HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc.AGENDA ITEM COVER. SHEET
~~~~C[TY OF COLLEGE STATION
EMERALD FOREST Current # of lots Acres
Phase 1 47 21.08
Phase 2 32 17.11
Phase 2-A 1 1.00
Phase 3 36 10.10
Phase 4 54 1,6.82
Phase 5 13 5.35
Phase 6 54 27.32
Phase 6-A 2 0.56
Phase 7 38 16.83
Phase 8 59 26.10
Phase 9 21 9.40
Phase 10 37 14.11
Phase 10-A (R.O.W.) 1.98
i
Emerald .Forest
Recreational Facility 1 2.27
Number of lots in Emerald,Forest Phases 1 through 10 (Excluding Phase 10-A and
3 Emerald Forest. Recreational Facility):
394 LOTS
~/~/~
~~~~~ a~~
~,
A ~ / t
~-~i,
,,....,
~~~' '"31
,,
7,
~~ s ~ ~l?,~.i ~. ~.Ui~~.i:'' is ~~1.~.~~~~~~ ~.~ ~t~s~~"~~.'~'~~.~:.~i~~}}
.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~.:.~~ ~: ~~i ~~1 '~. a
4 a 4: 4 4
ti^ o
t~.i~1 fah ~"~ ~~~~. L: t~~ ~.h ~ ~"~~..~~.~.~` ~. 111 a "~.+~ ~~iL~.'1~~
e
,,
,,
,I t~ .~.1 ~.~ A •~1.'~ Y~ ~. A ~ ~~~ ~`~.. ~ ~• W Jt A ~~~ F ..A.~~..' ~. ~4.~ ~1 ti .l~ 4.r t1'V ~'YY E..' •d` v ~~ ~ .4h ~ A A~- -
`I f~ ~ ~M ~ a c.~ ~, ~ .r" ~ ~. ~ 1. 1~1i ~ r+~ ~ ~ ~ ~. i~~~ ~ .~...i:°.~.; I~ C~ i~7 c~ ~ ~` ~ '1.~. . ~~ ~~ z~
,~ W` ~„~ ~..• ~"~ ~`~ ~.'• ~- , ~.` ~. ~ Y ~ .~ ill ' ~. ~ ~ Z'1 ~5 i..~ L1 ~"'~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~; ~? t~ .t~, ~ 'i ~ i ~ ~ ,~° .~ ~ ~ i ? ~:! •
;.
A A 4./ ~ 1W W ~ ~ ~~ V4 ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ V 7v1 4 ~ 1v' ~ ~ ~. ~:~ ~• ~• A JC ~~• A A ~. ~ 4.` ~ ).~. ~ ~ N'~ ~ L.~.. .+' ~-. Lw/ A~.
{
J ~+ FM SvS ./ a.. ~W 4v' X
kl 1,. ~f~ ice.. A J. ~ 1~f ~.J Wt. ~ ~ lr Y ~~~. ~.~ ~l i~ ~ ~.!' ~ 11. ~ ~ .J~. ~ ~ ~ #i..~.l. ~ 4 - i. 1. ~n ~ ~,; l/' ~^ A. ~./.~.A. I ~ fir' i f~
4f .t
:~, ~ .~.. ~ . t~ ~~ ~ ~° ~ C~ t r .. . ~. ~. Q ~. ~.. ~ ~ ~? 111 p ~: ~. . ~1. ~` ~.;, r~ '~: - l: ~~ ~"~ i 11 ~~ ~ ° i ~ ~ ~'~ 5 ~.. ~ ~' ~. ~. i~l.
I
i
`~
~.
;'
i '.
i -.. .. ..
i _ -
I :.
F -.
V
j
"~ J` w~';
s ,._-
G
~ ~.C..a..Y~.J
v
LEGAL ~IEPA~T~E~T
FILE ~T®TE
February 27, 1990
.. _..~ ,
~ ~~`
.~'f
RE: Haldec Inc./Em aid Forest Subdivision Iat
r /
uar 22 1990 the council Development Committee met with
On Febr y
Allen Swoboda. Present at the meeting were Dick Haddox, aim
Gardner Vernon Schnieder, Allen Swoboda, Bill. Thornton, Sr.,
Larr Wells, Earl Havel, David. Pullen, Elrey Ash, Jim Callaway,
y
and myself.
PROPOSAL: After long discussion, Allen Swoboda submitted the
followin ra osal Thus proposal is to be reviewed by the staff
g p P
for a re ort. The report will cover the financial `impact. The
p
proposal' is as fol~lows:~
1. The Cit will participate on the bridge and channel at
o y
45 a o~ the costa _- This is 1'OQ o of the. channel and 45 0 of the
bridge structure. ~
oot
f
t
e
ev n
be constructed in a s
~'~ eet w~. l l
2. Appomattox Str y
' t-of-wa dedicat~d~~b Allen Swoboda,.but Allen Swoboda will
rlgh y _ ~ Y
only be re ponsble fob he cost of constructing a thirty-nine
foot wide street. The~City Council may_decidewhether to partlc-
pate in a forte-seven foot wide street.
3. The Cit will acqu~.re the right-of-way and will build
y
"North Forest Parkway" from the.. by-.pass to ~wobada's property.
Swoboda will donate or cause to be donated a sixty foot' wide
ri ht-cif-wa and construct a thirty-nine foot fide street, "North
g y +t _ e the
Forest Parkway from. the corner of his tract, this. should b
western corn:~r, to Appomattox. From Appomattox to the Wastewater
Treatment Plant tract, Allen will dedicate a thirty foot. right- .
of-wa and reconstructga road similar to the existing wastewater
y
treatment plant road. ,
The cost of this proposal is to be evaluated by the, staff .for a
recommendation to ~hecity Council.
SUMNIAR~' CAF M~~TING: Councilman Haddox began tie meeting by indi-
catn that thee-Counci!~ had felt that an agreement had been
g r
. r~eaehed at its Decembe~~ meeting but, as a result of the last( plat
submitted, realized thiat no agreement had been reached. ~ouncl-
man Haddax indicated t at he felt that: he wanted to see Appomat-
tox o through and A11.en Swoboda's subdivision develop ~ if it
~ ! Haddox in-
could be a benPf~t-to the Clay as a whole. Councilman,
dicated that., ~~~ith regard to t~~.is area, he must wear his Council
9
,,
it
i~
,.
j
i.
~!
~N ..
4 -.
- p
File. Note.....
Page 2
February 27 1990
.hat, though :.both he and Councilman`Brown recognized that several
families in .:Emerald Forest were. not anxious for Appomattox to be
extended, Councilman Haddox explored the idea of the Council
paying. for one-half of North Forest Parkway through Allen
Swoboda's property. Allen Swoboda raised the issue of traffic
count. Councilman Schneider, conveying the thought that traffic
count was 'ust one factor in his deci ion to require North Forest
7,
Parkway, sa~.d that the number of vehicles is almost irrelevant to
himl Councilman Haddox~indcated that he is trying to balance
the City interest with the developer's economic interest. Allen
.Swoboda stated that at t%e December Council meeting he thought
the Council had indicated that he only had to build North Forest
Parkwa the len th of one ot. It was painted out to-Mr. Swoboda
y g
that he had never statedi this before and that at- the meeta.ng with
the' staff the follownda he had stated that he intended to
g ~ y
submit another plat because he did not want to build North .Forest
Parkway... ~
' sued as to ~ahether a full collector street would. be
Discussion en
necessary for North Forest Parkway. dim Callaway stated that no
matter what it was called it would function as a collector
street. Elrey Ash mentioned-the subd-ivsion standards:- of the
City of College Station 'and that the smaller street,. would be
building this project into a box because it would hamper the
traffic flow.
Allen Swoboda showed an 'alternative ayout with straight streets
and indicated that his-builders had said that it would not sell.
Allen Swoboda proposed hat the City acquire part of the right-
of-way* for North forest ~Parkway_ from the adjoining property
owners and pad for two--third's of the construction cost. Theis
proposal. did not receive :support.
Councilman Schneider stated tha Nr. Fitch had been.. very success-
ful with the construction of Deacon ~west~. There followed ds-
eussion of the thoroughf~,are plan and the potential location of
schools.
A11er~ Swoboda inquired as to'the Council's decision with regard
to the"construction of orth Forest Parkway and Councilman Haddox
suggested the possibility of not requiring the cons ruction of
the bridge. Discussion did not support this idea. Councilman
Haddox inquired whether a purchaser o-f -this property from N .
Swoboda..would be requir d to build the bridge. Elrey Ash ndi-
cated that a purchaser auld be required-to build the bridge.
Allen swoboda indicated that he objected to the-plats that had
been presented to Counc'1. Exception was taken to this Lave-
merit.
Councilman Schneider recalled that the Council had indicated to
Mr. S~aoboda that he cou d take other routes through. thee. subdvi-
w.
File Nate
Page 3
February 27~ 1990
Mr. Swoboa indicated that he had explored these possibil-
slan.
hies aid preferred the original forth Faxest Pa~~way,
Allen Swoboda indicated ~o councilman Gardner that he would
donate the seventy foal wide right-af-way necessary for the con-
uctian of ~ fart ~-seven food wide street. He said that he did
str y
not want to canstr~ct ~ :forty-:seven foot wide street unless the
cit artici ~ted in t~.e difference between a fatty-seven foot
_Y p
wide street and a thir~y~-nne foot wide street. The proposal was
worked cut with discussion as to .the width of the right-of-way.-
from A amatta~ to theWastewa~er Treatment Plant tract.
PP
NOTES: The anion to ~;be dedicated from Appomattox to the
P
~Iastewater Treatment P~.ant property should be dedicated as -a pub-
lice ri/~'`.({ht~-of --way, The Cit~r may be forced to extend North. Forest
J r
Parkway at some po~.nt and should nat be required to purchase a
right-of--way interest in the land
SUMMARY `CAF PROPOSAL
't will~'I antic ate on the bridge ~~~d channel at
1. The C a. y P p
45 o of the cost . Thus ' is x.00 Q of the charnel ar~d_ 4 5 a of the
brill e structure,
g
' n a sevent , foot
~.
~c~.zd
s r
'eet will be con t
1 (~ 6 A ] ~.JL li 4ttt a..~ s.
Pp r Y
ri fat--of -~w~a dedicated ', by Allen Swaboda but A.l lei Swoboda w~.l l
g Y
and be r~sponslble for the cost of constructing athirty-nine
Y
~~; foat wide s~ree~., The~,City Council may decide whether to partic-
i ate in a f crt~-seven ~ f oot wide street .
P
3 , the Cit will I ac uire the fight-of-~wa~ ar~d will build "
y ~
"North Farest Parkway °' ~~ from the by--~as:~ to Sw~bada' s property .
Swoboda will dar~ate or cause to be donated a sixty foot wide
ri ht-of®wa and construct a thirty-nine foot wide street t°North
g y
Forest Parkwa "f from the corner of his tract, this should be the
Y
western corner, tc Appomattox. From Appomattox to the Wastewater
Treatment Plant tract Allen will dedicate a thirty foot right-~of--
way and reconstruct a road similar to the existing wastewater
treatment plant road. ~_
i
CL: sr
1
,~
i
i
i
J
9 ~, ~
~
<.
- l
~~I
`/~ ~ i~
`~.~'
y~
EP4R i
~~
..
A R
PROPOS ELIMINARY PLAT OF
EME FOREST PHASES 8,9~
Hoar 4 1990 t e Planning and Zoning commission
On Ja Y
reconsidered the pre~riously tabl`ed.:preliminary plat fox the
develo merit of Emerald Forest phases 8, g a 10 and 11. The
p
~1at was brought to the Commission by ::.the developer after
Cit Council had decided to participate in the cost of
Y
channel work and oversize bridge construction necessary to
extend Appomatox into this new section.
ber 29~ 1989 the City Council approved a motion
On Naverm
directin staff to.." negotiate with the developer, Allen
Sweboda using the theory that the City pay 100 drainage
cash and up_to approximately 45~ bridge cost; and if the
cost is over the figures presented in'the latest proposal,
must be ustifedby bid". Included in the motion was
1t
the stsement ...'`that the plat is submitted an the :basis
', that North Forest PArkway will be developed in the future as
an additional outlet for the subdivision". This acces was
~'~ t® consist of a street 'that extended from the eastern
boundary of the subdivision to the-East By-:pass frontage
road.
f
I
etin the Planning and Zoning
At the January 4th me g
Commission tabled consideration of the plat and-direc ed
staff to research specific items related to the plat and
~
~i 'ndn s. These areas of concern include:
report their fi g
1. Whether the collector shown::alang the nor h
orest Parkway) needs to be
boundary of the plat North F
reflected on the Thoroughfare Plan and if so, what
should the exact location be.
'; 2. The impact of truck traffic to and from the. Waste
~i Water Treatment Plant~WNTP) through the existing
neighborhood.
i
3. The impact of the WWTP an future: residences shown
on this plat and whether buffering is approprate._
These areas are examined below.
R
STREET NEED AND LOCATION:
f
The Cit of College Station' Throughfare Plan reflects
Y
ap~raximate locations for: fu-tune streets. This plan is
schematic in .nature, identifying routes or corridors for
'~ treets. Specific locations are typically identified
futures _
d .~ zinc the deve l o~ ~1ent review prod: s
;_
4.
'.
V
'i ..
f
To res and to the-Commsson''s request relative to the
P
approprate location for the future street it is necessary to
o be and the level of study conducted for the original
~ y
Thoroughfare Plan. Thi is done by investigating various
factors which affect specific street locations.
and other Dh sisal factors uch as flood plains.
.Topography _ y
and creeks should be taken ;into consideration. Streets
should be laved out;so as to minimize bridges and other
uctures (drainage, etc,). Topography can also impact
str _
safte such as sight distance at intersections. Ph~rscal
Y.
factorspresent in this case allow flexibility in the street
location.
r
Utility conflicts also impact preferred routes. These
conflicts are minimal in this ..case as the area is largely
undeveloped.
fli.cts with structures and residences are also minimal
Con
due: to the undeveloped natture of-the area.
Location aloha property lines can have advantages in cost
sharina'of either development costs-or treat assessments.
Disadvantages of location along property lines can occur
when one property develops prior to the other. This
situation can also limit .,the City's ability to extend
streets through assessment programs if the area aloha..,. one
side of the roadway has access via other :streets. The
enhanced value to a property of providing a second access
point is diminished.
Relationships to future and existing land uses and ultimate
street functan were considered when-the route was
incorporated into the Thoroughfare Plan. Addtionaly,
relationships to the areawde street system were also
considered.
Development timing is a factor that impacts the location of
streets. New development may generate the.-need for a
street . -If sa, the new development should install the
street. Typically a street instal ed in this fashion is
located so that the development cost per lot is at the.
lowest possible level.
The Commission requested that the demand for the street be
identified. Demand or need for a collector as an alternate
access route becomes necessary when factors are such than
the rovision of the collector will .reduce congestion and
p
internal travel volumes by providing alternate routes, will
disperse the impact of development on the ~xternalroad
system, will provide alternate routes for emergency
ve':~~:~c1es, wi11 pro~r~,~e continuity ir: the internal sts.~~et
sys em for sere-ice;delivery and m intenance, will provide
residents with an alternate span exit in case the other exit
is blocked and when its pravsonwill nrovide the greatest
traffic efficiency and app~rtunty for residents to get
where they want to ao by the shorest pos ible route.
Com arision of he projected traffic volume versus he
p
carrying rapacity of existing streets can indca e the need
for additional streets or improvements to existing streets.
Impact studies submitted by the developer identify adequate
caa acity in existing streets eased on street- width only" and
p
do not take into account interruptions into traffic flow due
to turning movements and through traffic-. Further study may
show a~need for striping or sianalization at various
locations. This need may be significantly different
depending on whether North Forest Parkway is constructed,
thus relieving Emerald Forest Parkway as the sale access
into the subdivision. If .Emerald Forest Parkway remains the
sole access for the subdivision further conside'rastion must
be given -to the en~rronmental aspects of additional traffic
movement through the existing neighborhood.
A development such as the one. under consideration can impact
service- de l very and public saf tey as we 11 as traffic
volumes. The Commission requested comment from. service and
emergency se-rvGe delivery departments of the City and these
comments are attached in the form of mamas from those
departments. In summary the comments from. police, fire and
sanitation indicate a desire fcr an alternate route to be
established with, the development of these new phases of the
subdivision.
A.s indicated above an analysis of the costs and benefits of
developing a street can be weighed. against the estimated
value of savings to;-the users of the facl%.ty. Savings are
typically the value of time and vehicle o~eratn~ costs
saved by use of the new-foci-lity as it allows residents to
get to their destinations by the shortest route possible.
such an analysis is beyond the resources available for this
review.
TRUCK TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBQRHOOD:
i
i
a
Resolve routing of ttrucks to ATP
- _ trucks of residential street (?
Issue Desire to keep TP
can we assume thislto be street with residences fronting?)
`~~~y want to keep -~, +ch trucks separ~,~,te from resident ~ ai
• ~• e
zraf f ic, etc . The ~lssue heare is not -gust the oder or noes
associated with such trucks. The issue also includes he
"common" airport scenario, where a facility is :built away
from development. Development occurs near the facility, the
the impacts associated with the facility become political
issues.
Problems-
Keepin traffic of f of sewer plant road (Green teal ley Drive
Syndrome)
Problems (Complaints., etc) have occurred in other cities
where. residential areas have crown up around municipal
facilities, creating residential streets out of the access
routes into and out of the facility.
Se aration of traffic (keepi a pub of of f sewer plant road ~
p ..
will become more difficult in the future, after Appomatox
crosses the road.
Carter Creek limits routes to the east.
Traffic may (will) increase if (when ~~ land application of
sludge ends.
BUFFERING:
.~
The Commission expressed concern about the proximity of the
proposed development to the existing Waste Water Treatment
Plant. These concorns centered on he impacts Qn future
residences from plant noise and odors and the impacts on
future plant expansion. Staff was .directed to in~restiaate
the applicability under current law and local ordinances of
requiring additionalbuffer area be ween the two uses.
Under current 1-aws there. is adequate buffer required on the
Waste Water Treatment P ant site itself The Department of
Health requires separation between this tyke of ..use and
residential uses o~ 150 feet from the plant facility to the
residential properties. Current City codes and ordinances
do not provide foriobtainin~ additional land to-act as a
buffer without compensation to the Land owner. This
includes whether the land is required to remain vacant or is
limited to some other type of band use more compatible with
the treatment plank facility.
I
CONCLUSIONS: {
LOCATION AND NEED:
After review of the facters which determine the best
local ion for the sty rest it is found th~ t there is latt ~. tulle
l
as to exact-location. The street could be moved either
north ar south along Appomatax: ,
The need for the street-should be based on saftey and
service delivery factors, average and peak traffic volumes,
officient and time effective rautina for residers ial traffic
and conformance with the thoroughfare plan. From a safety
and service delivery standpoint the need fo~° the street is
created with this development. Conformance with the
thoroughfare plan is achieved with therequirment for the
street and residential traffic ~enerated.`from this new
development would be Given a more efficient aces route with
the provision'af the collector s reet. Because this.
development creates a-need for the additional street it
should. be located uch that this development provides 'that
street.
TRUCK TRAFFIC:
Development of a road configured like North Forest Parkway
would allow the durrent and future traffic from the WWTP to
avoid the exist-na portion of Emerald Forest Parkway.
Access to North Fareset Parkway from residential lots shouyld
be avoided not only because-residers ial access to colectars
should be limited but because of the WWTP truck traffic as
well.
Specific access during and after development wil require
coordination between the developer, the City Attorney's
office and the Water and Sewer Division. This will .have to
be addressed_as a dart of the final plat review for each
phase. of the subdivision.
BUFFERING:
Bufferrinq currently required under exisitng regulations is
provided on the WWTP site at this time. To require
additional buffering would constitute a taking and could
require compensation,
r d ~
~ r~~ ~ b®~
TO: Major Feldman
FROM : Lieutenant Onstott
DATE: January 11, 1990
S U B~1 E CT Proposed Emerald Forest Addition
After reviewing the preliminary .map for the proposed Emerald Forest
Addition, I have the following suggestion. I would recommend that the City
Sewer Plant Road be payed from the By-Pass East Feeder alT the way to the
proposed Appomattox Extension.
By doing this it would allow for two access 'points into the new addition.
Appomattox Drive, the only proposed .access- to the area, could easily
become flooded and impassable due to the creek that will have to be bridged.
By paving the Sewer Plant Road this would allow another entry into the area
if this occurs.
Two access points would also help the Fire and Police Departments with
their response times into the area. It would not only help the new addition
but also .the older portion of Emerald Forest during emergency response
situations..
I do not. feel that the proposed. one-way feeder roads which have been
rumored for some time will present a problem in responding to calls in this
area due to the new cross-over that was built at the entrance of Emerald
Forest.
r li M
COLLEGE STATION pOLIcE DEPARTMENT
INTRA DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TOe Major F~ld~an
FROM. Lt B~rni~ Kapella
DATE: January 16, 199
SUBJECT ~ New Addition to Emerald Forest
Ln reference to this new ad~t ion and looking ~o the future, I
can foresee a traffic problem and a problem to our response time
in an emergency type call . I f the f eed~r roads are one-way and a
unit `is in R~i~tree, they will have to either go the wrong way on
'the feeder road or go back to Highway 3~ and. down the opposite
feeder road. Also, unless the intersection at Emerald Forest is
change, it presents a location which could b~ prone to
accidents.
Recommendationsm Eithex give the subdivision its o~n access or
more feasible ~o connect all three Windwood, Raintree and Emerald
~°orest with ~ major artery allowing for two-way traffic from
Highway 3~ plus access from the feeder roads .
I
_ _ _ __
a~ ~~
~~' 4 a ~ ~~
P
~EPARTMEIVT PUBLIC .SERVICES
Post Office Box; 9960 2613 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
X409) 764-3691
MEMORANDUM
T0. Jane Kee, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Smith, Assistant Director c e
g~
anuar 2~~!6 19
DATE. J y i '
lat
• I~I'rest Phase $ Prelimina P
SUBJECT. Emerald Fo y
For reasons of ~f ~ i~ ency of operation and traf f is
circulation the pra,posed_subdivision should includeaccess
to the Bypass eithe~~r by extending Appomattox to the Raintree
Subdivision, ox the!, construction of North Forest Parkway as
shown on a previous;; submission of the plat.
._ ~._~ q _
~7 ~
' ~ !d
A REPORT t~N-THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY SLAT ~F
EMERALD FOREST PHASES 8,9,1 x,11
INTRODUCTIQN:
~n January 4,1990 the Planning and Zoning ~ommis$on reconsidered the
.previously tabled preliminary plat for the development of Emerald. Forest phases
8,9,10 and 11. The plat was brought to the Commission by the developer. after
City Council had decided to participate in the cost of .channel work and oversize
bridge construction necessary to axtend Appomattox into this new section.
~n November 29,1989 thae City Council approved a motion directing staff to..."
negotiate with the developer, Allen Swoboda, using the theory hat the City pay
100% drainage costand., up to approximately 45% bridge cost; and if the cost is
over the figures .presented in the latest proposal, it must be justified by bid".
Included in the motion was the statement ....''that the p(at is submitted on the
basis that North Forest :Parkway will be developed in the future as an additional
outlet for the subdivision".~. This .access uvas to consist of a street that extended
from the eastern boundary of the subdivision to the East gy-pass frontage: road.
Subsequently, Mr. Swoboda met with the staff and indicated that. he did not want
to construct North Forest Parkway. He later submitted a plat. depicting half of the
right-of-way as a right-of-way reserve:.
At the January 4th meeting the Manning and Zoning Commission tabled
consideration of he plat and directed staff to research specific items related to
the plat and report their findings. These areas of concern include:
- 1 whether the collector shown along the north: boundary of the plat
~N:orth Forest Parkway} needs. to be reflected on the Thoroughfare
Plan and if s~o, what the exact location should -be.
2. The impact Qf truck traffic to and from the waste water Treatment
Plant ~WWTP} through the existing neighborhood.
3. The impact of the WWTP on future residences shown on this plat,
implication for future permits for plant expansions and whether
buffering is appropriate.
STREET NEEb AND LC~C~TIaN:
The City of College Station's Thoroughfare Plan reflects approximate LOCations for
future streets. This flan is schematic in nature, identifying routes or corridors for
future streets...:. Specific to ; ations are typica(y identified during the development
review process:
To respond to the Commission's request re ative to the appropriate location for
the future street it is necessary to go beyond the level of study conducted for the..
_..._.. _ _. .._._.. ... _. _..... N ... .. __ :~:_~ _.. ... _:. ... ..... _.. _.. _.. ... __ .:._._ ~__ .. .. _..... _.
on final Thoroughfare Plan. This is done by investigating various factors which
g
affect specific street location .
Topography and other physical factors such as flood plain and creeks should
betaken into considerations street locations should be designed so as to
minimize bridges and other structures drainage, etc.). Topography cane also
impact safety, such as sight distance at intersections. Physical factors present in
this case allow flexibility in the street location. ~-
Utility. conflicts also impact preferred routes.: These conflicts are minimal in this
case as the area.: is largely undeveloped.
Conflicts with structures and residences are also minimal due to the undeveloped
nature of the area..:.
Location along property fines can have advantages in cost sharing of either
development costs or street assessments. Disadvantages of locations along
property fines can occur when one property develops prior to the other. -This
situation can also limit the City's ability to extend streets through assessment
programs if the area along one side of the roadway. has access via other streets.
The enhanced value to a property of providing a second access point is
diminished.
Relationships to future and existing .wand uses and ultimate street function were
considered when the route was incorporated into the Thoroughfare Plan.
Additionally, relationships to the areawide street system were also considered.
Development timing is a factor that impacts he ovation of streets. New
development may generate the need for a street. If so the new .development
should install the street. This often results in the street being located within or
adjacent to the new development.
The Commission requested that the demand far the street be identified. Demand
or need fQr a collector as an alternate access route becomes necessary when.
factors area such that the provision of the collector will reduce congestion and
internal travel volumes by providing alternate routes, will disperse thee. impact of
development on the external road system, will provide alternate routes far
emergency vehicles, will. provide continuity in the internal street system for
service delivery and maintenance, will provide residents with an alternate open
exit in case the other exit is blocked and when its provision.. will provide the
greatest traffic efficiency and opportunity for residents to get where they. want to
go by the shortest possible route..:.
Impact studies submitted by the developer identify adequate capacity in existing
streets based on street width only and do riot take into: account .interruptions into
traffic flow due to turning movements and through traffic. Furtherstudy may
show a need for striping or signalization at various .locations. This need may be
significan ly different depending on whether North Forest Park~ay is
constructed, thus relieving Emerald Parkway as the sole access in o the
subdivision, If Emerald Parkway remains the sole access for the subdivision
further consideration mu t be given. to the :environmental aspects ~f additional
traffic movement through the existing neighborhood.
~~
A developmentsuch astheoneunder consideration can impact service delivery
and public safety as well astraffic volumes. The Commissionrequested
comment from service and emergency service deliverydepartments of the city
and these comments are attached in the form of memos from those
departments. In summary the comments from police, fire andpublic services
indicate thatan alternate route could increase the evel of service response
time,etc.~. Additionally the lackof an alternate route could...result in the disruption
of emergency serviceso
As indicated above an analysis of the costsand benefits of developing a street
can be weighed against~the estimated value of avingsto the users of~thefacility.
Savings pare typically thevalue of time and vehicle operating costs~saved byuse
of the new facility alit slows residents to get to their destinationsby the shortest
route possible. Such an analysis is beyondthe resources avalable for this
review.
TRUCK TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBQRH~JOD
The city of College Station has a legal interest in the property for its use of a road
to the Waste Water Treatment Plant,: one area of concern is the traffic currently
associated with the Waste water Treatment:.:Plant. Various vehicles, including
trucks hauling sludge away from the treatment plant, travel along sewer plant
road... This type of through traffic is not typically found in neighborhoods.
fmpaets from traffic olume, noise ar~d odor could be a source of problems and
complantsp
Impacts of truck traffic could potentially increase not only because of possible
future plant expansion but due to re-routing of traffic when the By-.pass feeder
roads go one-way.
If I~arth Forest Parkway is built to standard as a collector, the plat design should
avoid any lots with driveway access to this street, not only;because of the
function of the street.., as a collector but because of potential conflict with truck
traffic.
BUFFERING:
The Commission expressgd concern about the proximity of the proposed .~
development to the existing Waste Water :Treatment Plant. These concerns
centered on he impacts on future residences from plant noise and odors and
the impacts on future plant expansion. Staff was directed to investigate the
applicabi ity under current laws and Deal ordinancesof requiring additional buffer
area_between the two uses.
The existing buffers at the WWTP site .meet: requirements under the current laws.
The Department of Health requires~separation between this,type of use and
residential uses. of 1 ~0 feet from the plant facility to he residential properties.
Current. Cit codes and ordinances da not rovde .fore obtanin additional land
y p g
to act as a buffer without compensation to the land owner. Theis includes whether
the land is required to remain vacant or is limited to some other type ofi land use
more compatible with the treatment plant facility.
~:6~
It is .hard to tell at this time what impacts the proposed development might have
on future permits far plant expansion as it is difficult to anticipate future changes
in relevant regulation .
SUMMARY:
LaCATIQN AND NEED:
After review of the factors which determine the best location far North Forest
Parkway.: it is :found that here is latitude as to exact location. The street could be
moved either north or south along Appomattox.
The need fora the street should be based on safety` and service deli ery factors,
average and peak traffic volumes, efficient and tine effective rowing for
residential traffic and conformance with the thoroughfare plan. Frorn a safety
and service delivery standpoint the need for the street is created.: with this
development. Conformance with the thoroughfare plan is achieved with the
requirement for the street and residential traffic generated from... this nee
development would be given a more efficient access routewith the provision. of
the collector street. Because this development creates a need for the additional
street it should be located such: that this development provides that street.
{
TRUCK TRAFFIC:
~ Develo merit of a road confi used Tike North Forest Parkwa would reduce the
P g Y
impact of City truck and commercial truck traffic on Emerald Parkway. Driveway
access to North: Forest Parkway from residential lots should be limited to avoid
conflict with the through traffic common to a collector street. Rear yard
orientation acts as a buffer .between the residential structures and this traffic.
E
fi
.. ,
,.I -
Specific access to the treatment: plant during and after development will require
~ coordination between the developer, the City Attorney's office and the water and
Sewer Division. This- will have to be addressed as a part of the .final plat review
for each phase of the subdivisions
a
BUFFERING.
Buffering currently required under existing regulations _provided on the UvwTP
site at this time..:. To require additional buffering could constitute a taking and may
require compensation.
FIRE DEP~4RTMEIVT
i
r~,=.
'y,~...
!'
~
~ n
~:~ ~
~r/ ~~
,
~r~
~~~,~~ ~ ~
~~
,i.
~~-
~ T
I Y F
E
4
.
P. ~. BMX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVEN(JE
~
,~.
?~w
COLLEGE STATiC?N, TEXAS 77842-0960
764
409
3
0
G (
)
-
50
~,
{,;
~.
~;.
~~
t:
~..
~
~ _August 21, 1990
~,
~~
~~
.Allen. Swoboda
,,
~ 1607 Emerald Parkwa
Y
~° Col ege Station, Teas 77845
~
1 ,. Re : Emerald Forest Ph 8 , 9 , 10 , 11
•~ ~.
y
~~
-.
Dear Mr . Swob od a ,
_ ;
,.
Thin letter -~s to inform you of the current status of
1
~.
Emerald Forest Phases 8 9 , -1~ , 11. As of
:the review - of
-
.
t _
_ -
-
:
today, we _have not received reuised construction -plans from
~ :>
i; your consultant, I~DG. We have received preliminary plans .
~ for each phase for water,. sewer, street , and drainage
impro~rements . There have been sgnif icant changes to he
~~~
plans that your consultant is presently revising. When we
'~ receive the revised plans, we will distribute to he
~~
appropriate personnel and review.
Preliminary const-ruct-ion plans for the bridge at
. Appomattox-have also been received and are currently under
~,~ .-
review.:
~~
~ We -realize you are under ~ tight time constraints for
~
'~,
this development;. however, we are unable to continue the
r
review proness without revised plans.
If ~rou have..... any questions regarding this, please
contact Shirley yolk, Development Review Coordinator at 764-
3570.
Sincerely,
`-~'
-Deborah Leslie Keatln
g, P.E.
,Project Engineer........
cc: Shirley Volk, De~relopment Review Coordinator
.
f David Pullen , C `.t E 'nee
~-~o~~e o~~exas ~~ ~ ~lniversty
- . -_ _
.. ._ . .
- :.
PL~INNINO DIVISION
Post Office Box 9960 ~ 1 Q1 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(~09} 764-3570
Auu~ t i ~, ~~~.
NOTE T~ FILE
~~EJ ECT : EMERALD ~`~~ET P'~IAE ~
ttend~es: -E~11 Tharnt~n ~r~pr~e~~ntln Allen S~wabo+da)
A
Elroy Ash
~avi~ ~u~l~n
e'er wn i ~a Morgan
Jim Callaway ,~
Shirley ~~alk , fr. '
M~~t-er ~rel~m~na-r Flat ag E~er~ld E~or~~t Fha~es 8, 9,
The ~ he
10 11 gas approved bey I~~unoi l on April 12, 194 with t
~cond i t i on t fat ~ h~ days l op~r ~bt a i ~ the second ha ~ f o f t he
ri ht~-o-f-~ay_~whlch x~ ~ 30 foot strip off ~i ~-ro~-erty)
frog the ~ando-w-n~rs.
. wot-oda t ur red i n ghat he says i s the d a~+cument wh i cb
l~r
~ilx fulfill this ~anditian ~ometin~~ dur-ink the weed of 8-5
to ~-~-~1, Thy de~elap~ent ~c~or~~nator band +~~rrled this
do~cum~nt to the l~al d~p~rtn~+~nt and turndd i aver to Jan
chw~r t ~ .
he fallawi'n ste ~ ~us~ be tai~~n to ~~et ill r~qurem+ents
T ~ ~ d
prior t a con iderat i on of a f i n~al p apt by City Caun~i l an
sub~e+~uent ff 1i~~ a~ the plate for r~card and building the
sub-di~sian:
}
r.
~,
'i
i
~t ens t o ~~ f i 1'i n ~~ 1 at
- NMIINININ0IN NNNIINIIMMIINIIINIIINNNINIINNINMIM/NMNIINNN IM/IIMIINI~ININIINMNINN
'~---
eps t o Cans t r u~ct i on
gNNI1NIN/MN1 1l1MINeNIINNIH111NHNNMINNIMiNNMMNNIIMN11NM11NNI11NINI1N11NININNINNINI
1. Approval of ~u~ter ~. Approve of Freliminur~
P'rel mi-nary ~"l~at P1a~~ Csa~e ~-s prevf pus #1)
~-
a. Fi1in: a~ documdnt
~. ~'~~A ubmitta~~1
Cw~-u~ d
dddicat ng ri~ht-ofmway for ~ .
accept proof from Allen
North Forest ~'arkway~ ~1and - h~-t this i em wa
trot now belonin~ to Allon submitte~~ ~ .e, red ~tered
Swoboda ~ .
maid receipt, ,etc.
2 Revised f ina~l plat 3. Approval a-~
~ho~v~n~ a ~.4 -foot utility con tru+ct i on Mans Crevis~d
' ear em~nt u l one all r i ~ht ~ - ~s ~r ev i our ~ y mentioned i n
of -w~oy (Phase ~ on~y~ . #4 to the left ~ .
3: En~neer'~ estimate 4. Either 'co~~truct the
tse~led ` by re,is eyed P.E.) in~rustructure and then
of constru~cti®n 'costs which have the plat filed after
~~nclude the proposed the City issues a- fetter: of
changes i f Allen dec i dns t o
I Accept ante, or ~f i l e 'the
! t ke t
hfs dir~a~ian®
plat for record with Allen
1
.putt ink utp a Letter of
4~. nevi s ~+~ ~const r uct a~ ~ ~ua~ran ee,
plans of AZle,n decides a
make the ~+chanes approved
~~ ~ouncil~.
~ Executed Development
Agreement Ca~reeahl e t a
Both part ies ~ .
~ Letter Pram ~laen
r~~uest n oversize
a
part,ici~at ion. .
~
fi ts.ff takes over ~
size a
~'ertcipation lette
~ to
ounc 1 for consider
~ :
atian.
~
'
~
,
8'. staff ekes Fina l -Plat
t o Coun+c i ~l . ~ ~
~_ .
N
~T .
E
Items 7 & ~ ;could
~'~
,
~e t ne 'same i t ems on 'the .
Council agenda, or ~t the
vet -least should i -
Y ~ .
certainly ~e on he ;same
~~na~I
,,
~.
~~
~~
~
~~v~~b~r ~~, 1~
PRF~UB~IIOI~ ~o~FEP NEE
ME1~QR~.~DU1~
~`~: Playa ink e.nd ~vnin~ ommi~son
~~r~ welly Ee.r1 H~.~e~., MDR
Alle ~wob~d~
FROM; ~'~ne ~.: Kee, Senior Planner
Mari nth A~~i~t~nt Gay Enne~r tJ
Bi11 Rile, operations ~.n~.~er, wh~er ~: Sewer
Rai u~re~a Electrical up~rintendant
' Jim ~lls.we~, ~,it~ Pl~~an~r
Vieth L~ck~, ~it~ A~~torne
~~.~~ ~ Akin, ~E prior review}
~ou~ Lahdu~, Fire Chief ~~rior review}
Mike Strope, Police ~hiafl Prior review}
ern Rei~t~r ~ P~rr~ B~.kow~ki, ,one Star Cas
Shir ~~ folk, Ple~ani~a~ ~~chn~i~n
SUBJECT: l~a~t~r Pre rnin~ry Plat Emere.ld-Forest Phases ~, ~,
to ~ 11 ~ -~o~~
A Pr~aub~n~son Codf ren~e was held ~~ November ~~, 1~$~ to review
the sub~ec`t plat, en ~t~.~f i~.~~ti~i~d the f~~,l~~in~ ar~~~ ~f
concern which must b addr~~s~d.
PLAN'NIN~ ~ Mr. C~~1~ ~ regort~d the.t stu~F has ide~atified
~everal~ere~s of maj r concern re~.rdin~ ~ppom~tto~ which will be
t~.ken to the, City ~o nail ~,n t~e~e~b~r ~~th for direction, with ~
report to follow poi ~ tb the Pl~~n~~ ~nc~ ~ohia~~ ~ommi~~i~n.
Those s:re~~ ~~ cc~aca , n cover Le~~.l, Enineer~in~ and Planning
pub ject~.
The ~.pplicant'~'repr eentative, Larry ells, requested that
review ~~ t~.ie plat ~ ccr~f fined to ~h~ la~ut ~~' the ~uhdivisicn
only, without uddr~ea ing ~~~~. ;:
LONE STAR +~~~ ~ de ~rminution moat be ruched ~s to ~ route to
provide service tc t %~ subdivision the-r than the obvious route
which would be ~o~ne ting fit the e.~istig service along Emera.l.d
Parkws.~ ob the other ~id~ o~ thecreek.
ENCIN~ERINC: The gr p~s~d plat does not ud~res a.~cess to the
waste water Treatmen Pldnt either in the ghasi~g ~~ the ultimate
development ~~ the s bdivison. Mr'. wells rep ied that it i~ the
develop~r'~ intent ~ r the City to take access ddwn North Forest
a~
n
Parkway to the tract t~ ~h~ northeast nf_th~ e~i~tin~ giant.
~ecaus~ the ex~tin road ~-ll ~.~~~ t~ be mo~ve~, ~oces-~ ~n~y have
to he ~ddre~sed pith are ~~~~~ment ~r~m ~d~j~cent landdw~er~.
LE~~L~ with the pro da~~. ~aclud~d on thin pl~:t, the pity would
haverto oons~ruct ~ oad from the end of North forest Parkway to
the haste 'dater ~r~a ~~n Plant, and ~in~~ ~ read ~I~eady e~ist~
to which the City is ~ntitl~d to cont~.r~u~d use vii an ea~~ment,
the City secs nu rya ~n t~ have to build an'~ther ~~~ad. The
de~relop~r should ~c~a dinate plans for a read with all departments
to s.ssure access on continuous roadw~.y a.s each ph~.se ~f the
subdi~~i~on develops.
ENINEERiN~ ~, dra ale plan for the entire shbdi~ision i~
r~qur~d. Thy ~ub~i ted Draina~e.I~g~ct study ~.~ adequate for
what. it d~a~, hit tion ~ o~ t~.e uhdivsion R~,~ulations
requires more before the plat can b~- taken to the Pl~nnin~
Z~nin ~ommisiou ~+~ c~nsider~tior~.
A proposed utility 1 yo~t within the subdi~rision is aTeo required
an:d should include l ne si2e~ and the r~.tional behind the sues
chosen.
Thy location, sire ~ line, products tranp+orted and pressures +~£
the line in the E~~o eae~m~nt mu t be submitted.
Include a noteon th plat wh~.~h indicates that access to
~,ppomatto~ ~r~m rei entia.l lets dill b~ p~ohbte-ci.
omc type. o~ pro~isi n must be Made to prevent backing ~n to
~t~rth Forest Parkway ~'~~~ those lots which n~~d to take access to
that street. '~~th crept Parkway is ~ cc lector street, and has
been idcntifi~d ae ~ ch ~~ the Thc~reuh~fare Plan. In re~'erence
to Blocks l2 ~: l~, o -site turnarounds which have been provided
in like instances ire the past are not adequate. Pro~i~~.~n~ fnr
rear access or crcl d~ive~ a~ wider lflts could addrese this
preblem, but sta~'f u~. consider alternatives proposed by the
devel~~er.
,~ note should al o~ b included on the plat indicating that access
to Lote 1°4 Block ll will ~~ ~i~ the minor ~etreets.
E~GINEERI~'~ ~: FIPE: dames of "prn~ ~re~k", walnut drove
court", and ~~~ildewo d irc~.e~' shc~~ld be rec+an~der~d. Tl~e Fire
Bepartm~nt has e~pre sed eancern-because these streets wind and
cure in dif~'erent d'rections, and could be very con~us~.n~ to
locate ~'or emerencY servic:~s. ~u~~est chan~n~ names of the
stre~et~ as they make bid turns which tatully change direetic~n.
ELEC'~RT~CAL taf assumi~- underground service in the
subdivision ~ de~ir da ~ to fort easement alnn;~ the north side
o~ forth Forest Perk ey is rewired.
The proposed P~~n fo service to the~~ ~.ots swill be wia
placement o~ tr~nsor~ners on the front oi' the Its, with conduit
Presubmis~icn Confer n~ce 9-30~ ll-~2-~~ Pale ~
4 F
`' 4 ~t
aid ire ~.n the rich
re~~red ~-n e~.~h lc~
fir ~i~~ and 1~cat~
LEGAL: Off-pr~mi~e
be required to cove
will be re~ured ri
Leal department for
PLAi~NI~'~ Adjae~~t
Mater Pr~lim`n~r P
subdi~sian, These
submit letters to ~.~
ire ~~ree~bl~ tt~ the
WATER ~ EwER'~ "~n
_.~___
Plant means~dontr~ue
and emer~on~~ ~ehiol
PLA1~1~I~'~~Z~NI~~ : e
with the Final P1~~
definitely required.
The Parkland D~edi~at
subrnissinn ~f the ~'i
St~EMIT ~A. FILM P~SITI
PLA1~~'I~ D~~I530`~' D
PB~~ AGENDA F0~ DEEM
~kAn~- changes t n an a
office cf .the pity P
Presubmi~sicn Canf~r
~f~way. Ea~ement~ far ~quip~ent will be
C~nrdinate ~i~h the Ela~tr~~]. di~isian
of eae~n~nt ~ ~ ,
~aae~ne~t~ from a~,~~.cent pr~pert~ owners will
r~adwa~ and ~tilit~i~s. Easement do~uan~nts
~r to Final Ply tiny. ~~c~rr~na~e with the
~p~ef`ic Fin~.l Plat ~°~qui~e~ents.
'r~pert~r awner~ ~h~ul~d be parties t~ the
at be~ausa ~f the boundaries of the
~e~-p1o ~~~ eth~:r sign the appli~ati~on ~r
~mpan~' the Preliminary Play i~dicatn~' they
prc~pnsed ~rranement.
.ir~ued ae~ess`f to the waste water treatment
! ~~~~~~ ~n ~ ~ h+~ur basis fns lame, small
;s ,
;c~nin,~ ~f this gr~pe~t~' can be cnn~urrent
br prig ~~ the Final Plat, bat re~nnin~ is
enn issue gust be rea~l~ad print to
gal Plat appli~~tinn,
~E ANA 13 ~OPTE +~F THE REMISED PLAT TO THE
I~04N ~~ ~E~E~IDER 1 1~~~ TO BE IN~LtIDEU ~~ THE
DER ?, l~$~.
~prn~ed plat mint b'e cleared thr~u~h the
ax~aer .
ence ~~-3~~ 11°~~~-
Pale ~
~~I rC1TY OF COLLEGE STATION
J PLANNING DIVISION
,r;~,
W,.
v.~~
~~~:
,~
`qW:,l
f.
:.,
i~yY
4 -
~ ..
TI
A
E
LE
L
T
IY
p ~ 1101 TExAS AVEf~C1E -
. BoX 9960
C®Lr.EGE STaTIQN, TExAS 77842-0960
(409} 764 -3500.. -
~,
August 21, 1990
Allen Swoboda
1607 Emerald Parkway
College Station, Texas 77845
Re: Emerald Forest Ph 8, 9, 10, 11
Dear Mr. swoboda, - -
This letter is Ito inform you of the current- status; of
the reviev~ of Emerald Forest Phases 8, 9 , 10 11. As ~ of -
- -
~~ ~ .
_
today, we have not receivied revised construction plans frog -
~~ ~ your consultant , MDG. We have received preliminary plans
~~ for each phase for water, sewer, street , and drainage
~ m ro~ements. There have been.. significant changes t~o the
p
plans that your. consultant is presently revising. When: we
receive the revised plans, we will distribute to the
appropriate personnel and review:..
Prelimnar construction plans. .for the bridge at~
y
Appomattox have also been received and are currently under
review..
We realize you are under. tight time constraints for
this deve~.opment, h®wever, we are unable to continue the
t
~, review process without revised plans.
{
If you have any. questions regarding this, please
~~
contact Shirley Volk, Development Review Coordinator at 764-
~~
~r 3'5 7 0 .
i
S~.ncerely,
~~ r
Deborah Leslie Keating, P . E,
Project Engineer
~~
cc s Shirley Volk, Development Review Coordinator
David Pullen , C ~' t E • nee
~o~e o~~e~as ~~ ~ C~n~vers~t~ _
- _ - - _ _
_ ..
~ . L+i•
~~
-:
~. ...
BLiC UT CITIES DEPARTMENT
PU
1601 S Graham Road
lle e:Station, Texas 77..842-:0960
Co g
Electrical - (409) 764-3681
Administration - (409) 764-3688 Technical - (409) 764-3682
Water~Sewer - (409) 764-3.655
M E M O R A N D U M
t:
'
T0: Mark Smith, A
sstant City Engineer
FRAM: -- Ray Havens, E
ctrcal Superintendent
e
:ATE : January. 4 19,
D 0
•
SUBJECT: Master Prelim at -Emerald Forest Phases 8, 9, 10,
nary.,. P1
and 11
,;
~~
,.
~;
~;~
,~
2 0 foot easement a
i~ The
oot road right-of -way. needs
~ acent to the
see attached. I could pos-
e extended across L
to b
'°
th only
w 4. .
t 12 of flock 1 ' s a 15 foot
or 15 foot easement since there i
~
..
i
sibly get by
'`'~- building set-back.
,;
°
If ou have any questio
Y
~; .
se Contact me at ext. b80.
s~ plea
t
k RH/ sh
~'
enclosure
~ cc; Shirley .Volk
i
{
,_
I
~•-` CIT F COLLEGE STATIOI`I
PLANNING DIVISION
P.,~~ flff~no Rn,r 49~f1 11(11 TaxaG Avan~iP
c' '~ , , ' J
M E M Q R A N D U M
` ~ ~~
f
I
~1'1Y1~ ~ ~~~~ 1 ~ L'~ 1n~
Q~
LEGAL. C3EPARTMENT
Pos Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 71842-0960
(409) 764-3507
MEM4RAHDUM
To: Members of t e Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Marianne Lan ers Banks, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Access Easem nt Across Swoboda Tract to Wastewater
Treatment P1 nt
DATE: January 25, 990
I have researched the status of the easement-allowing the
City acres to the Wa tewater Treatment.:.:Plant. I seems that at
one time the Ct had
y title to a thirt -foot-wide section of land
Y
that was used to-acres the Wastewater Treatment Plant.: When the
City was negotiating w 'th the Kapchinski family to obtain right
Tap.
of way for Krenek oad, the Kapchinskis desired to .:regain the
.
minerals underneath th e -City's land. As ...part of the right-of -way
transacton,_a-correct I•
on deed was executed by the Kapchinskis
which conveyed a thin -foot-wide sec ion of land to the City,
but reserved all miner 1 interest in he Kapchnskis.
The thirty foot - s cton of -land is where the road is
currently located for cuss. o the Wastewater: Treatment Plant.
.The road, as it curren tly exists, cuts through the middle of Mr.
Swoboda's plaanned"deve opmen Na urally, the City would be
unwilling to give up~i ts access o the Treatment Plants. but a
relocation of the road could be possible in conjunction with. the
proposed development.
i
MLB ' l s
~
~