HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/2008 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilTraditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Mayor Councilmembers
Ben White John Crompton
Mayor Pro Tem James Massey
Ron Gay Lynn McIlhaney
City Manager Chris Scotti
Glenn Brown David Ruesink
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding neighborhood integrity items including code
enforcement, city/neighborhood/University/student/property manager relationships, rental registration,
permitted number of unrelated individuals, dense development standards, and neighborhood services.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding College Station’s Greenways Program including
discussion of current practices and updating of the Greenways Plan.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the update to the City of College Station’s
Comprehensive Plan.
5. Presentation and discussion on an update of the city’s Red Light Camera Program.
6. Council Calendar
March 26 CSPD Annual Employee Banquet Pebble Creek CC, 6:30 pm
March 28 Texas Institute Preclinical Studies Groundbreaking - Texas Institute for Genomic
Medicine (TIGM) Grounds - 670 Raymond Stotzer Parkway, 2:00 pm
March 29 Celebrity Roast for Royce Hickman, Hilton, 6:00 pm
March 31 Citizen University, Mayor/Council Council Chambers, 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm
April 2 Annual Appreciation Picnic, Interfaith Dialogue, City Hall, 11:30 am
April 5 Little League Opening Ceremonies. Southwood Athletic Complex, 10:00 am A Musical
April 6 Evening with "The Yale Whiffenpoofs and Texas A&M University Singing Cadets”,
Annenberg Presidential Conference Center, 5:00 pm
April 10 Better Business Bureau 2008 Torch Awards luncheon, Miramont Country Club, 12:00 pm
April 10 City Council Workshop and Regular Meetings, 2:30 pm and 7:00 pm
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Council Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the
subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
1
Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, March 27, 2008 Page 2
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
8. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council Subcommittee of
the Council, Audit Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments,
Cemetery Committee, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue
Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Library Committee,
Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks
and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate,
Research Valley Partnership, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Texas
Municipal League, Transportation Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Wolf Pen Creek
TIF Board, Zoning Board of Adjustments (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
9. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference
Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek
advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or
attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a
litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the
City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation
subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any
final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Application with TCEQ in Westside/Highway 60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation.
b. Civil Action No. H-04-4558, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, College
Station v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, etc., and Wellborn Special Utility District.
c. Cause No. GN-502012, Travis County, TMPA v. PUC (College Station filed Intervention 7/6/05)
d. Sewer CCN request.
e. Legal aspects of Water Well and possible purchase of or lease of another water site.
f. Civil Action No. H-04-3876, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, JK
Development v. College Station.
g. Cause No. 06-002318-CV-272, 272nd Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas, Taylor Kingsley v.
City of College Station, Texas and Does 1 through 10, inclusive.
h. Cause No. 485-CC, County Court at Law No. 1, Brazos County, Texas, City of College Station v. David
Allen Weber, et al.
i. Bed & Banks Water Rights Discharge Permits for College Station and Bryan
j. Cause No. 07-001241-CV-361, 361st Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas
Gregory A. & Agnes A. Ricks v. City of College Station
k. Water CCN request
l. Legal issues and advice on Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency Contract, on proposed
Brazos Valley Wide Area Communication Contract, on proposed Common Use Contract, on proposed
Franchise with City of Bryan for B.T.U. Electric, on proposed easement and pole use for College Station
electric line and update on legal proceedings for Grimes County Landfill site and on contract for site
acquisitions.
10. Action on executive session, or any workshop agenda item not completed or discussed in today’s
workshop meeting will be discussed in tonight’s Regular Meeting if necessary.
11. Adjourn.
2
Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, March 27, 2008 Page 3
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
APPROVED:
______________________________
City Manager
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas
will be held on the 27th day of March, 2008 at 3:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas
Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this 24th day of March, 2008 at 2:00 pm
__
E-Signed by Connie Hooks
VERIFY authenticity with ApproveIt
__________________________
City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of
College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of
said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s
website, www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times.
Said Notice and Agenda were posted on March 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm and remained so posted continuously
for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official board at the College Station City Hall on the following
date and time: _______________________ by ___________________________.
Dated this _____day of _______________, 2008.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By____________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the ______day of _________________,
___________________Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:________
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign
interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517
or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live
on Cable Access Channel 19.
3
March 27, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 2
Strong & Sustainable Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Integrity – An Action Plan
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding neighborhood
integrity items including code enforcement, city/neighborhood/University/student/property
manager relationships, rental registration, permitted number of unrelated individuals, dense
development standards, and neighborhood services.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the Council provide direction and clarification on
the policy options presented by staff.
Summary: This purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council with an overview of
past neighborhood integrity issues and policy recommendations for addressing issues that
will result in strong and sustainable neighborhoods.
Specifically, staff will briefly discuss previous efforts by the City to support neighborhood
integrity and the results from these efforts. Staff will also provide an overview of the most
recent community engagement effort. Staff will present its recommendations on the
following:
§ Neighborhood Planning
§ Home Ownership Programs
§ Property Maintenance Code
§ Neighborhood Services
§ Neighborhood-focused code enforcement
§ Rental Registration
§ Model Lease Program
§ Dense Development Standards
§ Improved Data Collection, Reporting, and Analysis
§ TAMU Aggieland Solution
§ TAMU/City Relationship and Joint Efforts
§ Neighborhood Outreach
§ Outcome, Output, and Programmatic Performance Measures
§ Nuisance Properties
§ Party Host Responsibilities
§ Number of Unrelated Individuals
The proposed Plan of Action should be viewed as a beginning point and not an end unto
itself. The proposed plan presents several key strategies, programs, and actions which
represent staffs best effort to understand the problem and offer meaningful responses to
the identified problems.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A – To be determined following policy direction.
Attachments:
1. Strong and Sustainable Neighborhoods: An Action Plan for Neighborhood Integrity
4
2. November 19, 2007 Council Briefing
3. February 4, 2008 Stakeholder Representative Meeting Notes
4. February 4, 2008 Consultants Synthesis Document
5. February 23, 2008 Consultants Presentation
6. February 23, 2008 Stakeholder Representative Meeting Notes
7. Living Among Aggies (2nd Edition)
5
Page 1
Strong and Sustainable Neighborhoods
An Action Plan for Neighborhood Integrity
Introduction
Neighborhood Integrity or perhaps more to the point, the desire for strong neighborhoods
meeting the demand for housing and contributing positively to the quality of life
experienced in College Station, has been at the forefront of community discussions for
some time. Indeed, one could argue that the desire to build and maintain strong
neighborhoods closely integrated with the University was the very basis for the formation
of the city itself.
As the home of Texas A&M University, College Station is home to thousands of
university students. As the University continues its growth and expansion, the community
has the opportunity to accommodate an increasing number of students in off campus
housing. Our challenge is to welcome the increasing number of students while retaining
the strength and vitality of our neighborhoods.
Among the challenges before us are; first our housing stock is aging resulting in
maintenance requirements and often leading to investment ownership and renter
occupation in traditional single family neighborhoods. Second, there are issues which
manifest themselves in our residential neighborhoods as a result increased number of
units being available for rent – parking, trash, poorly maintained housing, and noise.
Third, homeowners view the transition of homes in their neighborhoods into rentals as
intrusive and unwelcome change. Finally, current market conditions will likely see
additional housing constructed to accommodate the student rental market.
Objective of this Action Plan
Strong and Sustainable Neighborhoods – An Action Plan for Neighborhood Integrity has
a threefold objective:
1. Gain an understanding of the issues and present a policy rationale for strong and
sustainable neighborhoods.
2. Identify existing neighborhood integrity efforts employed in the City of College
Station.
3. Recommend specific policy initiative(s) to enhance existing efforts.
Rationale for Strong and Sustainable Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods are the basic building blocks of our city. Neighborhoods are where we
live, raise our families, and socialize with our friends and neighbors. In many ways our
city is only as strong and sustainable as our neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods are a
collection of varying housing types with an increasingly diverse occupancy composition.
There are greater than 34,000 dwelling units (including all housing types except “group
quarters”) in College Station. The majority of these dwelling units are renter occupied,
though the majority of single family homes remain owner occupied.
6
Page 2
In 2000 it was estimated that nearly 75% of the single family homes located in College
Station were owner occupied. Still more than 5,000 single family homes are occupied by
renters. Further, the majority of dwelling units are occupied by non-family households,
that is households functioning as a family but nor related to one another. In 2000 it was
estimated that approximately 60% of all households were composed of non-related
individuals.
College Station citizens have been clear in their desire to promote strong and sustainable
neighborhoods. Throughout the Comprehensive Plan update, citizens voiced their
support for efforts that protect neighborhood integrity. The Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee (CPAC) has addressed this specifically through establishing
working goals for the Comprehensive Plan update that state “Strong, unique
neighborhoods…” and “Long-term viability and appeal of established neighborhoods”.
For the purposes of this action plan we have adopted the working goal of
Protect and Strengthen College Station neighborhoods resulting in distinct
neighborhoods that welcome homeowners, renters, students and others, maintain their
viability over time and enhance the overall quality of life for our citizens.
Strong and sustainable neighborhoods are too important to leave to piece-meal solutions
implemented to address what is portrayed as the current crisis. Strong and sustainable
neighborhoods demand the best we have to offer; that is a thoughtful and comprehensive
policy approach that contributes positively to the quality of life for all that call College
Station home.
The City Council directed the City Manager at its November 19, 2007 Council meeting to
proceed with developing a holistic response to issues being confronted by College Station
neighborhoods. Since receiving direction from the Council, the following actions have
been undertaken:
· Convened a 35+ member engagement panel consisting of homeowners, students,
realtors/investors, TAMU administration and city staff
· Conducted two – day long engagement sessions to identify issues and possible
solutions
· Conducted a review of best practices from other major university communities
· Conducted a review of existing codes, ordinances, and organizational practices of the
City of College Station to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and potential areas of
modification
· Established an interactive web page discussing neighborhood integrity
7
Page 3
Challenges Before Us
Given the current and anticipated future environment, the City government is being
called to provide leadership in the critical area of Neighborhood Integrity. The Council
has recognized the need to be proactive articulating through its Strategic Plan several
policy directives and initiatives related to neighborhood integrity. This proposed Plan of
Action attempts to quantify and offer the Council and community specific direction to
move the organization and community towards a positive response to our present and
future conditions.
As we address the challenges presented by enhancing the quality of our neighborhoods,
providing protection to homeowners, and providing a welcoming home to our university
students, we must acknowledge it is a shared responsibility by the entire community –
City government, resident homeowners, students, investor-property mangers, and
University administration. We will not be successful without the full involvement of
each key stakeholder to contribute towards the solution.
The City government must take a leadership role to bring together the key stakeholders.
We must position ourselves to implement strategies and programs to enhance the quality
of life and stabilize neighborhoods in transition. There must be a full recognition that we
have limitations. We must strike a clear balance between actions appropriately belonging
with City government and actions which more appropriately belong to other key
stakeholders.
The proposed Plan of Action should be viewed as a beginning point and not an end unto
itself. The proposed plan presents several key strategies, programs, and actions which
represents our best efforts to understand the problem and offer meaningful responses to
address the identified problems.
Emphasis Areas, Proposed Strategies and Actions
Emphasis Areas
§ Adapt current service delivery system (planning, code enforcement, outreach, etc)
to have a greater orientation toward neighborhoods.
§ Enhanced use of regulatory and enforcement tools currently available to the City
§ Full engagement of all stakeholders in the solution
1.0 Strategy
Improve the capacity of neighborhoods to deal with a myriad of planning and quality of
life issues including those resulting from an aging housing stock and an increase in the
number of rental units.
One of the many challenges we face is the recognition that we have aging housing stock
in the community. As the housing stock ages, it is frequently converted to rental units in
previously owner occupied single family neighborhoods or falls into disrepair. Our
strategy suggests that we should be proactive in addressing this issue through multiple
actions.
8
Page 4
1.1 Action Re-establish the neighborhood planning program and ensure that
the efforts compliment the comprehensive plan and are closely aligned with
City objectives to stabilize and enhance neighborhoods. Our Neighborhood
Planning efforts should focus on developing neighborhood specific strategies
and protections to promote neighborhood stabilization, appearance, public
infrastructure, and compatible land use.
1.2 Action Promote home ownership through various programs managed by
the City for first time home buyers to increase homeownership in targeted
neighborhoods. Home ownership is a key to neighborhood stabilization.
1.3 Action Use adopted property maintenance codes and ordinances to
enhance property maintenance. We need to better use existing legislation to
promote neighborhood pride and appearance.
2.0 Strategy Orient service delivery toward neighborhoods and enhance the City’s
enforcement tools to better address the rental market.
2.1 Action Establish a single point of responsibility in the City organization
oriented to addressing neighborhood issues and coordination of all City
programs. One of the weaknesses identified through this process was the
identification of multiple points of entry into the City processes. This can be
both confusing and time consuming for citizens with legitimate concerns.
2.2 Action Conduct intensive neighborhood enforcement programs in select
neighborhoods for code compliance. This is a multi-functional approach to
address transitional neighborhoods. If a neighborhood association is not
present work to develop an association. Provide education programs as well as
enforcement activities. Bring together key stakeholders to identify needs of
the neighborhood and use the array of tools provided in this plan to address
the concerns.
2.3 Action Promote the formation and registration of neighborhood
associations and enhance their effectiveness. Perhaps one of the best ways that
a neighborhood can partner with the city and others ensuring that
neighborhoods remain strong and sustainable is to form a neighborhood
association and to get it registered with the city. This organizational structure
allows us to address issues in a systematic manner and enables the city to
readily engage neighborhood. Certain services offered by the city can only be
reasonably offered at this level.
2.4 Action Implement Universal Rental Registration Program. All single
family rental properties should be registered at no cost to the property owner.
The registration should be minimally intrusive and should be easy to
complete. The information collected should include a mandatory local point
of contact and the current number and names of tenants on the lease.
9
Page 5
Registrations should be renewed annually and should coincide with the
University calendar. This always creates an opportunity to present
information to tenants about city codes, neighborhood activities, and the
educational programs offered by the city.
2.5 Action Landlords and property investors should be encouraged to adopt
model leases which provide protections to landlords to deal with difficult
situations. The model lease is in place with a number of properties already in
the city with good results. The City and Landlord Associations should through
its education efforts strongly suggest the adoption of the model lease to
provide landlords with the tools to address problem properties.
2.6 Action Enhance development standards. Dense small lot development
(i.e., developments that are susceptible to conversion to rental units) should
have higher development standards including no parking zones concurrent
upon recording of the plat, designated overflow parking areas, mandatory
alleys, off-street parking tied to # of bedrooms, maximum lot coverage, etc.
These standards could be lessened or waived if the development is subjected
to a zoning prohibition against two or more unrelated individuals residing in
the homes.
2.7 Action Improve data collection on neighborhood problems and challenges.
Better use of the city’s web site and GIS to collect data on neighborhood
problems should be implemented. Better collection of data related to
violations, including mapping, data bases, etc. to aid in identifying trends and
“hot spots” to permit proactive action by the City in addressing the issues and
concerns.
3.0 Strategy Educate key stakeholders and community. One of the critical needs is to
provide continuous education of key stakeholders on the need to have strong viable
neighborhoods.
3.1 Action Fully implement the Aggieland Solution program presented by
TAMU student leadership. This is a proactive program which benefits the
entire community.
3.2 Action Work with University Administration to apply the Aggie Code of
Honor and other codes of conduct and behavior to off campus activities. This
will provide an additional support system to assist students in transitioning to
life in the community at large and promote good citizenship.
3.3 Action Work with University Administration to educate students upon
arrival on Campus to understand community standards and expectations.
There is a gap between students understanding local standards and
expectations which can be met during orientation sessions when they arrive on
campus to begin their college work.
10
Page 6
3.4 Action Develop and implement “Howdy Neighbor” program as a direct
outreach by neighborhood associations to welcome new residents to their
neighborhoods. There are several good examples already in place within the
community in which neighborhood associations provide new residents with
informational packets to help them transition into the neighborhood. This
program needs to be expanded and implemented by Neighborhood
Associations.
3.5 Action The City government should develop a comprehensive training and
education program to assist key stakeholders to address the many facets of this
Plan of Action. The city should become the reservoir of materials,
information, and programs to assist students, neighborhood associations,
individual citizens, and landlords to obtain information to assist them in
developing a positive response to Neighborhood Integrity issues.
3.6 Action Establish performance measures that address programmatic
accomplishments, outputs, and outcomes. These measures should be
grounded in this action plan and other adopted Council plans and policies and
should be use to determine the success of the various efforts identified in this
plan.
4.0 Strategy Provide for additional enforcement tools to address Neighborhood
Integrity issues. This plan suggests a number of specific proposals to address
Neighborhood Integrity.
4.1 Action Amend the City code to codify that any property that receives three
verified actions (i.e., written warnings, citations, etc) in a period of one year
(that is the registration cycle) will be considered a nuisance property and
procedures for enforcement as provided by Local Government Code will be
initiated by the City. Failure to have a property properly registered at the time
of a verified complaint shall constitute a verified action in itself. Once a
property has been declared a nuisance property a zero tolerance policy will be
employed for a period of at least one year, meaning that subsequent verified
actions will result in mandatory levying of applicable citations and fines.
4.2 Action Amend the City code to codify host responsibilities for parties in
residential areas. This should clearly outline who is responsible for what and
what the potential consequences will be for failure to meet these expectations.
This information could be made a part of what is delivered to the tenants
during the rental registration process.
4.3 Action Adopt a mediation procedure to resolve areas of disagreement
between various parties involving Neighborhood Integrity issues. The
mediation procedure is suggested by the Aggieland Solution and merits
implementation.
11
Page 7
Unrelated Individuals
A great deal of discussion has centered around the issue of the permitted number of
unrelated individuals allowed to reside in a single dwelling unit. Currently the City
regulates this number at four per unit. It is the staff’s belief that the afore-described
action plan can succeed with or without adjustment in the permitted number of unrelated
individuals. If Council elects to reduce the permitted number of unrelated individuals,
staff continues to recommend all of the identified actions contained in this plan. If
Council elects to reduce the permitted number of unrelated individuals it is recommended
that such a provision apply only to neighborhoods that succeed in securing the support of
at least 60% of the property owners located in a plat or phase of a plat. It is also
important to remember that any such action will not eliminate the non-conforming (or
grandfathered) status of properties currently housing four unrelated individuals.
Conclusions
A real opportunity exists in College Station. An opportunity to demonstrate how a
community can welcome thousands of students, address an aging housing stock, and
build strong and sustainable neighborhoods. This opportunity will not be without its
challenges, but then few things that are worth doing come without challenges. This
opportunity requires a clear focus, tailored solutions, and the commitment of all partners.
Implementation of this action plan will result in strong and sustainable neighborhoods
that continue to make College Station a great place to call home for homeowner, renter,
and student alike!
12
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
Co
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Co
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
0
7
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
0
7
13
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
o
f
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
o
f
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
,
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
,
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
14
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
I
s
s
u
e
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
L
i
f
e
Q
u
o
t
i
e
n
t
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
L
i
f
e
Q
u
o
t
i
e
n
t
Ho
m
e
t
o
T
A
M
U
a
n
d
B
l
i
n
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
Ho
m
e
t
o
T
A
M
U
a
n
d
B
l
i
n
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
Vi
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
&
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Vi
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
&
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Va
l
u
e
s
Va
l
u
e
s
CO
C
S
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
CO
C
S
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
Fu
z
z
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
Fu
z
z
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
Si
l
v
e
r
b
u
l
l
e
t
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Si
l
v
e
r
b
u
l
l
e
t
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
15
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
In
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
Cu
l
t
u
r
e
&
E
c
o
n
o
m
y
•
Ex
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
M
a
r
k
e
t
r
e
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
•
C
o
s
t
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
•R
e
a
l
i
t
y
v
s
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
•
Fl
o
w
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Vi
s
i
o
n
/
G
o
a
l
CO
C
S
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
•
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
•
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
•
C
o
d
e
s
/
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
16
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
No
c
l
e
a
r
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
No
c
l
e
a
r
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
Si
l
o
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
Si
l
o
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ab
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Ab
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
St
a
f
f
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
St
a
f
f
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
17
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Cl
a
r
i
t
y
i
n
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
Cl
a
r
i
t
y
i
n
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
l
l
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
l
l
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
18
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Wo
r
k
i
n
g
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Wo
r
k
i
n
g
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Ho
w
d
o
e
s
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
a
l
a
r
g
e
Ho
w
d
o
e
s
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
a
l
a
r
g
e
yo
u
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
l
e
yo
u
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
l
e
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
?
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
?
19
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Da
t
a
a
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Da
t
a
a
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
(u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
)
(u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
)
Su
r
v
e
y
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
j
o
r
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Su
r
v
e
y
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
j
o
r
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Fo
r
e
n
s
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
C
i
t
y
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
Fo
r
e
n
s
i
c
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
C
i
t
y
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
Ca
t
a
l
o
g
u
e
o
f
i
s
s
u
e
s
,
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
,
a
n
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
Ca
t
a
l
o
g
u
e
o
f
i
s
s
u
e
s
,
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
,
a
n
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
20
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
k
e
y
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
k
e
y
st
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
st
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
l
t
o
r
s
Re
a
l
t
o
r
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
s
/
i
n
v
e
s
t
o
r
s
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
s
/
i
n
v
e
s
t
o
r
s
St
a
f
f
St
a
f
f
21
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
De
p
l
o
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
S
o
l
v
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
De
p
l
o
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
S
o
l
v
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
In
c
l
u
d
e
a
l
l
t
o
p
i
c
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
a
l
l
t
o
p
i
c
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Un
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
Un
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
Hi
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Hi
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
22
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
2
2
--
da
y
l
o
n
g
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
da
y
l
o
n
g
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
De
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
z
e
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
z
e
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Br
i
e
f
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Br
i
e
f
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Br
i
e
f
P
&
Z
Br
i
e
f
P
&
Z
Br
i
e
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Br
i
e
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
23
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Ti
m
e
t
a
b
l
e
Ti
m
e
t
a
b
l
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
0
7
Co
u
n
c
i
l
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
0
7
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
20
0
7
20
0
7
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
8
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
8
CP
S
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
CP
S
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
––
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
8
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
8
Br
i
e
f
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
Br
i
e
f
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
Br
i
e
f
P
&
Z
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
Br
i
e
f
P
&
Z
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
24
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Wh
y
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Wh
y
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
S
o
l
v
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
?
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
S
o
l
v
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
?
Th
i
s
i
s
a
Th
i
s
i
s
a
wi
c
k
e
d
wi
c
k
e
d
is
s
u
e
is
s
u
e
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
En
g
a
g
e
a
l
l
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
En
g
a
g
e
a
l
l
k
e
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Bu
i
l
d
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
i
l
d
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
f
o
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
25
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Wh
a
t
w
i
l
l
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
i
n
M
a
r
c
h
Wh
a
t
w
i
l
l
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
i
n
M
a
r
c
h
20
0
8
?
20
0
8
?
We
l
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
o
u
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
We
l
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
o
u
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ac
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Ac
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
26
Co
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
Co
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
27
Meeting Notes
“Neighborhood Integrity” Meetings 2-4-08
College Station Texas
NOTE:
1. The “issues” listed in this document were each identified by at
least one person attending the particular session. Others
present may have disagreed with whether a particular issue
exists or is a problem if it does, but people were asked not to
contradict others at the meeting. This is thus what staff and
the consultant believe is a reasonably complete list of issues
raised, but it is not a consensus or final list. A separate
document provides the consultant’s attempt to synthesize and
simplify the issues.
2. The “solutions” listed in this document were each identified by
at least one person attending a particular session. It was
very clear at the meeting that others have concerns (ranging
from moderate to severe) about some of these possible
solutions. The suggested “solutions” listed here are
presented merely as a list of items raised by participants –
and not as specific recommendations. There will be more
discussion of possible consensus or compromise solutions on
23 February.
Opening Session
Issues
· University role in solution (not been included before)
· Student adjustment to new environment contributes to
behavioral issues
· Apparent lack of consequences
o Parking on street
o Noise from parties
o RV/Boat Parking
· Lack of communication to and from city
· Property maintenance
· Perceived lack of code enforcement
o On-street parking
o Number of unrelated
o Parties – what happened to no tolerance
· Student perceptions of sense of animosity from neighbors/city
towards all students
· Inconsistent responses by City
o Zero Tolerance Policy not always in effect
28
· Inadequate maintenance of some commercial properties near
neighborhoods contributes to this problem
· Procedural and other limitations on City under state zoning
enabling laws
· Question raised about ability of City to enforce covenants
· Students may not always provide adequate pet care
· Sprawl
o This problem may lead some residents to move farther out
o Won’t find students out that far
· This issue may limit the attraction of College Station as a
retirement community for former Aggies
· Question raised about noise abatement – can city control
vehicular noise?
· Possible adverse effect of rental properties on single-family
property values
· Density of rental units contribute to this issue
· Student Participation
o Students present pleased to be involved and regret that
they were not involved earlier
o At least one neighborhood representative expressed the
view that students should not be involved
· Many neighborhoods built under design standards that are not
adequate for many uses today – particularly off-street parking
· Aging housing stock (see issued immediately above)
· 37,000 students living off campus
· Parking a particular problem where it results in blocking
driveways
Solutions
· Rental Registration
· Neighborhood information packet
o Distributed to all new residents, including renters
o Summarizes covenants and sets standard of expectations
· Neighborhood relations dept. important
· City might provide model lease language, giving landlords more
tools to use in dealing with tenants who pay their rent but are
neighborhood problems
o Many (most?) landlords currently use Texas Apartment
Association lease, which provides a good model
· More code enforcement officers
Current level of service (information provided by staff at
meeting):
· Five people, including one supervisor
· Drive by most properties in city two times per week
29
· 96% of current enforcement activity is proactive
(initiated by City, rather than by complaint)
· Ordinance limiting occupancy of single-family dwellings to not
more than two unrelated persons
o Such restrictions might be imposed city-wide or just in
designated neighborhoods
· Separate zoning district for rental units
· Review effectiveness of existing ordinances:
o Enforce existing ordinances before drafting new ones
o May need to be rewritten
Neighborhood Session
Issues
· Deterioration and apparent lack of maintenance of rental
properties
· Requiring signatures of 60% property owners to sign petitions to
create neighborhood conservation district seems too high to
some
· Since parking is a major part of the issue, maybe City should
reevaluate parking rules:
o Consider prohibiting on-street parking on all streets that
are 27 feet wide or less?
o Part of the problem arises from parking large SUVs and
pick-up trucks, which are common in College Station but
much wider than cars
· Some neighborhoods don’t have sidewalks
· Associations need to know the ordinances and how to target the
program
· Rotation of city staff big difficulty in achieving neighborhood
goals
· Improved communication may not make a difference in student
behavior – at least some present believe that there is already a
“wealth” of information available to students and that they do
not pay much attention to it
Solutions
· Allow each neighborhood to design guidelines for addressing
rental housing in that neighborhood
o Process would be same as with the neighborhood
conservation district but would be expanded to address
rental housing issues
30
· Decrease required number of signatures to from neighborhood
conservation district to 50% + 1
· Rental Registration
· Parking permit program to limit on-street parking
· Creation of Council of Neighborhood Associations to discuss
issues and communicate
· Question raised as to whether the City should be enforcing
architectural standards contained in covenants
Answer from consultant and staff was “no;” however, some basic
design standards are included in the neighborhood conservation
district, and those can be enforced by City.
Other discussion
·
Investor/Realtor Session
Issues
· Some developers have tried to address parking issue by
providing rear parking provided for some units
· Developers and investors have turned to renting single-family
houses in part because City has zoned against duplexes in areas
near campus
· Issue now affects more of City, because price of homes no
longer dictates areas where parents buy for students to use and
sub-lease
· Issues not a function of occupancy – landlords do not believe
that reducing occupancy from 4 to 2 will solve the problems
Solutions
· Professional lawn maintenance helps
o Provided for large complexes and some neighborhoods of
rental housing
o Provided by some landlords if tenants fail to do it
o Installing sprinkler systems to keep landscaping green
helps
· Point system tied to rental registration
o Cumulative
o Gainesville, FL
· Owners should have local representation
· Increased street width with smaller lots
· Might have different design standards for proposed rental
neighborhood, but hard to implement and enforce
· Rear alley or other access to rear parking seems like good idea
31
Student/A&M Admin Session
Issues
· Issue is trying to solve the residents issues
· Students feel discriminated against
· Students want to be part of the solution
· College Station 101 – student version of Citizens University
· Generational difference in finding solutions to problems, don’t
have to limit ourselves to get what we want
· Cultural differences with international graduate students –
international student orientation
Solutions
· Original proposal in Living Among Aggies has been revised
o Revised proposal has little involvement of University
Administration
o Depends more on student leadership
· Fine students who abuse citizen privileges
· New student conferences as an avenue to start education
o Have Neighborhood Services participate?
o Invite representatives of homeowners associations?
· Student mediation and intervention may be helpful, because
students respond differently to other students vs. cops, CE
officers, etc.
· Handing out Neighborhood Info Sheets could help
· Tickets deferment/dismissal program – Living among Aggies
· Invite student leaders to meet with neighborhood associations
or City-wide Council of Neighborhood Associations
32
Issue Synthesis page 1
Neighborhood Integrity and Rental Housing
College Station Texas
Consultant’s Synthesis of Issues from Meetings 4 February 2008
Process Issues
Students very much want to be involved and are somewhat concerned that the policy-making
part of this process involving elected officials may take place while many of them are away for
spring break.
Comment: Bob Cowell assured students that the intent of Council is exactly the opposite
and that this issue should be brought before Council for a policy decision while most
students are still on campus.
At least some neighborhood representatives do not believe that students should be involved in
the discussion.
Comment: This appears to be a minority view; the process has been established to
include students, and it will continue to include them. The final decisions will remain
with City Council, which will listen to whatever stakeholders it believes are relevant to
the discussion.
Context Issues
Comment: The following issues provide a context in which the rest of the discussion
must take place. They are, however, largely beyond the control of the City and must
simply be accepted as part of the environment in which other issues must be addressed.
About 37,000 Aggie students, as well as additional students from Blinn College, need off-
campus housing in the College Station–Bryan metro area.
Many of the students are young and away from home for the first time; they may have difficulty
adapting their normally civil behavior to this new context.
The population of College Station is aging, thus creating what may be a more significant
generation gap (consultant’s term) than has previously existed in many neighborhoods.
Almost everyone agrees that College Station should be an attractive place for retirement,
particularly for former Aggie students; however, as more people retire to College Station, the
“aging community” factor becomes larger. Although economics once limited the conversion of
single-family homes to those in a few, modest neighborhoods, the economic pattern has changed;
and there are a number of parents and investors acquiring properties for rental occupancy in
many different neighborhoods.
Under Texas law, lawful nonconforming uses are protected, or “grandfathered in”, under new
regulations. Thus, any major change in the City’s regulations (such as a new limit on
occupancy) would apply only to units built or converted to rentals in the future, not to units that
are now rented. Other types of regulations, such as new ordinances dealing with loud parties,
can be applied to all persons in all units.
33
Issue Synthesis page 2
Public Policy Issues
Different rules for different neighborhoods? Most people participating in the discussions
seemed to agree that a new regulatory program can and should acknowledge differences among
neighborhoods. A logical extension of this policy position would be that new restrictions should
be imposed only on neighborhoods where a substantial number of property owners believe such
regulations are both necessary and desirable. Most who spoke appeared to accept the concepts of
neighborhood petitions and some degree of neighborhood self-determination, policies that
underlie the City’s new Neighborhood Conservation District; many seemed to believe that the
Neighborhood Conservation process could be expanded to include limitations on future rental
housing.
Different policies for landlords with problem properties than for other landlords?
Landlords and investors expressed firm convictions that everyone in their business should not be
punished for problems that they believe arise only from a small number of properties belonging
to a small number of landlords. Although landlords and investors were the most adamant in
expressing this position, no one else seemed to question it. Thus, one of the public policy
questions that must be addressed in trying to find solutions to the problems is whether it is
possible to craft a solution that has significant effects on “bad actors” without unduly impairing
the reasonable business opportunities of others.
Voluntary compliance versus “zero tolerance” and immediate consequences for violators?
College Station has taken great pride in achieving compliance with most regulations through
warnings and moral suasion, without imposing fines or penalties. There is a tension, however,
between the desire of residents for prompt and immediate consequences for disruptive neighbors
and the desire of the City not to impose many fines. There is a further tension in that any
expansion of enforcement efforts (which a number of neighborhood representatives advocate)
would involve new costs to the City. If the public policy resolution of the previous issue is that
there should be no new fees imposed on “good” landlords, it becomes essential to collect
significant inspection fees or fines from landlords whose properties create problems for the City.
Substantive Issues
Parking appears to be the most frequently mentioned substantive issue (really a symptom) of
extensive rental occupancy in a neighborhood. Many of the excess vehicles are forced onto the
streets, where the following problems may and sometimes do occur:
• Make street inaccessible to emergency vehicles
• Make street inaccessible to school buses
• Block neighbors’ driveways
• Take up on-street parking that neighbors may expect to have available for their guests
• Make passage difficult for pedestrians in neighborhoods that lack sidewalks.
Loud parties and the secondary effects of such parties are also an issue in many neighborhoods.
Parties may be particularly problematic to neighbors when they are held outside. Some of the
negative effects of such parties on neighborhoods include:
• Noise after reasonable bedtimes for children and working adults
34
Issue Synthesis page 3
• Drunken behavior of party participants, some of which carries into neighbors’ yards
• Trash tossed or left to blow into neighboring yards.
Although the City devotes police and code enforcement resources to dealing with loud parties,
they may not catch all such parties, and some students simply resume the objectionable behavior
as soon as the City official leaves.
Affordable housing for students is a major concern of students and, from a somewhat different
perspective, for landlords. Because Texas A&M continues to grow but appears to have stopped
trying to house additional students, this will continue to be a growing issue. If occupancy of
rental units were reduced to two persons per unit for all future rentals, it is likely that the cost of
renting space in houses would increase and even more rental houses would be needed to provide
for those students who must live off-campus but cannot or will not be housed in apartments or
off-campus dorms.
Comments: Student representatives seemed to have a good understanding of the local
rental market and the potential effect on the availability and cost of housing that would
result from the elimination of existing houses from the rental stock or reductions of
occupancy. Not all of the economic argument are as clear-cut. One landlord argued
that “even $25 per year” would be an unaffordable fee to pay for a rental unit that he
separately acknowledged would generate rental income of $900 to $1200 per month; that
position appears to be more philosophical than economic, because a $25 fee on $12,000
or so of income would be a charge of less than one quarter of one percent (or less than
the cost of an extra call to a sewer service to unplug a stopped up drain). The lack of
economic basis to the landlords’ side of this argument does not make the issue go away,
but it is important to note.
Lawn and property maintenance was an issue raised by a number of people. In further
discussion, even those raising the issue acknowledged that this can be a problem with owner-
occupied homes and homes rented to families, in addition to student-occupied housing. There is,
nevertheless, a widely held perception in neighborhoods that student rentals in general tend to be
among the units with the most maintenance issues visible from the street or neighboring
premises.
Occupancy. A number of neighborhood residents expressed the opinion that the problem is one
of having too many people in each rental unit.
Comment: There is clearly a correlation between the number of occupants in a unit and
the extent of the parking problem around it. Discussion with the large group and
individual ones, however, failed to show a direct correlation between total occupancy
and other problems that directly affect neighbors. Landlords and students alike disputed
whether total occupancy is a real issue.
Other noise. Some neighbors raised concerns about other noise issues related to vehicles used
by occupants of rental housing.
Communication Issues
Among neighborhoods and students. It is the consultant’s conclusion that in many
neighborhoods communication between neighborhood residents and their temporary neighbors is
dismal and that the responsibility for the lack of communication is shared by all non-participants.
35
Issue Synthesis page 4
In contrast, there are clearly some neighborhoods where the communication among residents –
including renters – is excellent, and that such communication makes life better for all of them.
Among neighborhoods and landlords. Not surprisingly, landlords and developers who
attended the working sessions appeared to be attentive to community and neighborhood
concerns. There does not, however, appear to be any consistent form of communication between
landlords and the long-term residents of the neighborhoods in which they own rental property.
With the City. It is clear that both Eric Hurt, Director of Community Enhancement/Code
Enforcement, and Barbara Moore, Neighborhood & Community Development Coordinator, have
excellent relationships with many neighborhood representatives and landlords. Not all
neighborhood representatives, and virtually none of the students participating in the discussions,
are aware of the resources of their offices, however. There is a need to expand their excellent
communication with many groups to include all stakeholders.
Comment: Both Mr. Hurt and Ms. Moore appear to be working diligently to address this
issue. It is one issue that is likely to be cured no matter what comes out of this process.
To students. College Station 101 and a new leadership program provide excellent information
about the responsibilities of community citizenship to a tiny percentage of the students at Texas
A&M. There is currently no structured program that disseminates information to students on
important local laws, issues in neighborhoods, and the general responsibilities of adult
citizenship in a community.
To neighbors. It appears that many neighbors think of students as “those people” – a group that
is not understood and therefore somewhat intimidating. Most graduate students at Texas A&M
are international students, therefore issues of color, language, religion and culture contribute to
the ways in which they are different from others in neighborhoods in which they live. There is
currently no structured program that helps neighbors to understand today’s students and to
understand and accept those who come from other countries and other cultures.
Enforcement Issues
There is a widely held belief among neighborhood representatives that increased enforcement
efforts would reduce the problems arising from rental houses in neighborhoods. Some student
representatives argued fervently that there should be no new ordinances until it is clear that all
reasonable efforts are being made to enforce current ordinances. No one involved appears to
oppose increased enforcement efforts, but no one proposed a way to pay for it. Such efforts in
other communities are often funded with fees charged to owners of rental units, a concept to
which there is strong opposition by College Station landlords.
Comment: More enforcement effort almost always pays off in increased compliance.
The consultant would note, however, that, if accurate, the 96 percent “proactive”
enforcement effort and the “drive by every property twice a week” performance levels of
College Station enforcement staff are commendable. In driving through many
neighborhoods (admittedly on a Sunday night, when, according to neighbors, there are
usually few problems), the consultant viewed far fewer obvious code problems in
neighborhoods than he has observed in similar neighborhoods in other college towns.
Specifically, the consultant saw no vehicles parked on lawns, only one trash barrel left
out by the street on what was clearly not a pick-up day, very little trash in yards, no
upholstered furniture outside on porches (or on roofs – a college student favorite
36
Issue Synthesis page 5
elsewhere), no old refrigerators or coolers in yards, and no streets seriously impaired by
the way in which vehicles were parked. The real problem with current enforcement
efforts may not be a lack of personnel but a lack of serious and immediate penalties or
other effective tools to deal with repeat and intransigent offenders.
About this Document
This document reflects the attempt of the consultant to the City of College Station to synthesize
issues from a day-long series of meetings occurring on 4 February 2008. Participants in the
meetings included leaders of neighborhood associations and other neighborhood activists,
owners and developers of rental properties, student leaders from Texas A&M, and
representatives of several city departments. This is an interim document to facilitate further
discussion. It does not represent official policy of the City of College Station nor does it
represent final recommendations of the consultant. It is a working document. Consultant contact
– Eric Damian Kelly, J.D., Ph.D, FAICP, Duncan Associates 765-289-5380,
eric@duncanplan.com .
37
Co
l
l
e
g
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
n
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
38
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
P
o
i
n
t
s
?
y
So
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
n
t
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
o
n
a
c
i
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
b
a
s
i
s
,
b
u
t
o
t
h
e
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
o
n
l
y
i
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
w
h
e
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
bo
t
h
a
d
e
s
i
r
e
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
to
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
f
a
m
i
l
y
li
f
e
-
s
t
y
l
e
.
39
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
P
o
i
n
t
s
?
y
To
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
s
s
u
e
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
n
t
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
m
a
y
b
e
at
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
,
n
o
t
a
l
l
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
a
r
e
e
q
u
a
l
l
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
ta
r
g
e
t
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
w
h
o
c
a
u
s
e
o
r
a
l
l
o
w
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
un
d
u
l
y
b
u
r
d
e
n
i
n
g
o
t
h
e
r
s
.
40
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
P
o
i
n
t
s
?
y
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
n
y
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
d
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
ma
y
be
a
p
o
l
i
c
y
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
re
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
m
o
s
t
i
n
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
i
l
y
a
n
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
41
Co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
P
o
i
n
t
s
y
Be
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
ad
o
p
t
i
n
g
n
e
w
o
n
e
s
.
42
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
’
s
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
y
An
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
n
e
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
o
r
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
y
Th
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
u
c
h
a
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
.
43
Re
c
a
p
o
f
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
y
Zo
n
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
c
c
u
p
a
nc
y
t
o
n
o
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
f
o
u
r
un
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
44
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
y
No
i
s
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
u
n
d
e
r
“
p
u
b
l
i
c
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
”
)
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
lo
u
d
n
o
i
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
h
e
a
r
d
:
(a
)
i
n
a
n
y
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
n
o
t
t
h
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
no
i
s
e
o
r
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
y
a
r
d
,
o
r
;
(b
)
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
o
f
s
u
c
h
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
;
(c
)
i
n
a
s
c
h
o
o
l
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
r
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
wh
i
l
e
i
n
u
s
e
,
u
p
o
n
a
n
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
o
p
e
n
t
o
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
pu
b
l
i
c
a
s
i
n
v
i
t
e
e
s
o
r
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
e
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
a
n
y
e
v
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
a
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
no
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
f
i
f
t
y
f
e
e
t
(
5
0
'
)
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
no
i
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
i
n
a
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
.
y
No
i
s
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
s
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
45
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
y
a
r
d
o
r
l
a
w
n
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
“
u
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
”
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
(
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
n
a
m
e
d
i
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
o
r
am
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
)
46
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
y
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
N
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
s
(1
)
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
m
a
n
u
r
e
o
r
r
u
b
b
i
s
h
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
pl
a
c
e
s
f
o
r
f
l
i
e
s
,
m
o
s
q
u
i
t
o
e
s
,
o
r
v
e
r
m
i
n
.
(4
)
F
i
l
t
h
y
,
l
i
t
t
e
r
e
d
,
o
r
t
r
a
s
h
-
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
c
e
l
l
a
r
s
,
h
o
u
s
e
y
a
r
d
s
,
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
ya
r
d
s
,
v
a
c
a
n
t
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
r
e
a
r
o
f
s
t
o
r
e
s
,
v
a
c
a
n
t
l
o
t
s
,
h
o
u
s
e
s
,
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
o
r
p
r
e
m
i
s
e
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
r
a
s
h
,
l
i
t
t
e
r
,
r
a
g
s
,
ac
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
m
p
t
y
b
a
r
r
e
l
s
,
b
o
x
e
s
,
c
r
a
t
e
s
,
p
a
c
k
i
n
g
c
a
s
e
s
,
lu
m
b
e
r
o
r
f
i
r
e
-
w
o
o
d
n
o
t
n
e
a
t
l
y
p
i
l
e
d
,
s
c
r
a
p
i
r
o
n
,
t
i
n
,
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
m
e
t
a
l
n
o
t
n
e
a
t
l
y
p
i
l
e
d
,
o
r
a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g
w
h
a
t
s
o
e
v
e
r
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
fl
i
e
s
o
r
r
a
t
s
m
a
y
b
r
e
e
d
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
y
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
b
e
a
f
i
r
e
da
n
g
e
r
.
47
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
y
Sa
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
y
“C
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r
l
e
f
t
a
t
c
u
r
b
”
a
l
l
o
w
s
l
e
a
v
i
n
g
[
t
r
a
s
h
]
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r
a
t
“d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
p
i
c
k
u
p
p
o
i
n
t
”
o
n
l
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
2
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
pi
c
k
u
p
48
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
y
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
[w
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
t
h
i
s
l
a
t
e
r
]
49
To
o
l
s
N
o
t
i
n
U
s
e
y
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
y
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
y
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
e
n
a
l
t
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
r
e
p
e
a
t
v
i
o
l
a
t
o
r
s
(
l
i
k
e
a
p
o
i
n
t
sy
s
t
e
m
)
y
Re
d
u
c
e
d
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
l
i
m
i
t
y
On
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
w
i
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
pe
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
50
To
o
l
s
N
o
t
I
n
U
s
e
y
Lo
w
e
r
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
l
i
m
i
t
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
be
d
r
o
o
m
s
o
r
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
f
f
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
y
So
m
e
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
d
e
n
o
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
en
f
o
r
c
e
d
y
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
y
Fo
r
m
a
l
t
h
r
e
e
-
w
a
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
(
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
,
la
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
,
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
,
g
r
o
u
p
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
)
51
To
o
l
s
N
o
t
i
n
U
s
e
y
Ci
v
i
l
p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
Do
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
o
n
v
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
r
i
m
e
y
In
v
o
l
v
e
l
o
w
e
r
b
u
r
d
e
n
o
f
p
r
o
o
f
i
n
c
o
u
r
t
y
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
T
e
x
a
s
l
a
w
y
Ca
n
b
e
a
s
m
u
c
h
a
s
$
1
,
0
0
0
p
e
r
d
a
y
52
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
y
Wh
a
t
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
f
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
(
w
i
t
h
o
r
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
r
e
n
t
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
)
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
un
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
a
n
d
c
i
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
,
a
n
d
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
?
[i
s
s
u
e
s
b
e
g
i
n
o
n
n
e
x
t
p
a
g
e
]
53
Ci
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
o
r
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
?
y
St
r
e
e
t
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
,
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
at
a
l
l
t
i
m
e
s
?
y
No
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
y
a
r
d
s
o
r
l
a
w
n
s
?
y
No
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
u
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
?
y
No
t
r
a
s
h
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
y
a
r
d
s
?
y
Tr
a
s
h
b
a
r
r
e
l
s
t
a
k
e
n
i
n
p
r
o
m
p
t
l
y
?
y
No
i
s
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
(
u
s
i
n
g
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
o
f
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
he
a
r
d
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
?
54
Ci
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
o
r
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
?
y
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
L
i
m
i
t
o
f
n
o
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
f
o
u
r
u
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
pe
r
s
o
n
s
?
y
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
l
o
w
e
r
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
l
i
m
i
t
s
?
y
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
l
i
m
i
t
i
n
g
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
t
w
o
p
e
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
?
y
Pa
r
t
y
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
r
s
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
n
o
i
s
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
?
y
To
u
g
h
e
r
p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
r
e
p
e
a
t
v
i
o
l
a
t
o
r
s
?
55
Ci
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
o
r
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
?
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
“
z
e
r
o
to
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
”
f
o
r
:
y
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
?
y
Al
l
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
n
e
w
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
?
y
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
n
e
w
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
?
NO
T
E
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
f
o
r
a
p
p
l
y
i
ng
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
p
e
n
a
l
t
y
t
o
sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
l
a
w
s
im
p
o
s
i
n
g
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
d
r
u
g
o
f
f
e
n
s
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
n
e
a
r
a
s
c
h
o
o
l
56
Wh
a
t
i
s
“
Z
e
r
o
T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
”
?
y
Ve
r
b
a
l
o
r
d
o
o
r
h
a
n
g
e
r
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
:
y
No
i
s
e
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
?
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
Y
a
r
d
s
?
y
Tr
a
s
h
C
a
n
s
L
e
f
t
O
u
t
?
y
Tr
a
s
h
i
n
y
a
r
d
?
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
?
y
Sk
i
p
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
l
e
t
t
e
r
?
y
Im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
c
i
v
i
l
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
f
r
e
p
e
a
t
o
f
s
a
m
e
o
f
f
e
n
s
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
X
X
da
y
s
?
57
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
y
Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
s
o
m
e
b
a
s
i
c
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
b
e
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d
i
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
to
a
d
o
p
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
o
r
r
e
m
e
d
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
:
y
Wh
a
t
i
s
a
“
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
”
?
y
Wh
a
t
c
a
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
i
n
r
e
t
u
r
n
?
[c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
o
n
n
e
x
t
s
l
i
d
e
]
58
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
y
Wh
a
t
s
i
z
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
a
ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
?
y
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
?
y
Bo
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
?
y
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
?
y
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
?
y
Re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
a
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
?
59
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
y
Is
i
t
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
a
s
k
t
h
a
t
a
n
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
s
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
an
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
?
[c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
]
60
Co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
?
y
Ag
r
e
e
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
“
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
”
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
t
o
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
,
ex
p
l
a
i
n
i
n
g
r
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
?
y
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
(
w
i
t
h
p
h
o
n
e
a
n
d
e
-
m
a
i
l
i
n
f
o
)
f
o
r
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
?
y
Ag
r
e
e
t
o
h
o
l
d
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
n
n
u
al
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
?
y
Ag
r
e
e
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
C
i
t
y
-w
i
d
e
m
u
l
t
i
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
(
s
)
?
61
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
l
i
mi
t
e
d
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
:
y
Is
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
a
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
n
o
t
j
u
s
t
a
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
)
?
y
Th
e
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
a
t
u
n
i
t
?
y
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
2
4
-
h
o
u
r
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
f
o
r
u
n
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
b
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
?
y
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
l
e
a
d
t
o
r
e
v
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
re
n
t
t
h
a
t
u
n
i
t
?
[a
n
d
/
o
r
]
62
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
(
2
)
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
la
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
w
h
o
r
e
n
t
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
s
(
a
n
d
d
u
p
l
e
x
e
s
a
n
d
tr
i
p
l
e
x
e
s
?
)
?
y
Wi
t
h
n
o
f
e
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
b
s
o
r
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
u
l
l
c
o
s
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
?
y
Wi
t
h
a
m
o
d
e
s
t
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
u
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
?
63
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
s
y
To
f
u
n
d
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
r
e
p
e
a
t
of
f
e
n
s
e
s
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ad
o
p
t
i
n
g
a
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
c
i
v
i
l
pe
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
t
o
b
e
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
p
e
a
t
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
?
64
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
?
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
l
i
m
i
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
o
n
e
s
i
d
e
o
f
m
o
r
e
st
r
e
e
t
s
?
O
R
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
o
n
-
st
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
s
o
m
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
(
b
y
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
)
?
O
R
y
Bo
t
h
?
65
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
n
e
w
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
:
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
R
V
s
a
n
d
b
o
a
t
s
i
n
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
f
o
r
c
a
r
s
?
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
R
V
s
a
n
d
b
o
a
t
s
o
n
l
a
w
n
?
y
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
i
n
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
i
n
s
u
c
h
a
w
a
y
t
h
a
t
i
t
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
pa
r
t
o
r
a
l
l
o
f
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
?
66
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
?
y
Sh
o
u
l
d
C
i
t
y
b
e
g
i
n
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
d
e
?
y
Ga
r
a
g
e
d
o
o
r
s
(
n
o
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
)
y
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
?
y
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
l
l
s
(
c
r
a
c
k
s
)
?
y
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
w
a
l
l
s
(
p
a
i
n
t
)
?
y
Ro
o
f
s
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
g
u
t
t
e
r
s
?
y
De
c
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
(
n
o
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
)
y
Ov
e
r
h
a
n
g
s
,
e
a
v
e
s
?
[c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
]
67
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
?
y
Mo
r
e
y
St
a
i
r
w
a
y
s
,
d
e
c
k
s
,
p
o
r
c
h
e
s
(
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
l
y
s
o
u
n
d
)
?
y
Ch
i
m
n
e
y
s
a
n
d
t
o
w
e
r
s
(
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
)
?
y
Ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
s
a
n
d
g
u
a
r
d
s
?
y
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
(
n
o
b
r
o
k
e
n
o
n
e
s
)
?
y
Sc
r
e
e
n
s
(
n
o
h
o
l
e
s
)
?
y
Do
o
r
s
?
y
Ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
h
a
t
c
h
w
a
y
s
?
y
Ro
d
e
n
t
g
u
a
r
d
s
o
n
b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
?
68
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
y
Ho
w
w
o
u
l
d
y
o
u
l
i
k
e
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
th
i
s
i
s
s
u
e
a
s
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
?
y
E-
m
a
i
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
?
y
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
(
s
)
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
?
y
Wo
r
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
?
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
(
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
)
?
y
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
n
a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g
n
e
w
t
h
a
t
i
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
?
69
An
y
t
h
i
n
g
E
l
s
e
?
70
1 | Page
Rental Housing in Family Neighborhoods
A College Station Discussion
Overview and Disclaimer
This document has been prepared by Eric Damian Kelly, Ph.D., FAICP, of Duncan Associates, an Austin-
based planning firm. Dr. Kelly was hired by the City to facilitate two workshops conducted with
neighborhood leaders, student leaders, landlords and City officials and staff, to discuss issues related to
rental housing in single-family neighborhoods. Dr. Kelly has worked in a number of university towns and
addressed this issue frequently.
This document, however, is not a set of recommendations. It includes the consultants’ thoughts and
attempts at synthesizing the information and comments that came out of the two days of workshops.
Much of this document is simply synthesis and summary. In some cases, however, it goes beyond
simple synthesis and includes comments that may (or may not) be helpful to Council in addressing this
complex issue.
The consultant submits this document in the hope that it will be helpful to City Council members. In
doing so, however, Dr. Kelly and the firm recognized that it is the members of the College Station City
Council who were elected to make policy for the City, and it is they who are in the best position to
resolve difficult issues like this.
Geography of Rules
Policy
There appears to be a consensus that some of the issues related to rental housing should be addressed
on a city-wide basis, but others should be addressed only in neighborhoods where residents express
both a desire and a commitment to maintenance of a family life-style. There are a few neighborhood
advocates who believe that new rules should be applied in the whole city and a few students who
appear to believe that there should be no new rules anywhere in the city. Most of the neighborhood
participants, however, and all of the landlords involved in the discussion seem to support an approach
that would impose the strictest new rules (such as limitations on occupancy) only in select
neighborhoods. A logical extension of this policy position would be that new restrictions should be
imposed only on neighborhoods where a substantial number of property owners believe such
regulations are both necessary and desirable. Most who spoke appeared to accept the concepts of
neighborhood petitions and some degree of neighborhood self-determination, policies that underlie the
City’s new Neighborhood Conservation District; many seemed to believe that the Neighborhood
Conservation process could be expanded to include limitations on future rental housing.
71
2 | Page
Rules That Should Apply Citywide
There appears to be consensus that the following rules, many of which are already in effect, should
apply City-wide:
· Streets accessible to private, emergency and delivery vehicles at all times [note that this is really
a policy determination that will guide the application of other rules, primarily related to parking]
· No parking on yards or lawns [current ordinance]
· No parking on unapproved surfaces [current ordinance, but see note below]
· No trash accumulation in yards [current ordinance]
· Trash barrels taken in promptly [current ordinance]
· Noise limits (using current measure of whether they are heard from other property) [current
ordinance, but see discussion below]
· Occupancy limit of not more than four unrelated individuals [current ordinance]
Notes:
Parking: In the course of discussing this issue, the group sidetracked briefly to concerns about the
parking of RVs and boats in yards. The current ordinance allows boats and RVs to be parked in yards
even on the grass. There appeared to be a broad consensus that the portions of the parking ordinance
relating to RVs and boats should be fixed – probably by requiring that they, also, be parked on an
approved surface and that there be additional screening for them.
A related issue that was not resolved was the effect of parking a boat or RV in a driveway on the
availability of parking for cars and trucks; if one part of a new ordinance on rental housing relates to the
availability of parking spaces, the ordinance should probably prohibit parking of boats or RVs in any of
the required off-street parking places. If revisions to the rental housing ordinance do not address
required off-street parking, then this comment can be disregarded.
Noise. See separate discussion of under the general issue of “Enforcement” later in these notes.
Rules That Should Apply only in Specific Neighborhoods
· Possible lower occupancy limits [there is considerable neighborhood interest in a limit of two
unrelated persons]
· Party ordinance or stronger noise ordinance [see separate discussion of noise, below]
Notes: Occupancy limits are difficult to enforce, and the issue of occupancy addresses few of the real
issues that neighbors identified. Nevertheless, there is considerable interest among neighborhood
advocates in seeing lower occupancy limits, at least in selected neighborhoods, and the Council may have
to consider that for any new ordinance(s) to have credibility with neighborhood groups.
72
3 | Page
What is a Neighborhood?
Although some neighborhood activists would like to be able to designate a block or a couple of blocks as
a “neighborhood” for purposes of petitioning the City Council for new restrictions on rental housing, the
most reasonable approach to this issue appears to be to use neighborhoods already designated by the
City for other purposes. The City Council should retain some flexibility to accept a petition from part of
a neighborhood where that neighborhood is separated by a major geographic barrier, such as a major
roadway, effectively dividing it into more than one neighborhood.
Thoughts on Neighborhood Rules
The Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance adopted by the City gives neighborhoods great
flexibility to determine what rules they want to have applied to their respective neighborhoods. That
may be a workable approach for building restrictions that are enforced primarily through administrative
plan review in a City office. That is probably not a workable approach for rules that will be enforced in
the field and sometimes at odd hours, when City Hall is closed. Although there was little discussion of
this issue at the 23 February workshop, the consultant would recommend that any new ordinance on
this issue include very standard additional rules that apply in designated neighborhoods; under that
approach, the Code Enforcement staff only has to keep track of two sets of rules, not eight or ten or 12.
Neighborhood Commitments
At the suggestion of City staff, one of the topics discussed at this workshop was whether the City can
and should expect any sort of commitment from those neighborhoods that are protected by new rules.
There seemed to be at least moderate acceptance of this notion by neighborhood leaders. Students and
landlords clearly supported the concept. Based on discussions at the two separate days of workshops,
the kinds of commitments that might make the most difference would include:
· Agree to prepare “welcome” brochures to neighborhood, explaining rules and other
expectations.
· Identify leadership contacts (with phone and e-mail info) for students and landlords with
concerns. These should be included in “welcome packet” but should also be on-file with the
City, so that City staff can make referrals.
· Agree to hold one or more annual educational sessions for all residents of neighborhood.
Anecdotal reports suggest that the most successful of these are tied to informal social events,
such as BBQs, but it is important that they also be used to open some formal lines of
communication.
· Agree to participate in City-wide multi-cultural event(s). Graduate student representatives
participating in the workshop pointed out that 90 percent of Aggie grad students are
international. They suggested that some of the tensions between neighbors and graduate
students may be cultural. It seems unrealistic to try to hold neighborhood-level multi-cultural
events; the City, however, could coordinate such events, working with grad student leaders and
University officials, and invite (and expect attendance by) neighborhood leaders.
73
4 | Page
Registration, Enforcement and Applicability
Applicability
There appeared to be a consensus on the following point:
To the extent that issues with rental housing may be attributable to landlords, not all landlords
are equally responsible for the problems, and proposed solutions should target landlords who
cause or allow problems without unduly burdening others.
There is thus broad support for applying tougher rules to problem landlords or problem properties (one
major landlord clearly believes the effect of new rules should fall on problem properties and not on
other properties owned by the same landlord). At least some landlords clearly believe that a rental
registration program could become punitive and that adoption of a costly or difficult universal
registration requirement would thus punish landlords who have not caused problems.
Interestingly, however, the landlords who participated in the discussion (as well as some City officials)
clearly believe that most of the problems relate to non-resident landlords and that part of the solution is
to “require local representation.” That is an eminently reasonable approach, but it is difficult to
determine whether a landlord has local representation – or who that representation might be – without
some sort of a registration program.
Registration
Landlords oppose some aspects, such as fees associated with universal registration requirements.
Neighborhood leaders advocate them. Students generally had no position on the issue, although a
registration program typically gives tenants some additional leverage in dealing with problem landlords.
If the City Council wants to avoid a showdown with landlords over rental registration fees, it essentially
has two choices:
· Implement a registration program with no fee, absorbing the costs from the General Fund;
· Accept the landlords’ suggestion of requiring registration only after there is a documented
violation at a property owned by that landlord. The landlords would apparently like to limit
registration at that time to that specific property, but there would be some logic in requiring a
landlord who has had documented problems to register all of his/her/its rental properties.
One landlord argues that registration is unnecessary because “they know where to find me.” That is a
plausible argument in the Planning Department at 3 p.m. on Thursday. That is a less plausible position
for the Code Enforcement officer who is working Saturday night and has only the name of the property
owner. One landlord argued that it should be the City’s responsibility to obtain contact information
from the property appraiser, who is also a government official. The problem with that approach is that
many tax bills go to accountants, mortgage companies and business offices, meaning that the tax bill
addresses may not provide a realistic way to get in touch with someone to help deal with a problem at a
property at 9 p.m. on Friday. The job of Code Enforcement would be much easier if all landlords were
74
5 | Page
required to register and if they were required to provide a phone number that would generally be
answered 24 hours per day. Some landlords, however, will believe that is an unnecessary restriction,
and some individual property owners may resent the fact that it will force them to turn management of
their properties over to professional property managers (an action that would generally benefit
neighborhoods and the City).
This will not be an easy issue to resolve. At some point, however, Council members will have to weigh
the concerns of landlords against the practical issues involved in trying to provide effective enforcement
of ordinances. Enforcement actions that deal with the landlord are far more likely to be effective over
the long-run than those that deal only with tenants.
Effective Enforcement and Zero Tolerance
Although many neighborhood advocates believed before these workshops that the City has a “zero
tolerance” policy toward certain code violations, the Code Enforcement staff at the workshop made it
clear that zero tolerance is not the current policy. In fact, Code Enforcement officials take great pride in
the fact that 96 percent of cases that they handle are resolved without any enforcement action beyond
a warning stage. Achieving such a high degree of compliance through informal work and formal
warnings is a remarkable achievement, in which the entire City should take pride. It may not, however,
be adequate to deal with repeat violators and intransigent offenders.
Satisfying neighbors concerned about this issue will almost undoubtedly require some toughening of the
enforcement practices of the City. Code Enforcement staff is understandably reluctant to adopt such a
strategy without direction from City Council
Toughening the stance is not as simple as saying “we have zero tolerance” for specific offenses. As a
practical matter, a true “zero tolerance” policy is probably not very practical, not very fair, and possibly
not defensible. If someone has a 60th birthday party, invites two dozen friends over, and starts playing
oldies on the stereo system, he would undoubtedly expect someone to tell him that the stereo is too
loud before assessing a substantial citation. If someone who normally takes their trash cans in promptly
has a heart attack and is taken to the hospital on trash day, she would probably be pretty unhappy with
the City if she came home and found a citation, rather than a warning, for failing to take the trash barrel
in. Although these are examples of people who are extremely unlikely to be repeat violators, code
enforcement and police officers have no easy way of assessing who may and who may not voluntarily
comply – and they should not be asked to do so.
The City could take two steps to make enforcement more effective. One is easier than the other to
implement. The City could:
· Provide for the immediate assessment of a penalty for a violation of the same type for which a
warning has been issued in the previous 30 (or 60) days;
· Eliminate the warning letter from the current enforcement procedure, so that a violation goes
directly from a door-hanger or in-person warning to a citation if it is not timely corrected.
75
6 | Page
The immediate assessment of a penalty for repeat violations would be a particularly valuable tool for
dealing with noise violations. Those are the violations that seem the most likely to recur. If someone
cleans up their yard in response to a warning, he or she is unlikely to allow it to become trashed
immediately. If someone gets a parking ticket or even a warning for parking on the grass, he will
probably not do it again soon. But if someone is having a party and the nice police officer asks them to
turn down the stereo, there is a pretty good chance that someone at the party may crank the stereo
back up as soon as the officer drives out of sight. Having an immediate and significant penalty for a
repeat complaint of that type (whether the same night or the same week or the same month) would
improve the effectiveness of enforcement.
A variation on this concept that was suggested at the workshop was that any property that had more
than a specified number of verified complaints within a specified period would be deemed a public
nuisance.
Several neighborhood advocates were intrigued by an enforcement point system used in Gainesville,
Florida (and originally recommended there by the consultant for these sessions). That system is tied to
a rental registration program, and points are assessed against the particular registration.
Civil Penalties
College Station currently relies exclusively on criminal penalties as enforcement tools. Texas law allows
home-rule cities to impose civil penalties of up to of up to $1000 per day. There are many advantages to
civil penalties for violations such as those involved in rental housing issues. If a criminal penalty is
contested, the City must prove the violation “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If a civil penalty is
challenged, the standard is “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Further, judges who hear more
serious cases are often somewhat reluctant to enforce criminal penalties for apparently victimless
crimes. Criminal penalties do not involve that sort of exercise of judgment in the courts. The civil
penalty is due as levied, unless the violator appeals the levy; even then, the court is generally limited to
a question of determining whether there was a violation. In general, it is also easier to compound civil
penalties than criminal ones.
Civil penalties have an additional advantage in dealing with rental housing issues. It is difficult to impose
vicarious criminal liability – for example, charging a landlord with a crime for allowing repeated loud
parties at a rental house that he owns. In contrast, property-related civil penalties can easily be
assessed against property owners, with no requirement that the City prove criminal intent or even
knowledge of the specific violation.
This was a suggestion of the consultant, but no one attending the workshop seemed to object to this
suggestion.
76
7 | Page
Parking
Overview
Parking is probably the most visible aspect of this issue, and it is one that clearly gnaws at some
residents every day. Effectively addressing the parking issue is likely to make more difference in the
overall perception of the City’s efforts in this area than any other specific action.
Solutions
Some developments that have been built to be rented include extra parking behind the dwelling units.
That is an excellent solution, but it is one that is not practical for older neighborhoods.
The City’s one-side-of-street parking rules received excellent comment, both from enforcement staff
and from neighbors. There was considerable support for the expansion of that program to additional
streets.
A more cumbersome – but very practical – solution that was not discussed extensively is to limit
occupancy of rental houses based on the number of available off-street parking places. Again, this is a
back-up plan that the City may want to consider if expansion of the one-side parking rules does not
make a significant dent in the current problem.
Property Maintenance
Overview
Next to parking, property maintenance was probably the substantive issue that was raised most
frequently by neighborhood advocates. Complaints ranged from uncut lawns to inadequate attention to
painting homes and making minor repairs. The City has adopted the International Property
Maintenance Code, but staff is currently enforcing only selected portions of it.
Discussion
Fully enforcing this code would address a number of the issues that concern neighborhood residents. If
rigorously enforced, however, it could lead to opposition from residents/property owners who may view
such enforcement as too aggressive.
Contact Information
Eric Damian Kelly, Ph.D., FAICP
Vice President
Duncan Associates
2312 West Audubon Drive
Muncie IN 47304
Phone 765-289-5380
e-mail eric@duncanplan.com
77
8 | Page
web www.duncanplan.com
78
TEXAS A&M STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION AND OFF CAMPUS AGGIES
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Education and University Involvement
Tyler Koch, Darrek Ferrell, Ryan McLagan, and Katy Dyer
2nd Edition
The proposal outlined within this document is intended to provide a new alternative for addressing
conflicts in the residential districts of the city of College Station. It is believed by the authors that this an
essential step in finding the best direction for the city of College Station in order to obtain optimal
quality of life.
79
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 2
Table of Contents
Quotes from the Council ......................................................................................................................... 3
Demographic Information....................................................................................................................... 4
Estimated Populations ........................................................................................................................ 4
Age Groups ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Occupied vs. Vacant Housing .............................................................................................................. 5
Housing by Type ................................................................................................................................. 6
Non-Family Housing ........................................................................................................................... 7
Owner Occupied vs. Renter Occupied Housing ................................................................................... 8
An Alternative: University/City Activism ................................................................................................. 8
The Involved Parties & Their Roles .......................................................................................................... 8
The City ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Neighborhood Services Office ......................................................................................................... 8
Police Department & Code Enforcement ........................................................................................ 9
Municipal Court ............................................................................................................................... 9
The University ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Student Government Association & Off Campus Aggies ................................................................. 9
Department of Student Life ............................................................................................................ 9
The Program ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Phase 1: Identify and Address Continual Conflict ................................................................................ 9
Phase 2: Continuation of the Conflict ................................................................................................ 10
Phase 3: Perpetual Conflict Notification & Consideration .................................................................. 10
Alternative Ordinance: Host Responsibility ........................................................................................... 11
Details of the Ordinance: .................................................................................................................. 11
Why Might This Ordinance Be A Better Alternative for College Station?........................................... 11
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix 1: Contacts ............................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix 2- Data .................................................................................................................................. 14
See Also: ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 3- “Host Responsibilities of Parties in Residential Areas” Ordinance ......................................17
80
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 3
Quotes from the Council
“We need to engage the students and neighbors about what would be the best direction for the
city of College Station.”
-Ron Gay, Mayor Pro Tempore
At the council workshop on October 25, 2007 this was the concluding response of the council in regard
to the possibility of an ordinance limiting the number of unrelated residents that may live in a single
household in College Station. Only a few hours before Mr. Gay made this statement, the proposal you
are about to see was discussed for the first time in Administrative Conference Room #2 of City Hall.
There was no way that Mayor Pro Tempore Gay could’ve known what was being discussed, as it was
such a new concept, but we are confident that the council made the right decision.
"We don't need to start buying nails before we know how big the house is,“
-James Massey, City Councilman
Councilman Massey is absolutely correct that it is not yet time to begin buying nails, but it is time to
hire the architect. Today we are here to provide you with our blueprint for what a coalition of student
leaders and various city officials feel is a vital portion of the overall plan for determining the best
direction for the city of College Station. For the last several months, we have been hard at work not
only preparing to construct a house, but getting ready to make a home for all of the residents of College
Station, whether temporary or permanent, college freshman or senior citizen, Aggie or
otherwise…working together, we will all live in a peaceful coexistence.
"the community is shouting“
-John Crompton, City Councilman
Councilman Crompton is also correct in this statement. However, this isn’t the first time a community
has shouted for help from its leaders, and it certainly won’t be the last. On one occasion when a much
divided community shouted for relief from their leader, President Richard Nixon responded, “We
cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another - until we speak quietly enough so
that our words can be heard as well as our voices.” It is of the utmost importance that we end the
shouting today, and that we begin to discern the voices that make up our community.
“I do not support further limiting the number of unrelated residents from 4 to 2.”
-Mayor Ben White
In the inaugural Coffee with the Mayor, Mr. White was describing proposed student solutions to
preserving neighborhood integrity when this comment was made. The solutions outlined in this
document are meant to be a blueprint for restructuring the relationship between students, the
university, and the city. It is our goal and our sincere hope that we can provide a solution that Mayor
White and all of College Station does support as the “Proud Home of Texas A&M University”.
81
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 4
Demographic Information
The city of College Station exists as a unique blend of residents, both temporary and
permanent, who strive for the greatest quality of life.
The demographics of the city make it a place unlike any other in the state, thus requiring
actions seldom employed in other communities.
Maintaining Councilman Massey’s analogy of building a home in College Station, it is vital that we
understand the demographic of our community fully before creating our plan. Before any home is
designed the first questions are always, “Who is going to live there,” and “What are their needs?”
The following demographic evaluation will seek to answer these questions and help to establish a
place for all who wish to call College Station their home.
Estimated Populations
College Students have been counted in the population of College Station since the 1950 Census.
Currently, the enrollment of Texas A&M University is equal to about 54% of the estimated population.
Between 1990 and 2000, the city of College Station experienced a population growth of 29.4%; it is
estimated that in the last seven years the city has grown by 27.4%. It can be expected that students will
continue to be around half of the city’s population throughout the culmination of Vision 2020, when the
university will cap admissions at 50,000 students.
82
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 5
Age Groups
The population of College Station is considerably younger than that of Bryan, and this is without a
doubt attributed to the number of students at Texas A&M. Blinn College should be considered as the
probable factor keeping the median age below 30 in Bryan, though it is highly likely that other factors
do have some impact. The city of Bryan also has an elderly population three times as large as that in
College Station. In 2000, College Station had only 2,461 residents over age 65, while Bryan counted
6,119 residents in this age group.
Occupied vs. Vacant Housing
92%
8%
Bryan
Occupied
Housing
Vacant
Housing 95%
5%
College Station
Occupied
Housing
Vacant
Housing
83
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 6
Data shows that the vast majority of homes in both Bryan and College Station are occupied and
abandonment is not an issue of great concern for either city. Therefore, any residential issues that may
arise must be dealt with based on who lives in the area, rather than who does not live there.
Housing by Type
The U.S. Census Bureau examined housing by type based on whether or not the household includes a
spouse and/or children under 18 years of age. Non-family households are the remaining homes
occupied by unrelated residents or those living alone. While both cities are divided in a nearly 60—40%
split, College Station has nearly 60% non-family housing, the inverse of Bryan. From this it is apparent
that what may be good for Bryan is not always in the best interest of College Station.
84
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 7
Non-Family Housing
To further show the difference in types of housing between Bryan and College Station, it is necessary to
examine the difference between non-family housing in the two cities. In Bryan, the vast majority of
non-family housing is occupied by unwed individuals who live alone, and a large portion of the
remainder is occupied by unmarried senior citizens. The situation is very different in College Station.
Nearly half of all non-family housing in College Station is occupied by more than 1 unrelated resident
under 65 years of age. It is believable that this is due to the large number of unrelated and unmarried
students who divide rent among 2, 3, or 4 residents. In the “Other” category, there are 7043 households,
while the Census Bureau lists only 24,691 households in College Station. In other words, 28.5% of all
homes in College Station are occupied by this group, compared to 3.6% in Bryan.
70%
20%10%
Bryan
Living
Alone
65+ years
of age
Other
47%
4%
49%
College Station
Living
Alone
65+ Years
of Age
Other
85
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 8
Owner Occupied vs. Renter Occupied Housing
College Station is home to 20% more renters than Bryan, another phenomenon that is likely due to the
large number of students who live off campus. In 2000 it was estimated that about 15% of all residen ts
live in on-campus housing, private dormitories and Greek housing. It was estimated that the remaining
85% live in households. Remembering that the census returned a population of 67,890 for the city, we
can estimate that nearly 58,000 residents lived in households. If 69.4% of those households were renter
occupied, then over 40,000 residents lived in the 17,145 renter occupied homes. That’s an average of 2-
3 renters per household.
An Alternative: University/City Activism
The Involved Parties & Their Roles
The City
Neighborhood Services Office
Provide appropriate training to students
o Once per academic semester
o Required only once for each student involved
Identify and define areas of continual conflict
Contact and dispatch student participants
Maintain documentation of resident interaction for a period not less than 9
months or one-academic year.
Follow up on documentation and resident interaction
50.8%
49.2%
Bryan
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
30.6%
69.4%
College Station
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
86
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 9
Police Department & Code Enforcement
Refer areas of potential continual conflict to the Neighborhood Services
Office
Evaluate the safety of student participants in residential interaction
Pending the continuation of the conflict after residential interaction, utilize
previous documentation in order to resolve conflict
If the conflict cannot be resolved, and a violation can be found, follow up
with a citation, as usual
Municipal Court
Review documentation of Neighborhood Services Office and Police
Department/Code Enforcement
Consider deferred disposition for the student in violation who has received
a citation
Dismiss citation pending completion of an approved education program
provided by the university
The University
Student Government Association & Off Campus Aggies
Provide a means of student participation in an established partnership
Continually work to improve student awareness of community issues
Assist in the creation of an approved education program
Department of Student Life
Facilitate involvement of Off Campus Aggies through Adult, Graduate and
Off Campus Student Services (AGOSS)
Provide students with resources to enhance their time in College Station
and limit the potential for conflicts
Host an approved education program to address issues related to off-
campus conflicts
The Program
Phase 1: Identify and Address Continual Conflict
After evaluating the safety of student involvement in the area, the Police
Department & Code Enforcement refer areas of ongoing and continual conflict
involving Texas A&M students to the Neighborhood Services Office.
o Ongoing and Continual Conflict- These will be areas where conflict has
continued over a period of time and where the issue has escalated to
extreme measures. These are not single offenses or complaints.
87
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 10
The Neighborhood Services Office begins documentation of the situation and
notifies Student Government Association and Off Campus Aggies of the situation.
Student Government Association and Off Campus Aggies assembles a team of 2
or 3 students to conduct a visitation
o Visitation- consists of attempts to visit the home of the students in
question along with the home of the resident(s) who lodged the
complaints.
Student Government Association and Off Campus Aggies collect documentation
from students who conducted the visitation and return it to the Neighborhood
Services Office.
The Neighborhood Services Office files the documentation for at least one
academic year.
Phase 2: Continuation of the Conflict
If the conflict persists, and it can be determined that the students in question are in
violation of a city ordinance (i.e.- noise violation), the Police Department and Code
Enforcement should issue a citation, according to their own standard procedures.
If the conflict persists, and it cannot be determined that a city ordinance has been
violated, the Police Department and Code Enforcement should consult the
documentation kept by the Neighborhood Services Office in order to pursue their
own manner of resolving the conflict.
o The conflict resolution may require that the Police Department and
Code Enforcement yield control of the situation to the Neighborhood
Services Office, at which time they may request the assistance of
Student Government Association and Off Campus Aggies.
Pending a citation, the students in question may request that the Neighborhood
Services Office send their documentation to the Municipal Court.
The Municipal Court will then review the case, as usual, and at the judge’s discretion
a deferred disposition may be granted to the students in question, pending
attendance in an approved education program provided by the Department of
Student Life.
The Municipal Court should then forward all documentation to the Department of
Student Life, who will then conduct the approved education program.
After successful completion of the program, the Department of Student Life should
draft a letter of completion on behalf of the students in question.
Upon receiving the letter of successful completion, the Municipal Court may then
dismiss the citation and any penalties the students may have incurred as a result of
the citation.
Phase 3: Perpetual Conflict Notification & Consideration
If the conflict persists even after deferred disposition, and a violation of a city
ordinance can be determined, the Police Department and Code Enforcement
88
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 11
should issue a citation as though deferred disposition were never granted. That is,
the citation should include any increases or additional penalties that are normally
included in a citation for a second offense (or whatever number may be appropriate
for the number of citations the student has received).
The Student Government Association and Off Campus Aggies will work in
conjunction with the Neighborhood Services Office to draft a letter to the
students in question explaining the follow:
o The effect that certain behavior has on their peers in the community
o The effect that certain behavior has on the community as a whole
o A record of their disorderly conduct will be kept on file with the city and
may cause them difficulty in further interactions and dealings with the city.
o They may submit a letter of appeal to the Neighborhood Services Office in
order to address and attempt to correct any issues that they feel may need
to be further addressed in the conflict.
Alternative Ordinance: Host Responsibility
The neighborhood conservation districts that were implemented by Bryan in 2006 were created
by an ordinance modeled after one that exists in the city of San Marcos, Texas, home of Texas State
University. In the recent “stakeholders” meetings held by the staff of the City of College Station, a
representative from the city of San Marcos was in attendance for her own informational purposes.
However, at one point during the meetings, she mentioned another ordinance that the city of San
Marcos uses that has not yet been considered by either Bryan or College Station. This ordinance
addresses “Host Responsibilities of Parties in Residential Areas.”
Details of the Ordinance:
The basic premise of the ordinance is to hold any citizen of the city responsible for any event
that they host at residence within the city limits. They define a host as, “person who invites or allows
others to gather or remain at his residence, or at a residence he has a lawful right to occupy, for a
party,” (see Appendix 3). Further the ordinance addresses issues of parking, noise, litter, and alcohol, as
they are common problems associated with parties held in residential areas.
Why Might This Ordinance Be A Better Alternative for College Station?
This ordinance promotes accountability and responsibility for all people living in
residential areas.
Currently, Code Enforcement Officers in College Station have to research all individuals
who may be named on a lease to issue a citation. This ordinance allows the officer
simply to ask any person in attendance at an out-of-control party who invited them.
One option discussed at the “stakeholders” meetings was a zero-tolerance policy, and
this idea was strongly discouraged by the police department, as it does not allow
officers to use discretion in issuing citations. This ordinance maintains the officer’s
discretion while allowing better enforcement of ordinances currently in place.
89
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 12
The Host Responsibility Ordinance targets the problem directly and leads to
punishment for those who have actually broken the law, rather than preemptively
punishing the innocent and the guilty alike.
This ordinance maintains a sense of community and preserves all hope for an improved
student—resident relationship in our community.
Conclusions
At Texas A&M University, we value a code of honor that says, “An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or
steal, or tolerate those who do.” We are bound to preserve the integrity of our institution, as well as the
character of our community. The student body of Texas A&M constitutes more than half of the
population of College Station, and it is therefore our responsibility to ensure that our city shares the
same values. A second passion that is shared among those who attend our university is a love of
tradition. Since 1876, Aggies have upheld the tradition of calling College Station home, and College
Station has traditionally endeared the title of “Aggieland.” Today we invite the city of College Station
to join us in the founding of a new tradition—a tradition of peace in the home that we call Aggieland
built on the foundation of honor and held together by the nails of integrity and character that will
always be felt in a community that lives among Aggies.
90
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 13
Appendix 1: Contacts
Name Title Email
Conner Prochaska Student Body President, TAMU sbp@tamu.edu
Tyler Koch Speaker of Student Senate tkoch@texasffa.org
Darrek Ferrell External Affairs Committee
Chair of Student Senate
darrek@tamu.edu
Ryan McLagan Executive Director of
Community Relations, TAMU
rmclagan@gmail.com
Brady Black Executive Director of
Legislative Relations, TAMU
black.brady@tamu.edu
Katy Dyer President, Off-Campus Aggies misskd72@tamu.edu
Wayne Larson Public Communications Director wlarson@cstx.gov
Peggy Calliham Community Relations Manager pcalliham@cstx.gov
Barbara Moore Neighborhood and Community
Relations Coordinator
bmoore@cstx.gov
Judge Ed Spillane Presiding Judge, College Station
Municipal Court
espillane@cstx.gov
91
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 14
Appendix 2- Data
1
1 http://txsdc.utsa.edu/data/census/2000/dp2_4/pdf/1604815976.pdf
92
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 15
2
2 http://txsdc.utsa.edu/data/census/2000/dp2_4/pdf/1604810912.pdf
93
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 16
3
See Also:
2002 Demographic Report
http://www.cstx.gov/docs/demographic_report_2002_-_1.pdf
Demographic Brochure:
http://www.cstx.gov/docs/demographics_-_1.pdf
3 http://www.cstx.gov/docs/pop_est_annual-aug07.pdf
94
Living Among Aggies
Neighborhood Mediation and University Involvement Page 17
Appendix 3- “Host Responsibilities of Parties in Residential Areas” Ordinance
ARTICLE 6. HOST RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Sec. 34.701. Definitions.
In this article:
Host means a person who invites or allows others to gather or remain at his residence, or at a
residence he has a lawful right to occupy, for a party.
Party means a planned or unplanned gathering of people.
Residence means a dwelling unit in an apartment, townhouse, duplex or other multi-family
residential structure, or a single-family residence. Residence includes the entire premises of a
residence, including the residence building, garage, carport, driveway and yard, and adjacent
common areas, parking areas, sidewalks and streets.
Residential area means an area:
(1) That is within a residential zoning district; or
(2) Within which, in a one-block area, a majority of the buildings are designed or used for
residential purposes, such as one-family or two-family dwellings, apartments, townhomes and
condominiums.
Unlawful level of noise has the same meaning as "unreasonable noise" in Section 42.01 of the
Texas Penal Code.
(Ord. No. 2002-23, § 1, 3-25-02; Ord. No. 2003-29, § 1, 5-28-03)
Sec. 34.702. Responsibilities of hosts.
(a) It is unlawful for a host to fail:
(1) To advise his guests that streets and driveways cannot be blocked by vehicles of persons
attending the host's party;
(2) To ensure that noise from the host's party does not reach an unlawful level;
(3) To ensure that litter related to the host's party is properly disposed of by 10:00 a.m. of the
day after the party started; or,
(4) To ensure that any alcoholic beverages provided or served at the host's party are controlled
in a manner that ensures the alcoholic beverage laws are not violated.
(b) It is not a defense to prosecution for violations of any law or ordinance that a security
officer or officers who were hired for a party failed to properly fulfill the host's duties in
subsection (a) of this section.
(c) It is prima facie evidence that the host violated subsection (a)(1) if the police warn the host
that vehicles of persons attending the host's party are blocking streets and driveways and that
these vehicles need to be moved, and the vehicles are not moved within a reasonable time.
(Ord. No. 2002-23, § 1, 3-25-02; Ord. No. 2003-29, § 2, 5-28-03)
Sec. 34.703. Enforcement of other laws.
Nothing in this division affects a peace officer's authority to enforce other laws such as
disorderly conduct, littering, parking and alcohol-related offenses against persons who violate
those laws.
(Ord. No. 2002-23, § 1, 3-25-02)4
4San Marcos, TX Code of Ordinances, < http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11549&sid=43>.
95
March 27, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 3
Greenways Program Update
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding College Station’s
Greenways Program including discussion of current practices and updating of the Greenways
Plan.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the Council provide any clarification/direction
they deem appropriate based on the information presented by staff.
Summary: This purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council with an overview of
past and current efforts regarding the identification and acquisition of greenways in College
Station. Specifically, staff will discuss the current greenways plan and its goals and
strategies, current research and analysis being performed by staff, partnership and funding
opportunities, and proposals for updating of the greenways plan.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
96
March 27, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 4
Comprehensive Plan Update
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the update to the
City of College Station’s Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the Council provide any clarification/direction
they deem appropriate based on the information presented by staff.
Summary: This purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Council with an update on the
Comprehensive Update process. Specifically, staff will present the results from the most
recent CPAC meetings related to community character and neighborhood integrity.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
97
March 27, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 5
Red Light Camera Program Update
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Mark Smith, Director of Public Works
Agenda Caption: Presentation and discussion on an update of the city’s Red Light Camera
Program.
Recommendation(s): No action needed
Summary: This item is placed on the Council’s agenda to provide an update on the city’s
red light camera program, showing how the system works beginning with the violation and
ending with received notice.
Budget & Financial Summary: There is no financial impact at this time.
Attachments:
None
98