Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-2015 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan
1 i,1'1'Y 01: ACC )1_I.HGE S'G1 ION Home of'Gx s A6A'1 Unirunily' JJJ Central College Station Neighborhood Pq,^ L .:6+.; Balconos Or � 11 Y' CITY OF COLLEGE STATION oEw/oA L i coL LcsE s,A T/ow wc/oxBoxxoou pL A CITY COUNCIL Nancy Berry, Mayor John Crompton, Place \ Jess Fields, Place 2 Dennis Maloney,Place 3 Koh+k4uhe Lyles' Place 4 Lawrence Stewart, Place 5 David Ruednk' Place 6 FORMER CITY COUNCIL Ben White James Massey STAFF RESOURCE TEAM Lt. Steve Brock, Police Danielle Chorbonne|'FIT, Capitol Projects David Coleman, PE, VVo1oVWostawo|erServiceo Jim Giles, Code Enforcement Jennifer Nations, Wafer Resource Conservation U,Mike Pone|ko'Police TnoyRcdhor, PE, Traffic David Schmitz, Parks and Recreation Mark Smith, PE' Public Works PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION John Nichols, Chair Mike Ashfio|d � � Paul Greer SoottShofer ` Doug Slack Hugh Stearns � � ThomosYVoodfin ° ADMINISTRATION Glenn Brown, City Manager Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager David Neely, Assidon1City Manager � ` NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE TEAM � Steve Arden Mike Ashhe|d Kyle Bryson #oggiaChodeton LuisCifuen|es SondnzGo|dop KristionoHonniUon Boyd Larson Mike Martindale Nancy Preston Hector Silva Neil Von Jiovem Chris Tucker John Westbrook George Wright PiANNG&DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Bob Cowell, A|CP.CNU-A' Director Lance Simms, NCP'C8O.Assistant Director Molly Hitchcock, A|CP'Monning Administrator Lindsay Kramer, A|CP'Senior Planner - Project Manager VeneooGarza, Breenvvu\oManager Joe Guerra, NCP'PTP'Transportation Coordinator 8orbu/o Moore, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Matt Robinson, Staff Planner MundiAlford Be|hDoerboonn 8h1[any Caldwell Deborah Grace -Rosier KhdonUe]ny Matthew Hilgemeier LourenHovde PoUoviJho Jennifer Proohuzko'A|CP Jason Schubert, A|CP Michael Trevino !)KN,[05-23'0 C E N T R A L 1 C O L L E G E S T A T 1 O N N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES .................................. ...........................II' INTRODUCTION-----------------------------•••--••----------............................. -.................... 1-1 i ABOUT CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION --------------------------------------------- . i-1 SELECTION_... --1-4 PUBLIC INPUT.......... ---------------------------------------------------- 1-4 PLAN COMPONENTS i-8 CHAPTER 1: COMMUNITY CHARACTER. .......................................... ............. PLANNING INFORMATION ---------—------------ -- :. IMAGE CORRIDORS ----------------- ------—----- --------- FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS. 1-5 ZONING 1-9 SITE DEVELOPMENT -------------------- FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT —,1-15 CHAPTER 2: NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY ................... ................................ 2-1 s PLANNING AREAS --- ------ --------------------------—----— 2-1 _ ;? ---——-—-----------—---- EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS_______-_------------------—-—--—------ 2-2 PROACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE__________ 2-5 NEIGHBORHOOD IMAGE -——--—----——--------------——---------------------------------- — 28 EMERGENCY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES__________-_-_______________ 2-1 1 1 CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY..... 3-1 ,..... . PLANNING INFORMATION.............. ....................................... 3-1 a: THOROUGHFARES------------------- 3-4 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY.____.................................................. 3-8 BUSTRANSIT....................•---------.......--......-•----------3-12 CHAPTER 4: SUSTAINABILITY................ 4-1 ::........ RECYCLING..-_--...-_--------------------------------- -. 4-1 UTILITY CONSERVATION.----•--.....•. -------------•--._..-----.-------------------------_. 4-4 _ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT _............ .... 4-7 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE 4-9 EDUCATION...................................................... ............ •-•-•-•---•- —4-10 CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION ,<.........:..: TIMEFRAME--------------—---—-----------------—----------------------------------------------------- - IMPLEMENTATION AND COORDINATION ROLES 5 1 ` _' > ----- ----------------—--------- FUNDING - 5 3 TASKS — ONGOING EVALUATION. 5-5 APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS ._..........................•......._..._...... A-1 :...: ,:. APPENDIX B: PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARIES,.----•--•-----..... ................................... APPENDIX C: SHORT-TERM PRIORITIES. ................................................. ......... B-1 C-1 APPENDIX D: COMPLETE TASK LIST ............................. DRAFT 05-23-10 \ ccw/x^L / CoL Lsoc orx`/ow w,/sxoonx000 p'Ao CHAPTER l:COMMUNITY CHARACTER COMMUNITY CHARACTER ------------------------- .--- ----------------------------- Mopl] COMMUNITY ASSETS AND IMAGE CORRIDORS, ------------------------ ---- Mupl2 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREAS ()FCHANGE ----------------------------- Mopl.3 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA }---------------------------------------------- _Mopl.4 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 2------------------ ----------------- ------------- Mopl.J COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 3-------------------- ----------------------------- Mopl.6 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 4&5--------- --------------------------------- MoplJ COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA 6 ------------__.____.__.__/0upl.8 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA T------------------------------- _.............. Mopl.9 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AREA R_.... ............................... --------- Mupl]O ZONING AREAS DFCHANGE ................. ..... ......... ...................... Mopl]l ZONING AREA l................. ....................................... ��opl]2 D]N|N(�AREA 2_________.___--'—.--} Map l]3 ZONING AREA 3._.............. .......... ................................ Mupl]4 ZONINGAREA 4............................................................................. Mopl]5 ZONINGAREA 5----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mupl]6 ZONING ARIA 6........................................................ .................... Mopl]7 ZONING ARIA 7---------------------------------------------------------------------- ...... Map l]8 ZONING AREA 8.________.__________._.__—��opl]9 D]N|N(�AREA 9___.____________—.------_'—� Map l.20 X�EDEVEL]Pk4ENT________________---� Map l.2l FLOODPb\|NAND OPEN SPACE..... ------------------------- ------------------ Mopl.22 CHAPTER 2:NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE PROVISION AREAS ------------ ---------------- Mop2] RENTAL RATES BYSTRFET_____________._--._--��op2.2 B<DT|NGNBGHBDRHDDO(}RGAN|ZATK]NS_.__.______k4up2.3 PARKING COMPLAINTS --------------------------------------------------------- ------- Figure 2] BURGLARY AND THEFT ACTIVITY ........ .......................................... Figure 2.2 CHAPTER 1MOBILITY CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS --------- ---- Mnp3.l THOROUGHFARE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .____-------------- Mop3.2 THOROUGHFARE CONTEXT ............................ ................................. MopJ3 THOROUGHFARE TYPE .............................. ...................................... Mop3.4 INTERSECTION EVALUATION AREA.J............................... ................. Mop3.5 2O09STREET MAINTENANCE ........................... ........ ...................... Mop36 PLANNED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS ..................... ......... ......... ...... Mop3J PEDESTRIAN NETWORK |MPROYBMENT3_...................................... Mop3l} BUS TRANSIT NETWORK -__.___.________._____--..- Mop39 CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION THOROUGHFARES ..................... flgux*3] STREET MAINTENANCE NEEDS .... ...... ...... .................... ...... ......... Figure 32 WARRANT STUDY AREAS --------------------------------------------------------------- figure 3.3 CONTEXT -SENSITIVE STREET PROJECTS ................................. ......... Figure 3.4 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ............ ............. .................... _.flgune3.5 CHAPTER /:SUSTA{N/\0LITY WATER CONSUMPTION -_____.___----------------------------------------- Mop4] CHAPTER S:IMPLEMENTATION nK&FT0j'23'|O CoL LcG E orx,/ow ms/sn000x000 ,Lxw APPENDIX 4xEXISTING CONDITIONS ZONING---'_----------------------- ------- -------- ---------------- _------- MopEC] COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND FUTURE LAND USE ............. ------- Map EC2 ZONING CONFORMANCE BC3 USE CONFORMANCE —_------------------------- ---------------------------- MnpECA VACANT PROPERTY. ------------------------------ ---------- _-------------- .--------- Map BC.J NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS .................. --------------------------- ------------ Map EC.6 CITY FACILITIES AND EASEMENTS i------------ -------------------------------- MopEC7 MULTI -FAMILY .... ............. ---------------- ----------- ---------------- --------------- MopEC.8 SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY YALUE............. ------- ...... ---------- ..... MopEC.7 AGE DFSINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE ._____...... Map EC. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT CASES --------- _----- Map EC] } ENFORCEMENT CASES i'--.............................. ----------- ----------- Map EC. CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ------- —................ ................... EC]3 SIDEWALKS ..... ............... ................ _____.___ EC. 4 STREET MAINTENANCE .............. _........ ............... ................ Map EC. J BICYCLE NETWORK .............................. ................ ............ ......... Map EC. l6 |KANSORDUTES.................................................. _..................... Map EC. TRAFFIC INCIDENTS. ............... .......... ................. ....................... Map EC]8 STREET UGUT|NG,—.............. .............. ....... .......... _------ .......... MopEC]9 FU]{}DPL4|N....................... _.... .............. -------- .................... --- MopEC.2O CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION SUBDIVISIONS ------------------------------- Figure [C] l99OAND 20O0CENSUS COMPARISON ------------------------------------- Figure [C2 CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION POPULATION i__... ----- ---- -------- Figure [C.3 CENTRAL COiiECESTATION ZONING ---------------------------------------- Figure CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................... ------ _------------ _...... _------------------ Figure EC.5 NUMBER DFHOUSING UNUS8YSUBDIVISION i__---------------------- Figure EC.6 SINGLE-FAMILY PROPFRTYDATA ------------------------- ---------------- ..... Figure ECJ AGE OFSINGLE-FAMILY STRU{%URES_.________.___flgoreEC.O REGISTERED RENTAL PROPERTIES i.___________--------- Figure EC9 CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION CODE VIOLATIONS PER LOT. ..... Figure EC. O CENTRAL COLLEGE J7A]ION CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES .figu*eEC. ll STREET CLASS |F|CAJ|DNS.--................ ......................... ......... Figure EC. 2 WATER CONSUMPTION i—_....................... ------------- ............... Figure EC]3 WATER QUALITY INDICATORS ...... ............. ............................ Figure EC. 4 ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION BY SUBDIVISION. ............................. Figure EC. 5 LOT COVERAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Figure EC. COMPLETED MAINTENANCE SERVICE REQUESTS (2O09)__..... Figure EC. l7 APPEND|XB: PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARIES SURVEY QUESTION lChod 8.l SURVEY QUESTION ............................ ............................ B2 DRAFT 05-23-10 C E N T R A L O L L E G E 5 T A T 1 O N N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N , . It f 1 eY Mchell:Pw I ezus lr` 3iconos Or 0£ t Fi r ?ro�Z r .'�g='7`Se" i A g�� - r iETRYKN W 1 -_,, _ I N ire. � kum fi L ! rn�'aiF- � a r ~�, N{ I{ �eTos�Dt a t Rock F?rarrt - _ I i, i,tri -.r.t•i '. "� s O 1-w _ j The Central College Station Neighborhood Plan is the first neighborhood plan in an on -going series of neighborhood, district, and corridor plans that will assist in implementing the goals and strategies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood planning process offers the opportunity to develop an in knowledge of an area and develop area -specific approaches to implementing the Comprehensive Plan. ABOUT CENTRAL COLLEGE STATION The Central College Station Neighborhood Planning Area is made up of 1,450; acres located in the geographic center of College Station. Bounded by Texas Avenue South/Stafe Highwuy 6 Suulh, Huivey Milchell Parkway South, Wellborn Road, and Rock Prairie Road, this area includes eight residential subdivisions, and is home to more than 11,000 residents. The area is RTI surrounded by neighborhood planning areas to the north and south, but is also in the area of influence for Growth Area VI and X and the Spring Creek District as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan Concept Map. This section outlines some of the existing conditions in Central College Station; however, more in-depth information can be found in the Existing Conditions Report, an appendix to this plan (Appendix A). 3 Housing and Business The Central College Station Neighborhood developed over a period of nearly 40 years. The most recent additions are late phases of Edelweiss Estates in 2001, but the earliest development look place in 1974 as part of Southwood DRAl "f 05-23-10 INTRODUCTION I DRAFT 0s-23-10 Valle at the norihe asfi coiner of the are a. Annexations Y took lace p between 1969 for u h ood Va p W arts Of Southwood lley until 2002_ for portions of Edelweiss E Estates, ses. The area holds more than 1,000,000 square S feel of commercial and business space and 2,228 single-family homes, 534 duplexes, and 1,356 other r The I multi -family units. panning ' area is primarily residential, but ringed by commercial space along major corridors. Commercial anchors are located at Harvey I" Mitchell Parkway South and Texas Avenue r South, and Rack Prairie Road and State Highway 6 South with moderate- to small-scale businesses and offices along Longmire Drive, Rock Prairie Road, Wellborn Road, and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South. Medical offices are located along portions of Rock Prairie Road o o e e and make up a portion of the Spring Creek eee eee o District Planning Area. Education and Institutions Central College Station is home to two elementary schools - Rock Prairie Elementary and Southwood Valley Elementary All - neighborhoods in the planning area at zoned for attendance at one of these elementary schools. Students then attend Cypress Grove Intermediate and College Station Middle Schools located outside the planning area. All students attend A&M : ,, `Piy'/.Fy.c :a ''9i1s, lry 'ke""^"k'�.7v+iG-• w< C onsolidated high School, located to the .. i. 4rt �. ..l'ti - :^� tJ=,: -tea �,, - 'rff.. north of t P, C C � p h lannln area C'O. d a I s. H Iry _ �.�3ME::(....�.�yvi�:r. Mitchell Parkway South. TheCityf o College g Station operates the Larry ar J . Ringer Library brae or p Y g Y -:..:. Harvey Mitchell Parkway South in conjunction with the City of Bryan. The City of College Station also operates Fire Station 42 serving the i - entire planning area. The area is part of two community policing beats Beats 60 and 80. This has area six churches servinga varlet of religious faiths. The y g a s. planning area includes two nursing home facilities in close proximity to C nllPge Station Medical Center on Rock Prairie Road. Natural Features In the planning area, Ul acres are identified on the City's DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan detention ponds located in the southern section of the planning area - mostly maintained by private homeowner or property owner associations. The City has several greenways identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan covering the Bee Creek Tributaries; however, no land acquisition has taken place. Drainage areas are located through parts of Central College Station Mobility Central College Station is served by 42 miles of road. The area is bounded by four arterials - Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, Wellborn Road, Rock Prairie Road, and Texas Avenue South. Within the planning area, collectors Rio Grande Boulevard, Welsh Avenue, and Longmire Drive provide north -south vehicular connectivity, while Deacon Drive provides the only direct east -west connection. Brothers Boulevard, Ponderosa Drive, Southwood Drive, Edelweiss Avenue, Navarro Road, and Balcones Drive also serve as local collector roads. INTRODUCTION I DRAFT 0s-2;-10 Community Investment There are a number of public projects underway or planned for construction in Central College Station. The 2008 bond provided funding for improvements to the Bee Creek tributary channels and the expansion of the Larry J. Ringer Library, tentatively scheduled to be under construction in 2012. The bond also included funds for improvements to Brothers Pond Park to upgrade the jogging trail and make repairs to the entrance sidewalk. College Station is developing a multi -use path located on the north side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South between Welsh Avenue and Texas Avenue South with construction to begin in 2010, The area is impacted by the current Texas Department of transportation (TXDOT) widening project on Wellborn Road. This project will widen Wellborn Road to six lanes between Graham Road and Southwest Parkway, and is anticipated to be complete by 2011. The reconfiguration of the interchange at Wellborn Road and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South is scheduled to be completed in Fall, 2011. Funding for a raised median on Harvey Mitchell Parkway South between Texas Avenue South and Wellborn Road has been iderrlified by TxDOT, but design of the median has not yet begun (scheduled to be bid in Spring, 2011). RMITNUM, The Central College Station Neighborhood Planning Area was selected for the development of a neighborhood plan because of its diversity of housing type and age, mix of residential and commercial uses, opportunities for redevelopment, and the lack of neighborhood planning focused on this area in the past. This planning area offers the opportunity to better understand the factors leading to changes from owner to renter -occupied homes. The physical boundaries of this planning area were based on the contiguous area of neighborhood conservation identified in this area of town in the Comprehensive Plan, and the surrounding areas of influence. Major roads serve as effective boundaries to delineate this area from other areas of the City. There are eight subdivisions within the planning area, each with multiple phases. While none of those subdivisions are exactly alike in age or character, they all share the same roads, parks, and water lines, and are affected by the same infill, redevelopment, and commercial development. 11111, � +: Public input is critical in the planning process. Receiving feedback from the community enhances the process by allowing the experts who live in the area to provide the information and issues that are evaluated in the plan. Opportunities were provided for members of the community to voice their opinions on the direction of their neighborhood and begin to strategize ways in which to change or maintain that direction. DRAFT o5-z1-ia 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Resource Teams Neighborhood Resource Team I INTRODUCTION I DRAFT os-z;-10 Members Steve Arden, Edelweiss Estates Mike Ashfield, Planning and Zoning Commission Kyle Bryson, Off -Campus Aggies Maggie Charleton, Southwood Valley Luis Cifuentes, Brandon Heights Sandra Goldap, Southwood Valley Kristiana Hamilton, Southwood Valley Elementary Boyd Larson, Southwood Valley Mike Martindale, Rock Prairie Elementary Nancy Preston, Southwood Valley Hector Silva, CSISD Transportation Neil Van Stavern, Van Stavern Small Aninnal Hospital Chris Tucker, Texas A&M University studenf John Westbrook, Southwood Valley George Wright, Southwood Valley Planning Resource Team The Planning Resource Team worked throughout the planning process to provide technical assistance in planning and related fields, as well as oversight and guidance throughout the planning process. This team assisted in the development of the Citizen Engagernent Plan, plan tirneline, neighborhood outreach, and maps, as well as worked as facilitators and other group leaders during public meetings. This team was matte up of City employees within the Planning and Development Services Department. Members Lindsay Kramer, AICP, Senior Planner - Plan Manager Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director Planning & Development Services Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Barbara Moore, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Matt Robinson, Staff Planner Staff Resource Team During the planning process, a Staff Resource Team was assembled to provide additional expertise on issues and opportunities related to their specific departments and fields. The team met once at the beginning of the process to go through the planning process. Additional meetings were held with specific staff as needed throughout the process. This team was rnade up of City employees from across the many City dartm nt s that provide servic es to the tanning are a. Members Lt. Steve Brock, Police Danielle Charbonnet, EIT, Capital Projects David Coleman, PE, Water/Wastewater Services Jim Giles, Code Enforcement Jennifer Nations, Water Resource Conservation DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan of thefeedback thatwas received from this meeting is A summary g Y ut ix �, Public Input provided as an appendix to the plan (Appendix v itY were made aware of the event t rs of the community Summary). mmar . Members rhood and information r and the neighborhood, through h doo Than ers flyersao , g g g i oihood organizations. neighborhood that was distributed through theg i ' i d to determine of the participants ucted Additionally, a curve �tci ant s was cond ' n all Y able the event was and how participants w artici a nts heard about the how valu� = eent. rh is allowed the Planning Resource Team to evaluate how bestto w v utilize resources in publicizing different events. Survey e Y - available for v was made After theKick-off meeting, an on-line survey e Y v central Ian. w.cstx.ao p • ww / bsite: htt . nt at the la n's we p // residents p ion from the kick-off Responses were recorded with thedocumentation meeting. g. Issues and Opportunities Meeting A second community -wide event was the Issues and Opportunities Meeting -held on October 22, 2009, at Peace Lutheran Church. The purpose of the meeting was to collect more in-depth information about what is positive about the neighborhood and where there is f_ room for improvement. Participants from the Kick off MMooting wore provided p � • ' ifs '° �� 14r'ir,: information about the date and time of the r-neeting, and promotional materials were provided to the Neighborhood Resource Team for distribution. Open House A community -wide Open House was held on March g' 31 and 31, 2010, to receive feedback on the draft •- .- -- • • plan. Participants were able to view some of the draft ° ° "• - language, maps, and strategies, as well as converse ®•- ° ogents. directly Staff about any of the Plan components. h the school Residents were notified by flyers that were sent home through promotional materials provided to the Neighborhood district, as well as pros p g INTRODUCTION I DRAM 05-23-10 Resource Team for distribution. PLAN COMPONENTS The plan is broken down into four subject areas that represent each chapter in the plan and a final implementation chapter. Below are summaries of each of the chapters. Chapter 1: Community Character This chapter focuses on strategies relating to image corridors and compatible existing and proposed land uses to promote and protect the suburban residential character in the core of Central College Station balanced with the need to provide denser redevelopment options along the neighborhood fringe. The strategies proposed in this chapter include zoning change, the establishment of new zoning districts, property acquisition, and comprehensive plan changes that are needed to ensure that development and redevelopment in this area are compatible with existing residential subdivisions in the neighborhood. Chapter 2: Neighborhood Integrity This chapter focuses on strategies relating to neighborhood image, strong organizations, property maintenance, and emergency response and law enforcement to improve property maintenance and City code compliance to elevate the attractiveness of Central College Station's subdivisions as an affordable, family -friendly neighborhood. The strategies in this chapter are focused on promoting owner - occupied areas of the neighborhood by building strong and lasting neighborhood organizalions, creating focused code enforcement programs, and prioritizing community investment in the area for owner - occupied areas. Chapter 3: Mobility This chapter focuses on strategies relating to vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks to promote a safe, well-connected, multi - modal transportation system to better connect Central College Station to the rest of the community and its local neighborhood centers. The strategies in this chapter focus g p on infrastructure analysis and improvements like traffic si nalization studies and g bicycle lane improvements that will improve con - p p connectivity and encourage multi Y g rnodal transportation options where possible. Chapter 4: Sustainability This chapter focuses on strategies that relate to resource conservation efforts like recycling, slormwuler management, and utility consumption in an effort to increase awareness and participation in resource conservation efforts. The strategies in this chapter are focused on ways to increase responsible use of natural resources by residents in Central College DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Barracks Development Townhomes Area Total Area Lot Area Row Area # Lots Net Den. Gross Den. 1 32.80 23.90 8.90 318 13.3 9.7 2 4.91 3.01 1.90 39 13.0 7.9 3 5.79 3.71 2.08 45 12.1 7.8 4 6.64 4.32 2.32 53 12.3 8.0 Total - TH 50.14 34.94 15.20 455 12.3 8.0 SF Detached 5 15.4 11.55 3.85 71 6.2 4.6 Total 65.54 46.49 19.05 526 12.3 8.0 46.49 acres x 8 DU/acres = 372 lots Assume 10 acres detention and common area Additional 80 lots - Total = 452 lots 526 - 452 = 74 Lots Commercial Area Total Area Lot Area Row Area 6 8.36 7.72 0.64 7 8.28 7.19 1.09 8 7.56 6.50 1.06 10 3.85 3.40 0.45 Total 28.05 24.81 3.24 Commen Area Area Total Area Lot Area Row Area 9 14.53 12.76 1.77 Note: All areas in Acres Area # Parcel # SF 1 94 102 100 97 103 101 99 95 111 113 112 107 70 72 73 74 75 98 79 Total 0 2 89 92 43 69 67 91 93 Total 0 3 104 83 84 65 82 78 81 Total 0 4 105 63 64 77 81 120 Total 0 5 45 85 96 5.8 Barracks Development Lot Areas Row Total Totals TH Comm. Common Area Street Alley Access Collector Comm. Row 2.65 2.65 2.65 1.37 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.3 2.4 0.94 1.45 0.99 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 6.59 2.1 23.9 0 0 6.59 0 0.21 2.1 0 8.9 32.8 1.64 1.37 1.3 0.22 0.16 0.11 0.11 3.01 0 0 0.22 0.38 0 1.3 0 1.9 4.91 1.04 { 1 0.79 { 1.29 .32 0 1 1.38 0.55 1 0.42 3.71 0 0 0.79 0.32 0 0.97 0 2.08 5.79 3.42 { 1 1.16 0.23 0.5 0.43 0.9 4.32 0 0 1.16 0.23 0 0.93 0 2.32 6.64 1 0.68 0.8 54 71 86 106 5.75 87 Total 11.55 0 6 68 88 0 0 110 7.72 Total 0 0 7.72 7 27 66 90 109 7.19 Total 0 0 7.19 8 26 109 6.5 Total 0 0 6.5 9 5 41 57 Total 0 0 10 121 25 Total 0 0 11 51 Total 0 0 12 52 Total 0 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 12.76 12.76 0 0 0 0.76 0.03 0.79 0.79 2.38 0 0.03 1.44 0 3.85 15.4 0.19 0.45 0 0.19 0 0 0.45 0.64 8.36 0.47 0.16 0.46 0 0.16 0 0 0.93 1.09 8.28 1.06 0 0 0 0 1.06 1.06 7.56 1.52 0.25 0 0 0 1.52 0.25 1.77 14.53 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.45 3.85 0.76 0 0 0 0.76 0 0.76 0.76 0.03 0 0 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 Grand Total 24.85 108.91 a O Ln C E N T R A L C 0 L L E G E S T A T I O N The Central College Station Neighborhood has a suburban, single-family character, ringed by both regional and neighborhood commercial uses, with a more urban -scale multi -family component closest to Texas A&M University.:::;;:,` Those areas that ring the neighborhood may be appropriate for redevelopment, as buildings age and infrastructure needs replacement. ' The purpose of this chapter is to outline strategies to support the neighborhood's community character. Public input relating to community character illustrated concerns with single-family adjacency to incompatible land uses, the need to retain the single-family character of the neighborhood, and looking to the future for changes in land uses on older properties that would improve the overall quality of the neighborhood. In considering this input, the following goal was developed for this chapter: i Promote and protect the suburban residential character in the core of Central College Station balanced with the need to provide denser redevelopment options along the neighborhood fringe. This chapter focuses on two components of community character - first, the impact of adjacent transportation networks on the surrounding land uses, and second, the pattern of land use - both existing and planned, within the neighborhood. Ultimately, the strategies and actions developed for this chapter illustrate the changes that should be made in order to ensure the continued residential character of the area and provide planning direction for future development and redevelopment in the area. This chapter first outlines basic planning information relating to community character. This information is in addition to the pertinent information in the Existing Conditions Report (Appendix A). Second, the chapter covers Image ::. Corridors, includingdefinitions, and proposed strategies to achieve the Image p p g g � Corridor Plan. Finally, the Land Use section of this chapter outlines changes to the Comprohensivo Plan, existing zoning, site development standards, and #;r` floodplain management policies to support the overall goal for the chapter. This chapter outlines the details of the strategies and actions; however, specific information about timelines, responsible parties, and costs is reflected in ; ass Chapters, Implementation. Planning Information This section identifies key information that impacts community character in the' Central College Station neighborhood. It outlines key public investments being made in the area and a description of the land use that should be taken into account as strategies are developed to protect and promote the existing character of Central College Station. DRAT,"I' 05-23-10 CHAPTERl—CDMMUN|TYCHARA[TER | DK&FT05-23'1 0 Capital Investments Transportation CopKo| Projects There are several transportation projects recently completed orplanned inthis oreo.The following iso |id of those projects. Additional informo1ion about the projectsis available inthe Existing Conditions Report and Chapter 3, Mobility, DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan be small in size and located adjacent to major roads (arterials and collectors). Design of these structures is compatible in size, roof type and pitch, architecture, and lot coverage with the surrounding single-family residential uses. General Suburban - This land use designation is generally for areas that should have an intense level of development activities. These areas will tend to consist of high-clensity single-family residential lots (minimum 5,000 square feet). Urban - This land use designation is generally for areas that should have a very intense level of development activities. These areas will tend to consist of townhomes, duplexes, and high -density apartments. Natural Area ® Protected - This land use designation is generally for areas permanently protected from development. Such areas are preserved for their natural function or for park, recreation, or greenway opportunities. These include areas such as regulatory floodway, publicly owned open space, conservation easements, and public parks. Natural Area — Reserved - This land use designation is generally tot- areas that represent a constraint to development and that should be preserved tot their natural function or open space qualities. These areas include floodplains and riparian buffers, as well as recreation facilities. Image Corridors Image corridors are major transportation routes throughout the community that carry visitors to important or significant destinations. Those corridors provide opportunities for open space preservation, links between districts, and unified identification, landscaping, and wayfinding. Gateways are key points along such corridors that serve to mark entrances into the community as well as provide opportunities for enhanced identification and wayfinding that relates to the corridor and community as a whole. The overall beautification and wayfinding plan for a corridor should be set by a comprehensive corridor plan; however, this plan explores ways to preserve areas for gateway and corridor plantings, signs, and other design elements, as well as tie those elements into entrances and corridors within the neighborhood. Comprehensive Plan Map 2.3, Community Assets and Image Corridors, illustrates the locations of the following corridors: Wellborn Road - Wellborn Road serves as a primary image corridor along the entire western side of the planning area. This corridor serves to move DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Image Corridor Strategies: ® Corridor and Gateway Image Plan (CC1.1) - Develop Corridor and Gateway Image Plan with the following considerations: ® Landscape Plan that focuses on native plantings that are tolerant to our climate and need little or no on -going irrigation. ® Implementation schedule that focuses on aligning capital nutlnys to time with appropriate planting seasons. ® Create and adopt zoning overlays (CC1.2) - Develop zoning overlays for vacant commercial properties that are not zoned in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan to minimize incompatible development along primary image corridors (See Zoning Area 7 for specific information). ® Construct context -sensitive street improvements (CC1.3) - Work with TxDOT to incorporate landscaping, or preserve landscaping opportunities in Harvey Mitchell Parkway South median project similar to landscaping projects along Texas Avenue South. a Amend Community Assets and Image Corridors Map (CCI A) Designate Deacon Drive and Rio Grande Boulevard as neighborhood image corridors. These corridors should be the focus of mobility enhancements (See Chapter 3, Mobility - Thoroughfares for more information). Land Use Land Use is a key component of establishing the character of an area. In determining appropriate land uses, the existing use, zoning and current Community Character designations should all be considered. As part of maintaining the suburban residential character of the Central College Station neighborhood, this plan evaluates the existing and proposed uses to identify discrepancies and other factors that could lead to unintended development and redevelopment. The Land Use component of this Plan evaluates the following four components relating to the utilization and development of land: future land use assumptions, existing zoning, site development, and floodplain management. Because there are no known issues with the ability to provide utility service in this area, the plan is able to focus specifically on changes needed to ensure the desired pattern of land development. Future Land Use Assumptions -y Community Character During tho planning evaluation process, a number of areas were identified where the Comprehensive Plan designation or future land use conflicted with the existing zoning, existing development, or existing surrounding uses in some way that a change to the Comprehensive Plan is warranted. In evaluating the existing Comprehensive Plan, there are eight areas identified for potential modification (See Map 1.3, Community Character Areas of Change for more information about each area). Strategies for these properties focus on amending the City's Community Character and Future Land Use map to reflect more appropriate future land uses that are reflective of market opportunities for the property, future land use needs, and are responsive to neighborhood compatibility. CHAPTER 1 -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I DRAFT 0s-?3-10 DRAFT 05-233-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Community Character Area 3: 1814 Sara Drive Community Character Planning Area 3 is a single property located at the intersection of the State Highway 6 frontage road and Sara Drive. The property is identified as General Commercial, zoned R-4, Multi -Family and developed as a dny(-ni-(-. Both the use and zoning are more compatible with the Urban development character. the adjacent properties to the west are all duplex and four-plexes, zoned R-4, Multi - Family and designated Urban. If is adjacent to commercial uses to the south that are designated General Commercial. Map 1.6, Community Character Area 3 illustrates the ............. existing character and zoning as well as the proposed character as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategy: Community Character and Future Land Use Amendments (CC2.3) Amend the Comprehensive Plan's Community Character and Future Land Use Map to reflect a future Urban character. Community Character Areas 4 & 5: LongmirelPinionIPonderosa Drives residential areas Lack of visibility to the highway makes these properties unlikely candidates for dense commercial and retail uses. With their proximity to residential areas, this a 0 area should be designated as Business Park alona the east side of Lonqmire ME CHAPTER I -COMMUNITY CHARACTER I DRAFT' 05-23-10 area, commercial with the residential at but provide commei compatible opportunities given the traffic volumes along Longmire Drive. Map 1.7, Community Character Area 4 & 5 illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the proposed character as recommended in the sti -ategy for this area. Strategy: Community Character and Future Land Use Amendments (CC2.4) Amend the Comprehensive Plan's Co r -nniunify Character and Future Land Use Map to reflect a range of commercial uses transitioning from oi more intense General Commercial uses along the frontage road backing up to Business Park uses along the east side of Longrnit-e Drive, then to more neighborhood appropriate Suburban Commercial uses along the west side of Longmire. while the uses may be more Business Par, I, inn ature, they should be designed with Suburban Commercial j building and site standards. This would include lower building heights, rest ential design components and i roof fops, and adequate landscaping to lend a more residential feel to the developmenfs. This should be accomplished through n Planned Development district zoning c lassification, or the application of a Suburban Commercial ovorlay (Soc Image Corridor strategies). Community Character Area 6: Sophia Lane Currently, fen lots in the Edelweiss Estates subdivision are identified as gg Urban on the Comprehensive Plan Community Character and Future Land Use Map. These lots are developed as single-family homes, and are all owner - occupied. These lots would be more cornpolible with I the surrounding neighborhood which is designated as Neighbor -hood Conservation. Map 1.8, Community Character Area 6 illustrates j the existing character and zoning as dy well as the proposed character as 0 0 recommended in the strategy for this area. DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan opportunities for multi -family urban style development would be available; however, this land use option should only be available once Balcones is constructed through to Wellborn. Map 1.9, Community Character Area 7 illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the proposed character as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategy: Community Character and Future Land Use Amendments (CC2.6) Amend Ilre Cornprehenslve Plan's Community Character and Future Land Use Map to support Urban character development opportunities on this property upon the extension of Balcones Drive. Community Character Area 8: Pintail Loop Currently, there are 35 lots in the Steeplechase subdivision identified as Urban on the Community Character and Future Land Map. These lots are zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential and developed as single-family homes. The properties are largely rental, and have a density of 5.6 units/acre which would be more compatible with the General Suburban character classification. Map 1.10, Community Character Area 8 illustrates the existing character and zoning as well as the proposed character as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategy: Community Character and Future Land Use Amendments (CC2.7) - Amend the Comprehensive Plan's Community Character and Future Land Use Map to designate this area as General Suburban. Existing Zoning The majority of property zoning was found to be in compliance with the future land use assumptions found in the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of nine areas (See Map 1.11, Zoning Compliance Areas). Strategies for these areas are focused on zoning changes to bring these areas into compliance with their existing use and/or the Community Character and Future Land Use Plan. Zoning Area 1: Hawk Tree and Hillside Drives There are 197 duplex properties located in the planning area that are zoned for higher density multi -family uses (R-6, High Density Multi - Family) with some lot consolidation already taking place. Duplex uses are allowed in multi -family districts, but represent an underutilization of the maximum density allotments for the district. The Hawk Tree and Hillside Drive area is designated for Urban land uses which include a variety of different multi -family uses from duplexes up to high -density apartments. This particular area also creates a transition between the appropriate R-1, Single -Family DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan district would insure that these areas remain single-family for the life of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, rezoning to R-1, Single -Family would provide for required buffering for adjacent properties that develop or redevelop - under current standards, no residential buffering is required. See Map 1.14, Zoning Area 3 for existing zoning and character, as well as proposed zoning as recommended in the strategy for this nren. Strategy: initiate Rezonings (CC3.3) - Initiate a rezoning to R-1, Single -Family to ensure properties will remain in compliance with surrounding single- family character. Zoning Area 4: Callie Circle Like Zoning Area 3, Callie Circle is also an isolated pocket of R-4, Multi- family on existing single-family developed properties. This cul-de-sac is made up of six lots that were developed in the early 1990s. This area is also appropriately designated as Neighborhood Conservation; however, the existing zoning reflects allowable uses that would not be in compliance with this designation. The northeast corner properties of Rock Prairie Road and Wellborn Road currently are developed as a gas station and veterinary clinic. The Comprehensive Plan Character Map identifies this entire section of the Rock Prairie Road corridor as Suburban Commercial. These uses are, generally, appropriate to the character classification; however, the existing C-1, General Commercial zoning allows many other uses that would not be compatible with the character. See Map 1.16, Zoning Area 5 for existing zoning and character, as well as proposed zoning as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategy: Create and adopt zoning overlays (CC3.5) - Develop an image corridor Suburban Commercial Overlay to apply to this and similarly situated properties. This district would be appropriate for areas that are anticipated for Suburban Commercial development, but have existing zonings that are more intense than the Suburban Commercial character would allow. This overlay would address design issues like roof pitch, architectural style, materials, building height, landscaping, parking lot design, and sign location to create commercial areas that are more compatible with neighboring single-family residences. These standards would apply upon future redevelopment on the property and would not CHAPTER 1 —COMMUNITY CHARACTER I DRAF`l' 0s-23-10 affect current operations and maintenance of the existing sites and structures. Zoning Area 6: 2815 Welsh Avenue The existing church is compatible with both the existing zoning and the Community Character and Future Land Use Plan as worship facilities are allowed within all zoning districts and character classes. The existing zoning, however, would provide for an opportunity to redevelop the site for multi-far-nily uses if the existing facility were to relocate. A rezoning to R-1, Single -Family would not adversely impact the worship facility, and would maintain single-family uses on the property if it were to redevelop. See Map 1.17, Zoning Area 6 for exisfing zoning and character, as well as proposed zoning as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategy: Initiate rezonings (CC3.6) Initiate a rezoning to R-1, Single Family to ensure properties will remain in compliance with surrounding single- family character. Zoning Area 7: Wellborn road The Wellborn Road Suburban Commercial Area is a 25-acre area made up of nine, mostly vacant and residential, properties along Wellborn Road from Deacon Drive to Sallie Lane. Most of the non- conforming properties in fhis area were developed prior to annexation into the City limits and can legally continue. Planning guidance is provided to identify how this area should develop, taking into consideration single-family adjacency issues and non -conforming tracts. This area will also be impacted by a future crossing of Deacon Drive as designated by the Thoroughfare Plan. See Map 1.18, Zoning Area 7 for existing zoning and character, as well as proposed zoning as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategy: Create and adopt zoning overlays (CC3.7) - Develop an image corridor Suburban Commercial Overlay to apply to this and similarly situated properties. This district would be appropriate for areas that are anticipatedfor Suburban Commercial development, but have existing zonings that are more intense than the Suburban Commercial character would allow. This overlay would address design issues like root pitch, architectural style, materials, building height, landscaping, parking lot design, and sign location to create commercial areas that are more compatible with neighboring single-family residences. These standards would apply upon future redevelopment on the property and would not affect current operations and maintenance of the existing sites and structures. DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan The area includes a church, two nursing homes, a vacant tract, and a medical office site. The existing zoning and buffering concerns should be evaluated to ensure that properties continue to develop in a way that is sensitive to the surrounding residential uses. See Map 1.19, Zoning Area 8 for existing zoning and character, as well as proposed zoning as recommended in the strategy for this area. The existing nursing home facilities are developed on tracts zoned R-4, Multi -Family and are directly adjacent to single family development in the Southwood Forest subdivision. An existing church is located on property zoned A-O, Agricultural Open. Additionally, a dental complex exists as a PDD, Planned Development District, and a single, vacant A-P, Administrative Professional tract completes the area. All of the tracts are designated as Suburban Commercial for future land uses. The existing uses on the site are compatible with the existing zoning; however, the existing R-4, Multi -Family zoning would allow for multi -family development on the tracts developed as nursing homes. Additionally, the worship facility property is zoned A-O, Agricultural Open and is not in compliance with the Community Character and Future Land Use Plan. The vacant A-P, Administrative Professional property would allow development that may be incompatible with the nearby single-family uses because of a lack of height restrictions and buffer requirements that the property is not subject to because it is not directly adjacent to single-family uses. A Suburban Commercial zoning classification should be placed on the property to ensure development and redevelopment that is compatible with both the surrounding uses and the Land Use Plan. Strategies: ® Create and adopt zoning districts (CC3.8) - Adopt Suburban Commercial zoning district to limit building height and style of development to be compatible with the suburban character of this area. ® initiate rezonings (CC3.9) - Approach property owners (except PDD site) to rezone property to future Suburban Commercial district upon adoption. Zoning Area 9: Harvey Mitchell Parkway South Friends United Church of Christ and Peace Lutheran Church own adjacent property along Harvey Mitchell Parkway South in this area. These properties are both designated as Suburban Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Character Map. Both properties are zoned R-6, High Density Multi -Family. The existing uses are compatible with both the ; zoning and Comprehensive Plan; however, if the churches were to relocate, the existing zoning is not compatible with the commercial development that is planned for the area. See Map 1,20, Zoning Area 9 for existing zoning and character, as well as proposed zoning as recommended in the strategy for this area. Strategies: Create and adopt zoning districts (CC3.10) - Adopt a Suburban Commercial zoning district to limit building height and style of CHAPTER 1 —COMMUNITY CHARACTER I DRAFT 05-23-10 The current zoning ng on property across the area, while generally com atible with h the recent)Y adopted Y do ted Community Character p a acter and Futu e - r Land Use Plan,� may are not specifically char c a ter baseci and . p Y result ' v It In future redevelopment meat that is out of character wit h Ith surrounding p rr ndin g land nd uses. For example, xam le g R-1 in existing e Sing I FamilyResidential ntlal there are no building mass or lot coverage e e r r uirements. In a developed g q p IY neighborhood with a vacant or redevel Y,sin le -far oping ing property, this could result in a new home m that has massing lot o� r t coverage that is out f o character with the surrounding g g oundin neighborhood. hood. In or der to continue e existing the xistir� land use patterns, and ensure g p , character compatible development, zoning districts that are more r ep s onsive to character dep r issues should be t velo ed to add �e ss infill redevelopment concerns. These districts � n uId then be applied Ii ed to areas within Central College Station as appropriate to their character dcsi nation Fo ' r instance a new Neighborhood e vation zone ei hborhood Conservation g , g should be developed ed that provides clear standards n - p p o character a ro riate building massing, lot ' o size and other residential standards pp p , g g- '' so that the subdivision and redevelopment of existing lots are compatible w' rfh su-rounding g district existing uses. This dis ct could the b n e all areas designated r s gated Neighborhood Conservation on the applied to g g Con s p munity Character and Future Land Use Plan. This racecan be i oodutilized for II characterdesignationsin the neighbor h . Strategies: Create - and adopt zoning districts GC3.12 Adopt charact er p specific zoning district in line with the Community Character and Future Land Use plan. Initiate rezonin s CG w 3.13 Initiate rezoni n s to new zoning g onin g districts to ensure n Iproperties remain i compliance � n om Rance with their f established Communit Character and Future Land Use Y e' d si nation upon nin districts. n adoption of new zoning g p p g Site Development The neighborhood plan identifies one area where site development may need to be upgraded to maintain the attractiveness and o ortunities for small husinPssPs. This area is made up of several properties with frontage on Texas Avenue South between Brothers Boulevard ard and Deacon Drive see !VI 1 21 Site Development). a J e p , Slralc ies for this area focus on site in rovement ro rams that will J )cent continued investment in the area by property owners. The area i° m f 1 r fi adcu o 5 rl napproximately o c c� o nin r n nine total f p p p acres ando 12 businesses. These properties were lar el developed in the mid- to p p g Y p - w' v late 1980s few ' with e improvements emen s it p t � the area since that time. The properties erties are so mew hat separated tec from TexasAvenue South because of theexisting frontage road which also provides des access to the properties. ManY businesses shareparking facilities asoha have DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan access from a private alley in the rear of the properties. Both of these circulation facilities are in need of repair. Strategies: ® Feasibility Study (CC4.1) - Investigate the feasibility of a site and facade improvement program that provides matching funds to encourage reinvestment in the existing properties. This should include identification of funding sources and opportunities for alternative financing such as a tax increment finance district (TIF) or public improvement district (PID) (See Chapter 5, Implementation for more details about these funding opportunities). Examples of projects could involve repainting, facade repairs or replacements for materials, window and door replacement, or site improvements like additional landscaping, sidewalk repair, uniform building signage, or parking lot maintenance. ® Coordinated Public Investment (CC4.2) — Repair parking and circulation facility in front of existing businesses in this area. Floodplain Management This section identifies the properties located in areas that are designated floodplain or should be reserved for environmental or recreational purposes. Map 1.22, Floodplain and Open Space highlights the properties that are identified as Natural Area _ Reserved or Preserved. The planning area is impacted by two segments of Bee Creek. Proposed strategies focus on strategic property acquisition where adjacent to existing public facilities, and the development of floodplain management strategies aimed at reducing the impact that development has on these waterways and the developed land uses within and adjacent to the floodplain. Floodplain Management Area 1: Balcones Drive This area is made up of a single vacant lot off Balcones Drive that has significant floodplain on the property. The property is approximately one acre and is adjacent to the I arry .I. Ringer Library property. This property provides opportunities for additional open space within the planning area, floodplain management by eliminating development opportunities that could lead.;: to increased stormwater run-off, and connection to the library property from within 3k the neighborhood. The property is currently _s zoned R-4, Multi -Family and has an existing r driveway connecting two apartment w buildings. Strategy: Property Acquisition (CC5.1) - Pursue purchase of the property through the Greenways acquisition program. u CHAPTER 1 —COMMUNITY CHARACTER I DRAF1- 05-23-10 Floodplain Management Area 2: 3020 Texas Avenue South The property in this area is approximately p p y1.5 acres that was previously p Y developed as a landscaping bus iness but is now vacant. The property p p g p p Y is completely loca ted within the floodplain, adjacent to Lon mire Park p Y pLong mire provides opportunities to expand open space in the neighborhood and the ability to connect to Texas Avenue South g Y between Brothers Boulevard and Deacon Drive. S tra teg y: Property Acquisition CC5.2 - Pursue purchase p y q ( ) ase of the property through p p l Y g the Greenwa s acquisition r y q p og -am. Floodplain Management Area 3: Natural Areas There are 165 single-family properties and 462 apartment units impacted by floodplain in the planning area. These uses are all in y compliance with their existing zoning on the property. Five pork 74 properties are also located in the floodplain, with only three shown in their entirety as Preserved. Additionally, several places of worship , a gas station, Fire Station #2, and the Ringer Library are also located within the floodplain. These g Y p es uses are allowed in any zoning district, and all but the Fire Station have zoningcompatible with other Comprehensive Plan Designations that p p g are on the property. Strategy: Floodplain Management Policy (CC5.3) Create a comprehensive floodplain management program that will reduce flood risk to developed floodprone areas. This program could include land acquisition, channelization such as the Bee Creek capital project, and creek restoration to lessen flood risk to developed or developable areas from the floodplain. .': / _ PROPOSED wr AM Proposed Amendment: Change Urban Mixed Use to Urban in Richards/Ste ding Area try Mii'"��i.Rw a :;. III . _ AmmwJ i-1-0 II Cam Rd tick Prairie Map 1.1 Community Character to-naps_LI _ Central College Station Neighborhood Plan C -r - —Mile Dr ,4� rr-ranta�eBft?��' % =Property Boundary (/} =Planning Area r COnnxmity 1;111.11-acter Nuightborhood Conservation m Rural Estate _- Restricted Suburban - General Suburban Urban ftodcreek D. General Commercial Suburban Commercal I nstitutio nal lP u bli c _ ® Natural Areas - Protected Natural Areas - Reserved Utilities r - Water Draft May7, 2010 Campusx , 1, b Open Vista ♦ ♦ Vista ♦♦oa' ♦1♦ i ('A&M land) ♦♦♦per` ♦j♦ ♦♦♦ y� j �/ rF�a•♦! Z --- •••J, A&Mc�`6 - o Campus ♦ a� ,,y �� —► Vista \ ♦♦ ♦ \� 0. ' �\ f sHY _0 Magill", F y, i .Open Vista ♦ �� ,$A&M land) x at FM 6d WHITE CREAK �!�♦♦���<�' C'� and Brazos River Texas A&M♦♦ University Easterwood i Campus % \ t Airport AV 0.5 0 1 mi. �we at SH6 and FM 2154 . Map 2.3 ,\ \\ >,� .• Community `�* ' t•. �'`' ! �� Assets and Image = Corridors :, • SH 30 41:0...................• i • '► •• City Limits Open Space ; Extraterritorial Views • Jurisdiction (ETJ) 61 ,, ,� �.., • Primary Image Corridor e BEE CREEK r ; Secondary Image Corridor O Key Image / Design Intersection • • Er Primary Arrival Gateway 40000000.,06 ♦. , ROCK pRR1RIE Rp • • s . • t %• '9 J ••� % c� RTF �' �• O - RR Secondary Welcoming Gateway 4. <\� i .l ♦ ♦aF �L�� ♦♦ ���'/�� ` © Early Image -Setting ,, I / ♦�♦ G.G ♦�♦ a R� Gateway J �N View fro ♦•♦1 e� �' v>� ; ♦" ' � ♦♦ � �� { ', � _.._,_- , Gateway /Corridor High Point t♦j �♦ :.Iy1�7 <�. ♦ ry Forested Areas 7 i ♦ �♦ �� � 'tl°-t, ♦♦ ♦.,_. � � � � , Floodplain 77777 n 7 PillWILLIQMDFI7CHPARKWAY I♦♦ Y {� /' O Public Art Location �� ' ♦ Existing t , ♦ Unique Community �, ♦� f Asset Area \`\L \•? '�. ♦•��� `' , =TjT 1- Emerging/Potential v�•♦y ' --._ Unique Community j -- .. Asset Area mN. • v�'i + �\. I ,,l` � _, I r — Tr KEN DIG KL'AS'C Adopted May 28, 2009 <;,IY or Co: 1 1 l d. S r:a ION no 1,600 ft"reh3 DraftMay7, 2010 Map 1.3 Community Character Areas of Change Central College Station Neighborhood Plan 0 Property Boundary Character Change Area Planning Area Connxmity Character Neighburhuud Cuiisurvdliun Rural Estate Restricted Suburban General Suburban Urban General Com mercial Suburban Commerdal InstitutionallPublic Natural Areas - Protected Natural Areas - Reserved Utilities Water Existing Future Land s-e--- Af / Existing Zoning Draft May 7, Ra 10 Map 1.4 Community Character Area 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Character Classrtcation Neighborhood Conservation Urban Suburban Commercial Ins2utionaiPublic Natural Areas - Reserved Existing Zoning A-O, Agricultural Open R -1, Single -Faro fly Residential R-2, Duplex R -3, Tov�nhome R - 4, M ulti-Family R -6, High Density Multi -Family Frontage 6 Rd Frontage 6 Rd W sfrg Zoning x G Frontage 8 Rd r Draft May 7, 20 M Map 1.5 Community Character Area 2 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Miannmg Area Character Classification Neighborhood Conservation Urban General Comm erdal Suburban Commercial 6dstina Zoning C -1, General Commercial C - 3, Light Comm ercial R -1, Single -Family Residential R - 4, Multi -Family R - 6, High Density Muti-Family Existing -Future Lande Proposed Future Land use Existing Zoning sera �. 4 R _ k F v Yj 41� _ ' c .1 a Sam, Dr. ..•L. CID i 40 R Draft May 7. 20 M Map 1.6 Community Character Area 3 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan OPlanning Area Character Cla ssification Urban General Commercial Existirg Zoning C -1, General Commercial C - 2, Commercial Industrial R - 2, Duplex R - 4, Multi -Family ."0 A n fI b m N 0 C 2 a '0 N vinnc>b � !u � m gc, s x S° a' °�° 0 3 G n 3 o tie O. o C 0. a Jl 0 0 I 1 ! I I Z O =.o >c ,VQ =r 0 �_ ~ CL Cn Q Fretarnity Row __-- Existing Zonlng Map 1.8 Community Character Area 6 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan character classification Neighborhood Conservation Urban Existing[ Zoning R -1, Single -Family Residential R-4,Mufti-Family D.ft M=y 7, 20' 0 Existing Future Land Use La N E O lL a a Pro :sed Future Land Use nQO N E 0 Existing Zoning Draft play 7, 2G l0 Map 1.9 Community Character Area 7 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan OPlanning Area Character Classification Urban Suburban Commercial Natural Areas - Protected Existing Zoning A-O, Agricultural Open C - 1 , General Commercial PDD, Planned Development R -2, Duplex 1--Existing pnh May 7, 20 xl Map 1.10 Community Character Area 8 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Character Classification Neighborhood Conservation General Suburban Urban Existing Zoning R -1, Single -Faro ily Residential R -18, Single -Family Residential R - 2, Duplex R - 4, M ulti-Family NOf � �."we.. 1,600 �l ,_M - 'T - M__ Map 1.11 1. 1 Zoning I� Areas of Change Area 2 II Central Area 1 College Station Neighborhood Plan 1 J 11 I I ti I n � r Draft May7, 2010 Ild Zoning Change Area 0 Property Boundary IMP lanning Area Existiixj zonillo A 0, Agricultural Open A - P, Administrative Professional C - 1, General Commercial C - 2, Commercial Industrial C - 3, Light Commercial M -1, Light Industrial PDD, Planned Development R -1, Single -Family Residential R -1B, Single -Family Residential R - 2, Duplex R - 3, Tomhome R - 4, Multi -Family 1 1 R - 6, High DensityMulti-Family Map 1.12 Zoning Area 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan oplanning Area Character Classdicadon Neighborhood Conservation Urban General Commercial Suburban Commercial InstttutionaliPublic Natural Areas - Reserved Existing Zoning C -1, General Comm erdal R- t , SingleFamily Residential R -2, Duplex R - 4, Multi -Family R -6, High DensityMul:i-Family Craft May 7, 2010 Map 1.13 Zoning Area 2 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan OPlanning Area Character Classification Neighborhood Conservation Urban General Commercial Institutionai Public Existing Zoning Mc- General Commercial R -1, Single -Family Residential R - 4, M ulti-Family __; R -6, High DensdyMuCi-Family [raft May ], 2010 Map 1.14 Zoning Area 3 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan OPlanning Area Character Classificadon - Neighborhood Conservation Suburban Commercial E)dstirg Zoning PDD, Planned Development R -1, Single -Family Residential R - 4, Mufti -Family part Nay 7.2010 snng opose Use dir— 1 m t ((( t.� oil { Draft Nay 7.2010 Map 1.15 Zoning Area 4 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan OPlanning Area Neighborhood Conservation Ddisting Zoning R -1, Single -Family Residential R - 4, M t&Wamily ExisAg Rock Prairie Rd Rock Prairie Rd lock Prairie R lock Prairie Rd n_g F r a n ""Kock.P.rairie,R Draft May 7, 2D10 Map 1.16 Zoning Area 5 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan QPlanning Area =Property Boundary Clnracter Classification ..__- Neighborhood Conservation Suburban Commercial Eidsting Zoning A-P, Administrative Professional C -1, General Commercial R -1, Single-Fam ily Residential ®SC, Suburban Commercial OV Map 1.17 Zoning Area h Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Character Classification ,Neighborhood Conservation E)ustiU Zoning R -1. SingleFamiy Residential MR - 4, M &-Family =ft May 7, 2010 0 C? on AMUR WEENEWRE NORKNEWN ,qWNEXER Iffma"I 27 wom, ME mom: LL IU i��&vipd is nDrj A t) .71 DmITMay 7,2CIO Map 1.18 Zoning Area 7 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan MlarmingA,rea =Property Boundary ChawterCla3dficalon Neighborhood Conservation General Suburban urban Suburban Commercial 6d3finozoniliv A-0, Agricatuml Open C - 1, General Commercial PDD Planned Development R - 1 � Single-Fam Hy Residential R - 1 B, Single -Family Residential R - 2, Duplex R - 4, M ulfi-Family ®SC, Suburban Commercial OV Map 1.19 Zoning Area 8 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan QPlanning Area = Property Boundary Character Clasadicafian Neighborhood Conservation Suburban Commercial ElusOng Zoning A-O, Agricuttural Open _- A- P, Administrative Professional PDD, Planned Development R -1, Single-Fam ay Residential MR - 4, M ul -Family ®SC, Suburban Commercial Draft May 7, 2010 Harvey Mitchell Pw Draft May 7.2C 10 Map 1.20 Zoning Area 9 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Mlanning Area = Property Boundary Character ClaseiFicaSon Neighborhood Conservation Urban Suburban Commercial InstitutionalRublic Natural Areas - Reserved 6dstirg Zoning R -1, Single-Fam fly Residential R - 2, Duplex ® R - 4, M ulti-Family R - 6, High D ensity Multi -Family ®SC, Suburban Commercial v u _ ..Longnlfrc Dr Zvi Ilk tl :-.Oct _v V�rtF lab *4 40 j ` tr L -'9• ,� 1 � ,'� •';� _,,,1-� ' `.� °�'a - -.4 ' to �: �i® g pX35 Av 8 i '' r. "qb s W Draft Mcy 7, 2010 Map 1.21 Site Development Central College Station Neighborhood Plan QSde Development Area C Property Boundary QPlanning Area C E N T R A L C O L L E G E S T A T 1 O N N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N To improve neighborhood integrity, the goal of this chapter is to improve neighborhood organizations, property maintenance and City code compliance in owner -occupied areas to elevate the attractiveness of Central College Station's subdivisions as an affordable, family -friendly neighborhood. Through public input, the residents of Central College Station have highlighted special interests in property maintenance and neighborhood image. To achieve the stated goal, this chapter focuses on strategies that stabilize and enhance owner -occupied areas within Central College Station. The strategies in this chapter are intended to maintain owner -occupancy in the neighborhood by developing enhanced efforts in owner -occupied areas, while continuing to maintain current service levels in primarily renter -occupied areas. A secondary focus is placed on building stronger neighborhood organizations to effectively address issues that arise between residents. This chapter outlines some of the key issues facing Central College Station as they relate to neighborhood integrity and outline strategies to meet the goal set by this plan. Information about budget constraints and responsible parties can be found in Chapter 5, Implementation. Planning Areas In order to effectively plan for enhanced services, the neighborhood has been divided into single-family service provision areas based on subdivision boundaries, types of neighborhood organizations in place, and common issues that face different areas of the neighborhood. Areas with similar issues uie grouped together with strategies determined for each group based on the group characteristics. The identifiers used in this chapter are not a ranking of the different areas in the neighborhoods or a method of designating a preferred area. These identifiers were used to group areas with similar characteristics to best establish service provision models based on the needs of the areas. The purpose for the service delivery model is to tailor specific services to continue to promote home -ownership in existing owner -occupied areas. In addition to these areas, there are also properties that are multi -family, commercial, or not generally associated with a single-family subdivision. These areas will continue to be maintained through existing services, except where they are adjacent to single-family service provision areas. In such cases, enhanced efforts for these properties will be addressed with strategies for the area to which it is adjacent. URi1FT 0 -23-10 CHAPTER 2 — NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 Each of these areas has specific issues and opportunities to address in order to meet this goal. The adjacent list identifies each area with a short description of the elements used to group particular areas within the neighborhood. Map 2.1, Neighborhood Service Provision Areas provides an illustration of where these areas are located. The majority of issues raised by citizens in Central College Station for neighborhood integrity are tied to the impact of renter - occupied properties within and around the neighborhood. Owner -occupiers expressed concerns with lawn and property maintenance, traffic and parking, as well as behavioral issues with renters that include trash and loud parties. The combination of limited on -campus housing and market forces in the last decade led to an increase in investor -owned property throughout College Station, The Central College Station area is home to 2,426 apartment and duplex units (50% of all dwelling units in the area) and 17% of rented single-family homes within the City (551 units in Central College Sfatlon and 3,160 hauling units in College Station, respectively). Overall, rental units make up 59.6% of the housing stock in Central College Station and 24.8% of the single-family housing stock (See Existing Conditions Report for more information about rental properties in this area). Map 2.2, Rental Rates by Street illustrates the amount of rental single-family property in the area. This section is organized into broad categories to address the following issues: Effective Organizations, Proactive Code Enforcement and Property Maintenance, Neighborhood Image, and Emergency and Law Enforcement Services. Effective Organizations In considering strategies to strengthen owner - occupancy, this plan recognizes that the success and sustainability of the neighborhood and homeowner associations significantly impact the future success of any new programs aimed at improving neighborhood integrity. Without effective partners in the area, new strategies will be DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan difficult to implement and less effective in achieving the goals of this plan. None of the organizations in this area are particularly engaged in the political process and have had trouble remaining effective during times when there are not specific issues to rally behind. These characteristics make it increasingly difficult for the organizations to remain a proactive puilner in solving neighborhood problems since interest and involvement at the organizational level wanes without a strong focus and agenda. There are five registered neighborhood organizations in Central College Station representing a variety of different property types. There are four homeowner associations and one neighborhood association (see Map 2.3, Existing Neighborhood Organizations). Effective training is necessary to build and improve these organizations in Central College Station. In doing so, the City has opportunities to help address neighborhood and subdivision level issues and can work to build more effective working relationships with its citizens. Currently, the City works with neighborhood and homeowner associations Through Thu NCIghborhood Purlrrurship Prograr1-1 run by Planning nnri NPvPlopment Services through its Neighborhood Services business unit. Registered partners are eligible for small grants, have access to special training and seminars, receive updates about development activity in their area, and other support from Neighborhood Services. The Neighborhood Services Coordinator also works closely with Texas A&M University (TAMU) organizations through Aggie-Up to work directly on student and student-renfal issues that impact neighborhoods. Effective Organization Strategies: The strategies in this section focus on increasing existing organization capacity and developing new . organizations within this area. These strategies outline opportunities to provide new training and activities for neighborhood partnership organizations to increase leadership and DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan neighborhoods. (All Areas) Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.9) - Develop leadership training programs for newly elected > homeowner association officers and committee members. Program should specifically address developing agendas, setting priorities, and establishing communication strategies for those agendas. (Area A) Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.10) - Provide technical assistance to homeowner associations for succession planning to allow for successful change of leadership without diminishing organizational capacity. Focus should be placed on assisting with the creation of standard operating procedures and other training documents for newly elected officers. (Area A) • Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (NI1.11) - Work with organization leadership to identify and provide technical assistance in recruitment of key leaders in the area to fill vacant leadership positions on existing executive committees. (Area B) ® Expand Neighborhood Grant opportunities (N11.12) - Provide in- depth training similar to the new organization program for reorganized executive committee. (Area B) • Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.13) - Allow use of neighborhood grant funds for neighborhood organizing in these areas when applications are accompanied by a clear and comprehensive organizational strategy outlining how the organization will reach out to its constituents. (Area B) ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.14) - Develop training on effective deed restriction enforcement. (Area B) ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.15) - Where there is interest and at or near 100% owner - occupancy, work with residents through the Neighborhood Partnership program to convert the existing neighborhood associations to homeowner associations. (Area C) ® Expand Neighborhood Grant opportunities (N11.16) - Allow use of neighborhood grant funding for legal consultations in association with developing covenants and deed restrictions. (Area C) ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.17) - Create a specific support program for new organizations. This program should focus on providing specific technical assistance to organizations to ensure their viability over time. The program should include an annual meeting schedule and agendas, assistance in the development of a communications plan and strategy, training on how to develop agendas and projects, and specific meetings with City Staff. (All Areas - especially Area D, E, and F) ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.18) - Develop training for communication plan development to make sure organizations are providing pertinent information to their constituents about meetings and events, as well as disseminating announcements from Neighborhood Services. (Areas A, B, C, & D) • Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N11.19) - Work with residents to develop a new neighborhood CHAPTER 2 — NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 organization or incorporate these areas into an existing nearby neighborhood association. (Areas E & F) Program Continuation (NI1.20) - Continue to work with Aggie Up and other TAMU and Blinn College student groups to find proactive methods to reach out to off-carnpus students. (Area G) Program Continuation (N11.21) - Continue to identify and utilize opportunities to develop other tenant and property owner associations. (Area G and other Areas) Proactive 'v e Cod e En forcement emen t and Pr operty Mainten ance e Code and property tY main tenance Hance en forcement eme nt play a significant nific ant role in the perception o n of neighborhood hba�hood integrity. t . Issues likeI awn - maintenance, ntena nce t rash around yards, an upkeep 0 d u , naho me ploy la a role p p in how property rtY owners s make decisions sio ns about investments estments for itp i rovg in thet ownprop ert Y� • . _ • The City of College Station has minimum requirements regarding how properties " • - • • - • • • • - • e - should be maintained to meet basic - e- o • oe- - - o o e o - e e - e health, safety, and welfare needs. These - - ° • • ° • include standards for the upkeep on • oo- o - • - - o • ® structures on the property through the o o •®_ e®• - . • o . - - o ®_ .® a International Building Code, as well as • oe- o - e oo- . - o - • • oo_ standards for yard maintenance, junk - e - • - e - •• e - vehicles, parking, and trash in the City's ®• • - - ' •o- o - • - eo- o Code of Ordinances. Compliance with •-- - - ®o. these regulations is monitored through a joint effort between Code Enforcement, ••- - • •- e o -. a -o e - o o Police, and residents. Code; Enforcement o e o o . _ _ _ ® ® • ® • _ officers visit each property in their area ee e • on a weekly basis, but also investigate •- o o e o - o o e- - e - e e c e citizen complaints. College Station's -- • • • •• • • o Police Department works closely with ••" • • •- "" • --• • Code Enforcement and Neighborhood - Services to ensure safety within neighborhood specific areas, called _._. _.. beats. Frequent Occurrences Between 2005 and 2009, rented single- family homes had an average of 3.7 total violations per unit while owner -occupied single-family homes had an average of 1.2 violations per unit during the same time period. Most repeat offenders were located in Areas F and G where there are higher percentages of rental property. e •• a •• W • • The most frequer-il code violalion cases •- o o -•� o - the City deals with are sanitation cases. ° These violations include trash on lawns, garbage curds Thal are not removed promptly, or other issues dealing with trash. Since 2005, there were 3,588 sanitation code violation cases investirgntnd in Central College Station, DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan making it the most common violation reported for each subdivision in Central College Station. The second most frequent violation found is Health and Safety violations which are primarily issued when grass and weeds exceed the allowable height specified in the Code of Ordinances. In this neighborhood, more than 1,600 cases were investigated between 2005 and 2009. The minimum standard set by the Code of Ordinances requires yards to be mowed and tickets are issued when lawns are over 12-inches tall across the entire yard. In Central College Station, there were five times more health and sanitation violations per rented single- family home than for owner -occupied single-family homes from 2005 to 2009 (0.96 violations/unit and 0.17 violations/unit, respectively). Overall, there were 449 violations for rented single-family and 375 violations for owner -occupied single-family. Property maintenance cases made up only 1 % of cases in this area between 2005 and 2009. Property maintenance cases are primarily focused on maintenance of the structure(s) on the property. Code Enforcement Strategies: The strategies for this section focus on enhancing code enforcement activity and promoting more proactive solutions -based enforcement in owner -occupied areas. These strategies are an effort to promote continued owner investment in their property by ensuring that neighboring properties are properly maintained in accordance with City regulations. ® ongoing evaluation and indicator program (N12.1) - Create an indicator system that tracks code enforcement and property maintenance activity to identify frequent violations, specific properties, and time periods. (All Areas) ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N12.2) - Incorporate code enforcement training for organizations so they can better understand local and state legal requirements for pursuing enforcement action on a property as well as how to report and follow up on enforcement cases. (All Areas) ® Increase neighborhood notification processes (N12.3) - Create a neighborhood oversight process to alert organizations of significant code enforcement and property maintenance activity and the outcome of the activity. (Areas A, B, C, 0, F, and F) ® Create proactive code enforcement procedures (N12.4) - Require at least annual face to face contact by Code Enforcement officers with rental property occupants to make sure occupants are aware of code requirements while living in a single-family horde. Reduce use of warnings in these areas where there is no legal requirement to do so. (Areas A, B, C, D, E, and F) Create proactive code enforcement procedures (N12.5) - Develop more robust property maintenance enforcement program for these areas to include specific training on the International Properly Maintenance Code and cross -training with Police, Fire, and Utilities to identify issues and respond before they become a code violation. (Areas A, B, C, D, E, and F) ® Create proactive code enforcement procedures (N12.6) - Create a proactive health and sanitation violation program to alert residents CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 to possible futureviolations before enforcement ent toallow an unity Y t0 address opportss the issues before eacti on is necessary. Y• a A secondary rY focus for the program should be to evaluate why Ya particular ular activity tl It 's I occurringand ' d identifying In if p there are ro rams Y g Y g programs e on -going goingcodeor other community GSSIStanCea 'labletoen ul compliance. lia nce. e c Ar as A B C D E and F 1 Increase nei ghborhood r hborhoo d notification g tron processes (N12.7) - Utilize rental registration program information to provide annual reminders to rental property residents about code - - • •• o•• • o • • requirements. Reduce use of warnings in these o •• • o ••• o • -• -! • areas upon a second violation at .the same • - - - - o • o • • •' - - property. (Area G) Increase neighborhood notification processes (N12.8) - Utilize rental registration program information to notify property owners of - • •o e•• - • •• •®• significant enforcement activity occurring on = their properties. (Area G) -o - - • 5 0 -e • - a Program Continuation (N12.9) - Continue neighborhood walk and talk program to • • • • • - • •• °°° provide reminders to students and renters about responsibilities and requirements of living ° • • ® ° ®®® • • in a single-family home. (All Areas — Specifically _ _ ° ®®° Area G) Create proactive code enforcement procedures (N12.10) - Work with Aggie Up organizations to reinvigorate student mediation • ®_® ®_ • o- -® ® ® , prograrin to allow students to work with other students about appropriate bchavior and property maintenance in these areas. (All Areas s -iy esp ec all Area G) Creat e proactive code enforcement cedures s (N12.1 1- Increase ent pro moni torinc of properties adjacent t o areas A B C an d D to J ensure p p e 1 , -ty maintenance - ntenance is not negatively ccupiedroe vely' impacting ngow -.,.........:..... ,...........:...:......: . . areas. (Area G and Other Areas) Neighborhood Image Neighborhood image is made up of a variety of elements like public and private landscaping, park development and maintenance, fencing, sidewalk and public facility maintenance, and signage that serve to enhance an area's aesthetic quality. These elements combine to provide a distinct image to different areas. Maintaining or improving that image is important to promoting the long-term viability of a neighborhood. Overall, these elements should work together - providing a safe and inviting public realm. Public comments made during the planning process relating to neighborhood imagine included providing more street trees, increasing yard maintenance, better landscaping, and park development opportunities. DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Image elements are located through some parts of the neighborhood with existing elements like masonry walls and streetscaping that was established with more recent subdivisions like Southwood Forest and Edelweiss Estates. Building on those elements throughout the neighborhood can strengthen the overall image of the area. Neighborhood Image Strategies: The strategies for this section are appropriate for most subdivisions within the planning area; however, their effectiveness is dependent upon successful implementation of the Effective Organizations strategies to build capacity to implement the proposed programs in this section. The focus of these strategies is primarily on assisting neighborhoods in developing and executing sustainable neighborhood image improvement projects, but also includes public investment in neighborhood image maintenance and improvements. Corridor and Gateway Image Plan (N13.1) - Incorporate a Neighborhood Image Corridor Improvement Plan in coordination with the overall corridor and gateway image plan as mentioned in Chapter 1, Community Character with the following considerations: (All Areas) a. Landscape Plan that focuses on xeriscaping and native plantings that are tolerant to our climate and need little or no on -going irrigation; b. Implementation schedule that focuses on aligning capital outlays to time with appropriate planting seasons; c. Utilization of existing resources from community partners, and assistance from neighborhood organization to reduce municipal costs; d. Intersection and road improvements along Deacon Drive and Rio Grande Boulevard as outlined in Chapter 3, Mobility; and e. Ongoing maintenance and ownership of improvements Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (N13.2) - Identify and apply for funding opportunities to increase grants and matching funds available for sustainable landscaping projects. (All Areas) Streamline City permitting processes (N13.3) - Streamline process for CHAPTER 2 — NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I DRAI-T 05-23-1a obtaining Permit for Private Improvements in Public Right -of -Way for neighborhood projects. Program Continuation (N13.4) - Continue to provide technical assistance to neighborhoods applying for neighborhood grants. Incorporate training for organizations on developing projects that would be available for funding, and prioritize funding for projects that are in line with the improvement plan. (All Areas) Community Partnership Opportunities (N13.5) - Identify and work with key community partners like Big Event, Aggie Replant, and Keep Brazos Beautiful to assist with neighborhood beautification projects. (All Areas) Program Continuation (N13.6) - Continue to monitor maintenance of existing neighborhood image investments in this area through the following: (Area A, & B) o Work with organizations to make sure long-term homeowner association areas are being properly maintained; o Identify opportunities to improve sustainable landscaping practices, like xeriscaping, native planting, and irrigation; and o Work with organizations to apply for neighborhood grants and other funding to make landscape changes for sustainability purposes. Coordinated Public Facility Investment (NI3.7) - Where investments are being made to install new or upgraded public facilities like roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes, neighborhood service areas should be incorporated into the prioritization process for funding. Where possible, thoroughfare improvements should incorporate context elements outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Areas A, B, C, D, and E) Coordinated Public Facility Maintenance (N13.3) - Develop an increased monitoring "program for public facilities like drainage ways, sidewalks, and roads and prioritize improvements to owner - occupied areas except in the case of imminent health and safety issues. (Areas A, B, C, D, and E) Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (N13.9) Identify grant and other funding opportunities to improve safety and aesthetics of drainage channels. This would include aesthetic improvements to safety features at street level (i.e., guardrails) as well as other improverents outlined in Chapter 1, Community Character relating to floodplain and drainage. (Areas A, B, C, D, and E) Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (N13.10) - Work with organizations to develop neighborhood improvement projects to repair fences, drainage ways, signs, and other neighborhood image elements. (Area C, D, E, & F) Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (N13.11) - Develop neighborhood clean-up program with Sanitation, Recycling, and neighborhood organizations to encourage active neighborhood participation in maintaining and improving neighborhood image. The program should include a once -a -year event that brings neighborhood together to improve the overall image of the neighborhood. Such a program could be done in conjunction with Big Event, Earth Day, or other events that capitalize on partnerships with other community organizations. (Area C, D, E, & F) DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Emergency and Law Enforcement Services The final section of this chapter deals with the coordination and improvement of law enforcement and emergency service response in the planning area. The primary concerns raised by residents relate to noise and on -street parking. This section also includes information about property security which is often an issue throughout College Station. Noise Noise complaints are an issue throughout College Station. Central College Station is no different with loud party and music complaints falling in the top ten most frequent activities from Police reporting. The City prohibits loud noises when heard outside the structure in which they occur, or beyond the property where the noise takes place higher than 65 decibels from lam to 10pm and 55 decibels from 10 pm to 7 am. Included in these regulations are loud noises coming from cars. Noise complaints have held relatively stable in the Central College Station neighborhood for the past five years, with an average of 253 calls per year. The City currently participates as a partner in the Aggie Up Noise Abatement Class offered through Student Services at Texas A&M University. This program is a day -long course aimed at educating students who receive tickets about appropriate behavior, applicable laws and regulations, and making positive decisions in the future. Classes are held monthly and can be used for deferred adjudication for the ticket on first time offenses. Students are still held accountable for the violation but can have the violation removed from their criminal record. Currently, classes are operating at capacity and monitoring of class size and waiting lists should be on -going to identify if more resources are necessary to the program. On -street parking Excessive on -street parking was a concern voiced by many residents during the planning process. Often on -street parking problems are due to the prevalence of rental property in the area. On -street parking can cause difficulties when cars block driveways, trash cans, and n-ailboxes, but particularly when emergency vehicles have difficulty accessing the area. Because of the lack of sidewalks on many local streets, especially in older areas of the neighborhood, on -street parking has forced pedestrians and bicyclists to walk and ride with through traffic. Figure 2.1 However, there are very few parking Parking Complaints complaint calls rnade to the Police department for this area. However, in „•:4 2009, there was a 329% increase from 2008 and 158% increase from 2005. (See jt 2008 : ,...104"" Figure 2.1, Parking Complaints for numbers Source: COCS Police On -street parking does, however, have benefits. Parked cars are a method of traffic calming. Because they visually CHAPTER 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY I DRAr'r 05-23-10 crowd the through lanes, drivers will typically slow down and pay better attention to the road and the surrounding cars. Additionally in a more suburban environment like Central College Station, it provides for guest parking for gatherings that would otherwise not be available if on -street parking were removed. Existing Regulations: The City of College Station allows parking on all local streets unless otherwise signed. College Station local streets must currently be constructed with 27-foot pavement width which can accommodate two-way traffic with parking. All Central College Station local streets are built to this standard. City streets are public property and open to the public for parking. Parked cars may not be located within 20-feet of street intersections or be parked facing the wrong direction. Parked cars may not block a driveway, mailbox, dumpsfer, or alley, and parking is not permitted on bike lanes or yards. Parking can be removed by action of the City Council through the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Because of the difficulties that are incurred by residents when on -street parking is removed within an area, on -street parking should not be removed in this area unless there is an impact to emergency service response times or accessibility to fire hydrants. Continued monitoring of the parking situation would allow for more proactive response to parking issues within the neighborhood. Sidewalks and bicycle lane improvements outlined in Chapter 3, Mobility should be made to provide safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 2.2 Property Security Burglary & Theft Activity Property security is a concern in many college communities because of the seasonal effects of school breaks that leave a large number of homes empty, 2008 387 creating easy targets for break-ins and burglary, Burglaries of a vehicle or Source: COCS Police habitation are a consistent issue throughout the community. In Central College Station, burglaries have been increasing since 2007. In 2009, the majority of burglaries and thefts occurred on Airline Drive, Austin Avenue, Brothers Boulevard, Longmire Drive, Navarro Drive, Pierre Place, Todd Trail, and Welsh Avenue. These streets are home to multi -family units or directly adjacent to those units. Figure 2.2, Furglary and Theft Activity, illustrates the overall reported burglary and theft activity in the area. College Station Police implemented a community policing system in 2009, where officers are assigned to beats and work closely with residents and organizations to identify and address security issues. Emergency and Law Enforcement Services Strategies: The strategies in this section are focused on improving outreach and education through neighborhood and student organizations about DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan property security and emergency response to ensure appropriate response times and effective law enforcement. ® Program Continuation (N14.1) - Continue to promote community policing and provide opportunities for residents to interact with police personnel about security issues around the neighborhood. _ (All Areas) ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (N14.2) - Increase education to neighborhoods and student organizations about property crimes and security during school breaks. (All Areas) ® Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (N14.3) - Utilize Know Your Neighbor campaigns to ensure that residents know who lives around them and can more easily identify suspicious activity. (Areas A, B, C, D) • Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (N14.4) - Work with established organizations to develop or reinstate neighborhood watch or other neighborhood policing programs that would create opportunities for organizations to assist law enforcement and emergency responders. (Areas A, B, C, D) ® Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (N14.5) - Develop an on -going parking monitoring program in conjunction with the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and emergency responders to monitor on -street parking issues and take proactive actions to address issues. This program should set up regularly scheduled review of parking in owner -occupied areas by visual inspection and tracking of parking complaints. (All Areas) ® Program Continuation (N14.6) Continue to work with Aggie Up and student organizations to educate students about noise, parking, and property security. (All Areas -specifically F and G) ® Program Continuation (N14.7) Continue notifications to registered a neighborhood organizations of noise violations and police response; incorporate notifications of other significant police activity so that neighborhoods may focus their neighborhood watches on particular areas. (Areas A, B, C, D) • Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (N14.8) - Develop nuisance monitoring and enforcement programs in line with state and local requirements. (All Areas) ® Expand Neighborhood Grant opportunities (N14.9) - Amend neighborhood grant program to include funding for neighborhood watch programs for signage, or incidental costs. (Areas A, B, C, D) ® Increase neighborhood notification processes (N14.10) - Increase notifications to property owners about noise violations and other significant activity on a property. (Areas A, 8, C, D) ® Program Continuation (N14.11) - Continue to support the Aggie Up Noise Abatement class. Work with Municipal Court to track rates of recidivism to evaluate efficacy of the program. (All Areas) ® Program Continuation (N14.12) - When staffing allows, continue to utilize police "party patrols" especially during game, back to school, and end of semester weekends to monitor and address noise and other illegal activity during time periods with frequent parties. (All Areas) o Cain Rd 1,500 7-)0 . .m Map 2.1 ld — y� ti Neighborhood 1111�1 "- ��4� Service Provision Areas ergNbrgans Ln Central College Station Neighborhood Plan c , Bpi >Fxontsgg-mod' I � E I ti bi O fJ � 'ar� Pa Eon i-0o 8 ) r rf —T— LLour qp Planning Area - �-P'irro.n Dr m' - o =Property Boundary Provision Areas Area A ra _ oodQek cr = Area B _ = Dr Area G 0 F _ V/ t _ =firea B Area E OAreaF r �T Area G Draft May 7, 2010 Cain Rd -r� Lo Fratern T_ N E Lb y n p 4 R . W' Rick Prairie �o e a J .o m 1,600 i . I� (- I:I - I ,LMil� Ur--U IIIIIILI _ [h...-eL ra!df bra ft May 7, 2010 Ma p 2.2 Rental Rates By Street (2009 ) Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Planning Area = Property Boundary 0 Si ngl a Family P roperty ReiitiI Rates by Street % Ovaie1 0cctq)ied less than 20% 20%to 39% 40%to 49% 50%to 59% 60%to 79% 60%to 99% 1.00000 8 ai Cain Rd 1 mr ui N ff LL, arracks WE tic k PrAirie tcl e m O — 1,500 7 �O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIE-2 crook Dr Draft May 7, 2010 Map 2.3 Existing Neighborhood Organizations Central College Station Neighborhood Plan QPlanning Area =Property Boundary Registered Heighborhood Organizations Brandon H eights =EdeMeiss Regency South Southvtoo d Forest MSouthvwod Valley C E N T R A L O L L E G E S T A T I O N N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N The Central College Station neighborhood has a relatively dense network of thoroughfares, sidewalks, and bikeways that provide connection to neighborhood centers as well as to the surrounding community. Gaps or lack of service in some areas make it difficult for some residents to utilize all mobility options in the neighborhood. The vast majority of residents live within 1,500 feet (ten minute walk range) of a neighborhood center like a school, park, or commercial area. However, despite the existing networks, most residents only utilize vehicular transportation to those centers. The purpose of this chapter is to outline strategies to support improved mobility in and through the Central College Station neighborhood. This chapter identifies key planning. issues facing the neighborhood in relation to mobility and further identifies opportunities to address those issues. The goal for this chapter is as follows: A safe, well-connected, context -sensitive, multi -modal transportation system to better connect Central College Station to the rest of the community and its local neighborhood centers. This chapter focuses on the following three areas of mobility: thoroughfare efficiency, bicycle and pedestrian network enhancement, and bus transit opportunities. Thoroughfare efficiency evaluates if the existing thoroughfare network is functioning as intended - that streets are built to the correct capacity and context, aro properly maintained, and existing intersections are safe. Bicycle and pedestrian network enhancements focus on improvements to the sidewalks and bicycle networks to improve connectivity within the neighborhood as well as to areas outside the neighborhood. Finally, transit opportunities focus on opportunities to promote ridership within the neighborhood. Planning Information This section outlines existing public projects that may impact mobility in the planning area. The locations of these projects are illustrated on Map 3.1, Current and Proposed Transportation Projects. DRAFT 05-23-10 CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 Capital Projects Wellborn Road/Harvey Mitchell Parkway South Interchange - This project is a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) funded project currently under construction. The purpose of this project is to separate vehicular traffic from interacting with rail traffic at the interchange of Wellborn Road and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South. Harvey Mitchell Parkway South will be elevated and new exit ramps will allow for movement on and off of Wellborn Road. Harvey Mitchell Parkway South Median Project - The 2010-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan identified the need to construct medians along Harvey Mitchell Parkway South between Texas Avenue South and Wellborn Road. This project will help improve safety through better access management. This project was funded by TxDOT and design is likely to begin in 2010, with construction scheduled for Spring, 2011, Stakeholder input will be coordinated by TxDOT during the planning and design phases. Longmire Drive/Harvey Mitchell Parkway South - The City recently completed intersection improvements at Longmire Drive and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The project includes bike lanes from Airline Drive to Longmire Court, a bridge crossing at Bee Creek, and improved intersection design. This project is in conjunction with the Harvey Mitcholl Parkway South multi- use path to facilitate multi -modal transportation options along this corridor. Harvey Mitchell Parkway South Multi -Use Path - The City is currently in the design phase for a multi -use path to follow along the northwest side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South from Welsh Avenue to Texas Avenue South. This corridor will provide connectivity to key destinations including A&M Consolidated High School, Bee Creek Park, and commercial property such as Wal-Mart (crossing at Longmire Drive). DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Design is anticipated to be completed in FY2010. Safe Routes to School College Station ISD, in conjunction with the City of College Station has submitted grant applications for funding for the two schools located within the Central College Station neighborhood: Southwood Valley Elementary and Rock Prairie Elementary, in addition to College Station Middle School, which is located across Rock Prairie Road. As part of these applications, a Safe Route to School problem is required to be identified along with any obstacles (physical or perceived) to walking/biking to school and any risks or hazards facing children who bike or walk to school. In addition, a description of how the proposed project improves safety within two miles of the school is required along with plans for monitoring and evaluating the impact the project has made on walking and biking to school. City staff identified and proposed the following projects for each carnpus: Rock Prairie Elementary - Bicycle and pedestrian crossing on Welsh at Edelweiss Ave consisting of pavement ®®® markings, signage and flashers. Southwood Valley Elementary - Bicycle and pedestrian crossings on Brothers Boulevard at Longmire Drive, Deacon -® Drive, Treehouse Trail, Todd Trail, and Ponderosa Drive - consisting of pavement markings, signage and flashers. College Station Middle School - Bicycle and pedestrian crossings at the intersections of Rock Prairie Road at Rio ®_ _ Grande Boulevard, Normand Drive and Westchester ® ® Avenue consisting of pavement markings, signage and ®_ e flashers. ®- Grant funding for Safe Routes to School projects will be awarded by the end of May, 2010. If funding is awarded for the three proposed projects, there is a two year timeframe in which the funding for the projects must be spent. Development Impact - Wal-Mart Redevelopment Central College Station residents also expressed concerns about traffic from the redeveloped Wal-Mart site after the planned 'expansion is completed. The City requites a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be performed on certain types of non-residential projects to determine any traffic impacts on surrounding roads and mitigation for those impacts. In the redevelopment planning of the Wal-Mart site, a TIA was conducted by HDR for Wal-Mart. In its findings, a right turn deceleration lane to the driveway on Texas Avenue was identified as part of the mitigation required. The analysis also suggested a *traffic signal at the driveway on Texas Avenue; however, this location does not meet optimal spacing to the Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Texas Avenue South intersection. Instead, the signal will be placed at the Brothers Boulevard and Texas Avenue South intersection when Dartmouth Street is extended to that intersection. The intersection of Longmire Drive and Brothers Boulevard did not meet traffic signal warrant criteria, but will be studied again CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 once the Wal-Mart construction is complete and traffic returns to a normal pattern. Key Planning Considerations Thoroughfares As set out in the City's Comprehensive Plan, context sensitive thoroughfares are proposed to meet the City's transportation needs and support its land use and character objectives. Context sensitive planning provides a functional classification of streets, which is based on the traffic service function they are intended to provide; a context through which the streets travel; the thoroughfare type, which outlines the design criteria of the street; and a specific cross-section design for the street or street segment. a The following is a description of the Functional Classification Street classifications are based on the traffic service function it is intended to provide and are p grouped into classes ° based on the character of traffic and degree of land access they allow. College Station streets are classified into five categories: freeway/expressway; major arterial, minor arterial; major collector; minor collector; and local or residential streets. The functional classification identifies the necessary right-of-way width, number of lanes, and design speed for the streets. Collector streets are designed to collect traffic from residential streets and distribute the traffic to a higher classified street, such as an arterial or freeway in a safe and efficient manner. The Central College Station Neighborhood has three functional classes of streets that serve the neighborhood: major collectors, minor collectors and local streets. Within the neighborhood, the existing functional classifications are adequate to serve the neighborhood, and no functional classification upgrades were deemed necessary. Major Collector Streets - There are four major collector thoroughfares located in the neighborhood and they include Welsh Avenue, Rio Grande Boulevard, Longmire Drive, and Deacon Drive east of its intersection with Welsh Avenue. These streets are designed to serve vehicle traffic in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Currently, parking is prohibited along major collectors in the neighborhood. DRAFT 05-23-I0 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Minor Collector Streets - There are five minor collector thoroughfares in the neighborhood, which include Brothers Boulevard, Balcones Drive, Edelweiss Avenue, Ponderosa Drive, and Deacon Drive west of Welsh Avenue. These streets are designed to serve vehicle traffic in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day. Figure 3.1 Central College Station Thoroughfares Harvey Mitchell Pkwy 5 Welsh Ave to Texas Ave S Perimeter General Suburban Major Arterial Boulevard xa� ve. J .. _ ..._..- .:...• ...-�.:..::...,:::.. h.. ..... _..:. ... ;: r(m. �,;.iaeneral=Su�ratbari'>.�~�; �Ma"or=' "Ya : o'` SH 6 Texas Ave S t ,B U o Rack Prairie Road Perimeter _ - .. .... :.....,. , ..,..... .. .. ...:..,:,..: r .,.... -.... Freew ay ways .G.eneral. ubUrba , .,. ... _. .:.. ,. i ...:.......,:..; , ..:....._....,: K,.= n::,.. r1Ar` era! Wellborn Road Rock Prairie Rd to Deacon Dr Perimeter General Suburban Major Arterial Avenue born. ...i . , .R6.. Ma'o':'rte i +i o.ulev Welsh Ave e Harvey M' chell Pkwy S to Rock Prairie Rd In rnal Ge ral Suburban Major Collector ande:,BIVd .. Narve.Ivh chetl: P 'w :S:.totRoc Prair e d `>:r.:ia r ,.,.. <:.::::.:. . .::.. Y.. .....:. k L. (nt nal., _ .Genet hSuf?;urtj'a a`or„Got e'aor St eet Southwood Dr Harvey Mitchell Pkwy S to Todd Trail Intern Collector Street Internal General Suburban Minor ,:....>... _... _... ...., ,......_.. :,,... ,,.. ..,.. ,..a._.-...,,-.,.,-.`. f,-tea . :..... ... _.,....,.. ...... . y . _... ,.y..t. R9.., i ,,lnt :.rtal.:,• eneral;Sub.Urb -,Ilector,�i'' Brothers Blvd Texas Ave S to Ponderosa Dr Internal General Suburban Minor Collector Street pq n. u,. A h A „i era .............. .. • .::::,::..::, ;:, . .. ... ��5... _.... ve.::;:"r ,.. nt n .:4:.:G'ene` l'_'ubur8` .n,=r°� a'orC L:�., ..,,,:.� , ,,�..:..:. . . ........, ,. , ,. _..., , . ,...:,, ,,,.....::.,......,-:.,-.:.:.....::.. ,...... , •::; �, - Ya:.S... d,..,.,:.iM J.. n. (EC '.;_cStreet- 5[....-._1...m,_L�.�...t_v.....,u._.y..._„_.SL.,�,.>.a_,tL_.,._.�_....,.,,a:a..._w:_.a�.,,�-yv__�.aL_e,�....at.�...v.`..`',.•�i:..v.:...auv.e.i:::e::,.t;;.ti,�:.e;:Jn�.:i,`>:u_Y'iu._a,�w�:_t-:ia+;�".ve�:>_L�S ".'- ,...:::..I �1._:�-:yam u �. Deacon Dr Welsh Ave to Wellborn Rd Internal General Suburban Minor Collector Street s._,A,, ....._-_�ilRs.:-:'.:::.'�,We;b ::.,.. Ponderosa Dr SH 6 to Rio Grande Blvd Internal General Suburban Minor Collector Street Surrounding Streets - There are four thoroughfares that bound the Central College Station neighborhood and connect the neighborhood to the remainder of the City and region. These roads consist of two major arterials, Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Wellborn Road; one minor arterial, Rock Prairie Road; and a freeway, State Highway 6. Traffic volumes along major arterials are generally in the range of 20,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day, while minor arterials operate with traffic volumes of 5,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day. Context Context refers to the land use and character through which a street travels. There are five context classes within the City. The. Central College Station neighborhood context is classified as General Suburban. General suburban context should focus on more residential activity on and around the street itself, and place an emphasis on preserving the residential character that surrounds it. Thoroughfare Type Thoroughfare type combines the information related to functional classification and context and establishes the design criteria of the street. There are two thoroughfare types identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood: avenues and streets. An avenue integrates moderate traffic volume and speeds (not to exceed 35 miles per hour) with multi -modal transportation, such as transit, bicycling and walking. Streets are low speed, low volume roadways CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 that have a great deal of access to surrounding land uses with speeds not exceeding 30 miles per hour. Figure 3.1, Central College Station Thoroughfares, provides information regarding the functional classification, context and thoroughfare type for each thoroughfare within the neighborhood. Presently, all existing thoroughfares within the neighborhood operate at or below their designed traffic service function in terms of traffic volume. The thoroughfares, as constructed, meet the minimum lane requirements, . but do not have adequate right-of-way to fully implement the context requirements as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The lack of right-of-way mainly impacts the roadside zones where sidewalks, street trees, and other street furniture could be placed (See Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Transportation for adopted street cross sections). Because of the difficulty in retrofitting all of the thoroughfares, priority is placed on Deacon Drive and Rio Grande Boulevard as primary image corridors in the area. Additionally, road diets, or the reduction of pavement width, may be appropriate to accommodate context -sensitive street design. Context -sensitive improvements can be made to streets, or segments of streets, within the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan calls for parking, bike lanes, and large roadside zones to accommodate safe and inviting pedestrian sidewalks on General Suburban major and minor collectors. Medians may also be appropriate in some instances, particularly when driveway spacing is insufficient for the thoroughfare type. Where driveways are too close, the median allows for limited access in order to reduce the number of turning movements that lead to most traffic incidents. However, retrofitted medians may impact traffic patterns and shift traffic to more accessible routes. Currently, Welsh Avenue, Deacon Drive, and Rio Grande Boulevard have sections where driveway spacing is insufficient to meet current standards. Intersections Through the public open house meetings, input from the Neighborhood Resource Team, and Staff evaluation, three intersections were identified for studies to evaluate the necessity for four-way stops. These intersections include Brothers Boulevard at Longmire Drive, Ponderosa Drive at Longmire Drive, and Brothers Boulevard at Deacon Drive (See Map 3.5, Intersection Evaluation Areas). Additionally, potential traffic control signal studies were identified for the following intersections: Deacon Drive at Wellborn Road, Brothers Boulevard at Deacon Drive, and Edelweiss Avenue at Rock Prairie Road. Maintenance Street maintenance is provided through the Public Works department. On an annual basis, the Streets and Drainage division conduct an inventory of streets, and rate each street on a variety of criteria like cracking, potholes, and other maintenance issues that require maintenance. When DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan a rating falls below a specified level, the street is then programmed for maintenance. In 2009, a variety of improvements were made to the street network in Central College Station based on the rating system and citizen complaint, identified on Map 3.6, 2009 Street Maintenance. The majority of these improvements repaired potholes, and several streets also received seal coats. In 2009, the City's annual evaluation process identified street sections for maintenance as shown in Figure 3.2, Street Maintenance Needs. Figure 3.2 Street Maintenance Needs s:;dr AirlinewDr Southwood Dr and JLongmirer Dr I ori`" yHawk Tree WDr Southwood Dr and Brothers Blvd �.. . � v r•a; ;::Bout,_ v�zoo:ci[:Dr:arel� Broth�rs�13'Ivd c,::.,..:,...Ln..au.....r,.na:.:L.�s.,._.�mCs.s:.•s..:......::.:.�__,;,.aa:,ar..�ZcL,., ...�� ..... Brothers Blvd Todd Trail and Deacon Dr .t ,fS;d ,di: Ivilt lei f?i�vl`S'ia�;'i�:A`irlieDr'I:°. Balcones Dr Welsh Ave and Bandera Dr sn,.: — •.1ep.nr-zr�, -sr,.-r" "ft? _ ='a:`- _ ri alga t 'I' San Benito Dr East of Welsh Ave r:br a , .fir • .•P., �:.,,,..: ,.•Qe.deon`�D�and-Free. `',ouseT'c�il' Sara Dr None uWildrye Dr None Thoroughfare Strategies: The strategies developed for thoroughfares focus on bringing thoroughfares into compliance with context -sensitive design guidelines as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and ensuring roads and intersections are operating safely and maintained properly. ® Program Continuation (M1.1) - Continue to identify streets in need of maintenance or rehabilitation. m Coordinated Public Facility Maintenance (M1.2) - Maintain and rehabilitate identified streets. Prioritization of projects should be based on health and safety first. Where streets have similar scores and maintenance is not health and safety, owner -occupied areas outlined in Chapter 2, Neighborhood Integrity should be prioritized for maintenance. ® Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M1.3) - Identify intersections that warrant further study for signalizafion or improved design for safety concerns, and conduct warrant studies. * Coordinated Public Facility Investment (MIA) - Conduct studies of intersections for safety improvements. Prioritize and program these improvement projects based on health and safety. Areas with higher traffic incidents should be studied first. Where intersections are rated equally, owner -occupied areas outlined in Chapter 2, Neighborhood Integrity should be prioritized. Figure 3.3, Warrant CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 Study Areas identifies intersections for study during the planning process. Figure 3.3 Warrant Study Areas Ponderosa Dr & Longmire Dr 4-wav sto Deacon Dr & Wellborn Rd Traffic sianal e Community Partnership Opportunities (M1.5) - Partner with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to collect relevant traffic data. e Construct context -sensitive street improvements (M1.6) - Identify and construct context -sensitive improvements, like medians, wider sidewalks, landscaping to bring streets into compliance with street design cross -sections outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. See Figure 3.4, Context -Sensitive Street Projects for possible projects. Figure 3.4 Context -Sensitive Street Projects Median Rio Grande Boulevard Traffic Safety and Bicycle Safety ,.....:......_ ::,::.,..•...,..-, 1Ne)sh.;: vc.nuo: ;>r:.: ��.;� :rTr ffi ISaf Sidewalk Edelweiss Avenue Pedestrian Safetv le Lane Rio Grande Boulevard Bicycle Road Diets where necessary to All accomplish bicycle or pedestrian improvements, and _ not needed for travel lanes Construct contexfi-sensitive street improvements (M1.7) - Implement the Gateway and Image Corridor Plan identified in Chapter 1, Community Charnc:ter to increase attractiveness and usability of multi -modal transportation opportunities. Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is part of a multi modal transportntinn netwnrk. that allows for the movement of people to and through the neighborhoud us an alternative to vehicular travel. These non -vehicular modes of travel can help reduce overall vehicle miles traveled, congestion, pollution, and the costs associated with roadway expansion. In an effort to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility, the City recently adopted the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Master Plan. DRAFT 05-23-10 ( Central College Station Neighborhood Plan This plan identifies and prioritizes improvements to the existing systems to enhance and encourage multi -modal transit. That plan identified a number of improvements for the Central College Station neighborhood that are outlined in their respective sections of this Plan. Types of Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian facilities can include a variety of items. The following define the various types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are utilized or are currently proposed for the Central College Station neighborhood: Bike Lane - a designated part of the roadway that is striped, signed, and has pavement markings to be used exclusively by bicyclists. Bike Route - a roadway that is shared by both bicycles and motor vehicles. Wide outside lanes and shoulders can serve as bike routes with signage. Sidewalks - walkways alongside roads, typically five to eight feet wide, for pedestrians. Side Path (Multi -use Path) - a wider sidewalk (10-12 feet wide) alongside a road with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Greenway Trail (Multi -use Path) - all-weather and accessible paths for pedestrian and bicyclists. These are typically 10-12 feet in width. Additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, ramps, medians, signage, shelters and signals. These items all contribute to the overall identification, accessibility and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle connectivity in the Central College Station neighborhood in gcncral is strong duo to a rclativcly dcnsc nctwork of through streets within the neighborhood. Connectivity to all identified neighborhood centers is provided, with the exception of the following not having direct access via an existing bike route or lane: Navarro West Center, Steeplechase Park and the Larry J. Ringer Library. Connectivity to the remainder of the City is very strong to the north and south across Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Rock Prairie Road. Bike lanes extend across Welsh Avenue and Longmire Drive to the north and south, with the bike lane on Rio Grande Boulevard connecting to a proposed multi -use path across Rock Prairie Road at Southwood Athletic Park. In addition, a bike route currently exists along Southwood Drive that crosses Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, Map 3.7, Planned Bicycle Improvements, shows existing bicycle facility improvements and any proposed improvements identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. Gaps in service are CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 identified along Rio Grande Boulevard adjacent to Brothers Park and Deacon Drive adjacent to Brothers Park and Southwood Elementary School. Additionally, the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan proposes bike lanes along Edelweiss Avenue, Brothers Boulevard east of Longmire Drive and along Navarro Drive, which will connect to planned intersection improvements at Wellborn Road. Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian connectivity within the neighborhood varies from strong to weak. In general, connectivity in the Steeplechase and Edelweiss g Y p subdivisions is strong with sidewalks located along most streets, with the exception being along cul-de-sac streets. In contrast, the area that is bounded by Brothers Boulevard, Deacon Drive, Rio Grande Boulevard and Airline Drive lack sidewalks on the majority of streets, with existing sidewalk segments only along portions of Todd Trail and two separate iu. a segments of Airline Drive. As shown in Map 3.8, Planned Pedestrian Improvements, pedestrian connectivity exists to all neighborhood _.: centers, with one caveat - in order for pedestrians in certain areas to i` get to designated neighborhood centers via a sidewalk, a long and indirect route is r s necessary. During the planning process, several areas were also identified were l here �t were gaps in the sidewalk network, Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies: During the planning process, specific concerns were raised regarding safety, connectivity and accessibility in the neighborhood. As such, strategies in this section tocus on improving upon those three aspects. These strategies incorporate elements identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan, in addition to those identified during the planning process. Bicycle Strategies: o Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.1) - Stripe, mark, and sign bike lanes in compliance with the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. o Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.2) - Provide signage for existing bicycle routes where signage is missing in compliance with the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. No changes to the existing prioritization from the Plan were identified. ® Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.3) - Continue bicycle lanes where there are current gaps in service for the bicycle network primarily on Deacon Drive and Rio Grande Boulevard. • Program Continuation (M2.4) - Provide continued maintenance of roadways, markers and signage for bicycle transportation network. ® Construct context -sensitive street improvements (M2.5) - Enhance bicycle safety along thoroughfares through the neighborhood by utilizing traffic calming methods such as road diets and landscaped medians (See Thoroughfare Strategies for more information). DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Pedestrian Strategies: Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Amendments (M2.6) - Amend the location of the proposed sidewalk that was identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan to adjust the proposed sidewalk on Adrienne Drive to Normand Drive, providing for more direct route from Deacon Drive to Rock Prairie Road, add sidewalks to Todd Trail between Brothers Boulevard and Longmire Drive, and sections of Fraternity Row and Deacon Drive. Coordinated Public Facility Maintenance (M2.7) - Identifyand install or repair gaps or failing sidewalks and crosswalks in the existing sidewalk network. Priorities should be placed on health, safety, and ADA compliance first. Upon completion of those repairs, prioritization should next be placed on owner -occupied areas outlined in Chapter 2, Neighborhood Integrity. Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.8) - Install new sidewalks and associated crosswalks in compliance with the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. Program Continuation (M2.9) - Continue to provide maintenance of pedestrian facilities, including breaks or cracks in sidewalks, pavement markings and signage. Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategies: Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Amendments (M2.10) - Amend the plan to include a multi -use path connection between Balcones Drive to Larry J. Ringer Library within Georgie Fitch Park in addition to the previously planned multi -use path from Steeplechase to Rio Grande Boulevard. Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.11) - Construct multi -use paths identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M2.12) - Identify and retrofit intersections with multi -modal uses for safety and accessibility improvements. See Figure 3.5, Intersection Improvements for list of potential projects. Figure 3.5 intersection Improvements Airline Drive and Southwood Drive San Pedro Drive and West Creek Lane �te, iVeRa n West Ridge Drive and West Creek Lane Ty :< est> Ricl" i[ar�ve_p::'cl:,WiIsfY'elue:= Normand Drive and Deacon Drive `iC d, e' n . =Tee;;eh'Qus: Trati < HE n: � , O Normand Drive and Ponderosa Drive <U;aI.Ve'et Qri�.esatld�: to:Gr.,q��'=.deB.ou:leYat�d=�;r�t Val Verde Drive and Pedernales Drive pa pg Yes:Driv S'art::B;en4to:Drive;::and:;Peclert:a.:.. CHAPTER 3 - MOBILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 ® Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (M2.13) - Utilize grant sources such as Safe Routes to School and Texas State Wide Enhancement Programs, to enhance funding opportunities beyond the general fund and bonds. Bus Transit sdin Chapter, the��Central Colllegeyisting StatooNeltions ighbo h Neighborhoodis served by two transit services: Texas A&M g„ 'F`:_ Aid. _ '' University v y (TAMU) MU and The Brazos Transit District. Within the there Y�;��,�:�`:� neighborhood are two TAMU bus routes and one scheduled route for Brazos _ Transit District. TAMU Transit currently primarily provides off -campus service to students, faculty and staff, while Brazos Transit District provides - fixed route, paratransit and demand service throughout the City for the general public. Brazos Transit District and TAMU Transit are currently evaluating the feasibility of operating an integrated bus system, whereby all residents could utilize both systems through a co -ridership partnership between the entities. This opportunity could reduce inefficiency in overlapping services. Additionally, a unified system would allow Transit District funding to be utilized for the upgrade of existing TAMU Transit stops. - Current potential obstacles to ridership include the lack of information regarding existing bus stops and routes, lack of clearly defined bus stops, length of bus routes and time it takes to arrive at a destination, and the lack of bus shelters. DP.AFT os-23-to 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Bus Transit Strategies: The strategies in this section focus on promoting and increasing transit ridership within the neighborhood. These strategies provide opportunities for coordination of transit routes between the different entities, as well as transit stop improvements. ® Community Partnership Opportunities (M3.1) - Identify opportunities to collaborate and promote a co -ridership program between TAMU Transit and the Brazos Transit District. ® Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M3.2) - Coordinate with TxDOT, Brazos Transit District, TAMU Transit and CSISD to include transit services in capital projects, which would include items such as bus shelters, crosswalks and bus pull outs. • Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M3.3) - Relocate existing bus shelter on Longmire Drive in from the east side of Longmire Drive to the west in order to better serve the TAMU Transit stop on opposite side of street. ® Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (M3.4) - Work with TAMU Transit and Brazos Transit District to identify existing stops with high -ridership to upgrade to a shelter. a Community Partnership Opportunities (M3.5) - Coordinate with TAMU Transit and Brazos Transit District to provide signage and route information at scheduled bus stops. e Coordinated Public Facility Investment (M3.6) - Provide crosswalks at locations where pedestrians will be crossing major thoroughfares in the neighborhood to reach a designated bus stop. ® Identity opportunities to expand funding sources (M3.7) - Work with Brazos Transit District to obtain FTA/FHWA Livability Project Grants and other like programs to enhance funding opportunities for transit improvements beyond the general fund and bonds. J I�Sreritwb'od Ir' Q. e Ma 3.1 Ar at sa uth v��t; R ` ~T- t—'lull----- Current and Proposed Transportation Projects 1 TTM tit `•,` --_ t _ � Wellborn Road I Harvey Mitchell Parkway y' ';, •. �- Central South Interchange' -`.'� _ _ College Station j I -`'_ �'� ( �Kren Tap Rd _ �'- Neighborhood Plan Harvey Mitchell Parkway South Multi -Use Path = Tf Harvey Mitchell Parkway South .- _ _� .4 w� i ■ w w� ■ w ■ - - * Harvey Mitchell PW Median Project �` - -_- Ii y -� L J r ! t_ v _ f f Longmire Drive I Harvey Mitchell Parkway South * ,� •+ t', r Intersection improvements �1 `~Al CDL-J L -- `.1 � 1 �a r , j� `J_ J C th LO LL r-'— - Waimart Intersection Study -_ - �_�k -- _ — rT 5 - 1 -- IfrT � _•.__ -ffffJ[fffJ//+ _ 1 � � I I ti y r-� - � - --- _ _ __ Parcels �J � � � . -w •�� ( I City P Del J �o e t _ ,` ,._ .� _ � C� Property Boundary Draft May 7, 2010 7 Dr 1 LQ �Jill idi rrr CV — `7 —1i �_ .ti -_ Rack�P�r�ir _ Rci_ � 17 1.9ao 950 0 Dr y., 7 Dm ft may 7. 2010 Ma p 3.2 Thoroughfare Functional Classification Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Grade Seperation Freeway/Expressway 6 Lane MajorArterial _..._._ 4 Lane MajorArterial 4 Lane MinorArterial 4 Lane Major Collector 2 Lane Major Collector 2 Lane Minor Collector Brazos Streets OPIanning Area L-1 City Parcels Cain Rd ��iwllill 1 �, 1 LO_ N E JJ' LL Ruck Prairie Rd J 1 j) 1,500 'SO Map 3.3 i L ti Thoroughfare Context Central College Station u_ l— Neighborhood Plan Draft may 7, 2010 Context Class Highway Mined Use Urban Urban Restricted Suburban -- general Suburban — Estate/Rural Brazos Streets 0 Planning Area City Parcels F- Cain Rd M � 0 -a- j 3:1111 10 Draft May 7, 2010 Ma p 3.4 Thoroughfare Type Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Avenue, 4 Lane — Mixed Use Urban — Urban General Suburban — Restricted Suburban Estate/Rural Boulevard, 4 Lane — Mixed Use Urban — Urban General Suburban Restricted Suburban Estate/Rural Boulevard, 6 Lane Mixed Use Urban Urban General Suburban Restricted Suburban Estate/Rural Freeway/Expressway Street, 2 Lane — Mixed Use Urban Urban General Suburban — Restricted Suburban EstatelRural 1 City Parcels 00 A. A. E L Cain Rd f=- -q Rick Prairie 1 1,600 730 Iry Y MiiG - - hop - - 1 l�tltlllLl1 l' (j(tr/rr� /� + rBal Ines; Dr 111L1+4J r -=T- MMI TrI gElIII_I t I _ r� r- _rI�u T. Map 3.5 Intersection Evaluation Areas -j - CIOi- } Central , 'c .• ,�, - College Station Neighborhood Plan -�_ 1' : is `�•{`'� >) .s- Lg Tl M ft fYIay 7, 2010 f0*% N.,#8 Intersection Study OPlanning Area = City Parcels Cain Rd i N E — ILI 1,500 7 i0 - Ma p 3.6 -a [ 2009 - Street Maintenance 1 ti Morgans Ln Central College Station - Neighborhood plan a .F= —jMileD� I I I 11H Draft May 7, 2010 Brazos Streets Number of Work hiders =1 — =2 _3 ® —4 -5 _6 — 8 =16 0 Planning Area a Nye ces _I] I ►.. �IIII 111 Lin 11111111 11111111 s NLIsIilNLILIIIINL� 11� �111�1111r i11I1111 N� IIIIIIIIIIIII111� �11 NL 1111 �IIIIHI ��IIIIII L�11 1 Ly111L� Jill u M I 0 A Dra ft May 7, 2010 Ma p 3.9 Bus Transit Network Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Scheduled Bus Stop —TAM U Bus Route - Texas Aggies = TAMU Bus Route - Fish Camp District Bus Route Planning Area 1 !City Parcels C E N T R A L C O L L E G E S T A T I O N N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N Central College Station residents expressed a strong interest in learning more about sustainability. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the variety of opportunities that exist to encourage sustainable living practices and strategies to help promote and educate residents about the benefits of sustainable living. The goal of this chapter is to outline strategies and actions that will increase awareness and participation in resource conservation efforts. There are several considerations in relation to sustainability. Specifically, this area is impacted by the following issues: recycling, water and energy conservation, stormwater management, and alternative transportation. Recycling Recycling is an important component to conservation efforts. By recycling basic household items, residents are preserving landfill space and keeping potentially harmful items out of existing landfills. Recycling also helps to extend the life of scarce resources, like oil, which is utilized to make many plastics and reduces energy waste that is needed to produce new items from raw materials. In maximizing space in municipal landfills, the City can utilize existing infrastructure for longer periods of time and minimize capital costs of purchasing land and constructing additional landfills. The City of College Station currently offers curbside recycling collection and a E-waste dlup-off center to its residents. The City recycles newspaper, magazines, white paper, aluminum and steel cans, # 1 and #2 plastic, clear and brown glass, and lead acid car batteries curbside. Recyclables are required to be pre-sorted and are not collected if not sorted correctly. To participate in curbside recycling, residents sign-up online to receive bags. Recycling is picked up once a week on the same clay as brush and bulky pickup. This service is only provided to residences with curbside trash pickup which includes all single-family and duplex residences. Additionally, the City provides annual curbside Christmas tree recycling. City participation in curbside recycling is around 60%, but no data exists to monitor neighborhood level participation. Drop-off service is available at the City of Bryan Drive-in Recycle Center located at Wal-Mart on Villa Maria, and at the Texas A&M University Physical Plant on South College. DRAT,"I' 05-23-10 CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 During 2002, a multi -family recycling pilot program was conducted by the City. This program provided valuable Information about the cost efficiency of multi -family recycling. The program utilized two different methods of providing on -site drop-off containers at different apartment complexes in town. Both methods had high rates of contamination which raise the cost of providing the service because of the labor involved in sorting and decontaminating the recyclable materials. On - site recycling for apartments will not be financially feasible for College Station until such a time that single -stream recycling can be made available. Single -stream recycling would allow for all recyclable materials to be bagged and picked up together and sorted at a separate facility. This service is unlikely to happen without partnerships with the City of Bryan and Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency (BVSWMA) to make the service cost-effective. Recycling of white goods, or large appliances with freon, is available of the BVSWMA landfill on Rock Prairie Road with a charge for freon extraction. There. is also a drop-off location for used motor oil and oil filters. Recycled motor oil can be reprocessed into industrial burner fuel or refined into gasoline, home heating oil, or new motor oil. The City also offers a Borrow -A -Bin program for large events, where groups can borrow up to eight recycling bins for free to offer recycling opportunities at large gatherings like picnics or other neighborhood events. The Cash for Trash program rewards residents that participate in the recycling program. Once a quarter, the City monitors addresses on a randomly drawn street and those houses that recycle that week are entered into a drawing for $250. Composting Composting is a second method to increase sustainability through the reuse of existing materials. Green waste, such as food and yard waste which make up a large portion of the waste stream, are kept out of the landfill and utilized to create compost. The process of composting utilizes natural decomposition processes to creole nutrient -rich soil that can be used in gardening and lawn maintenance without creating additional waste. Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency (BVSWMA) offers Master Composting Classes to all residents of the Brazos Valley. This program offers College Station residents more in- depth information about proper composting. Currently, the class costs $15, is offered twice a year and has a maximum capacity of 15 people per class. The fee also includes a compost bin. The BVSWMA website DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan also offers step-by-step instructions on how to construct your own vermicomposting bin which utilizes worms to create the compost. In addition to these programs, as a College Station Utility (CSU) customer, residents are also offered two free green waste drop-offs a month at the City of Bryan Compost Facility. This service is included as part of the residential sanitation fee. In addition to drop-off, the facility also offers the purchase of compost for reduced rates. Hazardous Waste Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency offers a Bi-Annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection at no charge to all residents of the Brazos Valley. This event offers the opportunity to safely dispose of harmful chemicals and products and without harm to the environment. Residents can find out about this service by checking their monthly utility bill insert, keeping up with municipal news on the website (www.cstx.gov) or watching local media. Recycling Strategies: ® Increase neighborhood notification processes (S1.1) - Develop a neighborhood recycling communication program to ensure that organizations are getting up-to-date information about existing programs that are offered, and also provide information back to the neighborhood about the effectiveness of their programs. Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (S1.2) - Work with established neighborhood organizations to develop a standing green committee that works on developing projects that encourage recycling, participation in green events, and promoting sustainable living practices. ® Program Continuation (S1.3) - Continue to promote existing programs like Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Master Composting Classes. Work with neighborhood organizations to provide more effective communication about programs and encourage more participation. ® ongoing evaluation and indicator program (S1.4) Begin tracking recycling participation rates at a neighborhood level to provide baseline data for evaluating program effectiveness. Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (S1.5) - Explore opportunities to create a community gardening project that would allow neighborhood organizations to utilize public, spaces like parks to host community gardens. ® Program Continuation (S1.6) Continue to evaluate feasibility of providing drop-off location for multi -family and commercial recycling. ® Program Continuation (S1.7) Continue to evaluate fiscal feasibility of operating a single -source recycling program to allow residents in apartments the opportunity to recycle. ® Program Continuation (S1.8) Continue to contact new residential utility customers to educate about recycling programs and encourage participation in curbside recycling. Provide information about recycling opportunities on clearinghouse website (See Chapter 2, Neighborhood Integrity). CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 Utility Conservation atio n Water a er Conservation Waer co ter nservation ervat' ion isa large part of Bust ' na ' lit y, while e wafer isa c e College - e e Station relie awnfromrenewableresour s on water d aquifers. Texas aquifers have been an _ abundant supply of potable water for the state; however, production from aquifers ® - • - -• - • o -• - • - • must be carefully monitored so that the • • ° _ • • • • • ®- o - • rate of extraction of the water does not - o- o o ® - • • exceed the rate of recharge. The City currently has capacity to produce 23 • • • • - - - • - • • - o - oo -® million gallons of drinking water each day o ® ®- ® -o - - • • • ° ' with seven different wells. During drought • ®• • • • ® o _ ® conditions and dry summer months, daily ®_ o . • - . • ®- o - • o o water usage has reached full capacity of the existing system. To increase the existing - • • • --o • o- • - -• • - • capacity, the City currently has a new well - • • - • - • • - • - o - under construction to provide additional •- • -o • o • o • o o- - - • capacity; however, water conservation is o • o - •o . • ••-• • - still the best method to ®� ® - - ®- ® ° - ° • provide additional capacity to the water supply and o - • - - continue to protect the City's wafer -" o ® o o ® o _ ® ® o- ®® -o - sources from over -extraction. •- • • o -® _ Water usage is monitored by College Station Utilities on a daily basis. Summer months have the highest water usage due _ • • - • • • •o o to irrigation and pool usage. Overall, the ° - • • • • • • majority of the Central College Station _ _ '_ o " ° - "• • Planning area has average water usage, _° ® ° ® - ° • • ° o •-o o • •o but two areas — Southwood Forest and . • o o - -o Brandon Heights — have significantly higher ®_ _ o • • • . o o _ - ®o ®®® than average water usage (See Existing • • • • ® ®o• ® _ o 0 o Conditions Report, Water Consumption), - • - -• - o o •- • • o generally because of larger lot and house `. ° O ° • • - • o • • o - ® - • - size and the presence of pools. Map 4.1, ° _ _ _ ' • • • • - • • -• - Water Consumption illustrates water usage t> : -_r .', - • - • o - o • o - o - • o ® for properties in the Central College - • ® o• - o •- o •• •- Station Area. is ;:,;,:�",�:�> - - • o • • - 0 0 _: ;>;;; ,>. • • _ - - • - • • Improving water conservation Improving wafer conservation is not only important to preserving future capacity of the City's water resources, but also can save residents money. Additionally, by preserving the capacity in our existing wells, residents can help lower capital expenditures for additional wells and expand the current supply. In order to help improve water conservation efforts, the City has instituted a tiered water rate DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan system that places higher rates on monthly usage that is over 10,000 gallons. To improve City water conservation, the City has invested in the development of a grey water irrigation system at Veterans Park to irrigate its athletic fields. Residents can also capture water run-off and utilize rainwater harvesting to offset the need to irrigate by installing rain barrels. Residential rain barrels are generally attached to a home's gutter system and collect rain water That can .t, then be utilized to irrigate gardens and lawns. To encourage investrnenl in water conservation, College Station Utilities currently offers rebate programs for the purchase of rain barrels and low -flow toilets. The City also works with the top 1 `Jd residential water users to schedule water audits and ensure that water resources are being used as efficiently as possible. Energy Conservation College Station Utilities (CSU) is the sole energy provider in Central College Station. CSU is a wholesale power purchaser with no generation capabilities; the City's power supply is purchased from American Electric Power. In 2009, Central College Station averaged 34.73 kilowatt hours per account per day, slightly more than the city- wide daily average of 30 kilowatt hours per day. Total average usage ranged from a monthly low in March of 22.23 kilowatt hours to a high of 56.39 kilowatt hours in July. The highest energy users were in areas with larger homes like Southwood Forest, Edelweiss Estates, and Brandon Heights (See also Existing Conditions Report, Electric Consumption). Improving Energy Conservation Conserving energy resources can also have an impact on household budgets. Energy consumption in Texas averages nine percent of household after-tax income (2009 estimate, Source: www.americaspower.org). Reducing household energy waste not only lowers individual costs, but preserves natural resources that are used to create electricity. Heating and cooling a home typically has the most impact on energy consumption. Installing energy efficient HVAC systems and utilizing programmable thermostats can help to reduce residential energy consumption. Other methods to reduce energy include installing DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan ® Provide effective organization support and training opportunities (S2.4) - Promote and education neighbors about water and energy audits through neighborhood organizations. • Community Partnership Opportunities (52.5) - Work with community partners like Keep Brazos Beautiful, Brazos County Agricultural Extension, and other organizations to develop a residential xeriscaping and native lawn planting list for area residents to use as a guide when landscaping. Work with local landscape retailers to make lists available. Realign Neighborhood Partnership Program (S2.6) - Incorporate green seminar participation as a part of Neighborhood Partnership program participation responsibilities. ® Streamline City permitting processes (52.7) - Explore opportunities and fiscal feasibility to reduce or eliminate permitting fees for LEED certifiable homes, solar voltaic panel installation, and other green building upgrades. • Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (52.8) - Begin tracking utility use, Wind Watts participation, utility audits, and rebate participation through neighborhood indicator program to obtain a better knowledge of program participation and effectiveness. ® Identify opportunities to expand funding sources (S2.9) - Explore opportunities and fiscal impact of property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing to incent local investment in clean energy alternatives. Program Continuation (52.10) Continue to monitor water use for high users and work with users to conduct a water audit. Program Continuation (S2.11) Continue to utilize tiered water rates as a water conservation measure. Stormwater Management Stormwater management plays a role in maintaining healthy streams and creeks, preserving natural habitats, and ensuring safe water supplies for downstream users. Stormwater management aims to improve the quality of stormwater run-off, or water from a rain event that flows over the ground. During and after a rain event, stormwater can pick up debris, fertilizers, chemicals, and other household pollutants as it flows across both pervious and impervious cover and pollute local strearns and creeks. Under the regulation of the Clean Water Act of 1972, which is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," the City has begun implementing programs and practices to control polluted storm water runoff. The program intends to eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable; protect water quality,- satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act; and manage storm water activities through the Storm Water Management Plan. The Plan includes public education, participation and outreach, pollution prevention, construction site runoff control and post construction site runoff control. Residential property owners can help improve stormwater quality by reducing the use of chemicals in maintaining landscape, properly > f Concrete Paver Block Lattice Block CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 •ti �_ Increased stormwater can also have a detrimental impact on the health of natural corridors. Development and impervious cover (i.e., rooftops, roads, driveways) increase stormwater run-off into these Castellated Block corridors without the opportunity to utilize the ground to naturally filter many common pollutants. While much of the area within Central College Station is built out, minimizing to .t the negative impact on the existing floodplain and drainage ways reduces } flooding and improves the quality of the floodplain so that it will operate effectively to Grass I Gravel Paver Mat convey floodwaters without harm to the community. Existing floodplain areas in the neighborhood are identified in Chapter 1, Community Character. - Residents can also assist in managing st w - orm G ter runoff b limiting mlti n additions diti on Y s to h or11 es g that add ro ofto p ar ea and b Y in srall' p e rv' o us ma ter' als for n g p ati os si dew a Iks , an d , driveways. Existing Conditions Report outlines average lot coverage subdivision •on '1 this neighborhood. Finding way to reduce the pe"centa e of impervious tot coverage reduces storlWatP" runoff and potential contamination. anli nati O t1. S for mw a ter Management e met 1t Strategies: ies• Provide effective organization support and training opportunities Include stormwater management education in other sustainable neighborhood education ro rams. p g Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs (53.2) Develop promotional activities for neighborhoods like a - creek cleun-up or a chemical free fertilizer campaign to increase awareness and participation in stormwatar management practices. Program Continuation (S3.3) - Continue to monitor water quality in neighborhood creeks and include in neighborhood indicator program. Coordinated Public Facility Investment (53.4) - Where road diets are encouraged in Chapter 3, Mobility, consider the utilization of rain gardens and other stormwater management techniques to reduce pavement and provide additional opportunities for a water filtration. DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Floodplain Management Policy (S3.5) - Create a comprehensive floodplain management program as identified in Chapter 1, Community Character, to create standards that relate to better site design and stormwater management for floodplain protection. Increase neighborhood notification processes (S3.6) - Work with Neighborhood Partnership organizations to include neighborhood residents in developing additional stormwater management standards. Alternative Transportation and Land Use Transportation and land use also impact sustainability. The ability to walk or ride a bicycle to nearby destinations not only relieves congestion on local roads but reduced energy consumption and encourages exercise. Promoting alternative transportation options and efficient land use patterns is an important component to responsible use of natural resources. Because of the suburban style land use pattern of the Central College Station neighborhood, the alternative transportation network is disjointed. A lack of sidewalks on cul-de-sacs, gaps in bicycle lanes and sidewalks, lack of destinations, and limited bus service makes vehicular travel the preferred method of transportation for most households. Future land use designations exist to provide more dense housing options along the perimeter of the neighborhood (See Chapter 1, Community Character). Because the majority of properties in these areas are built out, existing opportunities to increase density are mostly limited to redevelopment. While the existing land use pattern presents obstacles to a more fully sustainable neighborhood, a majority of the residents of Central College Station live within walking or biking distance of commercial or retail uses or a park or school. These areas serve as neighborhood centers where it is likely residents will interact with each other. Providing a complete alternative transportation network, and promoting the use of these areas as neighborhood centers will positively impact neighborhood sustainability. *chapter 3, Mobility focuses on the three primarily alternative transportation networks — walking, bicycling, and bus transit. Noighborhoods can also organize to promote the management of these systems, as well as other methods like carpooling, carsharing, or hosting a No Drive day for their residents. Alternative Transportation and Land Use Strategies: CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABILITY I DRAFT 05-23-10 DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Community Partnership Opportunities (S5.4) - Work with community organizations like Keep Brazos Beautiful to bring education and other sustainability opportunities to neighborhoods. Ongoing evaluation and indicator program (S5.5) - Create a green score program that rates neighborhood sustainability through sustainable living practices. Program Continuation (S5.6) - Continue to fund and promote other existing education prograrns. c I � z a Q� 5�+A3J".wLLl Cain Rd RII�PI-+.w 1 LA IM tv •. ' J LA Lj C]r ± .. �a _-2 2 4 J 1,500 7 i0 -� - Ma p 4.1 Water Consumption By Property 1roD,r � r �TI rvr�� i fr r f- ►vkTreep >. Central r -- ( tO l l r ITS 1 �7 r a -Morgans Ln {IT � College Station fj ._1� 1 }`i Bb'nitDr �yb�,jlj°�v'rLj z i�r x Neighborhoodflan T-r_-_- _i T- L >~" - ' .Tti: _ -y `..,, _ w,. � - /� . T 5 .�' - •� .'1-� 5:�; -�^ Sly �.J'l ;�'I. `l-� f--,,�•r'. h %. r_JI,��W-.-_S- iY�rrq/�,'`'•yttlk4�S ..... OTT --� . tip; �-.•r%^�l _ +mil I r lot _ '�•-�,�`i 1 f--i-� —��� 41►� ~ L�ffffff _ ipytitsgB �•-�a� Draft May 7, 2010 Planning Area [� Property Boundary High Low C E N T R A L O L L E G E S T A T 1 O N N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N Timeframe Implementation of the Central College Station Neighborhood Plan is anticipated to take five to seven years. Figure 5.1, Neighborhood Plan Implementation, outlines 25 strategies that must be completed to meet the goals of the plan. The plan implementation is broken down into three time frames - short term (1 to 2 years), mid-term (3 to 4 years), and long term (5 to 7 years). Additionally, there are some items in the Plan that may not be completed before the end of the planning horizon. Priorities were placed on items relating to neighborhood integrity because of the interest placed on this subject area from the public and the Neighborhood Resource Team. Additionally, because of current budget constraints, prioritization for the short terra projects was also placed on items that can be achieved with existing resources. A short -terra priority list for individual tasks is also incorporated as Appendix C of this Plan. This list will be evaluated annually as part of the on- going review and evaluation of the plan and reflects only those tasks underway in the current implementation period of the plan. Implementation and Coordination Roles Collaboration will need to occur on a number of levels in order to accomplish what is recommended in this Plan. This includes neighborhood organizations as well as other government and community agencies. Outlined are several partners and the types of actions in which they should participate. City Council will take the lead in the following areas: Adopt and amend the Plan by ordinance after receiving recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission; + Support and act as champions for the Plan; + Adopt new or amended ordinances and regulations to implement the Plan; Consider and approve the funding commitments that will be required to implement the Plan; Provide final approval of projects and activities with as costs during the budget process; Adopt and amend policies that support and help implement the Plan; and + Provide policy direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission, other appointed City boards and commissions and City staff. URAl"I' 05.23-10 DRAFT 05-23-to I Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Organization, College Station ISD, and the Brazos Transit District for the implementation of programs involved with overlapping interests. Funding The availability of funding will play an integral role in the success of the Plan. Due to current budget constraints, an emphasis was placed on developing strategies that can be implemented largely with existing Staff and financial resources; however, implementing these strategies has an overall cost that will impact other programs and responsibilities. It is estimated that the implementation of the Plnfullotmemployees, City with existing resources will equate to approximately 7 dispersed through a variety of existing positions within the organization. Some strategies will have additional costs to implement, and estimated costs are provided in Figure 5.1. The primary sources for funding opportunities are outlined below: General Fund - The most common source of funding for municipalities is through the General Fund. This fund consists of a collection of property taxes, sales taxes, fines, and fees. This fund usually covers the day to day operational needs of the City such as salaries, supplies, etc. ® Capital Projects Fund - Capital project funds typically help maintain, improve, or construct new infrastructure such as streets, parks, trails, other public facilities, and associated land acquisition. This fund typically consists of debt service funds (general obligation bonds) and special revenue funds (like Drainage Utility District funds) as described on the following page. ® his is a municipal bond approved General Obligation Bonds -T by voter referendum that is secured through the taxing and borrowing power of a jurisdiction. It is repaid by levy through a municipal pledge. Bonds can be used for land acquisition and/or construction of facilities. Some communities pass referendums specifically for open space, watershed protection, and trail projects. Street, bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway projects are typically implemented through this funding source. ® Drainage Utility District - The City currently uses the existing revenue from the drainage utility fee for capital construction projects that improve drainage. It is n flat fee system and can be used for acquisition and maintenance of floodways and f{oodplains in areas that are directly affected by drainage related problems. Funds are currently used for minor unscheduled drainage projects that arise throughout the year. ® Public Improvement Districts - These districts use property assessments to finance public improvement projects within a specific area, or district. Properties within the designated area are generally assessed proportional to the assessed value of their property. The additional funds would be utilized to fund a specified public improvement project like landscaping, distinctive lighting, pedestrian ways, and mass transportation facilities. ® istricts -These districts use taxes Tax Increment Financing D generated from redevelopment through private investment to finance public improvement projects. An example within the City CHAPTER 5 — IMPLEMENTATION DRAFT t--2,_ t� � o is theWolf Pen Creek TIF which ends in 2010. New districts could be utilized to finance additional improvements r e m e nt sbeing g proposed 0 se d ' inthan e planning nlr g area. Sidewalk e w al k Fund -- cl Thispotential 0 n tr al fund wo d uld ul d allow w for funds nd s that t would otherwise go to the construction of a sidewalk in a developing p g area, where it may not be fully IY utilized e d by the I'G toins s e go ad into tead 0 a fund d to[- themaintenance aI�t en a n c e or ' costr uc nstruction tlo n of sidewalks d ew GIks inthat at area a of the e Cit t y. State e and F d Federal er cal Govern er n mefs ra /G ni s nts Funding ' n c opportunities por t uni ' estlestotefrof and federal ov ' g ei f 1f 11e t1 t are also 0 available, ' la b lepar particularly 'nthe of tr ansportation an s 0 It ' to n an d n d th The environment. ese s of1 funds areprimarily r ' t Y available ' IG bl e through u h grants, nt s but .. g n � 1 a 1 alsob e - �r 0 u h through specific cl flc g budget p d e t a r O �' rl ' g Gt I p on p s. i Often, n grant a n t funding d un 'g n includes u de s local al m a tchl ' n reu' Ir e me r its g quirements. overall, G II the , e e ' stu at e a tl dl ' ad ' or �GI cost (beyond - existing ' SJIf funding) ' ' g d In g) of ImI e m en plementing p tl r1 the an ' n Is g a p r ' plpp 0 xln at el 1 3 0 00 0 Y 0. $ Co1 str u ctl 'or co nstruction sts s were r e r fo infr astructure ' crs tr u ctur e ro e w s wer e e projects based a on construction uct' o1 Costs fS fo r similar to those OS e presented 'nthis pGnpIusGnadditional 2 0% 0 deS' g1 costs S whe re ere pr o r' at e Co appropriate. sts st s we re eadjusted for % ' a3 annu al in ual �flat flation to n foreach h year ofthe plan. an .Pr0 J ec isthatarescheduIedfor implementation beyond 0 nd thescope pe ofthisPlan donothave est estimated It ate d costs st ' s associated. so at e d. T h e over I al cost for 0 the e implementation r r'rarilY based on constructionCOStsfonnproved transportation infrastructure -bi k ela ne n e' ad0ute construction orretrofits,n r sidewalks, w aI . s andtraffic c safety et Ypra1ects. Aport'or 0f thisfigure ' d gur Is made up warrant ra n t study d Yimplementot'on co sts. S. The co�str uct ' to n nstruction costs st sf ors' gn all Z e d - or signed g 1 e dI11GrSCtlOns ma kes G ke s u roughly hl 2 p 5 0 f g the e overall er GI I cost tl ' Ta es m at e but t Ynot be necessary es s l Y dependent n de nt upon - the outcome of the ewarrant st u d Y.D e co u Due 0 tl1 st st of theimprovements rec 0 mf en - commended d d e in r1 this his are a, a ,tteImplemontat'onoftheSe it ems el 11 S has been er 1 slat ed ated for act' or during n gthe fiveto seven Year implementation 0 d bec period aus e of ause theneed dt finance 0 0 ar �c e th0 u rough bo nds. gI Where re possible, bl e alternative rnGt' v e fi u la nCI' nancing U ' n g like Public Imro v e provement nt p me Districts I ct s will I be explored pI ore d t 0 ex a n d pand p funding n d' n goppornities. Administrative Costs s ' Currently, ently, the administration of the plan can be absorbed into the existing organization, but as more neighborhood district, s Ict, and corridor plans are completed, additional staffing will be necessary to properly manage the additional programming t g g that is recommended in this other and similar plans. Additionally, if funding is not readily 4 available, Particular strategies May not t b ' e im plemented, m le me nt e d p which I C in f1 turn ' m p ac istheabrl.tY i . to achieve thestated d J 0 aIS of this plan. Tasks s s DRAFT 0s-23-io l Central College Station Neighborhood Plan implementation period. A final document, Appendix D, outlines all of the tasks associated with the plan and their current scheduled implementation, costs, and funding sources. In addition to the tasks outlined in these figures, there are also over 30 existing programs and projects that are used to implement the Plan. Currently, these programs and projects are already programmed into the existing budget, and should remain funded in order to fully execute the Plan. In prioritizing specific capital expenditures, the first focus will rernain health and safety of all College Station citizens. Where health and safety are not the purpose of the recommended improvement, priority will be placed on projects that focus on enhancing owner -occupied areas within the neighborhood. Ongoing Evaluation As part of any planning process, ongoing evaluation must be incorporated into the implementation program. Continued evaluation of conditions and opportunities in a neighborhood allows a plan to adapt and remain relevant over the course of the Plan's life. Successful evaluation incorporates the establishment of descriptive indicators that track the efficacy of the proposed tasks, understanding changed conditions, and potential reprioritization of tasks and funding based on the findings of the evaluation. To ensure the ongoing relevance of the Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, the Plan should be evaluated annually as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan review. Plan updates should include the following components: ® Updated existing conditions; ® Progress toward reaching goals, as determined through specific indicators; ® Report on any completed tasks; ® Status update of all tasks underway for the current implementation period; ® Outline of remaining tasks scheduled the remainder of the current implementation period; ® Potential changes to costs; and ® Recommendations for changes in implementation schedule or task list. As part of the annual evaluation, neighborhood representatives, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council should be involved in the review of the Plan. RM w+z ,. , `�, r '���7 u•.,3 �,E�. §�<: ; 4.: )�. �a,k�'}_6,�u4 "�.,x;�y..zyy�,f.1'kz:. �t x, ;� �'. .?a :�. r �� r `?5�`"i'swa 5z�. tc` r a Y'" a i % `A/, ^` . ' u3 y:. `Yh" i ! m NIA f �4t�A, ,�.. .�.a ilf.. .. »�.cw'�).:, ".. , k�M. a{N °',� ,.. .'r .�. . ....�';, ..,..,. �... ,h •,sa1,.�,,. ���.. .�,. .` �1 r4 zt:,.<ut. x { S i ' Amend Community Assets and Image Corridors Map I 1 PDS I $0 0 I Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways Master Plan Amendments I 2 PDS I $0 0 x S2 and Ix I S3 Community Character and Future Land Use Amendments ( 6 PDS I ( I $0 I 0 I x x x S4 Community Partnership Opportunities 6 PDS x I $0 ( 0.25 x x S5 Corstruct context -sensitive street improvements 4 PDS-PW-CIP x x 1 $340,000 ' 0.15 I x' I x x I x x I S6 I Coordinated Public Facility Investment 16 PDS-PW-CIP x l $805,000 1 0.5 I x l x x x x ` S7 Coordinated Public Facility Maintenance 3 PDS-PW I , $0 I 0.1 x x I x x l S8 Corridor and Gateway Image Plan 3 PDS-PARD I x x $100,000 1 x, I x S9 Create and adopt zoning districts 2 PDS $400 0.5 x I x S 10 Create and adopt zoning overlays 3 PDS x $200 0.1 x I x S1 1 Create proactive code enforcement procedures 5 PDS $0 0.15 x I x S12 I Expend Neighborhood Grant opportunities 4 PDS I $0 0.1 I x I x S13 I Feasibility Studies 2 PDS-ED $0 I 0.25 ' x S14 I Flood plain Management Policy I 1 PDS-PW-CIP x $0 0.25 x I x ( x I S15 Identify opportunities to expand funding sources 15 PDS-ED $0 0.2 x x S16 Increase neighborhood notification processes I 6 PDS-PD I $7,500 ( I 0.25 x x ) S17 Initiate Rezonings I 7 PDS I $10,400 , 1.5 x x I x x l S18 Ongoing evaluation and indicator program 8 I PDS x I x i , $0 0.5 , x S19 Online Presence 1 1 PDS I $0 I 0.1 ' ` i x x x S20 Progrom Continuation 23 ALL x' $0 0 I x I S21 Property Acquisition 2 I PDS I ` $0 0.1 I I x x S22 Provide effective organization support and training opportunities I 18 PDS x $0 0.4 x I x x S23 I Provide Technical Support for New Neighborhood Programs 10 PDS x x $1,000 0.25 x x f , x S24 I Realign Neighborhood Partnership Program 5 PDS I x ( $0 0.25 x f x I I x I S25 I Streamline City permitting processes 2 PDS $0 I 0.1 C E N T R A L 1 C O L L E G E S T A T 1 O N N E I G H B 0 R H O O D P L A N Southwood Valley began development in what is now the Central c_oiiege Station Planning area in 1974 by the Area Progress Corporation led by William Fitch. The master plan for Southwood Valley encompassed 371 acres and provided a mix of commercial, single-family, multi -family, and institutional uses for the area south of the core of College Station. Over the course of the next 35 years, Central College Station has grown to encompass 1,450 acres. Central College Station has over 4,800 housing units. Overall, 12 residential subdivisions, and a portion of Edelweiss Estates are located in the planning area. Figure EC.1 Central College Station Subdivisions Southwood Terrace 312 1976 " West "Ridge 150 1981 Regency South 31 1983 villas;an the Rio Grande '" 14.:'; a.983 y Southwood Forest 106 1987 Over 11,500 College Station residents now call the Central College Station planning area home - 12.4% of all College Station residents. This is a 50 o increase in residents since 1990. Age Central College Station does not follow the overall age distribution of the City as a whole, which is primarily influenced by the large number of college -aged residents in the City. Brandon'Neighfs, 480 " While the overall percentage of college -aged residents Elm Crest 31 1994 fell between the 1990 and 2000 Census in College Station, ` 37 '1994 ! the same perr..Pntage increased in Central College Oal brook Valley - Station. However, the Central College Station population Edelweiss Estates 248 199e has a much lower percentage of college -aged studonts Brittain Court„ 10 1997 " compared to the entire City -- in 2000, 51 % of the City's t jJOpUICItI0I1 was between the ages of 18 an Steeplechase �.._....,_._,.-,._....._...._......_......_...I___._. 268 1999 compared to 3110 in Central College Station. Central College Station also has a higher percentage of primary Source: City of College Station, P&DS (2009) d econdary school -aged children than College an s Station as a whole (See Figure EC.2, 1990 and 2000 Census Comparison, at the end of this appendix). Other statistics: The educational attainment of residents in Central College Station over the age of 25 is similar to the City as a whole, with a high percentage of individuals with a bachelor degree or higher. DIZAF'1' 05-23-10 APPENDIX A— EXISTING CONDITIONS I DRAFT 05-23-10 ® Average family and household size is larger in Central College Station than in the City as a whole. ® Central College Station has lower vacancy rates than the City as a whole. © Central College Station has a lower percentage of renter - occupied housing units than the City as a whole. ® The percentage of owner -occupied housing rose between 1990 and 2000 in Central College Station. ® Median rent and ownership costs are higher than the City overall in the western side of Central College Station where housing has been constructed more recently, Figure EC.3 whereas rents and ownership Central College Station Population costs are lower than the City overall in older sections onY the east side of Rio Grande Boulevard. 1990:1ri; 3360 8,`26 ® Average family and per 20000r 4,454 11,142 capita income are higher in 2009.(2)" '4,882. ,.. - 11... Central College Station than 526 in the City as a whole, but Source: 1 - US Census Bureau, 2- City of not the highest area of the College Station (2009) City. (Complete Census Data can be found in Figure EC:.2) Community Character As of 1990, 3.360 housing units had been built in Central College Station, housing over 8,000 residents of College Station. These residents accounted for over 15% of the total population of College Station. By 2000, 1,100 new housing units were added and the folal population grew to over 11,000. Since; Figure EC.4 the 2000 Census, the Central College Station Zoning planning area has reached near build -out,.. with 2,228 single-family I��'m,.y "�".""K,-'xc�-w{zo: ��R.:..'t':�i�:e`��rss •ry} residences, 2,42.E duplex 71 R-1:,'Single Family.,Residential _:.., 80,1.83 , ' 57:7% and n"rulti--family units, 63,890 R-4, Multi -Family 156.95 1 1.3% square feet of -. _ ....... institutional uses, and C-1, General Commercial..l.: .1.19.63 : 8.6%, 1,152,459 square feet of R-2,Duplex Residential 103.7 7.5% commercial and office space (Brazos County R-6,_ High Density Multi-Famil y . 70.04 5.0% Appraisal District, 2009) A-O, Agricultural Open 50,08 3.6% Zoning & Land Use Zoning Central College Station is primarily a neighborhood of single-family residences, and as such, the zoning distribution reflects this. Figure EC.4, Central C-21 Cornimercial-Industrial` _` ;39.81 2:9% ; PDD, Planned Developrnent 16.23 1.2% A-R, Administrafive/Professional 15.75 1.17. C-3, Light Commercial 12.79 0.9T M-1, Light Industrial, 2.39. 0.2%. R-3, Townhouse 0.87 0.1 % Total 11390 . 10070. : Source: City of College Station, P&DS (2009) DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan 1 College Station Zon in g breaks down thezoning g classifications oflandin 'ons `_ Ia ations 0 f nin depicts 'cts the loci l. Map EC. 1, Zoning aIC College Station. g Central those zoning districts. Comprehensive Pion - -' - The City's most recent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in May, 2009. The �� t Plan Co , on ncept Grt _ f the area s p planning - p g p Neighborhood ConserVatroil = 2 . 4 . Y.. 5 .. (Neighborhood Plan Area), Figure EC.5, , Central College Station Comprehensive Urban 224.53 19.4% Plan Designations of the following page t r, a,I.Proteced...:.5_.. .1:.2N.......,::.°i °,..7: %.....":_ : breaks down the land use classifications -° General Commercial 113 04 9.8% in Central College Station. Map EC.2, Community Character and Future Land Suburbon:Commeraal Use shows the locations of those Natural, Reserved 35.93 3.1% designations ` dristifufiibridl/Pub,lic:,. ; .;:;: 2,41.4'°:.:::..-..::::..:. Non -conforming uses General Suburban 15.32 1.3% Pr ent of land in the Central Nearly 100 {.� . c T©tpl o<; College Station Planning area is conforming t0 the existing zoning on the _ ®-®- •.�® ®o• ''`` -`' `"' one exception is the rt . The0 p operty. eY pratthe intersection o f � ma rk o n Lo n mire Apartments located L I d g G e d in veloped LorgmireDrive and Brothers Boulevard. This e rtY dev to p ine - I Co mn �e rc IGI. A tit 1e tl - Gene ral '1 G zoned C ' zo n , 't Is 19 77 and G or tion 0 fl p - ; usein G commercial me rc IGI Y was a�a allowable me nt m u It'-fm 'I velopment, of dev elo p - I Clegally C11 y 1 O n -co of on min g w currently zoning g district, how ve r , it IsnoY iur es would notbe allowed we d rtm e nt structures e apartment on ofthe use.Any expansion ga1S' in accordance with the currentUnified Devetopn en t Ordinance pan c e (see - -coof or1'l1 zoning in orm a nc e forc11 no 1 g g n Conformance Map E C.3 Zoning g locations) ion s. pehe ns•l y P nt Comprehensive or ns to its current el t also conforms property Y 0 f 0 Y The majority rit p G Plan designation; however,thereare 192singIe_famitY lots nc 42 ra Ic areas dueto their location d' n c'al lots designated 1Gte Jc s natural commercial le within h' n theflo oc p t G'n. Als 0 the p Ir nn 'n J ar ea has s G nu m ber 0 fs single- fam'Iyres.dences thatare designated as urban,tYS' typically such uses family i e C P. gall -designated areas, however, would no t be found In urk J _ nt residence den c e Pdo�'na�tl student to d in predominantly ' l _mASa"Plocated Y particular a '.%: br onforming uses an ce for all non -conforming ea (See MaE C. 4 Use Conformance ara p p ;! ,ems„i,l:•1>s�'r 7= . epelS've Plan). based o� t�e Comprehensive �) - S n :1 4 Vacant Land bA ce Is as vacan tl en t' ies 25 parcels Appraisal ra' al district identifies The 3"aZOS County YA ` ese, ese only Y 16 are the Central planningOfth, buildable The remaining lotsGredra'naJofGCIllfacilities, fl00 pla.nor - .,3.-L.. ant property is ble vac Y uilda F" amount p The total amour other common areas. t P-o ert ng g area). Map E C.5 Vacant p Y 40.69 acres {2.8% of the planni _ I n the tannin area. ert g cant Prop p sofva Y locations p depicts icts the loco p APPENDIX A- EXISTING CONDITIONS I DRAFT os-23-10 Recent Development Activity The following development has taken place in the last year in and around Central College Station: Wal-mart (expansion/redevelopment) - Wal-mart, located at the intersection of Texas Avenue South and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South recently purchased adjacent property previously occupied by Albertsons. The company is currently in the process of expanding their operations at the site and joining the two buildings to create space for a Super Wal-mart, additional retailer space, and warehousing for Wal- mart. Esperenza (expansion) - The nursing home located on Rock Prairie Road adjacent to Southwood Forest is currently undergoing an expansion to add 27 beds. There is no reconfiguration of driveways, and traffic is not anticipated to increase due to the development. The site is restricted by residential buffers and commercial height limitations to minimize the visual impact of the development on adjacent residential uses. Campus Village - This properly is located outside the planning area on the north side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway, on the commercial property south of The Woodlands apartments. A mixed -use project has been approved by the City Council for this location. Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood centers are locations within a neighborhood that are centrally located destinations for area residents. functioning centers provide locations for social interaction between residents and, ideally, would foster a sense of connection with a place and the people that live there. These centers can be civic, social, or commercial as long as they are easily accessible to the surrounding residents. Central College Station is served by eight neighborhood centers. They are: Larry J. Ringer Library, Wal-mart Center, Longmire Park, Walgreens commercial center, Rock Prairie Elementary and Park, Navarro West commercial center, Georgie K. Fitch Park, and Southwood Valley Elementary/Brothers Pond Park (See Map EC.6, Neighborhood Centers for locations). While there are other comt-rrercial areas within the planning area, they are not easily accessible on fool, or do not cater to neighborhood residents. CIP and Maintenance Projects The City of College Station has several infrastructure and municipal facility improvements planned within the next five vnnrs in the Centro! College Station planning area. In addition to these improvements, the Texas Department of Transportation (IXDOT) also has two projects currently under construction that impact this area. Bee Creek Channel Improvements (Ph IV & V) - The City currently has funding budgeted from the 2008 bond to design and construct infrastructure for flood mitigation and prevention for Bee Creek between Brothers Boulevard and Texas Avenue South. Currently, the DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan nw work has ec t and no design g ib'l'tY o f the project, J City s evaluating the feasibility lete d. been completed. er Librawasalso J . Ringer g ry Y r ary _ Expansion ans'on of Larry Larry J. Ringer e r Library cr eas et he "t of the 200 8 bond. The expansion ans ion will increase approved r ove d aspart ki libraryfloor area bY15,00Osquarefeet and add add'tionalpan . 'ci >:a 'on is a ntl a to d ruction d constuctl ' FY2 Ol 1 an p ' n In ' ant ice Is ' at ed to bee si n g Design p g r 3 ' 20 to becomplete le to In 13. ighborhood de dfunding gfo" neh bo rho od ers Pond Park - The008bondincluded Brothers ;1 1d Park. This "O ct will "e I ac e t1e park k 'm p" ven e nts toBrothers Pond p la ce a1d expand an d a ete and replace exiin loop , concrete sting J jogging gg g '1 ect also cl ude sdamageds'dewaIk at the Deacon entrance. ro J , " vem en is ar e ' These in1 to trail. . 1 the tr tirl along p well andlighting retaining g ar etas g g g scheduled tobeconst" constructed during site 1 for the project e Ct is <a currently under review Planning andDcvelopne -)I Se Services. of SkateParc - TheCity of College StaC' 1's currently working 'c Co7lex . The ood Athletic d at the Southwood p a skate park toe located 'c input h G se. T he r "o e ct public 1 design and �up " dp ' al ' Yl I n "silt ' the I F ' n1 g t Is 1 "o'ec Y project p ..: I ete d WIt1'12010. 0. s ani'I J ate dt ob e completed is j h 11 1e City recently n tl I Parkway South Y GQrmire Drive/HarveyMitchell aY completed intersection im rov menu at LonJ m ire Drive and Harvey r cle and pedestrian traf tic. The to bicycle Y Mitchell Parkway South h to facilitate project includes bike lanes from Airline to Lon g 1ire Court, and k. This e crossing at Bee Creek. improved rove d'nte rse ction design, n, and Gb bridgeJ rkway South Multi_ e PGIve M'tch ell PaIkwc Y unc t' 1 with the Y ct is in conjunction p"oJ 1 ton1 u It' -mo dol transportation portat ion options tl0 ns along g this 11 0 facilitate use path COIr idor. Harvey Mitchell Parkway South Multi -Use Path The City curre n tlY in o w alon llow g the northwest sidet1e design phase foramulil-use path to fo hA Avenue to _on m ire Drive e th from Welsh g ofHa rveY Mitchell Park wa v South v' de ue 1ue South, This corridor or will provide s Aven ss'b I yto Texas andpossibly h d High connectivity key destinations I1Clud.1gA&MConsol' Consolidate School, Bee Creek Park and COT1e"cialpropertYsuc1asWGt-mar t nstruction is anticipatedto begin in in ' (crossing aton gmire Drive).ConstCo 2010, ha n e T1is th Interchange Wellborn Road/Harvey M'tc het I Parkway y South Ct" 1. l1e rc construction. project is a TxDOT funding project currently under purpose of this project is to separate vehicular traffic front interacting with rail traffic at the interchange of Wellborn Road and Harvey Mitchell Parkway South. Harvey Mitchell Parkway South will be elevated and new exit rampswill allow for movement on and off of Wellborn Road. ® 1 -2035 Parkway South Median ProjectThe 20 0 Harvey Mitchelly a� h M Transportation Plan identified the p need to construct etro olitan e>= Mitchell Parkways medians clang Hervey s South between Texas Avenue Y ve safety I hrou h ct will het in1 ro ) g Wellborn Road. This roe p p South and Well project was funded b TxD01 and ' project G Y enlent. This t er access many I 1 bet g ule df or Spring, in scheduled g-desi n is likely to begin in 2010, with construction 2011. Stakeholder input will be coordinated by ) TxDOT during the planning and design phases. APPENDIX A— EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAFT 05-23-10 Public Pr Y opert /Easements The City owns 59 acres f Y o property in Central College Station. g S a ion. The majority of that is held as arks and the e City's library, but several tracts that are owned are drainage channels that the e City maintains. In addition to those properties, the Cit also h I y o ds rights to a variety of easements across the planning area. The majorityof these ese easements are public utility easements located aloe the e rear of all platted lots which are utilized by College Station Utilities Atmo s, Verizon, and Suddenlink to provide service to individual lots. Several drainage easements are also located throughout the g area and maintained by the City of College Station. Map EC.7, City Facilities and Easements e is depicts these locations. City Facilities Eire Station #2 - Fire Station #2 is a 7,000 square foot station located at 2200 Rio Grande Boulevard. Constructed in 2000, this fire station serves the Central College Station planning area and areas as far north as Southwest Parkway, west of Texas Avenue South. Fire Station 112 staffs ten fire department personnel a shift. The station responded to 2,532 calls in FY2008, and 2,729 calls in FY2009 - a 7.8io increase. Larry J. Ringer Library •• Larry J. Ringer Library is a 14,000 square foot library that is part of the Bryan -College Station Public Library System. The library is located at 1818 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and is the only branch of the public librarysystem located in Y College Station. Built in 1998, the library holds 87,550 items and was visited yen by 240,362 in people. ale FY2008. The recent 2008 bond issue included the expansion of the Ringer Library (see CIP pro jccts previously). Brothers Pond Park - Brothers Pond Park isclassified as a neighborhood orhood park. Located at 3100 Rio Grande Boulevard, the 16.12 acre park has several amenities: practice fields, half basketball court, t, trails, exercise siation, playground, picnic shelter, and ( pond. The park was acquired in 1977 and 1978 and was developed in 1981. The p recent 2.008 bond included funds for improvements 1 > p o Brothers Pond Park. ark. Georgie K. Fitch Park - Fitch Park is a neighborhood park located at r 1 100 Balcones Drive. The park is 11.3 acres and was acquired in 1977, $' The park amenities include a basketball court, softball fields, picnic I' �' areas and shel(er, playground, and trails. Fitch Park is adjacent to the '':::::::::.::' Ringer Library; however no maintained path exists t p o cross the creek. r.y: F-. >_=<<y:z...:..:. Longroire Park Longmire Park is located at 2600 Lon mire Drive. g e. The I =, ". . ° a'> park is a 4.16 aae neighborhood park: w' (_ with sidewall, and u ems., T r- # 40 picnic areas. e p 1crit tire( it 7 J7 The ark was r 7 �r 3 Jack and Dorothy Miller Park - I ormerly Westchester Park-, the Jack and Dorothy Miller Purk is a oint J park project with College Station Independent School District CSISD . The ( ) park is directly adjacent to Rock Prairie Elementary School on Rock Prairie Road and functions as a Playground and athletic fields for the school during school hours and is ` open to the public otherwise. Miller Park is a 10 acre park with playgrounds, a shelter, basketball court, jogging track, fitness court, DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan picnic tables, and practice fields. The park was acquired in 1988 with the development of Westchester Subdivision. Steeplechase Park - Steeplechase Park is a nine acre park located at 301 Westridge Drive. The park was completed in 2006 and includes a playground, basketball court, and a dog park. Housing Data A variety of housing types are located within Central College Station. Figure EC.6, Number of Housing Units by Subdivision identifies the number of units by type. The majority of duplexes are found in Southwood Terrace and Southwood Valley. All of the apartment complexes are found in Southwood Valley. Map EC.8, Multi -Family Properties depicts the locations of duplexes, and apartment properties. Figure EC-6 Number of Housing Units by Subdivision, Central College Station 110 Brandon; Heights 110 Brittain Court 0 20 20 i Edelwerss"Estates 237 237 Elm Crest 31 31 Uriplcaf#ed 3. 3 Oakbrook Valley 37 37 I Regency.,South 27 27 Southwood Forest 103 103 Southwood Holdings. 183 183 j Southwood Terrace 209 218 427 r Southwood Valley ' ,. 1,307 448 1,356 45 153 .; 1 Steeplechase 1 149 232 - 381 Villas on,the Rio Grande :5 i West Kid g e 152 152 'Total, 2,228 1,070 1356 228 4,882::, Source: City of College Station, P&DS (2009) Within the single-family category, there is also a variety of home and lot sizes. Single-family home size varies by subdivision with the largest houses and lot size in Southwood Forest, and the smallest in Southwood Terrace, (See Figure EC.7, Single -Family Property Data on following page). Overall single-family density in the planning area is just under four dwelling units per acre, but varies between 1.6 and 9.6 dwelling units per acre. APPENDIX A— EXISTING CONDITIONS I DRAFT 05-23-10 P ro er t Va lue e nt' I Property values ue s areh' gh rinthe e subdivisions w'rfhI target- g erl lo t and home size (see e e Figure r e E C7 Sin gIe - FanvilY Property Data. The Figure ur e E C.7 Si 9le- Fa 'lY Property Data CentralCollege St t'on ° ® • r e e - Brat on Hercghts 16 098:93.: ". "2,810 76^ $287 625 : 40,65 l 10 '":. M 2.71 Edelweiss Estates 11,215.64 2,285.98 $226,340 60.76 236 3.88 Eltn:Qrest;; 9.74 2;389 $222,197 :. ' 8 701 31 I Oakbrook Valley 11,088.76 1,970.72 $181,676 9.42 37 3.93 I = Regency South 4,559 i89 1;b6S 89:. " $'153;173 2 83`: 27 "" . q ` . 55 Southwood Forest 26,579.94 3,844.76 $422,163 62.85 103 1.64 Southwood Terrace; :7 629:73 1205.41..: $1 12 793 36.b.1, 209 5.71 1 Southwood Valley 11,606.89 1,753.02 $149,193 347.99 1306 3.75 Steeplechase" ".: 780149 1,39329 $132,928 5.58.: . Villa on the Rio Grande 5,918.87 1,172.40 $93,416 . 2.04 15 7.36 iotdi ' 1 86.70193 592,80. 21:9i" " . " " 3.70 Note: Table b e onlyincludes udes single-family g y neighborhoods Source: Brazos Count Appraisal District Y Pp 2009 hiJ h e sarc -found un di nSouthwood u th W 00 d Forest, antvGluesarc, t sizes s are W he re to average over a - UIfucre. Property higher 'n Central College Station compared p are dt 0 COII P. CeStation �a G S wholeof O by aIlO t$20 000 c 'IYStat'onaveragesingle-fat Property value isfColle ® - $154,552). Map EC.9, Single - ° -.- Family Property Value depicts the range of single- family property value in ° ° Central College Station. C;, 1 d Branon Heights 17.12 _ 13 q The average commercial g Edelweiss Estates g 71" assessed value in Central College Station is $894,000. Elm Crest 1387 6 15 t Oakbrook Valle Y 13 35.: 11 Housing Age & Regency South 12.48 15 Maintenance Southwoodotesf 18 75 ;. 5 26 5 22'.: The average age of a Southwood Terrace " 26 36 18 33 single-family residence in Central College Station is 23 Southwood Valley 27 48 Urik 35 : years; however, the ranee is Steeplechase 8.57 8 10 from 35 years to brand new " VII1as on the Rro Grande 24 56 .. ". ;"" 19 26- construction (see Figure .. West Ridge 12.00 :. 12 EC.8, e of Single -Family Ag 12 Structures for breakdown by _ subdivision). Residential development took off early DRAFT 05-23-101 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan in the neighborhood's history, averaging almost 150 permits a year between 1976 and 1983, but slowing to an average of 50 per year until 2001 with the development of later phases of Edelweiss Estates. Map EC.10, Age of Single -Family Structure identifies the year of construction for primary structures by lot. Property maintenance enforcement made up just over 1% of the code enforcement cases in 2008/9 (See Figure EC.11, Central College Station Code Enforcement on the following page). The majority of these cases were located in Southwood Valley. Map EC.11, Property Maintenance Enforcement Cases identifies those case locations. Rental Registration In 2009, the City of College Station began implementing a rental registration program for single-family and duplex units. There are a total of 1,555 units registered in the planning area, equal to 47.9% of all duplex and single-family structures in the neighborhood. Overall, 35% of those units are single-family homes (551 units), and the remainder are duplex units. The majority of these units are located in the Southwood Terrace and Steeplechases areas where there large number of duplexes. Figure EC.9, Registered Rental Properties, identifies the number of rental units per subdivision. Figure EC.9 Registered Rental Properties by Subdivision, 2009 Brittain Court 0% 20 2 3% U7° Edelwerss.Estates 2Q . 3 6% 0% 0 % 20.: " `1 3% 237 Elm Crest 3 Q. 0.57° 0% 0% 3 0 2% 31 9.7% 31 9.7% Oakbrook Valley 1 O. 37 Regency 1. South 7 1.3% 0% 0% 7 0.57. 27 25 9% 27 25.9% ; 0.4% 0% 0%: IU3 ]03 Southwood -Forest 2 _. .::.? _. Southwood Terrace 91 16.5% 191 22 3% 0% 282 10 1% 4:7 66 0% " ?09 43 5% , - "11Y,755 Souihwobd. Valley _ : 329 59 7% _ 383 44 ; 43 29 I% . 48 -6 ::1 709„ 44 2%b 7 307 25 2% Steeplechase 89 16.2% 232 . 27 1% 0% 321 20 6% 381 84.3% 149 59 7 ° :- Villgs:on Rio..Grdnde, 0% 46 West Ridge 0% 30 3 5% 105 70 9% 135 8 7% 152 88 8% 551 100% : $56 100% 148_ 100%a 1 555 . 100% 3 249 ' 47225 - 24 $% Total'-. - i ;i Source: City of College Station 2009 = .l Code Enforcement APPENDIX A— EXISTING CONDITIONS I DIZAFT 05-23-10 Central College Station area. Southwood Valley subdivision has the most total number of violations (59.9%); however, Steeplechase neighborhood has the highest violations on a per lot basis (See Figure ® _ EC.10, Central College Station Code IN Violations Per Lot). S €'eplechase 268 Southwood Terrace 312 536 1.72 ::-YVest; Rid g 150 145; 130 . Southwood Valley 1,810 2,185 1.21 =Vil,las:on ahO' Kip .G['ande ::.;::.1:4.:::: 11. °' `<.' ` .° 0 Brandon Heights 48 20 EIrS :Crest ;=:.: .' : °; .; ..'31 °' `.:: .. ::...: . : . ` :._ ':.: - ": Edelweiss Estates 248 59 0.24 akt�rook OJ.9; Southwood Forest 106 18 0.17 i Regendy South 31 0 0 00 The most prominent code violation in the Central College Station area is a sanitation violation (See Figure EC.11, Central College Station Code Enforcement Cases on the following page). Sanitation violations are enforcement cases relating to the proper use of trash containers. These violations are often issued for failure to remove the container from file street within 24-hours of pick-up, or frolll excess fresh around the container. Violations are most likely to occur in winter months (December through February). Additionally, violations were mosl frequently documented on Tuesdays, 24 hours after trash pick-up in this area. The streets with the most violations are located in areas where it is predominately rental. The following streets had more than 100 violations in the past 2 years: Hawk Tree Drive (186), Figure EC.1 1 Central College Station Code Enforcement Cases (2008 - 2009) Brush%Bulky Items/litter Fire Protection 1 1 18 5 2 15 23 120 3 1 Health $ S;arntafion Violafon 7g ... 26.4.,.403. 1 195 Property Maintenance 1 1 y I'ul�lic Nuisance Violation'. 1 1 4 24 7 39 Utility Easement lh$ i>3; , .. 1� :.:278 GntUI Regrgtraafipn 2 2 2 i ;.� Sanitation Violation 7 25 35 4 1 2 18:, - 121: 4 3.b0 1 Traffic Code 1 3 340 1,260 355 7 115 2,155 Unified Development 1.. 2 Ordinance dotal 1 20 30 . 54 - 10. - 7 4 ]4 "7 $ l8 :536. 34 2;155 ` 540195 1 -. 47 31600, , Source: Cityof College ege Station, P&DS 2009 DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan r1 1 60 `o Court Mario n )� Drive 1 73 SG 1 ito Dr'e 1 81 SonSaba Dr I ), ive n B ), Son i Ben ne e Drive 14 0 Austin tin 145 ve � )- e )- Airli Navarro Drive 148Antelope Lane 1 - Avenue (11TraceMeadaws121HitIsideDrive (117Axis C ou rt il 100 e e Map p E C. 12 (116), NormandDrive11 6 ) and Todd Trait l ) (See f rce me n Ca t Cases) Eno ) i ' al Activity vit Criminal Y - use of ities because Property security ClSOGGOncerlIl college COMM unities , I ber t a v large e nume leave a ks that ea g Ib breaks t o f school se l effects the seasona bur Ia rY k-I n sG and rg r eak-ins at ing eas targets e ts for br creatingsy mes emt Y homes Y- pty, p -:; t ntproblems thr ou g h u t Burglaries of a vehile orhabitation ar consistent 3 the community. In Central College Station, butlarieshave been e n 0 7. I tiv e lowin 2007. mG relative in gs steadily ' IY from increasing <...I s and thefts occurred on majority of burglaries, robbene , In 2009 the y l 3 -d ive, Airline Drive, Austin Avenue, Brothers Bouleval , _ on J mire Dr, ' Avenue. Thesestreets Navarro Drive, Pierre Place, Todd Trail, and Welsh se units. ' c ent to those jacent ' ctl - its or dire ad ulti famil units, Y J re home tom Y i f2 00 9 act vit in P. loc' 11S O Y ations identifies . 't Id Activity EC.13 Criminaly 'e S the Mai , nei hborhood. g the Central College Station g Noise/Loud Parties ed to 237 noise complaints in 2009. This is College Station Police responded g I 13% of GII cells across the Y entire City. majority of these calls were located in areaswith higher percentages es ofrentalssuch as let hose and SouthwoodTerrace. Steeplechase p Mobility v _ Streets e is n and c alleys s within d' n h s 42 miles ofstreetsand Central college e Station r thoroughfares r u ha re tho G su noun din the neighborhood, o f which 1 � miles a g g hb or ho od. ' ion G I traffic to and t1rU g 1 theneighborhood. led tocarry Y additional c designed x t, and t' n a litY. context, The C I t S Comprehensive pre he ns 'v e Plan identifies the functionality, -ne la to d b the traffic e Y GI thetr needed t0 C g e0 - n rY 0 f tl io ro u hf ar as i g p it C. variouslanduses ill and around theY 'npage, lists the wl the following r l tl Ei ure EG.1 2 Street classifications, o g fare type a( the major ' � n context and thorough y( functional classification, I College Station area. In addition, thoroughfares in the Centre ga;r}(1-;:::�::: tyh thoroughfare hfare is pe 0 fs striping g to � ir)for' in on eGG J mation regarding Yp class depending o n the.. are grouped into G is included. All streetsg (� x ,,:; .22 - r and the degree o f land access they allow. There character o f traffic a g F through the three functional classes of streets that run g r t G e ct or and lector neighborhood. TheYconsist of major collector, minor col nstructed to the t be conSt ru cto d �..; local I streets. W file the thoroughfares J hfG re s May no design stand arils listed in the -w widths c g specified right-of-way and spe ht-of g Comprehensive PIGn, each of the thoroughfares are functioning at the ensive Plan Y exception to this is e Comprehensive . The only level called for in the p BGlcones Drive,which does not can -ently extend t of WelshAvenue throughto Wellborn Road. APPENDIX A- EXISTING CONDITIONS I DRAFT os-23-to -' • e s Weash Ave 2 Lane. Major 0 Suburban Suburtan S#riped f2-lanes . i#h ." t or "lane Collector' Avenue, 2-lane aenter turn and ,:.. , bike lanes Rio Grande Blvd. 2 Lane Major Suburban Suburban" Striped for 2- lanes with Collector Avenue, 2-Lane center turn lane and bike lanes Longrnrre Dr:. 2-Lane Major Suburban Grbcin Avenue S.#riped for 2-lanes with Collector . 2 kan� center turn. lane grid bike lanes Deacon Dr. 2-Lane Major Suburban Striped for 2-lanes, with ..:... (East of Welsh Ave.) Collector Suburban Avenue, 2-Lane center turn lane and bike lanes Deacon Ur.,, 2 Lane Minor Suburban Striped for 2 fines with (West of Welsh Ave j 1111, Collector.: Suburban Avenve, 2-Lane >. 'center turn one and bike lanes Brothers Blvd. 2-Lane Minor Collector Suburban Suburban Street No striping Balcanes Dr :. 2 Lane Minor Suburban an Suburban Avenue 2=Lane . No strr rn Edelweiss Ave. 2-Lane Minor Collector Suburban Suburban Street No striping Ponderosa pr 2 Lata.e Minor Collector" ._ Suburban Suburban Stree# No strrpiri g Sidewalks e wa Iks DRAFT os-23-10 I Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Sidewalks in the neighborhood are for the most part only along major thoroughfares at the perimeter of each subdivision or subdivision phase, with a few exceptions. For example, the Steeplechase subdivision has sidewalks on at least one side of the street on all streets within the subdivision. Sidewalks are located at the perimeter of the neighborhood only along Rock Prairie Road, which is functionally classified as a 4-Lane Minor Arterial in the Cilys Comprehensive Plan. The other three perimeter right-of-ways, which include Wellborn Road, Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Texas Avenue South, all have functional classifications as 6- Lane Major Arterials. Intersections per Square Mile There are a total of 204 intersections located within or at the boundary of the Central College Station area. This equates to approximately 90 intersections per square mile for the neighborhood. Of the 204 total intersections, approximately 14 are controlled by either a lighted traffic signal at- a four-way stop sign. Additionally, all intersections controlled by a lighted traffic signal are located at or near the periphery of the neighborhood. Perimeter Block length Block lengths in the Central College Station area can vary greatly across the neighborhood. In newer areas, such cis the Steeplechase and Edelweiss Estates subdivisions, block length tends to be larger than those in older subdivisions. Block length was measured and calculated as an average for the residential portion of the neighborhood. Non- residential land uses were not included in the calculation, except when part of block that included residential development. Overall, an average perimeter block length of 3,584 feet was calculated. This calculation includes blocks that while technically separate, do not have thoroughfares that provide through access either east -west or north -south. For example, the Brandon Heights and Southwood Forest subdivisions located in the south central area of the neighborhood, which would be considered part of one larger block. Street Maintenance Streets in the neighborhood are generally in good condilion. Muggy EC.15, Street Maintenance, shows the number of work orders from 2007 to present in the Central College Station Area. In addition, a list of completed street maintenance work orders can be found in Figure EC.17, Completed Maintenance Service Requests (2009) at the end of this document. Bike Routes Bike routes currently exist along six right-of-ways in the Central College Station area. These include routes along Balcones Drive, Ponderosa Drive, Brothers Boulevard, Southwood Drive, Todd Trail and a portion of Airline Drive. leap EC.16, Bicycle Network, shows all bike routes, bike lanes and multi -use paths, that exist and that are proposed in the area. Currently, all bike routes connect to streets with existing bike lanes. DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan neighborhood. There were no reported accidents that resulted in a fatality in the area. For 2008, 9.3% of all reportable accidents occurred in or at the perimeter of the Central College Station neighborhood. There were no reported accidents that resulted in a fatality in the area. Sustainability Utilities Water Consumption The water consumption for each subdivision is shown as an average over calendar years 2008 and 2009 in Figure EC.13, Water Consumption by Subdivision. As shown in the table, the subdivisions of Southwood Forest and Brandon Heights consume the most water on average on both a monthly and yearly basis. In comparison, in some of the areas with a higher portion of renters, water Figure EC.13 consumption was significantly less. For Water Consumption by Sub( example, the West Ridge and Steeplechase subdivisions primarily � t ®® ® - consist of duplex dwellings and a large th d V Ile contingent of renters. This could potentially be attributed to the larger lot I Southwood Forest 300 25 sizes in Southwood Forest and Brandon i SoutlwoodTerrace Heights, which requires more irrigation, °- - Villa o on the Rio Grande 62 5.2 in addition to a large number of pools being located within these two ; . Steeplechase 64 subdivisions. Another potential factor is Brandon Heights 213 17.8 . the vacancy in the summer months o ., Edelweiss Estates ,140 la 7 many non -owner occupied properties. - 160 13.3 Overall, the highest amount of water Elm Crest consumption takes place in the spring _ pakbrook Valley 130 - 10 8 and summer months, with peak usage j Regency South 70 5.9 taking place in the months of June ! West Rrdg through September. APPENDIX A — EXISTING CONDITIONS I DRAFT 05-23-10 Electric: consumption, in terms of Figure EC.15 average kilowatt hours per Electric Consumption by Subdivision subdivision for 2009 is shown in Figure EC.15, Electric Consumption EM-1 ®. ' a`�" " • , by Subdivision on the following Southwood:Valley`"", `.i':::° 1`;025:74 page. In general, electric = :..::.:., ., consumption tends to mirror water �, Southwood Forest 2,231.82 consumption, as the Southwood Southwood Terrace 9:b63i Forest and Brandon Heights g Villa a on the Rio Grande 1,075.64 ' subdivisions once again consume - the highest amounts. In addition,_9.07.83;;, non -owner occupied properties Brandon Heights 1,808 51 specifically in the West Ridgec{e(y Piss Fstntes 1 lgl 74 Steeplechase, and Southwood ,. Terrace areas the electric Elm Crest 1,425,17 I consumption is much lower. C)akbraok Valley 1',15.5 85 Higher consumption in the Regency South 993.64 Southwood Forest and Brandon Heights subdivisions can largely by Wgst Ridge...`: `,. _."' _ "'942.38„._ explained by the larger houses in those areas and the need for Figures in kilowatt hours (kWh) Average is for calendaar year 2009 heating and cooling them. In Source: City of College Station, CSU (2010) addition, a large portion of non - owner occupied housing sils vacant in the summer months. _Overall, peak electric consumption in neighborhood takes place during the months of June through September. Impervious Cover Impervious cover refers to artificial structures such as pavement, driveways and sidewalks that are covered by impenetrable materials such as brick, stone and rooftops which prohibit infillration into the underlying soil. For the Central College Station area, impervious cover was calculated for eight single-family subdivisions. The calculations include the overall area of the single-family structure and estimated driveway area. Due to wide variations in driveway lengths and widths, driveway sizes were estimated at the size of a typical driveway that can accommodate four vehicles (20'x 40'). The two exceptions, to this are the Brandon Heights and Southwood Forest subdivisions, which have significantly larger lot sizes and tend to have larger driveways. As such, DRAFT 05-23-10 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Figure EC.16 Lot Coverage by Subdivision . Edeiwerss saes - Southwood Forest 4,334 2,619 26,191 26.5% I Southwood Valley 2673. 80Q 11,733 29 6% j I Elm Crest 3,494 800 12,229 35 1% Oakbrook Valley 3 009 800 l 0 944 34 8% Steeplechase 1,873 800 7,748 34 5% Southwood Terrace :' i 972 80Q ' 7;65Q 36 2% Brandon Heights 3,791 1,739 17,391 31 8% Source: City of College Station201 0 ) 'h �eet Lighting Street g zed 11 and a -our d the There are three primary street light t Yp es utilized ed with100 -w tt , ht sG are installed on are G. Street lights e e$t Station ral College Central SG re 200-watt OI 400-waft high ressuresodium bulbs. Th el on -w tt bulbs GI streets. In ion and along g local rilY used within each subdivision primarily ' h both 0 od along - e utilized in thenet g cen era I the 200 w att bulbs are g ode ve Welsh Ave n u e, Rio Grande Deacon Drive, collector streets, specifically Y , - re primarily in fl at bulbs a 4 nW t r v Drive. The p n mire Un 1 Lo mire rd and Du Long Boulevard along the major thoroughfares at the perimeter of the Road, Harvey Mitchell Parkway d including, Prairie oa Y neighborhood g g CtU I streets ets inthe ng the collector and Texas Avenue, with afe wp lacedG along ..,.�� neighborhood. Ma EC.19 Street Lighting, provides n s 0 f the «_. -. q .. ' �u5< 0 f each e ofbulb. . Iu d in the amounthtYp hts , including street lights,g k' r=t= - F I ood p I ain L.i:.. i� imarY areas ofthe ted within two primary FEMA-' entified fl acla in is located r� o { �v - . - th being tributaries ofBee Creek. Central College Station area, with bo g ong rHarvey e t p o rt'o no f the neighborhood alg Y This includes the northwest Mitchell parkway to theintersection ofWelsh Avenue and B I on es Hera I I most generally Drive. Property immediatelY west of Welsh Avenue and Y APPENDIX A- EXISTING CONDITIONS I DRAFT 05-23-10 of the property east of Welsh Avenue to Rio Grande Boulevard is also included. This area is predominantly in the 100-year floodplain. Additionally, FEMA-identified floodplain is located along Texas Avenue and includes portions of property to the west and extending past Southwood Valley Elementary. Roughly half of the floodplain in this area is classified as 500-year floodplain (See Map EC.20, Floodplain). Energy Audits The City of College Station provides no cost, on -site energy surveys to commercial and residential properties located within the City. These surveys are used to evaluate and pinpoint energy conservation measures particular to the customer's location and patterns suggesting methods to reduce utility costs. Examples of items that have been idenlified to help conserve energy in the area include air conditioning repair or replacement, adding attic insulation, repairing siding and not operating the pool continuously. Approximately 19% of all audits performed from October, 2008, to October, 2.009, were from the Central College Station Area. This translates in real numbers to 28 residential and commercial properties in the area participating in the program. Recycling Participation Recycling collection for the City is provided once a week, on the same day as bulky items and clean green brush collections. Each eligible residence is provided with clear plastic recycling bags that the resident uses to sort and store the recyclable materials. At this time, recycling pcarlicipatlon is limited to single-family, duplex and four-plex dwellings only. Exact figures were, not available for the circa, but as a whole, 60% of all eligible residences in the City recycle. Items that are currently accepted for recycling include newspapers and magazines, aluminum and steel food cans, clear and brown glass, plastic bottles, and lead acid car batteries. Wind Watts Participation In an effort to make College Station a greener and more sustainable community, the City offers its residential utility customers the option to purchase some or all of their electricity from wind power. The City's Wind Watts are purchased from the South Trent wind farm in West Texas. Approximately 17.9% of all households participating in the Wind Watts program come from the Central College Station area. This translates in real numbers to 2.8 households within the neighborhood - participating in the program. Figure EC.2: 1990 and 2000 Census Comparison 18-24 years old 2,423 29.5% 28,344 - 54.0% 8.6% 3,440 30.9% 34,765 51.2% 9.90% 41.97% 22.65% 5 17 years old 1.392 16.9% ., " ` 4,863 11 9 3%' 2& 6% i 172 15 9% 6.757' 10 �% 30% 38:95 Population 25+ 3-753 100.0% 16,788 100.0% 22.4% 5,280 100.0% 23,301 100.0% 22.667. 40.69% 38.80% 71. Less than. 9th."grade ' 34 0:9% 412 2.5%- 8 3% -68 1 3/, 485 2:1 r Some HS, no diploma 27 0.7% 634 3.87o 4.3% 131 2.5% 953 4.1 % 13.75% 385.19% 50.32% HSgradudtel �31 1"4.2% : ' .".7,747 `-" 1'0.4%. "_ 3Q.4%." �66 145% 2,SA5 ": 12.2%:.:.:.,,25.92% 442b%:. " b285% Some college, no degree 770 20.5% 3,359 20.0% 22.9% -24:3% 947 17.9% 4,323 18.6% 21.91,0 22.99% 28.70% tdegree - 87 - 4:8% 745 343 6 5% 1 156 77. 77TAssociae 5.0 % 29 6M% :" 8MQ%: 55 17% Bachelor's degree 1.143 30.5% 4,634 27.67. 24.7% 1,544 29.2% 6,647 28.5% 23,23% 35.08% 43.44% Giadua#elpiotessional degree 1 067:; 28.4% 5257 31.3%,' .20:3% 1;481 2$ 21 49% 31.t0%. Families 1,870 X 7,529 X 24.8% 2,369 X 10,368 X 22,85% 26.68% 37.71% Avg Family Size . "" . 3;13 T X 3 D1 X- x X 2 98 X x x x Households 150 X 17,878 X 17.6% 17.6% _. 4,267 X 24,691 X 17 28% 35. - Y 2.32, Total Housing Units 3,360 100.0% 19,845 100.0% 16.9% 4,454 100.0% 26,054 100.00% 17.10% 32.56% 31.29% vacant 210 6:3% 1967 9.9%; 10.7% 187 4.28: 1363. 5.2%- 1372% 10,95% -30:71%. Occupied 3,150 93.8% 17,878 90.1% 17.6% 4,267 95.8% 24,691 94.8% 17.28% 35.46% 38.11% Owner-occu l> ied ... :..:.:.............: . ,4286, „> 21.b% 2688a ,...i,841 ; 25% 754b ,, =w,.29.:0%:::".•.;':•2&Cb% b47?9 ' .:'" �06% Renter occupied 9,002 59.6% 13,592 68.5% 14.7% 2,376 53.4% 17,145 65.8% 13.86% 18.68% p 26.14%77 Median "monthly-,owriercosts:." Housing units w/ a mortgage -$871 x $859 x x x (4) x $1,185 x x: x { 37.95% x, Hdusrrig units".w/o;a"mortgage29g. $282 x X x SS) x $394; x" x x" 39;i2% Median contract rent $476 x $428 x x x (6) x $516 x x x 20.56% Median household income .... _. .. $ 25,9,1. x. $ 14481 x ., ": :"x.. x {7} x $ 2t 180 Per capita income $ 12,321 x $ 9,262 x x x (8) x $ 15,170 x x x 63.79% Source: US Census Bureau (www.census.aovl, 2009 1 - In 2000, the CCS Area was split into twc Cersus tracts - 18.01 and 18.02 2 - Average Family Size Tract 18.01 (3.03)/Averoge Family Size Tract 18.02 (3,17) 3 - Average HH Size Tract 18.01 (2.45)/Average Family Size Tract 18.02 (2.67) 4 - Median Monthly Costs w/mortgage Tract 18.01 ($968)/Median Monthly Costs w/mortgage Tract 18.02 ($1,374) 5 - Median Monthly Costs w/o a mortgage Tract 18.01 ($384)/Median Monthly Costs w/o a mortgage Tract 18.02 ($503) 6 - Median Contract Rent Tract 18.01 ($555)/Median Contract Rent Tract 18.02 ($563) 7 - Median HH Income Tract 18.01 ($37,773)/Median HH Income Tract 18.02 ($46,295) 8 - Per capita income Tract 18.01 ($19,4093/Per capita Income Tract 18.02 ($22,863) Figure EC. lrCompleted Maintenance Service Requests (2oo9) - Austin Ave Bahia D Balcones Dr an Ora D 15 Blanco Ln Coastal Dr Deacon Dr, H le PI Ivy Cv Pedernales Dr Rock Prairie Road San Felipe Dr Treehouse Trail Val Verde Dr Van.,Horn Dr -21 West Creek Ln Ave Tofal vaa.&,; - ------------- dR 6I ° s U o �{ 4 Q > > z, lLL Ew, u� p� s eeeluo'y 3 - y-s al fir u 4 Lai mire Dr 1 u I f �hn raCRw�l �-- is � Il I4 l�l goId We ll"R 9 nn Old-W�1142 �i_qd °-�YJ Texas �Av>r ly m �p r � c � o �- o r U- 1 (D /1 o d u ui N O 2p 9 0col `+• U LL C O! W aM z 1o11�100 0 ,a ml �0 �aa o p $ IJ c P W = Q CL N N Pa a tD1 C pf' ' ' tiS.L_Z mud f- U T �Q7 �p d qV� "a s $ e$iuo,� 3g MEMOM11uuH li C E N T R A L 0 L L E G E S T A T 1 0 N N E I G H B 0 R H 0 0 D P L A N Chart B.1, Survey Question I What is the most important issue facing your neighborhood? S110.lhlability (1,111, of degradation of natural featines IVI ohilit, (;beet (I esi";r I I, hies; cIt' and pedestrian facilities; I I I 11) 1.11 o o d I I I tE—ll I it'.," (cot I o vici Lit ions, neigh h ot I if") i I identity} (onillm I I ity character (i I I( n I qmti I do 1,111 (11 poor imago corridors) 15) R VOWS - — ------- — ---- ---------- ------ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Chart B.2, Survey Question 2 What is the second most important issue facing your neighborhood? S I y fecift-i[es (,Jreet cle-ign, bi cyc le, and ly �Cj vi, d, LU lily) Cul)lnllurlil.", Chuf, lclel (il cC,lTiIDClfi[Dkl kl-id [7)001' in-icige ccmid,x') DR A VT 05-23-10 0 =1 6 "S 10 12 14 16 M Votos Ll APPENDIX B — PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARIES I DRAFT as-z3-io - Change: More sidewalks a ks More thought ht into traffic flowsaround neighborhood rhood Redevelop 0 p I older duplexes Street trees and veq etatl 'o n alonq ROW - Inciustri al commer i cal aloe LGn mire to residential ty g Longmirepe G i-n n-i crcial Better streetsca _ e plan � an for the apartments and urban density m Put sidewalks on morestreets around c s hool Retainlig ht aarnm ercial neiJ hborho od character on Lon mire g n RP betweenand Deacon p n^ .k*z :$ye 5 �y, D 3 DRAFT 05-23-1 o ( Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Neighborhood Integrity Kick-off Meeting ® Less parking on both sides of street ® Too many bid trucks in driveways and on streets ® Businesses operating in homes ® Code enforcement • Less parking ® Trash in parking lots ® Would like a neighborhood association ® Loud parties ® Parking in front of mailbox and trash can ® Too many cars because of number of residents in one home ® Failure to maintain property/yard ® Loud music and racing cars late at night ® Trucks parking on street ® loo many people living in a house • Trash (beer bottles, etc) scattered everywhere ® Fire safety ® Promote homeownership ® Parking on the street ® Businesses run out of the home ® Late parties ® Students • Trucks • Noise ® Businesses run out of home -- taxi service ® Section 8 aparti-rents ® Code enforcement should not be done by neighborhood ® 4-ptexes are loud, music from parties and cars/property maintenance ® Do not want homeowner association ® Number of cars parked at residences ® Number of unrelated individuals • Lawn maintenance ® Bulky item pickup ® Control of pests (rats, etc) and insects ® Renial horrie lawn maintenance during summer ® More parks more nature traits ® Bathroom at park Issues and Opportunities Meeting Aspects Like: Aspects Do Not Like: • Police bike patrols a Proximity io locations ® Affordability ® Family atmospliere ® Schools ® Parks ® Proximity to businesses ® Number of people that walk/jog/bike ® Upkeep of homes ® Location ® Neighborhood policing ® No street trees ® Need safe routes to schools ® NA/HOA organizational help ® Have once a month meetings ® Quality of street paving is inconsistent ® Tracking rents compared to rest of city ® More rentals ® Less property maintenance ® More noise complaints ® Pets that aren't taken care of ® On -street parking • Lack of neighborhood pride APPENDIX B — PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARIES I DRAF r 0s-23-10 Mobility Kick-o ff M eetin Comments e s More sid W lks and bikeways _ impossible iblc tosafely walk and ik be More bike waysarC sidewalk develovice p decent bus sere More sidewalks to s with width increasedaccommodate t cco ada in e GSS another walker er More sidewalks along all streets not majorones J 1 rl Moresidewalks o - n neighborhood -t streets Wa- I mart traffic f c Is dangerous s re a" parkway with n sMak Deacon andL n mi 'raS�CC medians speed ' Uniform S eG 11111t n D- p c I o Bacon Improve congestion around WaI-mart Traffic sign J non Deacon W els h Traffic around WaI-m r t the Super W al- na"tTraffi a ' Bikelanes that o sonlewfler be.� sides resides pat Q ks ikc, an- t" g I as that - don't disappear at intersectior 1 s pp _ " acon and Wellborn e g Traffic light at DeR duce speed d limit on Deacon from Wel sh elsh to Wellborn Traffic light atDeacon and Wellborn/Reduce speed ed limit on Deacon fromWelsh to Wellborn -- Q S eedin v ehicles o S p � n an Felipe p S eed lit -nit reduced on p Traffic at Super er Wal-mart issuesand Opportunities ' Meeting Works Well: DRAFT os-23-to 1 Central College Station Neighborhood Plan Q IVIU[ Iu�J� U u: • Sidewalks to encourage e walking g stainable •practices ® Education for su p ,.. _. Appendix C, Short Term Priorities Image Corridor Comp Plan 1-8 Zoninq 8 & 9 Floodplain I 132 Effective Organizations Code Enforcement Neighborhood Image Emergency and Lawl Enforcement Services Thoroughfares Bike/Ped Transit Utilities Education I S10 S5 S1 S3 S10 S21 S14 S24 S23 S22 S22 S22 S22 S22 S12 S18 S16 S11 S11 S11 S11 S11 S7 S23 S22 S18 S12 S16 S7 S6 S6 S6 S6 S6 S6 S6 S2 S18 S12 S18 S22 S22 S22 S4 CC 1.2 CC 1.3 CC 1.4 CC2.1-7 CC3.8,10 CC5.1-2 CC5.3 N11.2 N11.7 N11.9 NI1.11 N11.12 N11.17 N11.19 N11.13 & 16 N12.1 N12.3 N12.4 N12.5 N12.6 N12.10 N12.11 N13.8 N13.11 N14.2 N14.5 N14.9 N14.10 M 1.2 M11.3 M11.4 M2.6, 2.10 M3.4 52.1 S2.8 S5.1 S5.2 55.3 S5.4 Develop and adopt an Image Corridor Suburban Commercial Overlay Incorporate landscaping into Harvey Mitchell (toad median project; Designate Deacon Dr. and Rio Grande Blvd. as neighborhood image corridors Amend the Comprehensive Plan Adopt Suburban Commercial zoning district Pursue purchase of the property Develop comprehensive floodplain management policy - Residential Create neighborhood partnership requirements' Know Your Neighbor program Create leadership training Create training to for how to fill vacant positions Create executive committee training 6. Create new organization training'; Create neighborhood associations Amend neighborhood grant opportunities Track code enforcement and property maintenance case activity Create notification program for significant code enforcement activity Establish face to face proactive enforcement contact program' Focused property maintenance code enforcement Health and Sanitation pre-violalion contactprogram; Reinstate student mediation program Increased monitorinq of rental adjacent to owner -occupied areas Establish on-qoinq infrastructure monitoring Develop neighborhood clean-up program Property crime education Develop an on -,,going parking monitoring program Amend neighborhood qrant opportunities Neighborhood notification process for noise and other police activity Maintain streets and thoroughfares Identify intersections for Iraffic warrant studies Warrant Study: Brothers Boulevard and Deacon Drive Warrant Study: Longmire Drive and Brothers Boulevard - Warrant Study: Ponderosa Drive and Lonqmire Drive Warrant Study: Edelweiss Avenue and Rock Prairie Road Warrant Study: Deacon Drive and Wellborn Road Wununl Sludy: Biulheis Boulevard and Deacon Drive Amend Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Monitor ridership for shelter upgrades Expand neighborhood grant opportunities for green projects Track utility use and rebate participation Incorporate green seminar education into seminar supper program Incorporate green education components into new organization training Promote Green Seminar Lunch series Identify partnership education opportunities PDS P&Z-CC °- $200 x PDS-PARD-PW-CIP CC X (1) X X PDS P&Z-CC PDS P&Z-CC PDS P&Z-CC $200 X PDS CC I (2) I X PDS-PW-CIP P&Z-CC X I PDS CC X = PDS-PD I X PDS _ PDS I _ PDS PDS I - PDS X PDS CC - PDS - PDS PDS PDS PDS X PDS PDS PDS-PW I I X P S - X PDS-PPDS-PW-Fire I I X - X - PDS CC - PDS-PD l - - PW-PDS CC - X X PDS-PW CC I - PW CC X $8,800 (3) X PW CC X I $8,800 (3) X PW CC X $8,800 (3) X PW CC X I (4) X PW CC X (4) X PW CC X I I (4) X PDS P&Z-CC I - PDS X PDS-PW CC PDS-PW - I = PDS-PW - I X PDS-PW 1 X I I PDS-PW I X X (1) May have associated costs, project is currently in preliminary design - focus is on preserving opportunities to install landscaping in the future (2) Brazos Appraisal District currently has appraised these properties for $324,000; however, funding for greenway acquisition was provided through the 1999-2000 bond program (3) These costs are contingent upon the findings of the associated warrant study and will only be necessary if installing a four-way intersection is required (4) Costs for the installation of signal lights at these intersection is anticipated in the third implementation period because of the need for bond financing C-1 Appendix D, Complete Task List S10 CC1.2 Develop and adopt an Image Corridor Suburban Commercial Overlay PDS Image Corridors S5 CC1.3 Incorporate landscaping into Harvey Mitchell Road median project PDS-PARD-PW-CIP Si CC1.4 Designate Deacon Dr. and Rio Grande Blvd. as neighborhood image corridors PDS Comp Plan 1-8 S3 CC2.1-7 Amend the Comprehensive Plan PDS . 1,2,3,4,E S17 CC3.1,2,3,4,6 Rezone properties in compliance with Plan PDS 5 & 7 S 17 CC3.5,7 Rezone properties in compliance with Plan PDS S10 CC3.8,10 Adopt Suburban Commercial zoning districts PDS Zoning 8 & 9 S 17 CC3.9,1 1 - Rezone properties in compliance with Plan vgy PDS ! S10 CC3.12 Adopt character -based zoning districts PDS All Areas S 17 CC3.13 Rezone properties in compliance with Plan ; _ - PDS S13 CC4.1 Investigate the feasibility of a site and fapade improvement program PDS-ED Site Development I` S6 CC4.2 Repair_ parking and circulation facilities I �.� PDS-PW 1 &2 I S21 CC5.1-2 Pursue purchase of the property. PDS Floodplain I S14 CC5.3 Develop comprehensive floodplain management policy -_Residential PDS-PW-CIP 3 S..1.4 CC5.3..... nt olicy - Multi -family DeveIo....com rehensive flood.. lain management p p p g p /Commercia � t - -P .. S24 N11.2 Create neighborhood partnership requirements :,Nt,7''1 PDS S24 N11.4 Organization mentoring program. PDS S24 N11.5 Civic participation program PDS S24 NI1.6 New resident contact program I I t r, PDS S18 N11.8 Create an ongoing evaluation process of neighborhood characteristics PDS S19 NIl .3 Create an online clearinghouse for neighborhood organization and tracking information h;',;x PDS S23 N11.7 Know Your Neighbor program 'h PDS-PD S22 N11.9 Create leadership training ;_� PDS Effective Organizations S22 NI1.10 Create succession planning training Ltd PDS S22 NI1.11 Create training to for how to fill vacant positions PDS S22 N11.12 Create executive committee training ` x;= . PDS S22 N11.14 Create deed restriction enforcement training - :r PDS S22 N11.15 Create homeowner associations POOR PDS . S22 N11.17 Create new organization training g g _3va PDS S22 N11.18 Create communication plan traininz< PDS S22 N11.19 Create neighborhood associations n PDS S12 N11.13 & 16 Amend neighborhood grant opportunities PDS S18 N12.1 Track code enforcement and property maintenance case activity b, I PDS S23 N12,.2 Create code enforcement training PDS S16 N12.3 Create notification program for significant code enforcement activity = 11 PDS S16 N12.8 Registered rental code enforcement notification program :R PDS Code Enforcement I S1 l N12.4 Establish face to face proactive enforcement contact program "srr PDS S11 N12.5 Focused property maintenance code enforcement = PDS Sl 1 N12.6 Health and Sanitation pre -violation contact program - i PDS Sl 1 N12.10 Reinstate student mediation program -<u ) PDS 6.... .. ...._.. .... I.. S11 N12.11 °3 Increased monitoring J p ��rat<� _ owner -occupied areas itorin o rental adjacent o owner PDS P&Z-CC CC P&Z-CC P&Z-CC P&Z-CC P&Z-CC P&Z-CC P &Z-CC P&Z-CC P&Z-CC CC CC P&Z-CC X P&Z-CC CC X CC X CC X CC X = X X X X CC X X X 100,000 $200 0) x x X $4,000 X $1,600 X $200 X $800 X $200 ( X $4,000 X (2) X X X X (3) X Appendix D, Complete Task List S15 N13.2 Identify additional funding and matching fund opportunities for beautification projects_ '1"" PDS - X - S 15 N13.9 Identify additional funding and matching fund opportunities for drainage improvements z y ..,; PDS S24 N13.3 _ Streamline PIP process for neighborhood projects PDS-PW-Legal CC - , Neighborhood Image g g S4 N13.5 Incorporate community p y partnerships into neighborhood image improvement projects ` ; PDS X X -" S7 N13.8 Establish on -going infrastructure monitoring1w PDS-PW - X - S23 N13.10 Develop neighborhood improvement projects - - PDS X X S23 S22 N13.11 N14.2 Develop neighborhood clean-up program Property crime education^'s PDS PDS-PD - - X X - S23 N14.4 Develop neighborhood policing program =` ,-. PDS-PD - X $1,000 X Emergency and Law S18 N14.5 Develop an on -going parking monitoring program ;5-„ _:; PDS-PW-Fire - X - Entorcement Services S16 N14.8 Develop nuisance monitoring and enforcement programs PDS-Legal - X S12 N14.9 Amend neighborhood grant opportunities ;;w I PDS CC - _ S16 N14.10 Neighborhood notification process for noise and other police activity I PDS-PD - S7 .. .. Maintain streets and thoroughfares d g PW-PDS S CC - X X ' S6 MI1.3 Identify intersections for traffic warrant studies PDS-PW CC S6 Warrant Study: Brothers Boulevard and Deacon Drive _ PW CC X $8,800 (4) X S6 Warrant Study: Longmire mire Drive and Brothers Boulevard ` '= _ �_ PW CC X $8,800 (4) X S6 I I Warrant Study: Ponderosa Drive and Longmire Drive w:ab PW CC X $8,800 (4) X M11.4 Thoroughfares 56 Warrant Study: Fdelweiss Avenue and Rnrk Prnirif'-Rnnrl � _ PW CC X __ $14Q000 (�1) X_ .. ... S6 I I Warrant Study: Deacon Drive and Wellborn Road PW CC X $140,000 (4) X S6 I Warrant Study: Brothers Boulevard and Deacon Drive.., PW CC X $140,000 (4) i X S5 Install Deacon Drive median PDS-PW-CIP CC $224,774 X S5 M1.6 I Install Rio Grande Boulevard median _ .,3 t °: PDS-PW-CIP CC $28,102 X S5 Install Welsh Avenue median - PDS-PW-CIP CC $84,295 X S6 M2.1 Navarro Drive bike lane installation r,,,,. PDS-PW CC X $6,100 X S6 Edelweiss Avenue bike lane installation PDS-PW CC X $4,400 X S6 Southwood Drive bike route signage _____ = PDS-PW CC X X S6 I Brothers Boulevard bike route signage PDS-PW CC X X S6 M2.2 Todd Trail bike route signage _ PDS-PW CC X $6,500 X S6 I I Ponderosa Drive bike route signage PDS-PW CC X X Sb ( Balcones Drive bike route signage PDS-PW CC X X S6 M2.3 Deacon Drive bike lane gap PDS-PW CC X $15,550 X Bicycle and Pedestrian S6 Rio Grande bike lane gap s4,, PDS-PW CC X $3,100 X S2 M2.6, 2.10 Amend Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan °;P I PDS P&Z-CC - S7 M2.7, 2.11 San Pedro Drive sidewalk , . _ I'DS I'W CC X $31,600 X S7 ( West Ridge Drive M99 CC X $33,000 X _ S6 Airline Drive sidewalk - - PDS-PW CC X $78,500 X S6 Normand Drive sidewalk' PDS-PW CC X $73,400 X S6 M2.8, 2.11 Normand Drive sidewalk PDS-PW CC X $154,500 X S6 I Val Verde Drive sidewalk NUS-PW CC X $71,300 X S6 I Perdern ales Drive sidewalk. mm „-.. PDS-PW CC X $23,900 X Sb . M2.1 1 .. .. J..... Multi -use paths p �,. PDS-PW-CIP C C . (5) X D-2 Appendix D, Complete Task List S4 S6 Transit I S18 S3 < S6 S16 A Recycling S22 .:... S18 S23 _ S12 = S23 "£ S22 S4 Utility Conservation S24 S25 S18 S15 �y S22 `a Stormwater S23 Management S6 S16 S13 Alt. Transportation I S23 S23 S22 S22 Education S22 S4 S18 M3.1 M3.3 M3.4 M3.5 M3.6 S1.1 S1.2 S1.4 S1.5 S2.1 S2.3 S2.4 S2.5 S2.6 S2.7 S2.8 S2.9 S3.1 S3.2 S3.4 S3.6 S4.3 S4.4 S4.5 S5.1 S5.2 S,5.3 S5.4 S5.6 Promote co -ridership program]. Bus shelter relocation on Longmire Dr ' j Monitor ridership for shelter upgrades Promote upgraded signage Promote installationpedestrian crosswalks for bus shelters Developneighborhoodrecycling notification program N Develop a standing neighborhood green committees Begin tracking recycling participation `tip Develop green neighborhood projects like community gardens'_rrI Expand neighborhood grant opportunities for green projects Develop neighborhood green work days <« Promote water and energy audits through neighborhood organizations Develop a residential xeriscaping and native lawn planting guide Green seminar participation Explore opportunities to eliminate fees for green building upgrades Track utility use and rebate participation `< Explore alternate financing opportunities and grants to incent residential sustainable investments>` Develop neighborhood stormwater education Develop stormwater promotional activities Identify opportunities to utilize rain gardens and other stormwater management techniques Develop neighborhood input program for stormwater management plan >-r Feasibility study for carshare program Develop sustainable transit promotional programs, ie, No Ride Day, carshares, etc Develop carpools Incorporate green seminar education into seminar supper program Iniuurpuiule green education cornponerrls inlo new urgunizaiion training .1= PrmmotA Green Seminar Lunch Series Identify partnership education opportunities Create a areen score Droaram ) PDS - X - PDS - X PDS - I X - PDS - I X - PDS - .. X - L PDS-PW 1 - X X - PDS-PW I - X - PDS-PARD i - X X - PDS-PW I CC - PDS I - X X - PDS - - PDS-PARD-PW - X - PDS - X - PDS-Finance - - PDS-PW - PDS - X - PDS-PW - X X - PDS-PW - X X - PDS-PW CC PDS-PW - X - PDS - X - PD - X X - PDS - X I X - PDS-PW - X - PDS-PW - X PDS-PW - X - PDS-PW - X X - PDS - I X - (1) May have associated costs, project is currently in preliminary design - focus is on preserving opportunities to install landscaping in the future (2) Costs are unknown at this time. Additional analysis and needs assessment to be completed. Additional update to cost estimates will be provided prior to this item scheduled for implementation (3) Brazos Appraisal District currently has appraised these properties for $324,000; however, funding for greenway acquisition was provided through the 1999-2000 bond program (4) These costs are contingent upon the findings of the associated warrant study and will only be necessary if installing a four-way stop or signalized intersection is required (5) Not calculated, will not be constructed during timeframe of this plan Abbreviations: PDS-Planning and Development Services; PARD-Parks and Recreation Department; PW-Public Works; CIP-Capital Projects; PD-Police Department; CC City Council; P&Z-Planning and Zoning Commission W,