Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous
,_n..4_„_,........ ( ,f~-,,. • 1~-~rl~~_ -- ~ ._- ~~ -`~o Auwst l4, 1985 b RE: ?dater Improvements.To A Portion ' Of Nantucket -Phase Two, Brazos County, Texas. anginaerinq, surraying,8 Plonninq 0 m `~ n o I1' a W F N ~ 6 w M W F ~ W 6 = H N ~, ~ 6 = r a r,Na W 3doM. W 'C W ~ ~ m Ov Q ferry bishop st ~ssocrcates, incor~oretecJ TO WHOM IT MAY ' CONCERT : This Letter Is To Certify That The Water Itnprovernents As Referenced Above And As Shown :~Tithin The "AS-BtTII,T" Plans Accompanying This Letter Have Been Built To City Of College Station, Texas, Standard'Details And Specifications .For Canstructi:on Of Utility Lines .And Appurtenances Within City Of College Statism, Texas, Subdivisions. Sincerely, i /~~ /~ _, ~,d :'Jerry Bishop, P.E. /% ,' a Septemberl2, .1983 I ~ ~~€~ ~. POST 0;='FICE BOX 9960 1101 TEX.\S .~\';/\`L'E COLLEGE ST,'~TIO~. TEX.~S 7 ~ 840-?499 Mr. Jerry Bishop Jerry Bishop & Associates 1812 Welsh Suito 120 College Station, Texas. 77840 RE: plater line sizing for 'Nantucket Subdivision .Dear Mr. Bishop: As requested in a recent meeting with the-City staff and the developers of the above subdivision, I tender to 'you the following:. 1. The extension of water service to the above subdivision may be accomplished either along Arrington Road or along Highway 6. After discussion 4vith our water and sewer consultants, the line along Highway 6 will need to be an 18" diameter line and the line along Arrington-Road will need to be a 12" diameter line. Both of these lines will need to be completed at some point to provide a loop feed system. The Nantucket Subdivision will be required to provide one of these: 2. The line sizes within your subdivision will need to be developed to accommodate a minimum net density of 6 dwelling units per acre (,peak hour demand 10, 000:ga1/day/acre). The firedemand shall_ be required to be 750 gallons per minute with a 20 psi residual pressure. I have no doubt the .residual. pressure wi l 1 not be a probl em. However, I .would caution you to .consider the static pressure in the design of your system. I expect pressures°in excess of lA0 psi will be common if pressure control devices are not utilized.. The water surface elevation at Green's Prairie Road will be 522 ft. above mean sea level. Also head loss per. 1000 linear foot of equivalent pipe should not exceed 5' at peak demand flows (not including fire flows). There shou d be on]y one fire hydrant on a 6° line that is supplied-from one end, two on a line supplied from both ends. A minimum 8' crater line shall be required in secondary streets and a 12" line shall be required for primary streets. w j- • • I hope this information will give you the guidance you reouired on this matter. If I can be of further assistance, please call for an appointment. Sincerely, ~y ~ ; 1~-~ ~ David J. Pu n City Engi er cc: E1rey B. Ash II, Director of Capital Improvements A. E.-VanDever, Assistant City Manager DJP vw r August 28, 1984 City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1 101 TEXAS c1VENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499 Jerry Bishop:& Associates 1812 Welsh Blvd.,. Suite 120 College Station, Texas .7.7840 ATT: Earle Havel' RE: Nantucket'Subdivision -Plan Approval - Streets, Drainage, and Water Improvements Dear Mr. Havelz I have reviewed the .above. construction plans presented to my office. They appear to_generally conform with the City of College .Station ETJ standards. However, there are a couple of areas which concern.. me. Referring to S'neet l of 15, there must have been some misunderstanding between my staff `and myself as to just what constitutes the shoulder of a street'or roadway. T'ne side slope of the ditch was not what I had in mind. The 4 ft. shoulder should be a continuation of the 1/2 inch per ft. cross slope of the roadway for a distance of at least 4 ft. before dropping .into. the ditch side slope. This. area provides a space. for someone to get out of their vehicle without being in the ditch. More importantly it protects the edge of the pavement from erosion. The ditch bottom should be at least 6 inches below the crushed limestone. This allows moisture, which may get into the base material, to migrate to the ditch. You appear to have done a good job in Phase I in caring for .the erosion which..may occur in the ditches. I hope you will continue that in subsequent phases and provide gentle side slopes with erosion protection i.e., grass, fabric, etc. The upstream headwall configuration shown on Sheet 8 of 15 appears rather awkward unless you are trying to slow down-some water by bending it around as you have. _ On Sheet 15 of 15, it appears you are relocating a creek. I caution you to be very careful-about the erosion protection both on the sides and the bottom of such a system. I suggest you go to Eastmark Subdivision and look at the drainage ditc'n at the end of Eastmark Drive. It was constructed with a 4 foot wide bottom, 2: 1 side slopes and at a.bottom slope 0.2 percent. That. project was completed about 1 1/2 years ago. .Also,.. you .show no easement, along this relocation to which I do not object. I .point out to you however, .that in. order for the storm system to function properly someone will have to`maintain that open ditch according to the design criteria you gave me. I will mark.. the drawings "APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION"` as soon as you have corrected the typical roadway section on Sheet 1 of 15. Since this project is_in the City of College Sta ion's ETJ and since Brazos County now has a County Engineer, I.wll need I extra'set of construction drawings which I wily deliver to the County'. Engineer . Sincerely, David J. 1len, P.E. City Engi eer I DJP: vw i i 0309/98 14:29 FAX 409 893 4243 ~ !' '~" ~~ CJ J ~~ ~ ~ 0 G ~- ~ J ,..- tl ~ ~~ z 2 ° ~' e o c (~ ~ N 0 ~~ V~ l I ~ ~ ~_ ~ (~©~ ~ \V ~_ r-~. r'1 N ~~ hi D G ~ •., 0002 ~,n ~! ~ W ,` ~~ > ~' '~© ~~ c~~ ~° ~~ 3 << ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ °d (XdW, ~~ ~ C,~ ~ o ~'f w o cn ~ o 0 0 ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ /\ \\ ~ i~/ X ~/\/ w \~ //\ ~~ w +~ z "-'-' z= Q~ z J O ~ ~ J ~ ~ Qd U ~ W Z t Z ~ Q U 0 Z~ W w ~' 1 ~ ~ U Q v CS /z '' - //.~ 11 ~I LI~ICIPAL ~E VEL OPMENT GROUP 251 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A • College Station, Texas 77840 •409-693=5359 • FAX.• 409-693-4243 • E-mail: mdgcs~gte.com Engineering, Surveying, Planning and EnvironmentaP Consultants February 20, 1998 Natalie Ruiz, Planning Technician City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842. ~~~,~ Re: South Hampton Phase One, Final Plat, MDG No, 000025-2882 Dear Natalie: Enclosed is a mylar of the revised Final Plat per your mark-ups and eleven (11) additional copies. Also enclosed is the revised Master Drainage Plana Below are some .comments to issues that were indicated on the original Master Drainage Plan. °:° Open channels that have a velocity of 4.5 ft/sec or lower will be treated by seeding. °:° After discussing the matter of pilot channels and drainage easements widths with Mark Smith, the following conclusions have been drawn: All side and back lot drainage channels are very minimum and are basically lot grading. There will be no need for a pilot channel since velocities are low and erosion is verv unlikely to occur.. All side and back lot: drainage channels will only have easements wide enough to carry the 100-year flood with a 15' minimum width. The 5' & 15' maintenance shelves are not necessary for. the maintaining of these drainage channels. Any required maintenance can be done down the middle of the channel and during dry conditions. I have investigated the main. drainage channel between Phases One & Five. The creek consists of much more timbered and is .heavily weeded than` originally thought.. Therefore, the mannings coefficient has been. increased from 0.30 to 0.50. This has in turned reduced the velocities in the existing creek to a range from 2.63. to 4.13 ft/sec. If these conditions should change, it would only be by landowners clearing and sodding their backyards. Therefore, the creek would have the treatment required for the increase velocities that would occur due to the lower "n". Appropriate easement widths have been sized with the 5' & 15' maintenance shelvesplus the'.design storm top width. Also, easements have been checked. to insure the passing of the 100-year rainfall event. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. 000025-c.46-26(2882) a~ a 000025-c.46-26(2882) RM/tm ~~ r ~~~~ ~ fal t ,C,~ ,, ~,~.~~ _: ~(- `' _ ~ LETTER OF COMPLETION . \~ ~ ~! ~ CITY ENGINEER DATE: Auk„~r ~ ~ ~ 999 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS RE: COMPLETION OF South Hampton Subdivision, Phase One ~e.,VJ ~~~ Dear Sir: The purpose of our letter is to request that the following listed improvements be approved and accepted as being constructed under city inspection and completed according to plans and specifications as approved and required by the City of College Station, Texas. This approval and acceptance. by the City is requested in order that we may finalize any sub-contracts and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter of guarantee for the listed impi•ovem:ents on the above xefPrence protect: The one. year warranty is herby affirmed and agreed to by Ramirez Enterprises dba D&J Dozier and by their sub-contractors as indicated by signatures below. WORK COMPLETED Line 1 (Sta. 8+94.63 to Sta. 19+02.39) Line 2 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 1+OS) Line 3 (Sta. O+OQ to Sta. 3+50.27). Line 4 (Sta. 0+00 to, Sta. 2+76.33) Owner: Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket, Ltd. Address' 1502 Nantu~~P* nr College Station Texas .77845 DATE 08/06/99 .08106/99 08/06/99 08/06/99 Contractor: David Ramirez, D&J Dozier Address: 2302 South Pioneer Trail Bryan, Texas 77808 Signature: .L1 Signature• ~~ ACCEPTANCE & APPROVAL ~~,~rC~` aR-~6 From: Veronica Morgan. To: Bill Riley ~ Date: 5/14/98 11:OOAM Subject: south hampton water service - interlocal agreement Zr bill, pawl and i met with mdg yesterday afternoon and discussed the s their plans: and final plat #or the first phase of south hampton. this final plat is proceeding to the une 4t &z and is not required to go to council for approval rding to mdg, phyllis will be ready to fi a final plat for record (i.e. sell: lots for development). o June 5t r soon thereafter. (she is intending to post financial guarantees for all her infrastructure) yt hence, my question.......isthc interloGal agreement with wellborn going to council on may 28th? should there be a condition placed on the filing of the final. plat that the interlocal be approved prior to filing.(it is currently written this way in the staff report) if we place this condition. on the plat and the interlocal isnt ready for may 28th, when can we expect the interlocal to get to council so that the plat can be filed? phyllis will be asking soon...... thanks v CC: Jim Callaway, Mark Smith, Paul Kaspar, Shirley ... ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE South Hampton Phase One OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER UNIT TOTAL NO DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D3034) w/Class 1 155 LF $17.00 $19,635.00 1 "D" Embedment , 2 6" D.I.P. Sanitary Sewer (Class 350). 72 LF $22.00 $1,584.00 3 16" D.LP. Sanitary Sewer (Class 350). w/Class. "D" g2 LF $45.00 $3,690.00 Embedment 4 4' Dia. Manhole: (includes extra depth) 4 EA ` $1,600.00 $6,400.00 Road Bore for 6" Sanitary Sewer w/12" Steel 5 Encasement (Sch-40) (includes carrier pipe 6" D.LP., 60 LF $120.00 . $7,200.00 Class 350 locking joints, gaskets & casing spacers) .Highway. Bore for 16" Sanitary Sewer w/24" steel 6 Encasement (Sch-40) (includes carrier pipe 16" 303 LF $310.00 $93,930.00 D.LP. Class 350 locking joints, gaskets, casing spacers & traffic control) 7 Concrete Piers & Footing 3 EA $350.00 $1,050.00 8 Trench Sa~ , n g~~ 1,232 LF $1,00 $1,232,00 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = $134,721.00 J U L _ ~ 200 COCS O.P. _ -$53,845:00 GRAND TOTAL = $80,876.00 This engineer's estir~$Yu~s ice, at the date shown, and is released for the purpose of public infrastructure cost projections. ~ ~ „-:: , North B. Bardell, Jr., P.E. 60873 Date .`"r' QF 1' ,~~ /' ~ .r' ~.~s~ ' 4LIl~ ~~ ~. UIUNICIPAL DEtiELOPMENT GROUP 2.55.E TEXAS AVE\tiE SOUTH; STE. A COLLEGE STATIOX, TEXAS 17840 Ph: (409)693-0359 FAX: (409)693-4243 E-mail: mdecs~gtc.net 000699-e.01-84(3289) ~®• r A .~ v' ^s~ ~ ..ba~~® ;# A ~S 3 ~b ~1 ~taA .. _ w _ ~E-: ,..-~ ,. _ JUN=30-2000 FRI 11 ~ 30 AM C. S, PUBLIC WORKS FAX N0, 409 764 3489 Po 02 LETTER OF COMPI.IJTION CITY ENGINEER DATE; CIT'SC pF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS RE; COMPLETION OF South Hampton Subdivision, Phase One Dear Sir: The urpose of our letter is to request tE~at the following listed improvementanbd saec ficatons as approved A being constructed under city Inspection and completed accordntL to plans p and .required. by the City afCollege Station, Texas. This approval and acceptance by the City is requested in order thlt we may finalize any sub-contracts altd to affiw does hereb~nvoid the t tter of gutarant a for and acceptance by the City of the impror•ements fisted belo Y nc~ lasted imprwzm~nts on xhe at,o~e reF~;rence project, The one year warranty is herby afi'trmed and agreed to by P.amircz Ente rises dba D&J Dozier and by their sub-contractors as :indicated by signatures below. WORK COIVII'I.ETED Line l (Sta. 8+94-G3 to Sta. 19~~0239} Ling: 2 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 1+05) Line 3 (sta. 0+00 to Sta. 3+50.27) Line 4 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta, 2+7b.3S) DATE 08/06/99 08106!99 OS/06199 08/06/99 Owner: Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket, Ltd. Address• ~ Colle c Station, Texas 77845. 5ignature- Contractor: David Ramirez, D~4cJ Dozier Address' 2 02 So"rL. D,nnaar TrAil Br an, Texas 77808 Signature: ° ,l ~ ACCEPTANCE & appROVAL ~ > i From: To; Date: Subjects Natalie Ruiz vmorgan 4/23/98 4:19PM South Hampton. Phase I Rabon just called and told that today they .met with .the City (I know Jim was at this .meeting) and they worked out the water issues associated with this plat. Phyllis is in the processof withdrawing her disannexation request and she wants to proceed with the final plat of Phase I. When we last met with MDG concerning this project, we determined that there were only 2 things holding up theplat: {1) .Drainage issues - .Comments irr the drainage report concerning the overall drainage plan and also the size of the drainage easements -including the ones along the rear of lots. (2) Water service & service areas -Wellborn Water v. City of CS and the necessary fire flows. I assume the water issues have in fact been res .care of as well? Could you please call Ration b drainage :info.. and/or can we go ahead and. pros been taken care of so that we can send the plat file, #98-206.) He's really pushing. for the 5/7 P; possible and to .plan on the 5/21 meeting.: Thanks a bunch! CCs jkee, svolk, pkaspar, jcal ~'~~~ ~~~ ~~ ed. However, have the drainage issues been taken tomorrow and let me him know if we need additional the final plat? As far as1 know, everything else has P&Z. (There is a copy of the revised final plat in the meeting; however, I told him that I didn't think it was ~~~ ~d ~~`µ` ~" l"`~`1 , ~,j FINAL PLAT ~ ase # Date Submitted: f '` `~ _ C O Fina( Plat: Engineering Firm/Surveyor: Owner: • ~~~~ (r~ Approved Denied - Approved _ Denied - Conditions: ~~ ~~ v c ~ •z ~ <.x -~' c'!~°~~.~11Z2.-(~.~ ill ~ d`% ~, ~~, aired Utility Plans: _ Water ®Sewer -Streets _ Drainage _ Elect. - SWalks ' ev '~ ii'' ~ ~. : -- '~ ~ Parkland Dedication: `~~~ ~ Construction Plans Approved: Letter of Guarantee/Credit: Utilities Constructed & Approved: Letter of Acceptance: `~ e cil: Corrections asp r C~°f Plat Signed: Mayor P & Z ~ City Engineer ~~ Filed at County Clerk's Office: Retrieved: ~, Copies distributed: ~ `„@~ _ ,, _. Microfilmed: ~-~~/lC i ~~~J ~~ ~ ~--.. C~~`~~~d ~ ~~ ~ f n_ /~l ~" ~~ P & Z Council ~~~~~~-1 Name of Plat: Filed for Record in: cos c,~rr, ,~ Onr Jul 1@,FQ~t~~ at A3a42pM Asa ,~, Plats l~cu~ertt Na~ber: F41 Aeount 55.0i~ Receipt lUueber - 1549,sP F Jackie F oim 1 iTATE ff TEAS ~OIIViY ff I herehy certify that this instriuent gas ~iled nn the date a~ tiee sta,p~ hereon by ne and gas duly recerded in the volaee and page ~f the Waned records of: B~II05 COLlf1Y, ~s stanped hereon by ne. Sul 1~, ~~~~ ti.E II~Y i~V 8~, iX)INi1' i~c ar~~ gym, 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840 ~~~Q~~,~ Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcs@mdgcs.com Web: www.mdgcs.com w O,c~~O ~4 O~"v x'40 August 8, 2001 Bob Mosely, P.E. City Engineer City of College. Station PO Box 9600 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: South Hampton - Phase I - Offsite Sewer Easements MDG Job No. 000025-2981 Dear Bob: Please find attached two metes and bounds descriptions for the South Hampton, Phase Ioff--site sanitary sewer.. An exhibit. drawing accompanies these documents that illustrate the public utility easement. Please execute this material as we discussed. Thank you for you assistance in this matter. Please call me if you have any questions: Sincerely, Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. Project Manager RM/tm ;I i 000025-c.114-CD 1(2981) II FEB-03-2005`THU 0842 AM FAX N0. P, 04 _ .,__ .._ ~--_.. -- M ._.....~ . ~ - - - _ aevefiopment -Public Utility Easement ~ Page 1 Mark McAuliffe... Re:_South Hampton Ph' I _ „ ~ _ -- _.. ,..w,...._. ' ~ ' lrromR Mark McAuliffe To: Callaway, Jfm; Mosley, Pob pale: 9/1 QlQ1 9:55AM Subject: Re: South Hampton Phase l peveiopment -public Utility Easement Sab, Thanks for your information. I agree Ghat the title,wark should not be paid by the City, but €rom the owner. Ask the owner to provide a copy of the latest policy: 'ff one is not available, then a copy of the last Deed will probably be sufficient Mark ~~~ pob Mosley Q9110lOi'09:39AM }~~ Mark, This was not; a cip project.. it was constructed as part of the South Hampkan Phase I development project with MDG as the eng(neer of record: I assume the public utility easements far South Hemptan were dedicated by plat and were noted on the plans (we do not generally receive plats with development projects), .Upon completion of construction we noticed that here was na'easement fQrthe off-sits sewer extiansion where it crossed in front of the Nantucket Subdivisioh which is not in the City of College Station. We asked MDC7 to provide an easement for the sewer line and hence the separate metes and bounds. The easement would be an exclusive easement for the COOS and will not have any rights for anyone to .tap our sewer line As th(s was not a cip project; there is no funding for doing a title opinion. I will Include a copy of this a-mail to Jim Callaway to see how that. is covered with okher' development. projecks, ( have kalked to wale and having cur sewer line in an easement dedicated to us is definitively in our best interest, ~?> Mark McAuliffe 09/1 Q/01 0$:53AM >y7 13ab, Yau have requested a Public Utility Easement for Phyllis Hobson which extends across the front of Nantucket, along SH 6. As I understand, the easement already. has some utilities in place.. (wastewater?). The request stems. firom the need for Phyllis to sell part of Nantucket or South Hampton. ,1 pefore I proceed with :processing the request, (need some additional information: ' 1. Why did she not dedicate the easement prior to construction? '; 2. Sy accepting this easement, will we be providing any right o properties located outside the City (Nantucket) to tap into the system? 3.' Please provide evidence pf ownership for the easement (title :opinion or policy) as well as documentat(on that indicates who can sign the document (Gorporate Resolution) . 4. l will also need confirmat(on from PUD that accepting khe easement is in the City's best interesfi. Thank you. -Mark ,~ C~; Goldapp, Karl; ~ioberts, David; Schepers, Dale FEB-03-2005 THU 08~4~ AhI FAX N0. P, 05 ' ~Bcb ~/losley-`Re South Hampton PDase~l.szwcr.easemerll .~~~~-~----- _..,•,,,,_,~..._.... „_ Page 1 Frorr-: Mark McAuliffe To; Mosley, Bob ~~ Bate; 8l28/0110:Q5AM Subject: Re: Soutr~ Hampton phase I sewer easerrrEnt E3ob, It is on tho back burner. -Mark ~, , ~.~ Bob Mosley D$/2$/01 09:30AM ~~~ Mark, II ,~~~ °~ _y Related to the request that.! sent to you on August 14th for a sewer easement fdrihe off-site sewer for the South Hampton Fhase l sewer main, Phyllis Hobson, the developer, is anxious to have this easement agreement. signed and filed because she is waiting to transfer the lake and land to the Nantucket homeowner's associa#ion. Do you know the status of getting an easement agreement to her? FEB-03-2005 THU 08 43 AM i . .~ i ~, ~, i, , l~atc: August Ih, x,(101 "I`o: Mary McAuliffe, City sand Agent Fron~_ Bob Mosley, City Engineer Subject: South I~Ia~npton ~Phasc I Uevel~pment FAX N0. P, 06 The subject development was a private development that required tl~e developer to extend sewer service to the dcvclo~mcnt. Tliisinvolvcd the boring of Highway 6 and locating an off.-site sewer main across the frontage ofthc Nantucket rural subdivision. The South Ha,nptory Phase I development was constn~cted by the developer wlio was also the developer ot: the Nantucket subdivision. 'The public utility easements in tlic South Iiampton development were dedicated by plat, however, during construction, we noticed that the' cif[`-sike sewer main did not have a dedicated easement. Attached arc separate instrument metes & bou-~ds and graphics of the easement that is xequired fox .the off-site :sewer main. Please have an easement agreement prepared and I will forvvard it #'or signing by Nantucket Ltd., Phyllis I~Iobson. FEB-03-2005 THU 0843 flM FAX N0. P, 07 , . r 1 ' . , .2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste.~l1, L'ollcgc Station, TX 77840 yl,~~'~ C)fc:979.G93.S:I59 t~ax:979.693.4243 F,mail: nidgcsCmdgcs.corn Web. www.md~;cs.cotn b t~l~~~1p~ ~` ~~ b August $, 2001 I3ob Mosely, F.C. City l?ugittecr C.ily cif CoflG~e Stalaan . , l'O ~~tox 9600 L~oll~y c Sl~t'ton, Texas 77$2 fi ' R'E: South IiAtnlrton ~ Phase I - Offsite Sewer ~ASCments 1V~~G Jub Igo. UUOU25~2951 hcar T3crk~: Plcasc find ati,ached two mc[es and bounds dcscriFtons for the Soutli Hampton, Phase Koff-siic saniiary sewer. An exhibit drawing accontparties these documents. that ilfuslrate [he public utility casctnarlt. ' Please execute this`ntatcri~l rls we diseussc;d. 't"hank you for you assistance in LlYis ittatlcr. Please c7ll mu if you l~~vc 1rty qucsi.iot-s. 5incoroly, kial7c~rt A. M.et.~alf,1?.1~. ' ~ Project 1Vlana~er RM/tm i ~, '~ ~~ , I i oaoo2s-c.tla-Ca~t(z9s~) /' - r ~~• ~, ~7UNIC~PAL DEVELOPM~1~fi GROUP 8 ..gte. ZS.il Texas Ave. South. Ste. A • College Station, Texas 77840 •409-693=5359 • FAX.• 409-693-4243 •E-mail: and c~ com Engineering, Surveying, Planning and Environmental Consultants February 20, 1998 . ~ , Natalie Ruiz, Planning Technician City of College Station ; P.O. Box 9960. College Station, TX 77842 Re: South Hampton Phase One, Final Plat, NIDG No. 000025=2882` Dear Natalie: Enclosed is a mylar of the. revised Final Plat per your mark-ups and eleven (11) additional copies. Also enclosed is the revised Master Drainage Plana Below are some comments to issues that were indicated on the original Master Drainage Plana • Open channels that have a velocity of 4.5'ft/sec or lower will be treated by seeding. • After discussing the matter of pilot channels and drainage easements widths with. Mark Smith, the following conclusions have been drawn: All side and back lot drainage channels are very minimum and are basically lot grading. There will be no need fora pilot channel since velocities are low and erosion is verv unlikely to occur. All side and back lot drainage channels will only have easements wide enough to carry the 100-year flood with a 15' minimum width. The 5' & 15' maintenance. shelves are not necessary for the maintaining of these drainage channels. Any required maintenance can be donee down the middle of the channel and during dry conditions. I have investigated the main drainage. channel between Phases One & Five_ The creek ', consists of much more timbered and is heavily weeded than originally thought. Therefore, the mannings coefficient hasbeen.increased from 0.30 to 0.50. This has in turned reduced the velocities in the existing creek.to a range from 2.63 to 4.13 ft/sec. 1f these conditions should change, if would only be by landowners clearing and sodding their backyards. Therefore, the creek would have the treatment required for the increase velocities that _ would occur' " " due to the lower n .Appropriate easement widths have been sized with the 5' & 15' maintenance shelves plus. the design storm top width. Also, easements have been checked to insure the passing of the 100-year rainfall event. Please feel free to call' me if you have any. questions.. oooo2s-~.a6-z6~zasz~ 000025-c:46-26(2882) ~ , ~ ' _~s~- ~ ~ Q,~~-- QoP~~~ Ilh t~[~r~ - ~ --- i ~ 4 ///) ~~ ~ _.~. ~~. A / !1 -Y- APRIL, 7, 1998 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MAYOR LYNN MCLLHANEY AND CTTY COUNCIL P. O. BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 DEAR MAYOR MCLLHANEY AND CITY COUNCIL: WE ARE REQUESTING DEANNEXATION OF THE 65.26 ACRES THAT WERE ANNEXED ON NOVEMBER 19, 1996. THIS. REQUEST COMES AFTER LONG HOURS OF FRUSTRATION AND DELIBERATION. IN JUNE, .1996, NORTH BARDELL AND I MET WITH THE FOLLOWING CITY STAFF AT CITY HALL: SKIl' NOE, JIM CALLAWAY AND ELREY ASH. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBII.,ITY OF ANNEXING 65.26 ACRES AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF MY .REQUEST. WE DISCUSSED -THE EXTENSION OF A SEWER LINE FROM THE PLANT AT PEBBLE CREEK AND ISUGGESTED-THAT NANTUCKET PAY ONE-THIltD OF THE COST, THE CITY PAY ONE- . THIRD AND THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE I;AND THE LINE CROSSED MIGHT PAY THE REMAINING ONE-THIRD.... MR NOE INSISTED THAT THE CITY WOULD CARRY THE ENTIRE COST O~ THE SEWER LINE THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION AND THE CITY WOULD OVERSIZE THE LINE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. HE STATED THE CITY WOULD BII,L US FOR M'ACT FEES AS WE DEVELOPED OUR ANNEXED ACREAGE. I MENTIONED THAT WE WERE. ANXIOUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, SINCE IT WAS ALL OF OUR REMAINING PROPERTY IN NANTUCKET. I STATED THAT IF OUR SHARING IN THE COST COULD MOVE THE PROJECT ALONG FASTER, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO. MR. NOEASSLJRED US THAT BY SEPTEMBER, 1996, THE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE AVAII,ABLE FOR IIvIlKEDIATE USE AND THEY WOULD PREFER TO BII,L US FOR THE IIvIPACT FEES. WE, THEN, MOVED FORWARD TO COMPLETE OUR ANNEXATION REQUEST WHICH WAS FINALIZED IN OCTOBER,1996. - ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~~~ ~-~~~~ ~ ~t ~ ~c~ 1502 Nantucket Drive College`~Station, Texas 77845 (409) 690-3000 '.. k'd` 1 ~~ pT 7 1996 LARRY WELLS AND I MET WITH THE CITIES PROJECT REVIEW BOARD. (SEE EXHIBIT A.) TT WAS AN EXCELLENT MEETING AND WE FELT THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH HAMPTON PROJECT WERE DISCUSSED AND NO MAJOR PROBLEMS WERE NOTED. THE DISCUSSION CENTERED ON THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF BLENDING URBAN DESIGNED STREETS WITH EXISTING DITCH SECTIONS, AND THE FACTS OF WELLBORN WATER AND BRYAN ELECTRIC SERVING THE AREA. WE CONTINUED THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. ON SEPTEMBER i I, 1997, THE CITY COUNCIL MET TO APPROVE THE SOUTH HAMPTON PRELIIvIlNARY PLAT. IT WAS AT THIS MEETING THAT COUNCILMAN. BIRDWELL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMIARY PLAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT ALLOCATE ANY MONIES. FOR OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION IN THE SEWER LINE AND THE SEWER LINE WOULD NOT CROSS THE HIGHWAY TO NANTUCKET. I WAS TOTALLY SURPRISED. THAT NEITHER SKIP NOE NOR JIM CALLAWAY MENTIONED THAT A COMMITTMENT HAD AI-READY BEEN MADE TO NANTUCKET IN JUNE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO BRING THE SEWER TO THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVSION. AFTER THE MEETING, I WAS TOLD THAT NANTUCKET WOULD STAND THE COST OF BRINGING THE SEWER LINE UNDER THE HIGHWAY, AS WELL AS PAY THE IIviPACT FEES FOR EACH LOT. THIS COST HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY MY ENGINEERS TO BE $33,600.00. THIS COST WAS NOT FIGURED INTO MY DEVELOPMENT COSTS; HOWEVER, AFTER SOME DELIBERATION I DECIDED TO ACCEPT THAT COST AND MOVE AHEAD WITH THE PROJECT. AS WE PROGRESSED INTO THE LAST' MEETING OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL BY COUNCIL, I WAS INFORMED BY MY ENGINEERS THAT WE COULD NOT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE. WE HAD NO WATER TO THE SOUTH HAMPTON DEVELOPMENT. MY QUESTIONS TO MY ENGINEERS WERE: 1. WHY ARE WE JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT THIS? 2. WHY NOT USE THE LINES WE PRESENTLY HAVE IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, VVHiCH WERE OVERSIZED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY IN 1984? RABON METCALF, MDG, TOLD ME THAT ON JANUARY 7, 1998, HE HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH VERONICA MORGAN, COCS, AND STEVEN CAST, WELLBORN WATER SERVICE CORPORATION, TO DISCUSS THE WATER SUPPLY FOR SOUTH HAMPTON. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO SEE IF WELLBORN V~ATER SERVICE CORP: COULD PROVIDE FIRE FLOWS AND PRESSURES. (SEE EXHIBIT B). MR ME'TCALF MET WITH JIM CALLAWAY, JANE KEE AND VERONICA MORGAN ON FEBRUARY 9, ~i 998, WHICH RESULTED IN NO RESOLUTION AS TO WHO WOULD BE THE SOURCE OF ' t1t: WATER (SEE EXTIIBIT B). I ASKED MY ENGINEERING FlltM, MDG, TO SET A MEETING WITH JIM CALLAWAY, MARK SMITH, BII,L RII.EY AND VERONICA MORGAN ON FEBRUARY 10, 1998, AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE MDG -OFFICE. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE PLAT. AT 11:10 A.M. JIM CALLAWAY ARRIVED AND STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHERE TIID OTHERS WERE. MARK. SMITH ARRIVED AT 11:30 A.M. AND STATED THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS COMING. THOSE IN ATTENDANCE COULD NOT ANSWER ANY. OF THE QUESTIONS AS TO WATER AVAILABILITY. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:00 NOON, HAVING ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. 2 ON FEBRUARY 26, 1998, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM RABON (MDG) STATING THAT HE HAD SPOKEN WITH NATALIE RUIZ, COCS. SHE SAID WE HAD NOT BEEN PUT ON THE CITY COUNCII. AGENDA FOR MARCH 5, 1998, DUE TO AN UNRESOLVED WATER SUPPLY SOURCE. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1998, I CALLED VERONICA MORGAN AND EXPRESSED MY FRUSTRATION REGARDING THE UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS. IT WAS MY OPINION THAT THE ONLY WAY WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WAS BY MY REQUESTING A MEETING WITH THE MAYOR , CITY MANAGER AND THOSE CITY STAFF THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING THIS PLAT. SHE SAID SHE WOULD SET UP THE MEETING. SHE CALLED BACK AND SAID THE CITY MANAGER WOULD TAKE CARE OF ARRANGING THE MEETING. e~ i, BY MARCH 4, 1998, I HAD HEARD NOTHING ABOUT A MEETING; I CALLED AND TALKED WITH MR. NOE'S SECRETARY. SHE SAID SHE WOULD CHECK WITH MR NOE AND CALL ME BACK. I, THEN, RECEIVED A CALL FROM VERONICA AND SHE STATED THAT MR. NOE HAD ASKED HER TO CALL ME. THE MESSAGE WAS "HE AND THE MAYOR WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ME, BUT HE WOULD NOT HAVE THE STAFF PRESENT". IASKED VERONICA IF THE MAYOR AND MR. NOE COULD ANSWER THE WATER QUESTIONS. SHE SAID, "NO". I PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO GET THESE ANSWERS; IF WE COULD NOT OBTAIN ANSWERS, WE OBVIOUSLY HAD NO REASON TO MEET. VERONICA SUGGESTED I CALL AND TALK WITH BILL-RILEY AT COCS. I CALLED MR. RII,EY AND ASKED FORA MEETING WITH REGARD TO THE WATER SOURCE FOR SOUTH HAMPTON. HE STATED THAT "HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ME TO DISCUSS A NEW WATER LINE THAT I WOULD HAVE TO CONSTRUCT, BUT HE ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT DISCUSS OUR CURRENT WATER LINES OR THEIR USE IN SOUTH HAMPTON". MY ENGINEERS HAD GIVEN ME AN ESTIMATE OF $133,500 FOR THIS NEW WATER LINE. WHEN I BEGAN THE NANTUCKET DEVELOPMENT IN 1981, I MET WITH THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WATER SUPPLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT. MY ENGINEERS SUPPLIED. COLLEGE STATION STAFF WITH A COMPLETE DENSTTY BREAKDOWN FOR THE ENTIRE 596 ACRES. (SEE EXI-IIBIT C). WATER USAGE. WAS DETERNIINED AND WATER DEMANDS. CALCULATED. (SEE EXHIBIT D). WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE COLLEGE STATION CITY ENGINEER, DAVID PULLEN, EXPLAINING THE CTTY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR MEETING THESE NEEDS. THUS, WE ESTABLISHED A 12-INCH LINE ON ARRINGTON ROAD. THERE IS, ALSO, A LETTER FROM MR. PULIsEN STATING THAT HE "WII.L MARK THE£ONSTRUCTION DRAWING APPROVE FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH SOME MINOR CHANGES ON THE TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION. EXIEBTT "E", IS A CERTIFICATION LETTER SHOWING THAT THE WATER IIvIPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN BUII,T TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION RFECOM1vIEENDED SPECIFICATIONS. THE DENSITY THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE .CITY AT THAT TIME WAS E~ ~RFATFR THAN THE DENSITY WE PRESENTLY HAVE. THERE WERE 1081 WATER TAPS SUBMTTTED IN 1984 VERSUS 400 WATER TAPS TODAY. IF T WERE NOT PLANNING ON THE UTILIZATION OF THE 12-INCH MAIN ON ARRINGTON ROAD FOR ALL OF MY DEVELOPMENT, I AM CERTAIN A SMALLER LINE AND A SMALLER COST COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING I HAVE TRIED TO MEET WITH THE CITY AND TO MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS FOR THE NANTUCKET DEVELOPMENT. YOC) MUST KNOW THAT A DEVI?I,OPY:~ WfIQ HAS MADE. A COMMITMENT 'f0 DEVELOPING 500 acltES, MUST kIAVE CONCRETE COMMIT71iENTS FROM THOSE WITH WHOM SHE IS WORKING. IN THIS CASE, WE HAYE T'HE FOLLOWIlV~G: a, YLS, SAYS THE CITY, WE WII„L BRING NANTUCTCET THE SEWER 1.INI;:. TI~F:N ONE AND ON~HALF'YEARS ~,AT THEY SAY, NO WE'(WONT. b. CIT1~ SAPS, IF YOU WILL ESTABLISH A WATER LINE $Y OUR STANDARDS, YOU. NIAY USE f1` TO COMfi''LETF YOUR SUBDIVSiON AS PROPOSED. NOW, iT IS \U, it UU CAa'~I'T' USP THAT LINE.. YOU MUST BUILD ANOT~ WATER LINE. I CAN UNDERSTAND Wf3Y THERE ARE NOT MANY 500-ACRE PI.17S DEVELUI'41J:.\'l'S iN T'HE COLLEGE STATION AREA. IF TEiE DEVELOPER CANNOT BELIEVE AND TRUST I;V THE COI~ffVIITMENTS MADB B'Y THE CX'I'Y OF COLLEGE STATION, IT LIaAVES A DEVELOPER IYO CHOICE BUT TO PATCHWOItIC THE CONAdLJNIT'Y WITH SMALL 20.50 ACRE ®EVELOPMENTS. IF THE PREVIOUS COiv~a~tiTMENTS TI3AT HAYE BEEN ESTABLISHED $Y THl: C'11'Y OF COLLEGE STATION CANNOT BE UPHELD.. I, AS THE DEVELOPER OF SOUTH HAMPTOIN, AM LEFT NO CHOICE I3U'T TO REQUEST pEANNEXATION. I SHALL EXPECT YOUR FA~1AL DECISION REGARDING THIS MATTER NO LwTER THAN THIRTY 1)AX'S (30) FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTLIZ. YEkY TRLiI.Y 'SIOURS, /~~ C ,LTD. OME PTI1bI?R R'EAY-'I'Y', inc., G~T7ERAI. PARTNER PIi"S~L1S J HO$SON, PRESI[~ENT PJf'f/cs mac. FEB-03-2005 THU 08;42 AM FAX N0. P. 02 ~~"~ CITY CAF CQL,~ECE STATI~~ ~- /I I:cl~ruary 2Q 2001 Mr Rabon Metcalf Mtu~icipal I~c;vclopn~ent Grouh z5S l 1'c~as Avcnuc South, Suilc A Gotle~c Station,'I'cxas 77840 Rc: South I3ampton Phase I Dear Rabon, 'I'hc South I-Ialnpton Plu~-sc I oCf--site sewer line was cgmplclcd on August 25, 2000 and is currently within a anc yelr Warranty pariod. A si~nil'icant erosion problem has been noted t1u7t requires immcdiatc .attention to prevent the line from d~nage_ .The discharge wafer frost the Nantucket Subdivision is flowing. across the outfall of the seS~ver line at the sattth side of the creek ' crossitt~ and ha.5 cxposul a considerable portion of the ducliic iron pipe and poly wrap, The ' erasion must be corre;cicd along with the addition of adequate: erosion protection. fox tltc sewer ' line. It'is also suF;tcsted dial tl,e discharge; water from the lake be chanreclcd and prevented from dischar~c over the outfali of file sewer line to eliminate the possibility of future erasion. At this ' tune you aXC requvstcd to remedy the identified warranty item within tlic next thiirty,(30) days. Thcrc arc also two other issues related to the South Hampton Iahasc I Subdivision. Pic~se verify . . that tltc aft-site sealer line is located within a City of College Station public utility casement as it crosses. the Nantucket Subdivisiori~~ Additionally, $xccpt far the an-site and off situ sewer lines, the other iiifrasiructvre associated with the South Hampton Phase I Subdivision (ic. water, streets, ', ~ drttiaa~c) have not been accepted by the City of Collcgc Station.. When these iicnt arc complete, + please submit tltc "letter of complctian" ns required by City Ordinance. ' Should you lu~tve: any questicans, please call me at 764-~SSl or Vern WriSht at 764-3.503 (cell ~ phone 77'i-0292).. l'1~3se advise eitktcr Vern. or myself when the erasion prabknt leas been carrcctccl, the l"asCrflCrit vcri~tcd, and the "letter of completion" submit[cd. Thank you for your ' response. 'nccrc;ly, Rot~e~et'W. Maslcy, P, a. - City Engineer c: Ms. Phyllis l; [ofison, Nantucket I,td., 1502 Nantucket Dr., Cotle~e Sttztion, TX 77845 1Vlark Smith, Airector of I'uGtic V1/orks Vern Wright, l=,nbineCCing Technician Dale Sch4pcrs, Fublic U[Ilities Clepartmcnt Natalie Ruiz, l~~velopmcnt Services DERARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES pQ&T Df iICE OOX 9hG0 -'613 TE><A5 AVFNUC CDLLCGE STATION, TEXA5 7744?•0900 (409) 764-bS9b _ FEB-03-2005 THU 08 ~ 42 flM FAX NO, P, 03 Mark McAuliffe - Re: South Mampkon Pt"~= pa a 1' From: Bob Mosley. To. Mark McAuliffe Date; 9118/0112:16PM ,Subject: Re; South Hampton. PUE { requEStod through MDR a copy of their latest title policy or a copy of the latest deed. No response as of yet. ~» Mark McAuliffe 09/18/09. 10:18AM »> Rob, ~~ Jusk wanted you to Know thak l'm waiting for evidence of ownership before proceeding with this request, -Mark '~ I i /k ----~~-~a-c~ ~.,U ti'1~~-~__ ~~~ ice//~--^G1J-~-- ....,a ' ~..l.aa ..f~ ~ r ~ it ~,~,~ ~.. ~',~' ~ c7~ k k ~~~ ~~`'f ~. 1 f9 ,. ~~ ~~ ~ \'\ '\h\ ~ .. ~ ~~ . ` ~ / Y t "~ a~ ate: ~ ': s •. ^~ ~•y •4~ ° ~~~ City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960. 1101: TEXAS AVENUE ~.e COLLEGE STATION. TEX:~S 77840.2499 August 28, 1984 Jerry Bishop & Associates 1812 Welsh Blvd, Suite 120 College Station, Texas .77840 ATT: Earle Havel RE: Nantucket Subdivision - Plan Approval - Streets, Drainage, and Water Improvements Dear Mr. Havel: I have reviewed the above construction plans presented to my office. They appear to generally conform with the City of College Station ETJ standards. :However, there are a couple of areas which concern me. Referring to Sheet 1 of 15, there must have been some misunderstanding between my staff and myself as to just what constitutes the shoulder of a street or roadway. The side slope of the ditch was not what I had in mind. Th 4 ft. shoulder should be a continuation of the. I/2 inch. per ft. cross slope of the roadway for a distance of at least 4 ft. before dropping into the ditch side slope. This area provides a space for someone to get out of their vehicle without being in the ditch. More importantly it protects the edge of the pavement from erosion. The ditch bottom should be at least 6 inches beloc~ the crushed limestone. Th-is allows moisture, which may get into the base material, to migrate to the ditch. You appear to have done a good job in Phase I in caring for. the erosion which may occur in the ditches. I hope you .will continue that in subsequent phases anal provide gentle side slopes with. erosion protection i.e., grass, fabric, etc. The upstream headwall configuration shown on Sheet 8 of 15 appears rather awkward unless you are trying to slow down some water by bending it around as you have. On Sheet 15 of 15, it appears you are relocating a creek. I caution you to be very careful about the erosion protection both on the sides and the bottom of such a system: I suggest you go to Eastmark Subdivision and look at the drainage ditch at the end of Eastmark Drive. It was constructed with a 4 foot wide bottom,. 2: 1 side slopes and at a bottom slope 0.2 percent. ~`~~ ~. _ ,w ,c:~~ -_ ~ ~~_ ;dam ,,i __ ; ., __ ~_ ------- ' ~~r~- - - - ~'r_k~ _ _ ,' ~,, ~ _ _ ,, ;, ~----- ~~~ _ . ~. --- _. ,I !~ -^ - - - ;; ~~ ~~~ ~ ~- -- --- ~ _ ^_-__. ~'' ~ ~ _ ,, ij~ - - - - __ fi { I / ` ~I ----- K/ -- I ---~/~-- - - -------- r I - - -- --------- I~ ~ _ _ ,~' _ I- --''~~ / ~L/A. i u ~ /I /.e11 a ,A / /1 ~i/1 ~~l la~ ~~/:!/f/1/11 i __ __ <_ Lu/~ -~ v- - ~ f~~. I I '~ Exhibit `B" (/ O To: Larry Wells Bill Koehler North Barden From: Raton Metcalf f CC: Correspondence File Date: 2/27/1998 Re: South Hampton, MDG No. 000025-2882 Below is a schedule of events that occurred with South Hampton Subdivision: Jan. 7, 1998 -Began. coordinating project .with. North & Larry. Had telephone conversation with Veronica Morgan,. COOS & Steven Cast, Wellborn W,S.C. to discuss water apply for the subdivision. It was determined that the first step would be to see if Wellborn W.S.C.. could provide fire flows. and pressures: Jan. 8, 1998 -Began working on Master Drainage Plan for .South Hampton Subdivision .Phases One thru Seven. ~ Jan.. 12, 1998 -Brief meeting with Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket,- to discuss water, sewer. electrical utilities and who would be supplying them. .Jan. 15, 1998 - .Coordinated design with Bill Koelher, MDG and drafting. with Sharon Hickson, MDG and began working on construction plans. ~ Jan. 20, 1998 -Phone conversation with Jay Page, TxDOT about design standards for proposed culverts within the RO.W.-of State Hwy. No. 6. Telephone conversation with Natalie Ruiz, COOS to discuss PDDH zoning district. It was determined that the Final Plat and construction plans when submitted would only need to go to P&Z and not back to .City Council. Jan.. 21, 1998 -Meeting. with Veronica Morgan, COCS & Paul Kasper, COCS to review Master Drainage Plan. At that meeting, concerns ofopen-channel flow in the back of lots were brought up. Veronica felt that the City Council was .not awaze of the type of drainage proposed and felt that it would need to go back..to the Council.. In addition, Veronica perceived that all new drainage channels would need low-flow-pilot channels. > Jan. 22, 1998 -Phone conversations with Tony Michalsky, COCS & Bobby Singletary, COB, discussed how Subdivision would be served with electrical and what would be the 'I lighting standards. MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, Texas 77840,. 409-693-5359, FAX.• 409-693-4243 000025.2882 MEMO -1 - Jan. 24, 1998 -Telephone conversations with Bill: Aston, Duff'Engrs & Steven Cast, Wellborn W:S:C. on fire flows and needed capacities. '" - 7an. 26, 1998 -Telephone conversations with Jane Kee,: COCS & Veronica Morgan, ~~ COCS with whether the Subdivision would need to go back to City Council. The City ~~+~ decided that it would need to go back to Council. based upon previous decisions made by council members. Jan. 2'7, 1998 -Phone conversations .with the .following .council members to discuss the issue of .whether the project would need to go back to Council due to the proposed ~ drainage plan. Lynn MacLeany, Steve Esmond, Dick Birdwell -All felt that the proposed rear lot grading and; rear drainage channels would not be a problem and none could specifically remember drainage being an issue. during the approval of the Preliminary Plat. Spoke with Jim Callaway, COCS and updated him on what the council members had expressed. No decision was. ever conveyed on whether the project would need to go back to Council. 7an. 28, 1998- Submitted Final Plat, fees and constn~ctionplans. - Jan. 30, 1998-Turned in revised construction plans. - Feb. 3, 1998 -Meeting with Laverne Akins, GTE and determined routing and easements for telephone services: - Feb. 4, 1998 -Meeting with Tony Michalsky, COOS and reviewed required easements and standards for lighting:.: r Feb. 5, 1998 -Meeting with Bobby Singletary, COOS and reviewed required easements and lighting requirements. It was determined that electrical: and: lighting would be installed and paid. for in accordance to. Bryan's .policies .and. would be underground to satisfy COCS Subdivision Regulations. Feb.. 9, 1998. -Meeting with City of College Station, ' Tim Callaway, Jane Kee and Veronica Morgan. It was determined that the Subdivision-would not need to go back to Council. The City said that if we could get the revisions to the Final Plat and the portion of the drainage report that pertained to Phase One back to them by Feb. 20 it would go on the P&Z March 5 agenda. Still no -resolution of specific drainage problems and who would be the source of water supply. Feb. 11, 1998 -Received comments for COOS on Final Plat and construction plans. Feb. 17, 1998. -Submitted Water Study:. to COCS. Discussed tie-into. Wellborn W.S.C. and drainage problems with lot grading, pilot channels and easement widths with .Mark Smith, COOS. Still no definite answer given. .Feb. 20, 1998 -Resubmitted Final Plat and, Master Drainage Plan. • Page 2 i ~ - Feb. 26, 1998 -Telephone conversation with- Natalie Ruiz, COOS. Found out that the Final Plat had not been put on the P&Z agenda for March 5` due to unresolved water '~ upp1Y sowce _ • Page 3 ~ {. i Exhibit "C" Mr. David Pullen, P.E. City Engineer City of College Station .Post Office' Box 99b0 College Station, Texas 77840 Res Nantucket Water Supply & Improvements Brazos County., Texas • IACOrpO~tltCtl. Dear David,. .. This letter .is to inform .you, that .Nantucket, Ltd. , 'owners and developers of the Nantucket Subdivision have signed a eon ractural agreement with Wellborn Water System for them to provide`water to Nantucket. As the subdivision lies within the E.T.J. of the City of College Station and in accordance with an .agreement between the_City and :Wellborn Water System, the 'water system will be constructed in accordance with City of College Station specifications. :: ,~, We have previously provided you with engineering, plans of the proposed system ..for your renew and files. :. The engineer°for Wellborn Water`:'Sys.tem has. approved the plans .:for construction, which should.- begin °the first week '. ~ , in March: ;_.,. We would certainly invite the City to inspect the construction `should ~" they desire,. In addition, our firm will be providing.inspection-services for -the- developer and Wellborn Water Systems engineer will :provide •, inspection for Wellborn Water. System. ~~ ~~ We certainly appreciate your assistance and rooperat~;on during the „ course of this project and trust that you will find this `information satisfactory to your needs at this ime. .Should you desire additional information, .please 'do not hesitate -to call.` - ,., Very truly yours, _ - ~' Je y B" hops ~- _ ~;: _ . cc: Phyllis Hobson ,. - y -` Wellborn Water System ' `,r .7 f.... ~wylnssA~y", swvsylnp, 8 ylo~Mny ~ ~ f 4~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ _ ~~~ o~,~ r M I, a N K I ~„ ~ I W ~_ ~ N ~ ~ «~~ '~ 1 W ~y COs .. ~. N J ~ ~ V ferry bishop - & assoc~ot~s, ~yil„ssrin9, tww~in9~ ~ -Mnnirt - • r .. ~ ~. n February ~9s 194.. .,. ^~ , y/ N -. _ O e N K "f ~ F Jerry ~ti ~k~qp 5~;""A~~~ii-.~~.~s, inc. ~ ~ ~ -; 18~~ Wrlsh ~tre.~t x$,tit~ 12Cr~'• ,. .,_ -~• / ~8~ ~ ' ,:. ~r~lleg~ 5t¢tt,~an~, 7"ex~s. 7'7E3~4Lx .'~ _; !+ ~ _~ , . ~ er~y bishop. .,~ axs~ciats; .. ` ~ ear oratacr a er .line sizes within 1Van_tucl;et ~~ • W t f~'E. ~ .. Su~sdi.virirn,, ~^:azas County, Te>;as, .; ;. ~, ~, ~~, - Dear Mt~:, ~i ~~~.~, ~ ~ ` a -; . ~ -_ 4 As i,~~> disct,~s~~~ci previr~usljr, the water line. within the n~ant~u~k~~.~ :,;~~t~rdi~wxs~:~sn.~ were aiz~d by esp.mating #ut~~~ .water . ' demands a~~ar~~ng. , to pr-oj~~tted land" usr~s as depcte~~ . an `the ,` mater :pr~al i. mznQ~~;,~nra f;i na-1 p3. ~t~, of dame eubdi vi ~-i an, ~ ~, lt< ~" t~aa de'ccr~m~n~d that -an eight inch water ~~ a cxiong . Ha~rper~ ~trr~r`~y'::x~ioa,d an,d~ tllantuaket Dt~ive would tre aciaqu~te to suPPXy the ~wate~^ tierua~td;s of tdantucF;~k -~ Fh~se C1ne and. NantucF;et Phase Two. - `'Tha ~ . . lire wr~ul d a1.sa ti ~ 'kh~ prc,pas~d w~i~er ~ l a ne j alc-ng Ar-~'i.n~~on ~t~ad eta the pr-rappsed watr~.r 1 ine ~a Y~e~_.located along ~t~te . !~z c~hway Yea.. 6: - With the i~eve'1 opmeht ~,~ ,°_ Reserve Tract ~~~zt <vat~uld k~e--~r~ett~seary to "loop" anpther eaght xri~~i water line. gain N~,~tx~aay °b~ ~~ }~nc~;; Snug i~ar-bor ~iri ve back to Hi, way b to_ .~. har-dle 'the ,Ls1,~#.~Y' cf;.~ds ttF',~~ ar.~ pr'c-:]ect~'~ fq{'' SdtfiPti ,~~. All seci~nd~ry ,;~ l ~~~ ~~ta;l ti be ~ rai r~i. mum of , ~i x` inch i r di «~A~eter ~ to be 7 uca~,ed ;~cs~t` .a~zl ~~:~;~-r~~, remai tla nc~ cal l ecto~ streets. - ' Tip tbrf~put'~;ra:~ ,`.~t~'i? neces~s~ryr sized f~,car the pro~as,~ed water , x~,ne.s witiztr'~-~~r~i~`c4t~t ,a~`tttrdi:ui~:iQ~r, It was assumed that',; pit same ~` ~ : me. i n ~thie ~~tu:re a water- 1. i ne al o#~g Highway 6 , ,z ul d t-e cpnstru~tecf. ;`hi r"~,'i+lat.~r 1 i ne, w~t-I. d kae an ~a>`tensi as of ~~ twenty . -four int[~ ks~:~^ ;~.~.~ne th~i. s'~aps at GreRn `Frair`a.e F~,~~d. ~: A£ . tie a~~~ ~~;~ the a+.f-~rric?r~ti Dried water 1 i ne ~~.te~'tsi on i s not ccirts~riYt~~~sd ~ . `~ ~. t ~~ul~ be t°iece~sar`y t~ size the ~~;prapos+ad water 1 i nee al Qn~ .r~{~~.on load ,large enough to carry tt entire r~ ester demaricis.:t~i~ ~t-f,e. Plank.i..icl~et Siib~ii /i si CRri, al sa ,Qnl a~'~ rtg ~' the a~faremen~.ionad !;~'wa~,~Y....,lin~' alr~nq Harpers Ferry Ftciad a,~~i ~~lantucket ~r-#.ve. ~ ,..~ ~ ~ _- ... _ ,: << .. ~ ,. ~ ~,r; }; , .,. .;, ~~ ,~ . f Y. -~ - ~ .. ~-~ r.'~ .~ .' _ . - ~r ~, a .. ~: ~.... ~_ ,> v+. ~. ~ ~ ~ - ,~ ~. E:ngneer~iz7g Asscc~.~:a'~e ~ , ,e~. ,..rt° , i ,~ k ~.. ~ ~ F ~ Exhibit "D" ~~ s NANTUCk:ET - FHASE ONE RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMTLY> 58 ,dwelling units (19.91 acs es) ~.5 persons / dwelling unit ~ti8~ gallons per day / person (~8> ~; (.~) :: (~+8~) = 77,.749 gallons per day (domestic) IRRIGATION t7uC~ gallons per day / acre (3at~0) >: (129.91) _ ._~tie9,7,~a~ c~allans'per day (irrigation> TOTflL RESIDENTIAL {single family) 467,479 gallons per day COhJDOh9,I N I UM 1.31 acres 14 dwelling units / acre ~.1~ persons /-dwelling unit 38~ gallon per' day / Person C15.~1)x (14>>: (~. 15)x (8~) 176,498 gallons per..day (domestic) IRRIGATION 1750 gallons per day / acre (175x) :. t15.~~1) _ ~b,79~ gallons, per day (irrigation> TOTAL CONDOMINIUM 2tr~,291 gallons per day uurirlEF:CI AL 14.67 acres 1c_~t~t~ gallons. per day / acre. (14.67) :: ( lt~t~t~> = 14, 670 gallons per day (domestic ) IRFtRIGATION: 17~t~ gallons per day / acre ' (175C?) >; {14.67) _ _~,b7~-gallons per day-(irrigation) TOTAL COMh'IERCIAL 4tr,~4~ gallons per day ~* -~ S U M M A R Y ~*~ NANTUCk:ET - F'HASE ONE. WATER DEMANDS RESIDENTIAL (single family) .... .. .-..467,479 gallons per day CONDOMINIUM ................. .... .2c_~._.,?gl gallons per day COMMERCIAL ...... ........................4C~,~4~ gallons per day TOTAL WATER DEMAND NANTUCk:E7 - PHASE ONE: 711,11~~ gallons per day page RESIDENTLAL Ysir-gle family) 7u dwelling units (17B.9U acres) ~.5 persons / dwelling unit X83 gallons per day / person ~-_.__. (7~~) (-,,~~ ;, (~83> 9~~,8~0_gallons_per_day_Edamestic) iRRIGATION ~c~OU gallons per day / acre (;;t7G0) .: C178.9G> = ~~-~6,7t>~ gallons per day (irr-igation> T(]TAL RESIDENTIAL (singlE family)' 6::,t~,~~5 gallons per day ~~~ S U M M A F Y * ~' ~' ~~ NANTUCkET - F'HASE TW(] WATER. DEMANDS RESIDENTIAL tsingle family) .... • • - - ... - •6~+(:~,SL,5 ~Eil loner per day. I' CONDOMINIUM .... .......... .. .. .~~ • gallons .per day MMERCIAL CO ... ...... .. ...-••••-•-C~ •• gallons per day. TOTAL. WATER DEMAND NANTUCk:ET - FHASE TWO: 6~~t~, ~~~ gal 1 ans er P day page 3 i REMAINDER tWAI'JTUCF:ET F'fOF'EFiTY FOSSIRLE`RETIREMENT'VILLAGE 13.41 acres 14 dwel ing units / acre 2. 1.~, person / dwel ling .unit 383 gallons per day / person (1~.41):;t14)>:C~.15)xt393) - 104,59 gallons per day (domestic) IF~FtLGATION e 1700 gallons per day / acre (17507 ss ti s.41> _ ~:~,468 gallac-s per day (irrigation> TOTAL POSSIBLE RETIf~EMENT VILLflGE 178,0>b~ gallons per day COMMERCIAL / OFFICE iO6.51 acres 1000 gallons per day / acre (1000) x (it76.~1) 1Ob,~itU gallons per .day (domestic) IRRIGATION.: 175E gallons per. day / .acre.. (1700) }: (106..51) = 186,393 gallons per day (irrigation) TOTAL COMMEF~CIAL / OFFICE 292,903 gallons per day page 4 CHUF:CH s. SG acres i t~t>G gallons per -day / acre t1GGG> >: t .~G) = 3~t~G gallons per day tdornestic) TRFtIGATION ,:}GGG gallons per day / acre ' t~GAG> .: t~.SG) = 1G~~GG gallons per day {irrigation) TOTAL CHURCH 14,GGG gallons per day CONDOMINIUM ~G.58 acres. 14 dweL l i ng unas l acre ~.1~ persons / dwelling unit 38s gallons per day J person t~G.~B)a: t14)a: t2. 15)Y t383) - .~.J~JL~J gallons per day Cdomestc> LRR'IGATION 175E gallons per day / acre • (1754) x (34.58) _ 53,15 gallons per day (irrigation) TOTAL CONDOMINIUM 4G6,G~t~ gallons per day p:ag a S' **~ S U M M A R Y ** -~ REMAINDER NANTUCk:ET PROPERTY F'OSSIPLE RETIREMENT VILLAGE .... ...178,(:>b~~ gallons per day COMMERCIAL./ OFFICE .....................29~,9C~~ gallons per day CHURCH .................. ... .........14,Cs~~d gallons per day CONDOMINIUM ........... ..... .. ...4Ub,c~c7 gallons per day TOTAL WATER DEMAND REMAINING PROPERTY 891,0>ib gallons per day -~~#*~••~~•~•~~ S Y N 0 F S I S ~~*~a~a~~~•~-~ TOTAL WATER DEMAND FOR NAIUTUCk;ET P'ROP'ERTY NANTUCF';ET - PHASE 01'JE ....................711,i1~ gallons per day NANTUCk:ET - .PHASE .TWO .. .... ....... .6~t_f,5"°., gallons per day REMAINDER NANTUCk:ET PROPERTY .............891,G16 gallons per day TOTAL WATER DEMAND NANTUCk:ET FROF'ERTY: ~, ^"'~, 6b4 gallons per day t;. ti~ i page.6 ~'. 51 tt ItJATER L I NE TO SEF:V ICE F'HASE Oi'JE ~- F'HASE TWO DEMAPJD NAhJTUCk:ET - F'HF`iSE OhJE ...... .....711, 11:' gal Ions per day DEh1AND NANTUCkET - F'HASE TWO ..........:.6~O,OTS gallons per day TOTAL DEMAND ...:.........1,'41,648 gallons per day (1.~4 million gal Tan per day> ;; (1.55) 2.08 ~u. ft. / sec. IN AN 8" A.C. WATER LLNE GARBING ^.C~S CU. FT. SEC. THE FRICTIOhJ SLOPE LS C1. C~~8Et7 FT. / FT. _ ?8.87 FT. / THDUSAND FT. ' VELOCITY HEAD (H„) FEET .Ol 02 .03 .04.05.06 .08.10 .20 30 .40.50.60 .8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 r a o W c~ i N z 0 J J Q LL N '~ p J J W a x 0 10. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 ~ y., .7.8.91.0 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.7.8. 10. 20. 30. 40.50.60. 80.100. LOSS OF HEAD (FEET PER THOUSAND FEET OF .PIPE) ':i =~+ #~~~iEiEjE~~kiEiF#9F~lF~ ~1F#~F~1EiE~~iE~F~~1i--1r~-9Ej(-~'c#~!-~--~if-#: ~~k: -1~~#~~1E-1Eb ir-K-~~~i: ~ir~F9EjEiEdEir~Fir~FiE~'r~ THEREFORE MAIN LINES SHALL BE B" A. C . WATEF; L L1'JES AS DETERMINED ABOVE. page 7 4 ~ • i Exhibit "E" ~, POST ~~=FICE $OX 99G0 I li)1 TE~.'.~ :-~~'E~l'E CO~.~EGE ST.-~T10\. TEX.~S ~ ,'~~tl.?tcac) September 12,1983. P1r. Jerry Bishop Jerry Bishop & Associates , 1812 Welsh Suite 120 College Station., Texas 77840 RE: Water line sizing for Nantucket Subdivision Dear Mr. Bishop: As requested in a recent meeting with the City staff and the developers of the above subdivision, I tender to you the following: 1. The extension-of water service to the above subdivision may be accomplished either along Arrington Road or along Hi ghvray 6. After discussion with our water and sewer consultant the line along Highway 6 will need to be an 18" diameter line and the line along Arrington Road will need to be a 12" diameter line. Both of these lines will need o be completed at some point to provide a loop feed system. The ~~antucket Subdivision will he required to provide one of these: 2. The line sizes within your subdivision will need to be developed to accommodate`a minimum net density of 6 dwelling units per acre (peak hour demand 10,000 gal/day/acre). The fire demand shall be required to be 750 gallons per minute with a 20 psi residual pressure. I have no doubt the residual pressure will not be a problem. However, I• woul d caution you to consider the s atic pressure in the design of your system. I expect.. pressures in excess of 100 psi will be common if pressure control devices are not utilized. The water surface elevation at Greerr's Prairie Road will be 522 ft. above mean sea level. Also. head loss per 1000 linear foot of equivalent pipe should not exceed 5' at 'peak demand flows (not including fire flows).. There should be .only one fire hydrant on a 6' line that is supplied from one end, two on a line supplied from both ends. A minimum 8' water line shall be required in secondary streets and a 12" line shall be required for primary streets. ~„~; • ~~ t"'r ' ho a this information will give you the guidance Ynuareointmentn this matter.. I f r a P P Tease call o P can be of further assistance, p If I ICI Sincerely, f \ ~ ~`^~. '~ David J. Pu n ~'I .City Engi er cc: Elrey B. Ash II, Director of Capital Improvements '~~ ~. E. VanDever, Assistant City Manager i i DJP: vw - 4~-acY~ MEMORANDUM T®: Councilman Dick Birdwell FR®M: George K. Noe, City Manage DATE: May 1, 1998 RE: South Hampton Concerns You asked that I provide you with a response to a number of the issues that were raised in Phyllis Hobson's letter of Apri17, 1998 regarding the South Hampton Development and the solution that was reached with her that enabled her to proceed. In the first section of Ms. Hobson's memo, she describes her discussions with staff regarding the extension of .wastewater services to her development. Although I would question some of the details of her description of the summer 1996 meeting, Ms. Hobson's summary of the outcome is accurate. She indicated that she wanted to develop South Hampton to higher, more urban densities and would anticipate it being an R-1 level. She would need to have wastewater services to make such densities possible. She discussed possible cooperative efforts. I indicated that past policy allowed for service only inside our City limits and that thearea would have to be annexed. We further suggested using .the impact fee process for funding .the line since such a method ensured equity of participation on the part of all who benefit from the line. It was noted that the impact fee line would. have to be approved by City Council We closed with an understanding that Ms. Hobson would request annexation and that the City would proceed with work to establish an impact fee area to establish the needed wastewater line to the area. There was no discussion of water service issues at that meeting. I would state for the record that staff followed through on its commitment to Ms. Hobson in this regard. The impact fee studies and hearings were performed and the staff recommendation was consistent with our discussion with her. The Council chose to approve something less than that request. Instead, the final decision was to require Ms. Hobson to pay for the extension of service under Hwy 6. This decision concerned her. She also was concerned that I did not object to Council's decision. I did elect not to .comment further during the Council debate of this issue. We had made the recommendation as promised and Ms. Hobson was getting 90% of what she had asked for and I had no reason to restate the staff position. That was a judgment call on my part and I'm sorry if that decision upset Ms. Hobson at that time.. P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764-3510 The other major concern expressed by Ms. Hobson related to the water service questions. All of us who have been involved with this project admit (including Ms. Hobson) that we didn't spend time discussing the water service issues earlier because we just didn't recognize it as a problem. In point of fact, we should have seen it coming giving the uniqueness of the situation. The area is served by Wellborn Water and Bryan electric and has no municipal wastewater save that provided by the Nantucket private plant. Staff notes show that water service and fire flows were 'discussed at an April, 1997 pre-development meeting. There was no follow-up on that discussion by the developer, her consultant or City staff. The issue did surface in January as 'work on the final plat and construction plans were underway. The City's position pursuant to 'past Council policy was that the area would have to receive water service from the City. of College Station.: This issue came up during a :meeting .between staff and the Wellborn Water .Supply Board and it was. generally concluded that .the area. should be served by the City since Wellborn was (is) not prepared to service at urban standards with required fire flows. I truly .believe that Ms. Hobson expected to be able to utilize Wellborn for this development. She .explored .options for City of CS connection (one down the west side of Highway 6 and. one crossing under from a line that runs on the east side of Highway 6), she found the cost to' be '.prohibitive for fier development. Ms. Hobson did attempt to have a meeting with various staff members on February 10. It was coordinated by MDG. Jim Callaway did arrive late due to a prior meeting running late; Mark Smith was delayed because of flooding problems that occurred with a storm event earlier that morning. Neither. Bill Riley nor Veronica Morgan received anotice/invite. The meeting did not produce any resolution of the issues. I was contacted and asked to arrange a meeting to include the Mayor and various staff members to discuss Phyllis' concerns on the wastewater extension decision and the use of City utilities. I indicated that I would be pleased to have a meeting that would include her folks, the Mayor and myself. The issues I had been told were to be discussed were Council policy issues and the staff members were not in a position to make any change so that their presence. would not be productive: Ms. Hobson elected not to hold a meeting with the Mayor .and I. Instead; she began to explore the process for deannexation. Mayor McIlhaney and I met with Ms. Hobson and representatives of MDG (including North Bardell) on April 21. At that time, it was proposed by MDG that the. City serve South Hampton "through" the previously constructed lines that were now part of the Wellborn system. Customers would be City of College Station customers with a meter at the entry to the development. enabling the two of us to net outthe South Hampton usage. It was .also suggested that thee.. area. could meet the necessary fire flow standards under that scenario. I agreed to go over this approach'with "staff and to let North Bardell know of the response the next afternoon. I In visiting with staff the next day, I found out that this idea had been discussed only once and had been rejected because it was believed that Wellborn would not agree. After review, we responded to Mr. Barden that the City would agree to serve through the Wellborn system if service was metered to allow for net water use to be determined, the .customers would be College Station customers, the service would come from the lines installed to City standards and inspected by the City, the subdivision would meet all the fire flow standards and that the Wellborn Water Supply Corp. agree to that arrangement. That position was communicated to North Barden on Apri122. He arranged a meeting that included several members of City staff (Bill Riley, Jim Callaway) and representatives of Wellborn Water Supply Corp. After much discussion, tthe .representatives of WWSC (under pressure from 1VIs. Hobson and somewhat reluctantly) :agreed to the arrangement. With the ability to provide water service in this way, Ms. Hobson was,prepared to move forward with her original project. To that end, she withdrew her petition for deannexation. I personally ..believe that we had these problems with this particular development because the developer believed that she could utilize Wellborn water and we did not make our questions regarding water service known early on. This was discussed. during our April 23 meeting and generally agreed to by all the parties. This area represents a unique situation in that the area is part.. of Wellborn. service territory but it has lines that .are built to a higher city standard. As a staff, we have noted the difficulty that we had in this case and have agreed that we need to review our policies and practices relative to water service to make sure that we do not have a recurrence of this problem. I hope this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. cc: Bill Riley Jo Woody im Callaway Veronica Morgan PAYIVE, WATSON, KUNG, MILLER & MALECHEK, PC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JERRY M. BROWN WILLIAM T. FLEMING of Counsel CHRIS J. KLING *Boazd Certified Civil Trial Law LOUIS A. MALECHEK, III (TREY) CINDY L. MILLER *Boazd Certified Family Law J. DEREK MOORE BILLY M. PAYNE JAY DON WATSON *Boazd Certified Commercial Real Estate Law *Boazd Certified Farm and Ranch Real Estate Law *Boazd Certified Residential Real Estate Law *Texas Boazd of Legal Specialization City of College Station Mayor Lynn McIlhaney City Council Members P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College'Staton, Texas 77842-9960 l~' I L~ ~ ,......e ... Apri19, 19~.~a ~ JJ//._.~ ~~ ~ V ~ ~ ~o ., ~~~ ~ 199 w~ ~ P.O. DRAWER E BRYAN, TEXAS 77805 BRIARCREST DRIVE, SUITE 600 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 TELEPHONE (409) 776-9800 FAX (409) 731-8333 LAW@PWKMMLAW.COM Re: Nantucket, Ltd. Our File No. 98-0528 'Dear Mayor McIlhaney and Council Members: :Our law firm represents Nantucket, Ltd. and. Cullen Mancusso, the owners of all but 2.03 acres of that certain 65.26 acres of land that was annexed by the City of College Station, Texas on November I9, 1996. Attached to this letter is the written request of Nantucket, Ltd., the majority owner of the 65.26 acres for de-annexation from the City of College Station. The attached letter and its exhibit sets forth the various reasons. for the de-annexation request. Mr. Mancusso also j oins in Nantucket Ltd.'s request for de-annexation. If you will please read Nantucket, Ltd.'s attached letter and its attached exhibits, you will see the effort and expense Nantucket, Ltd.. has gone to over the years in an effort to comply with the City of College Station's requirements and specifications for subdivisions and utilities. As far back as 1981, Phyllis Hobson, the representative of Nantucket, Ltd. andher engineer met with the City of College Station staff to .determine the sizes and specifications for the water lines that were to be installed in the Nantucket subdivision to accommodate the future development of the entire 596 acre Nantucket tract. :III the initial planning stage for the subdivision, it was contemplated that there would be approximately 1,081 water taps in the Nantucket subdivision..: Nantucket, Ltd's engineers designed and constructed at the request and with the approval of the City of College Station staff the water lines that met the City of College Station's existing specifications to service at least 1.,081 water taps. Today, there are only 400 water taps in the area that. was originally .designed to accommodate the 1,081 water taps. It appears .that the City staff is now requiring that a new water system be constructed by Nantucket, Ltd. because the existing water system that was installed to the City of College Station specifications. that were being used at the time of its installation is a Wellborn water system and does not now meet the City's present specifications, even though it was designed and met the City of ~, 4~ PANE, WATSON, KUNG, MILLER & 1VIALECHEK, P.C. City of Collegt Station Mayor°McIlhaney City Council Members. Our File No. 98-0528 Apri19, 1998 Page 2 f College Station specifications when it was originallyinstalled. Much of the area which the City of College Station recently annexed, including but. not limited to the Barron Road area is also served by the Wellborn water system and does not meet he City of College Station present specifications. If the portion of the Nantucket, Ltd. property that was annexed into the City is going to be required to upgrade its water systemto meet the present-day City of College Station specifications, all other areas annexed in `the. past by the :City of College Station should also be required to meet the same requirements. Failure to do so is selective enforcement of the rules and ordinances of the City of College Station. On behalf of Nantucket, Ltd., we do hereby thank you. for your consideration of this matter and request that the 65.26 acres be de-annexed from the City of College Station, Texas. Very truly yours, PAYNE, WATSON, KUNG, MILLER & MALECHEK, P.C. ~_ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~y~m~ y Don Watson ~, JDW:ro Enclosures F:ILAVV~WATSOMnantuckeYltr to city.wpd `Y a4-.. -. r. 7 APRII. 7, 1998 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MAYOR LYNN MCLLHANEY AND CITY COUNCIL P. O. BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE. STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 DEAR MAYOR MCLLHANEY AND CITY C4UNCII.,: WE ARE REQUESTING DEANNEXATION OF THE b5.26 ACRES THAT WERE ANNEXED ON NOVEMBER 19, 1996. THIS REQUEST COMES AFTER LONG HOURS OF FRUSTRATION AND DELIBERATION. IN JUNE, 1996, NORTH BARDELL AND I MET WITH THE FOLLOWING CITY STAFF AT CITY HALL: SKIP NOE, JIM CALLAWAY AND ELREY ASH. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO DISCUSS THE P()SSIBII.ITY OF ANNEXING 65.26 ACRES AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF MY REQUEST, WE DISCUSSED THE EXTENSION OF A SEWER LINE FROM THEPLANT AT PEBBLE CREEK AND I SUGGESTED THAT NANTUCKET PAY ONE-THIltD OF THE COST, THE CITY PAY ONE- THIRD AND THE. OTHERPROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE LAND THE LINE CROSSED MIGHT PAY THE REMAINING ONE-THIltD. MR NOE INSISTED THAT THE CITY WOULD CARRY THE ENTIRE COST OF THE SEWER LINE THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION AND THE CITY WOULD OVERSIZE THE LINE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. HE STATED THE CITY WOULD BILL US FOR IMPACT FEES AS WE DEVELOPED OUR ANNEXED ACREAGE. I MENTIONED THAT WE WERE ANXIOUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, SINCE IT WAS ALL OF OUR REMA]NING PROPERTY IN NANTUCKET. I STATED THAT IF OUR SHARING IN THE COST COULD MOVE TI~'PROJECT ALONG FASTER, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO. MR. NOE ASSURED US THATBY SEPTEMBER, 1996, THE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE AVAII,ABLE FOR 1MNIEDIATE USE AND THEY WOULD PREFER TO BII.,L US FOR THE IlviPACT FEES. WE, THEN, MOVED FORWARD TO COMPLETE OUR ANNEXATION REQUEST WHICH WAS FINALIZED IN OCTOBER, 1996. 1502 Nantucket Drive College Station, Texas 77845. {409) 690-3000 1 h- { ~ ON AUGUST 7, 1996, LARRY WELLS AND I MET WITH THE CITIES PROJECT REVIEW BOARD.. (SEE EXHIBIT A.) IT WAS AN EXCELLENT MEETING AND WE FELT THAT. ALL ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH HAMPTON PROJECT WERE DISCUSSED AND NO MAJOR PROBLEMS WERE NOTED, THE DISCUSSION CENTERED ON THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF BLENDING URBAN DESIGNED STREETS WITH EXISTING DITCH SECTIONS, AND THE FACTS OF WELLBORN WATER AND BRYAN ELECTRIC SERVING THE AREA. WE CONTIN(TED THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. ON SEPTEMBER i 1, 199'7, THE CITY COUNCIL MET TO APPROVE THE SOUTH HAMPTON PRELIMINARY PLAT: IT WAS AT THIS MEETING THAT COUNCILMAN BIRDWELL MADE A MOTION TO'APPROVE THE PRELIMIARY PLAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT ALLOCATE ANY MONIES FOR OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION. IN THE SEWER LINE AND THE SEWER LINE WOULD NOT CROSS THE HIGHWAY TO NANTUCKET. I WAS TOTALLY SURPRISED THAT NEITHER SKIl' NOE NOR JIM CALLAWAY MENTIONED THAT A COM1v11TTMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE TO NANTUCKET IN JUNE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO :BRING THE SEWER TO THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVSION. AFTER THE MEETING, I WAS TOLD THAT NANTUCKET WOULD STAND THE COST OF BRINGING THE SEWER LINE UNDER THE HIGHWAY,. AS WELL AS PAY THE IIvIP'ACT FEES FOR EACH LOT. THIS COST HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY MY ENGINEERS TO BE $33,600.00. THIS COST WAS NOT FIGURED INTO MY DEVELOPMENT COSTS;. HOWEVER, AFTER SOME DELIBERATION I DECIDED TO ACCEPT THAT CO5T AND MOVE AHEAD WITH THE PROJECT. AS WE PROGRESSED INTO THE LAST MEETING OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL BY COUNCII.,, I WAS INFORMED BY MY ENGINEERS THAT WE COULD NOT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE WE HAD NO WATER TO THE SOUTH HAMPTON DEVELOPMENT: MY QUESTIONS TO MY ENGINEERS WERE: 1. WHY ARE WE JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT THIS? 2. WHY NOT USE THE LINES WE PRESENTLY HAVE IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, WHICH WERE OVERSIZED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY IN 1984? RABON METCALF, MDG, TOLD ME THAT ON JANUARY 7, 1998, HE HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH VERONICA MORGAN, COCS, AND STEVEN CAST, WELLBORN WATER SERVICE CORPORATION, TO DISCUSS THE WATER SUPPLY FOR SOUTH HAMPTON. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO :SEE IF WELLBORN V~ATER SERVICE CORP. COULD PROVIDE FIRE FLOWS P-ND PRESSURES. (SEE EXHIBIT B). MR: ME'TCALF MET WITH JIM CALLAWAY, JANE KEE AND VERONICA MORGAN ON FEBRUARY 9 1998, WHICH RESULTED IN NO RESOLUTION AS TO WHO WOULD BE THE SOURCE OF THE WATER. (SEE EXHIBIT B}. I ASKED MY ENGINEERING FIRM, MDG, TCO SET A MEETING WITH JIM CALLAWAY, MARK SMITH, BII.L RILEY AND VERONICA MORGAN ON FEBRUARY 10, 1998, AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE MDG OFFICE. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE PLAT. AT 11:10 A.M. JIM CALLAWAY ARRIVED AND.STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE OTHERS WERE: MARK SMITH ARRIVED AT 11:30 A.M. AND STATED THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS COMING. THOSE IN ATTENDANCE COULD NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS AS TO' WATER AVAII.ABILITY. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:00 NOON, HAVING ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. 2 t , ON FEBRUARY 26, 1998, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM RABON (MDG) STATING THAT HE HAD SPOKEN WITH NATALIE RUIZ, .COGS. SHE SAID WE HAD NOTBEEN PUT ON THE CTTY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR MARCH 5, 1998, DUE TO AN UNRESOLVED. WATER SUPPLY SOURCE. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1998, I CALLED VERONICA MORGAN AND EXPRESSED MY FRUSTRATION REGARDING THE UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS. IT WAS MY OPINION THAT THE ONLY WAY WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WAS BY MY REQUESTING A MEETING WITH THE MAYOR , CITY MANAGER AND THOSE CITY STAFF THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING THIS PLAT. SHE SAID SHE WOULD SET UP THE MEETING. SHE CALLED BACK AND SAID THE CITY MANAGER WOULD TAKE CARE OF ARRANGING THE MEETING. BY MARCH 4, 1998, I HAD HEARD NOTHING ABOUT A MEETING; I CALLED AND TALKED WITH MR. NOE'S SECRETARY. SHE SAID. SHE WOULD CHECK WITH MR: NOE AND CALL ME BACK. ,,,may i~ (, a I, TH$N, RECEIVED A CALL FROM VERONICA AND. SHE STATED THAT MR. NOE HAD ASKED HER TO CALL ME. THE MESSAGE WAS "HE AND THE MAYOR WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ME, BUT HE WOULD NOT HAVE THE STAFF PRESENT". i ASKED VERONICA IF THE MAYOR AND MR. NOE COULD ANSWER THE WATER QUESTIONS. SHE SAID, "NO". I PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO GET THESE ANSWERS; IF WE COULD NOT OBTAIN ANSWERS, WE OBVIOUSLY HAD NO REASON TO MEET. VERONICA SUGGESTED I CALL AND TALK WITH BILL RILEY AT COGS. I CALLED MR. RII.EY AND ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH REGARD TO THE WATER SOURCE FOR SOUTH HAMPTON: HE STATED THAT "HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ME TO DISCUSS ANEW WATER LINE THAT I WOULD HAVE TO CONSTRUCT, BUT HE ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT DISCUSS OUR CURRENT WATER LINES OR THEIR USE IN SOUTH HAMPTON". MY ENGINEERS HAD GIVEN ME AN ESTIMATE. QF $133,500 FOR THIS NEW WATER LINE. WHEN I BEGAN THE NANTUCKET DEVELOPMENT IN 19$1, i MET WITH THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH. WATER SUPPLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT. MY ENGINEERS SUPPLIED COLLEGE STATION'STAFF WITH A COMPLETE DENSITY BREAKDOWN FOR THE-ENTIItE 596 ACRES. (SEE EXHIBIT C). WATER USAGE WAS DETERMINED AND WATER DEMANDS CALCULATED. (SEE EXHIBIT D). WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE COLLEGE STATION CITY ENGINEER, DAVID PULLEN, EXPLAINING THE CTTY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR MEETING THESE NEEDS. THUS, WE ESTABLISHED A 12-INCH LINE ON ARRINGTON ROAD.. THERE IS, ALSO, A LETTER FROM MR. PULI~EN STATING THAT HE "WILL MARK THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWING APPROVE FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH SOME MINOR CHANGES ON THE TYPICALROADWAY SECTION: EXFIIBIT "E" IS A CERTIFICATION LETTER SHOWING. THAT THE WATER IlvIPROVEMENTS HAVE' BEEN BUILT TO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION RFECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIGNS. THE DENSITY THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AT THAT TIlVIE WAS ~~$~=R_-AF- .TAR THAN THE DENSITY WE PRESENTLY HAVE. THERE WERE 1081 WATER TAPS SUBMITTED IN 1984 VERSUS 400 WATER TAPS TODAY. IF I WERE NOT PLANNING ON THE. UTILIZATION OF THE 12-INCH MAIN ON ARRINGTON ROAD FOR ALL OF MY DEVELOPMENT, I AM CERTAIN A SMALLER LINE AND A SMALLER COST COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING I HAVE TRIED TO MEET WITH THE CITY AND TO MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS FOR THE NANTUCKET DEVELOPMENT. ..} i [ 'YpU MUST KNOW THAT A DEVI?LOI'El~ Wi-IQ HAS MADE A COIvIIvt7TMEN'T TU nEVELOFiNG 600 ACRES, MUST HAVE CONCRETE COMMI'IT~NTS FROM THOSE WITH WHOM SHE IS WORKING. I2~r'THIS CASE, WE HAVE TI3E FOI.LOWlNG: a, YES, SAYS THE CITY,. VYE WII„I, $RING NANTUCTCET THE SEWER I,INI::. T1iEiN ON'E AND ONE-HAY,' 'YEARS ~AT~,R, THEY SAY, NO WE 'WONT. b, CITY SAYS, IF YOU WILL E$'TABLxSH A WATER LINE $Y OC71t STANDARDS, YOU. MAY USE IT TQ GQMPI-~FT~ YOUR SUBDIVSION AS I'ItOPOSED. NOW,1T'I~ `:U, 7 UU CAN'T' USB TiIA.T LINE. YOU MUST BUII.D ANOTHER WATER LINE. I CAN UNDERSTAND W~I`SC TI~IFRI~ AI.iE NOT MANY 500-ACRE I~I.17S bEVELUI~~!11.~'!'S 1N '1'I~IE COLLEGE STATION AREA ~ THE'DEVELOPER CANNOT $E~]E~'E AND TRUST 1N ~'HE CONIlVIITMENTS MADE B'Y THE CX'1'X OE COLLEGE STATION, IT 1,EgVES A DEVELOPER NO CHOICEBUT TO PATCHWORT~ THE COMMUNITY WITH SMALL 20-50 ACRE DEVELOPMENTS. III THE PREVIOUS CONdVII'Y"1VIEN"I'S T~IAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISI~ED $'Y THE G!"1"S` OF COLLEGE 5TATIOI~ CANNOT BE UPHEI-D, i* AS THE DEVSLOPEIt OP' SOUTH HAMPTON, AM LEFT NO CHOICE B~7`I' '1~O REQi7EST pEANNEXATION. 1 SHALL EXpECT'YOUA ~'INALDECISION REGARDING THIS MATTER NO LnTE& THAN TI-riRTY bA~'S (30) PROM THE DATE OF ZTIIS LETTER. ~! VEkY TRULY 'YOURS, ~ ~~~~~ ® ~~` ~. y ~~ OME FINbER I~EA~.T~t', it~C., GENEE1tAL PARTNER I'HYI.LIS J, HOHSON, PRESIDENT' PJH/cs cnc. 1 f Exhibit "A" PRESUBMISSION CONFERENCE .REPORT July 25, 199~'~ TO: Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket,: Ltd. 1502 Nantucket Drive, College Station, TX 77845 Larry Wells, Municipal Development Group. 203 Holleman Drive East, College Station, TX 77840 FROM: Presubmission Confere ~ Jane Kee, City Pl er Kent Laza, City Engin r Ron Silvia, P&Z Repr sen tive Others Attending Natalie Thomas,. Planning Technician Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Tony Mlchalsky, Electneal Operations Coordinator Laverne Akin, GTE Representative SUBJECT: Master Preliminary Plat -Nantucket & Leisure Island; proposed preliminary plat. of Nantucket Phases 6 - 12 and Leisure Island Phases. l - 3 generally located on the southwest corner of Nantucket Drive and State Highway 6 totaling 65.26 acres divided. into 152 residential lots. (97-312) ~ A Presubmission Conference meeting was, held Wednesday, July 23, 199,6 to discuss the above mentioned preliminary plat. The fopowing is a list of ordinance requirements identified by the Presubmission Conference. This list does not relieve the applicant of total compliance with all current ordinance requirements. Ordinance Requirements: _ Clearly distinguish the current city limits line. Submit an impact study for the sanitary sewer oversize .participation request. Include a north arrow for the platted area as well as the vicinity map. Indicate the basis of bearing for the survey. Approval of the Master Preliminary Plat will be conditioned upon successful rezoning. _ Provide sidewalks along one side of all streets except Mariner's Cove,. Wayfarer Lane .and Beacon. PRC Report Nantucket Case #97-312 _ Page 2 of 2 Ordinance Reauirements (conta: How will drainage be handled throughout the subdivision. More specifically: .Across dots 8 and 9 of Phase 12. Across. lot 15 in Phase 8. " Across lots 4 and 5 of Phase 9. 4 Note the type of easement proposed between lots 8 and 9 of Phase 10. _ Show the: proposed pedestrian access from Sconset Cove to eventually allow access to Nantucket Drive. Submit a revised master plan of the Nantucket Subdivision. Comments/Concerns: _ Street lights must be installed to City of College Station standards. Coordinate street lights and electrical 'details with Electncal Operations Coordinator Tony Michalsky at (409) 764-3660. _ Coordinate.. telephone service details with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723. SUBMIT THE MYLAR ORIGINAL AND 15 COPIES BY WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1997 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE .COLLEGE STATION CONFERENCE CENTER AT 1300 GEORGE BUSH DRIVE. THE CITY COUNCIL WII.,L CONSIDER THE MASTER PRELIlVIINARY PLAT ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE. COLLEGE STATION UTILITY SERVICE CENTER AT 1601 GRAHAM ROAD. .,~ r That project was completed about 1 1/2 years ago. Also, you show no easement along this relocation to which I do not object. I point out to you however, that in order for the storm system to function properly someone will have to maintain that open ditch according to the design criteria you gave me. I will mark the drawings "APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION" as soon as you have corrected the typical roadway section on Sheet 1 of 15. Since this project is in the City of College Station's ETJ and since Brazos County now has a County Engineer, I will need 1 extra set of construction drawings which I will deliver to the County Engineer. Sincerely, David J. City Eng DJP: vw Alen, P.E. er •ngiw~uiwg, pn~ying, i Pleneing ' '` August 14, 1985 R~' : jJater Iurorovements To A Portion Of Nantucket - Phase Ttao , Brazos Cotmty, Texas. TO WHCM TT MAY CONCERT '1 l'~ ° =~ l~ W :9 ~ ~ ,~ ~ W F ~ W W = C O M ~ + S ~ M ~ M f W ~ W ,~ 3 0 • W ~ O Y J ~ ~ f i jerry bishop & ossociates, incorporated This Letter Is To Certify That The Water Improvesits As Refer~ced ADOVe And A.s Shawn ?lithin The "AS-BUILT" Plans Acco~anying This Letter Have Been Built To City Of College Station, Texas, St~dard Details And Specifications For Construction Of Utility Lines And Appurtenances Wit:-~in City Of College Station, Texas, Subdivisions. Sincerely, ~ ? / ,'" Jerry Bishop, P.E. ,': `COLLEGE STP~TION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 PRESUBMISSION CONFERENCE REPORT July 25, 1996 TO: Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket, Ltd. 1502 Nantucket Drive, College Station, TX 77845 Larry Wells, Municipal Development Group 203 Holleman Drive East, College Station, TX 77840 FROM: Presubmission Confere Jane Kee, Cit~r Pl er Kent Laza, Cnty Engin r Ron Silvia, P&Z Repr n five Others Attending Natalie Thomas, Plantning Technician Shirley Volk,. Development Coordinator Tony Michalsky, Electrical Operations Coordinator Laverne Akin, GTE Representative SUBJECT: Master Preliminary Plat - Nantucket & Leisure Island; proposed preliminary plat of Nantucket Phases 6 - 12 and Leisure Island Phases 1 - 3 generally located on the southwest corner of Nantucket Drive and State Ii'ighway 6 totaling 65.26 acres divided into 152 residential lots. (97-312) A Presubmission Conference meeting was held Wednesday, July 23, 1996 to discuss the above mentioned preliminary plat. The following is a list of ordinance requirements identified by the Presubmission Conference. This list does not relieve the applicant of total compliance with all current ordinance requirements. " Ordinance Requirements: _ Clearly distinguish the current city limits line. _ Submit an impact study for the sanitary sewer oversize participation t;,quest. Include a north arrow for the platted area as well as the vicinity map. Indicate the basis of bearing for the survey. _ Approval of the Master Preliminary Plat will be conditioned upon successful rezoning. _ Provide sidewalks along one side of all streets except Mariner's Cove, Wayfarer Lane and Beacon. Home of Texas A&M University