HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 Comprehensive PlanPLAN 2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
City of
College Station,
Texas
CITY OF
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROGRAM
Development Suitability
Population Study
Housing Analysis
Land Use Plans
Commercial Development
Industrial Development
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Major Thoroughfares
Community Facilities
Capital Improvements
Future Development
Special Concerns
September 1983
Prepared By
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
Planning & Management Consultants
Dallas, Texas
and
WAYNE W. SNYDER ASSOCIATES
Planning & Development Management Consultants
Fort Worth, Texas
CUNTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
Comprehensive Planning 3
Inter -Relationships 4
Plan Updating 5
Goals and Objectives 6
Planning Design Units 12
Planning Districts 13
DEVELOPMENT
17
Development Suitability
19
Development Trends
19
Existing Features
20
Problems and Issues
26
Criteria and Matrix
27
Holding Capacity
29
POPULATION
35
Population Analysis
37
Current Population
37
Population Projections
39
Population Distribution
45
Population Density
46
HOUSING
51
Housing Analysis
53
Housing Supply
53
Housing Markets
55
Development Standards
62
Future Housing Needs
70
LAND USE
73
Land Use Plans
75
Existing Land Use
75
Land Use Demands
83
Plan Alternatives
86
COMMERCIAL
89
Commercial Development
91
Present Conditions
91
Future Commercial Market
100
INDUSTRIAL
103
Industrial Development
105
Natural Resources
105
Transportation
106
Labor
107
Industrial Development
110
Target Industries
117
Industrial Projections
119
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
COST/BENEFIT
123
Cost/Benefit Analysis
125
Fiscal Impact Models
125
Development Costs
127
Identification of Revenues
129
THOROUGHFARES
131
Thoroughfare Plan
133
Existing Streets
134
Thoroughfare Standards
134
Future Traffic
142
Thoroughfare Program
144
Development Policies
144
FACILITIES
147
Community Facilities
149
Public Buildings
149
Existing Public Buildings
150
Public Building Standards
151
Parks and Recreation
155
Existing Parks
155
Park Standards
158
Parks and Recreation Analysis
160
Parks and Open Space Plan
162
Facilities Program
164
Schools
165
Existing Schools
165
School Standards
166
Future Schools
168
IMPROVEMENTS
169
Capital Improvements
171
Financial Analysis
171
Revenues and Expenditures
173
Debt Structure
181
Improvements Program
182
Solid Waste Disposal
186
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
195
Development Strategies
196
Land Use Controls
196
Development Policies
198
SPECIAL CONCERNS
205
Public Transportation
205
Bike System
205
Pedestrian System
206
Interstate Highway
207
Air Transportation
207
Railroad
208
Northgate
209
PLATES
PLATE TITLE
PAGE
1
PLANNING DISTRICTS
15
2
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
21
3
NATURAL FEATURES
23
4
MAN-MADE FEATURES
25
5
DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY
33
6
PREVIOUS POPULATION PROJECTIONS
41
7
PROJECTED CITY AND UNIVERSITY GROWTH
45
8
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
47
9
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
54
10
TOTAL HOUSING SUPPLY CHANGE 1971-1980
55
11
RESIDENTIAL SUITABILITY
63
12
MULTI -FAMILY SUITABILITY
67
13
EXITING LAND USE
77
14
PLAN ALTERNATIVES
85
15
COMMERCIAL SUITABILITY
101
16
INDUSTRIAL SUITABILITY
117
17
EXISTING THOROUGHFARES
139
18
FUTURE THOROUGHFARES
145
19
FACILITIES PLAN
153
20
INSTITUTIONAL/OPEN SPACE SUITABILITY
155
21
PARKS SITE PLAN
163
22
SCHOOLS SITE PLAN
167
23
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
189
24
SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS
191
25
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
Inside Back Cover
Introduction
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
The development and utilization of a viable Comprehensive Plan is an essent-
ial element in providing for the orderly growth and development of the City.
The purposes of the planning studies are to quantify the existing nature of
the community and to identify needs and opportunities for the future. The
findings of these studies will serve as a basis for policy decisions and the
formulation of strategies to effect desired change. The Comprehensive Plan
can, therefore, contribute in the following ways:
* Provide information about the present status and character of the
community to identify needs and opportunities.
* Set forth objectives for development of the City that will chart the
character and quality of the community desired in the future.
* Serve as a basis for policy decisions and as a test of the suitabil-
ity of development proposals.
* Put property interests on notice as to the intent of the City to take
action on various locations and in regard to specific projects.
* Recommend programs designed specifically to alleviate existing prob-
lems and to avoid the occurance of potential problems in the future.
* Provide coordinated activities in consonance with other public agen-
cies in the area.
* Stimulate understanding and support among the local citizens in order
to bring forth the necessary fiscal and legal implementation devices.
A Comprehensive Plan should not, however, be something that is made once and
then followed in total to its ultimate completion. The Plan should be viewed
as a guide to future growth and development which must be revised as the
information, direction, and decisions on which the Plans are based may change.
In order to accommodate change in a growing community, comprehensive planning
should be viewed as a continuing process. In this way, comprehensive
planning becomes a management process which provides for continuing input,
analysis, alternatives, decisions, and implementation of the Plan. The
comprehensive planning process, therefore, proceeds through a series of
steps, any one of which may provide feedback to previous activities to
continually update the process. The steps in this process may be briefly
described as:
* Issues Identification - Identification of needs and opportunities,
input of community desires, establishment of goals and objectives.
* Research and Analysis - Collection of data on past development,
examination of present status, analysis of problems and resources.
* Projections - Projections of the future growth of the community,
directions of development, estimations of needs for facilities to
serve future growth.
3
* Alternatives - Formulation of alternative plans, discussion and eval-
uation of alternative impacts, decision-making on future growth and
development.
* Plan Development - Uetailea study, refinement, and coordination of
plan elements, establishment of policies, formulation of programs and
priorities.
* Implementation - Administrative procedures for accomplishing programs,
relationships to municipal functions, project initiation, monitoring,
and feedback on project accomplishment.
The comprehensive planning process does not end at this point. As projects
are accomplished or as community needs change, new alternatives should be
considered which may be re-entered into this process. It is felt that this
procedure will assist the City in assessing its present situation and potent-
ials for future growth, avoid problems and benefit from mistakes made in
other areas, and establish a process which may be utilized in the continued
planning for growth and development in the City.
The elements of the community which are examined in a comprehensive plan are
varied and encompass the physical, social, economic, and administrative
factors of community life. The attention given each individual element may
differ as the individual needs of the community differ. The elements to be
considered herein are Development Suitability, Population, Housing, Land Use,
Commercial/Industrial Development, Cost/Benefit, Thoroughfares, Community
Facilites, Capital Improvements, Future Development, and Special Concerns.
INTER -RELATIONSHIPS
The comprehensive plan should encompass all of the physical, social,
economic, financial, and administrative elements of community life. Physical
elements include the environment, location of various land uses,
thoroughfares, community facilities, and utilities. Examples of social
elements are population, family income levels, housing programs, education
and recreation, health, nd historic and cultural features.
Economic/financial components would include such elements as employment, tax
base, budgeting, and bonding programs. Administrative elements include
management and organization, municipal powers, boards and commissions, and
development controls.
All of these elements are inter -related, and will affect each other in the
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of programs in
one area may, therefore, be used to achieve goals in another area. The
following discussion presents some examples of these inter -relationships.
The achievement of a balanced mix of housing types (social program) may be
accomplished through application of zoning and subdivision ordinances (ad-
ministrative program). The development of designated housing areas may be
accomplished through the provision or withholding of streets, utilities,
parks, and other facilities ( physical program). The timing of these improv-
ements may be determined through capital budgeting and bonding programs (fin-
ancial program).
n
u
The expansion of the tax base (financial) might be accomplished through the
designation and zoning of industrial areas (administrative), the development
of utilities and access (physical), and the assurance of a trained labor
force to attract industry (social). New industry, on the other hand, would
provide new fobs (economic) and provide new income sources (social). These
new incomes could produce additional sales tax revenues (financial), enabling
the City to expand its staff and services to its citizens (administrative)
and provide new public buildings (physical).
The provision of additional parks and open space (physical) might be accom-
plished through subdivision controls and flood plain zoning (administrative)
and their development through capital budgeting or grant programs
(financial). These new parks could provide improved recreational programs and
aesthetics (social), preserve environmentally sensitive areas (physical),
and attract new residents (social).
Coordination between the City and School District (administrative) could
provide for more efficient and timely development of educational facilities
(social). The continued expansion and improvement of educational programs
could attract new residents and an expanded labor force (social), providing
additional attraction to industry (economic), which would expand the tax base
(financial) of both the City and School District.
The zoning of commercial areas (administrative) would designate the location
of particular land uses (physical). Development of shopping centers might be
encouraged through street improvements (physical) within a capital improve-
ments program ( financial). This development could provide for a new source
of tax base and sales tax revenue (financial) while providing needed local
shopping facilities near to the residents of the City (social).
Many other examples of such inter -relationships will appear in the future
development of the City. It is, therefore, recommended that these inter-
relationships be examined in each program that is proposed for implementation
to insure that goals will also be achieved in other areas.
PLAN UPDATING
The comprehensive plan should be based on the goals of the community and
should be used as a guide toward the achievement of these goals in future
development. The comprehensive plan should be used and referred to in guid-
ing this growth but must be flexible enough to accomodate changes which may
occur in goals or development trends in the future. This can be accomplish-
ed only through continued monitoring and updating of the plan.
The Plan can be used by the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and
citizens groups to evaluate proposals for development assuring that such
proposals will serve to attain community goals. Programs to meet the needs
of the existing citizens may also be developed from the Plan. An example
might be park development in the near future. Such use of the Plan will not
only serve to monitor implementation but may also identify needs for change
in the direction or components of the Plan.
A formal review of the Plan should be made annually as a part of the City's
budgeting process. A report should be made of the progress toward implemen-
5
tation of the plan, and anticipated progress under the new budget year.
Progress may be measured in terms of number and value of building permits,
active utility meters, subdivisions and lots platted, land zoned and
developed, open space reserved, and public facilities provided. These actual
measures could be compared to Plan projections to determine progress and
possible needs for change. Zoning, subdivision, and land use mapping should
be kept current to provide a graphic representation of implementation for
comparison with the Plan.
At the time bonding programs are being considered, a review of the Plan
should also be made. An evaluation should be made of how proposed improve-
ments would serve to implement the Plan and accomplish community goals. A
priority ranking could be given to those improvements best serving these ends
and a determination made of projects to be included in the bond program.
A complete updating of the Plan should be made at least every five years, or
sooner depending on the rate of actual growth in the City. All elements of
the Plan should be re-examined and revised as needed. Progress toward the
implementation of the Plan should be analyzed, variances noted, and changes
in community goals and directions considered in providing revisions to the
future Comprehensive Plan.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Goals and objectives represent the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan. The
definition of goals and objectives gives meaning and direction to the Plan by
focusing all activity and planning upon only those desirable directions
chosen by the citizens of the community. Attention to detail and a set of
firm convictions regarding the nature of the Plan in this step will result in
tremendous dividends as the Plan is developed and as the related development
process is instituted.
No city, regardless of its size or character, can be expected to be function-
al without some direction or course of action. browing and developing cities
must have guidance, without which no reasonable purpose can be served.
Stability also can be a goal, but status quo techniques are focused upon
those factors that produce only survival. Community development, on the
other hand, requires that progress and direction become inseparable with day-
to-day operations. Goals and objectives are aeoicated to achieving progress
and overcoming factors that limit capability.
Often the distinction between a "goal" and an "objective" is difficult, and
gust as often they are used interchangeably. For the purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan, a definite distinctionis should be made. Goals and
objectives, as used herein, are related in the following manner:
Goal: A goal is a long-range statement of ultimate intent of
the City, defining a desirable position or achievement to
be sought through implementation of the Plan.
Objective: Objectives are those intermediate or short-range
achievements or steps necessary in order to achieve the
overall goal.
[.1
Relationship: The sum total of objective (short-term) achievements will
result in the systematic achievement of the goals
(long-term). This relationship is of primary
consideration in developing goals and objectives for the
City.
f Often the goal statement represents a desirable position or attainment for a
long-range period, such as 20 years. The objective statements represent what
must be done in the interim to achieve the goal in 20 years, by 5 -year
increments, or budget periods.
The purpose of applying goals and objectives in Comprehensive Planning is to
focus the capability and potential of the City upon those desirable outcomes
or directions which are consistent with the City's overall function or
activity. They will serve to guide the overall activity ana efforts as
associated with implementation of the Plan toward common achievement levels
and to unify their activities for singular, goal -oriented purposes. All
planning activity should be related to achieving the defined goals and
objectives.
Goals and objectives are often used as benchmarks of Comprehensive Planning,
and the progression of implementation through the defined goals and
objectives indicates that sound progress is being accomplished and a
direction has been achieved. The achievement of initial goals and objectives
provides an opportunity to redefine additional statements that further the
role of the Plan. The process of defining and achieving goals and objectives
should be an unending process providing the City with an opportunity for
self-determination of the growth and direction of the City proceeding in an
orderly manner.
Goals and objectives are used to continually focus attention and resources on
identifiable problems and opportunities. Solving City problems will not
ensure progress. Opportunities must also be sought. Adequate definition of
goals and objectives should naturally point out problem solutions sought as
well as those opportunities available, simultaneously improving operations
and production.
The definition of a set of long-range goals and short-term objectives must
necessarily be highly flexible in order to be responsive to changes in the
City's environment, the local or overall economy, or even political
situation. These and other unforseen factors will continually confront any
city, requiring differing responses and adjustments. The goals and
objectives will necessarily have to be evaluated for their relevance and, if
necessary, redefined. This is a normal process, and attention to changing
circumstances within which the City operates will permit timely adjustments.
Because goals and objectives are to provide the basis for policy statement by
the City, their formulation is worthy of considerable thought and evaluation.
Widespread participation should be sought in the formulation of goals and
objectives in order that these statements reflect as broadly as possible the
views of the community. The preliminary goals and objectives given herein
have been developed as a result of numerous meetings of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and with considerable input from citizen group meetings and
City Staff.
7
City Size
Goal: Regulate growth to maintain the character of College
Station.
Objectives: * Regulate the rate, areas, and type of growth through land
use control and utility availability.
* Integrate growth into the community in a homogeneous
manner.
Economic Development
Goal: Provide a sound economic base through diversification
of development.
Objectives: * Encourage industrial development compatible with the
environment.
* Encourage commercial development to adequately serve
the needs of the citizenry.
* Encourage residential development to insure freedom of
choice of lifestyle.
* Encourage the development of recreational and
entertainment facilities to satisfy the needs of the
citizenry and visitors.
Land Use
Goal: Provide adequate, but not excessive, amounts of land for
all necessary types of land use arranged in an efficient,
convenient, harmonious, and ecologically sound manner.
Objectives: * Protect the integrity of single-family residential
areas.
* Encourage the use of vacant land within the city limits.
* Avoid strip commercial development and encourage
centralized commercial development.
* Consider energy conservation in the land use decision-
making process.
* Encourage, through zoning and capital improvements,
controlled locations of industrial development.
Housing
Goal: Insure an adequate supply of safe, decent, and convenient
housing with a wide variety of housing types and price
ranges for all income levels.
581
Objectives: * Utilize the Housing Code, other controls, and the Health
Department to encourage and insure proper maintenance to
avoid deteriorating neighborhoods; encourage expansion of
the staff to accomplish this task.
* Encourage durable and high quality construction through
continuous review and effective enforcement of the
building codes.
* Eliminate dilapidated structures and encourage the
upgrading of deteriorating neighborhoods.
* Encourage the development of diversified housing types
utilizing modern technology and materials to lower
housing costs in certain types of selected housing for
low/fixed income consumption.
* Discourage the use of single-family dwelling units for
multi -student housing.
v Transportation
Goal: Provide for the balanced development of all modes of
transportation to assure the fast, convenient, efficient,
and safe movement of people and goods to, from, and
within the community.
Objectives: * uevelop an organized preventive maintenance program for
streets to insure safety and a long, economical life for
streets.
* Provide for the development and redevelopment of major
arterial routes as necessary to prevent traffic
congestion.
* Develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle
movement.
* Develop a mass transit system to serve the area's needs.
* Cooperate with other local entities in the effort to
relocate the railroad.
* Upgrade air transportation.
Utilities
Goal: Provide an economic, efficient, dependable system of
utility services to adequately support development and to
insure public health, safety, and welfare.
Objectives: * Encourage improvement and expension of television cable
service.
M
* Work to improve the present quality of telephone
service.
* Develop solutions to abate flooding and drainage
problems in the City.
* Develop policies and methods of City operation which
conserve energy and natural resources to the maximum
extent possible.
* Prepare for anticipated, planned growth by insuring
adequate reserve utility services.
Environment
coal: Control development and regulate activities as necessary
to provide a beautiful, safe, amenable environment for
all citizens.
Objectives: * Develop sign controls to eliminate clutter and to insure
compatibility with the urban environment.
* Develop a program of improved appearance of public
properties to provide an example and leadership for
community -wide appearance.
* Develop necessary controls to promote good design of site
development and the improvement of appearance through
landscaping.
* Develop strong controls to prevent air, water, and noise
pollution.
* Enforce the sign control ordinance and bring existing
signs into compliance with the ordinance.
* Discourage unsightly "strip development" that is also
wasteful of energy.
* Eliminate unsightly conditions such as gunk yards,
abandoned vehicles, dilapidated buildings, and excessive
weeds and rubbish.
* Develop community -wide pride in laity appearance.
Citizen Participation
Goal: Involve and inform the citizens of the community to
promote an awareness of the needs and plans of the City
and to encourage maximum citizen participation in good
City government.
Objectives: * Make frequent use of citizens' advisory committees to
assist in decision-making on matters such as
comprehensive plan development and amendment, and
10
capital improvement planning.
* Encourage attendance and participation at public
meetings.
Public Protection
Goal: Provide for the safety, welfare, and civil rights of all
citizens and for the protection of their property.
Objective: * In anticipation of growth, plan for expansion of police
and fire department personnel, facilities, and
- equipment.
Parks and Recreation
Goal: Develop facilities and programs to satisfy the
recreational needs of all citizens of the community.
Objective: * Develop and implement a comprehensive parks and
recreation plan.
Education
Goal. Provide each citizen the opportunity to fully develop his
or her individual capabilities and potential.
Objective: * Cooperate with and support the college Station
Independent School District and Texas A&M University.
City Administration
Goal: Provide a sound, qualified administrative program capable
of managing the City's business in an efficient,
well -organized manner.
Objectives: * Expand the City staff as requirea to at least maintain
the present level of service.
* Encourage the fair but firm and consistent use of
necessary controls; continuously improve and update these
controls as necessary.
* Encourage strong intergovernmental cooperation programs
and projects which are coordinated for mutual benefit.
Health
Goal: Develop and maintain access to excellent health care
facilities for all citizens.
Objectives: * Encourage the uevelopment of health care facilities in
the City.
* Cooperate in regional health care planning and
development.
11
Cultural
Goal:
Objectives.
Special Problems
Goal:
Objective:
Provide for a wide range of cultural opportunities
available to all income levels.
* Encourage the development of cultural programs available
to all income levels.
* Investigate the need for additional library facilities
in the City.
Identify and study special problems, formulate solutions
and implement plans of action to eliminate these
problems.
* North Gate Commercial area: Problems of Zoning Ordinance
compliance, congestion, parking, safety.
PLANNING DESIGN UNITS
In order for the City to function properly, the various components and
groupings of land uses should be arranged in relation to one another to
provide for optimum development and desirability with minimum detrimental or
deprediating effect on other areas. The most desirable city is one within
which the needs of the individual and family are fully satisfied, and within
which business and industry can grow and prosper.
In such a city, the various components are developed in sensible and orderly
groupings, arranged so that each has its own environment, adequate room for
growth, protection from incompatible uses, and forms an efficient overall
pattern. A complete and efficient city can be planned and developed through
the proper arrangement of the following basic planning units:
Neighborhoods: The Neighborhood is the basic planning unit of the city.
Properly —planned, the Neighborhood is relatively self-sufficient, providing
for the basic needs of everyday family life.
The Neighborhood is a predominantly residential area approximately one mile
square which is bound, but not bisected, by major streets or thoroughfares.
Such an arrangement encourages traffic not destined for the Neighborhood to
pass around rather than through the area. Collector streets, which should be
discontinuous through the Neighborhood to prevent their being used as
shortcuts through the area, pick up traffic from local residential streets
and carry it to major thoroughfares which distribute the traffic through the
city. Local streets should be relatively short and discontinuous to insure
quiet and privancy and to prevent speeding.
The population of the Neighborhood should range from 4,000 to 6,000 persons
depending on the exact size of the area and the density of development. This
population will require an elementary school and neighborhood park. These
facilities should oe developed adjacent to one another at the center of the
Neighborhood and at the intersection of collector streets. In addition, to
be most protected from traffic hazards this location will place all
12
residents within about one-half mile walking distance of the school and
park.
Local shopping centers to provide for the everyday needs of the residents
should be located at high -access points on the perimenter of the
Neighborhood. In addition to providing access, perimeter locations keep
commercial traffic out of the living areas. Development of apartments,
duplexes, or churches adjacent to shopping centers can aid in buffering
commercial uses from residential areas.
Community: Efficient provision for the less frequent needs and services of
individuals and families requires a larger service area; and, therefore, a
larger planning unit.
The community consists of three or four Neighborhoods with a population
adequate to support a Junior High School. This facility should be developed
at the center of the Community accessible by one or more major streets. A
larger community park should be located adjacent to or near the middle
school.
Expanded shopping facilities should be provided at high -access points on the
perimeter of the Community. Generally, the Community will also provide an
adequate service area for a branch library, community center, and fire
station.
City: The City consists of two or more Community units. The population is
sufTicient to support a Senior High School (and in some cases, a junior
college), a central park, a central business district, and a civic center.
The facilities should be grouped to be convenient and easily accessible to
all residents of the City. Other components of the City, such as industrial
parks, airports, health facilities, or universities should be located to be
readily accessible but to prevent their conflict with or encroachment on
residential areas.
PLANNING DISTRICTS
There are approximately 14,192 acres of land, or about 22.17 square miles,
within the present City limits of the City of College Stataion excluding the
University property. The City limits have been expanded as the City has
grown. In 1973, when the City had a population estimated at 23,752, there
were only 10,687 acres, or 16.79 square miles, within the City limits.
Because the City limits change periodically, it does not serve as a realistic
boundary for future planning purposes. In most cases, the limits of the
City's extra -territorial jurisdiction (ETJ), as defined by the Municipal
Annexation Act, is used as the future Planning Area. This is generally the
area that the City is expected to grow into in the future.
The ETJ of the City of College Station extends for two miles from all
points from the present City limits. The ETJ covers about 35.87 square miles
outside the City limits, making a total of 58.04 square miles within the
entire Planning Area.
13
In order to more closely examine the past, present, and future development of
the City of College Station, the Planning Area has been divided into 12 study
areas, or Planning Districts. The Planning Districts, as shown on
Plate 1, generally conform to the Planning Design Units previously discussed.
Planning Districts 1 through 9 are located within the present City limits,
while Planning Districts 10 through 12 cover the ETJ outside the City
limits.
Planning District 1: Largely residential, this area provides much of the
student housing Texas A&M University. Bisected by College Avenue, it
contains the Hensel and North Gate areas. The District has a population of
3,274 and contains 312.82 acres of land, or about 0.49 square miles. It is
bound on the north by the City limits, on the south by University Drive, on
the west by Wellborn Road, and on the east by Texas Avenue.
Planning District 2: This District, east of Texas Avenue, contains the older
area known as College Heights and College Hills Woodlands. It contains
617.77 acres, or U.97 square miles. Bound on the north uy the City limits,
on the east by the City limits and a line becoming Westover Street, on the
south by Lincoln and Dominik, and on the west by Williams Street and Texas
Avenue, the District has a population of 1,396 persons.
Planning District 3: Partially surrounding Planning District 2, this
District contains 657.58 acres of land, or 1.03 square miles, and has a
population of 6,724. It is largely residential containing the greater part
of College Hills Estates. The area is bound on the north by Planning
District 2 and the City limits, on the east by the Last Bypass, on the south
by Highway 30, and on the west by Texas Avenue.
Planning District 4: Bound on the west by the East Bypass, and on the north,
east, and south y the city limits, this District has a population of only
356 people. The area, known as Windwood/Raintree, contains 3,023 acres of
land, or 4.72 square miles.
Planning District 5: Known as the Golden Triangle, District 5 is bound by
Highway 30 on the north, East Bypass on the East and south, and Texas Avenue
on the west. The area has a population of 1,109, and contains 1,318.30 acres
of land, or 2.06 square miles.
Planning District 6: This area, known as Southgate, contains 1,348.69 acres,
2.11 square miles, and has a population of 4,151. It is bound on the north
by Jersey Street. The east and south boundaries stairstep from Texas Avenue,
zagging back to Anderson, extending west on Holleman Drive, south on Welsh,
west on Southwest Parkway, and south on Wellborn Road to the city limits.
The western boundary is F.M. 2818 and the city limits.
Planning District 7: Bound on the west and north by Planning District 6, on
the east by Texas Avenue and on the south Dy F.M. 2818, this District is
called South Knoll. It has a population of 8,442, and contains 1,004.37
acres of land, or 1.57 square miles. It is the largest residential area in
the City containing both single-family residences and apartments in great
number.
Planning District 8: The Southwood Valley Area has a population of 3,345
persons. This area, containing 1,067.27 acres, or 1.67 square miles, is
14
15
1 PH 11
INS
SON
15
bound on the north by F.M. 2818, on the east by Texas Avenue, on the west by
Wellborn Road and the City limits, and on the south by the city limits.
Planning District 9: This District is the property of Texas A&M University.
It covers a total area of 4,841.64 acres, or 7.57 square miles. Easterwood
Airport is located in this area, which is generally bound by the City limits
and University Drive on the north, Texas Avenue on the east, the City limits
and Jersey Street on the south, and the City limits on the west.
Planning District 10: This District is west and south of the City
surrounding Easterwood Airport on three sides. It extends from a line
running north of and approximately parallel to F.M. 60 to F.M. 2154 south of
the City. The area contains 11,094.71 acres of land, or 17.34 square miles,
and has a population of 1,296.
Planning District 11: This south side planning area contains 2,754.81 acres
of land, 4.30 square miles, and has a population of 264. The area is bound
by F.M. 2154 on the west dna East Bypass on the east.
Planning District 12: The East Side Planning District is actually southeast
of the City extending from the city limits on the north, south down F.M. 158,
and south and west to East Bypass. It has a population of 543, and contains
9,107.40 acres of land, or 14.23 square miles.
16
Development
17
IN
DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY
The future development of the City of College Station will have a significant
impact on the community as it exists today. By the year 2000, it is expected
that the City will essentially double in population, necessarily resulting in
new development within the City and further expansion into presently
undeveloped areas. Adequately preparing for such growth demands
consideration of a complex of factors influencing and resulting from
development. These include physical, social, economic, and aesthetic factors
which must be considered.
Examples of such considerations include air ana water pollution, traffic
congestion, noise pollution, utility capacities, flooding hazards, erosion
control, conservation of vegetation and wildlife, protection of sensitive
areas, population density, provision of public facilities, land use
conflicts, blighting conditions, prevention of suburban sprawl, and many
others. A definite relationship exists between these factors, each
influencing or impacting the others. The interaction of these considerations
compounds a simple problem of growth over time.
In order to minimize possible adverse impacts of future development of the
City, an analysis was first made of the existing natural and man-made
features of the area. The capabilities of various areas to support future
development were thus established, and potentially sensitive areas requiring
special treatment were identified. The alternative plans for future
development were then formulated taking these factors into consideration.
Tnis development suitability analysis is intended as a guide to the effective
and efficient use of both natural resources and man-made facilities. Care
can be taken in locating developments to insure that areas undesirable for
development due to steep slopes, poor soil conditions, flood hazard, or other
restrictions are left undisturbed. High intensity uses can be located where
they will not overload utilities, increase traffic congestion, cause
pollution, or create other conflicts. Environmentally sensitive areas can be
preserved as natural open space.
The primary purpose of the development suitability analysis is to identify
and analyze the consequences of possible development actions, thus alerting
the public and decision -makers to the potential impacts involved in
particular areas. As a result, it is intended that this analysis will build
into the local community and its decision -makers a continuing consciousness
of these considerations in proposals for future development.
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
For decades, the City of Bryan was the primary population and commercial
center for the area, with College Station existing primarily to serve the
direct residential needs of the University. The history of growth in the
area has shown Bryan and College Station both increasing about
proportionally, with Bryan always remaining the much larger city. In recent
years, due to the growth of the University and increased oil production
activity, a substantial change in growth has taken place. Since 1970, the
City of College Station has more than doubled its population by over 20,000
people while Bryan has increased by only about 12,000. This impact has
brought on many other changes as activity has moved into the newer
community.
19
The development of College Station has always been directly tied to the
University. The Northgate area, the first area to develop off -campus, is
still noticeably oriented to the University. Off -campus development
originated to provide housing and services to University employees while
virtually all students lived on -campus. When the City was incorporated, it
had less than 2,000 residents not including students. The origional City
Hall building is located in the Northgate area.
During the war military housing was constructed north of the campus further
promoting higher intensity development in this direction. Single-family
areas, occupied primarily by University professors and other staff, began to
develop in the College Park area to the south and in College Hills to the
east. During the 1950's and early 1960's, single-family growth continued
both to the east and south.
Apartment development began during the late 19u0's brought on by growth of
the University due to elimination of the mandatory participation in the Corps
of Cadets and its historic all-male status. During this time, residential
development continued to the south encouraged partly by the construction of
Southwest Parkway and the South Loop. The opening of the East Loop during
the 1970's has prompted new residential and commercial development in the
eastern part of the City. These patterns of development are shown on the
Development Patterns Map, Plate 2.
The provision of utilities has perhaps influenced development trends as much
as access. As orainage within the City is primarily eastward, it has been
relatively easy to provide sewerage service, both eastward and to open new
areas progressively southward. Since the source of water supply has always
been from the north, it has always been ralatively easy to provide water
service to the lower elevations eastward and southward.
In the future, four primary factors will tend to direct the general path of
development. Growth northward is, of course, blocked by the City of Bryan.
Carters Creek presents a major flood plain area to the east, creating an
obstacleto access as well as provision of utilities. Westward, a major
drainage divide runs approximtely along Wellborn Road making provision of
sewer service to this area difficult. State Highway 6 is the primary access
route running north -south through the area.
All of these factors point to a continuing growth trend toward the south. In
addition, recent plans by the City, the Industrial Development Foundation,
and a private developer, will locate a mayor research, residential, and
recreation area south of the City. This development will also act as a
magnet, attracting growth to the south.
EXISTING FEATURES
The City of College Station is located in Brazos County on State Highway 6
south of and adjacent to the county seat at Bryan and 90 miles northwest of
downtown Houston. The area is located on the western fringe of the forested
Gulf Coastal Plain. About 14 percent of the land in the Planning Area is
cropland and 48 percent pasture. The remainder is wooded or devoted to urban
uses.
20
DEVELOPMENT
PATTERNS
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
21
g1 U II I
P, � X
NORTH
aAARIa L. wrEE Aswcurea
o.nu T•...
M�g
VSATNE SI SNTOER ASSOCIATES
Um
T
The climate of the area is warm temperate, sub-tropical, and humid. Summers
are long and warm, and winters are short and mild. The average length of the
growing season is 260 days, but this period varies considerably from year to
year. The last frost in the spring usually occurs on March 7, and the first
frost in the fall comes on November 22. In about one year in five, however,
there is a late spring frost or earlier fall frost.
The mean average temperature is 68.3 degrees, and ranges from a mean high in
August of 84.2 degrees to a mean low in January of 51 degrees. Average
annual rainfall is 38.94 inches. The wettest month is May with 4.44 inches
and the driest month is August with 2.39 inches. Average annual relative
humidity is about 70 percent, and there is little variation from month to
month. The prevailing wind is southeaterly. The county receives about 65
percent of the total possible sunshine annually. The cloudiest months are
Decembver, January, and February which have about 50 percent of the possible
sunshine.
The topography of the College Station area is flat to rolling, with slopes
normally ranging from zero to five percent. Slightly steeper slopes are
found along the many creeks which run through the area. elevations in the
area range from 350 feet above sea level on the tops of the hills in the
northern portion to less than 250 feet along the Brazos River and streams in
the area.
The major water courses in the area are the Brazos River, which is a portion
of the western boundary of the County. Tributaries of the Brazos River in
the area include Hopes Creek and White Creek, which form a portion of the
western City limits. Another major stream in the area is Carters Creek,
located along the eastern boundary of the City. Tributaries of Carters Creek
in the area include Burton Creek, wolf Pen Creek, Bee Creek, Lick Creek,
Spring Creek, Alum Creek and Brushy Creek. There are flood plains delineated
along all of these streams. Drainage in the area is divided along a high
ridge running from northwest to southeast and generally defined by the tracks
of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Natural drainage west of this line flows
to the Brazos River while drainage east of the ridge drains into Carters
Creek and the Navasota River, which in turn, flows into the Brazos River at
the southern tip of the County.
There are four mayor soil associations found in the College Station area.
The Lufkin-Tabor Association covers the northern two-thirds of the Planning
Area. The soils are heavy, very compact clays with very low ntural
fertility. The Lufkin-Edge Association is found south and east of the City.
This Association consists of nearly level and gently sloping grayish,
droughty claypan that is also low in fertility. The Lakeland-Derby
Association is found along the Brazos River west of the City. These are
mostly deep sands and not susceptible to erosion and have good drainage. The
Gowen-OchIockonee Association is located within the flood plains of local
streams and has moderately good drainage characteristics.
22
L E G E N I
Flood Plains
Drainage Divides
View Points
Steep Slopes
Creeks
OWN\\
Z_
Z
11s, B00
J CII
IF
if 2
_j
to
WELLBORN
PLATE 3
a.
oo
NATURAL NORTH
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
FEATURES PI..:,nq & m ... o—t C .... Itw. ( �J�J
D.11 T....
PLAN 2000
WAYNE W. SNYDER ASSOCIATES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ;I ... In. .— - ...—nt m .......
,, TEXAS .0 W-th T....
i
NATURAL
FEATURES
S
PLAN
CITY OF COLLEGE S
MAN - MADE
FEATURES
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
25
Y
_ L
L E G
E N O
5�
r /
Developed Area
O
1
1
Utmay Eervlee Area
l
Holes Zone
Easements
— —
PLATE 4
R ' $
rNORTH=
SAMUEL I. W YSE ASSOCIATES
Fb�.... Mnr.w� GMYI1Yr�.
WATNE W SNIDER ASSOCIATES
Fort r • T....
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
The most important factor concerning the effects of the environment is the
amount of population increase and resulting development that will occur.
Care must be taken to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and
development must be controlled and directed to provide for the efficient use
of the existing utilities system. Coordination of all aspects of development
will be necessary for the quality of life the citizens of College Station
desire.
The College Station area is heavily wooded in oak trees, which have long
contributed to the beauty of the area. Increased development will strip many
of these tall trees from the landscape. Beside affecting the aesthetics of
the area, reduction of the wooded areas will increase runoff and erosion
hazard and eliminate wildlife areas.
There are flood plains located along mayor creeks as well as extensive flood
plains along Carters Creek and the Brazos River. There have been residential
developments within these flood plains in recent years. The hazards of such
development were pointed out by a recent flood within a major residential
subdivision along Carters Creek north of College Station in Bryan.
Oil field development in the College Station area presents particular
problems to development. In addition to possible fire or explosive hazard
from wells and pipelines, these areas present the potential for stream and
ground water pollution from both petroleum and salt water.
Increased development will also bring increased vehicular traffic. Many
residents of the College Station area presently commute to work at Texas A&M
University. During peak hours, tnere is capacity -level traffic on Texas
Avenue (State Highway 6) through College Station. Traffic is further
expanded during special events at Texas A&M University which compounds the
problem.
Most industrial development in the area is located in the eastern part of the
City along State Highway 6, the East Loop. While these are for the most part
clean industries, urban expansion in this area nas brought about conflicts
due to the incompatibility of industrial and residential uses. Such
conflicts might include noise, air and stream pollution and increased truck
traffic. Future plans call for the development of an extensive industrial
park south of the City. This development should help alleviate some
conflicts between industrial and residential uses.
Development in College Station has maintained a fairly compact pattern with
minimal sprawl and little vacant land within the interior of the City. This
has been due largely to the association of the populace with the University,
and has been perpetuated through the recent trend toward higher density
residential development. The increased demand for multi -family dwellings,
again oriented to the University, coupled with increased financial difficulty
for consumers to purchase single-family homes, has maintained the compact
character of the City. It may be possible, however, that the proposed
industrial park development could radically change this pattern, serving as
an attraction for development to tend southward along State Highway 6.
26
The increased development of multi -family housing types also present some
cause for concern. Increased densities of population can cause overloading
of public facilities which may have been designed only for lesser population
densities. Examples of such problems could be overloaded sewer lines,
lowered water pressures, traffic congestion, overuse of recreational
facilities, and overcrowding of schools.
Major drainage areas also present problems to development. The ridge
dividing the Carters Creek and Brazos River drainage areas runs generally
along the Southern Pacific Railroad. All sewage collection and treatment
facilities are presently located within the Carters Creek area. In order for
any significant development to take place west of the railroad or Wellborn
Road, another sewage treatment plant would have to be constructed along Hopes
Creek or a lift station installed to pump sewage back to the Carters Creek
plant.
Carters Creek itself presents a problem to development in the eastern part of
the City. The extensive flood plain tends to isolate the Harvey Area and
presents a major physical obstacle which must be bridged to provide adequate
access to this area. while sewage service can be readily provided, water
distribution is generally oriented to the western and southern parts of the
City. Any major develpment east of Carters Creek could require additional
water storage, distribution, and pumping facilities.
CRITERIA AND MATRIX
In order to make a quantitative analysis of the existing environmental
features of the area, a system of environmental criteria was developed. This
criteria was based on both natural and man-made features of the area. Ten
elements of the environment were chosen for this analysis.
For the purposes of this analysis, the assumption was made that any
particular piece of land might be developed for single-family residential
use. A numerical value ranging from one to four was then assigned to the
particular characteristics of each environmental element as it might affect
residential development. Under these values, the highest numbers have the
greatest adverse effect on residential development. Any given piece of land
could, therefore, nave a total value ranging from 10 to 40. These criteria
and the numerical value assigned are detailed in Table 2.
To facilitate the analysis of the 60 square miles of the College Station
Planning Area, a matrix was developed which divided the Planning Area into
squares 1,000 feet on the side, each containing about 25 acres of land.
There are a total of'1,809 of these areas in the matrix.
A statistical analysis was made of the distribution of total values for these
areas. The results of this statistical analysis are shown on Table 3. Those
areas having a value concentrated in the middle or average range constituted
46 percent of the areas and would be considered as normal areas for
residential development. Conversely, areas with higher numerical values
would have a lower potential.
27
It should be noted, however, that although an area may have a very low
potential for residential development, this evaluation may not preclude
development altogether. Factors which may be adverse to residential
development may be most advantageous to industrial development, for example.
At the same time, extensive flood plains may entirely preclude development of
any kind.
In order to determine the suitability for other types of development, the
environmental criteria were reweighted to conform to the needs and
characteristics of multi -family, commercial, industrial, institutional, and
open -space land. The results of these analyses are also shown on Table 4.
TABLE 2
City of College Station, Texas
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
NATURAL ELEMENTS MAN-MADE ELEMENTS
Soils & Geology
1 - Slight Restrictions
2 - Moderate Restrictions
3 - Severe Restrictions
4 - Exposed Rock
Topography
1 - Less than 5% Slopes
2 - 5%-8% Slope
3 - 8%-12% Slope
4 - Over 12% Slope
Drainage
1 - Well Drained
2 - Small Stream
3 - Drainage Problems
4 - Flood Plain
Vegetation
1 - Existing High Quality
2 - Existing Low Quality
3 - Open Good Potential
4 - Open Poor Potential
Visual Character
1 - Open Vistas
2 - Closed Vistas
3 - Flat Open
4 - Visual Barriers
urce: Consultants
28
Accessibility
1 - Secondary Road
2 - Major Road
3 - Major Intersection
4 - Limited Access
Utilities
1 - Existing Utilities
2 - Utility Extensions
3 - Planned Utilities
4 - No Planned Utilities
Noise
1 - Minimal Noise
2 - Noise Proximity
3 - Major Road
4 - Freeway/Railroad
Land Use
o Use
2 - Residential
3 - Public
4 - Commercial/Industrial
Other Uses
1 - No Uses
2 - Ponds
3 - Easement/Railroad
4 - Gravel Pits/Quarries
TABLE 3
City of College Station, Texas
ENVIRONMENTAL MATRIX
TOTAL
VALUE
NUMBER
OF AREAS
PERCEN-TILt
RANKING
RESIDENTIAL
POTENTIAL
0-13
-0-
-0-
N.A.
14
6
99.60
Very High
15
14
98.80
Very High
16
27
97.20
Very High
17
42
94.70
Very High
18
118
87.70
High
19
197
76.10
High
20
195
64.50
Normal
21
226
51.20
Normal
22
273
35.00
Normal
23
291
17.80
Low
24
132
10.00
Low
25
92
4.50
Very Low
26
50
1.60
Very Low
27
16
0.65
Very Low
28
10
0.06
Very Low
29
1
0.01
Very Low
30-40
-0-
-0-
N.A.
Source: Analysis by Consultants
Those areas having the highest suitability for development are located
generally within the area bounded by the East Loop(State HIghway 6) and F.M.
2818 around the Southern and Western parts of the City. These are the
primary areas presently served by utilities and transportation. Conversely,
the areas least suited for development are located along Carters Creek and
West of Easterwood airport. These areas have the most hazards from potential
flooding, and the least access to utilities and transportation.
Assuming the future expansion of the utility and street systems, good
potentials for residential growth exist throughout the Planning Area, with
the highest potential toward the South. The highest potentials for Multi-
family and commercial development will exist near the intersections of major
streets and roads. Industrial growth potentials will be located near the
railroad and in the industrial district South along Highway 6. The University
property and tloodplains along creeks and rivers have the most potential for
Institutional/Open Space uses.
29
S■
W
J
m
Q
M
X_
F -
Q
E
H
J
[o
Q
N
F -
Z
W
Cl.
O
J
W
>
W
F -
z
WJ J. ttt
Q
►-I •r •r- •r r i= CO M(z 00000
OZ Q S S S S O)D)E E E O O JJJJJQ
W W Z>) >,SS 0 0 OJJ >) Z
> F-- S_ S_ L S_ Z Z Z S_ S- i i i
W O aJ aJ aJ aJ a) aJ a) a) a)
J
Z W
O U
V) I I 1
F- Or 1D 00010 MMNGtNOCMf�:3-OO
1-4Z I M 10MMMe-rO�-Zd-N::r(\J I I
F- W r CV N Ct N N r
N d
Z O
I -I
J N
Q Q
i- + W
F- Q I I
V) ON Lna11or-r-m ) MLnONc:j- O
=LLJ I rN tr M Ln Ln r 0 Gfi MkoM I
C=l LN 10 M M r
Z O
Q Q�I.- 11.1
W O ct C n I- 00 C A M r Gt C V N N O r- M M O
X: W I r-NNdrer1.0LD1DN0p10LnN i
X: Ln IO M C\J
C O
U
J
� Q
Q LLJ
L.L.. = I I
I Q O N:I- p 1 LO C V N 1 D -:I- C O N 00 1 D O r 00 N 0
►-+ I �00cY10M471LnrnOMr-• I
W
J N
C C
f
J
Q N
t-+ Q
F-
LJ
W Q O10MI--Ll7M MO1DMM Cr-koM C)
� 1 rNcfr OrOrI�MCil lnr 1
-ILLI r-NNM MNr
V) V)
LU O
J 4J
Q O
F- J M
OQ rd' Lr) 1p1--0001OrNMGj-Ln10t,00a):F
F-> t r r r r - CV NCV NNNNNNN I
O O
M
30
7
i7
Areas indicating the highest potential for various types of land uses are
shown on the Development Suitability Map, Plate 5.
It should be noted that these potentials for development are based entirely
on existing conditions, including the present capacities of streets and
utility systems. Improvements to these facilities and extensions into
presently undeveloped areas could serve to increase the development
potentials of certain areas. For example, those areas indicating limited
development at present on the Development Suitability map could have normal
suitability for residential uses if streets ana utilities are provided.
Coordinates of each area in the matrix are given in the Appendix to this
report. The suitability for development in each type of land use is also
shown for each area.
HOLDING CAPACITY
In order to determine the potential impact of development on each area of
the matrix, a holding capacity was calculated. This holding capacity is
given for each area in the Appendix and is shown for the entire 25 acre area
rather than on a per -acre basis. This holding capacity is also given in
terms of population equivalents rather than actual residents.
Population equivalents are used because commercial, industrial, and other
uses do not have actual residents. These equivalents represent the normal
number of people that would be expected to utilize a particular activity.
These equivalents will vary based on type of use, intensity of development,
utilization of water and sewer utilities, traffic generation, and other
factors.
For calculation of these holding capacities, an average population equivalent
has been assumed for each type of land use. These equivalents have been
based on actual development, utility capacities, and traffic generations
within the City at present. In some areas, improvements to existing
facilities or extensions into undeveloped areas could increase the holding
capacity of a particular area.
Population equivalents used in this study are given on Table 5. Table 6
presents a aistribution of the number of areas found within various ranges of
holding capacities. The best utilization of land uses tends to fall within
ranges of holding capacities also shown on Table 5.
It should be noted that holding capacities given represent only an average
figure calculated from the development suitability of each area. Any par-
ticular area could have capacities which might allow for more, or less,
intense development. This holding capacity should not therefore be used as
an absolute figure, but rather as a guide to the types of uses to be
permitted in various areas.
31
TABLE 5
City of College Station, Texas
POPULATION EQUIVALENTS
LAND EQUIVALENT MAXIMUM NORMAL
USE PER ACRE PER AREA CAPACITY
Residential Uses
14
322
190-219
Multi -Family Uses
33
768
270-389
Commercial Uses
30
690
240-279
Industrial Uses
15
345
220-249
Institutional/Open Space
6
138
100-189
Source: Analysis by Consultants
TABLE 6
City of College Station, Texas
DISTRIBUTION OF HOLDING CAPACITIES
CAPACITY CAPACITY NUMBER PERCENT
PER AREA PER ACRE OF AREAS OF AREAS
100-109
4.3- 4.7
6
0.3%
110-119
4.8- 5.1
69
3.8
120-129
5.2- 5.6
92
5.1
130-139
5.7- 6.0
119
6.6
140-149
6.1- 6.4
31
1.7
150-159
6.5- 6.9
71
3.9
160-169
7.0- 7.3
54
3.0
170-179
7.4- 7.7
44
2.4
180-189
7.8- 8.2
91
5.0
190-199
8.3- 8.6
225
12.4
200-209
8.7- 9.0
256
14.2
210-219
9.1- 9.5
221
12.2
220-229
9.6- 9.9
85
4.7
230-239
10.0-10.3
62
3.4
240-249
10.4-10.8
46
2.5
250-259
10.9-11.2
22
1.2
260-269
11.3-11.6
43
2.4
270-279
11.7-12.1
37
2.0
280-289
12.2-12.5
40
2.2
290-299
12.6-12.9
27
1.5
300-309
13.0-13.3
35
1.9
310-319
13.4-13.8
11
0.6
320-329
13.9-14.2
24
1.3
330-339
14.3-14.7
30
1.7
340-349
14.8-15.1
16
0.9
350-359
15.2-15.5
17
0.9
360-369
15.6-15.9
19
1.0
370-379
16.0-16.4
10
0.6
380-389
16.5-16.9 i
a 6
0.3
Source:
Analysis by Consultants
32
.. - - - n , - - --
51_
52
b4- DEVELOPMENT
aa_ SUITABILITY
67 -PLAN 2000
58_
59 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
80-
33
c
=NORTH
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
• ,WYS A
WAYN,E W^S Y, ASSOCTA..S
HIM
34
Population
35
36
POPULATION ANALYSIS
The rapid population increase in College Station over the past ten years
resulted in the Bryan -College Station Metropolitan Area being named the
fastest growing area in Texas. College Station increased at an annual rate
of 7.8 percent from 1970 to 1980, as compared with most Texas cities' growth
rates of 1 to 3 percent per year. This rapid change in City size has
required continuing response by local government, the school system, and
other institutions.
Population analysis and projections are used in various ways in the
comprehensive planning process; employment projections, housing needs
analysis, land use projections, industrial analysis, community facility
planning, and capital improvement programming. The number of persons in
College Station in the future will, to a large degree, reflect the basic need
for governmental services as well as the ability to provide those services.
This part of the Comprehensive Plan examines:
* Current Population
* Distribution of the Population
* Population Density
* Population Projections
* Related Issues of Population Growth
CURRENT POPULATION
The 1980 U.S. Census reported a population of 37,296 persons in College
Station; an increase of 111.0 percent since 1970. Although this count is
lower than many local estimates, it does indicate the direction and, to some
extent, the degree of change that has occurred over the past decade.
Previous estimates of the 1980 population ranged from 39,OuO to 54,000. For
both methodological and pragmatic reasons, the U.S. Census Bureau population
counts will be used in the planning process. The following table shows
population growth of College Station, Bryan, and Brazos County since 1940.
TABLE 7
City of College ation, Texas
PUPULATION OF COLLEGE STATION, BRYAN AND bRAZOS COUNTY
Year College Station Bryan Brazos County
1940
2,184
11,842
26,977
1950*
7,925
18,102
38,390
1960
11,396
27,542
44,895
1970
17,676
33,719
57,978
1980
37,296
44,265
93,487
1981**
39,248
44,265
93,487
1982
41,200
---
--_
Source -U.S. Census of Population; * Starting with 1950 U.S. Census`_,_c_o_rTe_ge
students were counted at their college residence, rather that their parent's
residence; ** Consultant projections based on past annual growth rate.
37
College Station and Bryan have grown from being slightly over half of the
County's population in 1940 to almost 90 percent today. The Components of
population growth are critical to the understanding of projections. In
College Station, most of the past decades' growth was caused by expanding
university enrollment. This has produced not only an increase in student
population, but spin-off growth from retail development, construction
employment and other economic expansion. The following table indicates the
importance of the student population as part of College Station.
TABLE 8
City of College Station, Texas
STUDENT AND NON -STUDENT RESIUENTS: 1960, 1970 & 1980
University Student Non -Student
Year Enrollment Residents Residents Total
1960 7,221 4,807 6,589 11,396
1970 14,316 8,155 9,521 17,676
1980 33,499 21,600 15,696 37,296
Source: 1960 and 1970 U.S. Census, college enrollees; 1980 estimated from
previous U.S. Census and Planning Department estimate; 1980 U.S. Census
Since 1960 the student population that lives in College Station has increased
from about 42 percent to over half (57 percent) of the population. This
change has been the result of rapidly increasing enrollment during the 1970's
in Texas A&M University. The student population growth is expected to
diminish over the next five years as Texas A&M University officials limit
enrollment of freshman and sophmores. Table 9 represents the University's
projected enrollment through 1985.
Other components of population growth include births, deaths and migration.
In College Station from 1970 to 1980, there were 3,207 births, 603 deaths and
a net in -migration of 17,016 persons. Of the net in -migrations, 13,445
persons were students who live in College Station. This leaves 3,569
in -migrants who were non -students.
The growth rate for the non -student resident population has been about 5.1
percent annually, less than for the City as a whole but more than comparably
sized cities. Part of this growth is accounted for by expansion of the
University but the remainder is due to the general economic growth in the
area and indirect factors in favor of College Station's expansion; i.e.,
favorable climate, good central location, positive growth and labor supply.
From previous economic impact studies of University cities, an estimated
7,848 persons were non -University related residents.
TABLE 9
City of College tation, Texas
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT BY FALL SEMESTERS, 1981-1985
Level 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Freshman
9,141
8,575
8,270
8,021
8,021
Sophmore
6,481
7,312
6,960
6,716
6,850
Junior
7,042
6,609
7,500
7,520
7,525
Senior
6,749
7,071
7,014
7,600
7,600
Total
Undergrad.
29,413
29,567
29,744
29,857
29,996
Masters
3,721
3,969
4,207
4,363
4,491
Doctoral
1,606
1,637
1,669
1,700
1,733
Professional
560
627
680
680
680
Total
Graduates
5,887
6,233
6,556
6,743
6,904
TOTAL
35,300
35,800
36,300
36,600
36,900
Source: Texas A&M University. Projected enrollment figures for 1982-1985
take into account the July 28, 1981 decision to impose limitations on
enrollment limitations which will affect freshman and transfer students.
Actual enrollment was 35,146 for the Fall Semester.
TABLE 10
City of Colleg�ation, Texas
1980 POPULATION COMPONENTS
Component Number Percent
Student Residents
University Related Residents
Non -University Residents
TOTAL
21,600 57.9
7,189 19.3
8,507 22.8
37,296 100.0
Source: Estimate based on various economic impact studies of Universities on
cities; University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska; Lincoln; University
of Southern Mississippi, Indiana State University; Oklahoma State University;
University of Colorado; and Pennsylvania State University.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Population projections are needed for decisions about future land uses and
public services. To be useful, use of these projections should be understood
in light of the assumptions used in making the projections. These
assumptions are indicated in the following discussion.
39
POPULATION ANALYSIS
The rapid population increase in College Station over the past ten years
resulted in the Bryan -College Station Metropolitan Area being named the
fastest growing area in Texas. College Station increased at an annual rate
of 7.8 percent from 1970 to 1980, as compared with most Texas cities' growth
rates of 1 to 3 percent per year. This rapid change in City size has
required continuing response by local government, the school system, and
other institutions.
Population analysis and projections are used in various ways in the
comprehensive planning process; employment projections, housing needs
analysis, land use projections, industrial analysis, community facility
planning, and capital improvement programming. The number of persons in
College Station in the future will, to a large degree, reflect the basic need
for governmental services as well as the ability to provide those services.
This part of the Comprehensive Plan examines;
* Current Population
* Distribution of the Population
* Population Density
* Population Projections
* Related Issues of Population Growth
CURRENT POPULATION
The 1980 U.S. Census reported a population of 37,29b persons in College
Station; an increase of 111.0 percent since 1970. Although this count is
lower than many local estimates, it does indicate the direction and, to some
extent, the degree of change that has occurred over the past decade.
Previous estimates of the 1980 population ranged from 39,OuO to 54,000. For
both methodological and pragmatic reasons, the U.S. Census Bureau population
counts will be used in the planning process. The following table shows
population growth of College Station, Bryan, and Brazos County since 1940.
TABLE 7
City of College ation, Texas
POPULATION OF COLLEGE STATION, BRYAN AND BRAZOS COUNTY
Year College Station Bryan Brazos County
1940
2,184
11,842
26,977
1950*
7,925
18,102
38,390
1960
11,396
27,542
44,895
1970
17,676
33,719
57,978
1980
37,296
44,265
93,487
1981**
39,248
44,265
93,487
1982
41,200
---
--_
Source -U.S. Census of Population; * Starting with 1950 U.S. Census_,Eo_TTe_ge
students were counted at their college residence, rather that their parent's
residence; ** Consultant projections based on past annual growth rate.
37
The following is a brief review of basic population projection techniques
used by demographers. Four groups of projection techniques are available:
Mathematical Methods: These methods apply some mathematical formula to
population census figures to derive total population. Formulas most widely
used include (a) exponential formulas with compounding or continuous
compounding and (b) logistic curves. The exponential formulas applies to a
rate of growth (percentage) to known population counts to project into the
future. Growth rates change considerably over a long period of time, so the
use of geometric curves is desirable primarily for short run projections.
Ratio Methods: These methods apply the growth of a larger area to small area
subdivisions. Thus, projections of the nation can be translated into state
or regional growth, then to regional or county growth, and finally to the
city level. For relatively small areas, such as cities, the ratio methods
can not account for shifts that can change the population drastically, such
as major industry movement.
Economic Base Methods: It is generally believed that the migration component
of population change is significantly affected by economic opportunities.
Changes in the economic advantages of one area over anotner have a
substantial impact on the future magnitude of migration. N number of methods
are used that fall into two basic categories; (a) economic indicators and (b)
economic analysis. With economic indicators, population growth is fitted to
some equation comprised of an economic measurement such as per capita income.
Using the historical relationship between population and per capita income, a
population projection may be derived. Employment or number of jobs may be
another economic indicator.
In economic techniques, employment projections are made for each industry
according to national and/or regional projections. This may be done very
simply or may cover age specific categories of projections. Tne method
requires a closed economic system where commuting employees are residing
within the same geographical area. Obviously, this method presents some
problems if applied to an individual city and especially to a city like
College Station that has another adjacent city.
Cohort Survival Method: The most readily understood and logical population
projection technique is based on the components of population growth; birth,
death, and migration. Data on birth rates and death rates are specific
enough and collected in a fairly reliable manner. Detailed death rate stat-
istics are available along with accepted projections about future rates. The
problem that arises for this method is high migration rate. In a situation
such as College Station where migration makes up the bulk of growth, the
cohort survival projections become almost meaningless.
The approach used in this study is to examine several methods, past successes
in projecting population; and develop a reasonable method that provides
reasonable answers.
Previous Population Projections: College Station has had many population
projections in previous studies. For Brazos County in the last ten years,
there are at least nine different projections. For College Station, there
are at least 6 projections.
4U
For Brazos County, projections ranged from 67,200 for 1980 to 98,120. The
closest projection was within 5 percent of the 1980 U.S. Census. The next
closest missed by about 14 percent. The least accurate was within 28
percent of the 1980 count. All but one estimate were well below the
population count. The closest projection was made about 10 years ago.
The least accurate was made in 1972. Even the estimate made in 1979 was
15.2 percent off; made only one year before the census. All estimates
were based upon some generally accepted technique for projections. The
most sophisticated method included both cohort -survival and economic base
analysis. Still, this method missed the current population by 15 percent.
College Station population projections tend to err on the other side.
Again, several acceptable techniques have been employed to produce results
that are at least b percent off in the closest estimate and almost 50
percent in other instances. In this case the estimates were all more than
the Census population counts. Some claim that the U.S. Census has
undercounted the population. while the Census showed that the City has
grown less than most people thought (based on projections), the County
grew much more than most people thought. The following chart shows
these projections.
41
L E G E
N D
Very High Suitability
0
High Suitability
Normal Suitability
0
Low Suitability
PLATE 11
RESIDENTIAL
SUITABILITY
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Making New Projections: Looking back and finding fault with the past
projections is easy. Most population projections are wrong. Even being
within five percent, 5,000 people for the County appears to be a lot of
error. Looking back can also help find out what was done wrong, if anything,
and how to account for such errors in future projections. Detailed analysis
of previous studies is not available, but some of the methods have
shortcomings which could produce the results.
* In methods using dwelling units as a basis, there has been a gross
underestimate of the sharply declining household size.
* Mathematical methods, such as exponential methods, fail to account
for drastic changes in local conditions; such as sharply rising
student populations.
* Cohort survival methods in a rapidly growing city cannot account
for changes such as a changing student population; nor does this
method accurately account for the presence of a large supply of
highly mobile young married couples.
* Economic base methods used by the Texas Department of Water
Resources cannot predict small area shifts in population due to
employment and industry growth. In a region such as the Bryan -College
Station area, industry may locate within one of the two cities or even
outside of the cities and still match up with the projections.
Looking back at all projections for Brazos County, the results would all be
relatively accurate if the expansion of Texas A&M were included.
The three questions that arise about new projections are:
* How can we account for future population growth at Texas A&M
* How does the growth at Texas A&M affect the population growth of the
City
* What method best accounts for future population growth
The implications are to separately project the University population, to
determine the impact on the rest of the population of the University, and
to separately project the rest of the City population. These are similar
to the findings from previous studies.
Population Projections: Initial projections for College Station are based on
two assumptions; continued growth of the population; and (2) a decreased
rate of growth for Texas A&M. Further analysis oetermines:
* The impact of University growth on the College Station economy ana how
this relates to population growth.
* Cohort survival analysis of 1980 data.
* Additional information on economic development actions planned within
the foreseeable future.
* Analysis of development trends and land use projections.
42
The economic impact of Texas A&M examined in other sections of this report
shows that the University contributes at least half of the employment within
the area; either directly or indirectly. Further, the future growth of the
University is subject to changes in policy that cannot be predicted or
controlled by local government. The assumption about the University's growth
and contribution to the economy is that current policies of limiting
enrollment will continue into the future. This will slow the University's
growth rate to an annual rate of 1.5 percent, based on University enrollment
projections for the next five years. Based on exponential growth formulas,
the rate of growth should actually decline over the next 10 to 20 years.
Cohort survival data for 1980 is not available as of ..pis date but
contributes little to projecting future growth due to the impact of
in -migration. Migration will continue to be the primary contributor to
population expansion. With reduced impact of University growth,
cohort -survival projections will become useful in the future.
Economic development plans in College Station and the region have not reached
any major turning points. Although the outlook is favorable for more
diversified economic growth, no specific decisions have been announced. The
Industrial Foundation property is being analyzed for future development
potential, but no projections or preliminary recommendations have been made.
The following table contains population projections for College Station which
include the considerations shown above. The assumptions for these project-
ions are:
* Texas A&M will continue its current enrollment policy.
* Annual growth of Texas A&M University will continue at the projected
annual rate of 1.5 percent, based on University projections.
* The non -University population will continue to grow at the current
annual rate of 5.1 percent.
* No large employers or groups of industries will locate in the College
Station region. (While this assumption can be proven false, there is no
known employer planning such a move.) If such a move is made, the
population projections should be expanded by the growth level induced
by new employment.
* Projections will vary by not more than one percent above or below the
projected rates. (0.5 to 2.5 for the University and 4.1 to 6.1 for the
non -University population.)
43
TABLE 11
City of College Station, Texas
POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 1980 - 2000
university Non -
Student Related University
Residents Residents Residents Total
1980
21,600
7,189
8,507
37,296
1990 Minimum
22,705
7,557
12,714
42,976
EXPECTED
25,068
8,343
13,990
47,401
Maximum
27,o50
9,203
15,379
52,232
2000 Minimum
23,866
7,943
19,002
50,811
EXPECTED
29,092
9,682
32,005
70,779
Maximum
35,394
11,780
27,802
74,976
Source: Estimates by
uonsu tants
It is essential that the City of College Station maintain ongoing population
estimates as part of their planning and implementation process. These growth
rates should oe compared with projections and annual updates published for
community leaders, City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
staff. These estimates can be prepared from construction data, utility
connections or other secondary measures of population growth. This should be
supplemented with University enrollment figures and estimates from the
University on resident population.
44
70
Population 50
in
Thousands 40
Mi
20-
10
5
1960
PLATE 7
VA
i
Projected
Total Population
Growth
5.1% Annual Rate/
i
1.5% Annual Rate,
•-� Projected
University
Population
Growth
1970 1984 1990 2000
Years
PROJECTED CITY AND UNIVERSITY GROWTH
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
The population distribution and pattern of growth over the history of the
City has revolved around the location of the eastern, main campus portion of
Texas A&M. Older development occurred mostly east of Texas Avenue and on
both sides of the campus. The population distribution has shifted over the
45
past ten years as areas around the campus have become more fully developed.
multi -family development along Harvey Road and new development south of Texas
A & M are areas of primary population increase. During the past ten years,
the areas north and south of the West Bypass have begun to develop with some
limited construction East of the East bypass.
The previous map compares the 1973 population distribution with the 1980
distribution. In terms of distance, about nalf of the population lives
within one -mile of the main part of the Texas A & M University campus and
almost 90 percent within two miles.
POPULATION DENSITY
The density of a city's population is usually expressed as either persons per
square mile or persons per acre. In College Station, the gross density is
1,644 persons per square mile. This can be expressed for either the entire
City ( 1,644 per square mile) or for dll developed land (5,967 per square
mile). This density has increased since 1973 from 4,879 per square mile.
Urban densities vary widely from city to city. They reflect, to some degree,
the type and style of development. Ulder cities developed prior to the
introduction of the automobile were yeared to pedestrian and slower vehicular
traffic. Densities were often greater than 5,000 persons per square mile.
Densities in older neighborhoods often remain at these levels of
development.
At either extreme --very low density and very high density --the quality of
living can be affected. Urban development of less than three to five people
per acre, for example, is expensive to build and maintain. Unless it is
initially well-built and designed, the quality of housing and infrastructure
will likely deteriorate substantially over time as maintenance needs grow.
The revenue from such development usually does not meet the on-going cost of
street repair and utility maintenance.
Very high density development of 50 to 100 people per acre can create public
health and social conditions detrimental to the residents. Even at these
extremes, there are cities in the world that function adequately and are
acceptable places to live. Some cities, such as New York City, accomplish
this with high-rise structure. Others, such as Paris, have low-rise, compact
residences.
Housing and environmental quality are often issues discussed along with
housing density. The implication is that the higher the housing density, the
worse the quality of life. Looking at overall densities, this issue is much
more complex. For example, low density suburban communities around Dallas
and Fort Worth are more likely to nave a lower quality of housing (in terms
of physical condition of units). In this case, the lower the density, the
lower the housing quality. In examining specific types of developments such
as rental apartments versus single-family owner -occupied housing, the lower
density development (of the same age) is more likely to be in better
condition. However, other factors nave been added; ownership, age of the
building, and housing style. If two housing developments of different
densities and similar age and style are compared, the differences are less
obvious. The higher density development will probably not differ
substantially in housing quality or quality of life.
46
RM. 11
s
L fir`
�\ ar " •� yes c � 1
• i EX#4 AVE icc\rtir
• • f`r
r--' TEXAS A d:.
/ _ y
e • .1
' •4 • rJ
COLLEGE AVE � •c �� • ,�� • )# ms i , I) ))
`) \• • Ye i / fly'
i
• • f j;
•A • •
FN. 2018
/ r
\ i / WELLBORN
EASTERIN 00
• I AIRPORT J
.• __ �_ y POPULATION
i
DISTRIBUTION
PLAN
r ;Z CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
47
L E G E N D
-A II
I
POPULATION
y DISTRIBUTION
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
47
PLATE 8
0
Q
� 0 e NORTH
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
Pl.nnln i Y.n.•. t C .... lt.nt.
WAYNE W. SNYDER ASSOCIATES
Vl.nnlp i D.r.lo.m.nl Y.n.•.m.nl
�J
Fort worm T.t..
'�_J
J
`, sl
I
POPULATION
y DISTRIBUTION
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
47
PLATE 8
0
Q
� 0 e NORTH
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
Pl.nnln i Y.n.•. t C .... lt.nt.
WAYNE W. SNYDER ASSOCIATES
Vl.nnlp i D.r.lo.m.nl Y.n.•.m.nl
�J
Fort worm T.t..
'�_J
Standards of safe and healthful densities have been suggested in many
references, but most have relied on basic studies by the l;ommittee on the
Hygiene of Housing of the American Public Health Association. This Committee
provided residential density standards that serve as a basis for comparison
with Lollege Station housing. The following table presents comparative
standards for residential areas.
TABLE 12
City of College Station; Texas
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY STANDARDS
Net Persons Per Gross Acre of
Residential Land
Maximum Desirable
Building Type Standards Standards
One and Two Family
1 family detached 19 17
1 family semi-detached or
two family detached 27 24
1 family attached (row
housing) or two family
semi-detached 42 36
Multi -Family
3 story 72 56
6 story 99 71
Source: American Public Health Association; 1960.
This standard includes residential land and streets only. It does not
include any other land uses. In Gollege Station, these standards would allow
from 39,000 to 43,500 on land currently developed as residential, assuming
that all development was single family detached. From these maximum
standards, it is apparent that housing densities could be much higher and
still fall within health and safety requirements. For example, if all
current housing were developed as one -family semi-detached, the total
population could range from 55,000 to 61,300.
Another reference point for density is the comparison of College Station with
other Texas cities. Overall density for developed land in comparison Texas
cities varies from about 3,300 to 6,100 persons per square mile. Net
residential densities vary from 9.1 to 16.0 persons per acre (including only
residential development and associated streets). Lollege Station currently
has a net residential density of 16.3 persons per acre.
Another measure of density is reflected in the values of the community. What
kind of density is desired by the citizens of College Station"? This question
can be answered from two sources, the market and community leaders. The
market response has been that higher density housing has been needed during
the past decade. This demand continues today as developers request zoning
changes for higher density development and build attached and planned unit
residences. Community standards are more difficult to determine. Comments
in planning workshops suggest that lower density housing should be the
primary form for future growth.
Consultant projections suggest that lower density housing will likely prevail
during the next decade. This is based on two premises. First, the recent
rapid growth in College Station is in response to increase in Texas A&M
University enrollment. Peak growth has been reached and demand for apartment
development should stabilize. Second, the single family, owner -occupied
housing market is severely hampered by Doth interest rates and the lack of
mortgage funds.
Builders and developers turn their interest to the multi -family and
commercial markets during such economic periods. There is likely a
considerable back -log of demand for lower density housing which will be
released once the mortgage market changes and interest rates decline.
Even with these shifts, the City of College Station should
expect some basic changes in both developer and consumer demands for
alternative and possibly higher density housing styles.
49
50
Housing
51
52
HOUSING ANALYSIS
The nousing markets in the United States have changed substantially over the
past few years. While some trends will be reversed, many housing experts
expect continuation of some features of the current market. Among the
changes are smaller homes, smaller lots, higher density development, more
housing amenities and options, different ownership options, different
financing methods, and new styles of homes. The national economy will play a
role in the housing market in College Station, although local characteristics
have tended to dominate. This part of the Gity's Comprehensive Plan examines
the nousing supply and market to determine current and future needs; and to
make recommendations and projections for future housing. The analysis
includes: (1) examination of current housing supply as to types, numbers and
locations, (2) a review of housing markets including problems and
deficiencies, k3) recommended development standards for future nousing, and
(4) future housing needs in terms of number of units, land requirements and
locations.
HOUSING SUPPLY
The supply of nousing has expanded at a rate of over 1,100 units per year.
In today's market that would amount to over $70 million per year (for single
family units). This is an annual growth rate or about 10.5 percent, an even
faster rate than the population expansion The following table shows the
number of units added each year since 1971.
TABLE 13
City of Col egg ation, Texas
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
jingle
Year Family Duplexes Apartments Other Total
1971
130
2
450
15
598
1972
108
56
923
-
1,087
1973
119
2
1,110
8
1,239
1974
132
-
282
-
414
1975
201
108
352
6
667
1976
195
408
588
9
1,200
1977
344
98
1,324
-
1,766
1978
232
lU6
142
-
480
1979
2UO
92
298
-
590
1980
184
184
756
-
1,124
1981
295
224
1,463
-
1,982
1982
98
164
1,132
-
1,394
TOTAL
2,238
1,144
8,820
38
12,540
Source. City of College Station building permit records. 1982 through
April.
53
About too -thirds of the housing units built during the past decade were
apartments. Only 20 percent were single-family detached. Many cities the
size of College Station are experiencing similar phenomena where multi -fam-
ily, attached housing units comprise the largest portion of new construction.
However, there has normally been an even split in the multi -family versus
single family.
Examining the changes over time in construction, there has been steady growth
of single famiy housing while multi -family construction nas tended to rise
and fall with the economy. Another upward cycle was occurring in 1980 start-
ing in 1978, and this cycle has continued into 1981. In 1981, there were
another 1,982 units of housing added. Single family units also continued to
rise with 295 units. This is the highest number of single family dwellings
since 1977. The rate of single family construction has been about five
percent for the past decade.
PLATE 9
1400 r
1200
1000 i• � j �
'Multi -Family Units
800
Number 1
of 600 /
Units /
400
200 Single -Family Units
1971 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 1980 '81
Years
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
54
HOUSING MARKETS
Market analysis for housing is generally conducted for various income levels
and life-styles. For example a retirement portion housing market exists in
some areas and the income and housing preferences of that market would
dictate the type of housing to be provided. In a Comprehensive Plan, the
housing market includes a broader and more general level of analysis. This
section identifies existing housing needs, potential future markets, income
levels as related to housing and housing problems or deticiencies that are
evident in College Station.
Housin Needs and Problems: Many of the housing needs and problems cannot be
quantified or measured, but are observations or how the College Station
housing market has responded or not responded to changing demands. The types
of needs revolve around the following housing issues.
* Existing and future housing deterioration
* Housing Costs
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
Number
of 8,000
Housing
6,000
Units
4,000
Total Housing Suppl
PLATE 10
Apartments
Single -Family
1971 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 1980 '81
Years
TOTAL HOUSING SUPPLY CHANGE 1971-1980
55
* Rapid Growth
* Density of Development
* Housing Choices
* Housing Competition
* Housing and Economic Growth
Housing Quality: The current quality of housing is good. This is not
surprising given the relatively new construction of most housing units. The
predominance of multi-famiy units as a housing style makes the maintenance
and operation of these facilities a potential problem area in the future.
A local survey of housing conditions found about 10 percent of the housing
stock to be deteriorated but suitable for rehabilitation (Housing and
Population Studies, College Station, Department of Urban and Regional
Planning, Texas University, Planning Lab 604, 1980). About one percent
of the housing units were unsuitable for dwellings and one-third of these
were vacant. The majority of substandard housing units in College Station
are single-family. Uver 16 percent of the single-family units are
substandard, compared with seven percent of multi -family units. However,
most of the substandard units are renter -occupied rather than owner -occupied.
About two-thirds of the sub -standard occupied units are rental units.
It is typical of most cities that rental property is more likely to be
deteriorated than owner -occupied property. There is a substantial
difference, however, in the way multi -family property is maintained versus
smaller rental units. Apartment complexes rely on professional management
and staff maintenance, while single family rental units usually rely on
either the tenant or the owner for maintenance. The owner may lack the time,
ability, incentive, or finances for adequate maintenance and repair.
The following table compares housing conditions for different types of units
and ownership:
As the rate of growth levels off in College Station, housing conditions may
begin to affect the housing market. Multi -family units, over time, become
more expensive to maintain, and the economics and tax incentives for owning
such units can limit the maintenance and repair efforts by owners. Likewise,
if the the competition for tenants is met through other housing choices, such
as University -built housing, the rents must be low enough to attract
sufficient tenants. The current situation shows relatively low vacancies and
high demand. With changes in the growth rate, this will shift to higher
vacancies and a more competitive market.
Housing Costs: The housing market in College Station is substantially
different than most Texas communities of similar size. These differences are
somewhat reflected in housing costs. Most of the housing has been built in
the past ten years. Uver half of the housing units are less than ten years
old. The construction costs of these units, particularly the units built in
56
TABLE 14
City of College dation Texas
HOUSING CONDITIONS
ALL UNITS
SOUND
(%)
DETERIORATED % DILAPIDATED TiE�_
TOTAL
11,517
Percent
(88.9)
1,244
( 9.6)
194 (1.5)
12,955
Type of Unit
11,488
92.34
Owner -Occupied
2,966
23.84
Single -Family
3,470
(82.7)
575
(13.7)
150 (3.6)
4,195
Duplex
1,302
(86.3)
i94
(12.9)
12 (0.8)
1,508
Multi -Family
6,745
(93.0)
475
( e.5)
32 (0.4)
7,252
Tenure
213
1.71
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
12,441
100.00%
Owner
3,001
(86.0)
361
(W.3)
128 (3.7)
3,490
Renter
8,516
(90.0)
872
( 9.2)
77 (0.8)
9,465
Housing andPopulation Studies. 1980,City of o e_e__5tation
TABLE 15
City of College Station- Texas
YEAR/ROUND HOUSING UiVITS
the last three years were substantially nigher tnan those of the previous
decades. In similar sized cities, the housing supply is considerably older,
and housing costs are potentially less. (.ollege Station has relatively
little older housing stock which serves other communities as moderately
priced housiny. Many university cities rely on older housing stock to
57
Persons
Tenure and Vacancy Status
Number
Percent
In Unit
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS:
11,488
92.34
Owner -Occupied
2,966
23.84
8,988
Renter -Occupied
8,522
68.50
18,726
VACANT HOUSING UNITS.
953
7.66
For Sale Only
74
0.59
For Rent
644
5.18
Held for occasional Use
22
0.18
Other Vacant
213
1.71
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
12,441
100.00%
27,724
GROUP QUARTER
8.464
36,188
Source: 1980 . Gensus, Texas State
Data Lenter
the last three years were substantially nigher tnan those of the previous
decades. In similar sized cities, the housing supply is considerably older,
and housing costs are potentially less. (.ollege Station has relatively
little older housing stock which serves other communities as moderately
priced housiny. Many university cities rely on older housing stock to
57
TABLE 16
City of College Station, Texas
YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE NNU VACANCY STATUS
Persons
Tenure and Vacancy Status Number Percent In Unit
COLLEGE STATION CITY
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS:
11,488
92.34
2.08
Owner -Occupied
2,966
23.84
8,988
Renter -Occupied
8,522
68.50
18,726
VACANT HOUSING UNITS.
953
7.66
TO
For Sale Only
74
0.59
$25,000
For Rent
644
5.18
3.16
Held for Occasional Use
22
0.18
94
Other Vacant
213
1.71
$39,999
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
12,441
100.0%
27,724
GROUP QUARTER
372
14.34
8,464
TO
$79,999
1,313
36,168
Source: 1980 U.S. Census, lexas State Data Center
TABLE 17
City of College Station
SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED NONCONDOMINIUM HOUSING UNITS
BY VALUE
ague
COLLEGE STATION CITY
er Percent
LESS
THAN $10,000
54
2.08
$10,000
TO
$14,999
42
1.62
$15,000
TO
$19,999
49
1.89
$20,000
TO
$24,999
67
2.58
$25,000
TO
$29,999
82
3.16
$30,000
TO
$34,999
94
3.62
$35,000
TO
$39,999
109
4.20
$40,000
TO
$49,999
372
14.34
$50,000
TO
$79,999
1,313
50.62
$80,000
TO
$99,999
241
9.29
$10U,000
TO
$149,999
141
5.44
$150,000
TO
$199,999
22
0.85
$200,000
OR
MORE
8
0.31
MEDIAN VALUE
Source. 1980 U.S. Census
58
$59,800
TABLE 18
City of College Station, Texas
SPECIFIED RENTER -OCCUPIED
HOUSING UNITS BY CONTRACT RENT
Contract Rent Number Percent
COLLEGE STATION CITY
LESS
THAN $50
26
0.31
$50
TO
$99
188
2.24
$100
TO
$119
163
1.94
$120
TO
$139
266
3.17
$140
TO
$149
273
3.26
$150
TO
$159
93
1.11
$160
TO
$169
115
1.37
WO
TO
$199
734
8.75
$200
TO
$249
2,376
28.33
$250
TO
$299
2,139
25.50
$300
TO
$399
1,731
20.64
$400
TO
$499
147
1.75
$500
OR
MORE
27
0.32
NO CASH RENT
109
1.30
MEDIAN CASH RENT
$246
Source: 1980 U.S. Census, Texas State Data Center
provide student housing alternatives. The supply of such housing is very
limited in College Station. University -built housing is serving as the lower
cost units in place of older housing. This meets a need in the market, but
also provides competitive prices.
Future housing costs will continue to increase as housing construction
declines and the demand grows. Low vacancy rates in 1980 all types and
tenure indicated that the housing demand was outstripping supply. The higher
vacancy rate in single-family units indicated a more normal situation and
that the demand continues to be for multi -family housing. The current demand
will not be known until construction is complete on units being developed now
and they are ready for occupancy.
Rapid Growth: The population and housing growth in College Station provides
an unpredictable and volatile housing market. Since previous growth and
housing construction is largely in response to University expansion, future
growth is subject to University decision-making. With two to three years of
lead time needed for the housing market, it is more likely that housing
(especially rental and multi -family) will miss the demand by either under- or
over -building. University decisions to build additional housing also
prevents the market from responding in a more rational manner.
Density of Development: Higher density housing brings more efficiency in
providing services but also maintenance problems (as mentioned above),
concentrated traffic, public safety problems, and larger impacts on the
environment. The design and placement of nigher density housing requires
more consideration to the details of traffic patterns, signage, and
59
landscaping. They present more difficult problems and more potential for
incorrect decisions. Future overall housing density is expected to decline
in College Station as the population composition shifts. However, individual
housing projects may be higher density. Single-family housing developments
with clustered units with net densities of four or more units per acre.
Housing Choices: The current housing supply offers two basic styles of
development, single-family detached and apartments. The duplex market is
substantially larger than comparably -sized cities and continues to expand as
a part of College Station housing. Often duplex developments are not
owner -occupied, or if they are, they tend to shift to primarily rental units
as they age. Other single-family attached housing styles such as townhouses,
are more likely to be owner -occupied and are designed as such. Uther
detacned housing options, such as zero lot line and patio homes, offer home
owner options with lower development costs. "Look-alike" provisions can also
be made for duplex, triplex, and four-plex housing to provide a single-family
appearance to a subdivision. All of these options are higher density than
the traditional single-family detached units.
Future housing, if allowed and promoted, will offer wider choices in type,
style, density, and ownership options. Whether or not a wider choice is
developed depends somewhat on actions by the City and local developers.
Housing Competition: College Station competes within a larger market,
including Bryan, areas outside of the City limits, and University housing.
With the current high demand, it is fortunate that other markets are
available to absorb regional growth. Some of the conditions generated by
this competition are mentioned above; higher rents, low vacancies, and
pressure for additional construction of multi -family units. If College
Station is to achieve some balance of development, the local housing market
must respond to those aspects of housing competition which promote a more
balanced condition. This may mean development incentives for single-family,
owner -occupied housing of various styles and types. Otferiny these incentives
may mean higher densities, sharing of development costs in beneficial manners
to the developer, and possible different standards for development.
Housing and Economic Growth: College Station's growth in the future will
likely consist of a broader economic base and a more diversified population.
Accompanying this growth is the need for an adequate housing supply. With
new and expanded employment opportunities, a range of housing costs is also
needed. If basic industries (even high technology) are attracted to the
area, they will require lower paid employes as well as higher paid
professionals. Companies moving to College Station will expect an existing
labor supply and/or adequate housing for all types of employees. The current
market lacks any slack to take up many new residents generated by new
industries entering the market. Fortunately, the building boom which has
accompanied growth provides a good supply of construction and development
expertise that can meet new growth demands. If there is a substantial lag in
construction, this expertise may disappear as builders and their crews find
other forms of employment.
Housing Market Potential: The primary housing market consists of students,
University -related residents and non -University related residents. Lack of
1980 U.S. Census data prevents good measurement of numbers of units in each
of these markets, but population figures suggest that about 60 percent of the
60
housing units are student occupied, 20 percent University -related, and 20
percent other residents. These markets are projected to change by the year
2000 to 40 percent student residents, 14 percent University -related
residents, and 46 percent other residents. New markets will come from
several sources. These include:
* Employment related moves to College Station
* University enrollment growth
* Central city attraction from surrounding areas
* Singles and unmarried persons
* Retirees
The projected growth of the City from employment related moves
includes industrial growth and related economic expansion. This market group
should require a broad range of housing types and costs with more than half
being single-family detached.
As economic growth occurs, employment will be available for those leaving
Texas A & M and they will be able to remain in College Station. This housing
market will include many small households, i.e. singles and childless
couples. Singles and childless couples have also become a more prominent
housing market. This group can often afford single-family housing but has
relatively small space needs. higner density and attached housing units are
usually developed to meet this market.
College Station contains a young population overall, but university cities
usually develop a substantial retirement population as the city grows. Provi-
ding for this housing market is substantially different in terms of style,
amenities and operation. By the year 2000, there should be sufficient demand
for this part of the market to be realized.
College Station may also attract persons from surrounding cities and outlying
areas. This population will have similar housing needs to the non -University
residents and require both single-family and multi -family types of housing.
In -migrants are usually younger and more affluent than the population group
they are leaving.
Market projections are contained in following sections of this report.
Income Levels and Housing Needs: The household income levels in the
Bryan -College Station SMSA have been increasing at an annual rate of about
8.5 percent over the past W years. College Station has increased by about
7.5 percent and Bryan by 8.5 percent annually. Texas has increased at an
even faster rate of 10.5 percent annually. However, College Station has a
higher household income than Texas or Bryan. The student population and its
growth has a leveling effect on household income with student income being
considerably below that of other population groups in the City. The median
income of non -University residents (including University related households)
has probably grown at a faster rate and higher level than the general
population of the SMSA or of Texas. This also indicates that student incomes
61
may not have kept pace with inflation and there is less money available to
purchase housing.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The housing supply over the next 20 years will change substantially for
College Station. To meet the needs of these housing types, development
standards are recommended against which development proposals can be measure
and/or controlled. The types of housing which will be part of the future
housing market include:
* Conventional single family detached
* Higher density, single-family detached
* Higher density attached housing
* Manufactured/modular housing
* Low-cost housing
* Student housing
In addition to providing development standards for various types of housing,
location criteria are needed to establish appropriate places for various
types of housing developments. These criteria are discussed following
housing development standards.
Conventional Single -Family Detached Housing: Single family detached
subdivision has become the typical style of development in most suburban
locations. Its design and layout evolved through standards produced by the
Federal Housing Administration from the late 1940's and 1950's. Curvilinear
street design, construction standards, grading standards, and other design
requirements replaced the gridiron system that characterized many older
communities. Development standards recommended here include dwelling size,
lot area, density, and location.
Requirements for large dwellings as the exclusive form of housing has been
questioned in U.S. Courts and in some cases have been outlawed. It is
recommended that dwelling sizes are based on some logical basis and that this
basis in some way relate to the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Minimum
dwelling sizes should be in accordance with public health requirements and
adjusted to fit family size. Other dwelling unit sizes should be adjusted to
fit the lot size. Larger lots may have larger homes than smaller lots.
Dwelling size may also relate to lot coverage and environmental
restrictions.
62
TABLE 19
City of College Station Texas
MINIMUM GROSS rL00R ARLA/SINGLE FAMILY UETACHEU DWELLING
Size of Unit Desirable Minimum
1 -Bedroom 700 square feet
2 -Bedroom 800 square feet
3 -Bedroom 1,100 square feet
4 -Bedroom 1,420 square feet
Each Additional Bedroom 320 square feet
These minimums are based on FederaThousing minimum or pu6Tic housing
Source: American Public Health Association Standards. Number of bedrooms is
used as the measure of nousehold size, rather than number of persons as set
forth in these standards.
Lot size can vary substantially depending upon the size of the unit, the des-
ign of the subdivision, and the environment. Minimum Lot areas recommended:
1 or 2 bedroom 5,000 sq.ft./lot .16 FAR 16% Max. Coverage
3 or more bedrooms 7,400 sq.ft./lot .24 FAR 22% Max. Coverage
63
L E G E N D
Very High Suitability
High Suitability
Normal Suitability 0
Low Suitability
PLATE 11
RESIDENTIAL
SUITABILITY
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Floor Area Ratio is the Gross Floor Area of the unit divided by the lot size.
Example: 2,000 sq.ft. house/6,600 sq. ft. lot = .30 floor area ratio (this
example is too large for the lot). A 1,800 sq.ft. house would be the maximum
size house for the minimum lot size (2 bedroom house). Maximum size for a 3
bedroom on the minimum lot is 1,776.
Maximum Impervious Surface is the percent of the lot which can be covered by
the house, accessory building, and paving (or other surfaces which don't
allow water to penetrate the soil).
Minimum lot size directly affects the
measured in this table as the gross
total number of dwelling units.
1 or 2 Bedroom
3 Bedrooms or More
density of development. Density is
residential land area divided by the
6.0 units per acre
5.3 units per acre
The single-family detached housing environment is the most "foot -loose" of
housing styles. It is generally not as constrained by transportation and
accessibility requirements. Environmental factors can affect the location
but are dependent on site-specific characteristics; steep slopes, high
shrink -swell soils, nigh erosion levels, etc. Location criteria recommended
include:
* Accessability of water and sewer services.
* Retail shopping within five minutes travel time.
* Local parks within walking distance.
* Separation from conflicting activities.
* Relative quiet during evening hours.
* Employment within 30 minutes commuting time.
Mid -Density, Single Family Detached: Several types of homes have emerged as
higher density, single-family units that are detached like the conventional
home, but are located on smaller lots. These include the lot -line (or zero
lot -line) house, the village nouse, and the patio home.
Zero Lot Line Housing is placed on one side of the lot, with no side yard.
The arrangement makes the side yard usable and requires less land than a
house centered on the lot. The front yard is substantially reduced as well.
Villa a Housing is a descendant of small lot housing found in small villages
in the Northeast. Housing is placed close to the street, maximizing the
backyard space. Alleys are used to minimize the impact of autos.
Patio Homes are separated by privacy walls which contain small yards or
patios. Layout of the yards amd housing is also sometimes attached or semi -
attached.
64
The size of these units is governed by the same development standards as for
conventional single family housing.
Lot size may vary for these types of housing units.
TABLE 20
City of College Station, Texas
MINIMUM LOT SIZE/MID-DENSITY HOUSING
4 or more
Type of Housing 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms Bedrooms
Zero Lot -Line
5,500
5,600
5,600
Village Housing
4,2OU
5,000
5,000
Patio Homes
2,700
3,300
4,100
Maximum Floor Area Ratios
.28
.30
.32
Maximum Impervious Surface
27%
29%
31%
urce: Lonsultan
Higner density housing is usually coupled with greater open -space and
landscaping requirements to soften the impact of buildings and paved
surfaces.
Net Density, the number of units per acre of residential land including only
streets, alleys and rights-of-way directly serving the residences, will range
from 7.3 to 8.6 units per acre. Gross Density, the number of units per acre
including all open space, landscaped areas, residential streets, and all
residential lands, will range from 5.1 to 6.1 units per acre.
Locations for these types of units are similar to the conventional single
family housing area. Additional location standards may include.
* Areas where vegetation and natural settings can be preserved with
clustered locations for mousing.
* Near but not necessarily on mayor thoroughfares.
* Adjacent to parks where part of the land may be used as public park
areas.
* Buffer zones for transition from single family detached to higher
density uses.
65
Higher Density Attached Housing: This is the widest range of housing types
including everything from duplexes to high rise apartments. Development
standards can vary widely. Types of mousing under this category include:
The duplex is a single-family unit attached on one wall. Space is saved by
eliminating two side yards.
Atrium Housing is housing is similar to patio housing but has an even smaller
yard (atrium). The house usually totally or partially surrounds the atrium.
Townhouses consist of several housing units attached side-by-side (also
called row houses). Both side yards are eliminated with small front yards
and larger rear yards sometimes separated with fences. One form of row
houses uses the garage as the point of attachment (semi-detach-
ed) and may resemble single-famiy detached housing.
Multiplex housing types often take on the appearance of a single-family unit,
but may contain three or more units. There are a variety of configurations;
row, corner units, back-to-back, etc.
Apartments are conventional multi -family housing. Outside access is shared
with common open space and private recreation facilities being somewhat
standard.
The size of units is governed by the same development standards as for
conventional single family -housing.
TABLE 21
City of Co l l eg�i on , Texas
MINIMUM LOT AREA/HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING
Lot Area Duplex Atrium Townhouse Multiplex Apts.
2 Bedrooms 3,200 2,050 2,000 1,700 1,650
3 Bedrooms 3,900 1,400 2,000 1,750 1,850
4 or more 4,400 2,900 2,600 2,150 2,050
Bedrooms
Max. Floor .32 .50 .56 .60 .64
Area Ratio
Max. Impervious 40% 65% 58% 56% b5%
Surface
Source: Consultant
L E G E N D
Very High Suitability
High Suitability
Normal Suitability
Low Suitability
PLATE 12
MULTI -FAMILY
SUITABILITY
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
These housing styles are intended for higher aensity development and are
usually accompanied with greater open space and landscaping requirements.
TABLE 22
City of College Station, Texas
MAXIMUM DENSITY/HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING
Density
Duplex
Atrium
own ouse-Multiplex
pts.
Net Density
14.3
17.6
19.8
21.5
31.2
Gross Density 10.01 12.4 14.0 16.0 24.0
Source: Consultant
Net density is the number of units per acre of residential land including
only the building site and required yard.
Gross density is the number of units per acre including all open space,
parking, streets, alleys and rights-of-way.
Sites for these types of housing are more sensitive to location conditions
and other development. "Look-alike" housing which approximates single-family
67
detached housing can be placed more easily near or adjacent to single-family
detached development. Multiplex and some townhouses development achieves
these results. Duplex, atrium, row -housing, and apartments require sites
that are somewhat buffered from conventional neighborhoods. Location
standards include:
* Near or adjacent to major arterials.
* Near or at major intersections.
* Within walking distance of convenience commercial areas or contained
on site as part of the development.
* Within walking distance of park facilities or contained on site.
* Located so as not to send traffic through lower density areas such as
single-family detached housing areas).
* Away from areas where drainage problems are sensitive to added run-
off.
* In locations associated with other complementary activity centers.
Manufactured/Modular Housing: Adequate controls exist in most cities for
mobile homes and mobile home parks. However, many are just facing the
introduction of permanent mobile homes (manufactured housing) and modular,
kit, or factory built conventional housing. Although much of this housing is
readily identifiable in appearance because of the standardization of sizes,
they are becoming less and less obvious in design and construction. Some
larger cities are now permitting mobile homes on foundations in conventional
subdivisions. This is not yet common practice, but with rising housing
costs, this will become an issue (if not already) in College Station.
It is recommended that single-family detached housing standards be applied if
and when manufactured subdivision or individual units are utilized.
Additional requirements are needed because of the nature of construction
techniques and past experience with design.
* Mobile homes should meet structural and building standards of the
Manufactured Housing Association.
* Off-street paved parking should be the same as conventional housing.
* Accessory buildings should be on foundations or slabs and meet other
requirements of the City.
* A special or specific use permit process should be utilized to insure
proper review and protection.
"Look alike" provisions should be created within City ordinances to help
assure that this type of nousing does not result in the creation of future
deteriorated areas. Examples of look-alike provisions include:
* The main body of the house should be rectangular
* The main roof should be pitched (specify pitch)
* The house should appear to face the street
* The exterior should look like wood or masonry.
* The main roof should be shingled (specify types of shingles)
* Within the subdivision, there should be some variety (specify) in
the types, layouts, and colors used
* There should be some continuity and similarity in size of units
(some sameness but not all the same)
As with multi -family housing, new housing styles introduced into a City
require consideration as to location and the impact on surrounding
development. Manufactured housing areas should be located so that it doesn't
disrupt existing development or preempt other development from taking place
in adjacent areas. Mobile home parks in outlying areas have, at times,
preempted other development because of the general market's view of mobile
homes, such as transitory housing, rapid depreciation of mobile home units,
impacts of storms on mobile homes, and inadequate maintenance in some mobile
home parks.
Low -Cost Housing: As mentioned, the absence of low-cost housing in the
future can serve as a deterrent for future development. It has been proposed
in some cities to provide incentives in local development ordinances for
low-cost housing. Examples of bonus provisions are as follows:
* Any unit subsidized by the federal, state or local government shall
earn a bonus of one additional awelling unit. (Bonuses can be used
to increase the density of a development up to a specified
maximum.)
* However, no development shall consist of more than 20 percent low
income subsidized units.
* Any unit to be offered for sale which is priced at no more than 2.5
times the current median income (as established by H.U.O.) shall earn
a bonus of 2 additional awelling units.
Lowered costs can also be achieved by allowing some flexibility in the design
of subdivisions and use of new materials. This approach allows the
developer/builder to demonstrate to the pity's satisfaction that the proposed
project will meet the intent, spirit and performance of all affected
ordinances. Other standards apply depending upon the type of development.
Student Housing: Three types of student nousing exist in College Station,
1) apartments built primarily for students in the market, (2) housing built
by Texas A&M for students only, and (3) housing converted for primary use by
students.
Student housing needs can differ substantially from a broader section of the
housing market. Household sizes are usually small with very young children
(if any). There are more cars per household, requiring more parking space.
Budgets are limited. Recreation demands are higher than the average
population group. Living spaces needs are often minimal. Furnishings are
usually.required. Transportation may be required. Travel is often a single
area of the City rather than several areas.
We]
No alternative development standards are suggested as part of this analysis,
but the considerations mentioned above can be utilized in decision-making on
planned unit development or other student housing issues.
FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
The following are projections and recommendations for future housing needs.
The number of units by general types of housing, the amount of land and
location critera are illustrated.
Even though population projections are made, the previous decade has shown
how drastically household size can change, thus, impacting the future supply
of needed housing units. Generally, one housing unit is needed for each
household. In 1970, when three or more persons per househould was common,
50,000 people would need about 15,000 to 17,000 housing units. Today with
household sizes between 2.0 and 3.0 per household, up to 25,000 housing units
may be needed. If College Station's 1980 household size continues to the
year 2000, an estimated 29,500 housing units wiII be needed (based on a mean
household size of 2.41 persons). However, it is expected that the household
size in College Station will increase as the student population becomes a
less prominent part of the population (and as housing units take on more
occupants to meet rising housing costs).
Tenure: To estimate the impact of Texas A&M enrollment on housing, rental
housing is used as a surrogate measure of student housing characteristics.
The following table indicates the number of occupied units by tenure and
number of persons per unit.
TABLE 23
City of College Station, Texas
NUMBER OF UNITS by TENURE, 1980
Number of Persons Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
One person
367
2,112
2,479
Two
887
3,923
4,810
Three
606
1,508
2,114
Four
685
765
1,450
Five
292
132
424
Six or more
129
82
211
source: 1980 U. S. Census
The average number of persons per unit for owner -occupied housing was 3.01 in
1980 and 2.02 persons for rental housing. In 198U, about 8,400 students
lived in group quarters (U.S. Census 1980). The following table projects
owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing for the year 2000.
70
TABLE 24
City of College Station, Texas
HOUSING PROJECTIONS FOR 2000 BY TENURE
Persons Units Units
In Group for for Total
Housing Group Quarters Renters Owners Units
Resident Student Pop.
Housing Units
Other Population
Housing Units
TOTAL
11,300 13,200
4,900
111" 11 �sr.T n
Source: Consultant Projections
Average Persons per housing unit = 2.74
0 13,200
7,700 12,600
Assuming current portion of students in group quarters.
Distribution of student renters and student owners is unknown.
Assuming non -student population is composed of 30 percent renters.
This would require a rate of construction of about 440 units of rental
housing per year for the next 20 years as compared with a current rate of
about 700 units (over the past 10 years). The owner -occupied types of units
would increase from the curren� rate of almost 200 per year to about 240 per
year.
Type of Units: Lie detailed mix of housing alternatives could not be
reasonably projected, although some tentative estimate is needed for land
planning purposes. The major housing types of interest are (1) single family
detached, (2) higher -density attached housing, and (3) apartment/multi-family
Using the above projections as a basis, several scenarios are proposed for
development mixes.
TABLE 25
City of College Station, Texas
PERCENT OF FUTURE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Single Higher Dens -
Family sity Attached
Housing Scenario Detached Housinq Apartments
Continuation of Current
100% of
Minimal
100% of
Pattern
Owner
Construction
Renter
Occupied
Occupied
Moderate Change in
80% of
20% of Owner
80% of
Housing Styles
Owner
20% of Renter
Renter
Occupied
Occupied
Strong Change in
60% of
40% of Owner
70% of
Housing Styles
Uwner
30% of Renter
Renter
Occupied
Occupied
urce: Lonsultant Estimates
71
Since there is no rational method for projecting changes in the mix of
housing, projected changes in the national market and logical extensions of
today's shifts in the housing market are used. By looking at the impact of
these three housing scenarios, some idea of the future housing market can be
envisoned.
TABLE 27
City of College Ration, Texas
TOTAL HOUSING PROJECTIONS FOR 2000 BY HOUSING STYLE
Single Higher Dens -
Family sity Attached
Housing Scenario Detached Housing Apartments
Continuation of Current
9,000
2,000
14,800
Pattern
acres
acres
acres
Moderate Change in
8,000
4,400
13,400
Housing Styles
acres
acres
acres
Strong Change in
7,000
6,300
12,500
Housing Styles
acres
acres
acres
Current Housing (1980)
4,195
1,546
7,214
Source: Consultant Estimates, 1980, U.S. Census
Land Area Requirements: Each of the housing types mentioned above can vary
in density, yielding different land acreage demands. The following
projections illustrate the amount of land that will be needed for the
different housing types.
TABLE 27
City of College Station, Texas
HOUSING PROJECTIONS FUR 2000 BY ACRES NEEDED
Moaerate Strong
Current Change Change
Type of Housing Pattern In Styles In Styles
Single -Family
1,000
80U
600
Detached
acres
acres
acres
Higher Density
50
330
560
Attached
acres
acres
acres
Apartments
465
380
325
acres
acres
acres
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
1,515
1,510
1,485
RESIDENTIAL LAND
acres
acres
acres
TOTAL 2000 RESIDENTIAL
3,346
3,341
3,316
LAND REQUIREMENTS
acres
acres
acres
Source:-- ConsuTtant Estimates
Recommended development standards for single family is 4.7 units per acre.
The recommended development standards for attached single family development
is 8.8 units per acre and apartments and other higher density residential
uses should not exceed 16.3 acres per acre.
72
Land Use
73
74
LAND USE PLANS
An evaluation of the arrangement and relationship of existing forms of land
usage, such as the relationship of residential areas to recreational areas,
transportation routes, and business and retail centers is necessary in order
to fully understand the physical composition of an urban area. This
evaluation, along with the projected population growth and environmental
considerations, will be the major determinants in projecting future land use
requirements and the arrangement of those uses.
Although land use patterns are often determined through man's right of free
choice, they are more often achieved through the perspective of economic
improvement. The analysis of population in this Plan shows the growth which
Burleson can expect over the next twenty years. Land uses should be located
so as to best serve the needs of the population while at the same time being
economical to develop and service municipal facilities such as utilities,
streets, schools, and parks.
Land uses can generally be divided into two basic categories - living areas
and working areas. Living areas which include residential uses and those
facilties such as schools, parks, and churches necessary for urban family
life should be designed to be safe, quiet, and leisurely while being
convenient and active. These areas should be protected from undesirable
traffic and incompatible land uses while providing necessary access and
services to the area residents.
Working areas entail a contrasting environment and require different planning
for their use. Commercial areas should oe located at high -access points,
provide ample parking and circulation, and be free from encroachment by
residential and industrial uses. Industrial areas should have convenient
access to all modes of transportation, providing the particular utility needs
of industries, with ample space for expansion.
EXISTING LAND USE
Before any planning for urban activities can be developed, a study must be
made of past and present uses of land in the area. This study is necessary
in order to establish trends in development, evaluate existing conditions and
relationships, determine present problems or deficiencies, and help to define
future needs Tor various types of land use.
As part of this planning process, the detailed land use survey of the
Burleson Planning Area was updated using available data, aerial photos, and
on -ground surveys. tach parcel of land was classified under several general
categories as to its present use. This information was tabulated by acreage
for the Planning Area, and an analysis of the existing use of the land was
developed in terms that could be related to other cities and to basic
planning criteria.
75
There are certain accepted Planning Standards used as a base for all studies.
As such they will be used here to analyze the adequacy of existing land use
and public facilities. The averagae urban area uses about 15 acres of land
for each 100 persons for all uses. This figure was based on studies of land
use in other geographical areas. The following criteria is the result of
this analysis.
TABLE 28
City of College Station, Texas
URBAN LAND USE CRITERIA
Land Use %Developed Acres Per
Area 100 Persons
Single Family
25.0
- 40.0%
4.00
- 8.00
Two Family
1.0
- 2.0%
.20
- .30
Multi -Family
1.0
- 4.0%
.25
- .50
Commercial
2.0
- 5.0%
.30
- .60
Schools & Parks
5.0
- 10.0%
1.00
- 2.00
Public & Semi -Public
4.0
- 8.0%
.50
- 1.00
Streets & Alleys
22.0
- 30.0%
3.00
- 5.00
Light Industrial
1.5
- 3.0%
.30 -
.40
Heavy Industrial
2.0
- 4.0%
.40 -
.70
Railroad R.O.W.
3.0 -
6.0%
.50 -
.90
TOTAL DEVtLOPEU
100%
10.45 -
19.40
Source: ConsuTtants, from studies o u er ci ies in lexas.
The City of College Station Comprehensive Development Plan was published in
1973. The population of the City was estimated at 22,000 at that time. This
population was used in the analysis of land use at that time. The land
use data developed during 1973 is shown on Table 29. For purposes of
comparison, this data has been adjusted from that shown in the previous plan
to reflect only land uses within the City limits.
A comparison of land use in 1973 with the latest updated information
indicates the manner in which the City has developed. The City limits has
expanded by over 1,000 acres or about 8 percent. This expansion is due
to annexations of developing areas to the east and south of the City.
Institutional uses within the City, which includes all University -owned
property, have remained essentially unchanged over this period. These areas
constitute the largest single use of land in the College Station area. While
institutional uses are recognized as a primary component of the City, they
have been excluded from the past and present analyses of land uses. Such
exclusion was done to allow closer comparisons of development in College
Station with other cities in the State of Texas.
'�` i\
o \
its sl�J Z \mss
iIWAS AVE
s
•E %ABS
�J
J
COLLEGE AV � � •'
\ pR
\ _J
�. F4. 2818
WELLBORN
i \
I
EXISTING
S NG
\ LAND USE
PLAIN
s t s� (� CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
77
L E G E
N D
Single -Family Residential
0
Multi -Family Residential
0
Commercial
Schools & Parks
.J Y
Other Public
Industrial
I
,\ I
S
l /
f—; F7
Plan n lrp 8 Y.n.q.m.nt Con.Wt.nt.
.J Y
it-loi
Pl.nnPlanning.r.lopm.nt Y.n.y.m.nl
i D
I
Fort Worth T....
i .
r
I
�I
EXISTING
LAND USE
PLAN
r CITY OF COLLEGE
77
WELLBORN
2000
STATION, TEXAS
PLATE 13
NORTH
N
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
r �
f—; F7
Plan n lrp 8 Y.n.q.m.nt Con.Wt.nt.
WAYNEW ASSOCIATES
it-loi
Pl.nnPlanning.r.lopm.nt Y.n.y.m.nl
i D
Fort Worth T....
TABLE 29
City of College Station, Texas
PAST LAND USE
CITY LIMITS, 1973
LAND USE
TOTAL
ACRES PER
PERCENT OF
CATEGORY
ACRES
100 PERSONS
DEVELOPED AREA
Single -Family
1,063.56
ac.
4.83
36.86%
Multi -Family
175.84
.80
6.09
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
1,239.40
ac.
5.63
42.95%
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
147.25
ac.
.67
5.10%
Public & Semi -Public
267.60
ac.
1.22
9.27%
Streets & Highways
1,221.90
5.55
42.35
TOTAL PUBLIC
1,489.50
ac.
6.77
51.62%
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
9.41
ac.
.04
.33%
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA
2,885.56
ac.
13.11
100%
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL
5,136.24
ac.
TOTAL LAND USE
8,021.80
ac.
TOTAL VACANT
TOTAL AREA
5,141.86 ac. Population - 1973
22,000
13,163.66 ac.
PERCENT DEVELOPED 60.9% PERCENT UNDEVELOPED 39.1%
Source: Comprehensive Development Plan, Pinnell -Anderson -Wilshire
and Associates, Inc., Dallas, Texas
ME
Since 1973, the City of College Station has increased its population by over
15,000 people, or about 70 percent. The developed area of the City, however,
has increased by less than 40 percent. This is due primarily to the large
increase in multi -family housing over the past few years. Single-family
residential areas have increased by only 192 acres or 21 percent while
multi -family uses increased by 366 acres or 208 percent. This is another
indication of the increasing density of development in the City in recent
years.
Existing land uses within the City and the Planning area are presented on
Tables 30 and 31. The following is a brief narrative analysis for each major
category of land use with a description of recent growth patterns.
Residential: This category includes all land uses for residential purposes
irregardless of the condition or occupancy of the structure but excludes
on -campus dormitories. Sub -categories include single-family, duplex,
fourplex, apartments, and mobile homes.
The land use analysis indicates that College Station has 1,831 acres of all
residential uses within the City. This is an increase of 592 acres or nearly
50 percent since 1973. As previously mentioned, the majority of residential
growth has been in multi -family uses including duplex, fourplex, and
apartments. Over 160 percent of the increase in residential uses has been in
multi -family uses.
Single-family uses since 1973 have declined both in terms of acres per 100
population and in percentage of total developed area in the City. In
comparison with the land use criteria developed from other cities,
single-family uses in College Station are well within the normal range of
percentage of developed area but are low in terms of acres per 100
population.
Multi -family uses have again shown a much different trend. In 1973, the
amounts of multi -family uses stood at the upper ends of the ranges found in
other cities, 6 percent of developed land and 0.8 acres per 100 persons. At
present, all multi -family uses account for 13.55 percent of developed land
and 1.45 acres per 100 persons. This is about double the area that would be
expected to be found in a City of this population.
The total amount of residential uses has increased as a percentage of total
developed area while declining in acres per 100 population. At present, all
residential uses are at the top of the percentage range expected to be found
but are quite low in terms of acres per 100 persons. This again testifies to
the increased density of development in recent years.
Commercial: Commercial uses include retail and services, office, and various
related commercial uses. Since 1973, College Station has added 230 acres of
commercial uses, a 157 percent increase. Most of the recent commercial
development has taken place along East University, Highway 3U, and South
Highway 6. The new regional mall at Highway 30 and the East Loop has been
included and accounts for a major part of this increase.
79
TABLE 30
City of College Station, Texas
EXISTING LAND USE - CITY LIMITS, 1981
LAND USE TOTAL ACRES PER PERCENT OF
CATEGORY ACRES 100 PERSONS DEVELOPED AREA
Single -Family
1,255.43
ac.
3.35
31.24%
Duplex
109.50
0.29
2.73
Fourplex
44.90
0.12
1.12
Apartments
387.43
1.03
9.64
Mobile Homes
33.91
0.09
0.84
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
1,831.17
ac.
4.88
45.57%
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
377.85
ac.
1.02
9.40%
Schools
99.78
ac.
0.27
2.48%
Parks & Recreation
311.58
0.83
7.75
Other Public
67.32
0.18
1.68
Streets & Highways
1,262.23
3.36
31.42
TOTAL PUBLIC
1,740.91
ac.
4.64
43.33%
Light Industry
50.10
ac.
0.13
1.25%
Railroad
18.03
0.05
0.45
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
68.13
ac.
0.18
1.70%
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA
4,018.06
ac.
10.71
100.00%
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL
3,845.25
ac.
TOTAL LAND USE
7,863.31
ac.
Population Within
City Limits - 1981
37,509
Vacant Land
3,780.77
ac.
Flood Plain
2,548.70
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED AREA
6,329.07
ac.
TOTAL AREA
14,192.38
ac.
PERCENT DEVELOPED - 55.4%
PERCENT
UNDEVELOPED - 44.6%
Source: Update by Consultants
80
TABLE 31
City of College Station, Texas
EXISTING LAND USE - PLANNING AREA, 1981
LAND USE
CATEGORY
TOTAL
ACRES
ACRES PER
100 PERSONS
PERCENT OF
DEVELOPED AREA
Single -Family
1,730.49 ac.
4.37
34.04%
Duplex
109.50
0.28
2.15
Fourplex
44.90
0.11
0.88
Apartments
387.43
0.98
7.62
Mobile Homes
53.01
0.13
1.04
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
2,325.33
ac.
5.87
45.73%
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
427.93
ac.
1.08
8.42%
Schools
99.78
ac.
0.25
1.96%
Parks & Recreation
311.58
0.79
6.13
Other Public
70.14
0.18
1.38
Streets & Highways
1,733.04
4.37
34.09
TOTAL PUBLIC
2,214.54
ac.
5.59
43.56%
Light Industry
80.40
ac.
0.20
1.58%
Railroad
36.05
0.09
0.71
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
116.45
ac.
0.29
2.29%
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA
5,084.25
ac.
12.83
100.00%
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL 3,845.25 ac.
Population Within
Planning Area - 1981
TOTAL LAND USE 8,929.50 ac. 39,612
Vacant Land 22,076.47 ac.
Flood Plain 6,143.33
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED AREA 28,219.80 ac.
TOTAL AREA
37,149.30 ac.
PERCENT DEVELOPED - 24.04%
Source: Update by Consultants
wo
PERCENT UNDEVELOPED - 75.96%
According to the land use criteria, College Station should devote
between two percent and five percent of its developed land to commercial
uses, or about .30-.60 acres per 100 persons. In 1973, the City was at the
upper end of these ranges. Increases in commercial uses over the past few
years have put these levels at about double what would be expected in a city
with College Station's present population.
There are several reasons for the large amount of commercial activiy in the
City. Several developments, such as Post Oak Mall, serve a market area
larger than College Station. The University students constitute a young
relatively affluent consumer group that spends more than normal populations.
In addition, the University attracts a great number of visitors requiring
higher than normal hotel/motel, restaurant, and similar development
Public and Semi -Public: This category includes all publicly -owned property
that is presently in use except University -owned property. This includes all
municipal and governmental offices and facilities, schools, parks, streets,
and highways. Semi-public uses such as churches, lodges, and clubs are also
included.
Over the past several years, public and semi-public uses in College Station
have increased by 251 acres, or aoout 17 percent. The greatest increase has
been in the amount of park land in the City. Schools and parks are presently
at the high end of the criteria range in terms of percentage of developed
area but are at the low end of the acres per 1U0 persons range.
Other public and semi-public uses are very low compared to both criteria.
There is only about 25 percent of the other public land that should
be expected in the City. This is probably due to the public facilities
classified as Institutional and to the governmental services which are
located in Bryan rather than College Station.
Streets and highways always account for a surprisingly high portion of the
developed area of a city. In 1973, however, the City of College Station
had an unusually large amount of land devoted to roads. This can be
accounted for by the large rights-of-way of the loops around the City.
Since that time, population growth has caught up with this use. At present,
streets are only slightly high as a percentage of the total developed area
and are well within the range of acres per 100 persons.
Industrial: This category of land use includes light industry (light
manufacturing, storage, repair), heavy industry (heavy manufacturing which
may cause potential danger or nuisance due to noise, odor, dust, or glare),
and railroads. In 1973, there was virtually no industry located in College
Station. While industrial development has increased in recent years, there
is only about 10 percent of the industry in College Station that would be
expected in a city of this size.
Developed Area: The total developed area is the sum of all the preceeding
categories. At present, College Station has 4,000 acres of developed urban
land within its city limits. This is an increase of 1,115 acres or nearly 40
percent since 1973. At that time, about 36 percent of the City (not
including the University -owned land) was developed. At present, 43 percent
of the area of the City is developed in urban uses.
The increased density of development can again be shown by the change in
developed area compared to population. Normally, a City the size of College
Station would have about 15 acres of total developed land per 100 population.
In 1973, the City as using 13.11 acres per 100 persons, but this has
decreased to 10.72 acres per 100 persons at present. If the City had
continued its growth sincd 1973 at the same density, it would have another
890 acres or 22 percent more developed land than presently found.
LAND USE DEMANDS
The amount of land that will oe necessary for various uses in the future will
be determined largely by market demand. Markets are defined by both income
levels and population. It has been shown that there will be a broad range of
incomes in College Station in the future, but income levels are expected to
rise. These ranges of incomes have already been taken into consideration in
the estimates of housing markets.
The size of the population will be the primary determinant in demands for
other uses in the future. By the year 2000, the population of College
Station is expected to increase by about 35,000 people to a total of 71,650.
Estimates of demand for future land uses nave been made on the basis of this
anticipated population growth.
It should be remembered that these figures do not necessarily represent
absolute demand but only estimates under typical conditions. Actual future
changes in income levels could appreciably affect these markets. These
estimates should, therefore, be taken as an order of magnitude guide to
insure a proper balance of land use to serve future needs.
The Housing Study has provided an analysis of housing needs in the future.
It is estimated that housing markets from the present until the year 2000
will demand about 4,805 single-family residences, 454 duplex and fourplex
units, 7,586 apartment units, and about 84 mobile homes. These are in
addition to existing units.
At normal densities, these new residences will require about 1,000 acres for
single-family residential, 50 acres for duplex and fourplex, 4b5 acres for
apartments, and 7 acres for mobile homes. This is a total of 1,522 acres of
new residential uses. Combined with existing residential land, this
represents about 3,840 acres of residential land in the future.
Demands for future commercial development have been analyzed in another
section of this report. It is estimated that in the future each person in
the market will support about 110 square feet of commercial building space.
This is estimated at 65 square feet of shopping (3.12 million square feet
total), 28 square feet of office space (2.0 million square feet total), and
17 square feet of hotels (1.2 million square feet total).
The ratio of 5.3 square feet of land for each one square foot of building is
used to include parking, landscaping, and building setbacks. This ratio
gives a total of about b90 acres of shopping, 200 acres of office uses, and
80 acres of hotel/motel. With present commercial uses, a total of 970 acres
of commercial land will be required in the future.
83
Tnn� r `fn
City of College Station, Texas
FUTURE LAND USE - PLANNING AREA, 2000
LAND USE
TOTAL
ACRES PER
PERCENT OF
CATEGORY
ACRES
100 PERSONS
DEVELOPED AREA
Single -Family
2,725
ac.
3.80
28.81%
Duplex
145
0.21
1.53
Fourplex
60
0.08
0.63
Apartments
850
1.19
8.99
Mobile Homes
60
0.08
0.63
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
3,840
ac.
5.36
40.59%
Retail
690
ac.
0.96
7.29%
Services & Offices
200
0.28
2.11
Hotel/Motel
80
0.11
0.85
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
970
ac.
1.35
10.25%
Schools
170
ac.
0.24
1.80%
Parks & Open Space
1,240
1.73
13.11
Other Public
130
0.18
1.37
Streets & Highway
2,610
3.64
27.59
TOTAL PUBLIC
4,150
ac.
5.79
43.87%
Light Industry
235
ac.
0.33
2.49°%
Heavy Industry
215
0.30
2.27
Railroad
50
0.07
0.53
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL 500 ac. 0.70 5.29%
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA 9,460 ac
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL 3,845 ac.
TOTAL LAND USE 13,305 ac.
Vacant Land 18,415 ac.
Flood Plain 5,430
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED AREA 23,845 ac.
TOTAL AREA 37,150 ac.
PERCENT DEVELOPED - 35.8%
Source: Projections by Consultants
84
13.20 100.00011,
Future Population Within
Planning Area - 2000
71,650
PERCENT UNDEVELOPED - 64.2%
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
PLATE 14
L E G E N D
Residential
0
Multi -Family
Commercial
Institutional
O
Industrial
Open Space
0
PLAN ALTERNATIVES
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
School land will be required at the rate of about 0.2 acres per 100 persons
to meet presently accepted standards. Existing land plus the 70 acres
required by the additional population in the future will provide about 170
acres of school land. Land will also be required for other public uses at
about 0.2 acres per 100 persons, or about 60 acres to meet the needs of the
added population. This, plus existing land, will provide about 130 acres of
other public and semi-public uses.
Developed park and recreation space will be required at the rate of about
0.75 acres per 100 persons, or about 27U acres. With existing parks this
will provide 537 acres of developed park lands. In order to meet recommended
standards for park lands, additional lands should be maintained as
undeveloped open space. The open spaces could include flood plains,
greenbelts, and other environmental areas. Acquisition of open space is
recommended at about one acre per 100 persons or about 710 acres. Total
parks and open space will, therefore, make up about 1,240 acres in the
future.
Streets will make up about 25 percent of the land that is developed in
the future. Future population growth will require an additional 877 acres of
land for streets, alleys, and highways.
Needs for future industrial uses have been analyzed in the Industrial
Development section of this report. Industrial uses have been based on
projected employment, anticipated industry types, and intensity of uses and
employees. It is estimated that by the year 2000, there will be about 6,100
industrial employees in the City. Industries are expected to be fairy
intensive with most industries providing 26-40 workers per acre. Light
industrial uses, including high technology and research activities, will
require about 235 acres of land in the future. Less intensive heavy
industrial uses, ranging from 12-26 workers per acre, will require about 215
acres of land.
It is anticipated that some additional land will be required in the future
for railroad spurs, switching areas, and related facilities. The
right-of-way of the existing Southern Pacific main line along Wellborn Road
plus these new requirements, will require about 50 acres of railroad in the
future.
These developed uses will require about 9,460 acres of land in the future, an
86 percent increase over the amount of land being used at present. In
addition to developed uses, it is estimated that markets for future growth
will demand that an additional 5-8 percent will be platted and in the process
of being developed but not yet actually used. This demand will require about
473-757 acres of platted but vacant land. Institutional uses, which include
all of the University owned land, is assumed to remain at 3,845 acres.
PLAN ALTERNATIVES
There are basically three alternatives for the future direction of growth for
the City of College Station. These alternatives each represent a direction
the City could take in expanding its urban area and controlling development.
Growth toward the west would be away from present development in the City.
Flood plains are limited to an area in close proximity of the Brazos River.
However, there is no sewer service into this portion of the City at this
time, and the addition of sewer service into the area would be a mayor
capital investment for the City. Another factor limiting growth in this
direction is Easterwood Airport and its corresponding noise and construction
limitations.
The major sewage facilities are presently located to the east of the State
Highway b Bypass. Growth toward the east would take optimum advantage of
these systems. Flooding in the area, along Carters Creek, would pose serious
problems for develoment. Most industry is presently located in this
direction, which could cause conflicts with future residential development.
The present development trend is toward the south along State Highway 6.
This trend will be strengthened by the planned development of an extensive
residential and industrial development south of the City. Growth toward the
south would require extensions of existing utility systems along with new
utility facilities. Southerly growth would tend to futher extend the traffic
congestion along Texas Avenue and State Highway 6.
Commercial
Of
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Commercial activity and development in College Station consists of retail
sales, services, offices, hotels, motels, and general commercial development.
Although commercial development is usually considered a secondary rather than
the basic part of the economy, much of the income spent on commercial
services is "imported" from outside of the region, University employees and
students. In the past, the City has not been the commercial center of the
region. Recent growth is turning this role around.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
Most of the establishments and commercial space in College Station is devoted
to retail sales. There are about 250 retail establishments and 1.6 million
square feet of retail space (not including the new mall which will add
another 1.0 million square feet). This is over two-thirds of the total
establishments and 60 percent of all commercial building space.
Hotels and motels comprise the second largest category of commercial space
with almost 50,000 square feet in 11 hotel/motels. These establishments are
important to the local economy in terms of the property tax base, the
services they provide, and the hotel/motel tax (currently about $255,000 per
year). Visitors also provide additional revenue from sales to College
Station which provides additional sales tax revenue for the City.
Services and offices overlap considerably since many services (legal and
other professional services) are provided rrom offices. Likewise, financial
services, insurance and real estate are provided from offices rather than
retail -types of establishments. These three areas comprise the remaining
630,000 square feet of commerial space. The following table shows the mumber
of establishments and space in College Station. This table does not include
the mall since it was not open at the time of the survey.
TABLE 33
City of College Station, Texas
TOTAL COMMERCIAL SPACE, 1982
Commercial No. o quare Percent
Category Establishments Feet of Space
Retail
252
1,582,05U
59.2%
Hotel/Motel
11
456,150
17.1
Services
6U
211,600
7.9
Office
27
220,825
8.3
Finance, Ins., meal Estate
25
199,900
7.5
TOTAL
375
2,670,525
100.0%
Source: Survey by Consultants
91
Retail space, as mentioned, is an important aspect of College Station's
economy. It contributes $1.5 million to City tax revenues and about
one-fourth of the City's property tax. The following table shows the number
of establishments and size of various retail groups:
TABLE 34
City of Col egl e ation, Texas
RETAIL SPACE, 1982
Total Retail 252 1,582,050 100.0%
Source: Survey by Consultants
The largest retail group is miscellaneous retail with 77 establishments and
26.8 percent of the total retail space. The next largest group is eating and
drinKing establishments with 19.7 percent of all retail space. The opening
of the mall will greatly increase the amount of general merchandise space and
its importance to the local economy. Apparel, miscellaneous retail and
eating/ drinking places will also be increased.
Commercial acreage in College Station, including the mall, utilizes 377.65
acres. This is almost 10 percent of developed land which is a considerably
larger percentage than found in other Texas cities. College Station has
unique characteristics which explain the large percentage of commercial land.
First is the relatively high density of residential development. Second, the
University population is younger and more consumer -oriented. Third, much of
the recent commercial development draws from a larger retail market than just
College Station. Over the past decade there has been about $43 million in
commercial construction in College Station. The last few years have been
consistently more than the average over the last decade in terms of
construction value.
No. of
Square
Percent
Retail Group
Establishments
Feet
of Space
Building Materials
9
148,475
9.4%
General Merchandise
6
278,800
17.6
Food Stores
20
154,300
9.8
Auto Parts & Service
33
90,400
5.7
Apparel
20
76,250
4.8
Furniture
6
61,800
3.9
Eating/Drinking
72
312,100
19.7
Drug Store
3
18,200
1.2
Liquor
6
18,150
1.1
Misc. Retail
77
1,582,050
26.8
Total Retail 252 1,582,050 100.0%
Source: Survey by Consultants
The largest retail group is miscellaneous retail with 77 establishments and
26.8 percent of the total retail space. The next largest group is eating and
drinKing establishments with 19.7 percent of all retail space. The opening
of the mall will greatly increase the amount of general merchandise space and
its importance to the local economy. Apparel, miscellaneous retail and
eating/ drinking places will also be increased.
Commercial acreage in College Station, including the mall, utilizes 377.65
acres. This is almost 10 percent of developed land which is a considerably
larger percentage than found in other Texas cities. College Station has
unique characteristics which explain the large percentage of commercial land.
First is the relatively high density of residential development. Second, the
University population is younger and more consumer -oriented. Third, much of
the recent commercial development draws from a larger retail market than just
College Station. Over the past decade there has been about $43 million in
commercial construction in College Station. The last few years have been
consistently more than the average over the last decade in terms of
construction value.
TABLE 35
City of College Station, Texas
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, 1971 - 1980
Year Number of Permits Value
1971
21
$ 863,434
1972
62
2,079,220
1973
87
7,100,637
1974
78
2,321,316
1975
75
1,972,874
1976
101
2,808,315
1977
121
4,655,365
1978
13U
7,584,960
1979
130
5,118,647
1980
121
8,394,531
1981
284
23,260,835
1982 (thru April)
172
11,9bO,304
Source: City of College Station
Commercial Analysis: The various types of commercial activity are examined
using different approaches to estimate future needs and impacts. Retail
sales and space needs are calculated from historical trends. Services and
offices are projected based on employment data. Hotel and motel needs are
difficult to project, although it can be presumed that as Texas A&M expands
and the local economy diversifies, the demand for hotel/motel space will
increase. Other commercial space needs generally follow growth of the local
economy. As mentioned previously in this report, there is no method of
accounting for movement to or from College Station by a major employer.
Retail Analysis: Several sources of data were examined to determine current
eves of activity, changes over time, and comparisons with other retail
markets. In 1977 when the U.S. Census of Retail Trade was conducted, College
Station experiences reported sales of $69.4 million from 177 establishments.
The largest retail category in College Station was Food Stores with 27.5
percent of all sales. The next largest was eating and drinking
establishments with 14.0 percent of the sales. General merchandise
establishments followed with 12.2 percent. (Since these figures are
primarily estimates based on Brazos County figures, care should be taken in
using them.)
TABLE 36
City of College -Station, Texas
TOTAL RETAIL SALES, 1977
Retail
No. of
Sales
Percent
Group
Establishments
(000's)
of Space
Building Materials
8
$
b,
%
hardware, garden supply
General Merchandise
1
---
12.2
(dept. stores)
Food Stores
16
---
27.5a
Auto Dealers
13
$
4,053
5.8
Gas Stations
15
$
5,514
7.9
Apparel
12
$
2,423
3.5
Furniture
10
$
b22
9.0
Eating/Drinking
43
$
9,700
14.0
Drug Store
5
$
---
3.3a
Misc. Retail
51
$
6,245
9.0
TOTAL RETAIL 177 $69,440 100.0%
Source: U. S. Census of Retail Trade, Estimated from Brazos County
percentages.
Retail sales per capita in 1977 totaled $2,210 per person. This data is
reported by the establishments, not the consumer, so it is possible to
examine how well or poorly the local market is doing in competition with
other market areas. The largest category of expenditures was food stores
with $722 per person.
Since the same population base is used for all calculations, other data is
comparable to the total retail sales table. In comparing retail sales per
capita, College Station shows a substantially lower expenditure than either
Bryan or the State of Texas. In 1977, bryan experienced about twice the
retail sales per capita as College Station. Brazos County also experienced a
lower retail sales rate than the State; almost 25 percent less. Tne
following table contains retail sales expenditures in 1977 for the comparison
areas.
94
TABLE 37
City of College Station, Texas
RETAIL SALES PER CAPITA, 1977
Retail College
Group Station Bryan SMSA Texas
Building Materials
$ 171
$ 380
$ 253
$ 187
hardware, garden
supply
General Merchandise
---
530
482*
480
Food Stores
---
830
570
794
Auto Dealers
129
1,189
638
918
Gasoline
176
254
192
281
Furniture
20
214
114
167
Eating/Drinking
309
297
264
300
Drug Stores
---
101
107*
107
Misc. Retail
199
303
226
303
TOTAL
$2,210
$4,398
$3,025
$3,737
ource: U.S. Census of Retail rade
From this information, two hypotheses can be developed. First, College
Station has a lower per capita expenditure than comparison areas because the
persons in College Station spend less (lower income, different consumer
behavior). The second hypotheses is that some of the retail dollars from
College Station are being spent in other market areas, in bryan, in Waco, or
at hometowns of students. The first hypothesis is discounted because income
data shows that College Station's income is not lower than the State, but
considerably higher. In fact, Bryan's median income is lower than College
Station, yet there are more retail dollars spent in Bryan. The following
table shows that an estimated $9.67 million was lost in 1979 to competing
markets.
95
TABLE 38
City of College Station, Texas
RATIO OF EFFECTIVE BUYING INCUME, 1979
Market EBI Retail Sales Ratio
Southwest Market
Bryan
$165,348,744
321,648
$99,387,010
226,OU3
College Station 211,531 117,460
Estimated Leakage from College Station Retail = $9.67
(8.2%
retail
Source: Survey of Buying Power; Estimates by Consultants
.601
.703
.555
million
of 1979
sales)
The Southwest Market (includes all surrounding states) has a ratio of
Effective Buying Income (income minus taxes) and retail sales of .601. This
means that 60 cents of every dollar of buying income is spent on retail
sales. Since the market area is so large, it is unlikely that there is any
significant "leakage" of retail dollars out of the region. This provides a
good comparison ratio for examining local markets. In Bryan, the ratio in
1979 was .703 about 17 percent higher than the regional ratio. In College
Station, the ratio is .555. This indicates that some portion of the retail
market is leaving College Station retailers. If College Station increases
retail sales to the regional ratio, an additional $9.7 million would be spent
locally. If the ratio is increased to that currently experienced in Bryan,
an additional $31.2 million would be spent in College Station. This would be
an increase of 26.6 percent over current retail sales.
Since 1979, there has been considerable expansion of the retail
establishments in College Station. Only limited comparative data is
available to indicate shifts in retail sales. From 1977 to 1979, sales for
various retail groups changed substantially. Major shifts occurred in food
stores, eating and drinking establishments, general merchandise, automotive
sales, and drug store sales. While Bryan declined by about 2.5 percent,
College Station increased sales by 2.5 times.
TABLE 39
City of Co 1 egT- elation, Texas
PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES, 1977 - 1979
(in thousands of dollars)
Retail Group 1977 1979
Uoliege College
Bryan Station Bryan Station
Food Stores
$5,289
$1,310
$5,229
$3,324
Eating/Drinking
1,521
71
849
494
General Merchandise
707
--
652
490
Furniture
235
12
287
36
Automotive
894
22
1,492
215
Drug Store
169
64
94
556
TOTAL
$8,815
$1,479
$8,603
$5,115
Source: Census of RetailTrade
More recent data shows that retail sales have expanded rapidly for the
Bryan/College Station SMSA. From 1975 to 1980, retail sales increased by 133
percent. Adjusting these figures for inflation, retail sales showed a real
growth of 12 percent for the five year period. Strong growth trends were
evident in building materials, furniture, liquor, miscellaneous retail, and
eating/drinking establishments. Slower growth trends occurred in general
merchandise, auto dealers, and food stores to a limited extent.
TABLE 40
City of College Station, Texas
RETAIL SALES, 1975-1980, BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION SMSA
(in thousands of dollars)
Annual Growth
Retail Rate
Group 1975 1980 in 1975 Dollars
Building Materials
$ 17,551
$ 54,110
18%
hdwr, garden supply
General Merchandise
31,447
53,176
5%
(dept. stores)
Food Stores
48,345
102,837
10%
Auto Dealers
49,342
98,783
8%
Apparel
7,066
17,100
13%
Furniture
6,540
19,981
18%
Eating/Drinking
15,213
42,664
16%
Drug Store
3,022
6,632
10%
Liquor
2,972
9,035
18%
Misc. Retail
16,067
56,643
21%
TOTAL
$197,563
$46U,951
12%
Source: State Comptroller's Office
97
Services and Office Space: Services and office space account for 432,000
square teet 16.2 percent of commercial space in College Station. Services
include such commercial uses as laundries, beauty shops, personnel agencies,
computer services, rental services, auto repair, other repair shops, motion
pictures, recreation/ amusement services, health services, social -services,
and other professional services. General offices may include any of the
above services and were inventories as a separate category where buildings
functioned mostly as office buildings.
The services and the finance, insurance and real estate industries are
growing sectors in the National and State economies. These industries have
been growing at an annual rate of about 12 percent in brazos County since
1974, as measured by growth in personal income. In terms of employment, the
growth rate has been about 8 percent annually from 1974 through 1980. Higher
growth rates were experienced in mining, construction, transportation and
utilities, and retail trade. This indicates that the demand for office space
is probably lagging behind growth in other sectors. As a portion of total
employment, these two sectors remain about what they were in 1974. The
following table shows changes in employment since 1974.
Hotel/Motel Development: No generally accepted projection techniques are
available for ote and motel development without detailed survey work of
current demand and usage. Even with this information, projections can only
be made for very short range, project -oriented purposes. There are 11 hotels
and motels in College Station (as of the date of the field survey) with
almost onehalf million square feet of space (this includes primarily rooms
and lobby space, not restaurant facilities). There are two major hotel
projects underway at the time of this survey.
The rate of growth of the hotel/motel tax revenues is indicative of the
growth and potential for future expansion. From 1977 to 1981, the revenues
grew at a rate of 25 percent annually. This is a direct indicator (when
adjusted for inflation) of hotel/motel usage. In addition, space was added
to the inventory during this time which helps account for this rapid rate of
growth. It is likely that this strong demand has yet to be fully met, but
occupancy rates would need to be examined to determine if this is the case.
Other Commercial Space: The primary commercial space includes wholesaling
activities, construction companies, transportation businesses, contractors,
and miscellaneous other commercial activities. These activities comprise
only a small portion of the total commercial space and are included in other
appropriate categories, retail, services or offices.
College Station at one main time had a Central business District located
around College Avenue and University Drive adjacent to Texas A&M called
Northgate. It now functions more as an older, satellite business center
serving the University and surrounding residences. It is also a specialty
center in that it contains specialized retail and service establishments to
serve particular departments and schools within the University. The current
commercial system contains the following elements:
.•
* Satellite Centers
1. Old Centers: Eastgate & Northgate
2. Retail Centers
a. Culpepper & Redman Terrace on Texas Avenue with 90,000
and 160,000 square feet
b. Woodstone Highway 30 Center with 80,000 square feet.
c. Post Oak Mall at Highway 30 and the East Bypass
3. Specialty Centers
a. University Center/North side with 51,000 square feet
b. University Center/South side with 40,500 square feet
c. On -Campus shops
4. Magnet Centers
a. Texas Avenue Center with 160,000 square feet
b. K -Mart Center with 94,000 square feet
c. Fed -Mart Center with 50,000 square feet
d. Skaggs Center with 121,000 square feet.
5. Office/Employment Centers
a. Texas Avenue: 707 Center with 94,000 square feet
* Southwest Place
1. Highway -Oriented Centers
2. Development along Texas Avenue
* Convenience Centers
1. 10 independent centers with services areas of less than one
square mile
2. Convenience centers within all other commercial centers and
along Texas Avenue
The retail centers in College Station range in size from very small centers
to the regional mall. The specialty centers contain no magnet stores and are
about 50,000 square feet in size. They contain mixed uses including eating
and drinking establishments, financial services, and specialty retail. These
are the newest retailing concept in College Station. The magnet centers rely
on one major aiscount, grocery, or department store for generating traffic.
Only one office center is found in College Station at this time and it
contains both retail and office space, although offices comprise the bulk of
development. Highway oriented centers have not developed on the tast Bypass
or on other highway areas. Texas Avenue contains most of the uses that would
typically be found in a highway -oriented center. The convenience centers
consist mostly of a convenience food store, laundromat or cleaning centers,
beauty/barber shop, and an eating establishment.
M
Some of the imbalances and deficiencies in the network of commercial centers
will be solved by the regional mall. Much of the comparison shopping absent
from the market before will exist in this mall. The services areas of all
shopping in College Station are compact. The orientation to Texas Avenue
will continue to be a problem for those without immediate access to
commercial centers. All developed areas of the City are currently served by
adequate shopping facilities. Future development to the south and east will
create pressure for development at key locations along the East Bypass and in
the "golden triangle". Suitable locations will be needed for convenience
centers near or within future residential areas. These should be closely
linked with the transportation network.
Development Trends: The recent addition to the commercial network in the
City would indicate the possibliity of additional specialty center
development (small centers with no magnet stores) are mixed use development
(multi-family, offices, retail, convenience goods and services).
Additionally, there is a potential market for magnet centers with a large
building supply establishment as the anchor store. An entertainment center
with similar uses to Texas Avenue is another possiblity, given the dollars
spent in College Station and the past growth of this retail sector. The East
Bypass is the most obvious location for this type of center. There are
several other magnet center aevelopments that are not yet located in College
Station and these could occur as the market grows. Automobile sales are
another expansion area that will likely occur in College Station. Highway
locations and large sites are current practices in new car sales showrooms.
FUTURE COMMERCIAL MARKET
The following utilizes the analysis presented above to make projections for
future types and amounts of commercial development.
Retail: College Station is projected to become the dominant retail center
within Brazos County. First, the location of the new mall and the recent
construction of new centers makes these retail locations more attractive to
the consumer. Second, the presence of a concentrated population group around
the University campus provides an additional market not present in other
parts of the region. Finally, there is adequate land for expansion of
commercial activities away from Texas Avenue. These new locations, such as
around the Mall, will produce spin-off development that enhance the
competitive advantage of new commercial activity. It is also likely that
higher aensity housing will follow locations of retail centers, providing
nearby consumers.
Retail sales are expected to grow in constant collars at a rate slightly
higher than population growth. This should occur as the University
population becomes a smaller proportion of the population. The types of
industries expected to broaden the economic base should contribute to an
increasing median family income. Since 1972, household income has grown at a
rate of about 7.5 percent in College Station, which is a declining rate in
constant dollars. The prevalence of government employees and the growth in
student population accounts formost of this situation.
100
L E G E N D
Very High Suitability
High Suitability
Normal Suitability 0
Low Suitability
PLATE 15
COMMERCIAL
SUITABILITY
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By 2000 there will be a projected population of 71,000 and about 27,000
households. This will provide $675 million in total buying income for
College Station. Total retail sales will range from $375 million to $475
million (in 1975 dollars), depending upon the strength of College Station as
a retail center. It is expected that the amount will be about 40U million.
In current dollars, this amount of retail sales will require 4.7 million
square feet of retail space. This is an additional 3.1 million square feet
or an additional 155,900 square feet per year. In land area, this amount of
retail development will require another 275 to 350 acres, depending upon the
type of retail development.
Services and Office Space This sector of the commercial economy is projected
to grow within the StatTe of Texas at a higher rate during the next decade
(Texas 2000 Commission, Texas Past and Future, 1981). At the current rate of
growth, as measured by employment, total office demand would increase to 2.0
million square feet by the year 2000. At a rate of 9.0 percent annually, 2.4
million square feet would be needed. With these projected parameters of
growth, the total land are needed would range from 185 to 220 acres of office
development. This would add an additional 127 to 162 acres of new office
development.
Hotel/Motel: A conservative projection for this sector of commercial devel-
opment is the utilization of population growth as the indicator for total
demand. This yields 1.2 million square feet of hotel/motel facilities or an
additional 754,000 square feet. This would add an additional 4 or b large
facilities. This will require about 30 to 40 acres of additional sites.
101
TABLE 41
City of College Station, Texas
PROJECTED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
Commercial
1981
2000
Type
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Retail Development
1,582,050
295
4,700,000
650-725
Services & Office
632,325
58
2,000,000
185-220
Space
Hotel/Motel Uev.
456,150
25
1,200,000
75- 85
TOTAL
2,670,525
378
7,900,000
910-1030
Source: Consultant
Commercial Employment As a result of commercial development, employment will
be added in retail and wholesale trade, services, and hotel/motel facilities.
In addition, new construction will provide additional employment. Commercial
construction will average about $12 million to $16 million over the next 20
years (in 1982 dollars). This will provide 250 to 500 local construction
jobs.
Trade employment should increase by about 4,200 jobs based on an average of 1
employee for each 750 square feet of retail/commercial space. Office
employment usually has one employee for each 200 to 400 square feet. Office
workers will increase by about 4,600 employees, using the mid -point of one
employee for each 300 square feet. Hotel/motel development will add an
estimated 500 additional gobs, based on current employment rates by hotels in
Brazos County.
102
Industrial
103
104
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
College Station is an integral part of the regional economy, although the
individual characteristics of the City set it apart from the region; and to
some degree, determine the region's future. The following describes College
Station in terms of its regional interrelationships, natural resources,
transportation, and labor. College Station can be viewed from several market
settings and various region sizes. Within 200 miles are the major cities of
Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Shreveport and others. The
Southwest market includes Arkansas, Louisana, New Mexico, OKlahoma, and
Texas. This market has expanded more rapidly than the rest of the nation.
In Brazos County (the Bryan/College Station SMSA), there are 28,000
households and a buying power of over $600 million. College Station serves
primarily as an educational, service, and residential center for the region,
with a growing trade economy. It has not served as an industrial center,
with relatively little in the way of basic employment.
In relation to the State of Texas, College Station is a major university site
with more resources for research and development activities than any other
university in the State system. More recently, mining activities have
expanded rapidly and have affected the local and regional economy.
The immediate market for College Station includes the 11 surrounding
counties. This area contains about 250,000 persons with buying power of over
$1.5 billion. All of these areas are within about 50 miles of College
Station. The obvious comparison and competition for this market is between
Bryan and College Station. Current growth in population and retail sales is
favoring College Station.
The Central Texas Market is within 100 miles of College Station and includes
the Cities of Waco, Temple, Austin, and Houston. The effective buying power
is over $35 billion. (NOTE: The above market descriptions are adapted from
the Bryan -College Station Chamber of Commerce reports.)
NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources in the region include minerals, agriculture, oil, natural
gas, climate, soil, topography, and geology.
Minerals: Mineral production had not played a major role in the economy of
the ee rr gion until 1978. The value of crude oil and natural gas production
in Brazos County has increased from about $900,000 in 1974 to almost $75
million in 1980.
Agriculture: Agriculture has declined substantially as part of the local
economy with lower cash receipts from farms and ranches, decreased cattle and
hog production, and reduction in the number of acres harvested. Products
include cotton, sorghums, and soybeans.
105
Climate: Because of the proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, the climate is
predominantly maritime. The warm, moist air is felt strongly in spring and
summer with autumn and winter being influenced by air masses from the north.
Summers are quite warm with mild winters. Humidity is generally fairly high
because of the maritime influence.
Soils and Topography: Brazos County topography is defined by the two rivers
that border it, the Brazos on the west and the Navasota on the east. The
County is divided into two watersheds. The general slope is from the
northwest to the southeast. The elevation of the uplands are 300 to 400 feet
with the river bottoms from 200 to 300 feet.
Two general soil groups are found in the county; upland soils and bottomland
soils. Three-fourths of the County contains upland soils which are derived
from underlying sedimentary deposits. The upland soils are fine, sandy and
clay loams. The upland soils are underlain by impervious, plastic, gray and
yellow subsoils.
The bottomland and terrace soils are alluvial deposits. They occupy
relatively narrow areas conforming to the direction of the rivers and large
creeks. The soils are of clay and fine sandy loam. They are generally
reddish in color, but vary from light reddish brown to dark chocolate red.
The College Station area consists of mostly Tabor-Lufkin Soils. These soils
are pale brown acid sandy loam to loamy surface, 8 to 15 inches thick. They
overlay brownish yellow or yellowish brown very fine and very plastic blocky
acid clay. The surface soil is crusty and tight when dry. Lufkin soil is
grayish brown soil which is very firm and very plastic blocky to massive acid
clay. The soil is neutral below about 40 inches.
Geology: Two major yeological formations exist in Brazos County; the Yegua
Group and the Jackson Group. Both are basal sandstones, with the Jackson
group overlying the Yegua group.
TRANSPORTATION
The transportation system in the region consists of highways, air service,
roads, bus service, and motor freight. Mayor Highways include State Highway
6, . Highway 190, State Highway 21, and East Bypass (State Highway 6 Loop),
the Bypass (FM 2818), and State Highway 30.
Air service is available at Easterwood Airport located two miles west of
College Station. It is owned and operated by Texas A&M. There are three
5,000-foot paved, all-weather runways. Two of the runways are equipped with
approach lighting systems. Facilities include FAA control tower, FAA radio
communication and Flight Service Station, and an Omni range ILS Navigation
aid. Commercial flights are available to Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth; with
five flights to Houston daily and nine flights to D/FW (as of 4/1/81) on Rio
Airways. Several air freight services are also available at Easterwood.
106
The area is served by two major railroads; the Missouri -Pacific and the
Southern Pacific. The Santa Fe operates a main line in the southern portion
of Brazos County. The Missouri -Pacific makes regular stops three days a week
on southbound trains originating in Waco. Most other trains on tnis route
have no regular stops in this area. The Southern Pacific lines service
Bryan -College Station with a route which originates in Houston and makes
connections at Hearne north of the area. This route is reversed every other
day.
Bus service is provided by five buses including Arrow Coach Bus Lines and
Greyhound. There is a terminal in both College Station (on Texas Avenue) and
in downtown Bryan. Transportation Enterprises, Inc. is an extensive bus
service that provides subscription services to and from various points within
the region. It primarily services the Texas A&M campus.
Motor freight services are provided by six common carriers. They ship
parcels to all points outside of Texas with no shipments within Texas.
LABOR
The labor market is described in two parts; the primary labor market within
Brazos County and the secondary market from adjoining counties. The primary
labor market contained 41,390 persons in 1980 with about 3.5 percent
unemployment. The primary and secondary labor markets contain 71,502 persons
with about 60 percent in Brazos County. The following table shows the basic
characteristics of the labor force in Brazos County for 1980.
TABLE 42
Bryan -College Station SMSA
LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS DATA
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE, 1980
Labor Percent
Category Force Employment Unemployment Unemployed
IUIAL 41,390 39,390 1,460 35
Male
24,865
24,201
664
2.7%
Female
16,525
15,729
796
4.8%
TOTAL MINORITY
8,101
7,600
501
6.2%
Black
4,704
4,293
411
8.7%
Spanish Amer.
3,224
3,156
68
2.1%
Other Min.
173
151
22
12.7%
Source: Texas Employment Commission, Bryan, Texas.
107
Labor force participation in College Station, as in other parts of the
nation, has increased over the past two decades. In 1960, 31.7 percent of
the population were included in the labor torce. This grew to 35.9 percent
in 1970, and an estimated 44.3 percent in 1980. This has happened as more
females entered the labor force. Over half of the females over 15 years of
age are now in the labor force in the United States, as compared with less
than 40 percent 20 years ago.
The principal industry employing persons in College Station is government.
This category includes University employees along with local, Federal and
other State employees. The following table subtracts out government
employees and considers the balance of the labor force and the types of
indusries that employ them.
TABLE 43
Bryan/Col el-ge ation SMSA
PERCENT OF EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, DECEMBER 1980
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation/Com-
munication/Utilities
Trade
Finance, Ins., Real Estate
Services & Miscellaneous
Government (not included
in percentages)
TOTAL
Comparable College
Other SMSA's Station
in Texas SMSA Texas
2.7%
2.2%
5.0%
7.0
8.9
8.6
29.5
11.7
21.4
6.3
6.7
7.4
28.0
31.7
29.6
5.4
5.3
7.0
21.0
19.9
20.9
(42.4) (17.3)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Texas Employment Commission
Government was not included in the percentages to consider non -university
employment in comparison with other cities. Comparison SMSA's include
Killeen -Temple, Longview -Marshall, Sherman -Denison, Tyler, ano Waco.
In the College Station SMSA, Trade and Services dominate employment. This
illustrates that government employment functions as a basic industry by
importing dollars to support services and trade. In comparison with similar
sized SMSA's in Texas, College Sation has a stronger employment base in the
categories shown in Table 44.
108
TABLE 44
Bryan/College tation SMSA
COMPARISON OF BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION SMSA
WITH SIMILAR SIZED SMSA's IN TEXAS
Stronger Employment Base Weaker Employment Base
Industry and Location Quotient Industry and Location Quotient
Construction 1.27 Manufacturing 0.40
Trade 1.13 Mining 0.81
Transportation 1.16
Com., Utilities
Source: Texas Employment Commission
Location Quotient is the ratio of the Bryan -College Station SMSA percentage
and other SMSA's percent of employment by industry. The larger the number,
the more "exporting" of goods or services that is taking place. Smaller
number, less than 1.0 indicate importing of goods and services.
Comparison with State-wide employment indicates similar findings, with the
exception of Transportation, Communication, and Utilities which has a
location quotient of .90 when compared with Texas. This only indicates that
urban places have more importance in this particular industry.
The. secondary labor market includes persons from Burleson, Grimes, Madison,
Robertson, and Washington Counties. The total labor force in January 1981
was 29,050 persons with 1,033 (3.7 percent) unemployed. Unemployment has
remained at this level during the past five years with 12 percent increase in
the total labor force from 1976 to 1980.
Several sources of new labor particpants will oe needed for future economic
growth. These include:
* New entrants into the labor force.
* Commuters from surrounding areas.
* Undeveloped potential workers.
New entrants to the labor force will come as the population increases.
Population growth and economic expansion generally go hand in hand. A ,fob
added to the local economy in basic industries will usually have a multiplier
effect on the rest of the local economy. A rule -of -thumb often used is that
each basic industry fob will produce 1.5 to 2.0 jobs in service industries.
Studies of the impact of universities on the towns in which they are located
have shown that each University job acts to produce from 1.4 to 2.2 fobs in
the rest of the community.
109
Basic industries, however, should not be looked upon as strictly heavy
industries with strength in manufacturing. The concept of basic industry
includes any economic activity that imports dollars. Tourism, government
employment, universities, national headquarters, and any other business with
concerns tha extend beyond the borders of the City are importing money. As a
market center, even people coming from surrounding cities to shop for food
and clothing are importing dollars to the College Station economy. The new
regional mall will import dollars from surrounding communities.
The following analysis reviews the types of industries, employment, land use,
and problems with existing industrial development.
Existing Industries: College Station currently has only 50 acres of
industrial development. The Brazos County Industrial Foundation has a
400 -acre industrial park near the western boundary of the City of Bryan and
the College Station Industrial Development Foundation has been formed to
serve as the industrial development arm of College Station.
Most of the recent industrial development in College Station has taken place
in the Eastern part of the City, primarily along the East Loop(Highway 6).
However, an industrial park has been developed near Wellborn Road in the
Southern part of the City. Recently, the City of College Station and the
College Station Industrial Foundation announced plans to develop an 800 acre
industrial/technical park on Highway 6 South of the City.
111
TABLE 45
Bryan/College Station SMSA
MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE BRYAN/CULLEGE STATION SMSA
AS OF APRIL 1981
*STATE OF TEXAS
12,572
Government
(9,329 at TAMU)
ALENCO
850
Aluminum Building Products
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL
450
Health Services
BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
375
Wholesale Building Products
THE WESTERN COMPANY
350
Oil Field Service Company
* ARC, DIVISION OF KANEB, INC.
325
Mfg. Electronic Data Terminals
BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY
250
Mfg. Oil Well Tubing
BJ -HUGHES, INC.
250
Oil Well Services
* TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.
100-500
Mfg. Digital System Products
MOORE BUSINESS FORMS
1UO-250
Print. Business Forms
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY
150
Mfg. Rubber Healts, Soles
GOOSENECK TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.
145
Mfg. Trailers
NL ATLAS BRADFORD
Oil Field Pipe Threading
145
BRYAN HOSPITAL
135
Health Services
NOWSCO
120
Oil Field Service
SCHNADIG CORPORATION 115
Mfg. Furniture
TRAILITE, INC. 100
Mfg. Trailer & Truck Equipment
* WESTINGHOUSE 250-499
Mfg. Defense Electronics
Business located in College Station.
Source: Center for Strategic Technology, Texas A&M.
Many of these mayor industries are new arrivals to College Station; Texas
Instruments, Westinghouse and ARC. All of the large employers in College
Station in the private sector are high technology industries. This may have
occurred through purposeful marketing of College Station or it may have been
the logical recognition of College Station as the type of city appropriate
for high technology industries.
112
Moderate-size manufacturing operations in College Station with less than 100
employees include the following types;
TABLE 46
City of College Station, Texas
MODERATE SIZE MANUFACTURERS: COLLEGE STATION
Type of Industry Number of Employees
Sheet metal fabricator 50-80
Aggregate Suppler 25-49
Cabinet Construction 25-49
Water quality instruments & 40-50
other monitoring instruments
Source: Texas Directory of Manufacturers, Center for Strategic Technology,
1980.
In College Station and Bryan there are about 85 manufacturing firms employing
an estimated 5,000 persons. Of these, 13 firms are located in College
Station and 72 in Bryan. The average size of firms in College Station is
larger with almost 100 persons per firm. The average in Bryan is about half
this amount.
The types of manufacturing firms in College Station and Bryan are shown in
the following table. Using the location quotient to compare the two cities
with Texas reveals that manufacturing is more concentrated in non -durable
goods in the State than in this area. Major strengths in manufacturing
include fabricated metal, lumber and wood, paper, and leather products.
Relatively strong areas include furniture and fixtures, electrical machinery,
transportation equipment, and food and food products.
113
TABLE 47
Bryan/College Station SMSA
PERCENT OF MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
College Station
and Brvan Texas
DURABLE GOODS
Lumber and Wood Products
8.5%
3.3%
Furniture and Fixtures
2.7
1.6
Stone, Clay and Glass
2.8
4.2
Primary Metal Industries
---
4.6
Fabricated Metal
25.4
9.2
Machinery (except elect.)
2.2
15.1
Electrical Machinery
13.1
10.1
Transportation Equipment
10.1
8.0
Instruments & Related Mfg.
0.1
2.0
Miscellaneous
0.1
1.3
Total Durable Goods
66.8%
40.6%
NON -DURABLE GOODS
Food & Products
12.8%
9.2%
Textile Mill Products
---
0.5
Apparel
3.0
7.0
Paper
4.2
2.1
Printing/Publishing
4.9
6.0
Chemicals
4.3
7.7
Petroleum & Coal Products
0.5
4.2
Leather Products
3.5
0.8
Other Non -Durable Mfg.
---
3.0
Total Non -Durable
33.2%
59.4%
Source: Consultants
Location and Land Utilization: There are five areas in College Station
considered to be industrial; ) the industrial park east of the East Bypass,
(2) an industrial area west of wellborn Road and south of the Texas A&M
campus, (3) Agency Record Control on the East Bypass, (4) heavy
commercial/industrial development south of Texas Avenue, and (5) the Airport
with surrounding development. There are scattered small site industrial
uses, but these are very limited and may be supplanted by other activities
over time. Not including the airport, industrial development occupies only
50.1 acres, and is light industrial, non-polluting types of industries.
Future industrial development should be located so that the best sites are
provided which protect surrounding development. The following location
criteria are suggested for:
114
Highways
(a) Easy access to major arterials; but not necessarily facing onto
an arterial.
(b) Belt or loop highway locations.
(c) Far enough away from highway interchanges to prevent geneal
congestion and to allow efficient ingress and egress.
(d) Spaces of 1000 feet between railroads and highways are good
potential locations.
(e) Traffic arteries as boundaries between industrial and residential
uses.
Railroads:
(a) Near switching yards where maximum use of rail facilities is
needed.
(b) Avoidance of at -grade railroad crossings, where possible
(c) Two percent maximum grade for railroads in industrial areas.
(d) Well-designed spurs and leads to maximize efficiency.
Airports:
(a) Airport industries should be low bulk, high value where air
shipment is involved.
(b) Prohibition of industries that would interfere with airport
operations generally supplied to electronics industries.
(c) Limited use of industries which require large numbers or
concentrations of workers.
(d) Provision of bulk break and assembly points for transfer of goods
from trucks and airplanes.
Residential Areas:
(a) Within 30 minutes or less of employee living area.
Utilities:
(a) Water available in sufficient amounts and pressure for industrial
processes.
(b) Large employee plants may require relatively large quantities of
water for air conditioning.
(c) The capacity of trunk lines should be sufficient to carry
waste -water loads.
115
Power:
Site:
(d) Wet industries (using water for processing) require greater
industrial sewage capacity.
(e) Large employee plants will require high sewage capacities.
(f) Treatment plant should be designed to handle projected types of
waste from industries.
(a) Sufficient power for projected loads.
(a) The load bearing quality of the soil should be adequate with the
need for solid ground for industry with heavy equipment and high
load foundations.
(b) Rolling sites may be superior to flat land to provide adequate
drainage.
(c) The slope of the site should be under 5 percent for most
industrial applications.
The 1973 Comprehensive Plan proposed two areas for industrial development
with industry being limited to low impact industry; e.g. light industry.
Industry was suggested for peripheral, rather than central locations using
the loop highway system as the access to proposed sites. A site at the
airport and another major area near the intersection of the West Bypass and
University Drive were identified. These locations were identified because of
the air service advantages, highway transportation, rail service, proximity
to the University, and tneir being out of the direction of growth of the
City. Railroad relocation was mentioned as an alternative that would provide
better industrial sites and remove the railroad as a problem at its current
location.
Although it is difficult to ,judge if these locations will be suitable in the
future, the major employers that have located in Lollege Station have opted
for locations which were more peripheral to city growth than conceived in the
Plan. In addition, they have chosen more accessible locations near or on
major arteries. Desirable industrial site locations are identified on the
following map according to the Development Suitability Criteria and
considerations listed above.
116
TARGET INDUSTRIES
L E G E N D
Very High Suitability
High Suitability
Normal Suitability
Low Suitability
PLATE 16
INDUSTRIAL
SUITABILITY
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Three approaches were developed for identifying target industries and the
direction of industrial expansion that College Station can pursue. The basic
premise in these projections is that College Station, as a community goal,
needs to diversify its economic base. With the size of the University and
its impact, the implication is that the City will continue to grow in
population. The three approaches are:
* Expand industries with current strength in the local market; build
on strengths.
* Expand industries where there is a gap in the market; the economic
base theory would require that those industries which lagged behind
the larger economy receive attention.
* Balanced strategy of target industries.
Using current industry strengths, College Station would emphasize government
employment (as part of Texas A&M), construction, retail trade, and
transportation, communication and Utilities. It would not pursue
manufacturing or mining as major industry areas.
With the second approach, industrial growth would emphasize manufacturing and
mining; the weaker of the current economy. By economic base theory, these are
the areas where goods and services must be imported.
117
The third approach is recommended for several reasons. The College Station
economy has functioned basically as a service economy to the University.
This is not a criticism of the University since it will remain a mayor factor
in the City beyond the year 2000. For the service sector to grow, the
University must grow; as the City now tunctions. This does not mean that the
service sector shouldn't grow. There are features of that sector which can
benefit College Station. As one of the faster growing sectors of the U.S.
and State economy, it must be included as a factor in the local econo my.
The recommendation is (1) to diversify the economy by both taking advantage
of the University's impact on the economy and (2) providing broader based
employment supplemented with basic industries.
Another reason for emphasizing a balanced economic approach in College Sation
is the potential growth of current industries. Electronics manufacturing and
related industries provide a broad base of employment with projected
expansion into the next decade. This is a growth area for College Station
and Texas.
Looking more closely at manufacturing data, College Station could expand in
several areas; machinery production, instruments and related products,
apparel, printing and publishing, chemical manufacturing, petroleum and coal
products manufacturing, and miscellaneous durable and non -durable goods. Of
the ones mentioned above, the best that fit with College Station today
include:
* Instruments and Related Products - high technology
* Apparel - needs labor supply
* Printing and Publishing - local interests and the University
* Chemical and Petroleum Products - research and development; high
technology; strong part of local economy.
TEXAS 2000 studies have identified some areas with high growth potential in
Texas. hese include (1) finance, insurance and real estate, (2) electrical
machinery, and (3) other professional services. Both durable and non -durable
manufacturing show less potential for growth; although partnerships through
Mexico provide an avenue for expanded growth in this sector. Also, expansion
in defense expenditures will provide spin-off benefits for high technology
fields, communications, and defense product manufacturing. Research and
development is also emphasized as a potential growth area for Texas and
research and development parks are one of the measures suggested for
consideration by Texas.
New technology for the 80's suggests areas in which high technology and other
economic growth sectors can become involved. These include:
* Microelectronics
* Medicine, biotechnology, psychotherapy, transplantation
* Materials development, photosynthesis, supercold technology,
industrial and scientific instruments and robots
118
* Energy, solar, coal mining technology, power stations
* Defense technologies and electronic warfare
* Agricultural technologies, genetic selection, electrostatic
spraying, waste managment
* Airwaves and communications
* Construction
It isn't suggested that College Station should be or will be the leader in
any of these fields; but that each of these expanded technological areas
offer industry entry points into an expanded local economy. The recommended
emphasis on economic and industrial growth includes:
* High Technology
* Research and Development
* Service Sector Growth
There should be continuing growth of the retail sector as the population
expands and as the real income increases with the changing population mix.
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTIONS
The following materials present projections of future industrial land and
employment for College Station. Two projection techniques were incorporated
to yield an indication of industrial potential.
Population and Employment. The projected population of College Station for
the year 2000 is 71,000 persons with estimates ranging from 51,000 to
75,000. The upper level of growth, in the Consultant's view, is the most
likely to occur. Labor force participation in the United States has been
consistently and gradually increasing over the past fifty years. This same
phenomena has occurred in College Station, even with the differences in
population make-up. The projected participation rate in the labor market is
expected to be 41 percent by 2000. It is probable that this percentage will
be fairly constant since younger and older persons will continue to be out of
the labor force for the most part. Even major social shifts, such as female
entry into the labor force, have produced relatively small shifts in the
labor force participation rate.
This will yield a year 2000 labor force of 29,110. The suggested industrial
development strategy for College Station indicates that a greater portion of
the future labor force will be involved in manufacturing as a basic
industry. This includes high technology industries that are already a
growing part of the economy.
119
The recommended goal for manufacturing by the year 2000 is to have 21 percent
of the labor force in manufacturing. This goal is recommended because of the
relative importance of manufacturing in similar sized SMSA's and the
importance of manufacturing in the Texas economy. Because College Station
offers similar advantages and particular resources that don't exist
elsewhere, the goals should be feasible. It is suggested as a goal rather
than a projection.
because of specific steps are needed to reach the goal which might not occur
without concentrated efforts in attracting industries, providing adequate
sites for plant development, and other industrial development activities.
This goal yields an employment level of 6,113 laborer in manufacturing.
Industrial densities vary widely depending upon the type of industry. The
following table contains acreage projections based on various industrial
densities:
TABLE 48
City of Col egl a ation, Texas
INDUSTRIAL LAND NEEDS PROJECTED BY EMPLOYMENT
Workers Number of Acres
Industrial Per Needed by
Density Class Acre 2000 in College Station
Intensive 26 Z13b
Intermediate 12 509
Extensive 6 1,018
ource: Consultants
These projections are too wide to provide a useful figure for projection land
needs in the year 2000. To provide a more detailed framework, the land use
criteria for Texas cities were examined. These figures indicate that a city
of 71,000 persons will ordinarily experience a range of industrial
development, but hat this range falls within a much narrower band. It is
also likely that future industrial development will be of mixed densities,
although high technology and R&D firms are usually intensive. The following
table projects industrial land use by comparing land use criteria of Texas
cities:
120
TABLE 49
City of Colleg—motion, Texas
INDUSTRIAL LAND NEEDS PROJECTED BY LAND USE CRITERIA
Type Projected Acreage
of Acres Per Needs for the
Industry 100 Persons Year 2000
Light Industry 0.3 - 0.4 213 - 284
Heavy Industry 0.4 - 0.7 284 - 497
TOTAL 0.7 - 1.1 497 - 781
urce: consuitants
Using both projection techniques, it is likely that College Station will have
at least 400 acres of industrial land by the year 2000. The upper limit of
industrial land is projected to be 600 acres. These lower ranges are
suggested to reflect the higher intensity of development experience with high
technology and R&D industries. They generally provide employment for more
than 30 persons per acre.
Preliminary plans for the Industrial Foundation indicate that about 800 acres
of land will be available for industrial development. The industrial park
will be able to absorb part of the projected industrial acreage. The rate of
absorption and associated impact on College Station will depend upon the
success of efforts in attracting target industries. If a high rate of growth
is achieved by the development, both the population and land use pattern will
be affected. However, the Land Use Plan is phased so that the growth pattern
and land use relationships will exist, regardless of the success of the
industrial park. The industrial park has preliminary projections for more
industrial land than is needed during the planning period. It is conceivable
that the park will grow faster than these projections and, if so, the park
could become reality within the planning period. Five years from the date of
this plan, the City of College Station will know the impact of this project
and will be able to use this knowledge in updating the Comprehensive Plan.
The growth issue points out the need for annual review of the Plan and update
at least every five years.
121
122
Cost/Benefit
123
124
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
This section provides information on the cost and benefits, expressed in
economic terms, of development in College Station. The analysis includes the
following:
* Examination of existing fiscal impact models and cost/benefit studies.
* Identification of unit costs for development.
* Identification of revenues generated by development.
* Identification of secondary or multiplier effects of basic activities.
The purpose of the cost/benefit analysis is to provide an objective economic
measure when making decisions on new development, land use alternatives,
rezoning, and annexation.
FISCAL IMPACT MODELS
While fiscal impact analysis is complicated in its application, it is a
relatively simple concept. Any such analysis attempts to measure the
costs associated with development and weigh them against the benefits
(revenues) derived from such develoment. The difficulty arises in
identifying ana measuring the costs or benefits. Fortunately, there have
been ample applications to development that provide general guidance for
College Station.
In Texas, many cities have utilized cost/benefit and fiscal impact analysis
to examine development. Cities such as Killeen, Plano, Arlington, Bryan,
Fort Worth, Bellaire, and Grand Prairie have used such analysis in
development decision making. Most have applied this analysis to specific
projects or limited purposes rather than an on-going analytical tool. Most
have also used very direct measures of costs and benefits of particular
developments, rather than more complicated projections and assumptions.
Fiscal impact models are extensively described in the Fiscal Impact
Handbook by Burchell and Listokin. The calculations for College station
are based on applications of principles from this book. Six different
models of cost analysis include:
* Per Capita Multiplier
* Service Standards
* Proportional Valuation
* Case Study
* Comparable City
* Employment Anticipation
The Per Capital Multiplier method is most frequently used in Texas, case
studies and other applications throughout the country. The method applies
readily to residential growth. The Proportional Valuation, Case Study, and
Employment Anticipation methods are used for non-residential development.
125
All of the methods measure only direct impacts; new police needed for
additional population growth, new teachers for added students, etc. Direct
revenues include added property tax, added sales tax, and other direct
revenues. If new development produces other development through some
multiplier effect, this is not included in the analysis. The analysis
assumes that costs and revenues are current; as if the development were to
occur today. Inflation (or deflation), future conditions, and start-up costs
are not considered.
Some of the methods use average costing while others measure marginal costs.
The difference can be illustrated with a sewage treatment plant. Each
individual added to the population contributes an additional impact on the
sewage treatment plant. It can be assumed that each person will add an equal
cost. However, at some point a new plant will be needed. As this point is
approached, costs can escalate drastically. Measuring these costs "at the
margin" is sometimes required and some methods include this consideration.
The cost and review analysis methods include the following:
Per Capita Multiplier Method: This methods applies average municipal and
school cost per person or pupil.
Case Study Method: This method uses additional service demand projections
provided by municipal and school administrators. It allows for marginal
costs where there is excess or deficit capacities in the service systems.
Service Standard Method: This method uses service standards for City and
school employees as multipliers for the impact of future development. The
standards are provided by professional organizations and U.S. Census data.
Comparable City Method: This method compares the study city with comparable
cities' expenditures, assuming that as the study city grows, similar fiscal
impacts will occur. Tables of multipliers have been developed for
various governmental functions.
Proportional Valuation Method: This method is used for non-residential
development. It assigns a portion of municipal costs according to the
market value development.
Employment Anticipation Method: This method measures the cost for servicing
non-residential development by using employment as the measure of impact.
Again, multipliers have been developed for various governmental functions.
Calculating Revenues: Revenues are calculated the same way, regardless of
the costing procedures. Each source of revenue is measured in a different
manner. For example, population growth will produce some increase in
property tax revenue. Increases in population will increase Federal grants
geared to population size. Most of these calculations are based on
comparison with current conditions.
126
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Several models apply to College Station, depending upon the purpose of the
analysis. College Station is a growing city, at capacity for many services
with a slightly deficient capacity to rapid growth. In various situations,
the following models apply:
TABLE 50
City of Col egl�tation, Texas
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR VARIOUS UEVELOPMENT SITUATIONS
Development Situation Fiscal Impact Mode
* Residential Development
* Non-Residental
* Land Use Alternatives
* Rezoning
* Annexation
urce: Consultants
Per Capita
Multiplier Service Standard
Proportional Valuation
Employment Anticipation
Per Capita
Service Standards
Per Capita
Service Standards
Per Capita
Service Standards
The Per Capita Multiplier and the Proportional Valuation methods are the most
applicable to College Station. These methods are supplemented with the
Employment Anticipation method.
Methodology: The Per Capita Multiplier and Proportional Valuation require
various sets of data for calculations. The basic steps are shown in Table
51.
127
TABLE 51
City of College Station, Texas
STEPS IN APPLICATION OF IMPACT MODELS
Per Capita Multiplier Proportional Valuation
for Residential for Non -Residential
Step 1: Obtain Data
a. Total operating expenses
of yovernment
b. Current Population
c. Population Projections
Step 2: Categorize Local
Expenditures
a. General Government
b. Public Safety
c. Public Works
d. Health and Welfare
e. Recreation and Culture
Step 3: Calculate New Annual
Per Capita Costs
Step 4: Calculate Future Pop-
-ulation (using demographic
multipliers)
Step 5: Calculate Residentially
Induced Costs
Step 6: Calculate Revenues
Step 7: Compare Costs and Revenues
ource: Uonsultants
Step 1: Obtain Data
a. Real Property Data
b. Real Property Value
c. Number of tax Parcels
d. Market Value of Future Development
Step 2. Assign Non -Residen-
tial S7hare of Government Costs
Step 3: Project Future
Costs
Step 4: Assign Total Non
Residential Costs to Serv-
ices
Step 5: Calculate Revenues
Step 6: Compare Costs and Revenues
Cost Calculations: The total operating costs of the City of Lolleye Station
are budgeted for FY 81-82 at $21,950,527. The estimated population for 1982
is 41,200 persons, yielding a total per capita cost of $532.78. Divided into
general categories of local expenditures yields:
128
TABLE 52
City of College Station, Texas
1981 PER CAPITA DOST COMPARISONS
Department
Dollars
Per Capita
Comparisons*
* General Government
$
36.44
$ 31.23
* Public Safety 81.36 66.67
* Public Works 384.61 110.74
* Health and Welfare - -
* Recreation and Culture 30.37 23.81
TOTAL $532.78 $232.45
Minus Electrical Utilities $226.84
* Comparison: Cities with populations under 50,000, 1981 Municipal Finance
Survey, Turner, Collie & Branden, Inc.
urce: uonsuitants
College Station is higher in most categories of expenditures per
capita. Public works shows the greatest extreme when compared to
comparably sized cities. Even removing the electric utility, public
works account for about $119 per capita. This is attributed to rapid
population growth and the need to "catch up" in the provision of public
works.
Residential and Non -Residential Cost Factors The Proportional Valuation
methods allow for separating residential and non-residential costs. Using
this method, an estimated 28.38% of municipal expenditures are for
non-residential uses. Further analysis of this distribution indicates that
the method provides a good distribution of costs and does not over- or
under -represent non-residential costs. The municipal cost per acre of
developed non-residential land is estimated to be $14,556.
IDENTIFICATION OF REVENUES
Revenues for municipal services come from a variety of sources. The
1981-82 Budget projects the following revenues.
129
TABLE 53
City of College Station, Texas
MUNICIPAL REVENUES, 1981-1982
Source of Revenue
Amount
Property Tax
_
1,2 5,923
Franchise Tax
147,000
Sales Tax
1,55U,000
Revenue Sharing
222,513
Beverage Sales
54,000
Utility Contribution
1,647,247
Utility Transfer
1,072,287
Permits, Fees, Licenses
134,035
Fines, Forfeit, Penalities
420,000
Charges for Services
127,600
Interest
50,000
Misc.
329,718
Utilities
16,200,280
TOTAL $23,170,603
Source; Consultant
Per capita revenues and proportional valuation can be utilized to determine
what kinds of impacts are generated by development. These estimates
include:
TABLE 54
City of Col egg e motion, Texas
REVENUES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES: 1981
Source
Non-
Per
Per
of
Total
Residential
Housing
Square Foot
Revenue
Per Capita
Per Acre
Unit
of Building
Property Tax
$ 29.51
$ 806.92
$201.50
-
Sales Tax
37.62
4,102.00
121.70
$0.853
Other City
36.02
984.00
81.76
-
Revenues
Utilities
393.21
10,750.00
892.00
-
Source: Consultant
130
Thoroughfares
131
132
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
Traffic arteries are the structural elements that provide for the rapid,
safe, and efficient movement of the people and goods through the City.
Access is of primary importance to the economic development of a community.
Much of College Station's growth in recent years must be attributed to the
location of State Highway 6 linking the Cities of College Station and Bryan
with Houston and the remainder of the region.
The local street system provides the basic structural framework around which
the City is built. The street pattern determines to a considerable extent
the distribution of residences, shopping, schools, industries, and even lots
and individual buildings. Few of the physical facilities of the City are
quite as permanent as the streets. Once a street is opened, the utilities
installed, and buildings erected on abutting properties, any change in the
location or width is likely to be both difficult and expensive. Since 25 to
30 percent of the developed area of a City is normally devoted to streets,
proper planning for the development of these facilities is extremely
important.
The predominant form of transportation, today and for the foreseeable future,
is the automobile. Motor vehicle registrations in Texas over the past 25
years have increased by over 300 percent to some 10 million vehicles. There
are nearly 50,000 vehicles operating in the College Station/Bryan area. The
universal use of the automobile has given rise to a variety of problems.
Three major problems are accidents, the enormous cost of street construction
and maintenance, and congestion aue to breakdowns in the system. All of
these and other minor problems, can be minimized by a properly designed
street system.
Due to sheer volume, it nas become increasingly imperative to concentrate
traffic on a system of thoroughfares designed to relieve the pressure on
other minor local streets. Added safety results when traffic is concentrated
on a well-defined thoroughfare system. By minimizing vehicular movements on
local residential streets, the hazards to pedestrians and particularly
children are reduced. A thoroughfare system also allows the proper
development of traffic control devices to expedite traffic movement and
enhance safety.
The City cannot afford to construct every street to carry heavy through
traffic. But when such traffic is concentrated on thoroughfares designed to
accommdate heavy traffic, the wear and tear on other local streets will be
greatly reduced. Narrower, less expensive pavements on residential streets
should then be adequate for the traffic generated by those who live in the
immediate neighborhood.
In order to preserve desirable residential neighborhoods, it is necessary to
keep unrelated traffic off residential streets. Residential districts need
protection against the noise, danger, and fumes which may be generated by
heavy vehicular traffic. The development of undesirable conditions in
residential areas bordering thoroughfares may be minimized if the effects of
future traffic flow is anticipated in advance.
133
EXISTING STREETS
As a part of this planning process, a survey was made of the present
conditions of the streets in College Station. This survey was conducted only
within the City limits. Most roads in the Planning Area and outside the City
are unpaved County roads or State Highways. It was found that there are
about 598,230 linear feet or 113.30 miles of streets and alleys within the
City of College Station. There are about 55.30 more miles of road within the
Planning Area outside the City limits.
The majority of streets in College Station are asphalt paved with concrete
curb and gutter. Most of the streets in the area are in good condition, even
the asphalt streets in older sections of College Station. The City maintains
a program to resurface asphalt streets periodically. About 75 percent of all
streets in the City are in good condition, 20 percent in fair condition, and
only about b percent in poor condition.
A study was made of traffic controls along major streets in the City. There
are 13 intersections in the area with full controlled traffic signals.
Except along the State Highway 6 Bypass, there is only one separation in the
City. This is located where Wellborn Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad
crosses University Drive. There are several at -grade railroad crossings
within the Planning Area. These grade crossings often cause lengthy traffic
delays.
The following tables provide an analysis of the existing conditions of
thoroughfares and collector streets in the City. The first table indicates
the right-of-way width, pavement width, and condition of the riding surface.
The second table provides an analysis of the major problems found on
individual street sections. It will be noted that some of these problems
have been programmed for corrective action with funds under the 1981 Bond
Program.
THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS
The purpose of planning a street system is to ensure taster, safer, and more
convenient travel throughout the urban area. A clear understanding of the
functional relationships between various types of streets is essential. The
function of each street is the principle consideration in aetermininy its
location, alignment, grade, width, type of improvement, and relationship to
the entire system.
The greatest traffic volumes within the City are created by trips from
residential areas to places of employment and shopping and the transportation
of materials to and from business and industrial areas. The design of a
street system to handle this traffic depends on the volume, direction, and
distance over which the traffic must travel. The presently accepted
functional classification system which will be integrated into the
Thoroughfare Plan includes freeways, principal and minor arterials, and
collector and residential streets.
134
Ln
Ln
W
J
m
Q
N
m
X
O
F-
C
O
a-)
(n
O
m
v
r
O
U
4-
0
-)
i
;.I-
C) O
0-1=).0
U U 0.-
i ---i
O 0---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X X O ro
p
O O ro ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W C D LL.
Z
C3('DLL- LL- C'DC_7Cr3C3C'D CDC'LCJC.3C7CoC:3CJCDC3C'D
I I I I
O
-� i
U
O O .-0
O O ro O
(D ('.3 W (D
F -
Z
- - -
LLJ-
- N - - N - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
LI�Nd'
NCOCDNIOci•�IOCYct�'ID� IDIGIC �
CF) CDr-00
W
ct I N I LO Ln I Lf) N N UC") N C\1 N L(') N U') Ln Ll) N
M Lfi -::j- N
N N N
Q
C1
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C(--C)CDCDC:)CDC)CDC )OC)C)OU")OCDCDCD(--
- - - -
CDC)CDC
CO
N -z:J• CO -z:f (O Ln -:Zl- -:Zl- Co u") CO CO CV CO CD CO C; -;zt N CD
Ln 00 1.0 (o
r r r r r r r r N r r r M K:j• r r r r r r
i
i p
>•)
p +•) (n +-)
(n 3
• V) >) • N N (n
to Y
>) O -0 (U N 'O a••) -0 fO (n N
CU ro d
4-� O > • N >) = •r = d >) N ro
> c-
.- Q +-I ro co CU N >) N -0 ro (1
.N
Q >> 4-J 00
U C •r (U (n (1 Ln N C i C 07 N = C1 >)
m (n r
S... (n i rp > N >> r i i CV i i >> m
C (U (b
oo (U 0m:: Q ro 3 m () O> 0 4- CU >y m
i 4) 3 N
Lr) >+j-0 X O •'7 -C -0•r-0 (n7 (3) a•-)
:3 (A _C
r r Q) r W (U i +-) >) i-) r C r (U > 4-) N
-0 ro 4-J
Co)�--- i (n 3 0 =r =Dr3 0 i N ro
-CW =3Li
=) 4J N ro ro S +) O (L () +-) CO (U W
rn O
W 03 Or OF- W (n3 03 O S3
¢ O(n O
O 4-) +•) r •I-) O 4) +•) O
4-) 4-)
F-
O +-) O O 00 +) L O O O i 0 0 4)
O O
Z
•I-) i +) • U • 4-•) +-) p i-) 4-) • a-) • C +) a--)
+-) • 4-)
W
N C) -0 CU N 0 N
-0 i
+> > r = O > y
= , p
C7
Q3 'r •r O i-) Q CU +-) (C •1-) i-) W CU +) 4-.)-0 rO
CU +)
W
> O C > N CL •r Ln > C > C •r V) L" LZ
> C V) C
V)
i--: i C (U Q >) to i Q i N
¢
J U)U o •- 0) 3 m i >> O O i >) >, m
O >> E
N O N -0 ro (U N O (1) CU (n -0 N -0 CU () N
N -0 (31 N
M >• N r r ro i a-) > N CO r (0— > N > 4)
r4 r (n r
X i•) ro +) r r X i cn •r i X r X r •r i S- 'n
X r i r
N— i CV a) 0 O M ro C (U (U N CU CU C (U ro C)
N (D O O
L) CQ tUH1 W ZD -D -31-3 S -D
F -3-S
C=.
(:)
M >•) U) co
• 3 r
>> N (p
N
S
i 3 >)
3
(n
o z 3
V)
�c
W
J
(U S
J
G1 +•)
¢
v
¢
Q
O�4-) O
V) -P >
Z
CZ' N (U
•V)
N C r
W
Cl) (n i C
W
C (1) O m
F-
F-
>) o) i ro +) CV
F-
r 3 N
W
rY
(1) () N C O_ (n >
O -= i
W
¢
> r> i >� Q
<
U i•) (U U
Of
i t •- O CY] >>
C:3-0 r
F-
rt) O C CU N
O C CU
(n
C)
S U J r 4-3 U) rt3
G
J Cn < 3
D
r N i X
Z
Q
N (U (U Q)
r
F-
135
N
C
ro
4-3
N
C
0
U
()
S-
N
ro
X
Q)
C
O
4J
rt3
N
Q)
CJS
QJ
r -
O
U
4-
0
U
W
H
(n
Cn
W
LL.
S
C3
C
C
O
S
F-
05
Z
Cn
X
W
Z
O
f-
U U U U C.) U
U
�-+
X X X X X X -o
-o X-0 'O
p
W W W W W W O
O W O O
Z
I I II I I O
I
O 0 0
C
-0�-0�-0� CJ
(. CO C7
U
0 0 0 0 0 0
O
N N N +-3 V) O
0 0 0 0 0 0
O
C •r i ro C 3
CrDU' CDLD(rzC.3
C'3
I --
(1) N
O •r
Z
C
W
Q) C
r- i i
X:
I�00mmI�m mmr�CV
N
W
-I*-CVMM::TMMMCt'CYd•
¢
CA-
3
-
O O O C C O C
O O O C
C)
I\ CO Co 00 I� CD r�
<D I\ 00 00
3
Y
S.:C) C1
N N
p >
> >
¢ i-
• ¢ C ¢
N N
i J i
Y N Q)
p N 00 o C= C�
ro ro 3
O C)O r
C X S
a) i m 3 0 C
(a) +)
7 N CV '1c7 U O
>>F- O
i rO N C C N
i -0 O
QJ F- ro :-r. •r r C
i O C V)
J LL. 3 J
(L) i-) W
O
2: O
r +3 O O O O
• O +�
F-
ro 4-J +- +-J +-) O
0-04-)
Z
�:- 4-)
+-> >
W
-IC3 -
r- -0 S. -
M:
i
O (3.) -0 rO+
m ro--
CD
+-> > > O V) (3)
i O U
W
C¢r-- = >
p N=
V)
co i m ¢
i (3)
O (A >L +-r
C C) >, -N
CYC -0=5-C (a) m N
O t a) m
CV r-- i N > CV rO
N +> > CJS
�- O r- i X
C O i r -
i C) ro O ro • a
= i (O O
LL-:lr 32WF-'E::m2U
C)
03
>
W
i
¢
M:
(1) in X i
¢
-0 i O a -J p
+- L
Z
C C p 4- Ln
N4-)
ro rO +-) Y
O
F-
i E N ro 3 •r
C O
W
CD (3) (3) E O C
O E
W
r U O i •r
U +-)
cc�
O r- C) Cl- i E
ro S-
F--
F-
r O 7 C7 ro O
(3) rO
N
= 2 Z¢ F- O
C S M
U U U U U U U U U
X X X X X i X-0 i X X X -0 _0-0
W W W W W O W O O LLJ W W O O O
I I 1 I I O I O O I I I O O O
�
i�•� id�C'3d"O��C'JC�CO
0.- O 0.- O O O O
O (U O O ro O 000
(.r3LL- C'3Cr3LL- C7 CD co co
CY) Q) CF) CY) 00 r� n r\ cY m CT) CF) 00 m 00
MMMMNMCt:*-NMMMCV MCV
O C C O O O C C O O O C C C O
Cp CD CO Co Ln Ln r� C0 Gt 110 n r- cY d' zT
S- n Q1
i p Q) > i
p > r
>) Q) ¢ N m i
Q) N > N C71 p
»G r ¢ rO C) C
¢ CO >> N +� M- O i
N O i p > a) ro O m rO J +> >>
>) M i> X E "0 i. O X¢¢
>> i rO r0 •r (1) +-) C C.3 +-) C)
Y i C i S C F- i N W p a) N
a) o ro ns rO o a) rO
O i (n F- O O p W +J• r-0 O J X
+) C a--) O +) N tY > 4-) O
¢ QJ +-) i ¢ > a) Q) +-L • -0 i
> m r C>> L C C C)
C¢ i C07 O¢¢ fu cm rO S.-
ro
rO C r N +-j i 0 i>
O N a) 0 0 3 i N N N L C r3 -0 Q) ¢
U rO >> N U O Q) rO m ro (A r +)
C X i C =--o X X .a r 0— X (1)
r Q) O :3 •r C C (1) (3) (1) Q) Q) O (1)
JF -d M: ccc F-cn3 pJ
N N
Y Y
C O
i
p
+-3
� O S-
.- •r m +j O
J C
N r6
N N N +-3 V) O
O
(1) Q) r -
C •r i ro C 3
Y +)
C C d
C O U Q) -P O Q) +J
(1) N
O •r
H +-� C> C N r- C
C
U r- CO •r rO C CJI a)
Q) C
r- i i
W co i C r- O rO i
i rO
r6 •r rO
J 3L.LSa�Zm
�G Lnm¢Cl-
CD
U
136
N
4-j
C
r6
7
N
C
O
CU
C
•r
C
O
U
LC)
LO
W
J
m
Q
s
W
F•--
Cn
r
W
Q
iOLL-
ZD
O
O
S
C -D
Z
F—
N
X
W
Z
O
U
U U U U U U U
�.
X S- X X X
i X X X X X X i X i
p
W •r W W W
O W W W W W W •r W •r
Z
1 ro 1 1 I
I 1 I I I I � 1 r0
O
Z7 W ��
COL���'C7"C7�L�O W
U
O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
C) C'3 (D C'3
LD C3 (.3 CD C -D C.7 C3
F -
Z
X:
co r\ m m C3)
G1 CF) r\ r\ CF) CF) CY) CO r\ -z7
W
C V m (n C Y) Cl)
C V C 7�-zt Cl) Cl) m C V ct C V
Q
0-
3
- - - - -
0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
LP ko U') r� C0
n CO r� 110 C0 r� t0 Ln r- CO
Q)
i
N N i
• U
i ro t6 •r � i rO
a i. aJ
C) 0- 0- ro p i
3 p m>
>.,>, i i ro D_
•Y CQ
Q) ioo CO F --p N-0
i0 a)•r
CO O iY'II
p Cl- r- N
O +-) +- Q) i 0 U C
+� :3 CU ro
+-) i N N -0 i (1) 4- O W
N N r- CJS X
N (3) rO CO 0---0 a) G_
Q) Q) ro C Q)
•i -j W W f- E C i +-)
E a) o a) O N
•r L ro
ro O O o O ro
M +-•) = O O
N V) +) +3 +-> O W
S S (D +--) +-)
J o O
F-
O N o •
+-) 4-)-0 -0 3 O p +-J
Z
+-) +-) i i
> > Y +
W
o p•r
N Nr -rd
m:
• +-) U
N N CC CO pC:f a)
CD
-0
ro ro +-) (3) r OC
W
N p O ro
C1 0_ N N N> (3) C
N
+-) O C>,>�
i i (3) Q i i ro
>, Ln N 3 r
cm m a) a) 3 r o >, +-)
Q) CULT-
L LL N E-0 Q) N
(A rO C +) a)
+-3 4J +) +> ro 0) r- r- (3)
S- C •r :3 0)
N N O O O X C r r L
a) C ro O C
b ro S.. i 0 a) O a) m a)
D Ln¢
W WMMV) cn
i
p
D
p i i >
W
4- 3
L Of ppr- _0
g
N (1)
p m
i
ro (3) 7)
_ j
a) N (n O N Cn a)
ul i
ro (1) O :3 O S-
o
O
+-) i i 0 3 W i• r i
W
a) a) 4- (1)
N +-> a) L L L W E •r
W
+-> -0 O r
-
(1) C -0 a) +) +-J L 0) 4-
X
a) r- ro CO
CU ro o i o i :3 O O
V)
pCDJ--�
Cn0_d F--toCO JJLL-
137
�.l
n
LO
W
J
m
Q
F-
U
V)
z
W
J
m
O
CL
W
!Y
Q
W
2
C7
S
O
O
S
F -
C.'3
Z
(/)
X
W
W
Q
Z
F-
W
W
F-
F-
V)
A
co
N
3
2
N
N
D_
m
N
Q)
3
138
Q)
C
ro
J
N
ll' Y
O �
U Q)
W i
J Y
J
O
U
+-) Q)
() C
i
Q) rp C
p
i
S.-
41 41 p
V)
in rCs a
r
•U
C
+) i S.
+�
4-J
C
V)
r- (3) 4- 4-.
r6
C
Cn -0>< X X
S.-
O
I Q) O Q1
W
.r
Z L/) LL p
3
,r
3
U)
CD
+J
+-)
4
C
C
C
C
C>
>
Q)
N
Q)
U N
fu
•r
+�4-
•r 4-)d
d
U
C
U
O^
U C
N
r
�� Q) of
Q7 •r i� E
Q)
E E E
E
+ +)
C
+-)
+.) C
4-
E C
C 4- E
N r0
4- E
b m r0
ro
C
ro
C
C 0
4-
its Q) •r
--4- M
C i N
4- ()
i i ^ i
S-
7
:3
i > C
Y O i
i 0) =3
4-
>> = >
o) Cr) L o) O)
r 3
•U
>>
•U
•r C
(A
o) O i
i N IT O O O
•r
ro N O
0 04-) O
O
«s
U•r
C
O E O
m C O
+) i 0
3 c E
i i i i
i
•r
i -P
Cl•r i
d C
C -0
fl_ Q•r d D_
4- Z
3
4-
4-C
0_ C
IZ -0 • r
• r
cu o)
3
4- r
4-
4-
4-0
^
S- ^
4-J ^
Q) -0 +-)
+-)
O ^ C
'o -0 -0
"O
C >
O
:3
O U
Q!
-0= Q)
Q) Q) -0
U C C
C
i Q) •r
C C CT C
C
N ro
1
N
N (n
E
C +) E
Q) E C
i 0 0
0
E C
0 0 C 0
0
C Q
4-J
C
C.r
O
O O
S- O
O m U
U
i C i
m •; m
m
•'-
r
•rte
r-
CO 4-)r-
+I r- CO
4- -k N
U r. Z3m
0
•ir 4- O
(A 0 *
— . r
i r O +-)
rt)
>
I
^ -0
0- >
0-
r
C
N
V) N Ln
N N
O ro
N
0 0
cc
U
L U
O Us_-
3 3
N
E U
+) M
7 M
•r >, i=
+)
= •r •r
•r•
• r
+-)
• r +-)
O O O
C
(n +)
O O C 0
0 0
+-) M M O C
4-) +) +•)
+•) 4-
4-
-0 Q) 4-
^ 4--o
o
i
4- -0
7 Q) C
C O
r 3 O
:3 Q)
'o •r •r
----
4-
-- 4-) 4-
N4-
C4-4-
7
04- --
C C•r C
C C
I i
C•r
r -- o
-o -o�
M
3 U Rs
+) its 3
•r
+-) +- (Z 3
•r •r U •r
•r •r
C 4- CL •r U
3 C C
C C
S-
Q) i
C i
+) U U
C i
4-) 4-) •r +-)
i-) +)
O O
+) •r
O O
00
+)
U) +-) +•)
Q) +•) 07
C •r
-0 •r
+J o)
C C 4- C
C C
U 1-0
C 4-
0) U U
U U
C O
E C
04-4-
Q)
C
0 04- O
O O
+) C
04-
C
•r i t
(I) -C
U 4- 4-
U
>)L •r
U C. O D
U U
i= O
U o •r i i
i s-
> CL
>C.- 0) >
>
ro «s
i t
N CA V) rN
N N
O V) CO
N N>
0 0
0 0
•�
•Ln
O
C ro
r rF C •r
•r
0 •r -)r
•r C
ro O O
00 �
2
M-=) 2
E 2 a
p +) F--
4-
O S 0-
OGS )-- -0
m
Il S-
V)
N
i
N
>�
p
r0
Y
• i
3
O_
p
N
>)
>)
d
N
"O
V)
d
roc
•N
Q)
41
its
N C
-04-)
0-
•r
+>
>
N
D_
QJ
>>
O +
W Q)
m
Q) �
Q)
ro
3
m
>
>
i N
>
3
=
i
U
+ t
+j
N
r
•C Z
O
O
i
Q) a••) M
41
0
4-)
N
M
2
C
O rII
N })
ro 0
�--) (l•)
W
W
O
Q) Q)
C +3-)
L/)
W
0
` )
04-)
7 O
>�
O
4-)
i
C C
i
its
O
O
i�
+.) 0
•N
p
Q) Q)
p
Q V) W
4j
+)
p
+-) I
N
> >
i
-0 Q)
N
a-- Q
Q ¢
Q)
>C
4-)
+-)
i Q)
W
Q)
W Q
+�) to J +�
r
•i
N N
•r
>
>
r 0-
•N
N
Q
Q
+-)
Q
+-) C
>)
16
J O
X X
i
S m
>) N
N
i CO
-P >) I
N
p
(U
Q) Q)
Q)
N N
Q) its
N
ro O
(1)
N Q)
r0
>) r
>
F- F-
>
Q r0
> W
M
W U
> i,
Q) N
X
-P-
r
.0
r
f)') X
i
X
C
r cj
.0 Lf) p i
Q)
•r Q)
+� +�
C
+-) fu Q)
ria +•)
Q)
4-.)•r
r0
Q) Q) I
F-
U 3
O
Q Q
=
¢ W F
S Q
F-
Q J
S W cn ;
A
co
N
3
2
N
N
D_
m
N
Q)
3
138
Q)
C
ro
J
N
ll' Y
O �
U Q)
W i
J Y
J
O
U
+-) Q)
() C
i
Q) rp C
p
i
S.-
41 41 p
V)
in rCs a
r
•U
C
+) i S.
O
(3) N •r QJ
C
V)
r- (3) 4- 4-.
r6
C
Cn -0>< X X
S.-
O
I Q) O Q1
W
Z L/) LL p
EXISTING
THOROUGHFARES
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
139
rI-MIr- Ir
.�
VN0FffM
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCT...S
WAY
.n roWn .�.. oon..R ASY OCIAT ES
...=, �
Freeways: Freeways are intended to move high volumes of traffic at
relatively high speeds over long distances. They are direct between major
traffic generators, and have controlled access to ensure uninterrupted
traffic flow and safety. Frontage is provided along service roads. Freeways
provide a system of high-volume radial routes to the central business
district, and circumferential or "loop" routes to serve other areas.
Freeways also connect local cities to those outside the region. State Highway
6 is considered as a freeway.
Principal Arterials: These routes serve to provide a direct traffic route
over fairly long distances within the metropolitan area. It is intended that
traffic volumes be relatively high, but speeds are high enough only to ensure
smooth flow. Access controls are provided only at major traffic punctures
with traffic controls located at most intersections. Frontage is either
limited or controlled by use of service roads. Texas Avenue and University
Drive are examples of principle arterials.
Minor Arterials: Minor arterials serve the high volume traffic needs of the
local area. 7fiese routes are continuous through the community, and should
connect with similar thoroughfares in adjacent cities. Access is controlled
through placement of entering streets, driveway prohibitions, medians,
left -turn lanes, and signalization. Frontage is normally allowed only at
arterial intersections. Holleman Drive and Southwest Parkway are examples of
minor arterials.
Collectors: Collector streets or secondary thoroughfares serve as feeder
streets for the arterial system, collecting traffic from local streets and
feeding onto thoroughfares. These routes should be somewhat discontinuous
through the community to discourage their substitution as thoroughfares.
Collectors may be closely spaced in business or industrial areas to handle
higher volumes of local traffic. Francis Drive and Longmire Drive are
examples of collector streets.
Residential: As the name implies, these streets provide local access to
residential areas. They should be designed to serve only the residents of
the immediate area, and should feed into the collector street system.
Residential streets should be short, curvilinear, and discontinuous to
discourage through traffic.
The location and design of these streets depend primarily on the purpose they
will serve and the traffic load which they must handle. There is a limit to
the number of vehicles that a street may carry in a given time period. Under
ideal conditions, a single lane with an uninterrupted flow of traffic can
carry up to 1,500 vehicles per hour. Such conditions are rarely obtained due
to limitations influenced by a number of interference factors:
* Width of traffic lanes -- for each foot the moving traffic lanes are
reduced below 12 feet, the carrying capacity drops approximately 10
percent.
* Volume and direction of turning movements -- turning lanes in both
directions are necessary for a constant traffic flow on high volume
thoroughfares.
140
* Number of intersections at access points -- cross traffic is the most
serious cause of interference; any significant amount of cross
traffic can reduce the carrying capacity by as much as 40 percent.
* Traffic control systems -- synchronization of traffic signals and
duration of the time at signalized intersections can either enhance
or impede traffic flow.
* On -street parking -- all types of parking along thoroughfares not
only prevents the use of part of the street by moving traffic but
also reduces the capacity of the adjacent moving lane by as much as
20 percent.
* Type of frontage -- the type of adjacent land uses also affect the
capacity of streets. Driveway entrances, in shopping centers for
example, can appreciabaly reduce traffic flow.
* Type of vehicle -- if one of every five vehicles is a truck, as in
industrial areas, traffic flow may be reduced as much as 20 percent.
* Materials ano maintenance of streets -- the use of proper materials
in constructing roadways plays an important part in the cost and
maintenance of a road system. Poor conditions cause delays in travel
time and the volume of traffic, and the blocking of lanes for
maintenance may critically hamper flows.
The combined effects of such interferences can reduce the traffic carrying
capacity of the average lane on a heavily traveled street to as few as 500
vehicles per hour, and under severe conditions, even fewer. When it is
considered that the average thoroughfare must carry 2,000-3,000 vehicles
during peak -hour traffic, these conditions may become critical.
The principles which should govern the design of the City's street system may
be briefly summarized as follows:
* Through traffic should be concentrated on a few arterial streets.
* Arterial streets should be sized and paved to accommodate the
anticipated traffic load. They should also have adequte traffic
control devices including turn lanes, frontage control, and
signalization.
* Freeways and principle arterials should be located to serve regional
traffic needs continuing uninterrupted over long distances. To
adequately serve urban development, one of these facilities should be
located at about three to six mile intervals.
* Minor arterials should be spaced to accommodate the traffic needs of
the local area more closely spaced in business and densely populated
sections and further apart in outlying areas. The maximum desirable
spacing is generally at one -mile intervals between freeways and
principle arterials.
* Minor arterials should be continuous and as straight as possible,
depending on local conditions. They should be designed to carry
traffic rapidly and freely throughout the urban area.
141
* Arterials should border on, but not penetrate, functional urban units
such as residential neighborhoods.
* Collector streets should direct traffic flow into arterials, but
should be less continuous than the arterial system. They should be
sized and paved according to their intended use. Generally two
traffic lanes plus two parking lanes will be adequate.
* Residential streets should be indirect and discontinuous to
discourage high-speea through traffic. In most cases, they need not
be wider than is necessary for one traffic lane and two parking
lanes.
* All streets should intersect at right angles, or within 10 degrees of
a right angle, and be of uniform width without off -sets or abrupt
bends. Where off -sets occur on residential streets, the distance
between center lines should be a least 125 feet.
FUTURE TRAFFIC
The routing and sizing of thoroughfares are primarily dependent on the number
of vehicular traffic movements anticipated to be carried by a particular
segment of roadway. Traffic movements may be fairly accurately forecast once
the land use pattern in an area has been established. Past studies have
shown that particular types of traffic generators, such as residential areas,
schools, shopping centers, or industrial parks, generate an average number of
vehicular movements each aay.
Based on the proposed Development Plan and the anticipated ultimate
population and land use in each area of College Station in the future,
forecasts have been made of the average daily traffic that will be generated
by each Planning District. These traffic generaton forecasts are shown on
the following table.
142
TABLE 57
City of College Station, Texas
FUTURE DAILY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
PLANNING
DISTRICT
ULTIMATE
POPULATION
RESIDENTIAL
TRAFFIC
OTHER
USES
OTHER
TRAFFIC
TOTAL
TRAFFIC
1
3,297
10,970
45.5 ac.
18,340
29,310
2
2,585
10,820
71.4
29,350
40,170
3
7,882
25,820
81.4
25,480
51,300
4
9,537
33,270
264.3
63,700
96,970
5
6,950
26,030
199.5
70,720
97,880
6
7,218
26,030
105.8
23,060
49,090
7
10,220
30,680
87.0
35,840
66,520
8
6,587
28,640
117.9
43,500
72,140
9*
10,000
27,925
3,480.0
52,500
80,425
10
20,372
55,315
284.6
32,640
87,955
11
19,130
53,420
173.4
50,370
103,790
12
26,192
73,140
223.0
59,875
133,015
*Planning District 9 is University -owned property.
Source: Forecasts by Consultants
For the purposes of projecting ultimate needs for thoroughfares, these
forecasts utilize anticipated ultimate populations and other land uses. By
the year 2000, however, the City will have only about one-half of the
ultimate population which could be supported within these areas. As was
shown in the discussion of Future Development, it is anticipated that most of
the area within the present city limits will be approaching full development
by the year 2000. However, those areas to the east, west, and south of the
present City will have only a portion of their ultimate population.
Therefore, future traffic should be near indicated volumes for areas
presently within the City but well below those shown for areas now within the
City's ETJ.
It may also be noted that the University (Planning District 9) will remain a
high-volume traffic generator but will be proportionately less importat as
traffic builds in other developing areas of the City. It is anticipated that
those areas oriented to State Highway 6 will generate the highest traffic
volumes in the future.
Traffic volumes along any particular thoroughfare segment tend to be
additive, depending on the anticipated directions of the traffic flow. Within
the College Station area, it is predicted that primary traffic flows will
continue to be toward the University and will increase toward and along State
Highway 6. Traffic volumes will increase moving into the interior of the
City and will decrease toward the fringes.
The proposed Thoroughfare Plan is intended to disperse traffic flow over the
City by providing a system of both major and secondary thoroughfares. The
purpose of this system is to provide a coordinated system of direct routes
throughout the City offering a better choice of travel patterns and
eliminating the concentration of traffic on a few major streets. The routes
and proposed design sections are shown on the Thoroughfare Plan map.
143
THOROUGHFARE PROGRAM
The standards for street development previously yiven were used to guide the
Thoroughfare Plan with consideration being given to existing conditions and
probable future development. The existing system of highways and other major
roads provides the framework for the Thoroughfare Plan. Improvements
recommended are oriented first to alleviating existing problems then to
serving traffic needs as the comunity grows. The entire Thoroughfare Plan
shoud be re-examined periodically and adjustments made in accordance with
changes in development.
In order that the thoroughfare system may be developed in an efficient and
timely manner to accommodate the future yrowth of the City, the following
thoroughfare goals and objectives are recommeded for the next five years:
* Adopt the Thoroughfare Plan to place property owners on notice as to
the City's intentions and utilize the Plan to evaluate development
proposals.
* tstablish a policy requiring the owners of adjacent properties to
dedicate necessary right-of-way and participate in the paving of
streets to full standards at the time any development or construction
takes place.
* Extension of Holleman Street from Texas Avenue to East Loop.
* Widen Krenek Tap Road from Texas Avenue to East Loop.
* Rebuild Southwest Parkway from Texas Avenue to F.M. 2154.
* Extend Lincoln Street from Ashburn to University Drive.
* Extension of Uartmouth from Woodstock Subdivision to Brentwood
Subdivision and from Southwest Parkway to East Loop.
* Urbanize and widen Harvey Road from Texas Avenue to East Loop.
* Urbanize and widen University Drive from Texas Avenue to East
Loop.
* Construct overpasses on East Loop at Southwest Parkway and Emerald
Parkway.
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
It is desirable from the standpoint of both circulation and maintenance costs
for the City to develop all thoroughfares to adequate standards. However, it
is not necessary to construct thoroughfares to their full anticipated
capacity if such capacity conditions will not occur for several years.
Improvements should be made according to the proposed standards as the street
approaches its anticipated capacity. However, all required rights -of way
should be designated as soon as possible.
The designation of rights-of-way for thoroughfares yet to be constructed will
aid the City of Burleson in acquiring adequate rights-of-way as streets are
144
s l e
Ef► `°
-Jr-
.
J
E�
ti j sr er
F. Y. 2 B 1 !\
/ 1
_ L
AIRPORTwood J�
I r/r
145
\� FUTURE
THOROUGHFAF
PLAN
CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
2�1 \
in
;m
PEI I
J, J l 4I
L—.
1 � 1 I
lr
145
L E
Major Arterials
Minor Arterials
Collectors
G E N D
I � L
% __ WELLBORN
V ~\\
PLATE 18
FUTURE g NORTH
SAMUEL L. W YSE ASSOCIATES
\ PlRnnlnp { MRnR°Rrrrnl Con�ultPn[�
THOROUGHFARES TR.R.
PLAN 2000
WAYNE W SNYDER ASSOCIATES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS P"""' { °°m' "'"'°'m'"'
'or( Worth T ....
actually developed. In developed areas where thoroughfares are planned,
prompt attention should be given to the acquisition of additional
rights-of-way. kight-of-way acquisition in developed areas will be costly;
and if not begun soon, the necessary property may be almost prohibitively
expensive in the future.
The City should amend its policy of developer participation in the
development of the thoroughfares. Under the present policy, developers
dedicate up to b0 feet of right-of-way and pay for up to 39 feet of pavement.
For designated thoroughfares, the City should require developers to dedicate
all necessary right-of-way. The developer should be further responsible for
two traffic lanes on each side abutting his property. If a six -lane roadway
is required, the City can complete the thoroughfare as traffic demands
further improvements.
There are several State Highways which have been integrated into the
Thoroughfare Plan. The City should tully utilize the capabilities of the
State Department of Highways and Public Transportation in the
expansion of these facilities. In addition, there are a number of City
streets which have been designated for assistance under the Urban Systems
Program.
Many future thoroughfare improvements must be accomplished with City funds.
The Thorouyhfare Plan should be examined regularly and necessary construction
programmed as a part of any bonding program.
146
Facilities
147
148
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The provision of certain services and facilities has become an accepted
responsibility of local government. These include schools, parks and
recreation, administrative services, police and fire protection, social and
cultural facilities, water and sewer utilities, and health and sanitation
services.
The demand for more and varied community facilities and services increases as
population grows. Urban areas expand, old facilities become inadequate and
living standards rise, producing a more sophisticated, expectant public. As
the City of College Station grows, services and personnel to perform the
services must be continually increased to maintain an adequate level of
public services to all residents of the community.
Since 1970, the population of Lollege Station has nearly doubled. Over the
next twenty years, it is anticipated that College Station will increase by
almost two times its present size. This growth potential presents both
opportunities and problems. The opportunity to relate facilities and
services in a coordinated and efficient manner offers the promise of a high
quality of urban life. However, the increasing demand for facilities and
services will often strain the resources and abilities of the community to
provide such services.
Because of the multiplicity of governing bodies and the division of
responsibility that exists, various kinds of facilities will be provided in a
multitude of ways oy various levels of government including the City, the
County, speical districts, and possibly even private institutions. The needs
of an expanding population cannot be met unless governmental units cooperate
in providing services and facilities. Even in a cooperative atmosphere,
these needs may not be filled or may be filled only at a higher -than -
necessary cost without a program of planning for future needs prior to the
time they are actually needed.
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the existing community
facilities and services offered to the public together with the needs of the
future population. This plan can serve as a guide to the provision of future
facilties enabling public officials to foresee some of the problems in
providing these facilities. It should also provide an insight into providing
adequate and timely facilities to serve an ever expanding population in
addition to providing coordination and communication between governmental
agencies and other public/private plans for development.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS
The functions and responsibilities of municipal government are so varied and
complex that the operation of the city often represents one of the
community's principal enterprises. Many types of buildings and facilities
are required for public administration. Buildings are required for the
rendering of city services. Facilities are needed for the protection of life
and property. Still others are essential to serve cultural and social needs
in the community.
149
The selection of a site for any public building requires careful study and
analysis to determine the long-range needs and the effect on development of
the city. In determining the location of a public building, it must be
determined whether the facility is to serve the entire city or only a portion
of the city. Those buildings which serve the whole city would include the
City Hall, the County Courthouse, a Central Library, the Police Station, and
Auditorium or Civic Center. Facilities which would serve only a portion of
the city would include fire stations, neighborhood centers, and branch
libraries.
Public buildings which serve the entire city should logically be located near
the center of the city while those serving specific areas should be placed in
relation to the area they are intended to serve. This section will set
standards for the loction and service area for various public buildings, will
evaluate the existing municipal facilities, and will make recommendations for
the development of additional public buildings in the future.
EXISTING PUBLIC BUILDINGS
The City of College Station provides public services from six buildings.
The City Hall houses the administrative offices as well as the Council
Chambers. There are two fire stations which serve the City. The Police
Station complex also includes Municipal Court facilities. The Service Center
area includes operations offices, warehouse, garage, and storage yard. The
recently completed Community Center provides meeting rooms for the City.
There are 344 full-time employees working for the City at present.
The following describes the facilities available in the City of College
Station at this time. Numbers correspond to locations shown on the map of
Existing Public Buildings.
1. City Hall. The City Hall houses the administrative offices at the
present time. The City Hall is located at the corner of Francis Street
and Texas Avenue. The building has 15,824 square feet and contains the
Council Chambers, 7,468 square feet of office space, a kitchen, and
restrooms. There are 54 employees housed in this building.
2. Central Fire Station: The Central Fire Station faces Texas Avenue
adjacent to the City Hall. The Central Fire Station has 11,772 square
feet of space and provides four bays for fire fighting and rescue
equipment. It also has a dormitory, day room, kitchen, and restrooms.
3. Fire Station No. 2: Fire Station No. 2 is located in the southern
portion of the City at the corner of Rio Grande and FM 2818. The station
has 3,933 square feet of space and provides two bays for fire fighting
and rescue equipment. It also has a dormitory, day room, kitchen, and
restrooms.
4. Police Station: The Police Station is located on Texas Avenue between
Krenek Tap Road and Miller's Lane. The building currently contains a
total of 9,264 square feet which includes office space, a day room,
dispatch room, squad room, restrooms, holding cells, and Municipal Court
facilities.
150
5. Service Center: The Service Center is located on the same property as
the Police Cation and is adjacent to it. The yard has a total of 13
acres and supports the offices for water, sewer and elecrtrical
distribution, a warehouse, service garage, storage for equipment, and
materials stockpiles. The building has about 19,316 square feet of floor
area. Offices occupy 1,665 square feet, warehousing 12,215 square feet,
and the garage 4,000 square feet.
6. Community Center: The Community Center is located on Jersey Street east
of Timber street. The center is housed in a recently renovated College
Station Independent School District building and contains a total of
12,484 square feet. This includes a total of 2,698 square feet of
meeting rooms, a 2,450 square foot multi-purpose room, office space,
kitchen, and gallery spaces. Information on the number of employees to
be located at the facility was not available at the time this report was
prepared.
PUBLIC BUILDING STANDARDS
The following principles are presented as a general guide toward the location
and development of future public buildings in College Station. A more
definite study of actual locations and facility requirements should be made
at the time actual construction of any public building is contemplated.
Municipal Administration: Because municipal administration and public
service functions are generally related and because of the frequent need of
citizens to visit several City offices on one trip, the public building
housing these functions is best located near the center of transportation and
business activity and grouped together wherever possible. In addition, this
allows for more efficient communication between other government and private
offices which frequently interact - city, county, state, utility, and law
offices. These municipal administration and public service functions might
include offices for city officials, public works and utilities offices,
police station, corporate court, fire station, and central library. The
following standards may be used as a guide in development of these services.
* Should be within the central area of the City.
* Should be easily accessible by major thoroughfares from all parts of
the City.
* Site or sites should be sized for the grouping of related functions
with adequate room for expansion.
* Administrative office buildings should have a minimum of 25U square
feet per employee plus specialized areas such as City Council
Chambers.
* Adequate parking should be provided on and near the site for the
convenience of both employees and visitors.
* The building should be planned internally stressing good functional
relationships and convenience.
151
Libraries: The public library is playing an ever increasing role as an
important community facility due to the expanding population growth in
leisure time, higher educational goals and attainment, and an increasing
proportion of young people in the community. In a small city, a single
library may well serve the entire city. As the city grows, however, the
central library should expand and possible include a system of branch
libraries. The following standards may be used in the general development of
library facilities:
* The central library should be located within the central part of the
City to afford maximum accessibility.
* The central library site should be prominent, large enough for
expansion, service vehicles, and landscaping.
* The library should provide adequate parking for both the users and
the staff but should not interfer with pedestrian traffic.
* The library system should react to population increases and City
development patterns possible by the creation of branch libraries.
* The library should provide a total of 2.5 to 3 books per capita with
a minimum of 6,000 volumes.
* The library should provide about 0.5 to 0.6 square feet of space per
capita.
Fire Stations: The fire station locations and buildings are dependent on
the ape o aevelopment they are intended to serve, the population density of
the area, the type of facilities that must be provided on the site, and
possible obstacles to the service area. The following standards may be used
as a general guide toward location of fire stations and facilities:
* The central station should be located within 3/4 mile radius around
the area of highest development.
* The central station should house at least two ladder companies and
two pumper companies.
* Substations should be located to serve areas with a mile and a
quarter radius.
* Substations should house at least une ladder company and one pumper
company.
* Substations should be located adjacent to, but not facing on, a major
thoroughfare.
* Substation sites should be from 3/4 to one acre in size.
* Specialized equipment, such as foam or snorkles, should be provided
in areas as needed.
* The site should provide adequate parking, space for company drills,
and open recreation areas in addition to the facility itself.
152
I \
� � _ ■ ,,.� r , z \may
us ✓Ser e C nterILI
Y.S.VE I
CI
Ceme s
T
/ � 1
COLLEGE .Vl. cmmani me
.Jr._ �I /
wet k
\ /
_ F N. 2 81 6
WELLBORN
E.STERW00D
Y .IMPORT r.J
\
J FACILITIES PL
i
i PLAN
s s (r CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
153
—\ L E G E N D
\ Fire Service Area 1
r Police Service Area �1
i
\ Existing Fire Stations ❑
\ ` \ Future Fire Stations
Existing Police Station
l \ \ ( Future Police Station
/ 1 Other Facilities
J
S I
us ✓ er e C nter C \
r
1 i I
�r
153
XIS AVE /
a J { `
r
00,l
WELLBORN
v PLATE 19
o 8 e NORTH
SAMUEL L WYSE ASSOCIATES
FACILITIES PLAN ° a M.°�°-°�°t °°�
D�I1�• T.a.•
PLAN 2000
WAYNE W. SNYDER ASSOCIATES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Fort Worth �r�lopm�nt Wn�yT....
* The ultimate development pattern and land use of an area should be
considered when substations are to be built in outlying areas.
Police Stations: Police Stations are highly specialized facilities which
require particular attention in design. Space should be provided for
administrative functions, detention facilities, day rooms and lockers, and
adequate storage. Municipal Court and Emergency Uperating facilities might
also be built as part of the Police Station.
* The police department may occupy one section of another municipal
building but should have a separate public entrance and exit.
* The interior should be carefully planned to enable efficient
operation and avoid possible conflicts.
* The police station site should be located near the geographic center
of the area; on a major street with good access to all parts of the
City and near concentration of commercial and industrial use.
Hospitals: Health facilities, particularly hopsitals, are a highly technical
and complex field. Planning standards such as the ones listed below may be
used in a very general nature toward location and development of a hospital.
* Should be centrally located within its service area.
* Should be easily accessible by major thoroughfares from all parts of
the service area.
* The hospital location should not cause conflicts because of traffic,
noise, or night activity.
* The site should be adequate for the intended facility with off-street
parking on a minimum of five acres.
* The hospital should provide 2.5 to 3 beds per 1,000 persons served.
Maintenance Centers: Maintenance centers include a variety of components and
uses including storage and maintenance of refuse collection and disposal
equipment, street maintenance and construction equipment, sewer maintenance
equipment, street signs and traffic devices, repair and upkeep of municipal
vehicles, and other general housekeping functions. The following standards
may be used as a guide in locating and designing maintenance centers.
* The center should centralize storage facilities, shops, and other
maintenance functions.
* The center should provide about 0.25 acres of land and about 75U
square feet of buildings per 1,000 population served.
* The site should be readily accessible by thorougfhfares from the
entire service area.
* The site should provide adequate room for offices, both employee and
City vehicle parking, shop facilities, and open and enclosed
equipment and material storage areas.
154
* The site should be located in an industrial area and screened from
adjacent land uses.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The development of an adequate park system is a major obligation of municipal
government. Recreation areas and open space are indispensable in providing a
desirable and wholesome environment for residential neighborhoods. A long
range park plan should be adopted, and finances toward implementation of the
plan should be included in annual budgets and in bonding programs.
Park lands should be designated in subdivision plats and acquired by the City
as development takes place. Actual development of the park should occur as
the population of the area increases the demand for recreation uses. The
Park and Recreation Plan should be used as a guide for the size and siting of
parks as developments are brought forth for approval by the City. In most
cases, the accessibility of recreation areas and proximity of preserved
aesthetic areas are of definite benefit in residential development markets.
EXISTING PARKS
The City of College Station has 22 parks at present with a total area of
268.06 acres. At the accepted standard of one acre of park land for each 100
persons served, there should be about 375 acres of developed parks in the
College Station area. This deficienty is largely made up by the use of
school facilities as playgrounds and for sports programs.
155
L E G E N D
I'
Vary High SuNabOty
High Sultabtity 0
Normal SultabEty 0
Low SultabWty 0
s� • rr
\
PLATE 20
INSTITUTIONAL/
OPEN SPACE
SUITABILITY
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
EXISTING PARKS
The City of College Station has 22 parks at present with a total area of
268.06 acres. At the accepted standard of one acre of park land for each 100
persons served, there should be about 375 acres of developed parks in the
College Station area. This deficienty is largely made up by the use of
school facilities as playgrounds and for sports programs.
155
There are also a number of semi-public and private recreation facilities in
the area. However, these are generally restricted to use by members of the
organization or by residents of the subdivision served.
A description of existing recreation facilities in the College Station area
is given below.
Central Park: The main City park is located on Krenek Tap Road at the East
Bypass. The park has a total of 47.2 acres. Facilities include playground
equipment, a pavilion, twenty picnic tables, two lighted tennis courts, four
lighted softball fields, and a fishing pier.
The equipment is in excellent condition. Additional facilities at the park
will include a maintenance facility and the Parks Office building.
Bee Creek Park. Bee Creek Park is located on Anderson Street, south of
Southwest Parkway and has a total area of 43.5 acres. Facilities in the park
include two lighted softball fields, four lighted tennis courts, a swimming
pool, and two trails. The facilities at Bee Lreek Park are in good
condition.
Anderson Athletic Park: Anderson Athletic Park is located on Anderson Street
at Holleman Drive. The park contains 6.7 acres of land which are devoted to
four soccer fields.
Wayne Smith Park: Wayne Smith Park is located at the intersection of Luther
and Montclair Streets and has a total area of 4.1 acres. The park consists
of one lighted baseball field. The park is in good condition with some
maintenance required on the field.
Southwest Park: Southwest Park is located off Southwest Parkway west of
Anderson Urive. It contains a total of 3.0 acres of undeveloped land.
Raintree Park: Raintree Park is located at the intersection of Munson Avenue
and Parkway and has a total area of 1.0 acre. The park contains playground
equipment and is in good condition.
Oaks Park: Oaks Park is located on Stallings Urive at Highway 30 and
contains 7.5 acres of land. The park has a number of picnic tables and a
pavilion area plus a lighted multi -use court. The equipment is in yooa
condiation with the pavilion in the process of being renovated.
Merry Oaks Park: Merry Oaks Park is located on Merry Oaks Urive and has a
total of 4.6 acres of undeveloped land.
Longmire Park: Longmier Park is located on Longmire Boulevard in the
southern portion of the laity. Currently, the park contains 4.0 acres of
undeveloped land.
Lions Club Park: Lions Club Park is located on University Drive at Chapel
Street. The park has a total area of 1.5 acres and contains one lighted
basketball court, playground equipment, and four picnic tables. The
equipmenat is in fair condition with some improvement needed.
156
Lincoln Park: Lincoln Park is located at the intersection of Eleanor and
Holleman Streets and has a total of 8.0 acres. The facilities include the
Parks and Recreation Department headquarters, maintenance facilities, lighted
playground and softball field, an indoor multi -use court and several picnic
tables. The indoor court facility is in need of some repair and eventually
should be completely renovated.
Gabbard Park: Gabbard Park is located by Haines and Dexter Streets and
contains 9.0 acres of undeveloped land. The park is used primarily as a
green space and contains a one acre pond.
Georgie K. Fitch Park: Georgie K. Fitch Park, located on Balcones Drive at
8, contains —= acres of currently undeveloped park land. Future plans
for the park include picnic areas, a practice field, and a basketball court.
Fairview Park: Fairview Park is located at Fairview and Park Place. The
park contains 1.80 acres of land of which 1.0 acre is currently developed.
The park is primarily used as a practice baseball field and is in good
condition.
Eastgate Park: tastgate Park is located on Walton Drive and Foster Avenue
and contains 1.0 acre of land which is undeveloped.
Brison Park: Brison Park is located along Dexter Drive and Bee Creek. The
Parc contains 9.20 acres of undeveloped land with open play areas and a
footbridge across the creek.
Brother's Pond: Brother's Pond Park contains 16.12 acres of currently
undeveloped land located in the Southwood Valley Area of the City. Future
plans call for the park to contain a gazebo, fishing pier, basketball court,
playground equipment, and picnic areas.
Brentwood Park: Brentwood Park is located in an undeveloped area of the City
north of Southwest Parkway and east of Dartmouth Avenue. The park contains
7.69 acres with a 1.0 acre pond. There are currently no future plans for
Brentwood Park.
Lemon Tree Park: Lemon Tree Park is located on Anderson Street and Lemon
Tree rive and has a total area of 15.43 acres. The facilities include one
unlighted softball field, an unpaved parking lot for 39 cars and a
three-quarter mile ,logging/exercise trail. The park is in good condition
with the jogging/exercise trail in need of some repair.
Thomas Park: Thomas Park is located between Puryear Drive and James Parkway
and has a total area of 16.10 acres. The park contains two playgrounds, five
picnic tables, four basketball backstops, two unlighted tennis courts, two
youth soccer fields, a 25 meter swimming pool and bath house with air dome
for winter, a covered pavilion, and a 0.3 mile dogging path. The park is in
excellent condition with recently completed renovation of the park.
Southwood Athletic Complex: Southwood Athletic Complex is located in an
undeveloped area in the southern portion of the City. It contains 44.65
acres of land. Future plans for the park include lighted athletic
facilities.
157
PARK STANDARDS
The importance of public recreation as a community function has been
seriously neglected in many cities in the past. Because of rapid
urbanization and overcrowding in the cities, however, parks and open spaces
have been gaining recognition over the past decade. The problem is that by
the time the need for parks becomes obvious to the community most of the land
has been developed; and the acquisition of park sites can be most expensive,
if not impossible, to accomplish.
Criteria for the development of various types of park facilities in the
future were adapted from the National Recreation and Park Association general
standards and are detailed below. These standards are related to
recreational functions which serve the various design components of the City
and should be coordinated with other community facilities standards,
particularly schools, in actual development.
Playground Park: A playground is a small park providing play equipment for
younger children with extensive recreation facilities. The primary purpose
of the playground is to provide a recreational area for preschool and younger
elementary age children at locations near their residence. In apartment
developments which include children, the playground should be an integral
part of the apartment complex. In single-family residential areas, the
playground may consist of a single lot. playgrounds should be provided when
other play facilities are not located nearby according to the following
standards:
* The service area should be a radius of no more than two or three
blocks.
* The playground should be provided where no larger parks exist within
the service are.
* The site should be located on a residential street protected from
traffic and incompatible uses.
* Facilities should include playground equipment, picnic tables, and a
small open shelter.
* Adequate parking can generally be provided on the street.
Neighborhood Parks: The neighborhood park concept should serve the needs of
the "neighborhood unit" and be combined with educational facilities whenever
possible to provide a wider variety of opportunities on less acreage and at
lower costs. The park, primarily designed to serve children under 14 years
of age, has increasingly oecome the center of neighborhood activity to serve
the wide variety of needs expressed by all its residents. In addition, the
neighborhood park plays an importnat role in setting a standard for
neighborhood asthetics. The following standards should provide the City with
the proper criteria in planning for neighborhood parks:
* The service area, location, and access should coincide with the
limits of the neighborhood and of an adjacent school whenever
possible.
158
* The park should be locataed near the center of the neighborhood and
removed from heavily traveled streets and other hazards.
* The park should contain 0.2 acres per 100 persons within the service
area with a minimum of five acres.
* The particular facilities required should be structured to the nature
of the neighborhood but could include open turf areas for ball and
field games, hard surface areas for court games, general open space,
traditional play apparatus with creative, imaginative equipment, and
a shelter and comfort station.
* Off-street parking should be provided at the rate of six to ten
spaces per developed acre depending on facilities provided.
* Creative planning should utilize contouring, natural materials and
colors, contrasting surfaces, and other imaginative techniques to
provide both eye appeal and utility.
Community Park: The community park should serve three to six neighborhoods
or a community unit and should, whenever possible, be developed in
conjunction with a ,junior or senior high school in order to ensure the
maximum utilization of all facilities. The community park is designed to
provide a variety of activities and recreational services for all age groups.
The standards for development of community parks are as follows:
* The service area, location, and access should coincide with those of
the junior or senior high school whenever possible or within 1/2 to 1
1/2 miles of the residents in its service area.
* The community park should contain U.2 acres per 100 persons within
the service area with a minimum of 15 to 20 acres.
* Facilities should include lighted turf fields for ball and field
games, lighted hard surface courts for tennis, basketball and other
games, open recreational areas, shelter and comfort station, picnic
facilities, and may incorporate a neighborhood playground.
Additional facilities could include a swimming pool, recreational
building, and gymnasium.
* Off-street parking should be provided at the rate of 10 to 15 spaces
per developed acre depending on facilities provided.
* The total community park should be landscaped to create a setting
which enhances and does not interfer or impinge on the surrounding
area.
159
Citywide or Central Park: The citywide or central park is designed to serve
the total community. This type of park should be an area of natural beauty
and large enough to instill a feeling of openness and sense of peace. No
definite standards can be set for the development of the park since the
particular requirements should be determined by the natural environment and
terrain and the facilities offered in other places. However, the following
principles should be considered in the development of a citywide or central
park:
* The park should be centrally located and accessible by major
thoroughfares from all parts of the City.
* The park should contain 0.6 acres per 100 persons served with a
minimum of 50 acres.
* The park should be designed for use by all groups.
* A wide variety of components should be offered individually but not
limited to ball fields, courts, picnic areas, nature trails, paths
and tracks, swimming pool, undesignated open space, recreation
buildings, outdoor theater, parking areas, and playground apparatus.
Other facilities might include a golf course, zoo, botanical gardens,
etc.
* Parking requirements will depend primarily on the needs of actual
facilities provided.
PARKS & RECREATION ANALYSIS
The City of College Station presently has 268.06 acres of park lands within
the City. In addition, approximately 75 acres of school property can be
considered to serve recreation needs of the community. The combined total of
these park and recreation facilities is 343.06 acres. By generally accepted
park standards; there should be about 375 acres of parks in the College
Station area. Overall, this difference is not significant.
The University provides extensive recreational facilities on -campus including
swimming pool, tennis courts, ball fields, and golf course for use of
students and faculty. However, except for the golf course, these facilities
are not available to many residents of the City. As most students, faculty
and staff, and their families reside off -campus; the City must provide
additional facilities to meet their needs.
The greatest need for parks in College Station at present is for adequate
space to serve surrounding residential neighborhoods. The majority of this
need is presently being served by school lands. Combining all park and
recreation serving the City at present, there is still a need for an
additional 32 acres of park land to be located within the City to serve the
existing population.
There is only one small park located east of the State Highway 6 Bypass where
356 people reside, and some areas are not even served by school recreation
facilities. These areas are primarily outside the City limits at present.
160
Within the city limits, there are 398.06 acres of developed parks and school
recreation facilities serving a population of 37,296. At full standards,
this population would require over 370 acres of recreation areas. Thomas
Park is designed to serve a population of 4,025 but is actually serving
5,085. Lincoln Center, designed for 4,000, is covering an area of 5,100
population. At present time, the Southwood Valley area (Planning District d)
is not served by a developed park.
Virtually every area of the City is in need of some type of park and
recreation development both in terms of land and facilities. Table 58
indicates the amount of recreation space available within each Planning
District and an estimate of present needs based on the existing population
within each area.
The following is a summary of problems indicated by the analysis of existing
parks and recreation facilities in College Station at present:
* Both facilities and grounds in existing parks are in need of
repairs.
* Existing City parks are being utilized beyond their capacities to
serve residents.
* More park sites are needed within developed areas of the City.
* Much dependence has been placed on the ability of school grounds to
serve recreation needs.
* Development is encroaching on natural areas, particularly flood plain
areas.
* A total of 32 acres of additional park lands are presently needed to
adequately serve the existing population of the City.
161
TABLE 58
City of ColegT e tation, Texas
EXISTING PARKS & RECREATION
PLANNING
EXISTING
SCHOOL
TOTAL
PARKS
DISTRICT
PARKS
RECREATION
RECREATION
NEEDED
1
-0-
-0-
-0-
32.70 ac
2
2.50 ac
10.50 ac
16.00 ac
13.94
3
29.20
-0-
29.20
67.20
4
2.28
-0-
2.28
3.56
5
54.91
-0-
54.91
11.10
6
32.01
25.10
57.11
41.51
7
70.93
39.50
110.43
84.42
8
76.23
-0-
76.23
33.45
9
-0-
-0-
-0-
87.12
10
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
11
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
12
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTALS
268.06 ac
75.10 ac
343.16 ac
375.0 ac
Source: Analysis by Consultants
PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN
The City of College Station should provide developed park areas at the rate
of about 0.75 acres for each 100 persons served. By the year 2000, the
College Station area should have about 532 acres of park lands including the
existing City parks. In addition, the City should provide enough undeveloped
open space for about 1.0 acre per 100 persons. These open spaces should be
acquired as flood plains along creeks and drainage ways. As development
occurs, flood plains should be protected, and all areas remaining in flood
plains after development should be dedicated to the public as open space.
By developing schools and parks on adjacent sites, however, both the City and
the School District may save 25 to 30 percent of the land that would
otherwise be required. As an example, a typical elementary school might
require ten acres for all education and play facilities while a neighborhood
park might also require ten acres. By locating both facilities on one
contiguous site, a tract of 14 to 15 acres would serve both purposes equally
as well.
A system of parks based generally on this principle has been planned to serve
the population of College Station to the year 2000. By this time, the City
will have a population of about 71,000 which will require about 530 acres of
developed park lands and 710 acres of open spaces. Table 59 gives the amount
of park and open space land that will need to be acquired in addition to that
already available in order to adequately serve these future needs.
162
r =
1 I •fir' \ J �'-'r
o
i aF
aypgss
N � c'
r— — TE%AB AY RE
/ Y
1
g / r
COLLEGE AVE
— eN _ N
COMPL X
)EN %
RO
\\ �/ •tare. \ �J /' I `*ref
i
F. M. 2$1B (�
D\\ \
EISTERWOOD
AIRPORT
\� PARKS
SITE PLAN
PLAN
r \\s rKg 1 r CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
163
L E G E N D
Park Sites 0
Existing Service Area
Future Service Area ---�
Proposed Neighborhood Park
Proposed Community Park
SOUTH.., _ TYLE
COMP
2W s'
� N
i 1
WELLBORN
L_
PARKS
SITE PLAN
PLAN 2000
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
11163
#e,-,37'
l PLATE 21
1 0 1 51t
8 NORTH
N N
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
Plsnn ln. 8 ml-"—, Consult. nts
D.II.s T....
WAYNE W SNYDER ASSOCIATES
Pl.nnln9 .D.v.l.ta —1 YM.IIMNRt
Fort Worth i.i.•
TABLE 59
City of College Station, Texas
FUTURE PARKS & OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION
PLANNING
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMUNITY
CITY
OPEN
TOTAL
DISTRICT
PARKS
PARKS
PARK
SPACE
AREA
1
-
-
-
24.7 ac
24.7 ac
2
5.8 ac
-
-
11.0
16.8
3
-
-
-
44.3
44.3
4
6.9
56.0 ac
-
153.8
216.7
5
-
-
-
94.0
94.0
6
-
-
-
27.0
27.0
7
-
-
-
44.6
44.6
8
-
-
-
21.9
21.9
9
-
-
-
63.4
63.4
10
-
-
-
95.9
95.9
11
14.5
-
-
56.9
71.4
12
15.3
64.3
107.5
ac. 72.5
259.6
TOTALS
42.5 ac
120.3 ac
107.5
ac 710.0 ac
980.3 ac
Source: Estimates by Consultants
FACILITIES PROGRAM
The deveopment of an adequate parks and recreation system is an expensive
undertaking that cannot be financially accomplished in the immediate future.
However, the commitment to fund a continuing program of park development will
quickly begin to show positive results.
In its 1981 bond program, the City authorized $3,138,040 for the parks and
recreation program. This included $1,150,000 for park land acquisition,
$329,000 for offices and maintenance facilities, and $1,751,000 for
development of existing parks. The park development program for the next
year proposes $210,000 for development of Anderson Park, $50,000 for
Raintree, and $97,000 for Brothers Pond. Priorities for 1983-84 include
development of Gabbard and Lemon Tree Parks and for 1984-85 development of
Merry Oaks, G. K. Fitch, and Longmire Parks.
Parks are normally considered to be a general responsibility of the City, and
are usually acquired and developed through general obligation or tax bonds of
the City. However, not all costs of the park development program need be
assumed by the City.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department administers a bO percent matching
grant program for park acquisition and development. However, the designated
land cannot be acquired by the City until the grant is funded. Open space
acquisition is also eligible under this grant program.
Many cities are putting more responsibility on developers to provide park
facilities as they may contribute to population growth. Often dedications of
park land are requested as a part of subdivision plat approval. The City of
College Station's present policy requires dedication of one acre of land for
each 133 dwelling units or a contribution of $225 per dwelling unit for both
single-family and multi -family units.
164
Private trust funds, estates, and corporations can also be a source of
funding for park development. Several cities in the State, including Austin
and Temple, have set up a semi -private Community Improvement Corporation to
accept gifts of land and money. This body could also aid in financing
libraries, museums, art galleries, community centers, and other public
improvements. User fees can also be a source of funds. Charges are
generally made for special use recreation facilities such 'as golf courses,
swimming pools, zoos, gardens, and tennis. However, more cities are
beginning to charge fees to organized athletic associations for the use and
maintenance of baseball, softball, and soccer fields. These charges are
generally passed on to the actual paraticipants as player fees by the
organization.
SCHOOLS
The existence of the independent school district system in Texas presents a
unique situation to the planning process since the city is not responsible
for providing schools. However, the interactive impact of such elements of
the planning process as population distribution, land use, recreation, and
traffic circulation upon school sites indicates the need to plan for school
facilities as an integral part of the process.
EXISTING SCHOOLS
The College Station Independent School District presently has two elementary
schools for grades K-4, one middle school for grades 5-6, one junior high
school for grades 7-8, and one senior high school for grades 9-12. A
facilities survey and building needs study was conducted by SHWC, Inc.,
Architects Engineers Planners, and compiled into report form February, 1981.
As that report provides a thorough analysis of all facilities and conditions
of each building, that information will not be repeated herein.
College Hills Elementary: Located on Williams Street at Francis Street, this
elementary school has a 17 acre site. The numerous ouildings, totaling
65,932 square feet, house kindergarten through 4th grade, a cafeteria,
library, multi-purpose bulding , and speech building. There is some room for
expansion at this site.
South Knoll Elementary: South Knoll Elementary is on a 13.5 acre site
located on Boswell Street at Southwest Parkway and Langfora. The facility
has 58,375 square feet consisting of a main building, kindergarten building,
and multi-purpose building. The school serves Kindergarten through 4th
grade. Area for expansion is available but limited at this site.
Middle School/Oakwood Campus: The middle school serving 5th and 6th grades
is located on Holik Street at Jersey Street. Facilities include the main
building, gymnasium, and six detached buildings for school use. The site is
shared by two City -owned buildings and tennis/basketball courts. This is a
15 acre site with no room for expansion in any direction.
165
Middle School/Junior High Campus: 7th and 8th grade middle school students
attend the Junior High Campus located north of the Oakwood Campus on Anderson
Street at Jersey Street. The site has almost 22 acres, part of which is
taken up by the football field and stadium. School facilities include the
main building, cafeteria/gymnasium, auditorium, three smaller classroom
buildings, plus a music building. The School District Administrative
Building is also located at this site.
A&M Consolidated High School: The senior high school is centrally located
or the future growth potential of the City. The 39.8 acre site located on
West Loop South between Welsh Street and Nueces Street adequately contains
the large building complex, field house, tennis courts, running track, and
practice football field. It also provides room for future expansion.
SCHOOL STANDARDS
The following standards are adopted from the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
Elementary Schools: The elementary school serves as the basic design element
in delineation o the neighborhood unit. The following standards apply in
planning for the elementary school grades K-5.
* The service area of the elementary school should coincide with the
limits of the neighborhood.
* The service area should be bounded but not interrupted by major
thoroughfare so that no child would have to cross a heavily traveled
street on his way to or from school.
* The service area should be limited, wherever possible, to a
half -mile walking distance from home to school.
* The elementary school should serve a population of 4,000 to 6,000
persons.
* The elementary school should have an enrollment of 250 to 750
students with an average school having 500 students.
* The school site should have a minimum area of five acres plus one
acre for each 100 students.
* The school site should be located adjacent to a neighborhood park.
Middle Schools: The.desirable service area for a middle school, grades 6-8,
is what has been previously described as the "community unit". The following
standards are recommended in development of middle school facilities:
* The service area should consist of three to six neighborhoods.
* The service area should be limited, wherever possible, to a one to
one and one-half mile radius.
* The middle school should serve a population of 10,000 to 17,500
persons.
166
r -
S
' I
e
T-1 -E 1 +
\RJ~
r i 8AV
r`;�:
D SCHOOLS
SITE PLAN
PLAN
CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
L E G E N D
Existing Elementary School
Service Areas
Existing Middle School --►
Service Area
Future Elementary School — —
Service Areas
Future Middle School
Service Area
School Sites
IT Nk
ffi�
s
WELLBORN
0
�L A
l..
µ L_ PLATE 22
0
\ SCHOOLS NORTH
N N
r'
SITE PLAN
PLAN 2000
c r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
1167
SAMUEL L. WYSE ASSOCIATES
Pl.nnhty 3 M.n.B.m.nt Con.ult.nt.
(-] (-j j�
D.II.• T. a.•
���L,I��� J�
WAYNE W .NYDER ASSOCIATES
Pl...'.. 8 O...lopm.nt M.n.B.m.nt
Fort Worth T.R.
�,�
* The middle school should have an enrollment of 800 to 1,200 students
with an average school having 1,000 students.
* The school site should be centrally located in the service area and
accessible by thoroughfares and major pedestrian -ways to the related
neighborhoods within the community unit.
* The middle school should be located adjacent to a commity park.
Senior High Schools: The service area of a senior high school, grades 9-12,
consists of at least two "community units". Standards for development of
senior high schools are as follows:
* The senior high school should be located at the center of the service
area and be accessible by thoroughfares from all the service area.
* The service area should be limited, wherever possible, to a one and
one-half to two mile radius.
* The senior high school should serve a population of approximately
30,000 persons.
* The school site should have 20 acres plus one acre per 100 students
plus additional area for a sports stadium and related parking.
FUTURE SCHOOLS
The College Station Independent School District has prepared two reports
which provide an in-depth analysis of existing school facilities and
short-term needs. The first of these "Facilities Survey and Building Needs
Study" was prepared by SHWC, Inc. Architects in February 1981. This report
presents detailed information on existing sites, buildings, facilities,
programs, and enrollments. It further recommends needed improvements to
present school facilities.
The second study, "Report on Facility Planning Needs", was prepared by the
Superintendent of Schools in August, 1981. This report summarizes the
findings of the previous study, and makes specific recommendations for
improvements through the 1985-86 school year for inclusion in the recent bond
issue. This $15.5 million bond issue included tunds for construction of
Southwood Valley Elementary, expansion of the High School, site development
at all schools, improvements to College Hills Elementary, improvements for
pre-school and special education, handicapped provisions, and new site
acquisitions.
The recommended program calls for acquisition of two new school sites
totaling 40 acres. One site of 15 acres would be for an elementary school.
The other site of 25 acres would accommodate both an elementary school and
middle school. These sites are both proposed at the Southeastern edge of the
City. The report concludes that the recommended improvements and site
acquisitions would serve the School District through the year 1990. Two
additional elementary schools will be needed in the Southern part of the City
as shown on the Schools Site Plan Map, plate 22.
168
Improvements
169
170
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Municipal government in College Station, as in any city, has three general
areas of responsibility: (1) to provide services in return for taxes, (2) to
regulate private activities in the public interest; and (3) to promote
individual, family, and community welfare. It is to these three areas of
responsibility that the Comprehensive Plan is addressed.
As College Station grows, demands are placed upon the City for an expansion
of its services. Old facilities must be maintained and improved to
adequately serve the needs of the citizens. Streets and utility systems must
be extended and upgraded. Police and fire protection must be expanded. Good
schools and attractive parks must be provided, and with the increased demand
for services, governmental facilities must likewise be increased.
The Comprehensive Plan for College Station indicates that the City's
population should increase to about twice its present level over the next
twenty years, from about 38,000 at present to approximately 71,650 by the
year 2000. In order that all citizens might be well serviced, the City must
optimize the allocation of its limited resources so as to not unduly burden
its citizens.
Within the scope of the comprehensive planning process for the City of
College Station, the Capital Improvement Program is a financial plan. As a
companion to the multi -element Comprehensive Plan, it is an analysis of the
past and present financial capacity of the City to provide its services.
Along with the Comprehensive Plan, it proposes the means to schedule and
finance needed City facilities over the planning period to the year 2000.
The determination of these facilities has been made trom a study of existing
and proposed land use patterns within the City, as well as from studies of
the utilities systems, thoroughfare system, and community facilities made as
a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Capital Improvements Program is essentially a four-part study. The first
section, Financial Analysis, relates College Station's financial position to
other cities, examines overlapping debt, and analyzes revenues and
expenditures of the City. The second part examines bonded debt and proposes
a plan for financing improvements in the future. Possible alternative
sources of funding are then discussed. Finally, a priority listing of
recommended improvements and their costs are presented.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Prior to the development of a specific Capital Improvements Program for
College Station, a study must be made of the City's abilitiy to finance
needed improvements. College Station's present financial position is first
compared with that of other comparable cities in the area. Then outstanding
debt of taxing bodies overlapping with the City of College Station is
examined.
The Financial Analysis also presents a study of College Station's past
revenues and expenditures together with five-year projections based on past
trends, assessed valuation, tax rates, and anticipated population. The study
further considers the City's outstanding debt, amortization schedules, debt
171
J
Q W r Cil Ln N Ol
X F- M Ct N n tD
F- Q Q
Q ~ b4
M
q:t
r�
N
tD
Q
C
M
m
M
N
F- F-
Ln
N
F -
r
N
X
Ln
W Z F-
O
O
W C. W
O
r
N
>-
L1 Q p
ta4
O
O
O
O
U
F-
J
L/) M:
WF
r
r
N
U)
O
M
LP
F- W
N
00
M
M
N
in
O
O0
M
v7
::r -
W Z�
O
Q
p W O
Cl
N
-C*-
r
O
> C
O
�t
Q
C
n
p W O
b4
r
•r
J
W
--
tO
r
U)
O
M \ r
M
Ln
O
00
O0
U)
Z • Eff
C
N
cn
M
C
C C
CT.
00
r
n
Cil
in
^
CL Q Q
^
r
C3
r
Cil
If
W
r
>
EH
Q
F- W
J
O
Z
U X F-
P�
O
O
O
O
W Q Q
r
CA
U)
N
Cil
LL- F- tY
N
-Ct
N
n
tD
LL
r
M
M
r
CT
W
b4
W O C
C
r
J
Q W r Cil Ln N Ol
X F- M Ct N n tD
F- Q Q
Q ~ b4
W J ^
V) Q r r C71 U) Cn M
N > b4 O M tO n Ln
64
i
It
tD r- 00 tD r
F- O Cil M r M n
Q 00 N M CTl Cil
J Cll
C r ^ U) M Ln
d M qzr N
N
Z
N
V)
I
N C
O
Lt)
P-
N F- t
\
F -
X
Ln
W Z F-
O
O
O
O
C
N
>-
LN UJ Q
co
O
O
O
O
F-
J
L/) M:
WF
r
r
r
r
CD
Q
Q
O
J
Z
CC
F-
::r -
O
Q
00
N
-C*-
C
O
S
O
Z
Q
C
n
C
C
r
•r
J
F- W
r
tO
r
U)
O
+)
Q
= — C
C
W a J
C
tD
N
r.
C71
tD
CL Q Q
r
r
r
N
U>
4 -
W
Q
J
O
Z
CO
C
lD
N
M
Cil
00
Q
N
LL.
\ O
r
M
M
r
CT
F-
r
W O C
C
r
Ln
Ln
r
W
= O O
O
>
J r
r
CT
Lf)
CA
M
U+
Q r
n
M
1p
n
U)
F-
>
M
n
r
4-
Q
Q
H?
O
Q
>)
d
p
+)
M
W O
M
N
M
m
00
•r
C
L/) W O
r
00
co
r
Cil
U
U
Ln O CO
to
r
Ln
Ln
n
W J ^
V) Q r r C71 U) Cn M
N > b4 O M tO n Ln
64
i
It
tD r- 00 tD r
F- O Cil M r M n
Q 00 N M CTl Cil
J Cll
C r ^ U) M Ln
d M qzr N
N
Z
O
F -
Q
F-
W
L/)
J
J
Q
WF
-
CD
W
>
O
J
Q
CC
F-
::r -
O
CD
W
U
CO
S
S
Z
172
Ln r d' d cf tD LO U) Gt
N N r M r Ln tD N M
r� N r U) M K3' LO N
t l N N Ln U) Lf) LO O
C71 Cf I M N Ln N tD
M
to O tD U) Ln :*, M O
I
CY N O U) Lc M
r r
U) Ln -::r O m O Ln Ln
I co tD O Cil U) N M
O O N U) N N M -zr r
1 ^
Ln CT M U) Lf) cY r tO
N N
O O O C O N O O O
n Ln Ln M Cil r O M rl,
Rd, Ln tD tD tD LO tD M O
n U) Ln M m r O m �
LO tD tD tD Ln tD M 00
°\° \ °\° \ °\° \ \ 3A°
C C O O O C O O O
M Cil lD r M Gt tD 00 M
n Ln Ln C 00 N 00 N tO
C Cil tD r t7 -,:I' r N r
Ln tD r r Ln v Ln M N
d r r r N r r
N N co Ln CT tD 00 O 00
n O Cf M In N n r -,:*-
LO O O r M to 00 r C M
CilCil Ln M M N U) Cil C
N O C r n �t Cf 00 CO
00 N Ln LO � tD n M
r r
NN Cn Ln Cil tD co C 00
I\ O Ch M Ln N n r �
U) O r Cil tD 00 r CO M
CilCn Lr M M N Ln CT O
N O O r r --OO CO
co N Ln Ln ¢t n tD n M
r r
r ^t0 N M M M r
CY) M M C)1 Cil r 00 O n
LO C M N L) Rt cr d N
CO M tD O O N r r
Gr M Gt �' Mm t7 t7' M
N
J
J
S
p
Z Z }
W J r~� Z
J O C7 Z S Z U Q
J Z W U Q W �c
O w W J
J J CC LY d Q Q
Q W Q O 2 W W W
U Cl S Y Z Ln F- F-
-M
limitations, and bonding capacity. Based on these factors, a bonding program
is prepared to support the recommended Capital Improvements Program.
Comparative Financial Analysis: A comparison of the general financial status
of College Station and several other cities in Texas is shown on Table 60.
Two groups of cities are shown for comparison. The first group are those
cities immediately surrounding the City of College Station. The second group
has approximately the same population size as College Station by the 1980
Census.
The first group of comparabale cities has an average per capita market
valuation (value at 100 percent) of $11,078. College Station, with a per
capita market valuation of $10,626 is somewhat below average. The second
group of cities has an average per capita market valuation of $20,586, while
the average for all cities is $17,190 per capita. Per capita value in
College Station is, therefore, 41-50 percent below the average for these
cities. However, a revaluation of property in College Station in 1982 raised
the per capita market valuation to $16,442.
The average effective tax rate (actual tax rate adjusted to 100 percent
assessment ratio) for the first group of cities is $0.473 per $100 market
valuation. The average for the second group is $0.595. College Station's
effective tax rate is, therefore, significantly lower than the average.
A study of almost 600 Texas cities conducted by the Consultants indicate that
cities of the largest 10 percent, which would include College Station,
generally had an effective tax rate in the range of $0.70 to $0.80. Cities
of the second largest 25 percent generally had tax rates in the range of
$0.60 to $0.70. The next largest 25 percent had rates of $0.50 to $0.60,
while the smallest cities had rates generally less than $0.50. This would
indicate that College Station now has a tax rate significantly low for a city
its size.
The average per capita debt for the first group of comparable cities is $360,
while College Station's per capita debt is $564. The average for the second
group of cities is- also $360. In summary, College Station's overall
valuation is low, and its tax rate is also low; but the total bonded debt of
the City is above average.
Overlapping Debt: In addition to the City itself, citizens of College
Station are required to pay taxes imposed by Brazos County and by the School
District in which they reside. In addition, they must share the tax debt of
these taxing bodies. Table bl presents the total outstanding debt of these
taxing bodies and gives an estimate of the portion of that debt that accrues
to residents of College Station.
The total debt of these bodies in 1980 was $29,905,000. About 92 percent,
or $26,538,000, accrues to residents of College Station as overlapping debt.
This is a per capita overlapping debt for College Station of $712. The
majority of this is due to debt of the laity.
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
In order to determine College Station's ability to finance Capital
Improvements, the City's revenues and expenditures were studied, analyzed,
173
and projected. City audits and budgets were examined back through 1976 to
determine past sources of revenue, types of expenditures, and revenue and
expenditure trends. It was found that both revenues and expenditures have
continually increased, reflecting the increased costs of municipal operations
and the increased demand for services.
From this study of past operations, projections were made of revenue and
expenditures from 1982 through 1987 in order that the City's ability to pay
for improvements during this period might be more clearly understood.
Projections have been made by major functions for both the General Fund and
the Utility Fund. The City also has a number of special funds which were
examined and taken into consideration in this Financial Analysis.
General Fund: Revenues and expenditures of the City's General Fund for
fiscal years 1976 through 1982 are presented on Table 62. The General Fund
includes those activities which are supported by tax revenues and charges of
the City other than utilities. The fiscal year ends on June 30 of each year.
The data presented was taken from official City audits for the years
1976-1980, and from the City budget for 1981-1982.
Revenues are presented as they are listed in the City audits, but additional
detail is also given in the audits. Categories of revenues for the General
Fund are as follows:
* Taxes include current ad valorem taxes, delinquent tax collections,
penalities and interest, franchise taxes, and City sales taxes.
* License & Permits include rental of property, recreation fees, and
other services.
* Fines & Forfeits cover corporation court fines, parking penalties, and
other such charges.
* Other Income includes interest on investments, fund transfers,
reimbursements, grants, and other miscellaneous fees.
Expenditures shown from the General Fund are exactly as detailed in the City
audits and budgets, except that expenses for Uapital Outlay have been taken
out of the individual department accounts and totaled for the entire General
Funds. Expenditures of the General Fund are detailed as follows:
* Administrative includes the Administration, Finance, and Engineering
epratments.
* Public Safety includes the Police and Fire Departments.
* Public Works includes the Street and Sanitation Departments along with
the Service Center, and Buildings and Grounds.
174
TABLE 61
City of College Station, Texas
ANALYSIS OF OVERLAPPING DEBT - 1981
GOVERNMENTAL POPULATION OUTSTANDING PER PORTION AMOUNT
BODY 1980 DEBT CAPITA OVER- OVERLAPPING
($1,000) DEBT LAPPING ($1,000)
City of College Station 37,296 $21,767 $583 100% $21,767
Brazos County 93,487 595 5 32% 190
A&M Consolidated ISD 41.826 7,266 173 73% 5,304
TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT $27,261
PER CAPITA OVERLAPPING DEBT $ 731
Source: Municipal Advisory Council of Texas
Estimates of the future revenues and expenditures of the General Fund for the
period 1982-1987 are given on Table 63. These projections are based on
trends shown by major categories over the past several years. In general,
revenues have been increasing at an average of 21 percent per year, while
expenditures have increased by an average of 22 percent per year. It is
anticipated that these trends will continue in the foreseeable future unless
the City makes changes in its policies regarding revenues and expenditures.
Utility Fund: Revenues and expenditures of the City -owned water and sanitary
sewer systems and electrical distribution for the year 1976-1982 are shown on
Table 64. Only operating revenues and expenditures are shown in order to
determine the net operating revenues available for bond debt service.
Transfers to other funds are not shown.
The categories of Utility Fund revenues are defined as follows:
* Electricity Sales represent the sale of electricity to customers.
* Water Sales represent the sale of water to customers.
* Sewer Charges are collected with the water bill and are based on water
consumption.
* Interest is collected on debt service and operating fund investments.
* Miscellaneous revenues include service fees, reconnect fees, use of
City forces, and sale of scrap.
As for the General Fund, expenditures for capital Outlays have been separeted
out of departmental accounts for the Utility Fund. Otherwise, Utility Funds
expenses are as presented in the audits and budgets. Categories of Utility
Fund expenditures are as follows:
175
N
CXR
CT
r
n
01
In r
X
LL Ln
H W
CL'
C F-
O
•r Q
i- Z
N ra W
(0 +-) m
N X
W W
J CU
ca C ca
Q N
�-- r N
r W
O �
U Z.
W
4-
O W
� Q
•r Z
U �
LL.
J
W
Z
W
('3
176
176
O
00 U) O O LO
00
-it N -::r O
O
Ol
01
1"MU)Cr
1�
O1U)O10)
M
r
00
I N
I�CP�CLO
C
0)r00C I
r
U)
t0
-00
)0 CT
0)U7 01000
M
rCrNCI
M
r
L17
71 r
M N r N 01
r
r C l0 l0
�h
C
U)
-
C+7 r N N
M
(7) C 00 1
U)
M
00
N M
LD
r M
l0
l0
1.04
b4
4.4
bpi
{f}
C71 M 0) l0 t0
M
r� LO r Ol
t0
N
00
lONrMC71
-:}'
CC
Ol
0)
00
I r
C) RI, �t0Ol
00
rr,lar1�
M
00
N
O 00
4-)
70 0)
U7 ^ LD tp r
r-
M r% C71 r La
C
t0
117
Tr
d'rMCR*'
et
rU7CO's
I�
l0
-:I,
NN rel-
VI
MC U7 U-)
C71
N N
U)
r N
IO
d
b4
1.4
b4
b4
b4
MM l04qtNl
00
IOCtONN
9.0
CO
CT
C71N Nr U7
C
RtC001�lqr
CY
C
lrlr
I C
NO101U7q;Y
>
Gt 01M r
M
N
U)
N C
CU
W }1 Ln 3 •r f0
rC3
X
-M
d00 CU)�
OfLY
LTrd 1001
r
N
M
)1 r
l0 r- r r CO
M
N N 1, N r
r*_t0
rC
M
Q CL'
t0 rMC
N
CD
-;
N
n
U Q
r N
LY'
r r
11
r
C.)
N W
49
69
b4
b4
CL
b4
1-+ >-
O1 1- 00 00
l0
Ct n ct l0 00
01
00
1�
LL
M O1 r LaN
ct
CM r N l0 CO
N
00
r
1 C71
00 0) CV C M
Gt
M 01 CV CY) O1
00
M
N
01�
W
Ol
t0 r 00 r r
M
N 01 M l0 (::
N
N
U7
it r
a) t0 l0 m 0)
C
N Ch U) U) l0
Gf
C
19:3-
L'M N C
M
l0 O1 -::r M CV
t0
N
00
r '
M
N
N
b3
64
b4
b4
b4
176
176
O
O N 00 M r
C
M 00 r U7 I�,
C}'
r
U)
M U) LO r M
O)
N C r N t p
co
I�
C
1 00
9.0 r� N ct U7
U7
U7 U7 0) N 00
C
U)
l0
n
I�01
1-OC71U)l0
Ol
CrlOLOI--
M
O
M
Mr
c*- r� l000r-�
c!-
d'co OlCN
M
N
U)
r
N M r l0
LO
Gf I� M M r
r
N
M
r
N
N
N
64
64
b4
b4
b9
N
O
N U
N
4-)
r > N
S-
L +)
&-
L LU •r
VI
W
4-)
QJ Ln aJ
m
> >, to
IO
r
i
L E
N Y O
+)
C
oa O O O
CU
rL) 4- L C CLI
O
CU
4- Lt_ U
>
Ln L eu O O C
r
C
O_
N C
CU
W }1 Ln 3 •r f0
rC3
X
0) rn 0Z 1-4
OfLY
N +..i r
4-)
r
W
J
N ai
•r U U ro r
O
rC
Q CL'
Ln Ln C C N L
r
- C •r •r N CLI
�
r
U Q
W CL) N L CU a)
r6
� •r r r L U
1
r
ru
N W
= X U r6 C -c-
+-)
Q E U N
CL
4-L
1-+ >-
Z RS •r t •r 4-1
0
,Z O O CV •r
O
«)
0
LL
W F- _J U LL C
f-
W Q d a CY
V)
U
W
Q'
W
176
176
O
M
LO
W
J
co
Q
F-
I\
CO
01
r
N
CO
CT
r
N
V1 W
rC �
CU F-
� a"y
Z
C W
O C1
•r X
4-L W
4-L ozj
N
N
CU W
0) =)
CU Z
r W
r �
O W
V tY
4- C]
O Z
LL-
4-)
•r J
U
W
Z
W
C'3
W
F --
U-
U')
00
CT
r
I -C*-
re) 00
00 0)
CT r
-Cdl M I� M I�
d•
00 M 00 C�
LO
LO
r
LO C" LO LO LC•)
N
r t\ CO N
C)
^
CO
^CO LO 00
N
011 CO01CY) I
M
r
d
y
C:)
4-)
N0)LONr
M
-::rrLnC0 I
N
0)
r
CY) r0)cj-00
M
ptoN01
C�
M
r
LO LC) rr� M
Ln
M N CVj
N
n
CV •r
-C*l N r�
Ln
n Lf) r N
LO
LO
CU N CU
r
>
r
r
4f}
r
Ln 00 0) r 0)
N
N n M Ol
r
l0
r
Ln Ln U') CC) LO
N
Ln M Ln 00
M
N
Ln
N C) C)
I"
r" 00 L 0 LO I
00
N
C)
C`. N
=5
^O
^
4- W U
>
Cn S_ R) O
C) CY) rCY) CY)
p
00rLnM I
Ln
LO
r
CU
C) LO 00 LO Ln
l0
r LO CO p
tO
p
n
N V) cz
rCVrLON
Gk
Ln1-rCY)
Cl)
-zr
n
W
Gt N LO
M
Lf) C r r
M
O
M
b4
o�
4R
404
3j
tag
� Gt ON q::r
Ln
O GT r M
CO
N
CO
Ln a) U-) CO 01
CO
n LO Ch 4.0
M
C)
M
U y
LO CO CT LOM
cP
NLX) CO01 1
LO
p
r�
Z-0 O O
(L)•r
O
^p
^
U
W F- J U La_ p
F-
N N W 01 ^
C)
M Ln ^ -:3• 1
r
Ln
LO
00 O1 LO m 4
M
CONall R*-
Ln
n
N
O
Ln 00 r Ln N
LO
r N CO LO
p
M
tt
Mr Ln
=�
W
4><i'
r
tii
epi
r
4r4
r
64
N00CY) rM
I�
N01C)L0
I�
n
4.zr
Nd•r*,rl,
N
COM^n
l0
p
r*_
NC)C0 CV I-
r
WNC)Cf I
C*-
00
N
C) r� CY)
M
r M CO CO
r
CT
r
M M Ln M CO
�
LO CO r r
Cl_
-:r
CV
rlDr Ln q::r
m
rLO C)N
p
M
Gt
Mr
01
MMrr
Cl
O1
4f}
4,4
44
4a4
AA -
co
p
00�N01
M
CO
r
^ C) CY)
ct
N CT Ct M
p
Ln
M ct CO n CO
N
Ln p CO t\ i
N
00
C
p1
Ln M r CO r
r
lO p CO CQ
CO
M
N
CM r Ct 1,0 p
LO
N LC) Cl) U-)
W
N
01
V)
n r Lh 00
Ln
M r M CT
O1
M
N
4-L
N r M
CO
N Mn
CO
C
R3
4A
ta4
4.4
4f}
I
4a4
4-)
7'I
177
CU
V) U
y
4-)
a)
Q
•r > y
EL. 4. -)VI
CV •r
V)
CV
CU N CU
CU
>
y
ro
r
+)
C1 4- Q)
O
•r 4-) cn
O
r
-0
RS
S- L E
C
i-> (V Y
O
4-)
C
E
ozi O O O
CU
Its 4- S_
C`. N
=5
CU
r
4- W U
>
Cn S_ R) O
O C
r
p
CZ
4-)
y C
CU
W 4) V) 3
•r b
m
X
VI
N V) cz
tY
R' V)
4_1 r
4-)
r
W
W
V) CU
r U U
IO r
O
M
N y C 0) V) S-(
3j
�I
N CU S_ CU CU
LO
�~� •� r r
i U
r
(L)
p X U b C L
4J
CO E-0 •0
U y
-0
Q
4-3
(U
Z r6•rL•r
O
Z-0 O O
(L)•r
O
to
O
U
W F- J U La_ p
F-
W¢ C1 a_
N
U
F-
S_
CL
O
W
=�
W
N
177
tD
W
J
m
Q
f—
u
N
00
Ol
r
01
r
Ln
W
F-
F•ti
in
Z
W
O_
X
W
ca
N
W
Z
W
W
p
Z
LL.
}
F—
F—
O
178
i
.r)
00000
O U)rNCF' 0101
O d•
R:t
O
000000
00 00 ko CC) LO MN
Ln Ln
O
I N
Nr 0100
N 00rrt0CPN00 1
r
ICC
r CO.
n n n n
n n n Q
n n
n
co 0)
GtNrOCV
O Cn 00 r -n 14
CON 1
O t0
tD
ON r
U-) M c t U) N
O N LO O O I- N
O O
O
r
00 r O r
N O I� Ol *• Cf M
m I�
t0
M
N N r
t0 1_
01
O
M
r
r
MM LO—
r
toML[)N1�N
.::t -1*1 00 U) 00
01 tD m ct 0) LO C Lf)
I� LO
N
00 r
O 00 00 1.0 1l_
01 00 1� t0 O LO 00 r
O U)
-:31
i t
rtDlONU)
M 00 NN 1�L)N
M00
N
O 00
4.4
n
tO O 1.0 tY) 01
00 0)
tD M 00 00 M
O 00 M M 01 00 L) M
00 01
00
a)
(Y) LO C) C.0
Mt0-::r -I:*- MOr
r O
N
r
K:r r� n M
M LO r t`') r M
O M
M
1-I O1 0) N Lf) 10 I-
0l r
N L.C)
1Z r
00
4?
r
b'4 ta4
64
b4
178
i
.r)
�CV) 00(\jt0
M
q:PLOr-:*-tDrct
LO
O
LO
0)M1l,010
O
tDtD0000n01
00
M
r
ICC
r�^r t0
N
tD�tDLO MCI -00
O1
O
O
n n n n
n n n n n n n
n
n
r� a)
tD IO N L A 00
O1
OO M C I c � C1 cl
N
1z
M
tMN1�r00
M
r0)01rr--t0r
r
M
�}
r
MM LO—
toML[)N1�N
N
to
00 r
C
c7
t0
tD
iso
r
64
6R
64
4.4
tO O 1.0 tY) 01
4:zr
r Ln 1�, U) O1 Lf) 01
r
M
Cf
a)r O1Gt00
M
NrN-C*- r1�M
-It
tD
O
1 Ol
O1 N 00 tD I�
Ln
1-I O1 0) N Lf) 10 I-
I*�
O
00
00
1� 01
I� U') C M Ct
(\j
U) U•) t0 U•) 1� t0 O
00
C
00
01r
C00MM
tD
L17�-qrMi-Lnrr
U)
l0
r
r
a•01d•
co
MMMMNrr
r
M
LO
I�
00
t7
lD
t0
Ei}
64
b4
69
{f}
O O r 00 O
01
N Ol ct r r M Gt
1p
LO QMNrLO
N
00 LOLnM tD00N
00
N
O
1 00
rI�LOtDLX)
tD
Nr CV -:*MMOl
N
M
9.0
n n
�
I O 1
r U7 N G�' M
1-
M M N I z c" ; Un 01
M
r
O1r
Qom' Mr
LO
r Q M1l, G'tQr
tD
00
*•
r
00 00 fM
O
O N Ct N N r r
C)
G!-
q*
t0
00
Ln
Lf)
tD
E!}
404
t!3
b4
4.C)-
f}O
0O
•r •r
N i--)
to �
r C
N
N
E •r O C
O
O
N i C •r O +J
i
r
C i-) 0 4J •r C
7
tO
N
(u to •r = +) 0)
a
{
Ln to N
N
i •r +-) p U E to
rt)
r
a.1 O
p U •r Q) +> >
r
>> Ln 0) O
C
i r 10 O
i -J
C
•r r t0 C
>
N t0 b O 0 O i C
r
O
d
U rO S +-j tO
N
W U U L •r U F— t0
t0
X
r Ln U Ln
O` •r •r CL p r
{-.)
r
W
O r
Q Q'
to v i i i O)
r
F— i -t +.J i i O M W
F—
+-L
r
U Q
W U O O O U
b
►+ U U N W M CO U
I
r
t0
(n W
C O 4J 3 +-) to
+-)
p v O 4J +j 3 3 N
-0
a
+•1
� >•
Z r 10 4J C •r
O
Z r r t0 M N O •r
fO
O
LL.
WW 3N
F—
WW W33NtnM:
N
U
�—
�
a_
W
X
W
178
i
.r)
U7
tO
w
J
m
Q
F--
179
i7
MI�d•Or�
r
1-0000 CPO 0)
r
CT
O
N
M N M U') Ql
O
00 0) to 01, 1.0 M
Ln
d
O
I 1�l
r
lD r M Old
lO
U) N M d• tO I
r
tO
00
D 00
n
N
^ O
Lf) 00
O Cil
r r 00 r- N
N
t0 O tO r N r 1
LL')
O
Ui
Ilr
C* r r N Lc N 1
O100r1l,Cf)
M
MMNOOr LO
Ct
00
-
d•
1�LO^LOr
I�
(M U) LO000-cl-
M
O
M
i� 00 N 00 r
n CV r
tD
Ol r r r
LO
r
tp
00
r
N
r
r
CJl
4.4
4A,
4,4 (
47q-
M
t04
179
i7
rNMCilN
M
NtONCtN00
ih
00
N
1� tO d' r 00
1-
00 n r tO 1� to
I�
M
r
1 t0
N Cil I� � r
U7
00 M Cil M r O I
Ct'
n
N
Lf) 00
^ ^ p
n
00 a)
LO C)1 LO MLO
cn
C* r r N Lc N 1
00
N
r
C) r
00 Ol N CT 1.*
d•
U) Cil Cil LO t0 Cil
lq:t
tO
r
I�
i� 00 N 00 r
m
N 00 00 I� 00 d•
r
cn
r
00
CJl
t0 M N
M
(3
M
r
r
N
r
r
1
64
4f}
lf}
4Ff
iA
N
00
CP
r
N t0 M Ln O
0.0
M 1� N r t0 Ln
d
r
U)
00 I- t0 U) p
Ui
U) M t0 U) 00 M
N
O
N
Oco d'Cil0l
M
I"CT0)m(nN01
N
tO
00
N
w
Ct0
(O
tY
00 Cil
I� C)1 an d r
M
O d' M OO d- N 1
M
N
U)
X
O
Cil r
N Ct d• d' CO
M
N d• C'r d• d d-
LA
a)
d'
Q)
r
OM00r r
r
tO^ntO1"d•
O
00
co
t0 M r
N
00
r
N
Z
r
N
r
r
4y4
d}
40-1
b4
t a4
Or_LLI
11
•r
X
4•J
w
IO
4-)
(az)
011 M d• O N
00
tO 00 d• C1l 00 1-
N
N
d -
N
O N LO Ct M
Ln
M Cil U) N O t0
C11
U•)
mi -
L/)
I d'
N O t0 M Cil
r
r Cf M tO U') 00 1
C1l
1"
1"
Q)
w
M 00
w n n w n
n
w n w n w w p
w
w
w
O
O
00 Cil
1\ n co N LO
r
t0 N N C1 r r 1
l0
Cil
tO
QJ
Z
Ci>r
N 00 r N P',M
Ch N C\i LO O)
00
N—
r
W
r
r 00 U') tO r
M
O tO 1.0 U) 110 M
00
00
1-
r
�
n n
w
w
^
O
w
Lc; C17r
O
O
O^
r
U
w
r
N
I
r
r
4.4 1
tfr
ta4
4.4
ta4
I=
O
Z
LL.
41:3•tOnto00Ol
O
00
CO
•r
M U) 00 U) N
tO
00 Ln C11 N d' d'
4.0
N
00
I Cl)
n C) 00
O
N M Cil O t0 Ln I
M
M
t0
t -r
N O
n w n w w
n
n n w n n n p
n
n
w
J
co C)1
N M a) r to
N
M N O M r CO I
r
Ol
Q
(-�
a)r
N00d"NC1l
1l_
rO N1\U)LO
CT
tO
r
I-
r
00 ct N LO r
N
U-) LO U') Ct U•) M
Cn
I�
�
n
w
MNr
00
n
CIl
O
LLJ
r
Ct'
4H
E(4
ta4 I
b4
4a4
f—
LL-
O O
•r •r
(A 4,
•r � C
N
N
•r O C
Q)
QJ
N S C •r O 4-J
S_
(—
C +•L 04-.)-- C
O
(O
N
LC N •r = 4••) Q)
+•I
L/) in N
Q)
S_ 'r 4•-) -0 U E Cn
ft3
r
O U •r Q) +> >
r
>> Cn Cn O
C
= S_ r (6 O
C
•F� Q) S- QJ
Qi
r r -0 4-) r Q) O
O
Q)
•r r (V C
>
N (O (O O 00 S- C
O
O_
U (O L i-) its
Q)
w U U S_ •r U f (O
m
X
•r NU V)
CL 9= r
+I
r
w
J
S_ (v r
L S Q) Q) r
O
to
Q
N 4-3 i L L. ()
r
I--- 4-) -P S• s_ 0) 0) QJ
F-
4•-)
r
U Q
w U (v Q) QJ U
IC)
U U QJ W(Z (0 U
I
•r
(O
Ln w
a) 4-) 3 +-) Ln
4-)
M W Qi iJ a••) 3 3 to
.n
CL
4-)
�-+ >-
Z r CO QJ C •r
O
Z r r (O M Q) Q) •r
O
(Z
O
La_
ww3L/)"2:
f--
www 33 Ln Nm
Ln
U
H
CL
LU
x
w
179
i7
N
La N
X 00
N Cil
F- r
I
f\
C f\
O Cil
•r r
k
N Z
W
J LL LL
m CJ)
Q O W
F- r U
O
U a
LTJ
4- N
O
F-
A m
4.3 t j
•r �
U
I N
-00
O Or
h r
1 r
00
0 0)
n r
1 00
Cil
Il r
LU
Ln Ct O
m
O CO M Ln
l0
Ct co O
N
O ^ L,0 r
Ln
r I Mme'
Ol
OMr-d• 1
Ol
^O
lD
^O
LO
00 1 r� N
i\
U7 t0 C) LO I
l0
V (.0 %D
n
OO LO r
n
LO LD
M
00 n
U-)
u U N
r
4.14-
to
r
tt?
N lD CTl
n
O O LC) CV")Ol
r -
N I� tD
ko
O r M Cil tCi
O
r 00 Mn1
M
O CO q: t0 M
Cl
�
C
F- til i
N
MO 1
Cil
In r LO
N
t.0 r CO
lD
LC) M N
N
LO LO
M
LD l0
M
b4 I 44
q*coCOM M
M Ln C) tt
00 N L O 0p ltd,
r r. IS � M
to O LO ct
tD � -:J-00
40-)- 1 'b�
r� Cil
l0
t.0 M
lO 00
to
O
tD CIl
1 Gt
r
^O
O Lo
M n
1 d
lD
64
LO
O
C
U O +> O (1)
Ul)
b4
0 -
_W•ri-)
b4
r� Cil
l0
t.0 M
O
r C) I I
N
^O O
Cl
Cil Cil I 1
00
O Lo
n
C:r r
U•)
64
69
Ln
C
U O +> O (1)
QJ
N C
0 -
_W•ri-)
C O
X
O LL.
W
•r
4-) S-
u U N
v s
co
r (A 4-)
4-)
r i O
O
0-0 N
U N 4- E
N
C Le) O
N
X i C i
O
La La co 4-
C
F- til i
N
F- N
>
N >1 Q)
-)4-
S- O 4 -)4-
a)
N i •r Ln
r
W Cl (v r C
(a
O 4-) •r La
+)
Z i a +) i
O
waw-,
W
a
64 I t+4
0M1000NI Cil
ORd- MNLo LD
01-- O r N r
U7 Cil Ql M n
LC) L.0 N r Lo
LA L,D N Ln
tR} b4
O 00 r -I U'7 O
O
U')LDr NN
00
N U") n Lf)
r
O 0 LD M
Cl
Ln Cil r r-�
M
r N
LP
b4
b4
O r M
r
LLQ cf r�
Cil
n Cf I I
r
^O O
i
00 Ql I i
—00
O
r r
M
64
v4
� N
r O Ln
N
La Ln 4-) Ln O
a)
Cl- 'a O a) a)
i
C Z 4-) LL-
.LrO
-0O
i-)
La CO 4- Z Ln
•r
sZ O 4-)
r C C C
C
U O +> O (1)
QJ
N C C 0)
0 -
_W•ri-)
LU -- 4-)NVQ
X
o` i Ln E Ln
W
O a O d 1 N CTf
F-
�-• -0 a) r (U •r
co
O C 4-) i-) +-)
4-)
z O C O C La
O
a
X
W
io
n
•r
U
N
O
CJ)
m
C
La
Ln
•r
O
Q
•U
4-
4-
C)
Q)
L)
i
O
O
Ln
* Electrical Transmission represents the purchase of electricity from
Gulf States Utilities for distribution.
* Electrical Distribution includes supplies, salaries and benefits, and
bui ding and equipment maintenance.
* Water Production covers expenses of operations and maintenance of the
City's water wells and storage facilities.
* Water Distribution includes maintenance and repairs to water lines and
fire hydrants.
* Sewage Collection is for operations, repairs, and upgrading of sewage
co— lectios and manholes.
* Sewage Treatment represents costs on the laity's waste water treatment
plant.
* Miscellaneous includes contingency funds, insurance, and other
benefits.
Projections of future Utility Fund revenues and expenditures for 1982-1987
are shown on Table 65. In the past, utility revenues have increased at an
average of about 16 percent per year, while utility expenditures have
increased at about 10 percent per year This trend is expected to continue
in the future. The new operating revenues of the utility systems have
averaged about $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 per year in the past, more than
adequate for all existing bond debt coverage.
Debt Service Fund: The City maintains a separate fund for the repayment of
its bonded de t. The Debt Service Fund includes General Obligation bonds,
Certificates of Ubligation, and Notes Payable. These debts are paid by an
allocation of the laity's annual ad valorem tax revenues and transfers from
the Utility Fund. Requirements of the Debt Service Fund are shown on
Table b6.
DEBT STRUCTURE
The nature of capital improvements is such that large expenditures are
generally required today for improvements which will serve the City for many
years in the future. College Station, however, does not have the resources
at present to pay for many long-term facilities since its revenues are
collected and expenditures are made from year to year. The City finds it
necessary, therefore, to issue bonds in order that it might have the funds
required to fianace capital improvements when they are needed. These bonds
allow the City to spread the cost of improvements over the life of the
facilities.
Depending on the limitations on debt service coverage to be discussed herein,
bonds should be sold in the earliest favorable market following the approval
of the bond sale. Any funds not appropriated for immediate construction
should be invested in short-term government securities. This allows the City
to absorb interest charges on the bonds until the money is needed for
improvements.
181
The capital improvements which College Station will need during the planning
period have been determined from previous sections of the Comprehensive Plan
and have been assigned costs in this study. Funds available for financing
improvements have been determined from the analysis of revenues and
expenditures. The City's bonding capabilities and proposed bonding programs
are presented on the following pages.
General Obligation Bonds: General Obligation Bonds are used to finance the
construction or purchase of streets, drainage, parks, public buildings, and
other facilities which generally contribute no direct revenues to the City.
These bonds are generally financed through tax revenue. In College Station
they are paid for by an allocation of current tax collections to the Debt
Service Fund.
Revenue Bonds: Revenue Bonds are normally used to finance electric, water,
sewer, and gas utilities. Sometimes parks, parking lots, garages,
transportation systems, or other facilities collecting revenue can be
financed with revenue bonds.
Debt limits for utility revenue bonds are generally determined by past net
revenues of the utility systems. For College Station, net revenues for the
year preceding the issuance of new revenue bonds must have been 1.5 times the
average annual debt service requirements, including that of the new issue.
For these computations, net revenues are aetermined by subtracting utility
operating expenses from utility revenues.
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Capital Improvements are those permanent facilities or improvements which
will serve the City for over ten years. Elements of College Station's
Comprehensive Plan have defined the facilities and improvements which will be
needed by the City in order to meet the demands of future growth. The
Capital Improvements Program provides a guide for urban growth through the
scheduling and financing of these improvements.
General needs for capital improvements are listed on Table 67. These needs
are presented in order by priority of need. A detailed program of
recommended improvements for the next five years is given on Table 69. A
description is given of each project with estimates of cost and sources of
possible funding. Construction cost estimates are based on present prices
only, and no factor has been added for inflation.
If the City formulates policies regarding provision of street and utility
improvements by developers, future capital improvements will cost the City
much less than would otherwise De expected. The City's major costs wi l l be
for water supply and sewage treatment facilities, widening of major
thoroughfares to full standards, constructaion of public buildings, and
acquisition and development of parks.
The recommended Capital Improvements Programs cannot be expected to cover all
improvements which will be needed by the City. Each year additional
small-scale improvements will be made as immediate needs are recognized.
Some funds were included in the previous revenue and expenditure projections
for these needs. In is not anticipated, however, that these other projects
will seriously alter the Capital Improvements Program outlined herein.
182
TABLE 67
City of College Station; Texas
CAPITAL NEEDS LIST, 1982 - 2000
PUBLIC BUILDINGS
1. Police Station Addition.
2. Warehouse Addition.
3. City Hall Addition.
4. Construct Fire Station #3 in East part of City.
5. Construct Fire Station #4 in South part of City.
6. Construct Fire Station #5 in Northeast part of City.
7. Construct Police Substation in Southeast part of City.
8. Construct Fire Station #6 in Southeast part of City.
9. Construct Fire Station #9 in West part of City.
PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Make improvements to existing facilities - Merry Oaks, Raintree,
Anderson, Lemontree, Longmire, Brother's Pond, G.K. Fitch, and Gabbard.
2. Develop Southwood Athletic Complex.
3. Construct park maintenance facilities at Central and Bee Creek.
4. Construct parks office building at Central Park.
5. Develop a system of 8 additional neighborhood parks -acquire and develop
45 acres of additional park lands.
6. Develop a system of 2 larger Community Parks - acquire and develop 120
acres of additional park lands.
7. Uevelop an additional City Park - acquire and develop 107 acres of
additional park lands.
8. Establish a policy regarding utilization of flood plains along creeks,
and acquire 710 acres of open space land.
THOROUGHFARES
1. Acquire right-of-way and extend Holleman Street from Texas Avenue to the
frontage road of the East Loop.
2. Acquire right-of-way and extend Dartmouth from Woodstock Subdivision to
Brentwood Subdivision and Southwest Parkway to the East Loop.
3. Construct curb, gutter, and drainage along State Highway 30.
4. Improve Southwest Parkway from Texas Avenue to F.M. 2154.
5. Acquire additional right-of-way and construct Krenek Tap Road to
collector standards.
6. Acquire right-of-way and extend Lincoln Street from Ashburn to
University.
7. Acquire right-of-way for Dartmouth/East Loop overpass.
8. Acquire right-of-way for Southwest Parkway/East Loop overpass.
9. Acquire additional right-of-way for extension of F.M. 2818 from Texas
Avenue to Dartmouth.
10. Acquire right-of-way for connection of Appomattox.
183
TABLE 67 Continued
City of College Station, Texas
CAPITAL NEEDS LIST, 1982 - 2000
11. Acquire right-of-way and construct North Graham Road from FM2154 to
Texas Avenue.
12. Widen Texas Avenue to 4 -lane thoroughfare from Southwest Parkway to
Green Prairie Road.
13. Widen FM 2818 to a 4 -lane thoroughfare.
14. Acquire right-of-way and extend Welsh Street to North Graham Road.
15. Widen FM60 to a 4 -lane thoroughfare.
16. Widen State Highway 30 to a 4 -lane thoroughfare.
17. Acquire right-of-way and extend Rio Grande to North Graham Road as a
minor arterial.
18. Acquire right-of-way and extend Deacon to FM2154 as a minor arterial.
19. Widen Rock Prairie Road to a minor arterial from Texas Avenue to the
southern boundary of the 2300 acres.
20. Acquire right-of-way and extend Emerald Parkway as a 4 -lane
thoroughfare.
21. Widen Luther Street between FM 2154 and FM2818.
22. Acquire right-of-way and extend Holkeman from FM2154 to FM2818.
23. Realign, extend, and widen Dowling Road.
24. Widen North Graham Road between FM2154 to Dowling Road.
25. Acquire additional right-of-way and widen Green Prairie Road between
FM2154 and FM158.
26. Acquire additional right-of-way and widen Barron Road.
27. Acquire right-of-way and extend Bird Pond Road from Rock Prairie Road
to Green Prairie Road.
28. Construct improvements to Graham, Quail Run, Sebesta, and Foxfire to
collector standards.
29. Acquire right-of-way and extend Raintree as a collector.
30. Acquire right-of-way and construct north -south minor arterial from
North Graham Road to Green Prairie Road.
31. Acquire right-of-way and construct north -south minor arterial from
Emerald Parkway to Green Prairie Road.
32. Acquire right-of-way and construct north -south minor arterial from
State Highway 30 to Emerald Parkway.
33. Acquire right-of-way and extend Pate Road from FM158 to new north -
south arterial.
34. Widen FM158 to 4 -lane thoroughfare.
ELECTRIC SERVICE
I. Addition to Gulf State Utilities switching station.
2. Additions to electrical substation.
3. Improvements to aistribution system.
4. Electric system mapping.
WATER SYSTEM
1. Extension of Distribution lines from the Dowling Road Pump Station to
the proposed new elevation water tower.
184
TABLE 67 Continued
City of College Station, Texas
CAPITAL NEEDS LIST, 1982 - 2000
2. Construct 2 mg. elevated water storage tank
3. Extend the T.I. waterline to serve the Harvey area.
4. Construct 5 mg. ground storage facility and Pump #4 at Dowling Road
Pump Station.
5. Develop well #4 and cooling tower and Pump #3 at Sandy Point Pump
Station.
6. Install 12" water along north side of FM2816 from Glade to FM2154
and north to Southwest Parkway.
7. Install 16" water along east side of FM2154 from Rock Prairie Road
to Barron Road.
8. Install 12" water along west side of SH6 from Southwest Parkway to
north of interchange with Texas Avenue.
9. Install 12" water along east side of SH6 from Emerald Parkway to
Wood Creek Drive.
10. Install 16" water along Dartmouth from Southwest Parkway to Dart-
mouth Elevated Tank.
11. Construct'2 mg. Dartmouth Elevated Water Storage Tank.
12. Install 24" water along FM2818 extension to Dartmouth Extension.
13. Install 24" water along Uartmouth extension from FM2818 to SH6.
14. Install 16" water south of University Drive from Munson to SH6 and
along SH6 from FM60 to Brazoswood Drive.
15. Install 12" water west side of SH6 from Brazoswood to SH30.
16. Install 18" crossing of SH6 near Brazoswood Drive.
17. Install 18" east side of SH6 from FM60 to SH30.
18. Install 24" water along Rock Prairie Road from SH6 to Green Prairie
Road.
19. Install 18" water along Barron Road west from SH6 to proposed north -
south arterial then 12" water along Barron Road to FM2154.
20. Install 18" water along proposed north -south arterial between South-
wood Athletic Park and Barron Road.
21. Install 12" water south from Wellborn and east along Green Prairie
Road to proposed Elevated Tank.
22. Install 12" water from Emerald Parkway to Rock Prairie Road through
Foxfire and Woodcreek.
WASTE WATER SYSTEM
1. Increase treatment capacity of Carter Creek Treatment Plant to 8.0 mgd.
2. Install 15" Rock Prairie Interceptor from Rock Prairie Road and SH6 to
treatment plant.
3. Extend 12" gravity sewer from FM2818 southwest to FM2154.
4. Extend 12" gravity sewer from Southwood Valley Addition southwest.
5. Install 1.0 mgd. lift station on Lick Creek east of SH6.
6. Install 12" force main from proposed lift station to Rock Prairie
Interceptor.
7. Install 18" trunk main along Lick Creek from lift station.
8. Install temporary 0.5 mgd. sewage treatrment facility on Lick Creek at
Landfill.
9. Extend 21" and 30" mains from lift station to proposed temporary
facility.
TABLE 67 Continued
City of College Station, Texas
CAPITAL NEEDS LIST, 1982 - 2000
10. Install 18" trunk main along southern branch of Lick Creek to
temporary facility.
11. Construct 10.0 mgd. Sewage Treatment Plant on Lick Creek in proposed
industrial park.
12. Install 42" trunk main up Lick Creek and abandon temporary treatment
facility.
13. Install 27" main along Spring Creek and connect to 42" trunk line.
14. Extend 15" lines along branches of Spring Creek.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
College Station utilizes a sanitary landfill for ultimate disposal of solid
wastes. The landfill is on Rock Prairie Road in the Lick Creek Drainage
Basis. In 1980, the landfill was receiving approximately 5 lbs. of solid
waste per person. The projected landfill requirements are as follows:
TABLE 68
City of Col egT—e ation, Texas
PROJECTED LANDFILL REQUIREMENTS
I. Between 1985 and 1990, have a feasibility study made to determine the
most cost effective final aisposal of solid waste.
2. Between 1990 and 1995, begin design and construction for final disposal
alternative recommended in feasibility study mentioned above.
POPULATION
SOLID
WASTE
GENERATION
YEAR
SERVED
#/DAY
C.Y./WEEK* AC.FT/YR**
DEFICIENT***
98
6
i8b,000
11609.
None
1985
43,000
215,000
1340
56.8
None
1990
48,000
240,000
1500
b3.6
None
1995
60,000
300,000
1880
79.7
None
2000
72,000
360,000
?250
95.4
362 AcFt
* Based
upon 800 lbs.
per cubic
yard and
5 days/week hauling.
** Based
upon solid waste
volume
to landfill
volume ratio of
1:1.32.
*** Based
upon 50 Ac of
available
land and
20 ft. fill (1000
AcFt).
Source: Recommendations
by Consultants
Tne City's
present landfull
on Rock
Prairie
Road will provide
adequate space
for solid
waste disposal
until 1995, unless
growth is much more rapid than
projected.
Recommendations for solid
waste
disposal are as follows:
I. Between 1985 and 1990, have a feasibility study made to determine the
most cost effective final aisposal of solid waste.
2. Between 1990 and 1995, begin design and construction for final disposal
alternative recommended in feasibility study mentioned above.
00
Ol
N r
10N
X co
O CT.
F- r
O Q
•r �
i-•) CD
rn co O
ko 4-)
N a-
LLJ
m 0) H
LLJ
r
O Lil
U �
O
4-
O CL
•r J
U Q
H
a.
Q
v
187
C O O O O
O
O O O O O O O O
O
C O O
Cl) C+•) 0 C) 0
LO
r 00 O Ln O O O O
lqr
00 C
J
OC'MOOO
M
CLnOL[) O O O O
O
lOLOCD
Q
F-
N 0 LO C 0
l0
0 L0 0 00 f+) Lf; O O
M
Ln t0 C
O
M LO r U) Ln
O
00 r� U') N of Cr O Lf)
M
CY) N O
I—
M r U) LO Ln
r
r r Ln r r OQ lO
r�
U) L,() U)
N
r r
E+4
n
CO
O
O O O
O
O O O
t0
O
O O O
CO
I
O
Ln O C
>•
Ln
ct O O
C
LL.
U)
cY ch
O
bol-
b4
r
•i-.)
N
(0
to
C
S-
00
-0
O O O
Q)
LA
r
C C O
llc�
I
7
M O O
-0
>'
m
a) O LO
C
LL
M 'cY N
r6
U
64
•r
N
r-
Y
00
CL
O O C
a.
I
O Ln O
r(a
00
I
N
}
O
LO
O
O
LL-
I—
M r -*-
F --
b4
00
c
C)
C=)
0
M
O
O O O
C
00
N
�I
coc
o
0
LO
-:t N ct
U)
r0
bA
+-3
r
O
N
M
�
00
O C O
C O O O
O O
O
I
M M O
r 00 O C
O O
U
N
OM O
OftLO0 O
COLO
Oi
N00 lO
rnM t0 O O
Ln LD
a
>-
CO LO r
00^ C) C C • 4-
M N
Li
M r U')
r CV - -0 O
Ln Lf)
N
"O N
Q)
M
Q) C L
E
Q) s- O U
Q)
r
C U a. M
C
+->
U O (C
C rt3
N
(Z +) '0 r�
C O C
UJ
o
•N •16
C
r O1�M•r�Y
•Or
O
N Q) 0_ • C Gt' m n (1)
N C S-
C> O LO (O LD N N
c >
C Q) m
m
+
r C O Q) r Ln i L
Q) +)
'O C C
•r -0 4-) > O Y O Q) O
X LLJ
C
a 00
rr•rY Q)r Lr Cr M
UJ i
O
Q •r- •r
Z •r •r N L 0 QJ IC) (1) () C
i-) Q)
•r
+-) +-) M -9:3-
O U O •r (6 > a. > Y > O
+-) Q) i-)
+->
N
C •r •r 4,z :
rC CO a. Y (1) (L) L (I) r
Q) Q) +3
(o
F-
0-0 _0
F- LL_ O' i m -0 C:� (T) O fo
Q) i
Z
N •r -0 -0 C C
Q Q) U-0 r0 O 0-
L +-) (D
C
W
CD +j Q Q O O
LLJ Q) U Q O a. -0 O -0 "a Q)
+) V)
Q)
m:
Z (a •r •r
= U •r O C L C >) C U
V)
Ur
J
r -.N Q) r 4-)4-)
+
U C 4- -a L 'O m L r0 4-)b m
N
=z
CL'
O N N r (O (o
LLJ (6 4- C L O O r 0_
UJ
C +-) i-
O
► r
J 0 (O +-3 4J
CC C O m O O (1) L Q) C (1) N
=
RS O:3
U
(1) O= L) N
a J .0 3 s- L s- 3 s-
Q
E O U
Q)
O'
O U L
C] +-3 N L L •r 0)-r r C
LL-
Q) ELLJ
CC
mr OJ ai
Z CYY 0)i -.I O•r 0 0 Q)
=r
4-) C)
CC
LQ) Q)
+
Q—L L •r 0 Q' Q) CT O C 0_
C r3
r L M
O r0 •r •r •r
rt rC (Cf U U O
Q) O U Z U
O
O co=
Q)
W
_U
Y�a.a_Ztn¢ Q Q
O=C]N
U
Jd3UL.L_Lj-
S-
m
m
O
O
O
a.rNM�Ln
�rCV M� Ln LO I� CO
F-rCVM
Ln
187
n
co
CY)
N r
RJ 1
X N
(1) Go
m
� r
Q1 C
� O �
C
}) rO C7
C 4) o
O V-) Of
cu
U 0_
01 of Ln
LD CU F -
Z
LLJ W
J O m
C0 U LLJ
Q �
F- 4- O
O
Q_
U ._I
Q
L1
U
No
O O 00
000 O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O O 00
Ooo O
o o O
O
O
O
O
O O O O
CD O Ln Ln
c O Ln
Ln
O
O
C)
F-
O O Ln I�
O O n I\
O Ln N
to
O
O
O
O
O O O M
O to M M
O fl- kn
Cl)
Ln
co
94t
F-
LD LD Cl)
N r LO Irr
C0 Ln Ln
M
Ln
r
I�
lD
r
CD
0
0
C>
00
C)
0
O
C Ln
O
IL
00
O
O N
Ln
O
CD
>
la LO
M
LL.L.L.
b4
4.0
C O
O
O
O
00
O O
O
N
O
O
I
O LO
O
Q)
O
O
ao
Ln r�
Ln
C)
Ln
CT M
I�
4-
M
r
Lr)
M
11
-Eo}
0)
O
L
o
LO
O
O O
O
O
C
CO
C
O C)
F-
O
O
O
4
O
C C
O
C
C
c0
Ln
O N
rts
O
O
O
}
O
O l0
.-)
Ln
U-)
O
Ln
M
LL.
f--•
Er4
.:I-
O O O
O CO
O
O
CD CD
O
O
I
O O CO
C X)
O
O
MN
O
O
+-j
I
O O CT
t0 00
Ln
C
l0 lD
r r
M
(10L.L.
bq
4-)
N
M
O
O
C
O
co
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
C\I
00�
N
O
O
O
-0
I
� a-•) N
O
-C7
Ln
�
>-
N r0
N
O
M
N
LL.
0- C1 •
}
O
a)
(0 C L�
�
a--) lD
F- r S.- a) 3
X
r0
E CLOD > Y
a)=
O Y O U O 0_
U
V)
p
L a) O C
r•
O -0
r
a-)
4- C _J •r 4--' -C a-)
a)
C O
..0
+-3
N
a) J •r +.) N
3
(Z (C 4-)
U
O
LLJ
S_ 4••) N = a)
co •H)
4
r
Y (n -0 S_ O 3
r U -0
C7 3 ct
r
tO
r
p
act r0 c w E=
co c a c
cCif OLn
-'-e Ln Q) LLJ a) > +-� a•)
N0 C a)
• a) = r
N
•r
+.)
rO
0_ r > +•) .r S_ Z3
•r C -P
-0 -P E N
S_
N
N O O X C r0 O
+) O X
Cr X rO r
4-)
•r
N
-P S_ +) a) O C N
LL- rO U a)
a) -C rO "E:
Z
U
C
C
(,qX: C1
N
E rO C LL.
Q)
O
Q) LL E • -0 O L S_
S_ •r -0 -0
r0 -O L O
N
O
•r
c/)
3 r Q) C +-J O O
0— C C
-C C C_'S • r E
Li)
+..)
4-)
F-
_C O > r0 4- 4-
4- (U r0 co
ra co +•> O
C'3
r0
LLJ
:3 3 3 1- 3 3
3 tT 3 3
C3 3 z 'n 4-
LLJ
O
-P
N
+-)
C
M:
O O N O X 0 0
CD r O X O
O _0
U
+-J
C
C
a)
LJ
N a) = r0 0_ -0 CC
= N = O=
O r0 E
r-+
N
O
a)
E
CL'
> X t
N a•)
Z +-� rO
C
C
•r
E
E
i r
Q) Q O a) Q) N Q) Q)
N Q) U Q) +-) ()
Q) ()
O
C O
+-
a)
O
> S- F- S.. Q S_ S_
rO S_ •r i RS S-
O S. Q) S_ RS
LLJ
r
0—
CO
>
E
U
Cr
O N •r r r r
C1•r 4- •r E r
+-.> •r -0 •r L
C/)
+J
.r a--)
4-)
O
O
a)
LLJ
S_ rO O E E O
S_ O 4- O O=
7 C O CO
r
4-) •r
N
S..
+-)
C1 X u O u O CS tT
v CS (a CS C1 cr
CT rO CS
U
fu -a
0-
N
E Q) U S_ U S_ U U>
U S_ U C1 U
+-> U i U
-04-J
-0
-0
:3
E
>>
- F- Q 4- Q4-Q¢OQF-QQQ
LnQU' �LZ
Q LnQN.
-
V)a)
L3
Z LJ
F-
U
U
S`
LLJ
ct Ln l0 I_ CXR
M* O r N
r r r
M ct
r r
LLJ
r
N
M
Ln
No
i
• �r I
E4BT
••J N�98 �� d�
South'
Tank
I '
TEX.B XVE I
r TE XASJV b \ .
W
COLLEGE AVE.
`l
.O m.g So arood I S
Vated Tank
BONN NO � • � / ( '
I _
\\\ . g Bo' pad
2* /
W rpundSt rag \�
F.Y. 2818
/ r .
WELLBORN
O\
AIRPORTW000
\ WATER
IMPROVEMENT;
>� PLAN
r "s Me r CITY OF COLLEGE STAT)
189
S .... o.
uth
r,hllll'�Sqlo'
ails
��
Cited Tank
�und SR rag ( r
L E G E N D
Existing Service Area
Phase I t.
Phase 11
Phase III
Phase IV
l
1 �
\\
WELLBORN
PLATE 23
WATER w NORTH
IMPROVEMENTS SAMUEL L WYSE ASSOCIATES �\
\ Ylonnln9 i ".no9—t Co—lt.nb
D.II.. Tet@•
PLAN2000 WAYNE W. SNYDER ASSOCIATES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS w '�'°";:::\ J
V) 1
ro N
x co
(1) Ol
C �
O Q
4-) C'3
its O
Ln C-
Q) Ln
Q) Z
r W
O LU
U �
O
4- Of
O d
%1 H
J
U Q
d
Q
U
J
Q
H
O
F --
n
co
I0
00
1
LL.
L0
00
L[)
00
1
LL -
LO
00
Ct
co
I
LL -
00
M
00
I
L!_
co
00
N
co
LL_
V)
�- i
Z
LLJ
LU
C:"
LU
3
W
Z
O
O
O O O
O
O
O
O
N O O
N
O
O
00 N O
O
O
m
t
M Ln O
n
O
O
t,0 r 0
O
O
M
N
Ln t\ O
t0
Ln
LT ct O
O
O
N
:J
n 011 Ln
N
::t
r
m N d'
O
O
N
O
O r N
l0
1;4
Ln
LO Ln N
Cr
M
N
N
N r Ln
G7'
N^
^
r
r
r
KZI-
co
ifr
b(}
b4
N
bR
O
O
O
Ln
b4
LLJ
LLJ
I—
V)
Ln
LLJ
H
Q
3
C O
Ln O
n O
O
N
O
M
O
LO
C)
t\
O
O
N
r
-uq
O
O
O
O
U)
zzt
O
M
N
O
N
O
1;4
O
O
N
N
r
b4
O
KZI-
Ln
N
LO
bq
O O O
O
cf- N O
O
r r O
C
a1
r d O
C)
tT
coNI:zt
C)
t0
r LO N
M
i
^
+-) O
r
r
O �
b4
O
O L!)
O
>
E
4-' i--) i")
-P >) Q
�--�
a i
N 3
i aJ
L1
� O a)
a) Y Ln 4- O
ro +-)
c E
>, = -a
3 a.. ro O N
o ro
O
—� ro >,
x c
>
r 0_ ro
r = 0) r 3
0) 3 a) JZ :3
m a)
iJ F- Cr
O M CUY
CVn 4)`L
=r
O v 4-3 -44�
O Ln O 0_
O :3
O LLJ
JO = a) rO
U r E
r E -c- O E
r
rO 0) Q
+) rO O 3
rO 04-) Ln O
ro -C
ro a) E
06 ro i L/)
i •- i
-P
iJ t3, i a) 0) O
i 4-
i 4- 3 i 4-
Z. O
V) = i O C CO 0_
r m W O
N a)
O O
•r •r Q) i--) •r i
r 4t- +-) CO -P
+P Ln () +)
4--1 E
M r a--) V) _J O 025
a) r0 r
co N LT r6 i
r0 -P
3 ro 4-)
3 01300-C3
ro SZ- 30
3 s-
4-
4- O 3 tT i Ln
E N 4-
Q. ro
co
O o E a) -0
3 = = �7: S-
_ >>= = >,
= o
025 N +-)-o 0_'
a) 0_ N L.L_ O
N m U t,p 4-
Ln L,0
C O ro C
Zr C
r i t •r
Ln r a--)
O +- _ -0 3 7 0)
06 4-
4- a) N
ro U
O a) O=
Q r O-:4-
r O +) r i
Qr
N Ln•r+-) >)i •r
O it Ln
r Cr
C a) +-J rO a) CD r
r 0 rO a) r
rO a) — CO >
CO CO +3
W C ro > > 3
a) 3 -P -0 N
+J -0 +P •,-
+J (n
+.) •r -P a) i 0) O
> O (A •,- g
Ln . - O Ln C
O N =
X-ILnr CO EO
U) F- C Ln LL-
C N+� C O+-)
= O
LU W 2 Ln
O
)--, U
N M ct LC) La r� co Ol O
•'
N
+-)
C
ro
N
C
O
U
J�
N
C)
E
•r
4-)
(A
LU
C
N
C
O
•r
r0
C
C)
E
E
O
U
aI
CY
a)
U
S-
:3 O
O
Ln
=� ? Expansion of Existing-,
Wastewater TrpAIL
oEAgT
Interim Wa-*tewatl
Treatmth%Kl:�lant
Lift atiort,
• $ ,�
TE%AS AVE ■
I 21
8-
r.— _ TEXAS�V B
� r•J
21"
COLLEGE AVE. o • I ,
--_ 18" a l
wet
C 80004,
F. Y. 2818 �u �// ` d \�( ••
r
\
j� �7 / WELLBORN
EASTERVIOOD
IN AIRPORT r.J
0 SEWERAGE
IMPROVEMENT;
PLAN
CITY OF COLLEGE STAT
191
1
w
V I
r0 N
X co
Q) �
F-
C �
O Q
tY
+-) (D
r0 O
4 tY
Ln Q
a) Ln
Cn F-
aJ Z
r W
r �
O W
U �
O
O Q
•r J
U C�
F -
Q
Q
U
J
Q
F-
O
F-
00
Lp
00
1
LL
Ln
00
4
co
1
r
LL -
00
M
00
I
IL
LL.
M
00
N
co
1
r
LL -
V) Ln
F -
Z
W
W
IY
hr
C'
W
3
W
Z
0
0
0
o
O
O
O
C)
O
Ct
O
Ln
O
O
O
m
lD
LD
Ln
O
O
O
00
I-
n
Ln
M
Ln
O
O
co
d•
00
-.0
cT
N
L,D
N
of
N
t0
M
r
r
-zi-
C
O
-P
N
r0
+or}
ct
3
64
192
N
LD
LC)
t\
�t
t\
O
M
tH
00
r
N
00
cT
r
Q
L
O
Cl -
V) N
Z
W
W
O
Q
J
Q
F -
Q
Q
U
J
Q
C
F-
a
O
Ln
O
O
i
a)
O
-P
N
r0
ct
3
(3)
N
O C
3
O O
O O
r
ro
Ln O
4-)
N t0
O
r
F --
Al -}
O
O O
.zzt-
O ul
^
LD Ln
1\
LI) M
00
lD Cil
N
M r
fsi
O
O
O
O
lD
C
S-
1-
r-
O
o
c7
O
+-)
N
-Zj-
Q Y
Ln
•N (1) U
O C
4- U
b4
3 O
- S-
E E =
E
r a)
Oi
cY o O O
E C C
4- If) 4- 0.-
O — O
Y 27)
r (n4-)
i r
a) E a)
i N i r 3
4- a) LO C
a) O •r-
a) m:: a) C i -j
O
S- • i
3 LL_ 3- Ln
C i r- --
U oo •r-
a) a) •0
. - •r- •— +-)
ro
to N
S.- 0 i
4 Q 4-
E i E4--)
>> >) r
Cl -Ln
+-�
-f-)+-) +J >> r
a) Y
i i Y
•r Ln •r ()
U -X C +J
rO C U
> () > r -o
i U 4-
i U ro O
M 3 r0 r 0)
O O i •r -
W
r Q
S. -S --i CO E
4- Q +-) r
Ln
O -
O
O O
Y= 0= E
>-
i-) LO
+�
= O = "0
a) N +-3 CO O
Ln
C C r
a
N cn (\J O r
() r r S-
o
O a)
a)
r r 0
i C 4-
Q
• r E r
U
oo 3—
U r 0—
rW
W
0 i --1r
iTSr-0Lr
—•r rY
F-
C CO rO
a)
C 00 C +-) r0
Y r0 +-) r0 a)
Q
r0 a) +3
+-L
a) N a) O i-)
U +- rO +-) a)
3
0_ i Ln
C
+J +-) o Ln
•- Ln +-) N i
X F- C
X LL_ X V) C
J C Ln C U
W
W L--+
W W
F-
N
Q
3
r N
M Lf)
192
N
LD
LC)
t\
�t
t\
O
M
tH
00
r
N
00
cT
r
Q
L
O
Cl -
V) N
Z
W
W
O
Q
J
Q
F -
Q
Q
U
J
Q
C
F-
Future
Development
193
194
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
It has been shown that the recent growth trend in College Station has been
toward the east and south. In the future, it is anticipated that some
development will continue toward the east, and scattered activity will
continue west of wellborn Road. However, it is anticipated that the major
impact of future growth will be felt toward the south. There are several
factors which support the future southerly growth trend:
* The land with the highest development potential for residential uses
lies to the south.
* State Highway 6, the primary access route through the area, is
proposed to be developed as a freeway section to the south.
* There are no major physical barriers to growth toward the south as
there are to the east and west.
* Plans for new school development will provide new facilities toward
the south.
* Provision of doth water and sewer utilities will be most economical
toward the south.
* The proposed development of a high technology/research facility to
the south of the City will act as a magnet attracting development in
that airection.
At the time the existing land use study was made, it was estimated that about
37,509 persons resided within the present laity limits of College Station.
Within the existing City limits, there are about 3,780 acres of land, not
including University -owned property which could feasibly be developed. At
the present intensity of development, this vacant land could support an
additional 35,300 persons or all of the population growth anticipated to the
year 2000.
However, it is anticipated that all of this vacant land will not be
developed. Some of the existing vacant land is located west of Easterwood
Airport and east of Carters Creek, both of which present major physical
barriers to growth. Even within the presently developed portion of the City,
there will always be scattered parcels which Tor various reasons will always
remain vacant. By the year 2000; it is, therefore, anticipated that an
additional 18,495 persons will reside within the existing City limits.
Another 15,646 will live outside the present Lity limits but within the
existing two-mile ETJ of the City.
The table following provides estimates of the future development of the City.
These projections are based on present land use, developable areas, estimated
holding capacities, and anticipated densities of population. This table also
provides estimates of the distribution of population in the year 2000.
195
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
The various types of land uses have different requirements for their
locations in the City. Land uses should be locatea where they can be
adequately served with utilities and public facilities and proper access.
The location of each particular use should be compatible with other uses
nearby. Intensive uses should be located so that they do not adversely
affect residential or environmentally sensitive areas. Intensive uses must
be located to assure adequate capacity of utilities and traffic -ways while
residential areas should be isolated from traffic and noise.
Residential uses will be the predominant land use within the urban area in
the future. Single-family uses should be located within easy access of
shopping, schools, and recreation but should be protected from the
incompatibility of more intensive uses. Duplex and apartment uses can and
should be utilized to buffer single-family neighborhoods from commerical and
industrial uses.
Commercial activities should be located at points of high vehicular access.
Points of highest access are at grade separations along the freeway. Mayor
shopping, offices, and other intensive commercial activities should be
located near these points. Secondary access points are located at the
intersection of thoroughfares. Neighborhood shopping centers and other
activities which serve the immediate community should be located at these
points. Commercial activities should not be allowed to develop in extended
strips along thoroughfares as this can create traffic congestion, unsightly
conditions, and intrusions on residential areas.
Schools and parks should be located at the center of the neighborhood or
community which they serve. Elementary schools and neighborhood parks should
be located on collector streets away from thoroughfares. Junior and senior
high schools and larger community parks should be located near the
intersection of thoroughfares.
Industrial uses should be located within easy access of both the highway and
the railroad. The ideal area would be fronting on the highway and backing to
the railroad. wherever possible, greenbelts or other less intensive land
uses should be located to buffer industrial areas from residential uses.
LAND USE CONTROLS
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are generally considered to be the primary
land use controls available to a laity. However, there are a number of others
which are availalbe for controlling the use of land which may be as
effective. Some of these must take the legal form of an ordinance, but
others may be utilized merely through City policies and practices.
The authority to zone is granted to cities under Article 1011a V.T.C.S.
(1959). The Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations governing the use of
land and districts within the Gity in which similar uses are allowed and
conflicting uses prohibited. Zoning is enforceable only within the corporate
limits of the City.
196
The requirement for the recording of subdivision plats is authorized by
Article 947a V.T.C.S. (1963). The authorization to extend subdivision
regulations to the extra -territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City is
contained in the Municipal Annexation Act, Article 970a V.A.R.C.S. (1963).
Subdivision regulations may establish procedures for platting and permanent
marking of subdivisions and may establish standards for development. These
standards may specify the sizes and types of paving, water and sewer lines,
drainage, alleys, street lighting, lot sizes and building lines, location of
streets and details of intersections, and other design requirements.
Annexation, as authorized under Article 970a, may also be used as a land use
control. Annexation will automatically extend zoning controls into new
areas. It will also expand the range of subdivision controls by extending
the ETJ of the City. College Station's ETJ extends to two miles outside its
city limits, east, south, and west of the City. Essentially all areas within
the College Station Planning Area are within or could be brought within its
city limits.
Policies regarding the provision of municipal utilities and the improvement
of roads may also control the use of land. The direction of growth can be
greatly affected through the extension of utilities and roads into areas
where development is desired while withholding such services from other
areas.
Flood plain and open space zoning may also be effective, particularly in
holding down overall densities of development. The withholding of
environmental areas from development not only prevents despoiling or
pollution of these areas, but also provides a more pleasant atmosphere in
which to live and work. The preservation of open space and natural
amenitites will tend to attract less intense and higher quality development.
The transfer of development rights and use of easements can provide such open
space without legislative zoning. These consist of legal instruments in
which the City contracts with the landowner for some use of his property.
Under transfer of development rights, the landowner maintains title to the
land, but the City would pay for the right to dictate its use. Easements
could be used for bicycle or pedestrian paths, or to preserve greenbelts
through particular areas.
The power of eminent domain, granted to Home Rule cities under Article 1175,
may also be used to control the use of land. The right to take private land
for such public uses as parks, schools, utilities, or civic centers will
preclude other types of private development. The use of eminent domain to
extend roads or utlities can open new areas to development.
Public redevelopment
programs will directly dictate the
use of land.
Older
areas may be cleared
and redeveloped for other land uses.
Design studies for
the development of
particular areas may direct land
uses without
actual
public redevelopment
of private lands. Such design
studies may
provide
agreements for improvements
to be made both by the City and
private
landowners.
197
The Texas Water Code (60th Legislature, Ch. 313, 1971) and the Texas Clean
Air Act (Article 447-5, 1969) grant authority to any city to control air and
water pollution. The enactment and enforcement of appropriate ordinances may
be utilized to at least indirectly control the use of land.
Taxation policies may very directly influence the use of land. Taxation
based on productivity of the land may retain in agricultural uses land that
might otherwise be put into the development market. Higher taxation on
certain properties will encourage higher intensities of land uses. Tax
incentives may also be used to encourage the development of vacant lands
which have been bypassed. The ability to utilize such methods while still
unclear may be seriously hindered by recent State legislation.
Cooperation with other units of government may also affect the use of land.
Examples of such cooperative agreements by College Station might include the
School District for the location of schools and parks, the Texas Department
of Highways, and Brazos County on the widening and improvements to roads and
nearby cities for providing such facilities as solid waste disposal sites.
It will be only through the combined use of several or all of these methods
that the Comprehensive Plan may be effectively implemented.
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
In order to provide continuity and equity in the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan, the City should adopt a set of policies which would be
applied in making decisions concerning future development. A policy is a
statement of intention which expresses the City's commitment to proceed in a
prescribed manner.
These development policies should serve to implement the goals and objectives
of the City as well as the features of the Comprehensive Plan. A well
established policy statement will provide the basis for decisions on
development proposals, and will not get out of date over time. Policy
statements should change only as the goals and intentions of the City would
change.
No definite statement can cover all situations, however. Specific instances
may arise which require special treatment beyond the applicable policy.
These cases should be given careful study and the burden of proof should be
placed on those proposing such deviations from policy. Financial factors
alone should not be a consideration in such decisions. Caution should be
exercised in any deviations from policy: while one decision does not
necessarily establish a precedent, continual equivocation can effectively
destroy a policy statement.
The following are recommended as policies to be followed in the
implementation of the Development Plan. The adoption of this set of policy
statements will serve to implement the goals of the citizens of College
Station as well as provide a basis for future development of the City. These
policy statements will also provide continuity among the decision -makers of
the City over time. Individuals making decisions may change, but the
statements of policy would change only by official action.
Development Plan
* The Comprehesive Plan will be utilized as the guide to the locations
for future development of various types of land uses and
facilities.
* The City will permit only limited development in areas which cannot
be served by existing utilities east of Carters Creek and west of
Wellborn Road.
* Future development will tie encouraged within the planned service area
of the City only when it is economically feasible to do so.
* Proposed subdivisions within the planned service area shall be
developed to meet urban standards established by the City.
Residential Development
* The City recognizes changing markets for varying housing types, but
will continue to reserve appropriate close -in areas for
single-family development in the future.
* Appropriate single-family areas are normally located within the
centers of neighborhood areas, away from the intersections of
thoroughfares.
* Multi -family residential developments constitute generally
appropriate buffers between single-family areas and more intensive
development.
* Residential densities should be graduated from higher densities at
the boundary of neighborhood areas to lowest densities near the
center of neighborhoods.
* Multi -family residential development will be encouraged to locate on
arterial streets.
* The City will require adequate buffers between mobile home
residential development and typical single-family residential
development.
* Modular construction will be encouraged but must be compatible with
adjacent development.
Commercial Development
* The City will encourage the development of aesthetic commercial
developments appropriate to the economy of the City.
* Commercial developments will be located at the intersection of
thoroughfares adequate to handle the traffic generated.
199
* Low intensity administrative/office development may provide an
appropriatae buffer between residential areas and more intensive
uses.
* Commercial activities will be discouraged in locations where they
would present conflicts due to traffic, noise, lights, or other high
activity level effects.
* Commercial zoning on major and minor arterials should have a minimum
depth of four hundred (400) feet wherever possible, and individual
tracts should be encouraged to be developed to limit access at a
minimum spacing of five hundred (500) feet. Curb cuts should be no
closer than two hundred (200) feet from a major intersection,
whenever possible. Detached signs should be consolidated whenever
possible.
Industrial Development
* The City will encourage the development of research/high technology
industries serving the expansion and diversification of the economy
and tax base of the City.
* The City supports the development of the College Station Industrial
Development Foundation high technology/research park.
* The City will direct appropriate industries to locate within the
Industrial Foundation park.
* If alternative locations are required, light industries will be
located as designated in the Development Plan.
* Heavy industries will be located only within designated areas along
Wellborn Road and the railroad.
* Appropriate buffers of greenspace or less intensive uses will be
provided between all industrial and residential areas.
Parks & Recreation
* The City will continue to acquire and develop a system of parks in
accordance with the Parks & Recreation Plan.
* Developers will be required to dedicate land and/or cash to satisfy
the neighborhood park needs generated by their developments.
Open Space
* Development within designated flood plain areas will be discouraged,
and the burden of proof for any reclamation project shall rest with
the proposer.
* Development within designated floodway areas will not be allowed.
* Open space areas and creeks shall remain as much as possible in their
natural state.
200
* Creeks and other natural drainage courses shall be intended to
continue functioning as natural drainage courses.
* Maintenance access should be provided on all major drainage channels
and on designated minor channels as shown on the Master Drainage
Plan.
Transportation
* The City will implement the development of a system of arterial,
thoroughfare, and collector streets as indicated in the Thoroughfare
Plan.
* The City will discourage the location of high intensity development
which will place undue traffic burdens on adjacent streets.
* The City will encourage the development of a limited mass transit
system.
* Access to thoroughfares and arterial streets shall be minimized and
controlled through the curb cut and median opening policies of the
City.
* The City will encourage the development of expanded air transport
facilities at an appropriate location.
* The City will seek to establish a city-wide bicycle and pedestarian
system.
Facilities & Utilities
* The City will provide administrative, maintenance, and protection
facilities adequate to serve the needs of the population.
* Development will be discouraged where it may unduly burden the
capacity of facilities or utility systems.
* Utilities will be extended only in a systematic manner as indicated
by the utilities plan.
* Development will be directed into those areas which can be adequately
served by utilities and facilities.
* The City will not annex nor provide services to those areas which
cannot be adequately and efficiently served with facilities and
utilities.
* The City will annex all adjacent areas which develop and which
comparably utilize City services, facilities, and utilities.
201
202
Special
Concerns
203
204
SPECIAL CONCERNS
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The support for public transit comes from several segments of the population
for many reasons. Most of the existing public transportation services are
provided by school buses for school children and by the shuttle bus system
for Texas A&M University students. Some churches and volunteer groups
provide transportation for elderly and handicapped. Very few taxicabs
operate in the areas. Employment ano shopping facilities are dispersed,
especially due to the over -abundant strip commercial development. There is
no alternative pedestrian system. Approximately 38 percent of Bryan -College
Station residents have no personal means of transportation. In several
surveys, the citizens have overwhelmingly supported public transit. The
industrial and more centralized commercial development in the future will
enforce the efficiency of a public transit system. Low income persons
who are especially affected by spiraling costs of gasoline and personal
transportation, contribute over 16 percent of the local labor force but own
less than 11 percent of the automobiles. The heaviest need exists in the
elderly and low income areas of north Bryan. The shuttlebus seems to
adequately serve the University students, but it is heavily subsidized by the
University and only serves the students' needs.
Compounding these problems is the fact that it will require a minimum of
three years to actually implement a public transit system. Obviously, if the
City waits until it is absolutely certain the system is necessary, the three
year delay could be very difficult and costly. In the future, energy
conservation, availability, and cost will be mayor factors in local, state,
and federal decision making. On the local level, the City can accomplish
much through land use control to increase the efficiency of energy usage.
One way, certainly, is to encourage all types of development in a land use
pattern that is conducive to an efficient public transit system. In
commercial zoning and development, for instance, this means eliminating strip
zoning in favor of larger and more centralized commercial areas.
RIKF SYSTEM
The bicycle is becoming more and more a viable mode of transportation in the
United States. It is especially important in a university community such as
College Station. There is a large volume of bicycles (and pedestrians) that
flows to and from the University campus across major arterials and through
busy intersections. There is also a volume of bicycles flowing to and from
local schools each day. Each year these volumes increase, and the conflict
between the automobile and bicycles and pedestrians is becoming a crucial
concern.
There are three main classes of bikeways which can be utilized either
individually or in combination to increase safety both for bicycle traffic
and motorists. These are:
* Class I (Exclusive Bikeway or Bike Paths): A separate right-of-way
designated for the sole use of bicycles; cross flow of pedestrian and
motor traffic is minimized; usually in parks or rural areas; always
off-street.
205
* Class II (Restricted Bikeway or Striped Lanes): A restricted
right-of-way for semi -exclusive use of bicycles; through travel by
other transportation forms is not allowed.
* Class III (Share Bikeway or Signed Routes). A shared right-of-way
with motor vehicles or pedestrians.
When planning for future bikeways,the City should keep in mind the following:
* Keep updated an inventory of existing bicycle facilities to identify
travel and user characteristics.
* Keep updated forecasts of demand and always be cognizant of the
inter -relationships with other modes of transportation.
* Establish goals and objectives to include safety, mobility, and
efficiency.
* Plan for storage areas and facilities to protect bicycle property.
* Realize that bicycles as a mode of transportation should be limited
in conflict with the automobile or the pedestrian.
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
The pedestrian system, like the bicycle system, is an essential element in an
efficient and effective overall transportation system. It is particularly
important in College Station as the City is presently considering the
possibility of mass transit as a viable alternative to some of its
transportation problems. It is imperative that the City have a city-wide
system of sidewalks to effectively assist a mass transit system. People need
to move to and from various points on foot in order to access the transit
system. It is inefficient and costly for buses to stop at each house or at
every block.
At the present time the City's subdivision regulations address sidewalks.
The cost of sidewalks add anywhere from a minimum of $2U0 to $500 to a new
single-family home depending on the amount of lot frontage. If the taxpayers
desire to have a city-wide sidewalk system, the the City will have to
strictly enforce the provisions of sidewalks by deve topers in new
subdivisions. This should be based on a well planned city-wide scheme that
enables sidewalks to connect from area to area forming a continuous and
usable system. This will, of course, require that sidewalks be provided on
residential streets which have less than sixty feet of right-of-way. This
will require some review and revision of the present requirement in the
City's Subdivision Regulations.
206
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
The designation of State Highway 6 as a part of the Interstate Highway System
has long been a topic of discussion locally. A Texas Transportation
Institute study in August, 1979, evaluating the Highway 6 corridor lists
three basic conclusions supporting improvement of the roadway:
* Growth in Houston and in Bryan -College Station has been much greater
than the State average.
* Highway 6 could be a relief route to the two most congested
corridors, I-45 Houston to Dallas and I-35 Dallas -Fort Worth to San
Antonio.
* An evaluation of corridor congestion in the State ranks Highway 6
very high in priority needs.
The Highway b corridor serves over one-half the metropolitan population of
Texas. Houston, Bryan, College Station, and Waco have a combined population
of over three million people. The criteria for the highway corridor
evaluation was ratio of traffic volumes to capacity, traffic volumes, growth
in volumes, number of cities in the corridor, and population. Highway 6
ranked third in the State and was surpassed only by two interstate highways,
I-45 and I-35. Highway 6 easily ranked first in two-lane sections.
Other factors should be considered. All the growth forecasts for this
corridor for the 1970's have been exceeded. The enrollment at Texas A&M
University has doubled since 1972. Special events such as conventions, short
courses, auto races, and athletic events attract approximately 1.25 million
persons to the area each year. The Bryan -College Station area is becoming a
major regional retail center. The area encompassed by a fifty -mile radius
includes 275,000 persons. The industrial growth, especially, is creating
many new jobs, and the unemployment rate is very low.
The local area obviously needs the improvements planned for Highway 6. The
local officials should continue to press for these. Ultimately, Highway 6
should be added to the interstate system. As a part of the interstate
system, Highway 6 will be an additional factor to attract industrial,
commercial, and recreational development.
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Commercial air transportation and air freight service for the City and the
metropolitan area is available only at tasterwood Airport. Easterwood is
owned and operated by Texas A&M University.
The growth of the Bryan -College SMSA and the University has and will increase
the demands placed upon Easterwood. The Easterwood Airport Master Plan
prepared for the Texas A&M University system outlines a three -phased
construction program necessary for meeting the projected airport demand.
Full implementation of the Easterwood Airport Master Plan will require
participation by the Cities of College Station ano Bryan as well as from
Brazos County.
207
The capacity and level of air service at Easterwood Airport must increase to
complement the continued growth of the SMSA.
In making development decisions regarding land use in the vicinity of the
Airport, care should be taken to access the impacts of development upon
airport operation. Additionally, airport impacts upon any proposed
developments should also be given consideration. Particular attention should
be given to Noise Exposure Forecasts (as detailed in the Easterwood Airport
Master Plan) when determining land use around the airport.
RAILROAD
The existing location of the railroad along wellborn Road (FM 2154) creates
several hazards and problems for the community. Safety hazards resulting
from the railroad location include the potential for train -automobile
accidents, train -pedestrian accidents, and derailments. The potential for
derailments of trains carrying hazardous cargo is a serious threat. Any
derailment could also severely restrict emergency vehicle access to the
western portions of the City.
The existing railroad location creates a physical barrier that tends to limit
the westward expansion of the City. These developmental constraints are now
an obstruction to the westward expansion of Texas A&M University. This
problem will increase when utilities necessary for development are made
available in the western portions of the City.
Although there are problems associated with the railroad in its present
location, the provision of rail service is an important community asset.
Rail service is important to local rail freight customers and to potential
industries. The railroad may become increasingly important in the future as
a mode of passenger transportation, particularly in light of present
proposals for a Houston -Dallas -San Antonio high speed rail link.
The Rail Planning Study for Bryan -College Station, developed by Wilbur Smith
and Associates recommends several alternatives for resolving the railroad
related problems. Preliminary findings include the following possible
solutions:
* Improve Rail Crossings - This alternative consists of signage
improvements, installation of safety devices, and/or the
construction of yrade separated crossings.
* Lower Existing Tracks - This alternative provides for lowering the
existing railroad tracks at critical locations.
* Raise Existing Tracks - This alternative provides for elevating the
existing railroad tracks at critical locations.
* Relocate Tracks - This alternative provides for various new
alignments of all or portions of the existing railroad tracks.
The alternatives that include improving the existing crossings or altering
the elevations of the tracks do not provide solutions to all of the railroad -
related problems. In order to solve all the railroad related problems
identified in the Rail Planning Study, several alternative alignments for
relocating the railroad have been selected by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for further consideration. These alternatives must be included
in the preparation of land use and transportation plans for the City. Care
should be taken to insure that development along potential future railroad
alignments does not limit the future rail relocation.
NORTHGATE
The Northgate problem is very complex because it actually involves two major
problem areas, each with its own unique concerns. The whole Northgate area
referred to herein is described as an area bounded by University Urive,
Wellborn Road, the City limits adjacent to Bryan, and Nagle Street. The two
problem areas are the commercial area on University Drive and the residential
area from Church Street north to the City limits.
Most of the Commerical area was developed before the City had effective
controls setting standards for building setback, land use, and parking
requirements. With the growth has come the entrepreneur who converts the
shops providing personal services and retail sales to entertainment
facilities serving alcoholic beverages. The original shops were built on
small lots with little or no provision for parking. Mimimal problems
resulted due to the low traffic generation of these shops.
Many new businesses, on the other hand, are high traffic generators.
Unfortunately, the lack of available space for vehicles or people has not
kept them from congregating in the area. It is not unusual to find several
hundred vehicles and several thousand people confined in only about
one-fourth of this area.
The Police Department has experienced crowd control type problems with, so
far, only minor incidents of violence. The Fire Department is concerned
about emergency access, occupancy rates, and safety of the older
construction. Additionally, the overflow out of the clubs congregate in the
traffic lanes of University Drive causing serious traffic hazards.
The remainder of the Northgate area is primarily residential, and it also has
a unique problem. The entire area was subdivided during the 1930's and
1940's for small single-family residential development. The streets were
developed for that type density. What has been built during the last twenty
years, however, has mostly been apartment buildings. Density is increasing
annually.
The popular trend is to construct a four-plex on a single lot. Since the
City has never planned on density of this type in this area, the streets are
inadequate, drainage is increasingly more serious, parks facilities are
nonexistent, and other municipal services such as water, sewer, garbage
collection, and police and fire protection are becoming difficult to
maintain.. A basic problem is that the area is very poorly zoned, being
mostly high-density multi -family residential.
A City Council -appointed committee has completed a thorough study of these
problems and has made a number of recommendations. These should be evaluated
by the City, and a plan of action should be implemented.
209
210