Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneouss, r ~'~' ~.. ~.7 0 Y ®~J ~ V e Y 6® ~ a ~ aa+ o o ®~ ~. ® e o ®,.~. 9 a m w ~o . . ~° i September 13, 1995 Mrs. Shirley Volk Development Services Coordinator CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box. 9960 College Station, Teas 77842 RE: SHENANDOAH PHASE THREE FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL Dear Shirley: .Attached lease find the following items fir the above referenced sul3~ittal: 1. Si;~teen (16) folded blueline prints of the final plat 2. Completed Application Form 3. Copy of Paid Tax Certificate (the original was submitted with the PYaase Two f final flat in March, 1.995 argil there are no changes:) 4. Two (2) sets of construction. drawings 5. Drainage Report update 6. Filing Fee of $200.00 Please be advised that we have revised the lots included in Phase Three to eliminate construct~,on of three (3) temporary turn- arounds and the sewer line alignment to tie into Phase Two, eliminating a ,road bore. We will submit the revised Master Preliminary Play as soon as possible. Please notify me of the time that this project will be scheduled for PRC. I will submit the signed mylar after any staff requested revisions have been made. It is my tiinderstanding that this plat will b~ p~~ced on the agenda of the Thursday, October 5, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Should you }have any questions, please advise. Very truly urs, .~ M chael R. cClure, MRM/mlm attachments P.E., R.P.L.S. 1722 Sroadrnoor, Sui4e 210 Sryara, ~'exas 77802 ®(409} 776-6700 FAX (409} 776-6699 {;s. ,fir ~~ `~~~.. , July 10, 1995 McClure Engineering 1722 Broadmoor, Ste 210 Bryan, TX 77802 Attn: Mike McClure RE: Shenandoah Parkland TJedication Dear Mr. McClure, It is my understanding from Steve Beachy that the Parks Board is interested in obtaining land in the Shenandoah area as there is no parkland in this particular park zone. The Homeowner's Association approached the Parks Board in an effort to give the existing private park facility to the City. Their intention is to turn over maintenance as their association has no funds to continue maintenance. This would be a gift to the City and would not satisfy Mr. Froehling's parkland dedication requirements under the subdivision regulations for the phases he is developing. It is also my understanding that the Homeowner's Association has not yet voted and made a decision as to whether to turn over the private park to the City and the City has not yet decided whether this would be acceptable (as this was an old oil well location the City would want to further investigate the acceptability of this area as a city park). Ultimately the Council will decide this with the Parks Board recommending a course of action. If this does not work out the Parks Board would then like to pursue the idea of a land dedication incorporated with the detention area in Phase 5. If this works out, it would satisfy Mr'. Froehling's parkland dedication. .EIowever, under this scenario there would be no money to develop this park until some future bond election. Under the Homeowner's gift scenario combined with monetary dedications from Mr. Froehling, the City could begin to develop a neighborhood park for Shenandoah. As to the question of parkland for Phase 1. Parkland dedication will have to be met for all Phases 1-5. Phase 1 was originally platted into single family lots while in the ETJ. There is no parkland dedication in the ETJ. After the area was annexed this phase was replatted into one large tract. With this current replat into single family lots again the parkland dedication requirement kicks in as the replat is occurring within the City Limits. Because there are decisions to be made that are out of Mr. Fhoehling's hands at this point in time I will authorize the filing of the plat for Phase 1 (assuming all else is in order) without the Parkland dedication. Prior to filing the plat for Phase 2, however, the City will expect the parkland dedication to betaken care of, either in the form of a monetary payment or land dedication. This should be sufficient time for the Homeowner's Association and the Parks Board to make their decision and recommendation. I hope this helps the Froehlings in their efforts to develop the remainder of their subdivision. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Jane R. Kee, AICP City Planner cc: Steve Beachy, Parks Director ~, i ` s ~t.6 .r R A i f. ~.{~ ~: ~°' s ~a~r ~fE4c~c fax 3960 r1t71 T~~s ESVd~e~~k~ i+r' ~_ ~ v©l0eg~ ~~~tk®s~, ~e~as ~7~~2-Q~36o 0091 i~~-~~oo May 22, 1995 McClure Engineering 1722 Broadmoor, Ste 210 Bryan, TX 77802 Attn: Mike McClure RE: Shenandoah Parkland dedication Dear Mike, It is my understanding from Steve Beachy that the Parks Board is interested in obtaining land in the Shenandoah area as there is no parkland in this particular park zone. The Homeowner's Association approached the Parks Board in an effort to give the existing private park facility to the City. Their intention is to turn over maintenance as their association has no funds to continue maintenance. This would be a gift to the City and would not satisfy Mr. Froehling's parkland dedication requirements under the subdivisnon regulations for the phases he is developing. It is also my understanding that the Homeowner's Association has not yet voted and made a decision as to whether to turn over the private park to the City and the City has not yet decided whether this would be acceptable (as this was an old oil well location the City would want to further investigate the acceptability of this area as a city park). Ultimately the Council will decide this with the Parks Board recommending a course of action. If this does not work out the Parks Board would then like to pursue the idea of a land dedication incorporated with the detention area in Phase 5. If this works out this would satisfy Mr. Froehling's parkland dedication. However, under this scenario there would be no money to develop this park until some future bond election. Under the Homeowner's gift scenario combined with monetary dedications from Mr. Froehling, the City could begin to develop a neighborhood park for Shenandoah. As to the question of parkland for' Phase 1. Parkland dedication will have to be met for all Phases 1-_5. Phase 1 was originally platted into single family lots while in the ETJ. There is no parkland dedication in the ETJ. After the area was annexed this phase was replatted into one large tract. With this current replat into single family lots again the parkland dedication requirement kicks in as the replat is occurring within the City Limits. Because there are decisions to be made that are out of Mr. Froehling's hands at this point in time the City will authorize the filing of the plat for Phase 1 (assuming all else is in order) without the parkland dedication. Prior to filing the plat for Phase 2, however, the City will expect the parkland dedication to be taken care of, either in the form of a monetary payment or land dedication. This should be sufficient time for the Homeowner's Association and the Parks Board to make their decisions and recommendations. I hope this helps the Froehlings in their efforts to develop the remainder of this subdivision. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, - ~. `~ J ne R. Kee, AICP ity Planner cc: Jim Callaway, Asst. Director, Economic Development Svcs. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Steve Beachy, Parks Director ~~~~_ ~ ~1~~~~ ~~ ~~ --~ ~,, ~ 1 ~® ~-~ ~ lea - ~, ~!~--~-~~---c~~~t ~~~_~~n~.7~1!f ~~~5 ~ ~~. Printed by Jane Kee 4/20/95 11:11am From: Steve Beachy To: Jane Kee Subject: fwd: Parks & Recreation Board Action ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====4/12/95==9:Olam=====__________________=_______________ At their regular meeting last night the board took the following action related to parkland dedication: Bert Herman - voted to accept the dedication/donation of approximately two acres of land adjacent to the existing Windwood Park. This would be accepted without any conditions related to future costs of the extension of Appomattox or other costs to the city.Also, this would be part of a trade for land now being used as switch station road as it intersects with the frontage road. ~ Myrad/Woodcreek - voted to accept the land as proposed with the :~, provision that access to the site be provided on both the. east and we ~~~ ends.Also, no assesments for city services such as streets sh ld e waived as part of this process.q<<- henendoah - The board is generally in favor of tie proposal to combine dedicated parkla d with the planned dete tion facility to create a combined site of approximately three acres. This d be similar to the agreement that was developed for Edelweis. Howe er, they want to look at the site prior to making a recommendation A special meeting will be scheduled for this purpose and you are welcome to come along. Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======4/12/95==2:30pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Steve Beachy ............................................................................ thanks for the update. I'm surprised they decided that on Myrad. What happene? So Bert's 2 acres and Myrad's area will be used to take care of the parkland dedication requirement for those subdivisions. Will all of Myrad count as parkland for dedication or only that part out of the floodplain? Ord. says we don't take floodplain. Fwd=by:=Steve=Beachy==4/12/95==2:55pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Jane Kee CC: Ric Ploeger As it was discussed, all of the land would be used for dedication. However, there was some speculation that some of this site may eventually be needed for detention facilities which may alter our use of the site.What is the current requirement for dedication for the proposed development plan and how does that compare with what they want to give us? Do you think that they are planning to give the property to the city and then will turn around and put a dentention facility on it to avoid future maintenance costs and liabilities? Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======4/12/95==3:11pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Steve Beachy CC: Ric Ploeger Proposed dev. only has 75 lots. Ord. says following are areas generally unsuitable for parkland - Any area primarily located in the~100 yr. floodplain (we don't know what that accounts for here. It was beyond the limits of FEMA study at that time. Myrad will have to show us where floodplain is.) ALSO Any areas of unusual topo or slope which renders same unuseable for organized recreational activities. These 2 may be grounds for refusal. Since Parks Board accepted this idea I assume they are not concerned about either the floodplain or the topo. If part is used for detention we will find that out at time of platting and will require homeowners assoc. to maintain or work out a deal as we did on Edlelweiss if it's in our best interests. If the amount of land that is out of the floodplain is less than what can realistically be developed or would meet the dedication requuirement for 75 lots - DOES the Board still want it? Fwd=by:=Steve=Beachy==4/12/95==3:17pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Jane Kee ............................................................................ Yes. I don't think that area will be problem in regard to either of the criteria mentioned above. I would be opposed if Myrad wanted to use the excess dedication of this site for other developments within that zone (8) as they did on the development along Barron Road/SH 6. Page: 1 ~ ~ 7 j ~--~ ~; ~~~~1 ~, ,~~, '~ ~ ~:i i ~ ~ ~ ~, V? ~~~..~ ~, ~, ~,~~ ~~y.~ ,~ .,r e~~; ,. ,,~ , °a q` ~~ (R, ~~j \~/~ :ter °V