Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous ~~- ~ ~ ~. ~~ `i~°!~ r ~-L ~~ `~'~ F ~~ ~) ~ ~. t tt1~P ~f~~P Qf ~IPX~tB ~P[rPfttr~ Of ~Sf~ifP ~~CT. 2y, lt)yl 77tJ~ Si:~ITIi~:~ ;; I: r: ,= Y( ~~~' ~ T.P' I .". L U i. n'J I r 4 ~.J ~.~~ p L ~U' ~=rl_T~`ii~ ^r'i.f:HK.:.:~'' CLIC'G~t(~~t^~.i) 1 ~ 'l:~ ''.C -~'j Ijt!~< ~~f_ i+J~J~. Tv ;a.'~I~ ;.1`~ _ .:\ .t!~ ~~.'-"~C.`-. i,;~',f ,C~~t.IJtZtJ YQUR i,•~ ~ 1!;~. _ .~~ ~[`~I_'_L P;~~T icy<S.r(r'~. T=t~ A~N~t~P!;I~,"'_ .:vi:E~`iC~ I`i HTT,':CHL~~ f-~r, YiJi_f~ FILrS Ati+' 7N'~= .; .,"~,IGI .;~L iJ.~~ ..~;'. FI~%~ 1'~ ~-iIS C~-=It;--. P .'i`~,':T !)= '"~-+~~ FIL~;~ rr.. I.'a :>I~rii~i'~;~sLt`?liEii 5 '( Ti7I5 L~TT~K. 1'' .~:. LAi; ir: ,~ 1'Ilr'.f~ ..~ :;Fr•'vli:t ,:; '' i~::Y Tl~cr ~'LFF:SF LET US KNU~. ! y~ ~ ,`` ~ ~C=~-~' ` `i ~ i r _ ' \ ~ ~ ~~f ~ t. \ ~r ' ~ //11 tt '7 7 ~.,. O ~ Antonio O. Garza,. Jr., Secretary of State COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 October 27, 1997 John Szabuniewicz Lick Creek Development, Inc. P. O. Box 14000 College Station, TX 77841 Re: Westfield Addition Master Development Plan & Master Preliminary Plat. Dear Mr. Szabuniewicz, Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat for the Westfield Addition and determined that it is incomplete and cannot be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council for their review. The following is a list of items that must be addressed before the plats may proceed with the development review process: Master Plan _ The subject property has been illegally subdivided according to the City's Subdivision Regulations and State Statutes.: This property is not exempt from platting under either the City's regulations or State Statutes as it includes the planning of a new street.. (Reference definition of "subdivision" in Section. 3 of .the Subdivision Regulations.) This street is the extension of Victoria Avenue as shown. on the City's adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Section 8.G.8 states that when a subdivision embraces a principal street shown on the Master Plan such street shall be platted. Therefore, the entire 45 acres must be included in the Master Plan and Master Preliminary Plat and subsequent Final Plats. When Section 8.G.8 requires platting of a street, that means. dedicating the right-of--way and either constructing the:. improvement (Subdivision Regulations, Section 7-A) or guaranteeing the construction of such improvement (Section 7-B). This construction or guarantee must be taken caze of prior. to recording the final. plat. Staff will not support separating property owned by Lick Creek Farm and Ranch from Phases I and II owned by Lick Creek Development. Staff will not recommend approval of Phase l[I without including the Victoria .Avenue extension, right-of-way dedication and guarantee for your fair share.. (Your fair share would best be determined during the preliminary platting part - of Phase II. At this point, you ',can- talk -about oversize participation, development agreements, etc.) Section 7 allows a subdivider to file security in lieu of completing construction prior to .final plat approval... > The staff would not support a final plat. 'of only the creek. and Victoria right-of--way separated from Phase Two. The staff will support final platting. and developing of Phase I, but, phase II must include the creek artd Victoria Avenue. Home of Texas A&M University _ The creek along the rear of the. property does not have to be dedicated at this time. You may continue to use it for agricultural 'purposes. However, this area is shown as a greenbelt on the City's.. Comprehensive Plan and you must provide a location for access. Staff will recommend to Council that you show access to this area at the end of your cul- de-sac in Phase I. This access must be dedicated; however, it .does not have to be constructed or guaranteed with your development. _ Show the existing creek along the rear of the property and how it relates to the proposed "Optional Realignment of Victoria Avenue". The Thoroughfare Plan shows Victoria Avenue extending south along the. rear property lines of the lots on the east side of Rene Lane. Any alternatives to this proposal should. be presented with the preliminary plat. (Show how this alternative alignment will connect to the existing Victoria Avenue and continue through to Barron Road.) Show all proposed public. improvements and public utilities. _ Provide an impact study for all .areas where oversize participation is requested. (See Section 9-B.4 for oversize participation requirements.) Because staff will not recommend approval; for Phase II without including Victoria Avenue and the creek, it will be in your best interest to resolve the oversize participation question with the preliminary plat of Phase II It is your responsibility to prepare the engineer's estimates for Victoria Avenue once the' alignment is determined. Master Preliminary Plat The floodway and floodplain lines must be shown on the plat. General note #4 is incorrect. Staff believes this branch is an unnumbered "A" .zone and the study must be extended upstream to locate the -100 year floodplain. Address who will maintain the joint drainage facility referenced in general note #9. _ Provide a metes and bounds description on the plat including a basis of bearing. e Submit the oversize participation request per the sealed engineer's estimates. Where feasible, the City will look for no dead-end water lines. Those that can be looped, should. _ The location map does not match what is shown on the preliminary plat. _ Show the. driveways and street openings .along the same side and opposite side of Graham Road to show how the proposed streets will align with other curb cuts in the area. _ Provide street names to be reviewed by the 911 Emergency System. _ Is there .any pedestrian access proposed between the subject property and the school site? There appears to be an easement shown between two lots in block 1 to the school site. _ All. of the lots drain .toward Lick Creek. How will you divert that flow direction toward the ,school detention pond? Or, will all lots be graded to drain toward the street? _ There are several lots that-back up to the creek that appear to be "marginal" with regard to slope, minimum lot size, and proximity to the creek. Refer to the Subdivision Regulations with regard. to prevention of development of "unsuitable lots". Perhaps this area could be used to help with access to the creek. _ How will the off-site drainage easement shown along the creek be handled since it is off your property? _ Show where the new sewer line will be and where you will tie into it. Also: show where it continues through your property on to the next user. upstream of you. _ Show the water and sewer line stubs to the future single family development shown in Phase 3. _ Provide the total acreage of the Master Plan and Master Preliminary Plat in the title blocks. Also show the acreage of each phase and the adjoining property owned by Lick Creek Farm & Ranch, Inc. The above mentioned ordinance requirements must be addressed prior to further staff review. Submit the mylar original of the revised Master Plan and Master Preliminary Plat along with 11 copies of each for review. by the Presubmission Conference. The rezoning request submitted is also incomplete and will not be processed until the following information is submitted`. 3 copies of a fully dimensioned map (on 24" x 36" paper) showing: Land affected. Legal description of area of proposed change. Present zoning. _ Zoning classification of all abutting land. All public and private rights-of--way and easement bounding and intersection subject land. _ A power of attorney statement from. the owners of the property included in the request. The above mentioned information for the rezoning request, Master Plan and Master Preliminary Plat must be submitted by noon on Thursday, October 30, 1997 to meet, the next deadline for the Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, November 20, 1997. If you need additional information or further clarification, please contact me at (409) 764-3570. r l a Sincerel , Shirley Volk Development Coordinator cc: Planning case file #97-320 Martin Riley, Riley Engineering Company GTE COMMENTS NOVEMBER O5, 1997 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIlVIINARY PLAT - WESTFILELD ADDITION. . GTE COMMENTS: NO PROBLEM WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. REQUEST A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG GRAHAM ROAD. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS - CONTACT: LAVERNE AHIN WITH GTE „ AT 4091821-4723. From: Sabine McCully To• rnemcik Date: 10/23/97 1:24pm Subject: statutory. limitations on municipal subdivision requirements background: we are dealing with a citizen who hopes. to build a small one or two street neighborhood off of graham road across from victoria and Schaffer roads. the more he talks to us about requirements, the smaller his project becomes. he has been party to several partitions of land that have occurred just recently, obviously in an effort to-remove certain requirements from his. development proposal. his claim is that the divisions were exempt from the legal platting requirements because the offending pieces of land are to remain for agricultural use. our big heartburn is that he is not. going to include the land that includes the victoria extension nor the part. that includes floodplain property. we think both need to be addressed in order for the proposal to be considered to be_a sound approach to development. it appears at this time that this newly created tract of land is undevelopable except for the portion that is supposed to be reserved for the victoria extension. we maintain that the divisions were not legal because they. were done without benefit of a legal plat and because they do not fall within any of the exemption categories. exemptions from platting requirements: See. 212.004 Plat Required of Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code requires a subdivision plat-for land divisions. It specifically exempts divisions of land into "parts greater than 5 acres, where each part has access and no pub is improvement is being dedicated". however, Sec. .212.0045 allows a city to require the filing of a development plat, and Sec. 212.002 allows a city to adopt subdivision rules. our Subdivision Regulations also exempt.divisions of land into parts greater than 5 acres, but only if the land affected does not include the "planning or development of a new street". in other words, our regulations are more restrictive than the state's in that we do not exempt. as .much as the state would. questions: 1. are we preempted by virtue of Sec.212.004 from. being more restrictive in requiring subdivision plats? 2. do we as a local entity have the authority to determine what constitutes "access" by virtue of the fact that the statute does not define this term, by the fact that we also use the term in our local ordinance, and by the fact that there seems to be no case law on this issue which would guide a determination of "access" (i may be .wrong about the case law)? CC: heargill, jkee, lbattle, vmorgan, pkaspar 4~+ ~ E Q~ • ~ - `j 1 'Y`om 'til ~ ~ tax ., i .~ .~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~r~ ~ ..~v~ ~'o'V~A~o~ar~~tr' ,~i~t~ . "boa ~ +a~t aoc ~a~3cu~a~ra~ ~km~u~t ~ a~x '~ ,~~ _ _ i '' 4 ~{d,, . ~~i~ ~~~ ~~~ i~ ~, ~1l . ~rt.~t i . " C.f't~F~S tP+r j}~'~ fa/ ~~~ ' ~'- • ~; f ;~ ~ , ~~ i ~~ ~ ;! . fir, ~~~~~' ~,~ ~ ~,,,~,~-, ~ {rf~,~r'' A+~ STAFF REVIEW NOTES Westfield Phase One Preliminary Plat Case #97-320 Ordinance Requirements: How will drainage be handled for the subdivision? _ General note #3 is incorrect. The subject property is located outside the limited detail study. The floodplain and floodway lines must be shown on the Master Preliminary Plat and Master Plan. _ The phase line should match the lot lines. (The additional 10' public utility easement can be dedicated bq eparate instrument. The volume and page number of this separate instrument must be referenced on the final plat.) _ The cul-de-sac length exceeds the maximum allowed in the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant must request a variance to the length before the Planning and :Zoning Commission. Submit this request in writing by next Wednesday, November 12, 1997. Dimension the pedestrian bike access between Westfield Drive and the CSISD property. Show the location of the .access easement referenced in general note #7. Clearly show what property is included in Phase I. The phase lines, property lines and right-of-way lines all have the. same line weight. _ Will there be an off-.site public utility easement through the creek property to connect with the joint sewer line on CSISD property? If so, show on the preliminary plat. Comments/Concerns:. _ Coordinate the .electrical service requirements with Electrical Operations Coordinator Tony Michalsky at (409) 764-3660: Changes to the existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Coordinate telephone service details with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723.. SUBMIT THE MYLAR ORIGINAL AND 15 COPIES OF THE REVISED PRELIlVIINARY PLAT BY WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1997 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE NEXT MEETING ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1997. THE.. CITY COUNCIL WII,L CONSIDER BOTH PLATS ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1997. BOTH MEETINGS WII,L BE HELD AT 7:00 P.M. 1N THE CITY HALL COUNCIL ROOM AT 1101 TEXAS AVENUE. SOUTH. Planning Technician November 7, 1997 Page 9 ~ShirleyVolk..AJohn:S. Reply .w. ~- .x .-----~-- ~ - --- -~ ~------. ,,. , ..,...,.-~... .:..... ..,, ,..:.... m :.....,.. ----..,.. --.... .:.., ..:... ......... ...:., ... From: Veronica Morgan To: JKEE~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL, Date`. 11/6/97 334PM Subject: John S. -Reply hopefully, i have answered this to you in person. when john brings in his request to eliminate. ph 3 graham we would look at long term impact. i dont know what to tell you until then. »> Jane Kee 11 /05/97 03:11 pm »> talked to him just a minute ago. He says he now owns the phase 3. Told him to bring in deeds, whatever to prove it to us. told him I wouldn't promise that that will change our-minds on the phasing for victoria. He needs to submit what he wants and we'll review it. Told him about the other T-fare issue. Said' we're trying to get everyone together to talk about t-fares and sewer and drainage next week. We talked a bit about OP on sewer. I realized as we were talking that all the sewer OP for this year ~nuill be commited with the Wheeler DA. What will we do for John and the school if this is the case? Also, the more 1 think-about it, why in the world would council approve changing the impact fee area when it wilt cost the City money to do so?? By that I mean we will have to pay OP for the different line. CC: svolk~City of College Station.City Hall, b f ' ' - CHEATHAM ` AND ASSOCIATES October 8, 1997 College Station LS.D. Construction Services 1812 Welsh Street College $tation, TX 77840 Attn: Bill Savage, P.E., Construction Manager Re: Graham Road New Intermediate School Sanitary Sewer and Dedication of a Regional Detention Facility Project No. 1019-207 Mr. Savage: Upon consulting with John Szabunewicz and Martin Riley, P.E. regarding the above mentioned issues, we wish to confirm. our course of action with College Station LS.D. Mr. Szabuniewicz stated that, upon consultation with the City of :College- Station, he is prepazed to move forwazd .with the design of the sewer line. He stated that the City has agreed to .pursue a Developer's Agreement wherein they will only pay the cost of upsizing the anitary sewer line from an 8 inch line to a 12 inch or 15 inch line.. At this: time, this resolution appeazs to be acceptable to NIr. Szabuniewicz. We have consulted with Martin Riley, P.E., who is contracted by Mr. Szabuniewicz to design the sewer line, to coordinate our projects. In regards to a regional detention facility possibly being constructed on the Graham Rd. School tract, Mr. Szabuniewicz stated that, upon consultation with you and the City, it would be agreeable to him that he pay for and have Riley Engineering Co. design the regional detention facility if the land was donated by College Station LS.D. Ifthese courses of action are acceptable to College Station LS.D., please pursue the relevant agreements. between the School District, developer and the City.. We also wish to request written confirmation that these courses of action are correct. We aze available to assist with these issues in any way possible. Please call us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Bry .Tucker F:\WORD\COLLEGE\2071ss.dedication.wpd cc: Steve Aloway, ULK Architects Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E., City of College Station John Szabunewicz, Developer .Martin Riley, P.E., Riley Engineering Co. David Mayes, Cheatham & Associates ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS A Subsidiary Firm of Southwest Planning and Design, Inc. 1601 E. Lamar Blvd. • Suite 200 • Arlington, Texas 76011 St t'7/5~152_!1/,U(. MPrrn 7f~S_RRZ(, . Fair 5217/7h'S_RS'~7 ~, December 5, 1997 ~j'!J ~~ f Mrs. Shirley Volk / / Planning Coordinator City. of College .Station, Texas Re: WESTFIELD ADDITION Dear Shirley: U //~~ Pursuant to the thoroughfare meeting of December 2, 1997, and the meeting. ofjDecember 3 with staff, we would like to withdraw from consideration by the City Council of our plats at the Council's December meeting and resubmit the plats with the changes discussed at the next P & Z meeting. Thanks for your :assistance in this matter. Sin erely, ~~, ~ J. M. Szab 'ewicz ~.: November 12, 1997 Planning Department City of College Station Re: Westfield Addition Tom Whom It May Concern:. With regard. to our proposed Phase 1 of Westfield Addition, we are hereby requesting a temporary variance regarding the cul-de-sac length. We intend to build the street stubs of Harvest and Springfield and we will become in compliance as future Phases are developed. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Si erely, M. Szabu ' 'cz Lick Creek evelopment, Inc. C ) ~~~~ November 17, 1997 Veronica Morgan, P.E., Assistant City Engineer City of College Station Engineering Division P. O. Box9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Request for Change of Impact Area and Elimination of Sanitary Sewer Phase 3 Dear Veronica: Please find. enclosed a map .showing. the Capital Improvement Plan of 1996 which shows a proposed 'Sanitary Sewer Extension Phase 3. Also shown on the attached Map is cur proposal to change the Impact Area and move the line on the several tracts along Graham Road to Graham Road. The developer of Westfield Addition and C.S'.LS.D. are proposing constructing the extension of a Sanitary Sewer Line from Springbrook Subdivision which would provide sanitary sewer service to all of the tracts along Graham Road and eliminate the need to construct the proposed Phase 3 line. We have submitted by separate letter, a request for oversize participation from the City to this new proposed line. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have. any questions, please feel free to call Mr. Martin Riley, our engineer for this project at 589-2457. Sinc rely, ~~ 7. M. Sza uniewcz 41~Z ~1,~ V (1~1V~ ~~ ~` t l ~~~ ~° ~ - °1v btu-ems. ~ ~- ~- . ~~~ r ~. ~ V L F r= `v ~~ /~ l~ c ~~s~ ~_ ~_ s~ >tWi No u WZ~W ~0 mW 2~f.~~ ;t /'f~ ~ W~n V OzW o ~~~ a e ~. n~ y ~ ~ t~ ~~ ~~ a"'a OU ~v ~Y P ~~q oe H 2 0 {_ U -i S N2~ L O U ~ ~//~~ a ~. U ~ a 1~ w~ ~4 w 3 \ ~ ~ ti i ~ icr `~ U i /' t O J s O -~~ z ti ~~~ ~~~ /r r Z a a H w w~ ~~ ~''O~''~jj 1w I`-~ N T~\ V J U O j O e ,, c.- \Vw'' ~~ V \\ REQUEST FOR OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO ~C.SI.S.D. INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL WESTFIELD ADDITION COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS NOVEMBER 1997 OWNER & DEVELOPER LICK CREEK DEVELOPMENT,. TNC. P. O. BOX 14000 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77841 (409) 260-1647 OWNER & DEVELOPER C.S.LS.D. 1812 WELSH COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 (40) 694-5612 PREPARED BY RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 RILEY ROAD BRYAN, TEXAS 77808 (409) 589-2457 .__..a...,, ~~ ~,... RILEY.ENGINEERING COMPANY CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 7182 Riley Road, Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 November 17, 1997 Veronica Morgan, P. E., Assistant City Engineer. City of'College Station Engineering Division P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Request for Oversize Participation Sanitary Sewer Line Extension to C.S.LS.D. Intermediate School & Westfield Addition College Station, Brazos County, Texas Dear Veronica: Please find enclosed a preliminary quantity and cost estimate for oversize participation by the City of College Station of the proposed Sanitary Sewer Line. Extension to the proposed Graham Road C.S.LS.D. Intermediate_Schooi and the proposed Westfield Addition, College Station, Texas. Impact Statement submitted separately indicates oversize to a 12" line would be sufficient. The City, however, may opt to increase to a 15" or 18" line and .enclosed herein are estimated costs fora 12" as well as 15" and 18"dines. The Estimated Costs for Oversize Participation are as follows: Oversize Participation fora 12" Extension: ................................. $ 47,608.00 Oversize Participation fora 15" Extension :................................. $ 66,184.00 Oversize Participation for an 18" Extension :......................:........ $ 74,608.00 spectfizlly submitted, Martin L. Riley, 7r., R.P.E. No. 50 R.P.L.S. No. 4089 tO yt~~- CAQ~ ~~~~'`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ . n~ Q ~ ~~Qie,,,4, Q '. M~ `~` ,. ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & .OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST Item Description 8" Line 12" Line 15" Line 18" Line °~' 1 Easement Cost $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $' 500.00 $ 500.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 3 Sewer Pipe 3,600' @ $ 2.22 $ , 5.00 $ 7.66 $ 10.00 . 5 D~ z 6 PSG ? $ 7,992.00 $18,000.00 $ 27,576.00 $ 36,000.00 ,~--'.. 4 Trenching & Instal. @ $ 10.00 $ 18.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 3,600 L.F. $ 36,000,00 $ 64,800.00 $ 72,000.00 $ 72,000.00 5 :Trench Safety $ 3,600.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 7,200.00 ~ ~' ~}Q,..S 6 Manholes (7) @~ ~ ~ $ .1,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $~ 2,500.00 $~ 2,500.00 ( ~~ 10,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 7,500.00 °~ 7 Engin., Survey., Plans. $ .7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 ~ 7,500.00 TOTALS .................. $ 68,492.00 $116,100.00 $134,676.00 $143,100.00 OVERSIZE ....................................... $ 47,608.00 $ 66,184.00 $ 74,608.00 ~ e ~~ O n !% ~~ y ~ ~ 4 b 0 i O r r ' ~- ~ ~ ! h ~ °•O Y°r• I~r Y O ,r~~~ C~ P ' ° • bh b ° r Y b i~.,. .. 'b I b b I• .'I I. v t t j.,''N. ~ ~ r •I I. •a II I ~ •! ~.~ r r' y• -. .. ti ° + bb •• ':': • ' r r ~ Y • ,~••. r ~ z ~ ° ° d . an y ti b 8 ~.'.:. ~. ~ n~ b ~ .I b . e xp _ ° Cdr OZb~ • • ° ° • _ ~ 4• 4` ~~ yr`\ ~~ h y ` ° x rb .. ,~ rr `` , ° ~~ `S,,x ~ ° • be _ a 'x~ ~ 4 or •r ~n~ v -J ~, _ ~~c° c ~ v / Y//// // [` !~O / i ~ ~ r' X ~~ ~( f © /• ; ~~~ ~ O , / '~ ~~ ~aG A ~ 0~ ~ r \\ • b J• a b la t` u ~; _ i _' t S~ i~ a~~ ~a h2 I ~~ ~~ H nC ~ 2~ c2'.~~~ ~ ~ y .R, ~. i I 1 I i ~~~~ August 19, 1997 Mr. Kent Laza City Engineer City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: EXTENSION OF SEWER TRUNK LINE At Springbrook Subdivision North of Lick Creek Dear Mr. Lana: We are submitting information to formalize our position on the proposed Sewer Trunk Line Extension on the North side of the South Fork of Lick Creek from. the designated Manhole No. 45 located at the Northwest. corner of Springbrook Subdivision, which proposed extension is shown in the attached Proposed Map of such Exension, consisting of approximately 490 feet of 18" sewer main extension, followed by approximately 2,120 feet of 12" sewer main extension. There presently exists a lift station, called L.S. #2, at Texas State Highway 6 and Springbrook Subdivision as shotivn in the .hereto attached. Map. The watershed of the. South Fork of Lick Creek to be sewered "unto this L. S. #2 consists of some 842 acres of land. Of this 842 acres, various tracts are presently sewered or can in the future be sewered by the existing 18" sewer main located in the Springbrook Subdivision as well as the proposed 490' extension of 18" sewer. main. Ourcalculations reveal the following areas to be sewered by the various portions of the sewer main as follows: Total Watershed Area - 842 Acres - Sewcred As Follows: A. Existing 18" Sewer Main in Springbrook Subdivision and 490' Extension: A-I Area south of Barron Road, Shenandoah Subdivision ................. 65 Acres A-2 Springbrook Subdivision ...:........................................................ 86 Acres A-3 Area north of Springbrook Subdivision ...................................... 100 Acres A-4 Rivers Tract ............................................................................... 95 Acres A-5 Area North of Rivers tract .......................................................... 40 Acres -TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED BY THE 18' SEWER MAIN....... 386 Acres B. Areas to be served by existing sewer line in Graham Road: B-1 Area along Graham Road at OI Corp down to Victoria Ave........ 30 Acres B-2 Former McSwain et al Area along Graham Road ...................... 15 Acres -TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED BY EXISTING SEWER .............. 45 Acres C. Areas to be served by the 2120' extension of 12" sewer main: C-1 Area North of Rivers tract next to school tract ............................ 40 Acres C-2 CSISD 5th & 6th Grade School Tract ......................................... SO Acres C-3 Remainder of Former McSwain et al Areas ................................ 105 Acres C-4 Don Carroll Tract ...................................................................... 90 Acres C-4 Bald Prairie Subdivision ...........................................:................. 60 Acres C-5 Area west ofBald Prairie Subdivision .:....................................... 66 Acres -TOTAL ARE TO BE SERVED BY 12" SEWER EXTENSION...... 411 Acres '~,; Of the 411 acres to be severed by the proposed 12" line, some 30 acres lies in the creek :area of Lick Creek .and would not be developed. Further, the Bald Prairie Subdivision of some 60 acres has a very tow density of about 1 residence per 3 acres or more, so for purposes of our calculations here, we shall use a 1 household per acre density. The 50 acre school tract has its separately calculated peak capacity as shown. Taking into account the above, our calculations are as follows: A. Intense Residential Development: Total gross area to be severed .....:................................................... 411 Acres Less Undevelopable Creek. Area ....:............................:......:............ (30) Acres Less 60 Acres low density Bald Prairie Subdivision :........................ (60) Acres Less 50 Acres School Tract ........:.........:.:........................................ (50) Acres Total net area to be sewered......... .:................................................. 271 Acres 5.0 DU x 300 GPD / DU....... = 1500 GPD INFILTRATION (10%)....... = 150 GPD PEAK FACTOR (2.7).....:... = 4050 GPD TOTAL PEAK FLOW J AC. = 4200 GPD 271 AC. X 4200 GPD....... = 1.138 MGD B. Less Intense Residential Development (60 Ac. Existing Bald Prairie Subdivision): Bald Prairie Subdivision @ L DU/t~cre a 300 GPD. / DU = 300 GPD / DU INFILTRATION (10%) ........: ......: ................................ = 30 GPD / DU PEAK FACTOR (2.7) ................:.:....::................................. 810 GPD / DU TOTAL PEAK FLOW PER ACRE:..: ................................. 840 GPD / DU 60 Ac. X 840 GPD / DU ............................:......................... = 50,400 GPD or = 0.050 MGD C. 50 Acre C.S.LS.D. School Tract to be developed with future Intermediate and Elementary: Boih Schools Peak Flow (@ 2000 students per Bill Savage).. = 53,280 GPD or = O.OS3 MGD TOTAL SEWERAGE DISCHARGE ..:............................................... = 1.240. MGD This expected .maximum capacity should be able to be handled by the 12" line. Please review this data and advise us as to .which pipe. size is desired. It is our understanding that the cost of this sewer line will be shared by the City, the School District. and the Developer.. You will find-the enclosed Engineer's Construction. Cost Estimate for the proposed sewer line extension for your review. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please advise. Ve .truly yours . L~ . . M. Sza uniewicz, resident Lick Creek Development, Ince ,~ -, it ~~ %~~s--'\ ~` .. / y~~~~'//i ~\ '~ ~I \~,•~ ., . ~ `i~ ; :: , .. '.,~~" ~ ~°'~, (S CA E .~-s l ~ ~ 2004 ~-~ '. ' ~ ° ~ ~ ' J. 1 i/ -' .~ - -- • t ' ~ \ /~' ~~~_~ .: '', , ~"~ ~ 5ewer~ ,To L.S. A ea To~~e~;'°. •~ , ,:•-•-,,: ~. ~ .-~.r- ~ ~ ~n- . ~ ~ w84 ~cres) ~ ~ °~ Se e_r~d~T• •L.S~- ~~ ~~ ~ ,..~ -.. ~\ .. - i' -- i~ ... ' °'1 ~ . s I I 1 ' .. ~ ' I 'i ~ F ~/ n ) :.~ . ~' f• ~ ~. ~ '\ ..a ,c -....i :'. ~ ~PR0.IECT ^°'~ ~` ~~ ~~. L.S~f 3 ~°~a ' '° '~ ~ ~ .~-.. •~/)IZ'E •, ~ SPRiNGBROpK ~5i/ ~~~.°~. :` 4 v ~ ~\ a t _ ` (~,~ ` ~~ .J i :,~ •.~ fin: , r. , . ~ / ~: 1 ,, -:~--^ ..` ~ `fit ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ _))) ~ (~v ~~ °- ~ ~ ~ -~._ .; ~ ...fie ~. - .., , ~,~ ~:.':` ~,. ~, N i ' ~~fY' ,, ,r~ z P&Z Case No. Date Received APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT Master Preliminary. Plat.& Master Plan Preliminary. Plat Name of Subdivision ~e~ ~~/~~l C! ~C~% tlOlil * * * SUBMISSION OF THIS APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL PLATTING FEES ARE ?PAID AND ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTE]Et 9 OF THE .CODE OF ORDINANCES `(ORDINANCE #690) HAVE BEEN MET.* * MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 1. Filing Fee of $200.00 2. Application completed in full. 3. Fourteen: (14) folded copies of plat plus film positive of same drawn to a ..scale of not less than 100 feet per inch. The words "PRELI1ViINARY PLAT -NOT FOR RECORD"'shall appear' on the. plat in letters '1s" high. Date of plat-and dates. of any revisions shall legibly appear. on plat. 4. Master Development Plan DEADLINE: Received in the Planning Division by noon 22 days prior to a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting held the first-and third Thursday of each month. ' Contact Development Coordinator, Shirley Volk at (409).764-3570 for details.. ***fee-subject to change. without notice*** O:~fortns~plan~PRELAPP.DOC ~, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 1998 -- 7:00 P.M. CENTRAL PARK CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 KRENEK TAP ROAD Members Present: Elizabeth Cunha, Chair;. Debra Anderson, Vice Chair; Gary Halter, ,john Crompton, Chris Barzilla, Bob DeOtte Members Absent: Mike Manson Staff Present: Steve Beachy, Eric Ploeger, Dana Williamson, Peter Vanecek, David Gerling, Vera Solis, Linda Waltman, Jane Kee, Jenny Hartsfield, Bridgette George Visitors Present: Jonn Szabuniewicz, Westfield Addition Developer Called to Order 7:05 p.m. L Approval of Minutes• December 9, 1997.• .John submitted some name changes. The minutes were approved as amended. 2. Hear Visitors• No unscheduled visitors spoke. 3. Preser~tatYorr and Consideration of Potential Parkland Dedication for Westfield Addifion Ric displayed a graphic. representationdisplaying apossible layout of the park and school site. He met with David Neal, CSISD, who stated that they could probably supply 10-15 acres of property for a park without the City having to purchase any land. Mr. Szabuniewicz displayed a site plan that showed a rough estimate of the floodplain that his engineer calculated. He proposed donating roughly 4 acres, excluding the floodplain, to satisfy .his current dedication requirement. and asked for credit for any portion of land above his requirement to be used for future development .requirements. The exact amount of acreage will be determined when the final drainage stucly is completed. Mr. Szabuniewicz has .planned for 219 dwelling units. Therefore, 1.65 acres is his current. required dedication. The Board discussed if there should be a timeline on future development if he new dedication ordinance is passed by Council. Steve stated that currently there is not a time frame in the .parkland dedication ordinance. Gary motioned to accept the proposed dedication, adding that' future development must occur within a 10-year time frame in order .for the credit to be valid on future dedication requirements. The motion was seconded by Bob and passed. 4. Discussion of the Boys and .Girls Club of the Brazos Valley.• Mr. Kevin Bingham could not attend the meeting, so this was postponed until the February meeting. 5. Discussion of Leash Requirement for Pets at Lick Creek Park Elizabeth called the City Austin for information on their leash policies.. They stated that they have 11 sites that are "leash free," however, the dog must still be under "voice control." She stated that there is a sign in every park telling patrons that there are dogs in the park without leashes. Page 1 of 3 Austin has had no problems with their policies. Gary motioned to remove the leash law at Lick Creek Park, with the provisionthat owners can handle dogs with voice control. John seconded the. motion, Bob abstained, the motion passed. Elizabeth asked that signs be posted to reflect the change. 6. Review ofProposed Revision to the Parkland DedicatYon Ordinance: John mentioned that the ordinance .has not been amended since 1981. The. goal of the ordinance is for the City to maintain the current level of standards for all future parks. Bob stated that it would be beneficial to have a floating scale so that the ordinance would not have to be revisited. He also stated that it should be indexed to the value of the land. Steve stated that. after approval from the Board, it will go to the. focus group on February 3, to Planning & Zoning on Februaryl9, to Council on March I2, at the. earliest, and should be approved on March 26. John motioned to approve the proposed parkland dedication ordinance. .Gary seconded, Bob abstained, the motion passed. Steve stated that if changes are made. to the ordinance by the focus group, it will be brought .back to the Board. for review. 7. Discussion and Consideration of 1998 User Fees• Linda reviewed the proposed changes for 1998 and 1999. Increases were suggested by staff to increase swim lessons in order to .retain instructors and lifeguards. Jenny .stated that she has problems hiring. and keeping instructors for swim lessons. Instructors currently get $6.25/hr. and. she would like to increase that to $8/hr. She prefers to have certified instructors, but had to hire non=certified instructors due to the lack of certified ones. John stated that his kids used to instruct in the program but no longer do and the .program has gone down in quality due'to the lack of quality instructors. Vera suggested increasing fees in order to increase staff salaries to keep quality staff An increase for adult softball was suggested to help fund. the newly installed demand meter at Central Park. It .will probably increase electrical costs for those affected fields. Basketball and volleyball: were increased to add one'official in basketball and one scorekeeper for volleyball. John .motioned to accept the proposed fees increases for 1.998. and 1999, and ask Council to absorb any future salary increases through the budget process, including for 1999. The motion was seconded by Gary and passed.. Elizabeth and Bob opposed. Gary motioned to approve the fees for pool admittance as recommended. The motion was seconded by Debra. Elizabeth and Bob.. opposed. 8. Discussion of Colf.• The Board agreed not to provide funds to the City of .Bryan to help renovate their municipal golf course. 9. Discussion ofBoard Goals• Steve reviewed that current goals and informed the Boarrd of where the Department was with each one. After some discussion, the Board decided on the following goals in order of preference for 1998. 1. Complete the Parks Master Plan 2. Complete acquisition of the .athletic park cite and develop a long-term development master plan 3. Revision of the master plan for Wolf Pen Creek 4. Youth. programming for teens 5. Implementation of the Lincoln Center/Wayne Smith Park Master Plan 6. Conduct public hearings and oversee design process for Woodway Park 7. bevelop a Master Plan for. Lick Creek Park 8. Madeley Park development 9. Design a small park that serves the .Spring Loop residents l0. Consider revisions #o the Parkland Dedication Ordinance 11. Develop a Greenways Plan Page 2 of 3 a 12. Develop a structure with the school board for joint development of indoor athletic facilities 13. Develop an urban forestry plan 10. Capital Improvement Program Reporf• Ric reviewed the report with no additional changes. 11. Committee Reports• a. Lincoln Center.• Mike was not present. Steve stated that James Steen will probably submit his resignation to the Committee due to his employment with the. City. b. Lick Creek Park.• John mentioned that the. next meeting is January 27, at the Conference Center in Room 106, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting is for discussion and consideration of the final master plan. a Chair:• Elizabeth stated that she set up a subcommittee for the naming of the baseball fields near Lincoln Center. She asked John to Chair and Debra to Vice Chair the subcommittee. The subcommittee consists of representatives from Little League, Lincoln Center Advisory Committee, and. Lincoln Former Students Association. There are two petitions,. one from Ron Carter for "Wayne Smith" and one from James Steen for "W. A. Tarrow." John stated that the first meeting is January 26, at 7:00 p.m. Chris suggested naming. the baseball complex the Wayne Smith Park and name the fields. for specific people. The Board .discussed several options for the subcommittee to consider. 12. Board Concerns/Other Business: Debra asked about the air conditioner request. fo~.^ the Lincoln Center gym. Steve mentioned that Community Development has been asked to submit a request of funding to provide air conditioning at Lincoln Center. Bob asked. that materat be provided in the Board packets for any items being. discussed at the meeting. Bob suggested having a perpetual calendar for the Board. Elizabeth suggested using volunteers for putting up Christman in the Park lights. Bridgette mentioned #hat the department already uses .community service workers. Bob asked Ghat .Christmas in the'Park not be moved up any further because he doesn't ~Nant because of soccer. 13. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Page 3 of 3 COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 hick Creek Development, Inc. May 12,1998 P.O. Box 14000 College Station, Texas 77841 Attn: John Szabuniewicz Dear John: In looking at the conditions of the approval of the preliminary plat for the Westfield Subdivision, it appears that there is one item that is still lacking. As discussed with the preliminary plat, the. hydraulic study was to be complete through the entire Westfield property to show the location of the existing floodplain. To date, staff has been presented with the lines through a portion of Phase 1, but not through the entire property. Please submit the hydraulic analysis (HEC runs) as well as the location of the floodplain, depicted on the preliminary plat. Once we have this information on the preliminary plat, a final plat for Phase 1 can be scheduled for a hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission. We are currently in the process of reviewing your engineer's estimates for oversize participation and to determine the viability for the phasing you have proposed for the development. We have not completed that review and .our comments being returned today include all other review comments save those related to the estimates for construction. Please call if you have any questions regarding the comments on the construction plans or reports. Veronica J.BI~1GIorg Asst. City Engineer cc: file ~ Tim Callaway, Dir ctor of Development Services Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Jane Kee, City Planner Paut Kaspar, Graduate Civil Engineer Home of Texas A&M University ~~ Shirle Volk - Re' Westfield Subdivision/Thorou hfare Plan/parkland/open space -Reply ~~Page.1~ 9 Y From: Jane Kee To: EHARD~City of College Station.City Hall, Shirley .. Date: 12/8/97 4:19PM Subject: Re: Westfield Subdivision/Thoroughfare Plan/parkland/open space -Reply Ed, John is scheduled to talk to the Parks Board tomorrw Hite. He has prepared some alternative street alignments based on your mtg. last week and conversations with the school this AM and since V and I talked him out of his present layout last week.. He just needs some direction before he goes to parks board. If there is some street alignment we cannot support we need`to tell. him that so the Parks Board doesn't think we are working with one alignment and we don't really want it. Street "A" makes a big difference when it comes to the park location and the school. and city work together to get a park developed. The school doesn't want the park across the"street from the elem. school. I don't know if Beachy will be at the. mtg. tomorrow or not. If not, please call me before'630 and let me know what happens so I'll be up to date by 7. I have to take Chris to the Dr. at 3 tomorrow and may not be bank in time to talk to you.. »> Edwin Hard 12/08/97 02:06PM »> Shirley, We are waiting to hear back from Fain Mc. and the Rivers. Didn't we just meet with them last Tues.?? Have we allowed them enough time yet? Should we meet with John omorrow if we haven't yet heard from Fain?. He was in Friday and said he would get with us as soon as he knew something. Am- justnof up to date? Has Fain called and spokento one of yall? »> Shirley Volk 12/08/97 10:52am »> Steve., Jane had me set up a meeting for Ed 8~ Veronica to meet with John Szabuniewicz to talk about where the thoroughfare plan streets can come thru this property. The meeting will be at 3:30 Tuesday (tomorrow) in our conference room. Jane thought since the location of the street will probably affect the location of a park, so you might want=to attend, also. Feel#ree to show up with your input. We know he is meeting with the Parks Board tomorrow night, so this should come first! Jane can't' be here for the afternoon meeting. _._. ~" REQUEST FOR OVERSIZE: PARTICIPATION SANITARY .SEWER LINE EXTENSION WESTFIELD ADDITION COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS MARCH, 199 OWNER & DEVELOPER LICK CREEK DEVELOPMENT,. INC. P.O. BOX 14000 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77841 (409) 260-1647 PREPARED BY " RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 RII~EY ROAD BRYAN, TEXAS 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES FOR OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE: PARTICIPATION Item Description Developer's Portion Actual To be Built Oversize Part. 1 Easement Cost $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.00 3 Pipe & Trenching: Sewer Pipe -PVC (SDR-26, D-3034) 435 L.F. 8" @ $15.00 $ 6,525.00 435 L.F. 18"@ $36.00 $ 15,660.00 $ 9,135.00 2,485 L.F. 8"@$15.00 $37,725.00 2,485 L.F.15"@$34.50 $ 85,732.50 $ 48,007.50 311 L.F. 8" @ $15.00 $ 4,665.00 $ 4,665.00 $ 0.00 4 Trench Safety: 3231 L.F. @.1.50 $ 4,846.00 3231 L.F. @ 2.00 $ 6,462.00 $ 1,616.00 5 Maholes 7/60"@$2,500 $17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 0.00 6 Hook-up to Existing MH $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 0.00 7 Sand Backfill- 750CY@$5 $ 3,750.00 Sand Backfill-1125CY $ 5,625.00 $ 1,875.00 8 Engineering, Surveying $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 0.00 9 Legal, Easmt. Prep. $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.00 TOTALS ..................................... $ 86,411.00 $ 147,044.50 $ 60,633.50 OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST .............................................................. $ 60,633.50 .,_ .- ENGINEER'S SUMMARY FOR PHASE 1- WESTFIELD ADDITION 1 Street Construction ...................................................... $ 124,390.00 2 Drainage Construction ................................................. $ 46,830.00 3 On-Site Sewer Line Construction ................................ $ 61,000.00 4 Off-Site Sewer Line Construction ................................ $ 147,044.50 5 Water Line Construction .............................................. $ 59,265.00 6 Detention, Lot Prep, Other ........................................... $ 15,000.00 TOTAL PHASE 1 COST ESTIMATE .................................... $ 453,529.50 DEVELOPER'S PORTION ..................................................... $ 392,896.00 CITY OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION...e ................................. $ 60,633.50 r„l S,}.fit~~. ~ N7~is~t.;;.~', ' ~r, :.~~.,. 1 ~` , ,~ ~• :. e i EXHIBIT C Calculations of Demand and Q of Pipe i A Demand Calculations• 1 Manhole A -Contributory Area C.A. A) Area B-6, 243 Acres: 243 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. = 1,215 D.U. 1,2IS D.U X 200 G.P.D. = 243,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% _ 24,300 G.P.D. - Plus Peak Factor ~a 3.5 = 850.5.00 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow M.H. A = 1,117,800 G.P.D. (Gallons Per Day) 1,11'7,800 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1 /60 X 1/7.5 = 1.725 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 2 Manhole B -Contributory Areas (C.A. B ) B-2 and B-5, 118 Acres: 118 Acres. X 5 D.U./Ac. 590 b.U. 590 D.U. X 200 G.P.D. = 118,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% = 11,800 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor n, 3.5 = 413.000 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow of C.A. 542,800 G.P.D. (Gallons Per Day) 542,800 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7,5 = 0.838 C.F.S (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 3. Manhole C -Contributory Areas (C.A. C) B-1, B-3 and B-5, 190 Acres: 190 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. = 950 D.U. 950 b.U. X 200 G.P.D. = ..1.90,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% 19,000 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor (~ 3.5 = 665,000 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow of C.A. = 874,500 G.P.D. {Gallons Per Day) 574,000 G.P.D. X 1/24 X,:1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 1.349 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 4. Additional Flow at Manhole Cfrom B-4 and Alternate A-5, 80 Acres: 80 Acres X SD.U./Ac. = 400 D.U. 400 D.U. X 200 G.P.D. = 80,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% = 8,000 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor (u~ 3 5 = 280.000 G.P.D. f C.A. = 368 000 G.P.D. Gallons Per Day) Total Peak Flow o 368.,000 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5. = 0.568 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) B. Q of Pipe' 1 Q of Pipe Flowin~In at Manhole A - 12" (a~ 0.25% Slope: I Q= [1.486 A R 2/3 S 1/2] / n Q = [1.486 (0.785) (0.25)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (0.785) 0.397) (0.05) i Q = 2.315 CFS j J 2 Q _of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole B - 15" (a~ 0.25% Slope: Q = [1.486 (1.227) (0.312)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (1.227) (0.460) (0.05) Q = 4.194 CFS 3 Q of Pipe Flowing at Manhole C - 18" (a~ 0.25% Slope: Q = [1.486 (1.767) (0.375)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (1.767) (0.520) (0.05) Q = 6.827 CFS 9 CALCULATIONS OF DEMAND FOR WESTFIELD ADDITION AND ADJOINING LAND L LAND AREA: Westfield Addition ..:................... 52 Acres Adjoining Land..., :.:.................... 66 Acres Total Land .................................... 118 Acres 2. CONTRIBUTION TO SEWER LOAD FROM 118 ACRES: 118 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. = 590 D.U. 590 D.U X 200 G.P.D. = 118,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration 10% = 11,800 G.P.D. Plus. Peak Factor (c~ 3.5 = 413,000 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow of 118 Ac. = 542,800 G.P.D. 542,800 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 0.838 C.F.S. (Cu. Ft./Sec.) Peak Flow From 118 Acres 0.838 C.F.S. 3. PIPE SIZING: Q of Pipe- 8" flowing @ 0.33% Slope: Q = [ 1.486 A R2/3 S 112]/n Q = [1.486(0.342) (0.163)2/3 (0.0033)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (0.342) (0.49) (0.05745) Q = .1.430 C.F.S. ., ~. REQUEST FOR OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION WESTFIELD ADDITION COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS MARCH, 1998 OWNER & DEVELOPER LICK CREEK DEVELOPMENT, INC. P:O. BOX 14000 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77841 (409) 260-1647 PREPARED BY RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 RZLEY-ROAD BRYAN,-.TEXAS 77808 (409) 589-2457 a.. ,, <. ENGINEER' S COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Item Descriution 8" Line 12" Line ~ 15" Line 18" Line 1 Easement Cost $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 3 Sewer Pipe -PVC 5DR-26 (D3034) @ $ .2.22 $ 5.00 $ 7.66 $ 10.00. 450 L.F. $ 999.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 3,447.00 $ 4,500.00 .2,450 L.F. $ 5,439.00' $12,250.00. $18,767.00 $24,500.00 4 Trenchin & Instal. @ $ 10.00 g $ 18.00 $ 20.00 $ 22.00 2,900 L.F. (10'-12'J $29,000.00 $52,200.00 $58,000.00 $63;800.00 5 Trench Safety 10'-12'@ $ 1.50 $ 1.50 $ 1.50 $ 1.50 2900 L.F. $ 4,350.00 $ 4,350.00 $ 4,350.00 $ 4,350.00 6 Manholes 7 @ 4' Dia. $ 1,500.00 $10,500.00 7 @ 5' Dia. $ 2,500.00 { $.17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $.17,500.00 7 Engin., Surv., Plans $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00. $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 `~ TOTALS....... . .:.............. $ 60,688.00 $ 98,950.00 $112,464.00 $125,050.00 I ~ OVERSIZE PORTION .................. ................. $ 38,262.00 $ 51,776.00 $ 64.362.00 ~ There will be one crossing of he South Fork of Lick Creek, but the designed depth of the sewer line will F be below the flow of the Creek. The: portion. of the line being built now, :some -2,900 ft. Will' provide sewer to Phase 1, of Westfield ~ Addition and the future planned Elementary School. Additional sections of the sewer trunkline wilIl be built with future phases of Westfield Addition until it reaches through the entire property at the future ',~ extension of Victoria Avenue. Further extensions will be done by others in the future. 4 r I '. i i - . . ~ y + O ` ~ r• R e a c' ~ a ~ ~. ~• ," ~~ r ~~! ~ r ~ . e A ~ ~ ` ~, `~ ~~~ ~ ,• ~~ 4 _ k ~- ~~ . ~ Z fo ~a. .~• qr ~R el~ ~ N SSS r ` ~~ j. R ~ r o ~ ' L~ ~. ~ R ~r ~ $~ ~. ~ 1 ~ ~~~ t ` i h `e~, ~ ~4h ~ ; ~ ~~ .8t . ~~~, //~ ~ !~ 'r, M1 ~ y I '+ 6. t `, a H ~' ~ ~' y yY Y / M ~> %.. . . :III \~ .. ~~trt+z -h5 (. }7... ;l F From: Kent Laza To: JKEE, SVOLK Date. 8/12/96 b:00pm Subject: John Szabuniewicz~Reply Jane, Sabine, .and I told him what to do last Friday -over and over again. Our response was that he is going to have to look at masterplanning all three tracts together to show us how he intended to make them work together. There. is no way the third tract can support Victoria alone. It's. questionable whether all three together can support Victoria. He knows that because he stated it to us. Waiting 15 years for Victoria to be built may be about right. We can't predict when the area will develop. If they want to put a convenience store at the intersection, it will have to be rezoned. We told him the stiff would not support such a rezoning request. without some type of masteIplan showing how the entire area would develop. About the only thing we can help him with is the future alignment of Graham Road and we have not worked on that yet. But that information isn't going to help him much atthis point. »> Shirley Volk 08/12/96 03:58pm »> John called me when he couldn't reach either of you today to find out "what you had decided about Graham Road", and "what about Victoria°'! Apparently he is buying 2 of those 15 acre tracts off Graham Road, and "someone else is buying the 15 .acre tractwhich Victoria will be out of", but "he has. asked me to help develop it"t Anyway,. John says'"he" wants to put in a C-Store where Graham Road and Victoria might = or mighfnot o= intersect! What does he need to do? Have you decided what the alignment of Graham will be? Can Victoria be put off for 15 years. or so? (Apparently, according to John, Chet Fry has leased his building to AT&T for 15 years!) Therefore, if land was condemned for a street, that lease would have to be taken into. consideration, too! (This is all according to JS). Anyway; he thinks the guy who is buying the 3rd tract is ready to go -and has even identified an architect to design the site - CONSTANTINE BARBUI All-in-a11, it was an interesting conversation, but all I did was take notes and told him that Since I was out all last week, I was not "up to snuf, so to speak" and couldn't give him any information.. He also asked who handled condemnations and I told him I didn't know because I had never been involved with one! So much for being an INFORMED development coordinator, huh! Anyway, expect to hear from him on Wed. if you don't call him back with the scoop. Oh, his number is 260-1647. CC: JCALLAWAY, Smccully From: Sabina Kuenzel To: City of College Station.City Hall(7Callaway, JKee,... Date: 6/11/96 4:19pm Subject: John Sczbuniwitz -Reply i've told hirn much of this before,. and told him that it's at the zoning that we have the most control, and hey! no wonder he wanted a letter from you - he perceived (inocirectly) that he was getting a different answer from you than from me. i said that at the zoning we may opt to recommend denial because of a piecemeal approach, and he would at least have to show how his development will tie into the plan for the. area. »> Shirley Volk 06/11/96 11:49am »> I just got off the phone with this guy again! I explained that (1)the City cannot force him to include the 3rd(victoria)lot in his project; (2)but we would encourage him to include it and we will help him address the problematic Victoria Street extension some way -and gave examples of oversize part., dev. agreement wherein he dedicates 1/2 the row with a development agreement to postpone construction until the City gets the other half, etc. Then he said "thanks", but I can't afford the 3rd tract now, so will you write a letter saying that what he's proposed has our "blessing". I replied that I didn't think we would be willing to write that kind of letter in this case,,because even if what he proposes meets .our minim~n standards, and we mayhave to process it, it doesn't. meet what the City would consider as a plan which we can bless - since. it doesn't meet the optimum standards! Then'he went on to ask how we were going to get utilities out there, etc.., and I explained. that I really don't know anything of all about utilities, and hat I thought he had talked to engineering about this, but he continued to want to realign the sewer line! So I told him I think another predevelopment meeting is in order -and had Jenkins set it up for Jane, V, Tony Michalsky & I! Sorry, but I didn't know what else to do! I told him that the real control the City would have would be with rezoning requests, but he wasn't ready to listen to that. I think in this next predevelopment meeting astep-byo-step explanation is imperative, because he does n't understand how zoning and staffs recommendations can fit into this -and how duplication of streets comes into play. at that time, too. ~ ~ ~ LICK CREEK DEVELOPMENT,. INC.: DEVELOPERS OF WESTFIELD ADDITION 303 College Main Street, College Station,. Texas 77840 December 3,-1997 .Veronica Morgan, P: E., Assistant City Engineer City of College Station Engineering Division P. O. Box 9960 College .Station, Texas 77842 Re: Request for Change of Impact Area and Elimination ofSanitary Sewer Phase 3 /~~ ~~~ Dear Veronica:... Please find enclosed a map showing the Capital.Improvement Plan of 1996 which shows a proposed Sanitary Sewer Extension Phase 3 along Graham Road. Also shown on the attached Map is our proposal to change the Impact Area and move the line on the several tracts which is approximately 200 feet south of Graham Road to Graham Road as shown. The developer of Westfield Addition and C.S.LS.D. are proposingconstructing the extension of a Sanitary. Sewer Line from:Springbrook Subdivision whichwould provide sanitary sewer service to all of the. tracts along Graham Road and eliminate the need to construct. the proposed Phase 3 line. The tract of land on the North side of Graham .Road can be sewered with the existing lines presently there as shown. Thank you for your. assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Mr. Martin Riley, our engineer for this project at 589-2457. Sinc rely, J . M. Szabu '.ewicz , Vice-President , ~' r e .~ ~~, ......,..r....._es - ~ .~...... Y '~ • ~° ~aM~.e _v._ ~._ ~_.. ~__~ ~ ~ -- -- / ... G~z., ~__ f ~.~ ~_.w__.____.________.__.~_.__ ________...._ .._._,._ , ~.__ _._______~._T_e._~v__~_____.~~~ _~_.w_~r____.~~____.~~e~_ ~,,~,, ,~~ ~ , ~1 ~ ~5 ti~ ~~ ~, ~~%,c~ ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST ..`~;;~~ ;~, ~. Item Description 8" Line 12" Line 15" Line 18" Line ~-^ , ' °~ 1 Easement Cast $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $' 500.00 $ 500,00 2 Clearing & Grubbing $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400,00 3 Sewer Pipe 3,600' @ $ .2.22 $ 5.00 $ 7.66 $ 10.00 ~~.. ~~~ Z6 P~lG ~ $ 7,992:00 $18,000.00 $ 27,576.00 $ 36,000.00 4 Trenching & .Instal. @ $ 10.00 $ .:18.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 3,600 L.F.- $ 36,000.00 $ .64,800.00 $ 72,000,00 $ 72,000.00 5 .Trench Safety $ 3,600.00. 6 Ntanholes 7 ~~~~~ ~ O ~5,~p~ $ 1,500.00 10,500.00 °~ 7 En~in., Survey., Plans $ 7,500 00 TOTALS ................:. $ 68,492.00 OVERSIZE...........: ........................... $ 5,400.00 $2;500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $116,100.00 $ 47,608.00 $ 7,200.00 3 , $.2,500.00 $.17,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $134,676.00 $ 66,184.00 $ 7,200.00 ~- ~~. !V`~S 1 1K $ 2,500.00 $~ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $143.100.00 $ 74,608.00 t .~~ F August 19, 1997 Mr. Kent Laza City Engineer City of College Station. P. O. Box 9960 College Station,_Texas 77842 RE: EXTENSION OF SEWER TRUNK LINE At Springbrook Subdivision North of Lick Creek Dear Mr. Laza: We are submitting information to formalize our position on the proposed Sewer Trunk Line Eartension on the North side of the South Fork of Lick Creek from the designated Manhole No. 45 located at the Northwest corner of Springbrook Subdivision, which proposed extension is shown in the attached Proposed Map of such. Exrtension, consisting of approximately 490 feet of 18" sewer main extension, followed by approximately 2,120 feet of 12" sewer main extension. There presently exists a lift station, called L.S. #2, at Texas State Highway 6 and Springbrook Subdivision as shown in the hereto attached Map. The watershed of the South Fork of Lick Creek to be seweredinto this Z. S. #2 consists of some 842 acres of land. Of this 842 acres, .various tracts are presently sewered or can in the future be sewered by the existing 18" sewer main located in the Springbrook Subdivision .as well as the proposed 490' extension of 18" sewer main. Our calculations reveal the following areas to be sewered by the various portions of the sewer main as follows: Total Watershed Arca - 842 Acres - Scwered As Follows: A. Existing 18" Sewer Main in Springbrook Subdivision and 490' E:.rtension• A-1 Area'south of Barron Road, Shenandoah Subdivision ................. 65 Acres A-Z Springbrook Subdivision ............................................................ 8b Acres A-3 Area: north of Springbrook Subdivision ...................................... 100 Acres A-4 Rivers Tract ............................................................................... 95 Acres A-5 Area North of Rivers tract ................................... 40 Acres - TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED BY THE 18' SEWER MAIN....... 386 Acres B. Areas to be served by existing sewer line in Graham Road° B-1 Area along Graham Road at OI Corp down to Victoria Ave........ 30 Acres B-2 Former McSwain et al Area along Graham Road .....:..... 15 Acres -TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED BY EXISTING SEWER .............. 45 Acres C. Areas to be served by the 2120' extension of 12" sewer main- C-1 Area North of Rivers tract next to school tract...: ........................ 40 Acres C-2 CSISD 5th & 6th Grade School Tract .........................:............... SO Acres C-3 Remainder of Former McSwain et al Areas ................................ 105 Acres C-4 Don Carroll Tract ...................................................................... 90 Acres C-4 Bald. Prairie Subdivision ...........................................:................. 60 Acres C-5 Area west of Bald Prairie Subdivision.: ....................................... 66 Acres - TOTAL ARE TO BE SERVED BY I2" SEWER EXTENSION...... 411 Acres ., Of the 4I 1 acres. to be severed by the proposed 12" line, some 30 acres lies in the creek area of Lick Creek and would not be developed. Further, the Bald Prairie .Subdivision of some 60 acres has a very low density of about 1 residence per 3 acres or more, so for purposes of our calculations here, we shall use a 1 household per acre density. The. SO acre school tract has its separately calculated peak capacity as shown. Taking into account the above, our calculations are as follows: A. Intense Residential Development: Total gross area to be sewered ......................................................... 411 Acres Less Undevelopable Creek Area......:.:....., ....................................... (30) Acres Less 60 Acres low densityBald Prairie Subdivision....: .................... {60) Acres Less 50 Acres School Tract ...............:...........................................:. (50) Acres Total net area to be sewered...........: ....................:........................... 271 Acres S:0 DU x 300 GPD / DU....... = 1500 GPD INFILTRATION (10%):...... = 150 GPD PEAK. FACTOR (2.7).:...:... _ .4050 GPD TOTAL PEAK FLOW / AC. = 4200 GPD 271 AC. X..4200 GPD..:.... = 1.138 MGD B. Less Intense Residential Development (60 Ac. Existing Bald Prairie Subdivision): Bald. Prairie Subdivision @ 1 DU/Acre x 1300 GPD / DU = 300 GPD / DU INFILTRATION (10%) ....................:..:............................... = 30 GPD / DU PEAK FACTOR (2:7) ...............................',..:....................... = 810 GPD / DU TOTAL PEAK. FLOW PER ACRE .................................... = 840 GPD / DU 60 Ac. X 840 GPD / DU ..........................'..:......................... = 50,400 GPD or = 0.050 MGD C. 50 Acre C.S.I,S.D. School Tract to be developed with future Intermediate and Elementary: Both Schools Peak Flow (@ 2000 students per Bill Savage).. = 53,280 GPD or = O.OS3 MGD TOTAL SEWERAGE DISCHARGE ..............................:................... = 1.240 MGD This expected maximum capacity should be able to be handled by the I2" line. Please review this data and advise us as to which pipe size is desired.. It is our understanding that the cost of this sewer line will, be shared by the City, the School District and the Developer.. You will find the enclosed Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate for the proposed sewer line extension for your review. Should you have .any questions or need additional information, .please advise. Ve truly yours . L~ ~ M. Sza uniewicz, resident Lick CreekDevelopment, Inc. ,• ~ ~y ~ / F •, °°'. ~ a ,~1~ \ ~~• ,fir t• cn~ro ~ '~ ~~ _•Q / `• ~ °°. °° v ~ D ' Ili L . << .;6, \ ~ /\, _. time e'! ~~ ~l -~ _~~~~ ~ '~ . ~!~!. ;- - .. ~.,~'~'° ~`'.,, . ~ i..SCA E~S I~ =.2000 ~"~ ~~ `i ° ~ / ~ • ,~ ~P N t~ ~, Y ~ •• , // ~ ~ - •~. ..'~' + ~ ` ~~` G~y w 4' 7/ ' ~ it ~.. y' ~ `~'`~, - ~"~'~~ Sewer~~#,To l...S. ~ Area To~~e~ •'~,~, ~:.-~~x~..-- ~~, ,,/,~- ~ (84 ~cres) ~ ',°~°Se er~ci T• •L.S~~ ~~ ~ ,. ~' ~` ~-'~ '~~ \ ~ ,lam- ~ _,` ~ O~ / (/ "- f'°.7\ 4'~? 'O • 1 4' i ~~ . ~. a s ', ~. ~' ~' . _- _ o < c -.. S RiNGBR00K ~5i~ i' ~~ `~ ~. , ~' ~ i ~` ~ t '~. N P /, ~~ ~ ~~ -,-. ~~ , ~ ~~ ~. moo ~ ~ ~ ',t ;, ~. ~ C~: ~,~.~... r~~ r 1 ~ '~- f' •.., ~ .\ \~ f- ' N CHEAT~,~.M AND ASSOCIATES October 8, 1997 College Station LS.D. - Construction Services 1812 Welsh Street College Station,. TX 77840 Attn: Bill Savage, P.E., Construction Manager Re: GrahamRoad Newlntermediate School Sanitary Sewer and Dedication of a Regional Detention Facility Project No. 1019-207 Mr. Savage: Upon consulting with John Szabuniewicz and Martin Riley, P.E.. regazding the above mentioned issues,. we wish to confirm our. course of action with College Station LS.D. Mr. Szabuniewicz stated that, upon. consultation with the City of College Station, he is prepazed to move forward with the design of the sewer line. He stated that the City has agreed to pursue a Developer's Agreement wherein they will only-pay the cost of capsizing the sanitary sewer line from an 8 inch line to a 12 inch or 15 inch line. At_this time, this resolution appeazs to be acceptable to Mr. Szabuniewicz. We have consulted with.Martin Riley, P.E., who is contracted by Mr. Szabuniewicz to design the sewer line, to coordinate our projects. In regards to a regional detention facility possibly being constructed on the Graham Rd. School tract, Mr. Szabuniewicz stated that, upon consultation with you and the City, it would be agreeable to him that he pay for and have Riley Engineering Co. design the regional detention facility if the land was donated. by College Station LS.D. If these courses of action are acceptable to College Station LS.D., please pursue the relevant agreements between the School District, developer and the City. We also wish to request written confirmation thatthese courses of action aze correct. We aze available to assist with these issues in any way:. possible. Please call us if you have any. questions or comments. Sincerely, l-. Bry .Tucker F:\WORDICOLLEGE12071u.dedicaGoawpd cc: ~ Steve Aloway, VLK Architects - .:. Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E., City of College Station John Szabuniewicz, Developer Martin Riley, P.E., Riley. Engineering Co. David Mayes, Cheatham & Associates ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS A Subsidiary Firm of Southwest Planning and Design, Inc. 1601 E. Lamar Bivd. • Suite 200 • Arlington,. Texas 76011 Edwn~HardM- Re: Manual/Tx Pr©posed signal Pape From: Edwin Hard To: Lee Robinson; Mark Smith Date: 1 /28/00 11:30AM Subject: Re: Manual/Tx Proposed signal Over the years, we've had several calls from Tom Kinney (Mgr. of Outback) and I believe I've also gotten a call from the Manager of Target. To my knowledge, I don' t think they have contacted any Council members...yet. I believe these guys along with the HEB folks are aware of the preliminary Texas widening plans which show a full median opening to allow fora. future signal Once and if they hear that their may not be a median opening, I'm sure we'll hear from them ahd then they may start contacting Council members. »> Mark Smith 01/28/00 10:33AM »> I wholeheartedly agree with you Ed. However, wasn't there some political inertia behind this signal location? I #hought that the Target, HEB, Outback center folks were lobying for a signal at their entrance to achieve some sort of paruty with Lone Star Pavillion. I don't want to decide to delay this signal only to be told to change my mind. »> Edwin Hard 01/28/00 09:28AM »> Lee/Mark, The accident stats we looked at when we considered signals for this fiscal year showed that Texas Manual had 4 accidents per year for the last two years. Per the MUTCD, the accident rate to warrant a signal is 5 per year. Given the circumstances, I think we would be ok in delaying. There are other ways to address accidents and I think we should get with the State and take a close look at how we want to handle this intersection as part of the Texas Ave. widening. (Full or limited access median?) One of Council's big concerns is north-south mobility/access and a signal at Manual only further chips away at progression along Texas....causing some to cut through neighborhoods. Ed »> Lee Robinson 01/26/00 04:34PM »> I don't recall the accident history on this intersection, if they are high I'm all for going ahead with this signal installation. I# not, after giving it much thought and speaking with Tony M/Electrical he indicated that we may need a :utility easement to provide power for the signal since all overhead lines are coming down. I feel it maybe best to postpone this signal until after Phase II for a number of reasons. 1) overall Texas Ave. Phase II widening project will call for temporary signals 2) the removal ofi overhead electrical power lines and interconnect cable 3) this signal would operate without being interconnected with Texas signal group which would prove difficult to keep synchronized causing increased vehicle delays. From Phase I experience Txdot doesn't always go back with what was there from the start. Hopefully they won't contract out to another Road &Bridge contractor leaving us to hold their hands throughout the entire project. Its difficult to get a product that you feel comfortable maintaining when the contractor is not yours. The existing signals will be a challenge as it is. Ed if you could get with Scott and see how we stand oh accidents I guess that would be a starting point. If you all could let me know what you think on this proposed signal I would certainly appreciate it. If we decide not to go ahead with this signal I will have Dr. Blaschke to not spend. anymore time on it. Thanks ~lne~ ~s c~ f . rte` d i I{ ~ Apri13, 2000 I )t~TTE1~,'OF CONSENT Ivir. Jim Callaway, Director of Planning City ofCollege Station Re: Victoria Extension Dear Mr. Callaway: This is to advise you that I, Don F. Carroll, the undersigned, being the owner of that certain l00 acres of land, more or less, recorded in' Volutx~e 154, Page 514, of the Deed Records of Brnzoe County, Texas, hereby have. no objection to the Extension of Victoria Avenue over and across my property. This is to further inform. you. that I hereby authorize 'Westfield Addition, Ltd., to .file their Plat called WESTFIELD A.DDITON, PHASE 3, to include the strip of mY property {approximately 29.20 feet wide) for Victoria Extension, as shown in the attached Exhibit hereof (trade a part hereof for all purposes) of the proposed Phase 3 Plat. I am willing to be included. in the, Application, and am giving Westfield Addition, Ltd., authority to make Application on my behalf and pay all of the filing fees. Upon the approval of the Final Plat, I will be signing the Final Plat or igning aRight-of--Way Deed to the strip of my land to be included in the Victoria ktight-ot; Way, as the. City and Westfield Addition, Ltd_ desire. This consent to light-of--Way is conditioned upon the parties below agreeing that my property will have fuU access to the new road and that I will not beat any costs of survey, construction, and document preparation associated' with the construction of such Victoria Extension, which is to be borne by the City of College Station and Westfield Addition, Ltd. This Letter of Consent shall inure and be binding upon the parties hereto, and their heirs, successors and assigns. . Sincerely, Don F. Carroll AGREED AND ACCEPTED: r H. J. za ruewicz, orized .Agent estfield Addition, Ltd. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: ay: Jim Calloway, Director of Development City of College Station, Texas P .~. August 5, 1997 Mr. Ed Hard Transportation Planner City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Alignment and Right-of--Way Width Designation Dear Mr. Hard: Having recently acquired'some real.. property along South Graham Road near the intersection of Victoria Avenue, I would like to make some suggestions and inquiry regarding the City's future development of South Graham Road. As you know, South Graham Road. is basically a two lane road with bar ditches on each side and running from Wellborn Road to State Highway 6 it makes a southerly jog at the intersection of Graham Road with Victoria Avenue, as shown in the hereto attached drawing. The properly intended to be developed is out of the approximately 30 acres to be developed along Graham Road until it meets with the 50 acre College Station ISD 5th & 5th Grade School Tract. Ownership and title to the property to be developed by the undersigned was shown to go beyond the presently existing fence line some 9.33 varas (approximately 28 feet) out in the middle of Graham Road. Also, the right-of- way width which Graham Road is supposed to be shows it to be 70 feet. We intend to begin development utilizing the land fronting along Graham Road. It is important in order for us to proceed further that the alignment and right-of--way width be determined for Graham Road. In making such determination, we would request that you consider the following:. L That the alignment of Graham Road, i.e. the southerly jog at Victoria Avenue be eliminated at the intersection of Victoria Avenue. Instead, a southerly jog can be put further eastward just immediately. past our development at the 50 acre school tract as shown by the attached map. The reason is that the school property will be maintained as a large tract and the jog would not significantly impact the use of their tract. A jog along the frontage of .our part of the property would have a sever. impact on our lot lay-out and development. Also the jog needs to be away from the intersection of Victoria Avenue so as to provide good visibility. in approaching the intersection. Also the realignment would alleviate some :right-of--way problems, alignment and entry with the Chet Fry (AT&T Cellular) Office Building. 2. That the Right-of--Way width for Graham Road stay at 70 feet, which should be sufficient to .construct Graham Road into an arterial. Please let me or Mr. Martin Riley know what your final decision is regarding Graham Road. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. S' cerely, ~" e G' ~ f -~ f J. M. Sza uniewicz ~ £;,~ ,~' ~ a ,~'~ ~+' x s ~ ~~~ < a ~ •. ~ x ~. O _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Y~ cr0~~~~c a .. +' c~ v ~ •• h V V V : M `'h .~ 4 w r 4 .. ~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` " • ~. v ~ ~ ~ r b R 1 M V ~. ~ V ~ ,. x ~ ~~ q ~, M x ,.~ a' ~~ .~~' .~ ~ ~ C a. R n ~. ~ ~ C ~- Cam.. r• . y~ r .MM~ ~` k + ~ ~Rl a0 ~ 4 ti + r` ~ k r~n' . ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 1 ~' 1 ~ IM . 11~~ ~ y (% v ~ ~ ~ 1 M .~~ ti ,~ ,~ 7 X ~ ~ V ~ r ~~ •. a C ~~ \ fi \~ i +~' ~~cfo + ' ~. °r +o ~ ~ 4 i, ~. ~~ ~,~ ~~ . ~~ ~ `~ . ~~, ' ~ ~ ~ .. TATION C~~. .E S P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue Colieye S#ation, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 March 16, 2000 John Szabuniewicz 209-B University Dr. College Station, TX 77840 Re: Westfield Addition Preliminary Plat, Phases 2, 3 and 4 Dear Mr. Szabuniewicz: Staff has conducted a cursory review of the above referenced preliminary plat and has not accepted the submittal because several of the city's requirements were not adequately addressed. Staff will provide-additional information and assistance on this submittal at our meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, 2000. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 764-3570. Sincerely., C/~, Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner cc: Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator Case File 00-37 Home of Texas A&M University 09/10/01 10:42 1 $979 764 3737 Nlcmbcrs Present: GS PARKS & REG CITY Of~ COLLEGE STATION PARYS AND. RF,CREATION BOARD REGULAR IVIEETING JAN[JARY 1. $, 1998. -- 7;00 P.Ni. CEN`I'hAL PARK CONI'EKk;NCE RQC}M 1.000 KRENEK TAP ROAD Elizabeth Cunha, Chair, Debra Anderson, Vice Chair, Gary I-Ialtcr, John Crompton, Chris Barzilta, Bob DeOtte htombers Absent: Mile Manson Staff Present: Steve 13eachy, Eric Plocger, DanA Williamson, Peter Va.neeek, David Gerling, Vera Solis, Ginda WSltman, Jsne Kee, Jenny Hartsfseld, 13riclgcttc George Visitors Fresent: Jonn S~abunie~*icz, Westfield Addition Developer Called to Order 7:05 p.m. 1. Ap,Qrt~v~l or Miraufes: December 9, I99T_ ,john submitted some name changes. T}te minutes were approved ~~ amended. 1. Iycar l~uftvr.~; No unscheduled visitors spoke. 3. P1~serrflitian xrrd Consldera€iun of Paten6zai Psu'kl.~nd Dedicatiolr for 1~Ycs~Seld }trldrti©n.' Ric di:.ptxyed a $rapltic represent~sfion ctisplayir~ a possible Iayout of the park and school site. He met with David Neal, CSISD, whu stated that tlte~ could proUably supply It)-15 xcr~s of property. for a park withvuE the City having #o purchsse any Land. ~ 002 Mr. Szabuniewic2 displayed a site plan that showed a rough estimate of the floodpl$in that his er~ginecr calculated. He proposed donating roughly 4 acres to satisfy his current dedication requirement and aslticd for .credit for any portion of Isnd aboae his requiretttent to be usEd for future development requirements. The e~aet amount. of ~~ t! ~~ acreage tivill be determined when the final. drsinsge study is completed. Mr. ,~:~~l~~~i!! gaabunie~uicz has planned for ZI9 dwelling .units. Therefore, 1.~5 aet'es is his current ~~~ttt"~~~ required dcriicrition. The Board.. discussed if there should 'be a timeiinz on future development if the new dedication ordrianee is passed by Council. Steve statr.~l that. currently there is not a time fr4rrta in the parkland dedication ordinance. tary motioned to accept fhe proposed dedication, adding that future developmert must: occur within a 10-year time frame in order for the credit to be valid on future dedication n_yuirc:.ments. The motion ~~as seconded lay Sob and passed. 4. Discussion ot'the boys Intl G.rl'ls Club nfltie ~r~zvs t~Alley.' Mr. Kevin Bingham could not attend the meeting, ;;o this was postpatted until the February meeti~,r. S. 1.7iscu..~sinn of Leash Iiequil~mettt fog I'el~ tt!' ~1i1~ Cr~k Pftrk' Elizabeth called the City Austin for information on tl1cir Ioash polities. They stated that they have 11 sites that arc "leash frees however, the slug must still be udder "voice control." Shc stated that there is a sign in every park telli~~g patrons that there are dogs in .the park without leashes. Page I of 3 /l /i t ~/ ~ ~a-, T~faet ,~la-~ d~ 2 .2Yni/, .i~ /~ ll54z-f~ ~y, f~GAL L~~i C~x~l~~r: flu d ~v,~'a ~ ,~~r ~t ~G c 0Li ~~ C6~ ~.~n ~~~~ ~~ ~: < <. ~~~~~ ~~ ~-~.r~'~~ :~a~ ~i~~ ..ate. , ~'.