reported.
The second most frequent violation found under Health and Safety
violations are primarily issued when grass and weeds exceed the
allowable height specified in the Code of Ordinances. In this
neighborhood, more than 731 cases were investigated between 2007
and 2010. The minimum standard set by the Code of Ordinances
requires yards to be mowed and tickets are issued when lawns are over
12 inches tall across the entire yard.
Property maintenonce cases are more complicated to enforce and
s s
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
made up only 2.6% of cases in this area between 2007 and 2010. 4 '
Property maintenance cases are primarily focused on raintenance of
structures on the property.
Property Maintenance and Code Enforcement Strategies:
The strategies for this section focus on enhancing code enforcement
activity in an effort to promote continued owner investment in their
property by ensuring that neighboring properties are properly
maintained in accordance with City regulation.
• Increased Program Awareness (N14.1) - Utili-e
organized neighborhood associations and other
communication mechanisms to increase awareness
of available housing assistance programs offered by
the City. - • • e • • e • • e e
• Program Assessment (N14.2) - Evaluate the availability • • ° • • • • ' • " • •
of existing housing assistance programs offered for e - - - - • • • . e • - -
single-family owner-occupied housing and expand ° • " • • • " • "
programs or make adjustments to increase program • • • • • ' "
effectiveness. • ° "O - '
• Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (N14.3) - - • • • ago " • • • ' • •
Create an indicator system that tracks code • • ' • • '
enforcement and property maintenance activity to ' • •
-
identify frequent violations, specific properties, and • e • - e . • • - 09
time periods.
• Provide effective organization support and training ' • " • " " - • -
opportunities (N14.4) - Incorporate code enforcement • " ' ° • " • • •
training for organizations so they can better • • • • • • • • • -
understand local and state legal requirements for • • • ° "
pursuing enforcement action on a property, as well ' • • • ' • •
as how to report and follow up on enforcement • ° • ° •
cases. . . - e • - . • - • •
• Create proactive code enforcement procedures • • "
(N14.5) - Develop a more robust property
maintenance enforcement program to include
specific training on the International Property Maintenance Code
and cross-training with Police, Fire, and Utilities to identify issues and
respond before they become a code violation.
• Increase neighborhood notification processes (N14.6) - Utilize rental
registration program information to provide annual reminders to
rental property residents about code requirements and to notify
property owners of significant enforcement activity occurring on~
their properties.
• Program Continuation (N14.7) - Continue neighborhood walk and
talk program to provide reminders to students and renters about
responsibilities and requirements of living in a single-family home.
Targeted Emergency and Law Enforcement Services
The final section of this chapter deals with the coordination and
improvement of law enforcement and emergency service response in
the planning area. The primary concerns raised by residents relate to
on-street parking, speeding, and property security.
D •
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I ADOP-rED 06-23-11
On-street Parking
On-street parking is a concern voiced by many residents during the
planning process. Often, on-street parking problems are due to the
prevalence of rental properties in the area. On-street parking can
cause difficulties when cars block driveways, trash cans, and
mailboxes, but particularly for emergency vehicles. Illegal parking in
bike lanes is alto a concern.
Because of the lack of sidewalks on most local
' streets in the area, on-street parking has forced
pedestrians and bicyclists to walk and ride
within the street. On street parking can,
s however, have benefits. Parked cars are a
method of traffic calming. Because they
visually crowd the through lanes, drivers will
typically slow down and pay better attention
to the road and the surrounding cars.
Additionally, in a more suburban environment
like the single-family portions of Eastgate, on-
street parking provides spaces for guests that
would otherwise not be available if on-street
parking was removed.
The City generally allows parking on all local
streets unless otherwise signed. The current
. . ® - - - ency services right-of-way standard in the City for a local
rg.
street is a 27-feet pavement width, which
usually accommodates two-way traffic with
parking. As provided in Figure 3.2, Eastgate Local Streets Not Meeting
Current Standard in Chapter 3, Mobility, there are a number of local
streets in Eastgate that are not built to this standard. In many instances,
parking is already prohibited on one or both sides of these streets. City
treets are public property and open to the public for parking. Parked
!-:ars may not be located within 20 feet of street intersections or be
parked facing against the flow of traffic. Parked cars may not block a
driveway, mailbox, dumpster, or alley, and parking is not permitted on
bike lanes or unimproved areas. Parking can be removed by action of
the City Council through the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
Because of the difficulties that are incurred by residents when on-street
parking is removed within an area, on-street parking should not be
removed in areas unless there is an impact to emergency service
response times or accessibility to fire hydrants. Continued monitoring of
the parking situation will allow for a more proactive response to parking
issues within the neighborhood. Sidewalks and bicycle lane
improvements outlined in Chapter 3, Mobility should be made to
I>rovide safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Speeding
Traffic issues, specifically speeding, in and around the neighborhood
were frequently cited as a concern. A safe and efficient street network
i< a significant factor that contributes to a positive quality of life for
ieighborhood residents. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Mobility, a number
of local streets in the planning area do not meet the current pavement
EXHIBIT B
ADOP"1'ED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
width standard of the street. One of the identified strategies is to
evaluate whether the posted speed limit on these narrower streets
should be lowered. As motorists respond to a lower speed limit, traffic
will be calmed to the appropriate design speed of the street.
An on-going task of local law enforcement
officers is speed limit enforcement it "
neighborhoods and throughout the City. k
way to help encourage compliance with the -
speed limit is to increase the awareness o`"
the posted speed limit. One opportunity to „b
increase awareness includes the temporar; 25
placement of radar speed limit signs in
targeted areas that display the speed a-'
passing vehicles on the typical speed limii
sign. In addition to increasing speed
awareness, this tool can be used to assess "
whether there is a speeding issue and to
collect data for traffic count and pattern
analysis.
Property Security
Property security is a concern in many
college communities because of the
seasonal effects of school breaks that leave
a large number of homes empty, creating easy targets for break-i-,s
and burglary. Burglaries of a vehicle or habitation are a consistent issue
throughout the community. In Eastgate, these crimes decreased in
2007 and 2008, but then returned to pre-2007 levels in recent years.
Map 2.5, Burglary and Theft Activity in 2009 through 2010, illustrates the
overall reported burglary and theft activity in the area.
College Station Police implemented a community policing system in
2009, where officers are assigned to beats and work closely with
residents and organizations to identify and address security issues.
Neighborhood efforts including neighborhood watch could assist in
these efforts.
Targeted Emergency and Law Enforcement Services Strategies:
The strategies in this section are focused on improving outreach and
education through neighborhood and student organizations about
property security and emergency response to ensure appropriate W
response times and effective law enforcement.
• Program Continuation (N15.1) - Continue to promote community
policing and provide opportunities for residents to interact with
police personnel about security issues around the neighborhood.
• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities
(N15.2) - Increase education to neighborhoods and student
organizations about property crimes and security during school
breaks.by utilizing efforts such as Know Your Neighbor campaigns to
ensure that residents know who lives around them and can more
easily identify suspicious activity. _
• Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (N15.3)
- Work with established organizations to develop or reinstate
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
neighborhood watch or other neighborhood watch or other similar
programs that would create opportunities for organizations to assist
law enforcement and emergency responders.
• Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (N15.4) - Develop an
on-going parking monitoring program in conjunction with the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and emergency responders
o monitor on-street parking issues and take proactive actions to
address issues. This program should set up regularly scheduled
review of parking by visual inspection and tracking of parking
iolations including parking in bike lanes.
• Create neighborhood speed limit awareness program (N15.5) -
Develop a speed awareness program by acquiring radar speed
signs to utilize at targeted locations to increase awareness of the
posted speed limit in neighborhood areas and collect other traffic
data.
• Program Continuation (N15.6) - Continue to work with Aggie Up and
student organizations to educate students about parking, noise,
and property security.
• Program Continuation (N15.7) - Continue notifications to registered
neighborhood organizations of noise violations and police
response. Incorporate notifications of other significant police
activity so that neighborhoods may focus their neighborhood
watches on particular areas.
V4W
Q}
p ~
0 nj O m v m a77
No p 3 vg, o
0.0 <
u LIS r, o'
c 7j O y~a1 o a F
v, J t v c`
a'~ p~~s°I~ III
EI il~1ll
~TT
r
f
r a}u ~ I L T~~~t l U
T7TT
~ t 1
T7l - y
r
IL J
T T
I 1 t lilili'Mm E 1 a, T'T
IiI1iF-1 o
y
x'11 Mill'
IL
o
CI
o
r
-II
O
7p
N X
d O O r
N } s o
o
O N
"0 0°
LU Z C, M
L -r 2 v!
O c`
N Q U O
Z H ~f U U U ~
w ❑411
nrr j0 APe4S in j0 33aPId IeaN
Isz-A
.o
U
\.p I
- - - r - r. tJ
IS JanOISaM o
100
U 0
O ° w T
= U M m
T yi
J Y+
lOt
AV UOSUnyv 0,1
Md A AV Ja
GE/A d /)a1S jpw j
°o ~Q SUayl`d c~
«I ny uinggsb ~M eidwAl0
aTi C` Q
6s, . VII 'fQ j 0 x JO~B\
3S Mo1Jel
J - - LL. _3S swei I
O
o ~ o alto... ~
s N 1
tom!°o`! ice' I
y IS Jals~d
~a
tg ~awnl
d M
r- a saw-..djrrr
JEWN
cos~ Yti nva
3S WIN N ~ Ij[ndLi. °l6uiaeH > Y
milli It'll -MM mown
enUOAV
a aaullW~rt'~ )r'm i♦ J
IS Jam UGS13 `
LL
g aue 1
Ab J83S0~ ~1~ r
a ~.t
~awcj tsi
nd Sexal `o a
ce
nd St b
peeW
ul tiewaso,
c
G 3 0
U ~
06.
2 N
4"a M
O C Q q,
0 w
v e D
Lu s N
z
o~ ON
v
--jo- Pe4S-
,Gt ~
~
\w 3S-a o1SaM-
/j' O~ a
,w
3
) l f O O
- a
i
~r-
AM-eldwAlo
.C t7 1
c IS
swei!!iM ~T~v Pg j.
M
~g r oaael_, ~ i I
y ~~41
AMC
x
ti 3S `ri /Z' 30
LLJ
I. L ~p- r Y
IS-zIM M _ U
TiA Pd-
_ mend
~t, y0
Jou
L3S-j8MO4u9s13..._- 9{~ YY 1 7
S-auer_ I ' 1n- - LL
m - 1*A _21SO4
• o
J yf nysexal i 1
C
O D: o
t ~
C m
_ ul-Aiewaso
'm I
-Pjm-o O Z
N
U ~
L r~
d ~ L L
3
0 ion
O C4 0 7() '2 o S
-E 0. "C 12
2 5;
LN < J r} in N 47 N
Z
TS r~ C O O O
U U U
o ❑ ❑ ®i0
-JQ- pegs`-
,6<
- - o-3S-Aeje4jae
of ~
\ IS-Jano;saM--- J
-1If _ o
a~ 'E v
0
A -A
m
- _
nt!=uosunky
t _
_ 41V
10
Y
~/,o nt>J&11,91 m
00 Savyv Jc ..i4-suayl`d-0
q - AV uunggsy
«.~(M.eiduiIU
49
3-
mo'ael_. fT..i--- -r- s?sw~ei~~iM,r,.,,....~.~ ! Pis
i - 1 1
~~in cc
m a` t% Jy/ i S y~
c y~ i T >
r
is jawnl~ - r ! ~s °~saWe~ -Y
L
;S z;iwiN - ny uo36ui~JeH d 6
N
` Q t/-
1?
aanno uasi
~Q J-auIiyy _ r
i ,
so-auerj"l
ny jai -i r_
J~- LL
E
So
o o - -
ti 13 - n t
J ~o ewasOv
-o 0 2 t
uoij
a ~
Q
o
a°N o
o -C
£ sZ ~ v N
O p
W C O
00
N
Z s m
D
CA
~G j0 Pe4S j..~Q 33a~1o!d !eaN
i
c
IS Ja oisaM
_ 2
LJ C
m
AM eidwAlo
c L T 71-7
l r
is
lull "Tet-~~
T I--
Y y
LL
S aue~ L 1T o
r~
'LL
-
-21
_ sexal
Z ~
nd t
opeow a o
m' ul ewasoa
m
0,
1%. ..r
EXHIBIT B
kt~5
E A S T G A T E
MIN'
N E I G H B O R H O O D
PLAN
YrWW ~fF
, ~ vi'v Afi y{b ~ 5 'a S# ter ~ ffi.
a a ~^'a ~a~~ m~ 1~= ati " m ~u3 rsya~ a~ as ~ a
- ffi' • • 9^ 4 • ®t`s df/- ~ ® 3.89 •
~ Vii. • • ffi w+ • a. ! • Rt • • 9 •
X ,
The Eastgate neighborhood has a dense and connected network of streets.
However, gaps or lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist making it
difficult for some residents to utilize all mobility options to access key
destinations in the neighborhood and the surrounding community. The
majority of residents live within 1,500 feet (ten minute walk range) of a key
destination like a school, park, place of worship, or commercial area,
O l_ i,_ O 'y' Ut'~i_.~! _~Uar t'a" tlOn t0 irla~e
however.
destinatio~,s -
Thc c,,~ rni~, --i l -)te t:,-! C", i tc
- • • • - - support mobility improvement within and through the
• - ' ' ' Eastgate neighborhood. This chapter identifies key
• s - .s - planning considerations facing Eastgate in relation to
. - mobility and further identifies opportur
• - those issues. The goal for this chapter is
. .5 Maintain a safe and efficient street network while
v improving multi-modal transportation options by
r increasing bicycle and pedestrian connections to key
destinations within and around the neighborhood.
This chapter focuses on the following three areas of
F, mobility: thoroughfare and local streets, bicycle and
pedestrian network enhancement, and bus transit
opportunities. The thoroughfare and local street section
evaluates if the existing street network is functioning as
q's- intended - that streets are built to the correct standard
- and context, are properly maintained, and existing
w~ intersection are operating safely. Bicycle and pedestrian
network enhancements focus on improvements to the
a _ , bicycle and sidewalk facilities to improve connectivity
fhoMos- Park is ,,an
Eastb6t&. within and around the neighborhood. Finally, transit
opportunities focus on oppo`!-jri'I=_: to ;~onl:~tu
ridershiu within the neighborhooc.
Planning Information
This section outlines e J,tii~g pdbl t'uut knpu I nlul,-Ak w~ fl:-
planning area.
ADOPTED 06-23-11
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Lincoln Sidewalks - Funding has been allocated for the extension of
sidewalks on the north side of Lincoln Avenue from the future
Eisenhower Street to University Drive East. This project is anticipated to
begin with utility rehabilitations scheduled with the Eastgate Phase IV
utility rehabilitation projects in 2012.
George Bush Drive East/Dominik Drive Intersection Signalization -
unds from the 1998 capital bond issue were budgeted for the 2010-11
fiscal year for a warrant study and possible Signalization of the
r-tersection of George Bush Drive East and Dominik Drive. A previous
arrant study concluded that traffic volumes did not warrant a signal.
However, with the completion of the Texas Avenue widening project,
a second study concluded that upgrading this intersection from a
four-way stop to a signaled intersection was warranted. Installation of
the traffic signal is anticipated in fall 2011.
Key Planning Considerations
Thoroughfares
1;s set out in the City's Comprehensive Plan, context sensitive
thoroughfares are proposed to meet the City's transportation needs
and support its land use and character objectives. Context sensitive
planning provides a functional classification of streets, which is based
M the traffic service function they are intended to provide; a context
lnrough which the streets travel; the thoroughfare type, which outlines
the design criteria of the street; and a specific cross-section design for
I he street or street segment.
he following is a description of the classification of streets in the
Comprehensive Plan for the Eastgate planning area. Map 3.1,
Thoroughfare Functional Classification, Map 3.2, Thoroughfare Context
and Map 3.3, Thoroughfare Type, depict the existing location,
unctional classification, context, and thoroughfare type for streets in
*ie planning area.
Functional Classification
street classifications are based on the traffic service function they are
it tended to provide and are grouped into classes based on the
character of the surrounding development and degree of land access
they allow. College Station streets are classified into six categories:
freeway/expressway, major arterial, minor arterial, major collector,
minor collector, and local or residential streets. The functional
classifications identify the necessary right-of-way widths, number of
ones, and design speeds for the streets. Collector streets are designed
to collect traffic from local streets and distribute the traffic to a higher
classified street, such as an arterial or freeway in a safe and efficient
manner.
` within the Eastgate neighborhood, three functional classes of streets
serve the neighborhood: major collectors, minor collectors and local
streets. The existing functional classifications are adequate to serve the
neighborhood; however, it was recognized that a number of the
collectors and local streets are not constructed to current street cross-
section standard. The substandard nature of these streets will be
r ~
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
discussed later in this chapter.
Major Collector Streets - There are six major collector thoroughfares
designated in the neighborhood: Dominik Drive, Eisenhower Street,
Foster Avenue, George Bush Drive East, Lincoln Avenue, and Tarrow
Street. Major collector streets are intended to be designed to serve
vehicle traffic in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day.
Minor Collector Streets - There are two minor collector thoroughfares -
Francis Drive and Walton Drive - designated in the neighborhood. These
thoroughfares meet current paving width standards but lack all of the
associated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Minor collectors are
designed to serve vehicle traffic in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles
per day.
Perimeter Streets - There are three thoroughfares that bound the
Eastgate neighborhood and connect the neighborhood to the
remainder of the City and region. These roads consist of two major
arterials (Texas Avenue and University Drive East) and one major
collector (Dominik Drive). Traffic volumes along major arterials are
generally in the range of 20,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day, while major
collectors can operate with traffic volumes of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles
per day.
Thoroughfare Context
Context refers to the land use and character through which a street
travels. There are five context classes within the City. The Eastgate
neighborhood is classified into two context areas of Urban and
Restricted Suburban. Urban context should focus on creating multi-
modal facilities due to the intense development patterns that the street
is intended to serve and the higher concentration of non-vehicular trips
that occur. Restricted Suburban context should focus on more
residential activity on and around the street itself, and place an
emphasis on preserving the surrounding residential character.
All of the thoroughfares in the planning area are classified with an Urban
context, except for Francis Drive from Walton Drive to Glenhaven Drive,
which is classified with a Restricted Suburban context. The other portions
of Walton Drive and Francis Drive within the Neighborhood
Conservation-designated areas should also be classified with the
Restricted Suburban context.
Thoroughfare Type
Thoroughfare type combines the information related to functional
classification and context, and establishes the design criteria of the
street. There are two thoroughfare types identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood: avenues and streets. An
avenue integrates moderate traffic volume and speeds (not to exceed
35 miles per hour) with multi-modal transportation, such as transit,
bicycling and walking. Streets are low speed, lower volume roadways
that provide access to surrounding land uses with speeds not exceeding
30 miles per hour.
George Bush Drive East is classified as four-lane Urban Avenue type. All
of the other thoroughfares in the neighborhood are classified with an
! !
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY ADOPTED 06-23-1 1
Urban street type, except for Francis Drive from Walton Drive to
Glenhaven Drive, which is classified with a Restricted Suburban street
type. Like thoroughfare context, the other portions of Walton Drive and
Francis Drive within the Neighborhood Conservation-designated areas
should also be classified with the Restricted Suburban street type.
Substandard Thoroughfares
i' any of the thoroughfares within the neighborhood are not
l'onstructed to the full cross-section to handle the vehicular, bicycle,
and pedestrian traffic volume anticipated with the long-term build-out
and redevelopment of the area. Figure 3.1, Eastgate Thoroughfares,
provides information regarding the functional classification, context,
and thoroughfare type of each thoroughfare within and
around the neighborhood and identifies what types of
deficiencies exist for each. As currently constructed,
some thoroughfares do not have the minimum right-of-
` vay, anticipated number of lanes, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, or adequate right-of-way to fully
implement the context requirements as outlined in the
7. Y l-yr
Comprehensive Plan. The lack of right-of-way mainly
impacts the roadside zones where sidewalks, street
trees, and other street furniture could be placed (See
+ ~ b ^ t7 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Transportation for street
cross sections).
Dominik Drive, George Bush Drive East, and Tarrow
street meet the number of lanes though are lacking
some bicycle and pedestrian facilities or other context-
sensitive elements. Lincoln Avenue is constructed to a
minor collector width while the existing portion of
i Eisenhower Street and Foster Avenue are only
constructed to local street widths. The construction of
Eisenhower Street between Ash Street and Lincoln
Avenue will be important for redevelopment
opportunities in the area (See Redevelopment Areas in
Chapter 1, Community Character). The need for
Eisenhower Street Street enue improvements to Lincoln Avenue and Foster Avenue will
is iDlonned to continue through to Lincoln Av.
increase as redevelopment occurs. Given that these
streets are located in developed areas, acquiring the
full right-of-way becomes more difficult and costly to obtain. A cost
:affective method, while seeking to improve the efficiency of these
thoroughfares, may be acquisition of right-of-way at key intersections
to allow turn lanes to be installed which will reduce the total amount of
right-of-way acquisition along the length of the street.
ontext-sensitive improvements can be made to streets, or segments
of streets, within the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan calls for
parking, bike lanes, and large roadside zones to accommodate safe
and inviting pedestrian sidewalks on Restricted Suburban major and
rninor collectors. Medians may also be appropriate in some instances,
particularly when driveway spacing is insufficient for the thoroughfare
type. Where driveways are too close, medians allow for limited access
in order to reduce the number of left turning movements that lead to
most traffic incidents.
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Though many of the Eastgate thoroughfares lack some features when
compared to current standard, much of the demand for these
improvements will come as the perimeter of the neighborhood
redevelopments. Therefore, besides the construction of the remainder of
Eisenhower Street and other intersection, bicycle, and pedestrian
improvements identified elsewhere in this chapter, strategies regarding
improvements to these thoroughfares are not included within this Plan
but will be addressed as part of the anticipated redevelopment plan
that includes this area.
Figure 3.1 - Eastgate Thoroughfares
Deficienciesto
Street Functional
Cross Streets Context Type Current/Proposed
Name Classification
Standard
University Dr Major
Texas Ave to Dominik Dr Arterial Urban Blvd None
(I
University Texas Ave to Major Raised Center Median;
Dr E Tarrow St Arterial Urban Blvd Continuous Sidewalks
George Bush Major Center Left Turn Lane;
Dominik Dr Dr E to Collector Urban St Bike Lanes;
Munson Ave Continuous Sidewalks
Portion
Unconstructed;
Eisenhower University Dr Major Right-of-Way Width;
St E to Lincoln Collector Urban St Pavement Width for
Ave Center Left Turn Lane;
Bike Route;
Continuous Sidewalks
Right-of-Way Width;
Lincoln Ave to Major Pavement Width for
Foster Ave George Bush Collector Urban St Center Left Turn Lane;
Dr E Bike Route
Continuous Sidewalks
George Texas Ave to Major
Bush Dr E Dominik Dr Collector Urban Ave None
Right-of-Way Width;
Pavement Width for
Texas Ave to
Major Center Left Turn Lane;
Lincoln Ave University Dr Collector Urban St Continuous Bike
E 4
Lanes;
Continuous Sidewalks
University Dr Major Pavement width for
Tarrow St E to Lincoln Collector Urban St Bike Lanes;
Ave Continuous Sidewalks
Texas Ave to Minor Urban /
Francis Dr Ashburn Ave Collector Restricted St Bike Lanes
Suburban
Ashburn Ave
Francis Dr to Glenhaven Minor Restricted St Bike Route
Dr Collector Suburban
Walton Dr Texas Ave to Minor Urban St Bike Route;
Francis Dr Collector Continuous Sidewalks
~s r/
EXHIBIT B
HAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Local Streets
i hough most of the local streets in the planning area were constructed
early in the City's history, many of them meet the current pavement
.Vidth standard and have curb and gutter systems. All streets, however,
do not meet the current standard for sidewalks on both sides of the
Street, which will be discussed further in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
mobility section of this chapter. Map 3.4, Status of Eastgate Local
Streets and Figure 3.2, Eastgate Local Streets Not Meeting Current
Standard, provide an illustration and detailed information regarding
the existing local streets that were identified as deficient to the current
minimum right-of-way, pavement width or curb and gutter
requirements.
Figure 3.2 Eastgate Local Streets Not Meeting Current Standard
Existing Curb
Right of Approximate
Local Street Way Pavement Width &
Width Gutter
Narrower Right-of-Way, Pavement, or No Curb
Avenue A <30' 22' No
Chappel St 40' 22' Yes
Gilbert St 30' 12' No
James Pkwy 60' 20' No
(south of Francis Dr)
Nimitz St 40'-50' 20'-24' No
Pasler St 40' 22' Yes
Puryear Dr 60' I 20' No
(sou_th_ of Francis Dr) j _
Turner St 29'-50.5' 14'-20' No
22';
Woodland Pkwy 40' 12' gravel No
section
Narrower Right-of-Way Only
Avenue B 40' 27' Yes
Banks St 40' "21- Yes
Churchill St 30'-40' 27' Yes
Columbus St 40' 27' Yes
Live Oak St
(west of Eisenhower 44' 30' Yes
St
Pearce St 40' 27' Yes'
Yes
Peyton St 40' 27
Preston St -35-40' 27' Yes
Participants in the planning process provided input on many of these
ubstandard streets. In a number of instances, there was a desire to
maintain the current or a similar street cross section and not widen or
otherwise address the deficiency. As some local streets are
anticipated to continue with narrower pavement widths, the posted
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
speed limits for these streets should be evaluated and lowered as
necessary. Described in this section are some of the local streets in
which discussion occurred or a particular action was identified.
Avenue A - Avenue A is located along Lincoln Avenue between Nimitz
Street and the future extension of Eisenhower Street. The street is roughly
500 feet in length, has minimal right-of-way, no curbs and currently dead
ends without a cul-de-sac bulb or stub for future extension. Fire code
requires turnarounds on streets or fire lanes when they are in excess of
100 feet in length. To help facilitate compliance with the fire code, as
the properties near the end of Avenue A redevelop, the street should be
extended to the future Eisenhower Street to the west or a cul-de-sac
bulb provided (See Site Development Area 2 in Chapter 1, Community
Character).
Gilbert Street - Gilbert Street connects
Paster Street and Turner Street and i
approximately 250 feet in length with one.
travel lane and no curbs. Residents in the
area expressed concerns about Gilbert
Street being widened, the one-lane
nature of the existing street, the possibilityt of additional right-of-way acquisition to y
bring the street to current standard, and the increased potential for through traffic r
that may result from the improvement.
The necessity for the standard pavement
width of 27 feet can be minimized with d F „
the removal of parking. This street should
be rehabilitated to function similar to ar
alley but with the addition of curbs.
James Parkway and Puryear Drive -
James Parkway and Puryear Drive north
of Francis Drive are constructed to current
pavement standards. The sections of these streets south of Francis Drive
have substandard pavement width and lack curb and gutter. Based on
feedback received, these streets were further discussed in relation to
parking deficiency and drainage issues around the adjacent Thomas
Park and pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns for the portion of
Puryear Drive between Kyle Avenue and Dominik Drive.
While a rehabilitation of the southern portion of these streets to the
current width standard with curb and gutter facilities will help resolve
drainage issues, this option will not result in the most beneficial parking
solution and will likely be detrimental to the mature trees that surround
the park. Feedback received from Plan participants stated that all
reasonable efforts need to be made to preserve the existing trees. The
most beneficial option included James Parkway and Puryear Drive
becoming a one-way pair south of Francis Drive. This alternative
provides a narrower pavement width to limit the impact on mature
trees, creates substantially more parking with parallel parking along the
park side, and helps alleviate drainage issues with the installation of curb
and gutter with underground storm water system. The exercise of
possible alternatives performed by the Eastgate Neighborhood
Resource Team is included as Appendix C: James Parkway and Puryear
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Drive Alternative Analysis.
Concerns regarding on-street parking
and speeding were also expressed for
Yi .
" the portions of James Parkway and
_ Puryear Drive north of Francis Drive. With
f. the rehabilitation of the southern portions
of these streets, traffic calming measures
' on the north side could also be made to
~ tit z
t t, ultimately reduce the posted speed limit
and address parking issues.
Munson Avenue - Though Munson
Avenue does not have a substandard
a . ~s
local street right-of-way, pavement
width, or lacks curbs, it was identified on
- several occasions as requiring additional
attention. Munson Avenue within the
planning area between Lincoln Avenue
and Dominik Drive is classified as a local
street, while the portion outside of the
® » - - » - - planning area between Dominik Drive
and Harvey Road is classified and
constructed as a minor collector. Many
oncerns cited by Plan participants related to speeding and excessive
volumes of traffic. Previous efforts to minimize these effects have been
i o reduce the speed limit and close off portions of Munson Avenue to
i~~rough traffic. In response to the street closure, a citizen initiative
>egan and signatures were gathered and submitted to the City. The
i iifiative was voted on and passed by College Station residents in the
r:1ay 1, 1999 general election and is codified as Ordinance No. 2392 as
adopted May 7, 1999 which states:
''That the City of College Station shall not block or restrict, or impair or
liscourage by use of barrier, speed humps, repetitive stop signs or
:Aherwise, vehicular travel on to, over or via any portion of Munson
.;venue, between Lincoln Drive (Street/Avenue) and Harvey Road
(Mate Highway 30), provided that this Ordinance shall not prohibit or
restrict: (a) temporary closings for improvement or repair of street
facilities or utilities, (b) the establishment and enforcement of vehicular
,,peed limits, or (c) the use of traffic safety controls or devices
consistent with standards commonly applied to other City
1horoughfares, provided such limits, controls and devices are primarily
mended to enhance the overall safety of such travel and not to
:discourage such travel."
sue to this citizen-led initiative ordinance, the City will not seek to alter
Munson Avenue as expressed in the ordinance.
Nimitz Street - Nimitz Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ash Street
has substandard width and most of it does not have curbs. This section
_;f street is unique in that a portion of the pavement was placed on
fhe properties along the western edge of the street. As these
properties have redeveloped, they have dedicated right-of-way to
~h_- edge of existing pavement. Due to the lot configuration, setback
EXHIBIT B
ADOP'FED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
resulted in structures being located within
five to ten feet of the edge of pavement. "
Rehabilitation of the street and adding
curbs to this approximately 780-foot long
section of Nimitz Street will help increase t,-
safety due to the close proximity of the t t .
structures to the street. Since twenty feet of '
ix -
right-of-way was dedicated on Nim tz Street 1 °
from the multi-family property when it was
replatted in 1982, the potential exists to
move the edge of the street away from the
structures on the western side of the street..
Intersections
Through public input and staff review, a few y
intersections were identified for study to g - w
evaluate the necessity for all-way stops or
other improvements. The intersections
identified for warrant studies include Walton
Drive and Francis Drive, Foster Avenue and Francis Drive, Lincoln klvenue
and Tarrow Street, and Lincoln Avenue and Munson Avenue. Map 3.5,
Intersection Evaluation Areas illustrates the location of these
intersections. A traffic control signal has already been programmed for
the intersection of George Bush Drive East and Dominik Drive.
In addition to potential functional changes tc
intersections, concerns were raised regarding existing
sight distance limitations at certain intersections
Generally, intersections with sight distance limitations are _
a safety hazard as drivers have inadequate visibility to • • • • • • •
see on-coming vehicles and enough time to stop or
properly react to them. Specifically, the intersection of • • • • • • •
Tarrow Street and Lincoln Avenue, Munson Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue, Nunn Street and Lincoln Avenue, and • • • •
Foster Avenue and Francis Drive were identified. Some • • • • •
of these intersections have been identified for a warrant • • • • •
study and sight distance limitations may be resolved if • • • ' • •
the intersection operation is changed to an all-way stop. • • • • • • •
Street intersections will be evaluated for proper sight • • • • • • • •
distance and obstructions removed or the function of ' • • • •
the intersection changed accordingly.
Maintenance ' • ' •
Street maintenance is provided through the Public Works - • - - - • •
Department. On an annual basis, the Streets and - • • • • - •
Drainage division conduct an inventory of streets, and
rate each street on a variety of criteria such as cracking,
potholes, and other issues that require maintenance. When a rating falls
below 85, see Map 3.6, 2010 Street Inventory, the street is then
programmed for maintenance. This map confirms much of the
feedback received from Plan participants with regard to street
maintenance. The majority of these improvements will consist of
repairing potholes or receiving seal coats.
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
2010, the City's annual evaluation process identified street sections
for maintenance as summarized in Figure 3.3, Street Maintenance
P.ating from 2010 Street Inventory. Sections of street that fall below an
~5 rating should be addressed in the near term before additional
~-)avement failures occur. Street sections with a rating between 85 and
;-u should be monitored more closely and repairs made as funding
permits.
Figure 3.3 - Street Maintenance Ratings from 2010 Street Inventory
Street From To
Walton Dr Nunn St Francis Dr
Rating Between 85 and 90
Ashburn Ave Lincoln Ave `820' south of
Lincoln Ave
Bolton Ave James Pkwy Walton Dr
Gilbert St Turner St Pasler St
Holt St Munson Ave End of Holt St
James Pkwy Bolton Ave, Gilchrist Ave
Lincoln Ave Texas Ave Foster Ave
Lincoln Ave Nimitz St Nunn St
Milner Dr Bolton Ave Gilchrist Ave
Moss St Texas Ave Forster Ave
Munson Ave Rose Cir Francis Dr
Munson Ave Woodland Pkwy Lyceum Ct
Puryear Dr Bolton Ave Dominik Dr
Woodland Pkwy Marsteller Ave Munson Ave
Tr- ,roughfare and Local Street Strategies:
• Thoroughfare Plan Amendments (M1.1) - Amend the Thoroughfare
Plan to:
o Designate Walton Drive between Foster Avenue and Francis
Drive with a Restricted Suburban context and street type; and
o Designate Francis Drive between Foster Avenue and Walton
Drive with a Restricted Suburban context and street type.
Coordinated Public Facility Maintenance (M1.2) - Maintain and
rehabilitate streets identified on street inventory as funding permits.
Coordinated Intersection Analysis (M1.3) - Evaluate intersections
that merit further study for all-way stops or sight distance
modifications to address safety concerns. See Figure 3.4,
Intersection Evaluation Areas.
• Substandard Local Street Speed Analysis (MIA) - Evaluate local
streets with pavement widths that are narrower than current
standard and reduce the posted speed limit if warranted.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M1.5) - Prioritize capital
projects for street rehabilitation and extension. These projects
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 I Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
include the extension of the remaining portion of Eisenhower Street,
rehabilitation of Nimitz Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ash
Street, rehabilitation of Gilbert Street, and rehabilitation of James
Parkway and Puryear Drive south of Francis Drive into a one-way
pair. Due to the lack of available funding, the James
Parkway/Puryear Drive rehabilitation should be placed on the next
bond election. Eisenhower Street, Nimitz Street, and Gilbert Street
projects may be eligible for CDBG funding.
• Community Partnership Opportunities (M1.6) - Partner with the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to collect relevant traffic
data.
Fi ure 3.4 - Intersection Evaluation Areas
Evaluation Street Intersection .
Walton Drive and Francis Drive 4-way stop
Foster Avenue and Francis Drive 4-way stop / Sight Distance
Lincoln Avenue and Tarrow Street 3-way stop / Sight Distance
Lincoln Avenue and Munson Avenue 3-way stop / Sight Distance
Lincoln Avenue and Nunn Street Sight Distance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility
Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is part of a multi-modal
transportation network that allows for the movement of people to and
through the neighborhood as an alternative to vehicular travel. In
addition to promoting health and wellness, these non-vehicular modes
of travel can help reduce overall vehicle miles traveled, congestion,
pollution, and the costs associated with roadway expansion. In the most
recent effort to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility, the City
adopted the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Master Plan in 2010.
That plan identified and prioritized improvements to the existing city-
wide systems to enhance and encourage multi-modal transportation.
The Eastgate neighborhood area is older than most neighborhood areas
and was developed at a time when the installation of substantial
bicycle and pedestrian facilities were not required. Though much of the
planning area is known for its eclectic housing stock, curvy street
patterns, mature trees, and close proximity to a number of community
destinations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections are
lacking. One emphasis of neighborhood conservation is to maintain
and encourage owner-occupied and family-occupied housing. As
potential home buyers weigh various purchase and location options
around the City, a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities may place
this area at a market disadvantage when comparing other
neighborhood areas where these facilities are more readily available. In
addition, as the perimeter of the planning area redevelops, these
facilities will become more essential to connect and serve the needs of
this area.
During the planning process, most of the bicycle and pedestria-
facilities identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master
Plan were affirmed while a number of facilities are recommended to be
added or removed. In general, participants desired greater pedestrian
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY ADOPTED 06-23-11
<access to key destinations within the neighborhood and along its
perimeter. The item of greatest discussion and concern was the
p_ anned multi-use path and associated greenway connecting Lincoln
`,venue at Tarrow Street through to Dominik Drive near Stallings Drive.
r.^iost of the concerns expressed regarding the planned multi-use path
stemmed from its location on the rear of existing single-family lots
<,flong Ashburn Avenue and the general through movement intended
for the path. Due to strong opposition received and the difficult nature
of acquiring parts of numerous properties, the planned multi-use path
is recommended to be removed. While the path was intended to
serve a larger area, it would also provide needed bicycle and
pedestrian facilities within the neighborhood. As a result of its removal,
these facilities will continue to remain deficient in this area of the
neighborhood. It is recommended that the Natural Areas - Reserved
designation remain for this entire corridor to recognize the
:environmental sensitive nature of this area. In addition, with the
extension of Eisenhower Street from Ash Street to Lincoln Avenue, the
planned multi-use path along this section can be converted to
)tanned sidewalks and bike route to match the planned facilities for
ne existing portion of Eisenhower Street. Additional bicycle and
>edestrian strategies for the Eastgate neighborhood are provided, as
Outlined in their respective sections of this chapter.
Types of Facilities
-;icycle and pedestrian facilities can include a variety of items. The
following define the various types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
hat are utilized or are proposed for the Eastgate neighborhood:
Bike Lane - a designated part of the roadway that is striped, signed,
and has pavement markings to be used exclusively by bicyclists.
Bike Route - a roadway that is shared by both bicycles and motor
.ehicles. Wide outside lanes and shoulders can serve as bike routes
ith signage.
Sidewalks - walkways alongside roads, typically five to eight feet wide,
for pedestrians.
Side Path (Multi-use Path) - a wider sidewalk (10-12 feet wide)
,longside a road with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles to be used
[.)y bicyclists and pedestrians.
Greenway Trail (Multi-use Path) - all-weather and accessible paths for
.-)edestrian and bicyclists. These are typically 10-12 feet in width.
dditional bicycle and pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, ramps,
. nedians, signage, shelters and signals. These items contribute to the
overall identification, accessibility, and safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians.
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Bicycle Connectivity
Although the Eastgate neighborhood street system is generally well-
connected, the existing bicycle connectivity is inadequate due to a
lack of a bicycle facility network provided on or along streets within the
neighborhood. Map 3.7, Planned Bicycle Improvements, illustrates
existing bicycle facility improvements and the proposed revisions to the
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. It was identified in the
planning process that the planned bike lane along Lincoln Avenue
between future Eisenhower Street and Tarrow Street currently exists.
Also, planned bike lanes on Walton Drive between Nunn Street and
Gilchrist Avenue and on Francis Drive between Ashburn Avenue and
Glenhaven Drive could be reclassified as bike routes if the remaining
planned bike lane on Francis Drive is retained and enhancements are
made to the planned bike route on Foster
Avenue.
Enhancements were identified for the bike a
route on Foster Avenue from George Bush d air
iiee~ V
Drive East to Walton Drive. In addition to the
intersection evaluation at Foster Avenue and
Francis Drive, sharrows and other bicycle
markings could be utilized. This will be
advantageous for bicyclists commuting to and
from key destinations in the area.
fad:
Pedestrian Connectivity
Pedestrian connectivity within the
neighborhood is inadequate due to a lack of
facilities. Uninterrupted sidewalks exist only
along a few streets while some other streets
have discontinuous sidewalks. During the
planning process, several areas were identified
to provide pedestrian connections to key • _
destinations such as parks, schools, and
commercial areas along the perimeter of the
neighborhood as well as to fill gaps in the sidewalk network. As shown in
Map 3.8, Planned Pedestrian Improvements, pedestrian connectivity is
proposed to key destinations and neighborhood centers. Current
development standards require new sidewalks to be constructed on
both sides of all streets. In retrofitting a developed area that lacks a
substantial sidewalk network, sidewalk installation will most likely occur
only on one side of the street to minimize the disruption to existing w Y
improvements and vegetation while maximizing the number of streets
where facilities can be provided given budget constraints.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies
During the planning process, specific concerns were raised regarding
safety, connectivity, and accessibility in the neighborhood. As such,
strategies in this section focus on improving upon those three aspects.
These strategies incorporate elements identified in the Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan, in addition to those identified
during the planning process.
mom`'
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Bicycle Strategies:
• Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Amendments
(M2.1) - Amend the proposed bicycle facilities identified in the
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan:
Replace the planned bike lane on Walton Drive between Nunn
Street and Gilchrist Avenue with a planned bike route;
Replace the planned bike lane on Francis Drive between
Ashburn Avenue and Glenhaven Drive with a planned bike
route; and
Reclassify the bike lanes on Lincoln Avenue between future
Eisenhower Street and Tarrow Street from proposed to existing.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.2) - Stripe, mark, and
Sian bike lanes in compliance with the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Priority and timing of specific improvements are identified
. ) Chapter 5, Implementation, Figure 5.1 Complete Task List.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.3) - Provide signage for
-x.isting bicycle routes where signage is missing in compliance with
he Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan and the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Priority and timing of
specific improvements are identified in Chapter 5, Implementation,
Figure 5.1 Complete Task List.
• Program Continuation (M2.4) - Provide continued maintenance of
oadways, markers, and signage for bicycle transportation
-etwork.
Pedestrian Strategies:
• Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Amendments
(M2.5) - Amend the location of proposed sidewalks identified in
~-e Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to add
>idewalks along the following streets:
University Drive East (south side);
Eisenhower Street from Lincoln Avenue to Ash Street;
Foster Avenue;
Dominik Drive from Texas Avenue to George Bush Drive East;
Gilchrist Avenue from Texas Avenue to Foster Avenue;
James Parkway north of Francis Drive to fill in the gap to the
park walking loop;
Live Oak Street from Texas Avenue to Eisenhower Street;
Nimitz Street from Lincoln Avenue to Ash Street;
Nunn Street;
Puryear Drive from Dominik Drive to Kyle Avenue;
o Puryear Drive from Walton Drive to James Parkway; and
Wellesley Court.
• Coordinated Public Facility Maintenance (M2.6) - Identify and
install or repair gaps or failing sidewalks and crosswalks in the
existing sidewalk network. Priorities should be placed on health,
safety, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance first.
Priority and timing of specific improvements are identified in
Chapter 5, Implementation, Figure 5.1 Complete Task List.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.7) - Install new
sidewalks and associated crosswalks in compliance with the
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. Priority and timing
VW
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
of specific improvements are identified in Chapter 5,
Implementation, Figure 5.1 Complete Task List.
• Program Continuation (M2.8) - Continue to provide maintenance of
pedestrian facilities, including breaks or cracks in sidewalks,
pavement markings, and signage.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies:
• Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Amendments
(M2.9) - Amend the plan regarding multi-use paths to:
o Remove the planned multi-use path between Lincoln Avenue
and Dominik Drive, while retaining the Natural Areas - Reserved
designation for this greenway; and
o Replace the planned multi-use path along future Eisenhower
Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ash Street with planned
sidewalks and bike route.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.10) - Construct multi-use
paths identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master
Plan. Priority and timing of specific improvements are identified in
Chapter 5, Implementation, Figure 5.1 Complete Task List.
• Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (M2.11) - Utilize
grant sources such as Safe Routes to School and Texas State Wide
Enhancement Programs, to expand funding opportunities beyond
the general fund and bonds.
Bus Transit
The Eastgate Neighborhood has access to.
three fixed bus routes operated by the Brazos x
Transit District (The District) while Texas A&M
University (TAM U) Transportation Services
operates one fixed route in the planning area.
The District provides fixed route, paratransit, and ~'Vf~
demand and response service throughout the , F
City for the general public while Texas A&M `
STOP
University Transportation Services primarily .
provides off-campus service to students, faculty.
and staff. f
The District has fixed routes on Texas Avenue:
University Drive, and Lincoln Avenue. The yellow I
route travels between Texas Avenue at Villa Y
Maria Road to Graham Road at Victoria
Avenue. On the return trip to Villa Maria Road
this route travels Lincoln Avenue and Tarrow
Street before returning through Northgate via
University Drive. The brown route primarily
services neighborhoods south of Texas A&M
University via Texas Avenue along the boundary
of the Eastgate neighborhood, and the Purple
route services mostly Bryan neighborhoods but is
accessible on University Drive across from
Eastgate.
TAMU Transportation Services operates one fixed route to this area or
Lincoln Avenue - Route 12, Reveille. There are eight identified fixed stops
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
on the route in the planning area. These stops are in each direction on
Lincoln Avenue at Foster Avenue, at the University Square/Eastgate
partments, near Tarrow Street, and at Munson Avenue. Additionally,
]AMU Transportation Services operates game day transportation
during the football season between Post Oak Mall on Harvey Road
and Kyle Field through Walton Drive and Puryear Drive.
Map 3.9, Bus Transit Network illustrates the existing bus routes and stops
in the neighborhood. Potential obstacles to ridership include the lack
of information regarding existing bus stops and routes, lack of clearly
defined bus stops, lack of pedestrian facilities for safer access to the
>us stops, length of bus routes and time it takes to arrive at a
destination, and the lack of bus shelters.
he District and TAMU Transportation Services are currently evaluating
ne feasibility of operating an integrated bus system, whereby all
residents could utilize both systems through a co-ridership partnership
)etween the entities. This opportunity could reduce inefficiency in
overlapping services. Additionally, a unified system would allow The
District funding to be utilized for the upgrade of existing TAMU
transportation Services stops.
Bus Transit Strategies:
fhe strategies in this section focus on promoting and increasing transit
ridership within the neighborhood. These strategies provide
opportunities for coordination of transit routes between the different
entities, as well as transit stop improvements.
• Community Partnership Opportunities (M3.1) - Identify opportunities
o collaborate and promote a co-ridership program between
i AMU Transit and the Brazos Transit District.
• Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (M3.2) - Work with
TAMU Transit and Brazos Transit District to identify existing stops with
high-ridership to upgrade to a shelter.
• Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (M3.3) - Work with
Brazos Transit District to obtain FTA/FHWA Livability Project Grants
and other like programs to enhance funding opportunities for
transit improvements beyond the general fund and bonds.
II
O
c }
O o73 -71 o v ~`u
a C d (3) y av
0 LL O u
voo QQQV~0 o~
W t Q. L = N ~ 0 0 ~Q O U
&A 0
~ ~ Q1 4J ~ tt) ay 41
a, y~
CJ u J J J J
O 13 M tl I! 1 1 1
F-
Gr JIG ~Pe4S j- JO ita~l~ld IeaN
v c
O~ 3S JanotsaM o`
yQ U +o
13
M U U m '
H,911
BLS C c
_ d N R
Y
f0
z If- J N
nd uosun O
AG Ail Ja//a
f - ° ~TSJpw >
f1, o,~ JQ sua4~d c
r, ny uJngy~ `AM eidwAlo
RIr = V ~sJ~
o r
_3S MOD
ti`
;S sweIIIIM
y N
c u~ Or Q O
o y o Wa1to._
a Q -I
L a co
O __y
y IS JalSed O~ - °o
`m is JauJn.L
c~ 'Nd sa m Q
eo Y
IS lwlN 3 All UOIBUUJeH a
Q c puryesr Dr
t/ anuan = t
d , Jo JauIIW
IS JOM04UOS13
D
m: c
aue
IM E
0 0 ny JOISoA ° o
C. > c9
t'
~d-sexii
nd St p CD
peaw o
u~ iUew'asoa
G 3 U
law
• • • ♦ ♦ • 4
x
W
V
d 0
cv U
goo M v
~ s Q. a D 5
LU = V -r'
odTj c~
a,
z S
❑v to 11 1 11
nGr JD ~Pe4S Ja ua,h!d IeaN 1
IS Aala)Pa9
`Cps; IS Jano;saM I o lo i
13
o w
m = E - 1
O c
i!J Y I
nt/ uos
p .
p NI J SUa f
a 4IV=I
- _ n1 uJngLi I IAM e, !dwA!nl I
y o I ~y
m i V JL
f tNO O ~ r JO ` ~
-~L~S N►oJJe.L 3 C I ~m ~e4~
T N « __j,-... _ 3S swe!11!M a iP~s. l
I _ Q
o o 1to~ lDr -y p'
~ I
a m a` ,'l a U + I
p) 1 a C7 I
i 0 I J
y 3S Jalsd ~
- > IS Jawnl I ! sa m a
c - !p
.E E0
T
S 3!w!N 3: ny uo36UUJeH !i Q X
a - o Auryeat Dr
b anuand
r3S -J8MOyuasi3- JD Jaul!yy_ co r `
y-
/ LL
S sued I o, d _c
a O ny ~a;sod 1N 51 E
Q° y ~A o
; op i a
I I ~ o
nd St ~I
PeaW
0
0
ul itJewasoa
c Q
u
d c
c
O
t
t7 O M r 1
a
IL J Q
.2) C, Cc Cc: Z i
L O a 7
Z ci `O i
p~ 11 II A q p
~Gr jQ Ape4S jQ Ra)io!d IeaN
F
IS Aalamiag
~v
\v V ~ c
IS nano;saM o
i. h o
13
Y
V 7 r ~ _ V 7 ICI - 2--
0 0 C j.
Y
ny uosup
w
sae
/ f A`A~A nd Ja1/91
jQ sua4zv c
y wng4sy AM eldw~(lo
U U > 0
T Q
Mone 3 ti c ii
-~Y(- I y - , - - is swellUm
n w l
c m c \ o or po
0 Y a Watt i
m c m >
a .v 2
~ pp a` ~ i L I-2 Y
I -
is wised
is ~awnl m` >
.°c. - saw m
Iwi ^ uo;6uuieH > Y
S . N ~d Q
a - c pUryear Dr
0
V enuand c
JQ JoullW m
IS Janno~yuas13 t
Y N
co~ N m o
S auef
c p ny as;sod a d o
o > I - c? D
O 0
L
-sexal
m tY o
nd St rn
peow o =
0 ~ ~ o
ul tietuasoa
r11I 14W
.
NEW. IN Will i
4)
N
}
V
L a v
rn~, 0-4
-r, LL
M
o 4- 3:
Q r`n " Le 32
o C p s7
J C _
z N a
i J(] 110)131d WON
PG id APeyS v)
3S Aaiaxias
o
v
cp~r 3S nano;saM J
v
o
O 3
0 .0
U U T-
O
~ v M ~ i CI.
V
J ~ H
m
nd uosurl
Mo;
A4 nd Ja//aIs d'
~ipoo ~eW id suatov c
Ay wngysb, AM etdw!(1O
0000
U V ~ O
Qf l
y m CI ~Q
i0 0 s
~S Moiael 3 c 4im 64~i
N J 3S swe!II!M
~o a s i Or Q o
C Y g anuany a\l0r C
`a W
d m 1S 11!yojnyo > L
O H 1S laddey3 Y (7
d IS jalsed
y O~ o
c '"d to
a
c wnl Sa~Pr -
Y
IS zltw!N - z ntl uo36uujeH Q
a _c Ruryea~
V anuand o
- a iauq m tu~ `
iS ianmoyuasl3
_ c v
f/I V) L Y LL
S aue
- - - - m
f o O /fit/ JO)S0:j o O ~
O ~ - y m' D
- O O
J E m
nd sexal o ~
r ~
nd St
Peow m
G ~ 3 ~ u~ ;(~ewasob
C-
0
a u
"0 U)
a o V5 w r. o z.
W v 0 Q o }
s U - w
Z 'L CL L'L r
Ej~,,x•
Jo Ape4S c aQ lla~l~!d IeaN
o IS I(aja~iag
O V
IS JanoIsaM Y~
V 1~45~
0: CD
i ~ IQ
J Ay uosunw
//a/g~~w '
~ id sue43y °o cl
> ! M,
Q
- ^V ujng4sb' AM eldwAlo
v c ~ ~
p
m c`
J(l
iS nno~~el ` is swe!IPM
c a c a~to~ Ur a
a -Y 0
Q V
a m > L
L
A 0.
- Y
3S aalsed Ok - o0
IS aauwnl 'hy m >
c ~ sa Q
T
„y uo38uweH
a
IS ZI!w!N a cc puryear Dr ~a 4sn8 opioa
anuany
io laullW o
3S JLo,4u8S13 co
OF)
S auef a, c ID
a O Ad ~als0:1 c
o m m o
a > ~
J 0
~-Ad SEX3;1 ~
w
t
f1
ul tiewasob
~ U
GL
r
u
>O
wt p,c0 ~ t
o a N Q
LU ~ v
V) d 1z ?
d
❑~n l l l l
~.m_ „~a 3la~h!d IeaN
~Gr _ ~0 APeyS U)
~ I ~ 8 A
U c
cpv IS Jano3saM o
O
~y
U
i
~o
3
00
0 O, c
_ V N 1t
J L
Vl
Y
t0
O,
Ai;A., nd ~a//ads `
i /p0 ~pw d
0 iQ suagj •cj
ny ujngyAM e!dwA!O
U >
U Q D
>i
m o fi D JQ
m m Y 64i
is moije~ c! c
IS swe!II!M
N t r o
c int c ttor D D
to 0
q m U
to m a ~ ~ a
O
A O` 1
a iS Ja!sed O~ o`
is jauwnl to >
d
3S 3!w!N m Rco ^V uo;6uweH Q ' Yy
Q. o
A ry pr
ea t
V anuand c
?O Jau!!W m t
3S Jamoyuesi3`.....
S auef 'L
C Add y m C °o
p > w O
J g0 O
r
_ ny sexal a
m oc
nd St a~
Peew I = s o
o g
u~ tiewasoa
1
a U
d~ U N ~o-~~wc-°
O Q Cwt J) C~ CL ci
W U 0 D17, 0 0
O
co,
Z > az M, i
❑ t0 ■ ( ■ ■ ■
nG 'a pe4S cn jp ita)JOld leaN
r
J~
J~ 3S Aalaxiag- -
vo, u
C
3S Jano;saM o
0 {
tai w b
C. o a
y
E
ep
Abp li__. ~ 0~
4 W
A` AA IV r h,50 ls~e(M >
°o~ ~p sua4~t% c
ny ujngysV AM eidLuAio
U~ ~ f
m U Q _ _ ~
y N C ~y
m ol jQ 3
as Mosel 3 c, lc` c 6`%,
N N - is sweill!M
c CO o W a1to~ D~ D
Y •C
` a co O Y ~
y ised O` S
1S ~awnl to
>
_ o _ ~ saw m
~ T
3S 23MIN ny uolBuuieH a
Q puryear Dr
tanuany c ok ■
ap Jou!!W 0
N
3S iamo4uesi3 • • tom V1 ~ m Y li
S ar C
aUe ~I Y
r ~p l0 f of Cl
o o At/ Ja~So j Nuf d o
Q6. J o c~ o
nd~sexal 3
LY1 ~ j °
and St
peow
c '
m u~ wasoa
G ~ 3 °
N
~ i7 ~ aJ
N ~
t
N
0 fp~ss N ~ 2 C
'a 00 -0
+O' O M C w ci .O
a O Q -C L
IL > 0
p
w u a- a- CL
a► g 'v 3 o
'v al s
Z D
~n -i0 Ape4S N jQ lla)hld IeaN
w/ IS Jano;saM
i~C : I N 00
0 'a
V V Wi J
17
_ ~ lIf
+ 0 c
0 O
i
= c'Oi ~ ~m f ~ ml
J Y.
Ay uo r?
- ,
OI
t Ap~~~ Ab ~a~/a~s~e I
>1
0- - W ► ~p sua4;d.•c
1 Ad ujngysy y~M eldwAlo
~,r V O t
i
/v
;g moiae1 3 ' k
_ L
J is swellllM , f
_ u ! M to , E I
0 0 ; 1 a~or Or
c to c
d A > v ld,
~ m
o a Y
3S alsed O~ - °o
>
~t ;S ~auinj. Mat co
}C
V 10
WzllwlN - 3 AV uo;6UUJeH Q / ; - -
d anuaAb A
o
'
aU Jaullyy co
-;S J,9moyuasi3 - 1; o!
tAl Yt
A-aaso~--
t Q O ! d 3 r Of ao~ Ji O m~ t
- - -Aysexal o; .o
c9I = °
nd St ff
peaw -
G
\ c ul tiewasoy
ro
i
i
O
d
N 'a Ol Q)
O M
O U a 3 ti
al s Q, N a o °
a o o r
W
U J V_
L-W
:E
Z D L u
❑•11 1
-Ja Pe4S
J~J~ tU
o IS-JOAOISaM c
~ J
'tlC~! 0 O
I T 0 V
O - c ? I
J-y m I
AV-UO SUnpV
- -
-
G to
0
lsjeW c-Ja-suayld-o
41
o
w Av-twungy `
v U ' I Q GSM-eldwAlo m
41
a ~c' R
m > L i
IS-moJJ~l I$-swelll!M ~N~ /~Pls
c c ~lun-0r
O W Q t_ 1_ W a l
a m o. L _ _ y
Y ~
~IS Jaised °o Q
IS Jawnl Mdsatuer Y
IS !w!N y - 9, -Ay-UOIBUUJBH 'p j eaNnd
- V-OnueAV O o Ems'
IS JannoyUOS13- ~Ja•Jaul!W- ca
r:
U) Y
✓ O o
S 2Ue(` a O Ad-JOISO-q o
o a ; o
h J C
d
A f/=SeXal
C
Q U
~ t
0 m
ul--kiewasoai,
O v
ti
P)4-010.4-- Z
VAW
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E -
N E I G H B O R H O O D
r ,
SUSTAINABILITY
P L A N
• ® O • - - • O • i • • i a • • t • f O • O
- a • • ie - • • a •e •f•
a • - • e a • e a - a sf° • if -
a~ sa • - -o• fo-•
Residents of the Eastgate neighborhood expressed an interest in learnir;_.
more about sustainability. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the variet.
of opportunities that exist to encourage sustainable living practices anti
strategies to he crn lh- h--"1'11' o:
sustainable living.
The goal of this c;iopte, IS lo increase
awareness and participation in resource conservation efforts.
Key Planning Considerations
There are several considerations in relation to sustainability. Specifically, thfs
area is impacted by the following issues: recycling, water and energy
conservation, stormwater management, greenways and open space,
alternative fronsportatlon, and education.
Recycling
Recycling is an important component of conservation efforts. By recy:
basic household items, residents are preserving landfill space and keeping,
potentially harmful items out of existing landfills. Recycling also helps to
extend the life of scarce resources, like oil, which is utilized to make many
plastics, and reduces energy waste that is needed to produce new items
from raw materials. In maximizing space in municipal landfills, the City can
utilize existing infrastructure for a longer period of time and minimize capitol
costs of purchasing land and constructing additional landfill.
The City currently offers curbside recycling collection and on E-waste drop-off
center to its residents. The City recycles newspaper, magazines, white paper,
aluminum and steel cans, #I and #2 plastic, clear and brown glass, and lead
acid car batteries curbside. Recyclables are required to be pre-sorted anti
are not collected if incorrectly sorted. To participate in curbside recyclincc;
residents sign-up online to receive bags. Recyclable materials are picked u
once a week on the same day as the brush and bulky pick-up. This service i
only provided to residences with curbside trash pickup which includes a!!
single-family and duplex residences. Additionally, the City provides annual
curbside Christmas tree recycling. City participation in curbside recycling is
around 60%, but no data exists to monitor neighborhood-level participation.
Through a partnership with the City of Bryan and Texas A&M University, drop-
off service is available at the City of Bryan Drive-in Recycle Center located at
ADOP FE'D 06-23-11
VM#
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
the Wal-Mart on Briarcrest Drive, and at the Texas A&M University
Physical Plant on South College Avenue.
1 he City offers a drop-off site for small E-Waste, rechargeable batteries,
catalogues, and phone books behind the Police Department on
William King Cole Drive. The City also offers a 24-Hour Do-It-Yourself
Used Motor Oil and Oil Filter Center. Recycling used oil is the only legal
method of oil disposal. Recycled motor oil can be reprocessed into
industrial burner fuel or refined into gasoline, home heating oil, or new
rnotor oil. Recycling of white goods, or large appliances containing
feon, is available at the BVSWMA landfill on Rock Prairie Road with a
charge for freon extraction.
The City does not offer recycling pick-up service at commercial or
rnulti-family locations. While City Council considered a funding request
for the FY2011 budget, there were no dedicated funds for a drop-off
facility for commercial and multi-family complexes.
1)uring 2002, a multi-family recycling pilot program was conducted by
the City. This program provided valuable information about the cost
fficiency of multi-family recycling. The program utilized two different
i i ethods of providing on-site drop-off containers at different apartment
omplexes in the City. Both methods had high rates of contamination
hich raises the cost of providing the service because of the labor
if volved in sorting and decontaminating the recyclable materials. On-
_ to recycling for apartments will not be financially feasible for College
Station until that the option of single-stream recycling can be made
available. Single-stream recycling would allow for all recyclable
materials to be bagged and picked up together for sorting at a
separate facility. This service is unlikely to happen without partnerships
vith the City of Bryan and Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management
`.gency (BVSWMA) to make the service cost-effective. While the City
currently does not provide recycling services to multi-family complexes,
t'nere are two businesses within the College Station area that provide
curbside service for a fee.
The City also offers a Borrow-A-Bin program for large events, where
groups can borrow up to eight recycling bins free of charge to offer
recycling opportunities at large gatherings or other neighborhood
r vents.
Composting
ornposting is another method used to increase sustainability through
the reuse of existing materials. Green waste, such as food and yard
'vaste, which make up a large portion of the waste stream, are kept
(),it of the landfill and utilized to create compost. The process of
omposting utilizes natural decomposition processes to create nutrient-
r ch soil that can be used in gardening and lawn maintenance without
seating additional waste. Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management
/°,gency (BVSWMA) offers Master Composting Classes to all residents of
the Brazos Valley. This program offers residents more in-depth
it formation about proper composting. Currently, the class costs $15, is
offered twice a year, and has a maximum capacity of 15 people per
14W
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 I Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
ter, a W; ,
offers step-by-step instructions on how to construct your own
vermicomposting bin which utilizes worms to create the compost.
In addition to these programs, College Station Utility (CSU) customers
are also offered two free green waste drop-offs a month at the City of
Bryan Compost Facility. This service is included as part of the residential
sanitation fee. In addition to drop-off, the facility also offers the
purchase of compost for reduced rates.
Hazardous Waste
Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency offers a Bi-Annuo'
Household Hazardous Waste Collection at no charge to all residents of
the Brazos Valley. This event offers the opportunity to safely dispose of
harmful chemicals and products and without harm to the environment.
Residents can find out about this service by checking their monthly
utility bill insert, keeping up with municipal news on the City's website
(www.cstx.gov), or watching local media.
Recycling Strategies:
• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities
(S1.1) - Work with established neighborhood organizations to
develop a standing green committee that works on developing
projects that encourage recycling, participation in green
events, and promoting sustainable living practices.
• Program Continuation (S1.2) - Continue to promote existing
programs like Household Hazardous Waste Collection and
Master Composting Classes. Work with neighborhood
organizations to provide more effective communication about
programs and encourage more participation.
• ongoing evaluation and indicator program (S1.3) - Begin
tracking recycling participation rates at a neighborhood level
to provide baseline data for evaluating program effectiveness.
• Program Continuation (S1.4) - Continue to evaluate feasibility of
providing drop-off location for multi-family and commercial
recycling.
• Program Continuation (S1.5) - Continue to evaluate fiscal
feasibility of operating a single-source recycling program to
allow residents in apartments the opportunity to recycle.
• Program Continuation (S1.6) - Continue to contact new
residential utility customers to educate about recycling
programs and encourage participation in curbside recycling. e
Utility Conservation
Water Conservation
Water conservation is a large part of sustainability, while water is a
renewable resource; College Station relies on water drawn from
aquifers. Texas aquifers have been an abundant supply of potable
water for the State; however, production from aquifers must be
carefully monitored so that the rate of water extraction does not
exceed the rate of recharge. The City currently has capacity to
produce 30 million gallons of drinking water each day with eight
different wells. During drought conditions and dry summer months, daily
lqw
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
ater usage has reached near full capacity of the existing system.
Water conservation is still the best method to provide additional
capacity to the water supply and
continue to protect the City's water
Re UcIng Water Consumptilon
sources from over-extraction.
• • ° • ` " - ` Water usage is monitored daily by
College Station Utilities. Typically, highest
water usage occurs during the summer
- ® • • • ® , , • - - ° months due to irrigation and pool usage.
• - • • • • . , • ® _ Improving Water Conservation
Improving water conservation is not only
important to preserving the future
_ • , _ _ • , • _ _ _ , • _ , capacity of the City's water resources,
but it can also save residents money.
• • • - - . • . e - • Additionally, by preserving the capacity
• • • - • • - • • • - • - • in our existing wells, residents can help
• • • ° • ° • ° • • ° • • lower capital expenditures for additional
• _ • _ • " • _ • ° - • _ wells to expand the current supply. In
order to help improve water conservation
' ' • ' ' • • ' ' • ' efforts, the City has instituted a tiered
- - • - • • • • . - • • - water rate system that places higher rates
_ • , on monthly usage that is over 10,000
gallons.
• - - , • • • . To improve City water conservation, the
• . • + • • - • • • - • r - • • City has invested in the development of a
• - • ° • • • grey water irrigation system at Veteran's
• ' ° ' ° • • • • - • ` _ ' Park to irrigate its athletic fields. Residents
• • ` - ° ° e - - ` ' can also capture water run-off and utilize
s - e + • • • • e - - s•o • s
rainwater harvesting to offset the need to
• _ : ® • ® • _ ® • • irrigate by installing rain barrels.
• , _ , , • , ® _ , _ Residential rain barrels are generally
_ _ • • • , • , , attached to a home's gutter system and
- • - + - • - e s collect rain water that can then be
- • • - • - • • • • e utilized to irrigate gardens and lawns.
• • • . The City offers free water audits to its
• • - - • residents to help identify ways to
conserve water within the home. Making
better use of this resource will assist in
_ • _ _ • _ meeting water conservation and
, _ • • ° _ _ , , _ _ sustainability goals.
_ • _ _ _ • • • _ • • • _ ° _ To encourage investment in water
1 _ , _ , • _ _ conservation, College Station Utilities
- , - - , - currently offers rebate programs for the
• • - - • • + . + purchase of rain barrels and low-flow
• • • - • • • • - • toilets. The City also works with the top 1 %
• • • • • • = • - residential water users to schedule water
• • • audits and ensure that water resources
are being used as efficiently as possible.
~ 'Nor
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Energy Conservation
Conserving energy resources can have at f" v
impact on household budgets. Energy cost i `
Texas consume an average of nine percer
of household after-tax income (200
estimate, Source: www.americaspower.org;
Reducing household energy waste not onl,
lowers individual costs, but preserves nature_
resources that are used to create electricity.
Heating and cooling a home typically ha
the most impact on energy consumption
Installing energy efficient HVAC systems an,,
utilizing programmable thermostats can held
to reduce residential energy consumption
Other methods to reduce energ;
consumption include installing energy
efficient doors, windows, and insulation, as
well as sealing air leaks around a home. In
addition, general home maintenance and
repair of roofs and exterior walls as well as planting shade trees around
a home, can help reduce energy consumption.
College Station Utilities does provide rebates for newly installed efficient
HVAC units. Federal tax credits exist for improvements such as installing
energy efficient HVAC units, water heaters, doors, windows, and
insulation. More information is available through www.eneraystar.gov.
The City currently offers rebates for
the installation of solar panels and
offers net metering. Solar panels
create energy from sunlight that is
then used to provide electricity to a
home. Net metering allows for w F
individuals with solar panels to
receive payment for excess
electricity that is produced beyond
what is needed for the home. Ir
addition to City rebates, other
federal rebates exist to encourage
the use of solar panels.
To encourage customers to invest in
energy conservation, College
a u ~.x
Station Utilities offers rebate ;
programs on the cos of C bulbs
and energy-efficient air
conditioning units. Over 406 rebates m • • "`•r •
were processed in 2010, with 13 FAR
Eastgate neighborhood residences taking part in the programs.
College Station Utilities also offers voluntary participation in the Wind
Watts program which allows customers to purchase power solely from
wind energy sources. This program costs about $0.02 more per kilowatt
hour, but a portion of the wind energy premium goes to a tree-planting
fund for the City. Presently, 32 households within the neighborhood
V'
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
participate in the program. Additionally, CSU offers free energy audits
i c, help residents reduce their energy consumption. In 2010, the City
(_:onducted 245 energy audits, of which 8 were customers residing in the
Eastgate neighborhood.
Conservation Strategies:
• Program Continuation (S2.1) Continue to fund and promote
rebates for CFLs, solar panel installation, rain barrels, and low-
low toilets. Explore opportunities to expand funding for popular
rebate programs.
• Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs
(S2.2) - Work with neighborhood organizations to develop a
,jreen work day for rain barrel or xeriscaping installation or other
like projects as neighborhood-building activities.
• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities
(S2.3) - Promote and educate neighbors about water and
;nergy audits through neighborhood organizations.
• Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (S2.4) - Begin
tracking utility use, Wind Watts participation, utility audits, and
ebate participation through neighborhood indicator program
to obtain a better knowledge of program participation and
effectiveness.
• Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (S2.5) - Explore
opportunities and fiscal impact of Property Assessed Clean
Energy (PACE) financing to incent local investment in clean
energy alternatives.
• Program Continuation (S2.6) Continue to monitor water
consumption for high users and work with users to conduct a
water audit.
• Program Continuation (S2.7) Continue to utilize tiered water
rates as a water conservation measure.
Stormwater Management
`-ormwater management plays a critical role in maintaining healthy
dreams and creeks, preserving natural habitats, and ensuring safe
ater supplies for downstream users. Stormwater management aims to
I -nprove the quality of stormwater run-off, or water from a rain event
i at flows over the ground. During and after a rain event, stormwater
in-off can pick up debris, fertilizers, chemicals, and other household
pollutants as it flows across both pervious and impervious cover and
pollute local streams and creeks.
ender the regulation of the Clean Water Act of 1972, which seeks to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
Nation's waters," the City has begun implementing programs and
practices to control polluted stormwater run-off. The program intends to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical,
protect water quality, satisfy the appropriate water quality
requirements of the Clean Water Act, and manage stormwater
-activities through the Storm Water Management Plan. The Plan includes
public education, participation and outreach, pollution prevention,
construction site run-off control, and post construction site run-off
control.
v.i
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Residential property owners can help improve stormwater quality by
reducing the use of chemicals in maintaining landscape, properly
containing exposed soil and mulch to reduce erosion from water run-
off, safely disposing of household waste
like used motor oil and other
contaminants, and not littering in Pervious n-)aterials are `_erper
' - ' - -
drainage ways and creek beds. In ` ' e
urbanized areas like the Eastgate
neighborhood, the largest contributor to
declining stormwater quality comes from .
over-irrigation and over-fertilization of
lawns. By utilizing water conservation , 1
methods to reduce over-watering, r
residents can make a large impact on AIN \
the quality of stormwater run-off and 1
improve the natural habitats of the Concrete Paver Block Castellated Block
creeks and streams to which it flows.
Residents can also assist in managing t
stormwater run-off by limiting additions to homes that add rooftop area, and by
installing pervious materials for patios,
sidewalks, and driveways. The Existing r
Conditions Report in Appendix A outlines
the average lot coverage by subdivision Lattice Block Grass! Gravel Paver Mat
in this neighborhood. Finding ways to
reduce impervious lot coverage reduces
stormwater run-off and potential for a °O - -
contamination.
Stormwater Management Strategies:
• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities
(S3.1) - Include stormwater management education and other
sustainable neighborhood programs such as creek clean-up or
a chemical-free fertilizer campaign to increase awareness and
participation in stormwater management practices.
• Program Continuation (S3.2) - Continue to monitor water quality
in neighborhood creeks and include in neighborhood indicator
program.
• Increase neighborhood notification processes (S3.3) - Work with
Neighborhood Partnership organizations to include
neighborhood residents in developing additional stormwater
management standards.
Greenways and Open Space -
Greenways along streams and rivers help with floodplain
management, protect open space and riparian areas, maintain
corridors for wildlife and plant habitat, and improve water quality.
Greenways protect open space for their natural function that could
otherwise be lost to development. They serve to prevent development
from encroaching in flood-prone areas that need to remain in their
natural state to function properly and provide necessary flood water
storage capacity. Development can also have an adverse impact on
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY ADOPTED 06-23-11
streams through stream channelization, tree canopy removal, and
stream bank erosion from increased flows. Wildlife and plant habitats
treat receive food, shelter, and overall protection from these open
spaces may also be affected. Greenways serve to mitigate these
negative impacts by filtering pollutants in the water and air, retaining
ater to help prevent erosion, and sustaining their ecological
nportance for wildlife and plants. They also allow for the reclamation
ind restoration of degraded stream channels, provide vegetated
i )uffers between different land uses, and create opportunities for
.nvironmental education.
Development and impervious cover (e.g., rooftops, roads, and
triveways) increase stormwater run-off into these corridors without the
opportunity to utilize the ground to naturally filter many common
pollutants. While much of the area within the Eastgate neighborhood is
built out, minimizing the negative impact on the existing floodplain and
drainage ways reduces flooding and improves the quality of the
oodplain so that it will operate effectively to convey floodwaters
ithout harm to the community. The preservation of greenways and
creation of open spaces can also serve to complement the City's parks
and recreation system.
tributary of Wolf Pen Creek exists behind and within the lots along the
est side of Ashburn Avenue is the most significant portion of floodplain
i, the neighborhood. Most of the areas along the creek are part of
I )rivately-owned residential lots or properties owned by College Station
',D or Texas A&M University. Strategies are proposed in Chapter 1,
Community Character, to help preserve the creek and wooded areas
i- the floodplain through voluntary conservation easement dedication.
r.eep Brazos Beautiful, in conjunction with the City, has developed a
portion of property along George Bush Drive between Texas Avenue
(_,nd Foster Avenue as a demonstration garden. While only the first
I )hase has been developed at this time, the garden will ultimately
consist of native tree species, a walking path and other amenities.
Demonstration gardens can be used to showcase a variety of different
aspects of gardening and planting, such as native plantings and
Pi,c;;~aping.
C~ o~ ea that has been identified, and is currently proposed, as a
community garden is the property owned by College Hill Missionary
Baptist Church at 621 Pasler Street. The community garden proposed is
a collaborative effort between the College Hill Neighborhood
ssociation and the church.
Greenways and Open Space Strategies:
• Preserve Open Space and Greenways (54.1) - Preserve open
space and greenways through conservation easements as
dentified in Chapter 1, Community Character, in order to
inaintain and protect natural function of the creek and
wooded areas within the floodplain.
• Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs
(S4.2)
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
project that would allow neighborhood organizations to utilize
public spaces like parks to host community gardens.
• Partnership Continuation (S4.3) - Continue partnership with
Keep Brazos Beautiful and promote the development of
demonstration gardens.
Alternative Transportation and Land Use
Transportation and land use also impact sustainability. The ability to
walk or ride a bicycle to nearby destinations not only relieves
congestion on local roads, but also reduces energy consumption and
encourages health and wellness. Promoting alternative transportation
options and efficient land use patterns is an important component to
responsible use of natural resources.
The existing land use pattern of the Eastgate neighborhood is generally
suburban in nature with the existing alternative transportation network
is disjointed. The limited number of bicycle facilities and transit service
stops only serve to reinforce the use of personal vehicles as the most
viable transportation method.
Future land use designations promote more urban densities along the
perimeter of the neighborhood, including vertical mixed-use
opportunities. (See Chapter 1, Community Character). As the majority
of properties are built out, existing opportunities to increase density are
mostly limited to redevelopment. While the existing land use pattern
presents obstacles to a more sustainable neighborhood, most of the
residents of the Eastgate neighborhood live within walking or biking
distance of commercial uses, park, or school. These areas serve as key
destinations where it is likely residents will interact with each other.
Providing a complete alternative transportation network and
promoting the use of these areas as neighborhood centers will
positively impact neighborhood sustainability.
Chapter 3, Mobility includes three primary alternative transportation
networks - walking, bicycling, and bus transit. Neighborhoods can also
organize to promote the management of these systems, as well as
other methods like carpooling, carsharing, or hosting a No Drive Day for
their residents.
Alternative Transportation and Land Use Strategies:
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (S5.1) - Continue to
expand open space and bicycle and pedestrian connections
through the implementation of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan and the strategies outlined in Chapter
3, Mobility.
• Coordinated Public Facility Investment (S5.2) - Promote transit
opportunities outlined in Chapter 3, Mobility.
• Feasibility Study (S5.3) - Explore opportunities and feasibility of
having a carshare program like U Car Share or Zipcar.
• Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs
(S5.4) - Promote Bike to Work Week, or develop a No Drive Day `
to encourage biking, walking, and bus ridership.
Ine
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Education
Lducation is an important component of sustainability. Outreach to
residents helps emphasize the importance of preserving natural
resources and the impact it has on the cost of providing services. There
are a variety of educational opportunities offered by the City. The latest
addition is the Green Seminars Series being offered through the City's
F:ecycling division. This series is offered during the first half of the year
and features monthly brown-bag seminars with topics about
conservation and sustainability. They are free to the public and dates
and topics can be found on the City's Recycling website.
The City is also a sponsor of the Brazos Valley Earth Day celebration
every April that highlights different programs, services, and sustainable
practices that are available to residents of the Brazos Valley.
Additionally, the City has staff members dedicated to conservation
>fforts in the City. These staff members have a variety of educational
rogramming, presentations, and literature that are available on
equest to neighborhoods and residents. Recycling has a mascot that is
;ivailable for children's events, and other materials specifically geared
(:;wards educating children on the importance of recycling. CSU Water
:nd Energy divisions, along with BVSWMA also have a variety of
,:ducation and informational material that is highlighted in the monthly
Utility bill insert. Hands-on experience with City services through tours of
f 7cilities like Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility or the
VSWMA landfill are also available.
11 Education Strategies:
• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities
(S6.1) - Incorporate green education into new organization
training.
• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities
(S6.2) - Promote the Green Seminar Lunch series to
neighborhoods through the neighborhood partnership program.
• Community Partnership Opportunities (S6.3) - Work with
community organizations like Keep Brazos Beautiful to bring
education and other sustainability opportunities to
neighborhoods.
• Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (S6.4) - Create a
crreen score program that rates neighborhood sustainability
through sustainable living practices.
• Program Continuation (S6.5) - Continue to fund and promote
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T Er`{
j--
NEIGHBORHOOD , . , X49
-fit
P L A N J2
s s s • s s a • o- e o • o •
• -s • •s ° - o - • s •
ka$ s•3#
Timeframe
The Eastgare Neighborhood Plan is anticipated to be implemented over a fi. .
to seven year time frame. The plan implementation is broken down into thrr
time frames - short term (1 to 2 years), mid-term (3 to 5 years), and long term
to 7 years). Additionally, there are some items in the Plan that may not I
completed before the end of the planning horizon. Where strategies o
sequential, they were prioritized in relative chronological order. Due to budc
constraints, emphasis was made to make prioritization for the short term projec
on items that can be achieved with existing resources. Figure 5.1, Complete
Task List summarizes the strategies in table form with a propos
implementation schedule. This list will be evaluated annually as part of the o
going review and evaluation of the plan, and refl
underway in the current implementation period of the pk-), i.
Implementation and Coordination Roles
Collaboration will need to occur on a num~ ~t
what is recommended in this Plan. Outl r
of actions in which they should participot .
City Council will take the lead in the follo..i ;
• Adopt and amend the Plan by ordinance after receiving recommendatio:Is
from the Planning and Zoning Commission;
• Support and act as champions for the Plan;
• Adopt new or amended ordinances and regulations to implement the Plan;
• Consider and approve the funding commitments that will be required to
implement the Plan,
• Provide final approval of projects and activities with associated costs during
the budget process;
• Adopt and amend policies that support and help implement the Plan; and
• Provide policy direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission, other
appointed City boards and commissions and City staff.
ADOPTED 06-23-11
*m/
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 5 - IMPLEMENTATION I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Planning and Zoning Commission will take the lead in the following
-l s:
• Adopt, amend or modify the Plan for subsequent approval and
adoption by the City Council;
• Recommend changes in development code and the
zoning ordinance to the City Council that reflects the
Plan's goals, strategies, and action items; and
• Review applications for consistency with this Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan that reflect the Plan's goals and
strategies.
Neighborhood Organizations will take the lead in the following areas:
• Support and act as champions for the plan;
• Promote new and existing programs to their constituents;
• Communicate news and other information about projects and
the Plan to their constituents;
• Develop and carry-out neighborhood improvement projects
consistent with this Plan;
• Assist in monitoring the plan, and participate in the annual
review process of the plan;
• Maintain and expand organization membership and resident
involvement; and
• Assist Staff in developing new training, programs, and project
opportunities to implement the plan
City Staff will take the lead in the following areas:
• Manage day-to-day implementation of the Plan, including
periodic coordination through an interdepartmental Plan
implementation committee;
Support and carry out capital improvement and public works
project efforts and programming;
• Manage the drafting of new or amended regulations and
ordinances that further the goals of the Plan;
• Conduct studies and develop additional plans;
• Review development applications for consistency with this Plan
and the Comprehensive Plan;
Administer collaborative programs and ensure open channels
of communication with various private, public, and non-profit
implementation partners; and
Maintain an inventory of potential Plan amendments as
a z suggested by City staff and others for consideration during
annual and periodic Plan review and updates to the Planning
` and Zoning Commission, and City Council.
Funding
Me availability of funding will play an integral role in the success of
the Plan. Due to current budget constraints, an emphasis was
placed on developing strategies that can be implemented largely
vvith existing Staff and financial resources; however, implementing
these strategies has an overall cost that could impact other
programs and responsibilities.
AW err
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Some strategies will have additional costs to implement, and estimated
costs are provided in Figure 5.1, Complete Task List. The primary sources
for funding opportunities are outlined below:
• General Fund - The most common source of funding for
municipalities is through the General Fund. This fund consists of a
collection of property taxes, sales taxes, fines, and fees. This fund
usually covers the day to day operational needs of the City such as
salaries, supplies, etc.
• Capital Projects Fund - Capital project funds typically help maintain,
improve, or construct new infrastructure such as streets, parks, trails,
other public facilities, and associated land acquisition. This fund
typically consists of debt service funds (general obligation bonds)
and special revenue funds (like Drainage Utility District funds) as
described below.
• General Obligation Bonds - This is a municipal bond approved by
voter referendum that is secured through the taxing and
borrowing power of a jurisdiction. It is repaid by levy through a
municipal pledge. Bonds can be used for land acquisition
and/or construction of facilities. Some communities pass
referendums specifically for open space, watershed protection,
and trail projects. Street, bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway
projects are typically implemented through this funding source.
• Drainage Utility District - The City currently uses the existing
revenue from the drainage utility fee for capital construction
projects that improve drainage. It is a flat fee system and can be
used for acquisition and maintenance of floodways and
floodplains in areas that are directly affected by drainage-
related problems. Funds are currently used for minor
unscheduled drainage projects that arise throughout the year.
• Sidewalk Fund - This mechanism allows for funds that would
otherwise go to the construction of a sidewalk in a developing
area, where it may not be fully utilized by the public, to go
instead into a fund for the maintenance or construction of
sidewalks in that area of the City.
• State and Federal Governments /Grants - Funding opportunities from
the state and federal government are also available, particularly in
the areas of transportation and the environment. These funds are
primarily available through grants, but may also be through specific
budget appropriations. Often, grant funding includes local matching
requirements. Included in this funding source are Community
Development Block Grants (CBDG), as a portion of the Eastgate
neighborhood is eligible for this funding source.
Overall, the estimated additional cost of implementing the Plan (not
including projects already identified in other adopted plans) is
approximately $3.7 million. The primary cost of implementation is
based on construction costs for transportation infrastructure such as
the rehabilitation or extension of streets, construction or retrofit of
bike lanes, bike routes and sidewalks, and other traffic safety studies
or projects.
EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER S - IMPLEMENTATION ADOPTED 06-23-11
Administrative Costs
urrently, the administration of the plan can be absorbed into the
~,xisting organization, but as more neighborhood, district, and corridor
Mans are completed, additional staffing will be necessary to properly
manage the additional programming that is recommended in this and
)ther similar plans.
Tasks
,he Eastgate Neighborhood Plan contains recommendations for
1Imost 100 different tasks. Figure 5.1, Complete Task List delineates the
specific tasks and provides an implementation schedule along with
stimated costs, and potential funding sources. Additionally, if funding
I; not readily available, particular actions may not be implemented,
vhich in turn impacts the ability to achieve the stated goals of this
lan.
Ongoing Evaluation
s part of any planning process, ongoing evaluation must be
corporated into the implementation program. Continued evaluation
-)f conditions and opportunities in a neighborhood allows a plan to
7dapt and remain relevant over the course of the Plan's life.
uccessful evaluation incorporates the establishment of descriptive
i dicators that track the efficacy of the proposed tasks, understanding
--hanged conditions, and potential reprioritization of tasks and funding
eased on the findings of the evaluation.
o ensure the ongoing relevance of the Eastgate Neighborhood Plan,
he Plan should be evaluated annually as part of the annual
omprehensive Plan review. Plan updates should include the
-~"owing components:
• Updated existing conditions;
• Progress toward reaching goals, as determined through
specific indicators;
• Report on any completed tasks;
• Status update of all tasks underway for the current
implementation period;
• Outline of remaining tasks scheduled the remainder of the
current implementation period,
• Potential changes to costs; and
• Recommendations for changes in implementation schedule or
task list.
61 1 &; I of the annual evaluation, neighborhood representatives, the
1 and Zoning Commission, and the City Council should be
NOW x xx- x
xxxx xxx'xxxx'x
xkx x x x xnxhxx
xxkx xxxx
xx tilx-1-1 1 1 11
>xxxxxY Xxxx xx x x Xx
xi '1111
U U M U U u u
V y u u J u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
u U u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v up G O a C1 _LL ~ N
w ~ v N q Q ~ D❑ D O ~ O p 0 ~ c 0❑ O ❑ ❑ 0❑ ~ c D ~ 11.1. I
ooo o~o~~o~ o a b~~ dd °'8oa d~ao~~ 4 0~4 4 4
a a d a nS a d a C, p a d 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 3 3 3 3$ 3 34
~ o o a 6❑<- U w~ a b a a ~ a a a a ~ a d.a a a a
o a c> E c "u v£ a c ? 2 `c E I E E E a y; v `w m `v o o F o 0 0 o e; m~
c o co - - o v 0 a v E v
o Q., c - s m m cc_ o .4 E a o rn c~ t O o m ,`r O a- c 0 m 'a o cc ,
y s v c o° '6 v U a e° a o o v o C 0$ v o' o c a 'o G; a, rn
n c a~ m- u 3 a' y~ n 3 c -
y y m vo LL o E.a o- a 'p y p o o y m v L SD m s m a o 0 9 Q a< a c o c c y y mr:
u t g v o D a 3 o a E$ y a y i~ S m Q= ~t G D a
a c d a .6. c@ o k v a, o o
- - y Q c m y E ° 0) o ` u E o o c E.
c $:o m c y v. u' c s °o y G E 3 `o m o a a a a m o. o m G
1T] a p D o .fi' $ a u o° s G a c E o v m -a v y m
c o E' a o 3 S o 'c a- a `o a o u -a o r m a❑ m c m y y Y
2 n E oc v o c co a y C. E L c£ uc 2 o E m m y .o c a c c c y y a L" n
X U z u w m m. . m E a -o w❑ a v v `v o i s c' a i t_ D= n y y v
a coo co_ E o c o E ❑i a y$ ,a a£ m D- a c m v m-<< m c m m c y
C O N a D y o c D [ -G s --zz o o pm a ] O d❑ a 41 c
G N ❑ C U U' m'v. a U m 0~ " 0 0 0~ a L Q Q~ 0 O< :t ~ 0 ~ 0 '3U, ~ m~ ~ ~ v, i"
c s o E$ o"o v v `m c o y M °u " v< u
_c F 3 y
y u t °a v c E3
o a c
❑ m o m o c r s 2 m a v E c o< a; o 2 u
a m Q o c o ¢ E ° m G P o. c m Q o 3 u c 30 0 0
N a LL v,
a o c' - a G -o.. " r g o ¢ a 2 '.u ® g > o o v m a `o a
o o
c m m U = u a m v ❑ v LL
L n£ u o u'' m -4 c`w y in ?:o E a-c. -1~ - c - O
n
o a o E o' qa a E a`o °a
-vG m W o c 3i o< v a o°U' o 0 o E m a 'c o C o 6°
o
C E W 3 po " Y G r o a c❑`~ m v 0 3 a a vp
v m m a °v o o a d v a o 9£ 3 3 0 v
3° o E a o c m a c
O G
O o E v U S a z v E c
o G o
a w
E a 3 m c v
o o u ° G
-c M U o o
c = o
E y ~ U
a D ~ V
a
F d
v
o E
cl~
U v U U U U z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z E
U
n o ❑ 2 c
m~ m o x ~ ~D~ ~ m D
- U U D N °c o z v w y co m m E o ~ v
c E y v D
z m o D- m
z o `o m D E c u `w m w y
5 a m rn o c
rn o z o -o "m c `o -c >0
n m
a c a i wm c o c- m o v~N ° o
u c ma o o mD 6J i
c „o, ° ` ~
a ° m o "y ~ U O c mu
U Z a
~ r
x x -1-111 Hill Fl
x x'x x +1- x x x x -1-1- x x
a s °o z z ¢ ¢ q: E
z z m . z' --'Z z a
U
O
E
O
U
0
x x x x x x
E
E
0
x x- x x
c
co
U U U U u U u u u u u u u U u UU v
U U u u u u u u u u U U u u u U co
m
c
a c
~ a
j -
o n o o d o o a o o co 0 o a ~ ~ 3 3 ~ 3~ ~
4 4 4 d $ o o a o u o a D o ti
3 3 6 3 3 d 3 3a 3 3 x 3 3a. d O d fl o a o a o d p c a o c
a o
~7 U
4: 2
~ U
C U
4 c
O y
E
O n
3 O
N N
~ U
w
o>>> o c o d v o° a o c w m o"~ g m m a ~.W u j °
J a o v o 3 3 y ,xn - 3 j p 3 a a a o a°
o:&. o` >O°v- a Q `m v o a a E ai o L O Y
~ g c > ; w v _v o < m i o _ .i n `o E ° ;
i m 3 c a co o° a J 5 u
a t5 N v° ~i o x o
°
E
a
o w c w a i m `p 2 c p
w -c o 3~ o~ c? c~ m c_ o o v E ~ v o a -E m m
5! ~ v°~ m v o a, c w z c] a' v~ ~ a ~ o y v o E Q N C N
` O L v`. Q I' w f C< F E C W g° z p a
m] a u a d o a' o z c o. a~'v c] °cy ° w" v o v
3> p L O1 2 U 4) n 0
p v m `y w m .G a s `p~ o~~~ a a 7~ o ~ C O
3 C7 m a d w ~ v~ ~ m ~ m v u v m ~ a L O ~ O~ o
o v~ a a a v v a d ° c o Q ~ n a ~ 23 p Y
o n ] Q 3 .a a u c
`m o Q o or
y m c g' a Y v o 3 E o a
E a v ° 3 ; w 6 D> o ° - o L c
° v 3 rn a p v '4 ❑ :f a ® cc -O o. 3 3 01 N p
> cc 3c: F
D a ° o v 3 -p 01 O Ea
$ m:fl m
o~ -0
N E ° a a76
v° m P o L c m v a o 0 v
c v 3° O o `o c o` `c ~ T c °
a N O o O
d a o U m v Q o `o p a C C
u y ° a G m a U d E
~ g .c m ~ o~ ~ a m a
° q `o o a u a~ o a o
E N 6
m cOO u
v p E
~ = C L O
0
a a a u
`o a m
lb a p `oo C. a4) C d
$ a o w
0 o c c o ai as
a d o; ~ C a "w
n > u
u H
9 r 'E p ~2 O c
> C o U C E
a o a
o
L CL N U o
o r~ ° n C O C N N
0 .0
C N
_O O1 N C
a~ a' - o
C C C N y G 3 ai
c v N C a c
m O c O N' n a N a
a v o c _ O
a o u `o t p O c p N U o
u o 0 3 a y a -a 0U O j p c
u z 'n N < O N N C 4 3
m = y N UJ N1 o a Z o
a U s C, Q d
CV (h V i7 Z Q
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E APPENDIX A
N E I G H B O R H O O D A
P L A N EXISTING CONDITIONS
a a a -,e
The first subdivision that was platted in the Eastgate area is the D.A. Sm
subdivision which was subdivided in 1919. The largest subdivision, College Hili:
began developing in 1938 by J.C. Culpepper, an area of over 120 acres an-
an original layout of 421 residential lots.
Since that time, the Eastgate area has grown to encompass 567 acres. Ti
area is home to over 1,200 , .
located in the plc:,-,, DEMOGRAPHICS
Over 2,700 College Station residents live in the Eastgate neighborhoo
planning area - almost 3% of all residents. The population within Eastgate hrJ
remained relatively stable since 1990.
_ Age
The
ih-
'J d
overall age distribution of the City as
W o whole, which is primarily influenced b;
the large numbe
a ! K,,.. residents in the City.
14,ry 6
¢ The percentage
E t ~.a x students as a percentage of both
: I Eastgate and the City fell between the
' 1990 and 2000 Census; however"
i Eastgate shows a much lower
percentage (26.6%) of college-ages
a students compared to the entire cit
(51.2%). Eastgate also has a high
percentage of primary and seconder
9 school-aged children, as well c
retirement aged residents than Colley
Figure ECA, Eastgate Neighborhood Plan Area Station as a whole (See Table EC.1, 1990
and 2000 Census Comparison;.
Other statistics
• The eb,
is similar to the City as a whole, Ir7
ith a bachelors degree or highe .
ADOPTED 06-23-11 A - 1
VMW
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS ADOPTED 06-23-11
N M N n f'7 .^-O N d M i(~ X l'7 x l7 M N t`7 M f Q ^O
• 8e 6E lR ~ •2.- gf ~ s2 ~ BC !f ~ •C ~2 yE ~C sf ~ ~R .
~n o b• F7 ~n v R 1 'q h x x •o x x X x X;
qh ~ < EO V ~ ppmQ~ ED yQ •O P K G •C pQ ~yOp~ P Y
9 eci7 p~ •e ER N ~ F'j ~ pd. _x X X X p N "`C P~ ~ X X X X 7{"'
O U y~ pQO tV Y ~ ~ ~ N ~.~pp pppO NP N
r? ^ h ~ ~ ado M + CEO aPD t'? o d M O ~~j •O ^ ~ ~ M aOD !_~w,n ~ (V N P < .p ,p ~ N N N N ^ N ~ V^^l di
M
s° ee ee Q~ ee to (ewee ~p ~e se ~e
N .p N P M lY M X X X ^ P N X X X X yi:
pQ d P O Y
P N {7 f W P h M h .O P ^ X X X X
O
.f cn ,~i ^ w H.~i3 ~ N iV M ~ N h v ♦ rl N » vj H v R
t~ b4 Y!
-p 19 4 ~ Q P N m pNp ~ O v N f, P f 1 N O y~ fem.,
0
C2 t-
sT w K
w M
d+ d•.
w ~ g e g
62 -i c F3.4 xxXXPS Fl: ~g xXxX x
N S N d Y •O M 1\ •f0 vl i~ c"J x ^ P C, 14 N
~ g (fie' yQ pVp y~p~ ~
~ p~ 1~ ~ ~ e~ ~ • x X X X ~ T`I 1~ b• X X X X
O P O cCJ h c0 RN`! 'n N S •O C7 P CSI
T - h n O N N.- V 8 n ^ N PO 'P pnp f M;
f7 R P h n M ~ X N P ~ ~ X X X X M
M
N
N M N^ O X M M h n eN°r
K K
MM ~
• v) h N O M O 4h O Y ^ ;.t0 M X c0 m Nm CV Y
M as ~ M
M M
Le)
$ Q `~Q c~j ~ o
C R ° m O N " Y ^ N X W N K M a~ V
O w N
U
~ a
C -
N o o
U -o E E
° E °
-o c, o
O g v ° v a t o s
0 o L v ° o i7, c ° U 3 0
U70 Q O Q P C -Co. a 2 N D C C O o
W 3 m T N yy~~ E/ y > > U ~Es
Y C O S U O O = C O) m C L° ~o
C3 BL > 0
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Table EC.2 • Average family size is
East ate Estimated Po ulation smaller in Eastgate than in
College Station as a
Year Housing Units Population Nhole; however average
1990 1,171 2,711 l-iousehold size is larger.
2000 1,216 2,705 • i-astgate has lower
2010 1,268 2,789 acancy rates than the
ty as a whole.
• The percentage of owner-occupied Table EC.3
Eastgate Subdivisions
housing rose between 1990 and 2000 in
Eastgate. Subdivision • Median ownership costs are lower in D.A. Smith 37 1919
Eastgate than in College Station, but Pasler 31 1936
median contract rent is higher in the areas
southeast of Lincoln Avenue. College Heights 6 1938
• Average per capita income is higher than College Hills 396 1938
College Station for most of Eastgate except College Hills Woodldn' _ 79 1939
areas northwest of Lincoln Avenue. Woodland Acres 27 1940
College Vista 56 1942
(Complete Census Data can be found in Table Holt 14 1947
EC.1, 1990 and 2000 Census Comparison) Lloyd Smith 33 1948
COMMUNITY CHARACTER Pearce 11 1948
Lauterstein 9 1949
As of 1990, 1,171 housing units had been built in Armstrong 10 1952
Eastgate, housing an estimated 2,711 residents. Visoski 5 1952
These residents accounted for 2.2%a of the total Christy 4 1961
population of College Station. By 2000, an Leon Gibbs
3 1968
additional 45 units had been constructed, but Woodland Estates 30 1968
the estimated population fell to 2,705. The
Eastgate neighborhood has been essentia!'y Culpepper Plaza 19 1969
built-out since 2000, by which time 87% of tl-e Sweet Briar 39 1970
housing units had been constructed. Overall. University Oaks 25 1970
there are 799 single-family units, 110 dup1cx 404 University Center 1 1979
units, 359 multi-family units, and approximate'' , Lincoln Fourplexes 4 1980
518,000 square feet of commercial and office Lincoln Place 54 1981
space in the planning area (Brazos County Eastgate Square 2 1982
Appraisal District, 2010). Prairie View Heights 58 1983
Zoning & Land Use Henton 19 1994
Two Lincoln Place 11 1994
Zoning Texas 707 2 1996
Grand Oaks 24 1997 _qw Eastgate is primarily a neighborhood of single- Churchill Estates 3 1998
family residences, and as such, the zoninc. Baker 3 1999
distribution reflects this. Table EC.4, Eastgate
Zoning, on the following page breaks down ti Lone Star Pavilion 2 2000
zoning classifications of land in Eastgate. Map University Preserve 28 2002
EC.1, Zoning, depicts the locations of these University Town Center 1 2006 _
zoning districts. College Hills Elementary 2 2009
Carter Unk
Source: City of College Station, P& DS (2010)
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS I ADOPTED 06-23-1
Comprehensive Plan
Table ECA The City's Plan was updated
Zoning in May 2009. The planning
r
Zoning Acres % area is made up of a portion
of a neighborhood plan area
R-1, Single-Family Residential 432.27 78.3% identified in Comprehensive
C-1, General Commercial 53.33 9.7% Plan Concept Map (See Map
R-2, Duplex Residential 27.63 5.0% EC.2, Concept Map). Table
R-6, High Density Multi-Family 24.16 4.4% EC.5, Community Character
R-4, Multi-Family 7.46 1.4% and Future Land Use, breaks
PDD, Planned Development 3.31 0.6% down the future land use
C-3, Light Commercial 1.24 0.2% classifications in the Eastgate
A-P, Administrative/Professional 1.15 0.2% neighborhood. Map EC.3,
C-2, Commercial-Industrial 0.89 0.2% Future Land Use and
Character, shows the
R-3, Townhouse 0.70 0.1%
locations of those
Total 552.14 100.070 designations in Eastgate.
Non-conforming uses
Approximately 98% of the
xisting land uses in the Eastgate planning area is in compliance
ith the existing zoning - regulatory land use entitlements - on
the property. The majority of the properties that are not in
compliance with the existing
zoning are commercial properties
Table EC.5 were all or portions of the
Community Character and Future Land Use property are zoned for multi-
family uses.
Comprehensive Plan Acres % In comparison to the
General Commercial 0.38 0.1% Comprehensive Plan, only 69% of
General Suburban 5.10 0.9% the existing land uses in the
Institutional/Public 13.17 2.3% Eastgate plan are in compliance
Natural Areas - Protected 10.14 1.7% with the anticipated future land
Natural Areas - Reserved 30.70 5.3% uses in the area. The primary area
Neighborhood where existing uses are not in
Conservation 249.71 42.8% compliance are located
northwest of Lincoln Avenue
Redevelopment Areas 127.65 21.9% %A,/here the majority of properties
Urban 141.22 24.2% are developed for single-family
ban Mixed Use 4.86 0.8% structures, but are identified as
Urban and Redevelopment on
Total 582.94 100.0% the Comprehensive Plan which
source: city of college station, P&DS (2010) calls for duplexes, townhomes,
high density multi-family, and
vertical mixed-use development
the area. The existing commercial properties along Dominik
)rive at Texas Avenue are identified for Urban Mixed Use which
anticipates vertical mixed used in this area. There are also a
t umber of properties that are developed and located in part or
hole in the floodplain.
,'additionally, in these some locations, the existing zoning does
Irvt U _
F~": ) i t! Cn"lil:.i i,U 'J't, J'1C1 lJ~°~ 1:1;-ritlu~l=7 Ill th°
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
City's Comprehensive Plan. Map ECA, Land Use Conformance, identifies
the locations of these areas.
Vacant Land
The Brazos County Appraisal District identifies 106 parcels as vacant in
the Eastgate planning area. Of these, 69 are buildable lots. The
remaining properties are parks, greenways, common areas, or lots that
may have floodplain on the property. The total amount of buildable
vacant property is 32.41 acres (5.7% of the planning area). Map EC.5,
Vacant Property, depicts the locations of vacant property in the
planning area.
Recent Development Activity
The following development has taken place in the last five years in and
around the Eastgate neighborhood. Map EC.6, Recent Development
Activity, depicts the location of these projects.
Commercial/institutional
• Fuego Tortilla Grill - 108 Poplar Street - a 27,377 foot site with a 3,000
square foot restaurant was constructed in 2010 as a 24-hour Mexican
restaurant. The redevelopment of the site included demolition of a
vacant commercial structure that had previously occupied the site.
Redevelopment of the site included a variance granted for
maximum height requirements adjacent to single-family.
• Jimmy John's - 200 University Drive East - Jimmy John's Gourmet
Sandwiches located a second College Station franchise location in
College Station in the Eastgate Neighborhood. The property fronts
on University Drive East but connects to Poplar Street. This
development was a renovation of an existing 19,554 square foot
property and 1,520 square foot restaurant building.
• Raising Canes - 1045 Texas Avenue - Raising Cane's is a 3,525
restaurant that was redeveloped in 2006 on a site previously
developed as a restaurant.
• College Hills Elementary - 1101 Williams Street - College Station
Independent School District recently completed reconstruction of
College Hills Elementary for the 2009-10 school year. The new school
replaced the existing school on the some site.
• Brake Check - 104 University Drive East - Brake Check is a auto
repair and service business which was constructed in 2007 following
the demolition of the existing Sonic restaurant.f
• University Town Center - 900 University Drive East - University Town Center is a large scale retail center that began development in 2004
on vacant property on University Drive East. The property is currently
occupied by 12 restaurants, with additional planned retail space to
locate behind the restaurants. There are also two hotels on site. The
overall site plan calls for 60,000 square feet of retail to be
constructed on the 17.63 acre site.
• Red lobster - 1200 University Drive East - Red Lobster moved from its
previous location in front of Best Buy on Texas Avenue to a new
location at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and University Drive East in
2008. The new restaurant is approximately 6,800 square feet on a
3.39 acre site. An additional retail site is available along Lincoln
Avenue.
OW
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS I ADOPTED 06-23-11
• Central Station - 1701 Texas Avenue South - Central Station
shopping center began fapade improvements and additions in
f 2006. Originally, the Culpepper Plaza shopping center, the new
v retail center is home to Kohl's, Chick-fil-A, AT&T Wireless Retail, and
Specs. Additionally, several local restaurants opened in refurbished
spaces in the center.
Residential
• University Preserve - The University Preserve subdivision began
developing in 2002 and is made up of 27 lots on 14 acres located
on Munson Avenue just north of Dominik Drive. The subdivision is a
private, gated subdivision with 17 homes currently constructed.
• Dominion Townhomes - The Dominion Townhome project
developed in 2007. The project is made up of 10 lots on 0.5 acres
at the intersections of George Bush Drive East, Dominik Drive and
Puryear Drive. Currently, six of the ten townhomes have been
constructed in the subdivision.
• Other residential development - 27 new single-family residences
have been constructed in Eastgate since 2005. These are primarily
located in the Pasler subdivision north of Lincoln Avenue, as well as
construction on Nimitz Street, Milner Drive, Gilchrist Avenue, and
Francis Drive.
Key Destinations
ey destinations are locations within or surrounding a neighborhood
hat are neighborhood centers for area residents. Functioning centers
>rovide locations for social interaction between residents, and ideally,
. ould foster a sense of connection with a place and the people that
ve there. These centers can be civic, social, or commercial as long as
`hey are easily accessible to the surrounding residents.
tastgate is served by six key destinations. They are: Thomas Park.
Eastgate Commercial center, Eastgate Park, Lions Park, College Hills
Elementary, Woodland Park, and City Hall (see Map EC.7, Key
Destinations for locations). While there are other commercial areas
ithin and around the planning area, they are not easily accessible on
oot, or do not primarily cater to neighborhood residents.
CIP and Maintenance Projects
he City has several municipal improvements planned within the next
ive years in the Eastgate planning area.
Fire Station #6 - The City currently has funding to construct Fire Station
6 to serve the northeastern portion of College Station. The Fire Station
to be constructed on vacant City-owned property located adjacent
%a Lions Park at the intersection of Tarrow Street and University Drive
ast. Design work is currently underway, with construction anticipated
commence in mid-201 1.
Lincoln Sidewalks - $150,000 in capital funding is available for the
.tension of sidewalks on Lincoln Avenue from future Eisenhower Street
io (--rand Oaks Circle. This project is anticipated to begin with utility
v
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
rehabilitations scheduled with the Eastgate Phase IV utility rehabilitation
projects in 2012.
Eastgate Utility Rehabilitation - Utility funding is currently budgeted for
$4.7 million in utility upgrades for water and wastewater facilities in the
Eastgate neighborhood. Phase IV (area bounded by Lincoln Avenue,
Walton Drive, Francis Drive, and Texas Avenue) of the project has been
funded and includes rehabilitation of water lines on:
• Lincoln Avenue between Foster Avenue and Nunn Street;
• Walton Drive between Foster Avenue and Francis Drive;
• Milner Drive between Walton Drive and Francis Drive;
• Harrington Avenue between Walton Drive and Francis Drive;
• Puryear Drive between Walton Drive and Francis Drive; and
• James Parkway between Puryear Drive and Francis Drive.
Sanitary sewer line rehabilitation is also funded. The majority of the
sanitary sewer lines in Phase IV are located along utility alleys and utility
easements at the rear of these properties.
Additionally, many of the remaining residential water and sanitary sewer
lines in the Eastgate neighborhood have been identified for
rehabilitation; however, funding is not currently available.
Rehabilitation of these utility lines is necessary to reduce service
disruptions because of deteriorating lines, to reduce inflow and
infiltration to sanitary sewer lines, and to improve fire protection due to
insufficient line size and hydrant spacing.
George Bush Drive East/Dominik Drive Intersection Signalization - Funds
from the 1998 capital bond issue were budgeted for the 2010-11 fiscal
year for a warrant study and possible Signalization of the intersection of
George Bush Drive East and Dominik Drive. A previous warrant study
concluded that traffic volumes did not warrant a signal. However, with
the completion of the Texas Avenue widening project, a second study
concluded that upgrading this intersection from a four-way stop to a
signaled intersection was warranted. Installation of the traffic signal is
anticipated in fall 2011.
Public Property and Easements
The City owns 41.1 acres of property in Eastgate. The majority of that is
held as parks and the City Hall block. In addition to these properties, the
City holds rights to a variety of easements across the planning area.
Many of these easements are public utility easements located along the
rear of all platted lots which are utilized by College Station Utilities,
Atmos, Verizon, and Suddenlink to provide service to individual lots.
Public utility easements are located primarily in the eastern side of the
planning area where properties were platted after the adoption of
subdivision standards. Areas that platted before the incorporation of the
City have utility alleys behind many of the lots that serve the same
purpose. Typically, these alleys are not developed for vehicular access.
Map EC.B, Public Property and Easements, identifies the locations of
these facilities.
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS ADOPTED 06-23-11
City Facilities
City Hall - The City Hall complex is made up of two buildings located
at 1101 Texas Avenue. The main City Hall building was originally
constructed in phases beginning in 1969. City Hall currently houses the
City Manager, City Secretary, Legal, Public Communications, Fiscal
Services, and Planning and Development Services departments. In
W addition to these offices, Council Chambers is located in City Hall. The
original College Station Fire Station is also part of the City Hall Complex
and houses offices for Code Enforcement, Community and Economic
Development as well as space for Facilities Maintenance.
Thomas Park - Thomas Park is
Table EC.6 a 16 acre community park
Housing Units by Subdivision - Eastgate located within College Hills
Estates subdivision between
Duplex Subdivision Single- Kyle Avenue and Walton
Family Family Total Drive and between Puryear
Armstrong 7 7 Drive and James Parkway.
Baker 1 1 The park has basketball
Carter 1 courts, exercise stations,
picnic shelter, playground,
Christy 3 3 swimming pool, tennis courts,
w Churchill Estates 3 and a walking trail.
College Heights 1 1 Eastgate Park - Eastgate Park
College Hills Estates 12 353 is a 1.7 acre mini park made
College Hills Woodlands 78 78 up of four separate parcles
College Vista 52 b ° 58 on Walton Drive at the
Culpepper Plaza 6 6 intersections of Foster
Avenue and Texas Avenue.
D.A. Smith "Iff 22 255 277 The park is a passive park
Grand Oaks 23 23 with public art installations at
Henton 7 14 21 Walton Drive and Texas
Holt M 11 11 Avenue.
Lauterstein Addition Iff 8
8 Parkway Park -Parkway Park
Leon Gibbs 3 3 is a 1.9 acre mini park
Lincoln Fourplexes 16 16 between Munson Avenue
Lincoln Place 17 32 84 133 and Ashburn Avenue along
Woodland Parkway. The park
Lloyd Smith 21 21 is equipped with a
Pasler 21 21 playground and picnic
F 4M,
Pearce 9 9 tables.
Prairie View Heights 50 50
Lions Park -Lions Park is 1.5
Sweet Briar 38 38 acre neighborhood park
Two Lincoln Place 1 1 11 located at the end of
University Oaks 46 46 Chappel Street. The park is
University Preserve 18 18 developed with a covered
basketball court, picnic area,
Woodland Acres 23~"" ' 23 and playground.
Woodland Estates 28 28
Total 799 110 359 1268
Source F~.L; __!i'
EXHIBIT B
ADOP'FED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Neighborhood Integrity
Housing Data
A variety of housing types are located with Eastgate. Table EC.6,
Housing Units by Subdivision, identifies the number of housing units by
different housing types. The majority of duplexes are located in the
Lincoln Place subdivision along Lincoln Avenue, Vassar Court, and
Wellesley Court. Additional duplex units are developed along Dominik
Drive between Puryear Drive and Munson Avenue. Most apartment units
are located to the north of Lincoln Avenue. Map EC.9, Multi-Family
Properties, depicts the locations of duplexes and apartment properties.
Within the single-family category, there is also a variety of home and lot
sizes. Single-family home size varies by subdivision with the largest houses
Table EC.7
Single-Family Property Data
Avg. Lot Ave. Prop. Net . .
Subdivision Avg.
Armstrong 6,846.71 1,121.29 $64,984.29 1.10 7 6.36
Baker 39,117.00 2,609.00 $145,520.00 0.90 1 1.11
Carter 23,300.00 997.00 $89,450.00 0.53 1 1.87
Christy 15,885.00 1,965.00 $117,643.33 1.09 3 2.74
;Churchill Estates 6,965.33 1,524.33 $125,870.00 0.48 3 6.25
College Heights 9,625.00 1,160.00 $56,220.00 0.22 1 4.52
College Hills 15,403.44 1,626.77 $105,116.59 118.11 334 2.83
College Hills Woodlands 19,409.96 1,917.76 $134,285.26 34.76 78 2.24
College Vista 7,687.88 1,100.23 $58,560.38 9.18 52 5.67
D.A. Smith 6,140.23 1,299.00 $85,599.09 3.10 22 7.09
Grand Oaks 9,814.91 2,630.83 $277,229.57 5.18 23 4.44
Henton 6,786.71 1,615.00 $136,030.00 1.09 7 6.42
Holt 19,444.36 2,526.55 $179,869.09 4.91 11 2.24
oq Lauterstein 7,865.63 1,068.50 $63,565.00 1.44 8 5.54
Leon Gibbs 25,813.66 2,207.67 $168,306.67 1.78 3 1.69
Lincoln Place 5,287.29 1,202.18 $80,568.24 2.06 17 8.24
Lloyd Smith 8,348.52 1,204.43 $74,510.00 4.03 21 5.22
Pasler 6,973.81 1,202.67 $82,263.81 3.36 21 6.25
Pearce 6,599.22 1,354.78 $86,045.56 1.36 9 6.60
Prairie View Heights 5,195.00 1,191.20 $78,094.00 5.96 50 8.38
Sweet Briar 18,920.18 2,559.76 $181,790.00 16.50 38 2.30
Two Lincoln Place 9,393.12 1,492.82 $128,179.09 2.37 11 4.64
University Preserve 19,629.24 3,173.50 $337,731.88 7.21 16 2.22
Woodland Acres 75,479.20 2,169.65 $201,451.74 39.85 23 0.58
Woodland Estates 41,479.85 2,541.14 $205,004.29 26.66 28 1.05
Total 16,210.94 1,706.65 $121,503.62 293.26 788 2.69
Source: Brazos County Appraisal District 1201 0j
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A- EXISTING CONDITIONS ADOPTED 06-23-11
)n average are located with University Preserve (3,173 square feet
average), while the largest lots are in the Woodland Acres subdivision
:long Munson Avenue and Ashburn Avenue north of Francis Drive.
hese properties have an average lot size of 75,479 square feet per lot.
- rye smallest houses are located in areas north of Lincoln in the
auterstein addition and on unplatted property in the Carter league
isee Table EC.7, Single-Family Property Data). Overall single-family
tensity in the planning area is 2.7 units per acre, but ranges between
.6 units per acre and 8.4 units per acre.
Property Value
esidential property values are higher in subdivisions with larger lot and
i ome size (see Table EC.6, Single-Family Property Data). The highest
values are found in University
Table EC.8 Preserve, where lot sizes
Age of Single-Family Structures average just under half of an
acre. Average property
Subdivision Average Minimum Maximum values for the entire area is
below the 2010 average
Armstrong 51 8 59 property value for College
Baker 70 70 70 Station as a whole (College
9e Hills Woodlan ` 54< _10 70 Station average single-family
Christy 51 48 55 property value is $169,543).
Churchill Estates 12 IN, 12 12 Map EC.10, Single-Family
Property Value, depicts the
College Heights 56 56 56 range of single-family
College Hills Estates 57 1 82 property value in Eastgate.
College Vista 52 10 60
DA Smith 21 6 68 The average commercial
assessed value in Eastgate is
Dominion 3 3 3 $892,000.
Grand Oaks 12 11 13
Age and Maintenance
Henfon 9 9 9
Holt 39 21 44 The average age of a single-
Lauterstein 46 7 72 family residence in Eastgate is
Leon Gibbs 39 38 39 45 years; however the range
of construction is 85 years to
Lincoln Place 29 29 29 new construction (See Table
Lloyd Smith 29 ' 2 65 EC.B, Age of Single-Family
Pasler 26 1 80 Structures, for breakdown by
Pearce 25 i 75 subdivision). Residential
Prairie View Heights 29 3 62 development activity was
high in the 1940s and 1950s
Sweet Briar 35 15 39 when over half of the housing
Two Lincoln Place 15 14 15 was constructed. Map EC.11,
University Preserve 13 1 70 Age of Single-Family Structure,
Woodland Acres 54 11 85 identifies the decade of
construction by
Woodland Estates 47 27 65 primary
structure on the lot.
Total 45 1 85
Property maintenance
source: Brazos county Appraisa! Dis+,;-t enforcement made up just
2.6% of the code
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
2007 and 2010 (See Table EC.10, Code Violations Per Lot). The majority of
these cases were located in the College Hills Estates Subdivision. Map
EC.12, Property Maintenance Cases, identifies the locations of these
cases.
In 2010, Economic and Community Development conducted a survey
of housing conditions within the City. Surveys were completed by meter
readers to evaluate the condition of housing structures across the City.
This survey found that the majority of the City's housing stock is in
excellent or conservable condition with only 461 of 17,978 properties
ranked as substandard or dilapidated. Approximately 7% of the
properties evaluated were located in Eastgate though 13% of the total
substandard structures identified were located in Eastgate.
Table EC.9
Registered Rental Properties by Subdivision, 2010
Subdivision Total Registered Units Total SF
Family
Armstrong 5 1.5% - - 5 1.1% 7 71.4% 7 71.4%
Baker - - - - - - 1 0.0% 1 0.0%
Carter - - 1 0.0% 1 0.0%
Christy - - - - - - 3 0.0% 3 0.0%
Churchill Estates l 0.3% 0.2% 3 33.3% 3, 33.3%
College Heights 1 0.3% - - 1 0.2% 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
College Hills Estates 186 56.5% 1i o , 45.0% 349 56.7% 337 55.2%
College Hills Woodlands 16 4.9% - - 16 3.6% 78 20.5% 78 20.5%
College Vista 33 10.0% 6 5.4% 39 8.9% 58 67.2% 52 63.5%
D.A. Smith 15 4.6% - - 15 3.4% 22 68.2% 22 68.2%
Grand Oaks _ - - - 23 0..0% 23 0.0%
Henton - - 14 12.6% 14 3.2% 21 66.7% 7 0.0%
k,v
Holt - - - - - - 11 0.0% 11 0.0%
Lauterstein 4 1.2% - - 4 0.9% 8 50.0% 8 50.0%
Leon Gibbs : - - - - - 3 0.0% 3 0.0%
Lincoln Place 9 2.7% 32 28.8% 41 9.3% 49 83.7% 17 52.9%
Lloyd Smith . 6 1.8% - - 6 1.4% 21 28.6% 21 28.6%
Pasler 11 3.3% - - 11 2.5% 21 52.4% 21 52.4%
Pearce 4 1.2% 4 0.9% 9 44.4% 9 44.4%
Prairie View Heights 24 7.3% - - 24 5.5% 50 48.0% 50 48.0%
Sweet Briar 3 0.9% 3 0.7% 38 7.9% 38 7.9%
Two Lincoln Place 6 1.8% - - 6 1.4% 11 54.5% 11 54.5%
University Oaks 46 41, 46 10.5% 46 100.0% 0 0.0%
University Preserve - - - - - - 16 0.0% 16 0.0%
Woodland Acres 3 0.9% - - 3 0.7% 23 13.0% 23 13.0%
Woodland Estates 3 0.9% - - 3 0.7% 28 10.7% 28 10.7%
Total 329 100.0% 111 100.0% 440 100.0% 901 48.8% 790 41.6%
Source: City of College Station, F'e•G5 (2,J1Cy
9 j
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Rental Registration
n 2009, the City began implementing a rental registration program for
tingle-family and duplex units. There are a total of 440 units registered
- the planning area, equal to 48.8% of all duplex and single-family
structures in the neighborhood. Overall, 88% of those units are single-
-amily homes, and the remaining units are duplex units.
Table EC.9. Registered Rental Properties by Subdivision, 2010, identifies
he number of rental units per subdivision.
Code Enforcement
The City's Code Enforcement division is responsible for ensuring code
:ompliance with the City's adopted ordinances and regulations.
There is currently one code enforcement officer assigned to the
Eastgate neighborhood.
- Table EC. 10 College Hills has the highest total
Code Violations per Lot, 2007-2010
number of violations (46.2%);
Code however, the Pearce subdivision
Subdivision has the highest number of
Violations Per Lot violations on a per lot basis (See
Armstrong 10 58 5.80 Table EC.10, Code Violations Per
Baker 3 0 0.00 Lot).
Carter 3 0 0.00
Christy 4 7 1.75 The most prominent code
Churchill Estates 3 10 3.33 violation in the area is a
College Heights 6 5 0.83 sanitation violation (See Table
College Hills 396 1144 2.89 EC.11, Code Enforcement Cases
College Hills Woodlands 79 133 1.68 by Type (2007-2010)). Sanitation
violations are enforcement cases
College Vista 56 206 3.68 relating to the proper use of trash
D.A. Smith 37 201 5.43 containers. These violations are
Grand Oaks 24 0 0.00 often issued for failure to remove
Henton 19 5 0.26 the container from the street
Holt 14 5 0.36 within 24-hours of pick-up, or from
Lout erstein 9 20 2.22 excess trash around the
Leon Gibbs 3 2 0.67 container. Violations are most
Lincoln Place 54 45 0.83 likely to occur in late summer
Lloyd Smith 33 96 2:91 and fall months (August through
December). Additionally,
Pasler 31 93 3.00 violations were most frequently
Pearce 11 65 5.91 documented on Thursday, 24
Prairie View Heights 58 259 4.47 hours after trash pick-up in this
Sweet Briar 39 38 0.97 area.
Two Lincoln Place 1 1 5 0.45
University Oaks 25 0 0.00 The streets with the most
violations are located in areas
University Preserve 28 0 0.00 where it is predominately rental.
Woodland Acres 27 48 1.78 The following streets had more
Woodland Estates 30 32 1.07 than 100 violations in the past 2
Total 1013 2477 2.45 years: Avenue A (221), Dominik
ce: City of Coll Drive (176), Foster Avenue (171),
~.Gilchrist Avenue (134), Kyle
venue 1104),
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
(255), Peyton Street (114), Popular Street (112), Vassar Court (115) and
Walton Drive (237) - See Map EC.13, Code Enforcement Cases by Type
(2007-2010). m.
College Station Police responded to 132 Table EC.1 1
parking complaints in the Eastgate Eastgate Code Enforcement Cases by Type
neighborhood between January and (2007-2010) s
November, 2010. This respresents 4.6% of all
complaints in the City during the same time Case Type cases
period. The most frequent complaints were Brush/Bulky Items/Litter 7
located on Walton Drive (25), followed by Fire Protection 59
Vassar Court (17), and Lincoln Avenue (11). The Health & Sanitation Violation 731
location of parking complaints can be found Property Maintenance 64
on Map EC.14, Parking and Traffic Violations Public Nuisance Violation 223
(2009-2010). Rental Registration 221
Crime Sanitation Violation 1,020
Traffic Code 129
Property security is also a concern in college , Development Ordinance 23
communities because of the season effects of Total 2,477
school breaks that leave a large number of
homes unocuppied, creating easy targets for source: City or College Station, P&os (2001
break-ins and burglary. Burglaries of a vehicle
or habitation are consistent problems throughout the community. In
Eastgate, these crimes decreased in 2007 and 2008, but then returned
to pre-2007 levels. Current tracking of these types of crime, show that
year to date burglary activity is at it lowest since 2005.
Map EC.15, Significant Activity (2009-2010), identifies the locations of
activity in the Eastgate neighborhood.
Noise and Loud Parties
College Station Police responded to 77 calls in Eastgate for noise and
loud party violations between January and November, 2010. Of those
calls, 18 resulted in a citation, 21 resulted in a warning, and the
remaining did not have a violation observed. The total number of calls in
Eastgate equates to 5.1% of all noise and loud party calls made during
the some time period.
The location of the calls for noise and loud party violations can be
identified on Map EC.16, Noise Violations (2009-2010).
Street Lighting
There are two primary types of street lighting located in the Eastgate.. "x
neighborhood - standard lighting and decorative lighting. Decorative
lighting was installed on several streets as part of the implementation of
the 2001 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan, however opposition to the
lighting has limited full implementation of the lighting plan.
The location of street lighting by type can be seen on Map EC.17, Street
Lighting.
EXHIBIT 13
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Mobility
Streets
astgate has approximately 17 miles of streets within and surrounding
the neighborhood, of which 6 miles are thoroughfares designed to
arry additional traffic to and through the neighborhood. The City's
omprehensive Plan identifies the functionality, context, and type of
-horoughfares needed to carry the traffic generated by the various
I--and uses in and around the City.
Table EC.12, Street Classifications, lists the functional classification,
context and thoroughfare type of the major thoroughfares within the
astgate area. All streets are grouped into a class depending on the
;haracter of traffic and the degree of land access they allow. There
are three functional classes of streets that run through the
Table EC.12
Street Classifications
Thoroughfare Functional Classification Street Type Way Street
Width Width
George Bush Dr. 4 Lane Major Urban Urban Avenue, 86' 74'
E Collector 4 Lane
Lincoln Ave. 2 Lane Major Urban Urban Street, 50'+ 38
Collector 2 Lane
Tarrow St. 2 Lane Major Urban Urban Street, 60' 38'
Collector 2 Lane
Eisenhower St. 2 Lane Major Urban Urban Street, 50' 27'
Collector 2 Lane
2 Lane Major Urban Street,
Foster Ave. ` Collector Urban 2 Lane 60' 27'
Dominik Dr. 2 Lane Major Urban Urban Street, 70' 48'
Collector 2 Lane
Walton Dr. 2 Lane Minor Urban Urban Street, 60' 38'
Collector 2 Lane
Restricted
2 Lane Minor Restricted
Francis Dr. Collector Suburban Suburban Street, 60' 38'
2 Lane
Source: City of Collea- c,J, : P&DS (2010)
r eighborhood. They consist of major collector, minor collector, and
.>cal streets. Although not all constructed to current standard, all of
he planned thoroughfares for this area are constructed except the
=xtension of Eisenhower Street from Ash Street to Lincoln Avenue.
Local Streets
_ocal streets are of concern in the Eastgate area because some of the
streets were constructed before the current local street design
tondard. Table EC.13, Survey Results of Select Streets, identifies the
It ,-,f o v~ i'. v of thr~ evistino condition of some ! ctreetc
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Table EC. 13
Survey Results of Select Streets
Existing Right
Street Pavement Curb & Gutter System
of Way Width
Width
Existing Street 40' 27' Yes
Bolton Avenue 60' 27' Yes
Gilbert Street 30' 12' No
Harrington Avenue 60' 27' Yes
James Parkway 60' 20' Not south of Francis
Marsteller Avenue 50' 27' Yes
vainer Street 60' 27 Yes
Munson Avenue 50' 27' Yes
Nimitz Street 40'-50' No
Pasler Street 30' 22' Yes
Puryear Drive 60' Not south of Francis
Rose Circle 50' 27' Yes
Turner Street 29'-50' 20' No
Woodland Parkway 40' 22'; n/a No
Source: City of College Station, P&DS (2010)
Sidewalks
In general, sidewalks are located sparsely throughout the
neighborhood. The majority of existing sidewalks are located along
thoroughfares, with the exception of portions of Walton Drive, Lincoln
Avenue, Tarrow Street, and all of Eisenhower Street that do not have
sidewalks. Paths through the College Hills Elementary site and Thomas
Park provide additional pedestrian paths for area residents.
Additional sidewalks on local streets are located along Munson Avenue
and the eastern portion of Gilchrist Avenue. As most of the
neighborhood developed prior to any adopted subdivision
development standards, no other local roads have sidewalks. Current
street standards require sidewalks on both sides of all streets.
Perimeter sidewalks are constructed on Texas Avenue and University
Drive East.
Map EC.18, Pedestrian Facilities, identifies the existing and proposed
locations of sidewalk and multi-use path facilities for the Eastgate
neighborhood.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are limited within the Eastgate area. Existing bicycle
lanes are located on Lincoln Avenue from Texas Avenue to Tarrow
Street, Walton Drive from Texas Avenue to Nunn Street, and on George
Bush Drive East from Texas Avenue to Dominik Drive. A single bicycle
route exists on Gilchrist Avenue from Munson Avenue to Texas Avenue,
EXHIBIT B
jjjjjj~ APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS I ADOPTED 06-23-11
through Thomas Park.
Map EC.19, Bicycle Facilities, identifies the location of existing and
proposed bicycle transportation facilities for the Eastgate
neighborhood.
Bicycle Parking
,-,!cycle parking in the Eastgate neighborhood is limited to commercial
seas long Texas Avenue, apartments on Lincoln Avenue, and College
tills Elementary.
May EC.20, Bicycle Parking, identifies the location of existing bicycle
)arking facilities.
Walking Distance to Centers
`,s shown in Map EC.7, Key Destinations, most of the neighborhood is
)cated within a 1,500 foot radius of a neighborhood center. A
eighborhood center is classified as a school, park, or a commercial
area catering to the local neighborhood. Examples in this
neighborhood include City Hall, Eastgate Commercial center,
Eastgate Park, Thomas Park, College Hills Elementary, and Lions Park.
The distance from a key destination is measured as a direct point to
>oint distance and does not follow an existing sidewalk or street. As
uch, actual walking or driving distance will be greater in some
Istances.
Transit Routes
`lie Eastgate Neighborhood has access to three Brazos County Transit
)istrict (The District) fixed bus routes that run on Texas Avenue,
Iniversity Drive and Lincoln Avenue. The yellow route travels between
exas Avenue at Villa Maria Road and Graham Road at Victoria Drive.
,?n the return trip to Villa Maria Road, this route travels Lincoln Avenue
-ind Tarrow Street before returning through Northgate via University
?rive. The brown route primarily services neighborhoods south of Texas
&M University via Texas Avenue along the boundary of the Eastgate
i eighborhood, and the Purple route services mostly Bryan
eighborhoods but is accessible from University Drive across from the
eighborhood.
exas A&M University Transportation Services operates one fixed route
o this area - Route 12, Reveille. This route runs through the
neighborhood on Lincoln Avenue. There are eight identified fixed stops
on the route at Foster Avenue, at the Eastgate Apartments, at Tarrow
_Street, and at Munson Avenue.
the location of these routes and stops are shown on Map EC.21,
Transit.
f,dditionally, Texas A&M University operates game day transportation
during the football season between Post Oak Mall on Harvey Road
F',
VOW .r
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Sustainability
Energy Audits
College Station Utilities offers free Table EC.14
energy audits to its customers. Lot Coverage by Subdivision
Audits can assist in identifyi :
ways to reduce elect r5 Subdivision Avg. Avg. Lot Avg. Lot
consumption and there) Building Size Coverage
reducing utility costs to fhe Armstrong 1,121.29 6,846.71 16.5%
consumer. Energy audits were Baker 2,609.00 39,117.00 6.77.
conducted for 245 customers in Carter 997.00 23,
2010. Of those audits, 3.3% were
customers residing in the Eastgate Christy ' 1,965.00 15,885.00 12.4%
neighborhood. Churchill x: 1,52 6,9
College Heights 1,160.00 9,625.00 12.1%
Utility Rebates College Hills 1,626.77 15,4034+4` 12.2%
College Station Utilities offers a WoodlCollegae nds Hills 1,917.76 19,409.96 11.5%
variety of rebates to inceni College Vista 1,100.23 7,6q 14:6%
energy efficiency. Rebates are
D.A. Smith 1,299.00 6,140.23 26.3%
offered for purchase of compact
florescent light bulbs, energy Grand Oaks 2,6311,1 9,81491 29.87.
efficient HVAC systems, and fo: Henton 1,615.00 6,786.71 24.2ro
solar voltaic panel installation. Holt 2,526.55 19,44436 13.'3%
Over 460 rebates have be
processed in 2010 for the = Lauterstein 1,068.50 7,865.63 15.9;0
programs. Only 13 Eastgoie Leon Gibbs 2,207.67 25,813.66 8.6%
neighborhood residence- Lincoln Place 1,202.18 5,287.29 23.2`0
participated in these programs. Lloyd smith 1,204.43 8,348.52 15.4%
Impervious Cover Pasler 1,202.67 6,973.81 19.11.
Pearce 1,354.78 6,599.22 23.4%
Impervious cover refers to artificial Prairie View Heights 1,191.20 5,195.00 24.9%
structures such as pavement,
driveways, and sidewalks that are et Briar 2,559.76; 18,92_} '
covered by impenetrable Two Lincoln Place 1,492.82 9,393.12 17.8%
materials such as brick, stone, and University Preserve 3,173.50 19,629. 4
rooftops which prohibit infiltration Woodland Acres 2,169.65 75,479.20 4.0%
of water into the underlying soil. Woodland Estates 2,541.14 41,479.85
Impervious building cover was
calculated for the single-family Source: Er,,Zos cour,ty Appraisol Cut[ici (2oio)
subdivisions within the
neighborhood. Table EC.14, Lot
Coverage by Subdivision, provides detail on the average building
coverage, lot size, and percentage of building coverage.
In building coverage, the amount of coverage ranges from 4`
coverage in Woodland Acres to almost 30% coverage in Grand Oaks
with the overall average in the entire area being 15% buildinu
coverage. Lots south of Lincoln Avenue have an average building
coverage around 11% where lots north of Lincoln Avenue have higher
coverage amounts closer to 30%.
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CONDITIONS ADOPTED 06-23-11
Floodplain
FEMA-identified floodplain is located within two areas of the Eastgate
planning area, with both being tributaries of Wolf Pen Creek. The
primary floodplain in this area is a tributary located between Lincoln
Avenue and Dominik Drive and between Walton Drive and Ashburn
Avenue. This floodplain is primarily located between College Hills
Elementary and single-family residences on Ashburn Avenue between
_incoln Avenue and Dominik Drive. The portion behind the school has
a nature trail that runs behind the school.
second, smaller tributary is located along Puryear Drive at between
homas Park and Dominik Drive that is fed by drainage from the
homas Park area.
The locations of these areas are depicted on Map EC.22, Floodplain.
Recycling
ecycling collection for the City is provided once a week, on the some
clay as bulky items and clean green brush collections. Each eligible
residence is provided with clear plastic recycling bags that the
resident uses to sort and store the recyclable materials. At this time,
recycling participation is limited to single-family, duplex, and four-plex
wellings only. Exact figures are not available for this area, but as a
hole, 60% of all eligible residences in the City recycle. Items that are
urrently accepted for curb-side recycling include newspapers and
iagazines, aluminum and steel food cans, clear and brown glass,
Mastic bottles, and lead acid car batteries.
Wind Watts
i an effort to make College Station a greener and more sustainable
. ommunity, the College Station Utilities offers its residential utility
ustomers the option to purchase some or all of their electricity from
Vind power. The City's Wind Watts are purchased from the South Trent
vind farm in west Texas. Approximately 5.5% of all households
articipating in the Wind Watts program reside in the Eastgate
eighborhood. This translates in real numbers to 32 households within
tP th,'i' ~~r it>^ j-~ fly -
lqw
A.
F
a ~l a Ix
d ~ T
71
wo W
0 CL 0) v
a C: bci a 1~a a ~ E
N
w o u
❑
--,Q Pe4S
0-iS-Aala4las
v~ )S-aanO3SaM- 41
O~ o -06
i`c I 1 g 1
o
-0- 4
ETC ~ O
L - --AdTUOSU/rw
~i 7wY
o Neii~~ ' suayld_P
_ f
t~ ~ 1 ~b-wn
q4
I ~(M-e!dw~(!O>
I---a
y yC V ' P
IQs I
-,3SAnno~~e1 3 ~ - aS=swe!ll!M
A I. F,,,
r r
3S Jalsed. o
iauan D Y
-TTT
3S z3iwiN! T y. j 6u!JJeH O<N~d-
-10
3S ~annoyuas.3 J ~a a l!W - fi
to -V, m Y li
aa3so
0 o p ; . d ~g
AL~
w' S
- Wd "-I0 ---d'.
_ nysexal
D
Q m ~ N
3 C7
-PH-OIOA-
AD'
UDIJ
< k ~
Z Z
uJ Cd to Ya < ~.~T F- tU~
uj -a t-
U Z y
s
94,
n
7k, I ,
tO
"
n
ti's" r
z •-l- e
i
3
jYfc 43 Std
ti
04
a.
a -
{
V
c
0
ar Z3 ~ U r a`,' o a~
a p V C a U U a
m£ d D m 06 -0
o o
_j 'v W- a Q)~ Q :5 C, x V C' C QQ
oc$ c
z LL C) a)
-ja Pe4S
,Gt in
0
0-3S-Fala3Jae
J~ v c
1S-J8AOlsaM- .j
O~ p
0
U) o
_ A
d) E O
O 0
A
Z
u O
u ~ m
J
AV UOSlInW m'at' i
M0,AG
0 h
x %p AV J011,9;
G Ja-sueglV-p
ny-uJnggsy #O
~~v! > 0 JAM e!dwA10>
i7~ r c
P ~
m~~No
--3S-Swe!il!M !S !
IS-MOJJLl ~i,~aJ m
IIE
ZZ.
-MR
lsed o Q
~f■1 ° a )
k IS aauinl ?ro s Y
61 L t ~tinm c
o Ay uoIfiu!JJeH a ~O~ea~~rd
ims
1NeJuaMOy~a~3 JoJaul!W l m ~_I_ o a
N JV1 ~ .m ~~/Y N
S-euer~Q
~ 0 nyhalso~~ ~ ~ iQlr~ o
pro
~iltllill~~ ~ °
o m
r ~
O m g ° c
ri
~ W ~ ul-tiewaso~
°m
3 ~
PH-01 z
a ~
d d U
O V 4)
tud v
0 C
W
m O v
y U o
z =
aai
-ja Pe4S
U-1s-Aelegies
vo 3S-iano3som L .4
O
Q~ wJ_ 1..- 3
- - ~V- O
N
O
J
ny uoru
cY
-jo suaylb_A /B\o0
b ~~b p 12
T-r ~M-elduaAlO>
11-
i O
m ~ m ,c 6
~S nno~~el _ -jSxweljjlm
4 o a o ~ ~.Wa,~o~~r 1
V1>1 J
m ease t m
d y ~ Jam- ~ ! ~
3g ~awnl-- ~ ~-G ~
r , , x
f=-
S N r ny_ H
~S ~arno4uas!3 ~a-~a' p m r r
S aue T t ? TTi r o = o
~ m N d; o
w > N c~: o
~ nysexal
o ~
L S~
t
°
O to
ro ul.tiewasoa
~o`
Z
PM-OIOA-
a
v
L Q
d~ _o
a o W
o 0 o
}
f~nc
tL V
Ste. U C
U ~ o
z
G< -i4 PeyS
~O aS-JaAo;SaM
- - -Ir o °
3 ~o
E o -z
JJ ~ m
- r Ar/ twu
O ~~e?SJ F iC-JQ-SUa43b_0
_T-E
Li M .dwAl0>
-jo
;g•nnojae -3 I ~c ;S=sweilliM--~~ti~ /Pls
y
- a-,cy 1 LIa~t~rOr r
~
J
~c
S=0 nl
ItL. c 1 l due. f
~N easL I tea.
IS-zIN a ~ ~~-ny_uo;6ulJJeH.
u.
4.1
3S jomo~yuss~3_ f!W
S-Quer LL
r p N o t-
~ O
- - - AV.! l
'c
t ~
m g ~ t
ro m ul tiewaso~
~0
~ ry t9 °r
z
PH-010.4-,
UDIJ aPMSDI
c
U O W > 2-
0 v o Q < 'E
z" ,
U
a-
+S-Aaj~
1 f
IIIII-Vidl
"'4 i
1 l
T -
\ L
J
l r
rr
0
O
r
VOW *40,
c ~
a
^ o
D"
W W } O O
O v
LU G ? -
z
ai
-ja Pe4S
o-iS-Aeja4jaa
U
\ ,0 3S-JaAo3saM-- .tai
~i 0
U) 0
o
v O v 0
m j m
-y
- nyTuosunrjj--
10~ -O m
/bo dja//a`'~ ~Y
C-jQ-sua4ib_0
uingysy lr~ p 12
J J A0
M eidwSlO
L) R
-gym Cti- '~`s6 I
~m 0= iro `C
4$ MOIJel_ 4_J 3iS swe!!!!M C~~ PAS
N-{{ c ` L -Itor~-
e
-a j
m 7
r r Y
Fes- H > _
Rise.
1 =fq ini c` ~`'ds I Y-
= T awed
«
N
J 7:
3S zI ! -uo36u ~e Cy
Via- ~lti~ !'I.;..
I c
LL_
nueA
~
3S,~jennolyuasl X13
ja i
N- i r _-fr Tom' 1 i ~y-- C •v
S-auep
a
10
IT
ti
in y J I hr , _ - C! r_
1 {
r _
c
O 0: o
p j p~0p g ~ t
c u~_tiewesoa-
ro
f 0
00 2
W
v
a 0 U 0 E o
m v
M CL
a 0
W
~ D C-5 a
,
000
o
~o lS-Jan03SaM `
v
Oi
10
3
J
- 0 0
J ~
5. I m
I
-su
*!*WC-aQ-SUay)t/_0
_ + r
uin`9y~ 7r O
f
eldwAlo4)
7g-mo.uel_. L.J 3 -swe1IIIM~ --r WS
F., I r I
W-1 i
CO ~
v 4w I ya~ton~ 1
all
Y
S=~a nl- LG = °'se~ r Y
IS-ZIIWIN ~ VI_UO13BulijeHl
-
G;j
UUIIW
S-aue~ R- ? rT-'~ T T~ 1 "f I~-- lc LL
a 0-- + nbr=aa3SO-4
o m 4 ITT T i' a Lh:-- - Io
AV.Sexal -T
D
o CD
O
41-Aiewasob
0
PH-01014---
z i r
r
v
}
a'
a
ar ~ o, 0 a'
a O V U_
rnW~ v CL
W n V C
L c
LL
y
z 7
a■
-jo Pe4S
G<: in
Fc O-3S-AeIajjaj3
\ v aS-JaAolsaM- L
a °
~F--~ o 3
c
w
3
E v o
I I ~ J
~Af/~1QSU
I.
ny uj
ngyJ D
AM-eldwAlo.~
N _ R
- ~
ld 1 ;,cc 6~!i
Fn 0 `-:u t
Is-moiju
1 S,
j
~LyJaltor-Dr ~ 11
Cal J
-m
7.1-
L 'J
1 S= oWn ' C Sl` ~!o!~ ~t
IS-zll-WIN nd-UO366aiep Ngd-
lS ~annoyussl3_.._ ap:~e lin L og- yrt4~
S-ioue
a `0 nbr>aalso-4
rE
o ¢ Q
Z-j
o ~
L =C
O m ~ ° t
ro 4) -uj.tieweso~jj.,
~0
•o o Z
. . .
~ N
a Q
a_ O 00 o' U_ a
O ^ d- O {yamy -1
a,
0, Cl~
p
II~ LU N o j V O C,
LJ
~7_ b4
v O CL; O O O U
II J2 D [ Q~ QQ
Z Ll V V
d❑
-Ja- Pe4S
U-1S-AejajJag
vo aS JanOlsaM - ` .1
° o
L - ca o v
N E
R
J
Lfn
r ~ d~ //d Y III
1 t j o d ~sapw c JO-suayid_0
0
~ t
~-AV wng4sb L _O
1 r j Am.eidwA1041
r
h A
Je 3.~ r a.S sweipiM S
MOJ
iS 1
r-ye
- tu7,~,i i i~~! 1t
-i / ' f ~ }tea ~ ~
~t r Y > ~I
C°= 3S'rs~lsed_ 0.0 a
-Af
4F
3s_zPw!HNj _ iv uo;6UUJeN li wIId'' 7
a--bl Onuand L-i o
4
-j! L~~
MO
U-
T LL
S-auep R Yl
( . is
-ny Jp1so-, G
O E
0
s T I~ H t9
Fj_
nysexal
V
0 0:
L
O m ~
UTAJ ewa sot}
C U
0O Z
c ~
a ~
d u_
, N
o U o
° ° o U
W C U 1 O~ O, U O' 4
t [p
W Q Q D L")
u U 6z so
S' 0 C O (r) N 0 0 0 0 0 0
-i0 PeyS
Gt
3` i0
U
~ IS-JaAolsaM
~~c y o
~Q r ,i 0 3
i nm 0 v
C
O E -1 C O
s ~ a
C) m
- ~ltAV uOsunw
J
_ /q /1bl Ja ~ r' .X ~
r oo c-J0-su044b'_0
_1 1 7ny:'urn9y f La
- -
I I L% i y AM eidwAlO>
O y Q D
---may _ t `yw ~D s
as-moJJBJ 'S-Swellilm
I J I I- l
1S s4 s~ y ` I 1y
1 S= uanl0 AT ? 41,''se
L 1II~ I-A
~
Nnd
1N r
o
L nuan I
,Ii~,L~~~~
;S jannoyuasi3 eau'
W _
03~+
S-aue~ N `a Y r- ( IJ 'col Ic ILL
lL L'~L I I I IT 7 Q °
,
~
,
~
r- -
U)
L-~ l
T
a ~L_-
~ nysexal
M
to g c
rn U-1 Aiewasov-
~O o
V r
PH-010A-
uDljpoo4joq4 .
U ~
a z3 0
4'O
N
W LU 23 v c
u G s~. U 4
t
Ql
L
z Q
~ <L
L
1 -j4 pe4S
Fc --o-3S-Aela4ja8
IS-aanOlsaM
CJ - - c
Zr
N f
m-N m
J
QS.u
o 136 -ja-suayid_m
7-77 1f uingyAM.e!dw 10> 4 to
mmouel
r
c~ ~c i'aK~or~r 1
1
f Wised
s- a, n
T
ILL,
~o nV-uOl6ull eH - ) (.i~d
3S ZRsulN
js, emo ues 1 - M=1 y l3...... MIN 'og
II: -T y o
N~ to-~._ i 1 I n 7 v
S-auep i.l ~a_ Y \ m Y
o ^ Y-~ ^d als°9'~ -'E
-Am
2 AV.sexa,l
tC
v m ~
u-I -tiewaso~
~G u
O O Z
. 84014SO3
T III!
^N' C)
W C)
N c
~ O p c
a u o _o
d M } cv J o 0 O
O ^ I~ S4 C v Q
U N o c >
LU q) p a U O v E LL n j
11) 0
o
w Q L Ica
z~
m r15 _ i
70
O 0 U • • • • • • • G
U
Ja APe4S U)ja nap!d IeaN
/ IS bala)lja
U -r---i
IS Jano;SOM o 6
y o J
P-
0 v
- 3 0
1 (f
co
OI
7T 'A
~~Q gl~ L i ! r, >
o JO SUa4td c
u n r 1 AM eldLuAlo
ell l! I
i
y I' ~ ~ 1 1 ^ t-
_
w Ind
is ra!
I-T
nd sexal
nd St
peow G`
f7
U-1 BSOZI
taw
UDICI
N
_0
V V
d O ^ 3.
N Q O
G W U N u
4 0- ;IF bt
a°
LU
Q -O
t
06 Q C~ U
N r Y
ZJ O
❑dt•
~Q ~lpe4S ~ -ja namoid MON
J~ 3S i(a~a~~a~ 0 T~.
"'o f
3S JanOlsaM o
y ~O
_ O
i 00 v
~ rl 1
m
I Y
R
[A1' O
14,
~PT 101
~~0 7 U+9i JQ suatav c
T 4 ups AM a dwAl0
11J
as
~S
IS r~ 4 0
-l 1
rid`-
d j IT~~ s
-T
S o
d ~ r
nb sexal
v
nd St
peow e
c
ul ti wasoa ,
G ~ U
Y ~ O
Ln (D U Q
41 Q _
Q
o U s
W ~ ~ Q
o Q o u_ Y v
o c
mm ; ~ U
L o r
O
v
z !E
❑
J`J~o JO ~Pe4S i .,JO 13a~i~!d IeaN
y 3S Aoje4Ja$. - -
C
O U
IS Jano;saM o
II O
7 0 3
- o v
~ Q1
i m N
Y
AJAR l~~ ' JQ suall4w c
x
- - -i - - u tr r AM eldwAlo
~S ollu
i
I 7d
ja
iS P
41
'.y
yyT
ILL
r
R, fi \
0
sta
~ v
Ild $t o
peow
p ~ o
ul-ti 'wasoa
uDlJ .P004Joq4PION
ia,
c
a s=
,o O o
1--
O U O
w uJ a c~i
O ate(D,, 0.0 LU 0 W O
m
0) sj
7}
Z D
Z J
O•
JQ ApeyS N~o 33a~1~!d IeaN
Jr
iS Aa!a)!aa
\ O U i
3S M o
Janolsa JJc
~c
c~ I3
w m
Y
t T -r r -ff L
r o lot,
~i JQ sua43d c
u n Am e!dLuA!o
ro < •Q a6
I i - ` ell l!
~ !1
. 12
T -1
_ L r l~
is Zli _
AV Sexal
tr °
nd St w
peow O
.S ul ~ wasoa
G 3 °
v, m
p °o
f W
~o a
W a Q1
lV G
a ~
z <n a
a••
Ja A ' -JO 33aH~!d IeaN
3S Aala)lja
U
o - 3S Jano3saM o V
0
L.
0 o
3
U` 3 a
sr r
1 fo
m
!0
O
t~J >
Ja suayib c
4 k AAA e!dwf4o
icl
as
7 r r. BIh ~S
f
ILI
3S z3!L L
f LL
S auer o
i
d '
rlny sexal
nd St
peaty o
ul is-ON
G ~ o
-TRW" -401
} W Lu
d 'o -'j T5 C 11 o W z
0 -0 U LL [ N o41 W-~ O O _O
a O
co 0 -C -C L
U).E W 0 0
p rL o o n- a- CL CL Q L2 Q
Y.I S o 4L- C7l Y Y Y Qt v Q% aj ((1) 1
R
0 5 3 a
z v c = .mac D 0 U C,
❑.1 11~11~1
F~Gr Ja Ape4S ja Aal3ld leaN
J` 3S ~tala~ag m a '
O U
c
v
IS JOAOISOM
o
v
y O
t _I o
IT) 3:
Ir' ~ - ~ - 3
V T
T~ O « 1
"_0 O 3 e. O
= Ol y ~ m m
j m h
I J m
O
c~c-- np uosu ;
~y L
\M\ y, e 7}~. 3
Jo su041V
LLLL
y uwngysy JI AM eldwAl0 ITT-
v
731 -4
-3' E=-~~c RC` _c i t
lg nno~ael; « I I'S of I!M ! /P~S
1 c Q
o c ` 1 n^OT y t G
H d -
awnl
S ;.wN uo36uWeH_~ >
- 'A _ i t k P,ryea~J
rT L- ~n en - o y L , 1~
LLL~
Jannoyuasi3
L. A. I I "i _J_ -E LL
J
1
~CL O r r~-~-~- A Ja3503 L N$a~ -
- O
AV/ SeXa1
m
nd St ~ w
peow
O O
c ~
ul tiewasou
Q'
= vl
Q
+O- O r .U ~1 Q O) ~ ~ ~ C
a U a c
~ ~
W V_ N 'G w
Q O Q w N N CL
C2
Y.1 C ` C 44) 4{0[l1 R
r J J a J J 4J
r
40
oo in n5 d: G (`JJ I_i
01 ■ I ■ I ■ ■ I
Gr • ■ aQ ~Pe4S y JO 33a)1O!d IeaN
o ' ■ IS Aa!a)[Jag
O° ® U ■
V♦ ■ c ■
C~w # IS aanoisaM o v ■
O a
yQ♦ \ V , - a O
OF 0 3:
♦ C1
0 O n1 I O `
i Ir
■ T; m N■
R■
0:
A* 'U0sun ■
\-M~y W T, 4■■■■rf■
}TfT `'t t ■
AV
.OG
@ M 8v/AlBj 07a
0 too ♦ y-' • e• #
~$■MOJJ61i _ ~ ■ ■ J~ \ t I iS w¢III!M I a` / -C /~P~Sw# ~ r
c m c Ito ~r~■ ` 1~'~ ■
~TlY~7 y,IIJ JJJT7r \ ■ ■ ■ # WE'=D >1I LL'L t 1 ■
6+; rC lJ...1_1L1L_1J■ Y M ty. t U _ j--- #
m
0
iS ~awnl r'I M- m #
IS N lfl~Vi6uuJeH_4 - -a
-~I:7 ~ O_ Trl c _pry tDr
`■-ti-r`ar ■ ■ r ■ ■ 'gyp J• 18UIIW ■ ~m I_ ]~%f~? O~
■ ~ y
ism 14 13
71
-j is A 0 o m~ ~.L1 I ~ ILIUIJf f( ~°o
nysexal -~.r ■ ■ ■ ■
a v
m fr o
nd St w
peaw q~
0 0`
c m
O ul Ajewasob
y O
~Y ~ t,
r
c T" v cp 1 o
Li ui CL
p p V o L;, L -o o _o
W W '2 p 'T O L-C
v+ p Q. Q} w w y C~ C~ rl Q t2 ft
ua .0 U n Q C 7 o N d, N R
0:~ -
U o
N U U Qi Qz N 1 N -5 -J 9 2 2 t
Z O0 m 1 m -
p•il:i:iisiis i
. ■ ■ r a ua~lald IeaN a
J`JF~G . • . ■ . ~ ~ as APe4S e o
+
• IS Aalapa9 j +
0♦ ° U ■
cor• t 3S JanoisaM o` v ■
0
.
c. ;
• y - c v ■
• M ~
o V
w Zr
\ p H
• 1 oC t, to m<
T m Y■
J
G)x
,a suayiy 'c#
yl w pq✓ AM eldwAlor
l _ ~ r
♦ _ ( • i - _ Y o S6vi 4
u. s
• -fir 1 ttc / - c
_ ; -
MO~~el 3'S ¢we 1!M /`E P~S`~
Lo T!
E ) J ■
LE Q ■
aeuml M.
IS
r tt~e r
M - r ■
is I!w'!N L u ^d 1~216uu~ey_r_-y Q
r,~-i ri-i~ i ■ ~ ■ ■ ~ /gyp ~ ~~~l~~l ■t_ ~ ~ l~ ~~-0~ ~ `
1 r `ti- _x a
o m _ _ ~i ell • LUJ°o'~
p
XV/ Sexal N
P It O
nd St
peayy o o
R ul Ajewasoa
G ~ 3
w Q7
r
Its
c
N
C4 4-
D
a o U O
C 3
r
W d s > v
m O c'
t~ V U ~
W
Z
CL H ~1 ~ G
O•
JO u8431d IeaN
j(3 APe4S co
~J
3S Aela)liag
O U
V C
c~ 3S JGAOISaM o
o 0
~ o v
c ~
°
C3
Y
ff ~
O
AV UO-SUr,
d 211,a
J0 Su041V c
T- any u ngysV AAA e!dwAto
m a~~ ,u /i C
J(7
c
~~r.;~ ~~C \ D<<1 , ,jam
a T m a J 1 h `1 l
i06 >
~j;S,~ajSed-
syn.L
c -
ilN L^-y uolBuweH _ Q ~e ~ s L1
01 -0
Ig-jam 04UGS13
ILL— U_
x
aue
~a O AV -Ja)SO j 4-E N of r-
o m
00
MLAt
At/ SeX 1 t
3 0 o
nd S m
pea c
O
4i
(7 u-1 Aiewesoa
G °
n n a 4~, 4..~_.
, .
77
C -
a o
N
d -0 N U
W d
j a3 O LL
W L Q Q Q Q L~ LL,
¢
Z
D ■on
1 -ja PeyS
0-1S-Aele4jaa
m
\ v 1SAo1saM
O
i 0 o
3 ~o
42 -
f O o! O
~m y ,mil IR
J
A"QSu
o //ajs~e roc-~o suaylb_0
'~v(I f=fG
_T_T i 0
_T j
AM.eldWAlo>
C
~ =iC i (iN F~,4C~ has@G%
3 L
;g-nnone is.-Jew) _
C
N \
IS-IS
IS d--
-S peu~
y
1 J ~
1S ZiIlulN ea LnV=uolBuliieH- la +eaNod- "r;4ti
1 1 14, ~1~0~ -
nuan
VW,
3S~JannoyueS13..-...
Y'L ,
S-aue(' 10- Y I T A i. ` W _C lL
A;. LiTo so-
0- v
F- C,
\O-
• I•
~nysexal
L 0: O
t _
0 ~ ~ O Y
m m-P-l tiewasoa
m'
o
-o O 2 m.
'ter r/
EXHIBIT B
EASTGATE } 4 r
N E I G H B O R H O O D APPENDIX ~ti ~i4#H?z,, ?
as :,r
P L A N PUBLIC
Overall Comment Summaries
Chart 13.1, Overall Votes by Plan Element
Issues and Opportunities Meeting Overall Category Vote Tabulation
Economic Development
Sustainability
Mobility
■ votes
Neighborhood Integrity
Community Character
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Chart 6.2, Overall Primary Issue Votes by Plan Element
Issues and Opportunities Meeting Overall Primary Issue Vote Tabulation
Economic Development
Sustainabilit
Y . I
1
Mobility
■ Votes
Neighborhood Integrity
Community Character
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ADOPTED 06-23-11 B - I
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ADOPTED 06-23-11
Chart B.3, Votes by Individual Topic
Issues and Opportunities Meeting Overall Votes by Topic
Economic development: Limit density for residential ~ 6
Economic development: Maintain small businesses kNOMMOMMiN 6
Economic development: Mixed use opportunities y
Economic development: Limit commercial 6
Economic development: ResidenhahemodeVupgrade M~ 2
Economic development: Market-based decisions 7
Economic development: City Hall redevelopment 11
Sustainability: Pollution I
Sustainabiity: Composting I
Sustainability: Recycling 7
Suslainobiity:Xedscapingeducation 5
Sustainability. Hazardous waste
Sustainabiity:Drainage issues ~MM 3
Suslainabiity:Rain water harvesting OM 2 1
Suslainabiity:Control lawn irrigation
1
Sustainability: Offer more incentives I I
Sustainability: Better communication 5
Mobility: Streetscaping I
Mobility: Connectivity 3
Mobility: Intersections 2
Mobility: Traffic 13
Mobility: Narrow streets 1
i
Mobility: Widen Streets 3
Mobility: Transit 2
Mobility: No more sidewalks I
Mobility: More sidewalks 12
Mobility: Biking 13
Mobility: Street maintenance 7
Mobility: On-sheet parking 17
Mobility: Speeding 6
Neighborhood Integrity: Crime F4"
Neighborhood Integrity: Neighborhood input t Neighborhood Integrity: Role of associations 2
Neighborhood Integrity: Trash 6
Neighborhood Integrity: Entrance sign 2
Neighborhood Integrity: Limit rentals 10
Neighborhood Integrity: Schools 4
Neighborhood Integrity: Neighborhood identify 7
Neighborhood Integrity: Improve Parks 10
Neighborhood Integrity: Enforce Codes 21
Community Character: 0Ider homes/historic preservation 15
Community Character: Diversity in housing q
Community Character: Large lots g
Community Character: Natural areas 5
Community Character: Parks 7
Community Character: Single-!army homes 15
Community Character. Parking 15
Community Character: No cut-through traffic /speeding MMEWME"ifififin 7
Community Character: No Streetlights I I
Community Character: Streelights 10
Community Character: Walkabiity
0 5 10 15 20 25
EXHIBIT B
ADOFFED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Chart B.4, Votes by Individual Topic
Issues and Opportunities Meeting Primary Issue Votes by Topic
7,
4
3
a
I', i III
CY) i
G
C 0) H N N N U N H N
O C N C N „ C d O C
E ID .9
E HE 3 U O C 0
O
t Q U N O U N U N
_ cn Z
Q N N t p Q
N
U E Q ` E Z
CL o 0 y O N O
o V N O N : w Z p
~ of C
-C o a~ O z C
O U p x
E U U N
0 6
U w
O N
Z
U 0
U U
U
Issues and Opportunities Meeting Full Comment List
Community Character
Walkability
• Walkable
• Need a way to get back to wolf Creek Park. Add sidewalks along
Dominik and Harvey
• Walkability to school
• Pedestrian access businesses
• Walking access to perimeter mixed use areas
• We walk daily at the veterans park
• Because we like veterans park. It has nature & is relatively un-
crowded
• No sidewalks are good - not needed
• Sidewalk/pedestrian access to retail/commercial areas
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Dominik is not safe to walk on. It's too fast & has no safe place (no
sidewalk) to walk
Streetlights
s Street Lights
More street lights
Would like more street lights, please
g Lighting
Expand lighting
Finish street lights
rde need a good illuminated streets as this keeps neighborhoods
safe. No colonial lights! Those could be add decoration but not the
only street lights.
improve Lighting
No Streetlights
No street lights
Street lighting - already underway
Start or research a "save the night sky" to reduce light pollution
and save energy
Remove "new" street lights that are short and don't work well
No Cut-through Traffic/Speeding
Don't like cut-through
Traffic. Speeding is a problem
Traffic is a problem
Traffic
m Slower speed around park
Speed reduction
Eastgate improvement speeding
ff Traffic on Foster
a Munson divides the neighborhood. Traffic awful
Too many renters - unrelated - to a house
Parking
Don't like lots of student parking
nfill. New houses need enough parking in the back. It would be
rice to have family not student housing
:ode enforcement parking
amore street parking rules nighttime?
Traffic parking
Change Lincoln to parking on one side of street
Single Family Homes
Single families
Want same density. No subdivision of lots
Design of new SF is for renters
Families
Change the terminology. Not "regular" homes vs. rent homes. They
ve all homes and should all have the some rights & responsibilities
s
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Parks
• Parks
• Parks
• Parks for kids in walking distance
• Thomas park
• Most of Bryan parks are better than CS parks, most of CS parks are
better than Thomas park
• Good green s pace between George Bush & Dominik
• Don't remove steel slide from Thomas Park
• Thomas Park is a definite part of the character
Natural Areas
• Change the proposed "reserved natural area" behind College Hills
to "protected natural area"
• Trees
• Trees
• Natural landscaping (vegetation)
• Trees
• Wildlife
• Wildlife
• No more develop
• Trees
• Integrity: wildlife
• Wildlife
• Organic neighborhood around. Wildlife conservation projects
• Natural areas
• Floodplain conservation
• Green space
Large Lots
• Large lot sizes
• Large lots
• Large lot sizes
• Large lots
• Redevelopment that is occurring is high density as compared to the
original structures
• Large lots
Diversity in Housing
• Diversity
• Diverse appearance
• Diverse housing types
Like different types/looks of houses
• Mixed home sizes
• Very established neighborhood. Variety of architecture
• Neighborhood reminds me of "leave it to beaver" which is why I
bought there
• Houses of different character
• Variety
• Bigger homes `
• Diverse
• Variety of home types
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOFFED 06-23-11
Older Homes/ Historic Preservation
* Older homes
Older homes
Older Homes
Yes history should be preserved. Work and it as is to be better. I
would miss my neighborhood because it is a wonderful
neighborhood. What elements is, that it is a wonderful
neighborhood. Community character is wonderful.
Are historic homes already preserved (I see plaques?)
Eastgate attraction: old homes
Compact neighborhood, old trees, walkable, diverse (not cookie-
cutter). Close to campus
Neighborhood Integrity
Enforce Code
Enforce building maintenance code
Lack of code enforcement
Some poor home/garden maintenance
Quiet
Code enforcement (notify, expand)
Noise abetment
Code enforcement. Development Oversight
Stronger Code Enforcement
Need code enforcement
)efine and enforce "single" family housing. 4 college kids plus
uoy/girl friends with 8 vehicles is NOT single family
ode enforcement must mean code enforcement
Improve Parks
)peed reduction. Parks better maintained (lights) grass,
:)layground equipment
ions Park. City Trees & grass. Bathrooms needed in park
Bad. Loss of park trees cut down
More parking space at Thomas Park
Lion Club Park improvements (play equipment)
Invest in Thomas park
Center: Thomas Park
Invest in Thomas Park
Shelter at Playground
Keep Ashburn Park
Parking at Park
Parking at Park
Adopt a park for neighborhood association to clean up trash
Too much in natural area. Adopt-a-park?
Improvements to Thomas Park
Neighborhood Identity
e Lack of neighborhood
Define the 'neighborhood'
History of neighborhood
Pride of ownership
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Proximity to A&M
• Distance from TAMU
• Born & raised in the community
• Centrally located
• History of Eastgate should be presented & honored
• Safe Neighborhood. Nice educated people. Privacy on
neighborhood. Close access to everything in College Station-
Markets Pharmacies- Schools, Restaurants.
• Lot coverage in neighborhood conservation district
• Closeness to College Hills & A&M
• Character. Given that we are next to one of the largest universities in
the USA, I think there is a good balance between the interest of
students and families
Schools
• College Hills Elementary
• Elementary school. Zoning change
• School was considered best, not it was slammed by rezoning. New
families not attracted
• Good. Thomas Park. Large old trees schools
Limit Rentals
• Limited unrelated in S.F. rentals
• Renters
• For free development of something being called "single family" are
nothing more than small dorms. City Codes (not using deed
restrictions) are ruining the area
• Rental Property
• Rental properties discourage single families
• Student renters
• I would leave if the neighborhood majority became driven by profit
and stopped being a neighborhood
• Rentals
• Go elsewhere: student-dominated houses
• Stop the "4 bedroom single family rental units" These are
condominiums
• I would leave if over student populated loss of a good balance
• Move somewhere else, too many students
Entrance Sign
• Need neighborhood entrance sign
Trash
• Trash Remedy
• Beer bottle litter
Association Process
• Community Gardens
• Go door to door to meet neighbors
• Neighborhood organization. Community gardens
• Welcome committees to welcome new residents
• Community bulletin board at Thomas park
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
gardening materials. Set up a "big exchange" neighborhood
meets in Thomas Park and exchanges paints, constructive
materials etc. With each other.
Community park board for announcements and news
Neighborhood Input
Social neighborhood association
Participation social events and personal connections
Social Events for neighborhood
More neighborhood meetings
Don't expect neighborhood association to do the city's job
Crime
11 Leave: Crime
Mobility
Speeding
Speeding is becoming an issue
Speed limit and enforcement
Check speeding we need that. Too fast
Q How do you get a speed gizmo on your street. No need for side
,walk
Slower speed around Thomas Park
Cut through speeding on Walton
Speed bumps
Speed bumps on Munson or better enforcement of speed limit
The speed limit should be lowered to 25 MPH on most (or maybe
all) residential streets except for 'major collectors" such as Lincoln,
Dominik, or George Bush E.
'.educe the speed in the area
Slow traffic on Francis next to Thomas Park
Reduce speed limit
Speed signs
On-Street Parking
* At Thomas Park along Puryear. Parking along one side of street
No parking on Gilchrist. Dangerous
On-street parking regulates speeding
On-street parking
b Students are fine living there, they are respectful and until now, at
€ w least on Gilchrist there are no problems with them. But the big
.x ,)roblem is the parking on both sides of the street
{ Are there issues for emergency vehicles?
Permit parking for large events
You may need to have more parking on one side of the street on
ome major streets but I think it should be rare to prohibit parking
on both sides of the street because many older houses don't have
urge driveways
Dn street parking regulates speeds
Parking is a major problem-norrow streets-Cars on both sides
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 1 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Limit parking (by limiting number of renters on rental property)
therefore less parking in street. If parking on street maybe permit
parking
• Streets are too narrow to permit parked cars on both sides and to
have both ways traffic
• On-street parking 24/7/365 is the greatest mobility issue. It isn't safe
for walkers, drivers, or people trying to get out of their driveways
• Off-street parking must be provided by owners of property. Code
enforcement needs to treat early & often
• Spacious parking especially around Thomas Park on both sections
Street Maintenance
• Some of the streets are in need of repair
• Street repair
• Curb streets around Thomas Park with parking areas. Save Trees
• Francis St wavy/Rough near Glen Haven
• Chip sealing was messy and prevented kids from using street,
scooter/roller blades
• Some street and curb work need in a number of places
• Road improvement
• Improve drainage
• Surface (road) on Walton
• Big hump going south/north on Puryear at Francis
• I was almost killed by a large hunk of wood sticking out of a trash
can in a bike lane. Education? Better enforcement.
• Water drainage at south end of Puryear. Heavy rain-many lakes
Biking
Bike Lanes
• Bike lane on Frances (Many bicyclists to College Hills & A&M
Campus)
• Add more Bike lanes, especially on Francis St on School side
• Need to have a safe way to bike on Lincoln
• Well marked bike lanes with road-bumps
• Area is becoming hard to ride bikes in area
• More bike lane
• No bike lanes
• Bike needed on Lincoln
• Bike lanes look to cities like Seattle and Portland for examples
• Bikes space around the park and all along Puryear as there is more
bike traffic from Lincoln & Harvey coming from University
• Bike paths: more & well unmarked, including Munson
Bike Routes
• Marked bike routes down Foster
• Need designated bike routes (No riding on sidewalks)
• Wow-it would be so nice to be able to bike to Wolf Pen Creek Park
from our area!
Bike Enforcement
• Bike lane enforcement
• Enforced Bike lanes
"111/ a
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
reep cars out of bike lanes
Education
;b Lack of acknowledgment of bikes/pedestrians by cars
Encouragement
Provide incentives for biking and walking. Tax deductions? Air
pump stations? Education
Sponsor a bike club
Offer bicyclists tax rebates
I, people walked or biked more, they wouldn't have as much
- affic to complain about! Encourage biking or walking to local
:-)usinesses
more Sidewalks
In General
Sidewalks
Better sidewalks
Sidewalks
Some more sidewalks
Sidewalk. (safety and children walk to school)
No sidewalk in the community
Area has become hard to walk
Sidewalks on both sides of streets
Sidewalks n the perimeter streets of the neighborhood
Major sidewalks should be multimodal
Sidewalks both sides of the streets
Specific Locations
Sidewalks all the way down foster
Sidewalk on Lincoln would be great
Sidewalks on Lincoln
More sidewalks & wider sidewalk on Munson. Need sidewalk on
Walton and on Tarrow and Rose Circle
deed to walk from Eastgate area to Wolf Pen Creek park. Need a
safe way across Harvey
geed sidewalks on Foster/Lincoln
Sidewalks on Walton past the park would help improve workability
to campus
Sidewalks on major pedestrian collector streets. Walton & Lincoln
IJo More Sidewalks
New sidewalks may kill mature trees
Conflicts on Multiuse Paths
Do not put a bike lane through the natural area behind College
Hills. Leave it a natural buffer zone
Thomas Park problem: Jogging path used by bicyclists
oblem: biking on sidewalk of Thomas park. Kids not a problem its
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Can we get bikes out of a park walk?
Transit
• Transit is well/good
• Bus system to reduce amount of car use
• We have transit good. A&M bus good
• Bus top along George Bush near Dominik
• Change game day bus rout
• Bus traffic on game day
• Slow busses down on Walton
Widen Streets
• Widen Streets
• Widen roads means some loss to owners
• Some roads are much narrower than others
Narrow Streets
• Narrow Streets
• Winding streets
• Narrowing Dominik to calm traffic has not worked! It is extremely
dangerous with no striping on-street parking
Traffic
• Traffic on Foster
• Street development streets are becoming a problem
• Munson is a severe problem for those who live on it
• Less traffic on Munson is needed
• Sync traffic lights
Intersections
• Four way stop at Walton & Francis
• Need a safe way to get across Dominik with stroller. Bumpy & grassy
now
• Put a crosswalk to cross Lincoln into Best Buy parking lot
• My friend who lives on Dartmouth cannot cross to get bus on Harvey
because of right hand through traffic
• Access management problematic for George Bush/Dominik
Connectivity
• How will Wellesley & Vassan Ct connect to the new development to
the east? How about how I t connects to Lincoln?
• Extend Foster south through to Dominik
• Dense street network is good
• Streets are generally safe
Streetscaping
• Center divides (planted) on wider roads
• Code enforcement on corners blocked by planting or fences
Sustainability
EXHIBIT B
~;~ar sir
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ADOPTED 06-23-11
Better Communication
Better publicity of current city programs
Encourage property management companies to ask tenants for
-~ie permission to share their email addresses with the city &
-eighborhood associations so newcomers can be in the loop
automatically
City needs more communication with the community. What is
available (resources)
Community with the students helps to keep issues under control
Post rebates in utility bill newsletter
Fliers and hazmat
Link of the front-page of website to E-notify
Offer workshops on how to research alternative energy (solar)
Notification by city of lot? In place for building projects
Include students
Improve relations with student renters
ind average electrical usage for neighborhoods Put a c> or @ on
ach person's bill if they use more or less than the average
Offer More Incentives
* Offer Rebates (solar)
Insulation rebates for existing homes
Offer incentives to replace 5 gal flush toilets
Existing home insulation rebate
Reverse charge. Solar incentive
Encourage solar panels
Offer rebates for other items. Metal roofs, added insulation
Offer an incentive to reduce water consuming landscape
_ess water incentives. Reward program "water & energy rewards"
'ebates for water efficiency. Improvements. Rain barrels, water
aver toilets.ect
-or water or hot water on demand rebates
Control Lawn Irrigation
Controlled better watering of lawns (lots of run-off)
Water Lawns less
Save the oaks. Stop irrigating
Water meter separation. Irrigation and water meter service
Rain Water Harvesting
Reducing water harvesting
@ Rain barrel rebates
4 Collection of rain water to help conservation. City Proceed
r Offer rain barrel training
Rain water harvesting projects
Rainwater collection rebate program
Rainwater collection - perhaps with city helping in funding
F Water conservation projects
Rain water collection system
Drainage Issues
Li i:._~-
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Richard Carter Park (and other parks tool are very dry why doesn't
the city lead the way and use the parks as 'demonstrations' showing
how the citizens can help.
• The city has the equipment & personnel to keep dead wood & trash
removed so that the water doesn't reach up on residents like the
men behind the homes on Berkley & near Pickett & marry oaks
• I would like to know how to fix the drainage on my property
• Concrete drainage
• Mosquito control needed
• Standing water
• What can you do when you have lots of drainage around your
house
Hazardous Waste
• More frequent hazardous waste collection
Xeriscaping Education
• Xeriscaping education saving "oaks" project
• Rewards for xeriscaping
• Community xeriscaping education
• Plants in CS parks that require less water/maintenance
• Offer classes in xeriscaping
Recycling
• More plastic numbers recycled
• Charge money for people who don't recycle
• Expand recycling programs for more items plastics glass
• Recycle bins
• Recycling energy rebate water conservation. Ecofriendly
• Recycle green bottles
• Recycle cardboard
• Recycling multi-family
• Use container Bins instead of plastic bags for recycling
• Recycle more. Recycle info. Let people know what is & isn't recycled
cardboard
• Boxboard recycling. I see a lot of cardboard being thrown away on
curb
• Better marketing for recycling program to newcomers
• Increased info about recycling opportunities
Composting
• Compost facility nearby
Pollution
• Small treatment plant. Problem getting worse
• Creek behind elementary is polluted (according to A&M biologist
friend of mine) maybe we could limit fertilizer & pests.
• Improve bad smell from sewer treatment plant on spring loop
Economic Development
City Hall Redevelopment
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ADOPTED 06-23-11
Redevelopment of City Hall location
Keep the city Hall where it is now. It serves as buffer zone
v Keep the land behind city hall empty of development. Turn it into
parkland
Keep buffer around neighborhood. When C.S. sells current
offices/land don't put in large retail center.
N1arket - Based Decisions
Commercial development is at owners judgment
Infill should be at the owners judgment
Residential Remodel/Upgrade
redevelopment: We should encourage remodeling & upgrades of
DIder residences like we have seen at Southgate
using land appropriately for both property owners & residents has
'o make sense. Use of wide buffers & moderate development
makes sense. Re-development using up-grade (Nice homes) i.e.
;outhside- when individuals can capitalize on the proximity to the
university
Limit Commercial
No business or commercial in areas where I live
No big boxes on fringes of our area
No development in neighborhood
Business not appropriate, bars opened late at night
Weight of commercial zoning in and around residential area west
of Tarrow
a No Bars- no kind of business to affect the school
Limit development like large restaurants across from Hilton. No
fountains (large scale)
I have concerns about commercial business located on Lincoln
~-rnd Kyle areas
. and use transitions are good
Commercial on Texas Ave limit height & have exterior design
guideline character/curb appeal
Less commercial in neighborhood
No bars or nightclubs
Would not like the mix of commercial options
Building dwellings that are negative to property value
Manufacturing. Chain store. Restaurants
~-Iixed Use Opportunities
3l< mixed use options on University & Texas
:ulpepper Plaza- would be great as a commercial center for out
,rea. It's of little value now
`:fixed use near campus would be a positive redevelopment
We need a downtown. Texas Ave including the old hotel at Texas
& University
Eastgate is different because of the mixed commercial around the
edges
Be innovative- look at cities that have built smart commercial
)fixed use structures- ones that give downtown feel (San Diego,
C
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Need community stores; Groceries, Post office, Library Satellite
*Culpepper Plaza`
• Mixed Use
• Study existing towns in northeast and how they developed
• Downtown square idea in Eastgate town center. Look at Sugar Land
• Harvey Road Business - not walkable
Maintain Small Businesses
• Maintain small business properties/opportunities
• Grocery/produce or meat market. Farmers market i.e. somewhere to
buy groceries
• Desired business: pharmacy/small convenience
• Small businesses. No big box stores
• Boutique retail/restaurants
• Post Office, grocery store, cafe, community center, library satellite in
culpepper and Eastgate
• Galleries, educational
• More Cafe in area
• Office space, small store, restaurants (non-chain mixed Use)
Limit Density for Residential
• Limit high density residential
• Keep apartments off Texas/University
• No apartments
• Infill, people should be allowed to build whatever they would like as
long as it is single family
• Build in the same style do not build multiple apartment units in single
family zone
• Line between Texas Ave & single family should be green area
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ADOPTED 06-23-11
Chart B.5, Residential Character Survey Responses
Ci h
pppp N ~
O b
V ~
fh N N
R O
10 LO f7
M
ch LO
N N
M M
I
N M N
N
C^0 CC0 p
'T N
Z.
Q
C
o r t c ° ° E a E E r o = r
o E u m $ o G P ;
£ g_ Q g R o
r - E u u € z u
E -G -6 3; E
O O m O° C O 4 V C p O C 'G E
E ;o o m m ° 9Et g 8. 0
U g m o o m¢ yc g c o
o ° t 38 g o£ o g €8
2u 3:._ G
Ru sin ~ mg o~ o$ .L g o $ c $a, ;~i4' N ~ C) 0
~o R. uu ~ffi „mat c ~2 or
2 '0 CL 2
-9~ o mu a~ r 2'.0 'o ° s w 5° o
12 C L C 32
.9 2 2 8. .1 CL
Co. E 41 0
6 'OEf lt~g~ ~C CA C ? O -3 It L ? ° L 'O S
K ~7 L~' m m 'O p a O .s •A i
C g o 3 o 6 2 g r o a L
z c o
V V
o - o z C c
E ~ _
C
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Neighborhood Conservation Responses
Question 1: What specific attributes do you like about your
neighborhood?
• This is a neighborhood with a "history." Everything from street names
to lamp posts, it has character. I would define "East Gate" differently
from the city map I received. I would say the boundaries should be
Lincoln St. to Dominik and Texas Ave. to Glenhaven or even to the
bypass 6. North of Lincoln and south of Dominik are very different
and as a long time resident, I have never considered those as part of
"East Gate."
• Number of commercial/restaurant with in walk distance. Walking
distance to A&M. Thomas park
• It has tremendous rarities which it has achieved without any
independence
• Nearby college hills. Great School. Proximity to A&M
• Character of the neighborhood, the sense of the history of this town.
It is close to many things. In the center of the town
• Large lots with older trees. Green space. Strong sense of community.
Older houses. Light traffic
• Quiet and well preserved. Close to what CS has to offer.
Commitment to maintaining the character of the neighborhood
Question 2: What are the attributes that make your neighborhood
unique and special?
• Large lots, big trees, t-streets that limit traffic speed, new elementary
school. Proximity to the University, the airport, shopping on both
University and Harvey Rd. Older established community. Mix of old
and young occupants.
• Good character. Mix of housing/residents
• We have been free to improve our houses & land as we see fit
• Centrally located, near Highway 6, University Ave.
• Old houses give the unique character to the neighborhood.
Closeness to the University makes it special as well
• Large lots with older trees. Green space. Strong sense of community.
Older houses. Light traffic
• Older structures, for the most part, have been maintained. Quiet
and peaceful
Question 3: What about your neighborhood do you currently
dislike?
• On-street parking is a huge problem. With a denser population,
multiple vehicles parked on both sides of the street make navigating
the streets dangerous. It also poses a problem to residents trying to
back out of a driveway with a car parked immediately opposite the
drive. Cars/trucks often park on the wrong side of the street and can
pull out in front of an on-coming car without warning. These are also
problems for the trash truck and would be impossible for fire trucks to
get through
• Lack of sidewalks on Lincoln/Foster
• People stirring up trouble and interfering in other people's business &
rights
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Ternporary residents in neighborhood-too many to a house. Too
many cars in driveways/street
The neighborhood is becoming too crowded. It was designed and
Quilt for single families. 4-6 trucks parked in a front of a house
changes the street into a giant parking lot
infilling/threat of infilling. Increasing number of rentals (transient
esidents)
Thomas park could be improves-it doesn't seem like maintenance
ias kept up with use
Question 4: If you came back in twenty years, what would you
not like to see changed?
would not want to see the large lots divided into multiple smaller
,nes with tiny houses or apartments that lower the value of the
)roperty they border. We have already begun to see tiny houses
Vith no garages being erected cheapening the area. I would
ope the parks and public areas would be maintained beautifully
and that the Thomas Park Pool would continue to be maintained
appropriately. Neighborhood integrity matters!
Development density. Commercial mix
E I would like it to remain a family oriented single family
,eighborhood where people are free to improve the land and
Tomes as they see fit
reservation of Thomas Park with its pool, as well as other little park
areas
-haracter of the neighborhood
Large lots with older trees. Green space. Strong sense of
community. Older houses. Light traffic
1 would not like to see removal of the old homes with replacement
:)y the typical modern subdivision housing such as present in South
",ollege Station
Question 5: Have there been recent changes in the
neighborhood that you feel take away from the character? If
so, what are those changes?
See the item above. Add to that, the narrowing of Dominik Dr. has
treated a dangerous street with on-street vehicles that limit
isibility and make meeting a large vehicle hard to pass beside. No
ripes on the street make it even worse. Sorority and fraternities are
ising large residential homes for members (who knows how many
eally live there) are circumventing the C.S. policy on numbers of
)ccupants. Trash in yards is dreadful. Code enforcement needs to
nonitor and ticket regularly
i lone
,'es, the development of the Culpepper estate & the consequent
division & replaying of that followed by the construction of a house
riot conforming to others in the neighborhood
Degraded neighborhood by the tremendous amount of traffic on
!.lunson. To a lesser extent temporary & numerous residents
temporarily in a house.
,ew big houses built just for rent without enough parking spaces in
l)(1, ,S, ioe''it~ 1 fly ~St tii~7'
N
EXHIBITB
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
dangerous to walk and difficult and in some streets almost
impossible to drive
• Loss of older trees to oak blight, less watering. Infilling/threat of
infilling. Increasing number of rentals (transient residents)
• We are new to the neighborhood (purchased a home 30 days ago)
and cannot comment
Question 6: Have there been recent changes in the
neighborhood that you feel enhance the character? If so, what
are those changes?
• Sidewalks and bike lanes are an asset. More sidewalks would be
even better! Establishing Richard Carter Park is an enhancement;
not maintaining it properly is not. It needs playground equipment for
young children, too
• None
• People remodeling & rebuilding older homes
• It has degraded-but the additions years back of sidewalks was
great
• Historical lighting in College Hills area. Renovations of some of the
old houses without overly changing their character
• (blank)
• We are new to the neighborhood (purchased a home 30 days ago)
and cannot comment
Mobility Checklist Responses
Streets
Walton
• Lack of sidewalk on Walton, especially near retail at Texas
Intersection
• Speeding
Puryear
• Degraded Pavement
• Parking issues during TAMU gamedays
• Call for curbs on street
• Speeding
Francis
• Parking issues during TAMU gamedays
• Speeding
Munson
• Lack of sidewalk
• Excessive traffic flow
Lincoln
• High traffic with no sidewalks
• Dangerous to walk on gamedays with TAMU buses
Ashburn
• Lack of sidewalk
• Speeding
Gilchrist
• Degraded Pavement
Milner
• Lack of Sidewalk
• Call for curbs on street
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ADOPTED 06-23-1
Intersections
Walton & Texas
Bike lane on TAMU side is dangerous when crossing during high
traffic
Walton & Francis
Possible 4 way stop
Individual Additional Comments:
Bike lane on TAMU side of intersection can be difficult to maneuver
f vehicles traffic is high because cars fly by and you must look over
our shoulder at the turning lanes.
!Jarrow roadways are a great thing, in my opinion, for traffic
calming.
Do not remove on street parking
All roadways need to have curbs
Need sidewalk connections to retail at Culpepper Plaza and at
Walton/Texas Ave.
-1urbs along Puryear without making street wider. Need to save
rees with street improvements
here is fast pace traffic on Lincoln and no place to walk
w Traffic is not too bad (Lincoln), but on football weekends, the TAMU
buses make it dangerous to walk
Through traffic on Munson is excessive. A possible partial solution
vould be a 3 way stop at Munson and Lincoln. This would slow
clown the through traffic and possibly divert some of the north-
outh flow to the feeder road of the bypass 6
he "S-curve" heading South on Munson just before Dominik should
oe straightened out.
,onsider 4 way stop at Walton and Francis
Summary of Comments at Neighborhood Area Meetings
Area 1 Meeting - College Hills Woodlands/Woodland Acres
(1 /25/ 1 1 at College Hills Elementary)
About 35 citizens in attendance.
Neighborhood plan will recommend to remove proposed multi-use
path along the back of the lots along Ashburn Ave.
f came back in 20 years, would like the following to stay the same:
Desire to preserve environmental/natural areas in
neighborhoods.
Residential character
Mature trees
Winding streets
Dark at night (not more streetlights)
® Open space on lots
® Wildlife
No more subdivision of property
if came back in 20 years, would like the following to change or not
occur:
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Conversion of surrounding areas that exacerbate traffic
problems
• Tear downs
• School district zoning of College Hills Elementary for high
percentage of low SES students
• Student rentals
• Area north of Lincoln Avenue would like to have new multi-family
and commercial get access from University Drive or through other
multi-family in the area; not access Lincoln Avenue to add traffic
through neighborhood.
• Concerned about commercial creep into neighborhood.
• "Leave us alone." (don't want additional regulation)
• Area or part of area could do their own deed restrictions.
• Regarding City Hall property and redevelopment area:
• Having 9-5 (daytime) businesses, offices ok; restaurants may be
o k.
• City property could serve as buffer to neighborhood.
• Need more community meeting rooms.
Area 2 Meeting - College Hills Estates
(1 /26/11 at City Hall)
• About 35 citizens in attendance.
• Why is Foster Ave the dividing line between redevelopment and
neighborhood? Would have single family across the street from
multi-family or commercial. Allow townhomes on east side of Foster
Ave with certain form and buffer standards.
• Regarding City Hall property and redevelopment area:
• Don't want 24 hour uses but quieter, more 9-5 type uses.
• Some want City Hall to stay in the same place.
• Need sidewalk along Foster Ave, on Puryear over to Dominik Dr, and
on Nunn St between Walton and Lincoln.
• If Foster Ave is widened it needs to be widened all the way through.
• Don't add new rules until City enforces existing codes (like parking in
bike lane, etc).
• Milner is too narrow when cars are parked on both sides.
• Don't want repeat of buildings along Nimitz that are right up to
roadway.
• Like area for having deep lots and older, mature trees.
• Thomas Park area:
• Fix drainage issues
Parking is only a problem for summer swim classes and pick-up"
soccer games.
• May consider Puryear Dr/James Pkwy one-way pair, need to see
what it would look like
• Bus stops along Lincoln Ave can be a problem to function of street,
want to have bus pull-offs.
• Have four-way stop at Francis Dr and Walton Dr.
• Poor sight visibility at the intersection of Lincoln Ave and Tarrow St.
• There is opposition to the proposed bike lanes on Walton Dr and
Francis Dr.
lqw
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Parking problems on Gilchrist by school as parents park on both
sides.
Sight Distance issue on Lincoln and Tarrow.
No priority on Eisenhower extension, wait till redevelopment.
Area 3 Meeting - Pasler Area/ College Hill Neighborhood Association
(1 /31 /11 at College Hill Missionary Baptist Church)
About 24 citizens in attendance.
Vant to see core ownership area in Pasler neighborhood to stay
-lingle family.
nterested in getting historical markers for structures in the area.
Concerned about gentrification of neighborhood and eminent
domain power of City.
Church has been located in area for 65 years.
Want more area for kids to play, perhaps more amenities at Lions
Park or better pedestrian access to Thomas Park.
-low to help core ownership area remain :
City can help owners upgrade current homes.
Area can create deed restrictions to limit rental or number of
unrelated renters.
City can maintain streets and park area better.
Enforce number of unrelated renters in and around
neighborhood.
Drainage problems on older streets, particularly Pearce St and
11anks St at Tarrow St.
Don't want to widen street to meet current standard, narrow
,treets help slow down traffic.
Don't use seal coat (tar and gravel) to repair streets, do an overlay
instead.
41 If parking is removed from street, need to install traffic calming
measures to limit speeding.
A lot of speeding occurs on Banks St.
.eep Gilbert St open; widen/improve if possible but do not take
:additional land to do so as adjacent lots are fairly small already.
-;asler and Turner streets, preference to remain narrow if
ehabilitated some cross section and width of pavement should
emain.
'When parking is removed traffic calming should be employed.
Speed limit reduced to 25 on Banks.
Seal coats problematic would prefer overlays.
a
-,ilbert should remain as an alley and not a street if it gets
ehabilitated.
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Open House Mobility Survey Results and Comments
Question 1: With regard to James Parkway and Puryear Drive south of
Francis Drive, do you agree or disagree that he preferred Option (one-
way pair option with parallel parking on Thomas Park side) vetted
through the Neighborhood Resource Team is the best option to address
drainage issues by provided curb and gutter, create additional parking
and preserve the mature trees along Thomas Park?
Total Survey Responses: 46
• 23 - Agree (57%)
• 17 - Disagree (43%)
• 6 - No Opinion / No Response
Survey Responses in Area: 20
• 13 - Agree (65%)
• 7 - Disagree (35%)
Agree Comments
• 20mph/speed bumps!
• Probably least expensive and safest but don't put striped bike lanes
- only route. Additional sidewalk not needed since one in park
already.
• Existing situation is dangerous with no way to get to sidewalks with
stroller or wheelchair. Would decrease parking in yard. Help with cut
through. Improve aesthetics.
• Also introduce lower speed limit all around park. Crosswalks with
clear "stop for peds" signs across Francis to allow continuity of
walkers
• I do not agree that there needs to be more parking created.
• Not a strong opinion on this - the priority of adding the curb & gutter
would be lower, I think, then upgraded overloaded sewer.
• Goals: save trees - improve road.
• We like the one-way traffic lowering volume of cars & we like the
parallel parking.
Disagree Comments
• I'm concerned that the one-way streets would create an unneeded
inconvenience. Is there any possibility of expanding the current lot
and keeping the two-way streets? I like the current set up of some
gravel lots and parallel parking around the park with two-way
streets.
• 1 am on the resource board and I vetted my strong opinion against.
After talking to my neighbors, they would rather see the speed limit
reduced to 20mph and speed humps placed in. Making a one-way
is not perceived as good.
• Bad idea. The live oak trees can be saved. The speed limit should be
reduced on Puryear & James Parkway. 30mph is too fast!
• This is a terrible idea! It would be a much better idea to lower the
speed, install speed bumps, and enforce!
• This is a neighbor park - no an athletic complex!
• Can you look at potential purchase of part of the vacant lots across
James Parkway from the tennis courts?
D ~
EXHIBIT B
'PENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-11
e arc at Thomas Park almost daily and it is a well used park - and
.ve have never had trouble parking or noticed water standing in
-he street. This seems like a huge and unnecessary expense,
especially at a time when funds should be used carefully.
Traffic two-way but parking only on one side.
arallel parking is a bit dangerous on road - people & kids getting
& out of cars.
_et the owners around the park decide. I like the natural, curbless,
ee'd look now.
11stead of making Puryear & James Pkwy one-way - make it a
0mph speed zone with flashing yellow pedestrian warnings.
-he resident around Thomas Park and the users of Thomas Park
hould not be used as sacrificial lambs in order for drivers to get to
destination a few minutes sooner. Texas Avenue was widened
significantly in order to accommodate the population growth of
College Station. It should not be considered an option to funnel
-raffic through a neighborhood to accommodate impatient
-!rivers.
educe the speed limit around Thomas Park. One way traffic on
Puryear and James is a very bad idea!
Jo one way on Puryear & James Parkway!!!! Keep Thomas Park a
neighborhood not an athletic complex. Plant trees Thomas Park.
Peduce speed on Puryear & James Parkway.
The more concrete, the more run-off, and faster. This can adversely
affect property downstream. This area has been working fine for a
long time!
Question 2: Do you agree or disagree that one-way pair option for
Puryear Drive and James Parkway should be extended north of Francis
Drive?
Total Survey Responses: 46
23 - Agree (57%)
17 - Disagree (43%)
6 - No Opinion / No Response
Survey Responses in Area: 20
13 - Agree (65%)
7 - Disagree (35%)
Agree Comments
20mph/speed bumps.
Not strong opinion.
Only with lower speed limit.
I think the need for parking north of Francis Drive is almost as much
cis south of Francis Drive.
ess confusing if both sides one-way pairs.
Too confusing otherwise.
Seems logical.
Disagree Comments
believe it would be too inconvenient for the many houses around
;rat end of the park.
.rr
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• I live on the N end of James and it would be a major inconvenience.
• This will create more traffic for the folks that use Thomas Park. Driving
around to get to each side. I believe this is a very bad idea.
• This is also a bad idea - it will force all the heavy traffic from Puryear
to James. Drivers go much too fast on Puryear and the speed needs
to be regulated.
• If you must go with the one-way, and if the homeowners facing the
park agree - then I'd feel differently. But they north side access by
the homeowners is different than the south. It would be awkward for
them to have to drive around.
• There is no reason to extend it and it would be quite inconvenient for
homeowners on those streets.
• I'd rather not see it become a feeder/faster route.
• If one way I think it should all be one way.
Question 3: Providing sidewalks on Pasler Street and Banks Street would
require a small amount of land acquisition due to limited right-of-way
widths. Would you like a sidewalk on one side of these streets to
increase pedestrian access?
Total Survey Responses: 46
• 22 - Agree (61
• 14 - Disagree (39%)
• 10 - No Opinion/No response
Survey Responses in Area: 14
• 5 - Agree (36%)
• 9 - Disagree (64%)
Agree Comments
• Good idea, that would be a priority. However, it would have to be
carefully vetted to ensure that adequate set back was provided
and that concerned residents were properly involved in planning.
• This would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
• If the sidewalks are on the apartment side.
• As long as the property at the back side of the apt complex is used,
not my property.
• I think there is enough space on either side of the street for a
sidewalk.
• If sidewalk is on apartment side of the street.
• If ok with area.
• But would prefer them on the north side of the street but also on
Chappel headed to the park
• Yes, would be nice for my granddaughter to be able to ride bike
etc.
Disagree Comments
• We do not need sidewalks. Street too small.
• The street is too small - I'd change my mind if 100% of homeowners
on the street wanted it.
• Not enough fast traffic to warrant the $ and impact on homes/yards.
• An increase in pedestrian walking has cause, and will cause an
increase in crime in our area.
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY ADOP'FED 06-23-11
vie don't have a lot of pedestrian traffic, we have problems with
students speeding, we need speed bumps.
Putting sidewalk on our street will not only increase crime in our
area, but it will also cause us to lose some of our property.
Don't see the need.
ippel St must be added to this first.
rJo opinion Comments
This should be decided by the families that live in the
neighborhood.
I don't walk there, but I hope the City will respect the wishes of the
homeowners on those streets.
The property owners in that area should decide.
Question 4: An enhanced bike route on Foster Avenue from George
Bush Drive East to Walton Drive is proposed. This would create a
corridor that would optimize bicycle traffic by allowing free-flow travel
and assign right-of-way movement to Foster Avenue. Instead of the
stop signs on Foster Avenue, they will be oriented to Gilchrist Avenue
and Francis Drive. This would help bicyclists commuting to and from
Ivey destinations in the area. Traffic calming devices may need to be
considered for this improvement such as valley gutters. Do you agree
or disagree with this change?
Total Survey Responses: 46
6 26 - Agree (67%)
13 - Disagree (33%)
® 7 - No Opinion/No response
Survey Responses in Area: 20
12 - Agree (60%)
8 - Disagree (40%)
Agree Comments
Good idea.
No cut through for cars - which this
That will perhaps get more bikes off TX Ave.
This sounds like a beneficial plan!
Good idea to swap the stops.
Although maybe 4-way stops? Those intersections are already
confusing with people assuming 4-way.
" If safer, yes!
This should be done to Munson Ave. as well.
0 1 agree
Disagree Comments
i do not like the idea of changing the stop sign on Francis. Many of
JS who live in the area use Francis regularly when coming from the
George Bush Dr./Texas Ave. intersection. It would be very
-convenient.
the bike lanes/paths is a good idea. I am opposed to changing
;.1e direction of the stop signs. Primarily, the stop signs on Foster
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
force the traffic to slow down and stop. Foster is too busy for its
width, not to have the stop signs.
• By changing the stop signs - people will be confused and run the
sign.
• Foster is too narrow & has too much motorcycle & auto traffic for
bike access - maybe make Foster one way north - changing stop
signs from Foster to Francis will not improve matters. Make Francis &
Foster a 4-way stop and use a central traffic calming device (traffic
circle).
• Traffic gets slowed down because of the stop signs.
• Partial agreement - the marked intersections should have 4-way
stop signs. I don't think Foster Ave. is wide enough now for
designated bike lanes.
• Stop signs on Foster keeps traffic going slower.
Other Miscellaneous Comments on Survey Forms:
• 1 have some concerns about the multi-use path between Williams &
Tarrow - need a crossing guard to cross Lincoln for kids, no visibility
for kids walking to school this way. Also, speed limit on Lincoln may
need to be lowered between Ashburn and Texas? I still like the 35
speed limit going toward University. Is it necessary to pave this
unique wooded area when bikes can use Ashburn & Walton close
by. I would prefer a nature trail for walking (unpaved).
• One way traffic around Thomas Park would be a great mistake.
Lowering the speed limit would create a safer environment for
homeowners/renters and visitors.
• Traffic around not only Thomas Park, but ALL city parks should be
enforced at a 20mph maximum speed in order to protect park users.
Neighborhoods should not be sacrificed in order to allow drivers to
reach a destination a few minutes sooner. Texas Ave. was widened
significantly in order to accommodate increased volume due to
increased population.
• Keep Thomas Park a neighborhood park - not an athletic complex -
plan more trees in Thomas Park.
• Walton - back of curb. Children - location, have to look twice.
• I appreciate the chance to provide input.
• We have serious concerns about the multi-use path planned
between Lincoln and Francis. Crossing Lincoln would be very unsafe
for children and even adults. The path would not be used much by
children getting to school. Plus we can't imagine any of those
homeowners on Walton or Ashburn would like a public path in their
back yard! That needs to be removed from the plan! n
• Please do not overlook the dangerous situation on Puryear between
Kyle and Dominik. It is a bottle-neck - very bad for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Even a cheap clearing of trees near Kyle and putting
some gravel for pedestrians to walk off the street would help save
lives.
• Thank you for all the hard work & planning & materials & staff
availability Tues & Wed.
• One way traffic around Thomas Park (north & south) would help
traffic congestion. `
• Don't want changes, or more restrictions on the neighborhood. Like
its character as is.
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX B - PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY I ADOPTED 06-23-1 1
Comments from Open House Comments & Suggestions Cards:
Need to take down the fence at Foster & Francis, (cannot see)
Behind my house and the houses behind me on Live Oak there is a
drainage problem after a big rain.
presentation by city explaining proposed changes prior to walk
about info would have been helpful. One-way around Thomas
°ark seems to be expensive solution to something that is not that
,Dig of a problem. The $ could be better used in improving other
areas in the neighborhood. The very real problem of housing with
unlimited parking to house maximum of people because of a lack
of an ordinance needs to be addressed if there's any chance for
successful neighborhood preservation.
he city should leave College Hills alone. Why cram a bunch of
student/singles into a family neighborhood?
Enforce the speed limit on Dominik, Glenhaven, and Francis Drive.
speed bumps and turnout lanes would help slow the traffic in this
neighborhood.
-nforce speed limits in the neighborhood - especially Francis &
Dominik where speeding occurs daily. Enforce parking on one side
:)f the street on Westover, Berkley, etc. It is one way driving at night
on these streets. Fire trucks could not get through. It concerns me
-hat this City Council has so little power when it comes to zoning.
Do not mix bicycle and pedestrian traffic!
'utting bike lanes on Francis & adding a center stripe would help
alm traffic. Also Dominik would benefit from this treatment as well.
appreciate the open house. There are a number of sensitive issues.
really hope that you get some good input and can put together
.in agreed plan.
'utting the signs up in the neighborhood & the post cards are the
)etter ways to notify us of the meetings impacting our
neighborhood. You ought to ensure a City Council rep at every
~ eighborhood meeting so they can hear people's concerns. The
displays were good - thanks for the great explanations. Signs
Showing which entrance to use to come into the school would
,lave been good as the front doors were locked.
1 he planned multi-use path between Lincoln and Francis needs
_erious reconsideration! No homeowner would want a public path
hrough their back yard! That infringes on their privacy and also
creates safety issues. Lincoln traffic is heavy and fast - what a
langerous street to cross on foot. There are already plenty of other
vays people can get from Lincoln to Francis without adding this
:path. It would affect the wildlife we enjoy in our area and does
iot seem to be a good use of tax payer money.
traffic on Francis Drive. Munson - Thru traffic going to Scott & White
-o get of University Drive & to the bypass to go by Scott & White
:)harmacy.
^,'e would oppose the pedestrian path between Lincoln and
~rancis at Tarrow. We would also dislike bike lanes in front of our
ouse because of parking issues for our guests.
:Strongly favor 1 way on Puryear & James.
_and Use - Area 1 needs to be Neighborhood Conservation.
:sidewalks on Lincoln good idea. Sidewalks on Walton good idea if
That is in addition to current bike lane & not in lieu of. Stop allowing
• j
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-111 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
• Our neighborhood families would highly opposed for 604 Tarrow to
be Zone to R-1 Single-Family but what we would love to see is a small
sub-police station on the lot because our neighborhood is so heavily
populated with students.
• Sidewalks on Lincoln St. are a very good idea. Also sidewalks on the
apt. side of Pasler is good. As for as the rezoning of 604 Tarrow St.
from C-3 to R-1 I am totally opposed to it due to our neighbor
already being heavily populated with students already. Adding
more students is not the thing to do and we don't want them.
• Land Use- Area 1 - Change Pasler to neighborhood conservation.
Sidewalk on Lincoln - great idea.
• Thank you for seeking the neighborhood owner's input.
• I am very pleased to see Conservation areas. Some of the
redevelopment plans concern me greatly. Already, land use appear
to be circumvented by the building of what appears to be single
family, two story residences, but closer examination will reveal those
properties are, in reality, apartments. You will see private keyed locks
on bedroom doors and common areas shared. These some
properties have no storage or garages and inadequate off-street
parking. With this condition already happening, changing zoning to
high density and/or townhomes, etc will only drive up traffic on
already narrow streets. The on-street parking from Munson to
Glenhaven and from Dominik to Lincoln is already an enormous
safety problem. The striping on Lincoln has helped somewhat, but
with the sidewalks being added to Dominik & the street being
narrowed with no striping makes driving very difficult especially at
night.
EXHIBIT B
E A S T G A T E
;
N E I G H B O R H O O D
• a,
P L A N
11- a • - • • • ?l • to ♦ ♦ • ! • • •
3~ • y f
. UZZ,
! Fell
♦ • • • ♦ - ♦ - o - ♦ •
ee ♦ • o- • a ! •
Followina is the James Parkway and Puryear Drive Analysis presented Varch i
1 1 cii ii"~
James Parkway •
Alternative Puryear Drive
CITY OF COLUCE, STA-nON Analysis
Eastgate Neighborhood Resource Team
Meeting
March 7, 2011
ADOPTED 06-23-11 C - 1
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX C - JAMES PKWY AND PURYEAR DR ADOPTED 06-23-11
]rte ~F "ai• r i~
lama va~kwy j
a in 11"" of
•P Pu~ryaatrtudy • - f 1
j ~ F'.
Ale f
• Tt. 4, °3.~.:-". t..~..-.~. i j E~•4. End~lmib of
~ v h i ~ ymn Pa kwar
~a study ara
f F ~ ~ y et Y ~ 4
m e
T ~.1~ Lid i.n~n o+ • ~ v.
ar•a
r rJ J1JZ-j
60' ROW To Neighborhood
30' a 3
30' -1 ~
20,
i I
EXISTING 30
TRAIL c
EXISTING/OPTION 1 NO-BUILD
No Curb & Gutter, 20
Foot PavernentIr 2-way traffic
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
JijIrja:;?jh,jy
To Thorne. f 60' ROW To Neighborhood • • • • Section
30' 30' 3
- 165' i I 0 - p • •
3• 2' 23' 2' 3' S' 8.5' • O • • °
VK I SDW • • ' • • •
EXISTING z
TRAIL _ I ' • I' • • -
STANDARD SECTION
Rehab I
Curb & Gutter, 23 .Foot Pavement, 2-Way Traffic,
Underground
JaI11i.aD Ij"~J/ .illd Pjr`/ :jr
n1
To Thomas Park 60' ROW To Neighborhood
3D• tt 30, 18'
I O
c
20' 6' S' 7'
I SDW
EXISTING
TRAIL \\1 c I
Option 2
Rehab Curb & Gutter, 1
Underground
EXHIBIT B
~PPFNDIY PI V,,"( A , D PUP,YEAP D°
5 1~ rt 1 i 11 j +.IJJ rj F
-Tyro-11 ~--r.dufj:;
To Thomas Park 60 ROW To Neighborhood
30' CL 30
• 3
20 2' 6' 5' T
I SDW
EXISTING 0
TRAIL Rehab Add Curb & Gutter, 20 1Foot Pavement, 1-Way Traffic,
Underground Storm Sewer System, Parallel Parking an
Thomas Park Side
N
"ri~jI t I
To Thomas Park To Neighborhood
18' Available for Parking. 3
21.1' is requirement'.
G; 3a 1
20 6' s' 7'
i SDW fj
EXISTING
TRAIL 0
Option 4
Rehab Add Curb & Gutter, 20 Foot Pavement, 1-Way Traffic,
Underground Storm Sewer System,
degree Head in Parking at Thomas Park at Targeted
Locations
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-1 1 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
0
ew_
' lR ~P
•
s. V
'lli II~ iN I I
This map also depicts the one-way pair traffic operations. Traffic would
travel one way northbound on James Parkway and southbound on
Puryear Drive. Both Francis Drive and Kyle Avenue would remain two-
way.
V..
' 41W~
ar.
lily nndjuiity CA iiie:~e
head-in parking.
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX C - JAMES PKWY AND PURYEAR DR ADOPTED 06-23-11
~;~_llr1;~J~ ~r 'rte r1~~r~~ rJ~aJ ~Il
P rjsjr1~j r,E)I1ffij!1r=1
a
f a
j -air
J;~1n1a -of-dutlL
60' ROW To Neighborhood
30, C 30' 3
2' 23' 2' 3'
I SDW
E%ISTING ~ I
TRAIL
Option .5
Rehab Add r & Gutter, Standard Pavement Width, I-Way
Traffic, Underground Storm Sewer System, Parallel
Parking t t Park Side
Y,,:E
EXHIBIT B
ADOPTED 06-23-11 Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
Preliminary Option Planning Level
Construction Estimates, Parking
Totals & Vehicle Per Day
Traffic Counts
I
Construction Costs Traffic
11I~
Option e Vehicles Per •D
I
Option $2.079 million Local Road Capacity 2-Way= 000 VPD
Option 3 = $2.079 million Local Road Capacity 1-Way 500 Ili f i~
•a
Option
Option 5 = $2.339 million 2-Way Traffic Counts
James Pkwy = 283 VPD
d
i
Parallel = 145 Spaces
45* Head-in 35 Spaces
1~~~4 VIII ~i,, I
Costs based on 2011 dollars. Traffic counts were taken on the week of
March 7, 2011. Vehicles per day capacity are based on guidelines from
the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Screening Matrix
Eastgate Neighborhood Plan James Parkway and Puryear Drive Analysis
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
PREUMINARY Screening and Evaluation Matrix 2 way option 1 way option 1 way option 1 way option
No Build 20' pave parallel park 45e park parallel park Q
no park 20 pave 20 pave 23' pave
v
Est c
Criteds by Goal Measure Est Est Est 1305
Safety & Emergency Response Goal
E.ca 8"der, pedennam Accammadaruas
EM-ca F-V" Respmse Time 0 O
Enhorna Drivw Eapeetenry 1, 0, •1 0 INS"
y & At" Goal
Rrosades Amu ro Po.,: 1, 0, -1 0
EMances 0 0 145 145
Community & Environment Goal Mmimun Rght of Way Argtmirion pDte,C a1 acreage 0 0 0 0
M1Nmua Poh 0 0 0 •4
Design Goal
Atepr Wo&nq Rood Cmcept 1, O• -1
P-d. C.6 & 6W.
Addrru DroJmge turn vaq Erna wwy & Iuryer 1, 0, -1
Atoms coy oesipn smad rd *W 1, 0, • 1
Coo Ef ectivveneu Goal
C-f-ban eou Millions $0 $2.079 0 $2.079 0 $2.126 0 $2339
Total 1 6 6 6 6
• Da ne,reo+eood sde along Rye.
LEGEND:
east ImpactsfMost DesiraAk Neutral impacts 0 Most hnpxu/teau Dena
OEM_
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX C - JAMES PKWY AND PURYEAR DR I ADOPTED 06-23-11
Steps
Next added CITY OF COLLEGE STA-nON
This exercise will be Mobility
added Chapter and a recommendation will be to
the draft. As part of the draft review, additional
comments will be solicited.
oAowing comments on the alternative options discussed during the
; )resentation. The Team preferred the option having more parking, 145
)arallel parking spaces, along these streets. They proposed that no
sidewalks be built on the neighborhood side of the streets in order to
educe costs and impact to vegetation. They asked that the City
strongly consider the impact to trees on the neighborhood side. They
suggested that both James Parkway and Puryear Drive continue as
one-way streets on the north side of Francis Drive. The team also
suggested converting both James Parkway and Puryear Drive to one-
,,,ay streets in the near-term to determine feasibility instead of waiting
. ntil funding via a future bond election and construction rehabilitation
of these roadways. Overall, Option 3 was preferred based on the
Chapter 3, Mobility.