Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence
©5 /0 Meadow Creek Final Plat concerns (05 -10) Hello Ben! It is indeed on the P&Z agenda this evening. It is a final plat for Phase 1 of Meadowcreek, consisting of 90 lots on about 21 acres, along Koppe Bridge in the ET]. Following P&Z approval of the master plan about 6 months ago, there were many pending engineering comments on how they would provide sewer service, and according to the engineers those technical comments have been addressed. I just spoke with Ms. Feldman and invited her to come and register her concerns with the Commission this evening. She was not sure she could attend, but I told her that at a minimum we would be sure the Commission received a copy of her email. Thanks for passing this along, and let me know if you have any questions also. We will be sure to let you know what the outcome is of tonight's meeting. Thanks! Joey Joseph A. Dunn, AICP Director of Planning & Development Services City of College Station, Texas P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 979.764.3570 »> Ben White 08/04/05 3:20 PM »> Hi Joey Hope all is well with you. Attached is correspondance from Mrs. Susie Feldman questioning the Main Street Project. Is that discussion on the P&Z agenda tonight? Susie raises some good questions and I would hope the Commissioners would address some of her concerns. Thanks Keep up the good work. Ben Thanks Mayor! Attached is a copy of the email I sent to Ben White and Glenn last Thursday night, right before the P&Z meeting. I spoke with Ms. Feldman at length over the phone before the meeting. Below are the responses to each of her questions. Although she was unable to attend the meeting, we presented a copy of her questions to each of the Commissioners at their 6pm workshop. As Chris Scotti indicated in his email earlier, the item did pass, although the Commission spent a considerable amount of time hearing from several adjacent landowners (brothers Rick Young and Larry Young, Donna Winslow, and Greg Taylor). The residents were concerned mostly with run- off from drainage and the new sewer treatment plant into a tributary that runs into their property south of the project. The site has been clear -cut right up to the edge of several property owners, which led to most of the complaints and concerns. Traffic along Koppe Bridge road was also voiced as a concern. Rick Jenkins, the developer for Main Street Homes, was there also, along with his engineers Joe Schultz and Steve Duncan. Bottom line, the plat met all of the city's requirements in the Subdivision Regs for ETJ subdivisions, and therefore the Commission in the end approved it as per Section 212.005 of the Texas Local Govt. Code. Incidentally, the applicant is meeting city standards for curb and gutter streets. Again, most of the discussion with the residents centered around how the run -off would be carried from the site. According to the information we have, the developer is meeting TCEQ requirements for this. The Commissioners encouraged the developer to work with the adjacent residents to work out their preferences for carrying this run -off. Mayor, we will be glad to forward the formal minutes from the meeting as soon as the draft is completed. In the meantime, please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks! Joey Joseph A. Dunn, AICP Director of Planning & Development Services City of College Station, Texas P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 979.764.3570 »> Ron Silvia 08/05/05 9:01 AM »> Joey, This is the letter of concern that I talked to you about. Please copy the council and myself with your response to Mrs. Feldman's questions. Thanks, Ron Silvia Mayor, City of College Station »> "Susie Feldman" <susiefeldman@verizon.net> 08/04/05 10:39 AM »> I am very concerned about the Main Street Housing development that is to go in on Koppe Bridge Road. I hope you will seriously address these following concerns. 1. How many homes are planned for that area. We have heard as many as 300 are planned for that 75 acres. This is this the 1st of 3 phases, consisting of 90 lots. Late last year, the Commission approved a Preliminary Plat for all three phases, including 338 lots total. 2. Since there are no city sewer services in this area ,how will waste from those homes be handled? Since they are going to be stacked right next to one another on very small lots they can not be allowed to have septic systems. Will they have their own MUD district? An on -site sewer treatment will be built as part of Phase 1, operated by the Wellborn Special Utility District, and a permit has been issued through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 3. How have you planned to handle the additional traffic from those homes? Each will have a least two cars per house. How will they all get out to work safely over a railroad track and intersection with no traffic light? That intersection is already difficult to manage safely at peak traffic times as it is now. We share the concern over the number of homes concentrated in this area, and the traffic and other impacts from this concentration. Unfortunately, because the property is located outside of the City Limits, we do not have zoning or building permit authority to restrict the number of homes or control traffic levels in this area. 4. How will the additional demand for water affect the water pressure to all our homes in that area? Wellborn Special Utility District controls the service area for this project, as well as the adjacent homes in the area. Under the City's Subdivision Regulations, the City can require enough water pressure to serve fire hydrants in the area, and that must be verified before the plat is filed and lots sold. Wellborn SUD will be responsible for any off -site improvements to supply adequate pressure to meet this requirement. 5. Are these homes planned for single family dwellings only? Have you addressed the possibility of these homes becoming student housing? Many parents buy homes in this price range for their children attending A &M. They rent out the other rooms to others students. If this happens it will of course mean 4 -5 cars per house. Unfortunately, because the property is located in the County, the City does not have the authority to regulate land use, including single family homes, owner - occupied or rental. Since the Main Street Housing Development has already bought and desecrated the land by bulldozing every tree, I am concerned that there is already an understanding with the city council and this is a "done deal" with no thought about the consequences of urban sprawl with all it's related problems. I hope I am wrong and urge you to be very thoughtful. I hope the council will look at how such development can adversely effect the quality of life in our community and plan carefully for the benefit of all it's citizens. I am looking forward to your reply. My sincere hope is that the council is a council concerned about the quality of life in this most beautiful community which, up to this time, I have been proud to call home. The City Council has included growth management as one of its top four areas of concern, along with economic development, neighborhoods, and collaboration efforts. Although land use control is very limited in Texas Counties, and cities are limited in the control of utilities within these areas, the Council has expressed interest in finding ways to get ahead of development through various methods, including city- initiated annexations, in order to better control or manage growth. Susie Feldman 6501 Koppe Bridge Road College Station, Texas 77845 »> Ron Silvia 08/05/05 9:01 AM »> Joey, This is the letter of concern that I talked to you about. Please copy the council and myself with your response to Mrs. Feldman's questions. Thanks, Ron Silvia Mayor, City of College Station $ Page 1 of 2 Steve Duncan From: Charles Bayer [CBAYER @tceq.state.tx.us] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 1:59 PM To: sed @pkengineering.com Cc: James E. Michalk; Mark Rudolph Subject: Re: FW: Discharge into Detention Pond? " Steve, Based on my conversation with you last Friday (03/04/05), it is my understanding that the detention pond is not designed to hold water permanently, but to just reduce storm water flow peaks. Therefore, based on the assumption that during dry weather conditions the waste water would just flow through the detention pond, it would be appropriate to assign the same uses and dissolved oxygen criteria to the detention pond as to the intermittent stream that the pond has been (or will be) constructed on. That is, a 2.0 mg /L dissolved oxygen criteria. Of course, if the actual conditions of the detention pond and /or the stream are different than the assumptions Used above, a different dissolved oxygen criteria might be appropriate. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Charles Bayer Water Quality Standards Water Quality Division 512/239 -4583 or cbayer @tcegstate.tx.us »> "Steve Duncan" <sed @pkengineering.com> 3/3/2005 4:14:09 PM »> Steve E. Duncan, P.E., V.P. Pledger Kalkomey, Inc. - Consulting Engineers 7020 Coyote Run, Bryan, Texas 77808 979 - 731 -8000 (voice), 979- 731 -1500 (fax) sed @pkengineering.com Original Message From: James E. Michalk [ mailto :JMICHALK @tceq.state.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:41 PM To: sed @pkengineering.com Cc: Mark Rudolph Subject: Re: Discharge into Detention Pond? Steve, Regarding your voicemail and email question, there could be some concern, depending on whether the detention pond is considered part of the treatment system or not (I'm assuming not) and how big it is, how it behaves, perhaps whether the entire drainage basin of the pond is on the applicant's property, and probably a few other factors. If the pond is not considered part of the treatment system, most likely the Standards Team would assign some sort of dissolved oxygen criterion to it. If the discharge (typically) just flows straight through without filling up the pond, they might just consider it the same as a small intermittent stream (2 mg /L DO criterion); if it would tend to be a small to moderate -sized persistent "pool ", they might assign it a 3 mg /L criterion; if it's a bigger pond, they might even give it a 5 mg /L criterion. Or if it's of insignificant size and effect, they may ignore it completely and just say the 3/7/2005 Page 2 of 2 discharge effectively goes straight into the waterbody beyond. The modeling evaluation could be largely dependent on the Standards call. Sounds like it probably would be better for the creek if the discharge went into the detention pond first, as you said. So just depends what effect having to meet any applicable Standards criteria in the pond would be. (There may be other Standards issues besides dissolved oxygen in the pond too, or maybe not, I don't know.) Do you have more detailed information about the pond that would help in its evaluation? This would not only help the Standards Team make their determination, but would also help us model it if needed. Wellborn Resources LLC, Permit No. 13850 -001 discharges to the Segment 1209 basin, which is actually one of Mark Rudolph's segments, so he may be able to address this specific case in more detail modeling -wise if you have additional questions (I copied him on this email). Mark is out sick today though. Or you might try the Standards Team Leader Jim Davenport ('jdavenpo(atcegatate.tx.us' / 512 - 239 - 4585), or Charles Bayer ('cbayer @tceq.state.tx.us' / 512- 239 - 4583), or someone else on the Standards Team to see if they have any specific guidelines regarding evaluation of detention ponds as part of permitted discharge routes. They are probably just evaluated on a case -by -case basis though, depending on the specific conditions. Please let me or Mark know if you have any additional questions. Thanks. Jim Michalk Water Quality Assessment Team (512) 239 -4452 »> "Steve Duncan" <sed @pkengineering.com> 3/3/2005 12:42:54 PM »> Is there any concern discharging a WWTP effluent into a small stormwater detention pond prior to it hitting the permitted creek? I just spoke with Firoj Vahora and he said there is no permitting concern, but that I needed to check with you guys in modeling. This is permit number WQ001385001 currently listed under Wellborn Resources LLC at 120,000 GPD. The pond is completely on our property and the discharge location from the pond /property is at the permitted location. There is nc concern from the stormwater pond backing up into the WWTP as the WWTP is considerably higher than the pond berm <><><> <>< >< > <> < > < >< > <><>< >< >< > < ><>< >< Steve E. Duncan, P.E., V.P. Pledger Kalkomey, Inc. - Consulting Engineers 7020 Coyote Run, Bryan, Texas 77808 979 - 731 -8000 (voice), 979 - 731 -1500 (fax) sed @pkengineering.com <><><> <> <> <><> <> <>< ><> < > < > <>< ><><><>< 3/7/2005 Page 1 of 1 • Jennifer Reeves - Fwd: Bryan Texas Utilities -- Meadowcreek Subdivision, Phase 1 comments From: Mandi Alford To: Planners / Engineers Date: 2/7/2005 8:03 AM Subject: Fwd: Bryan Texas Utilities -- Meadowcreek Subdivision, Phase 1 comments »> "Randy Trimble" <rtrimble @btutilities.com> 2/2/2005 1:24:50 PM »> Mandi, BTU's comments for Meadowcreek Subdivision Phase 1 are: • Request a 10' electrical easement on the northern most property line of Common Area No. 2 and • Request a 10' electrical easement on the common lot line of lots 25 and 26. Comments for Williamsgate, Phases 1 through 3 will follow tomorrow. Thanks, Randy Trimble Bryan Texas Utilities file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \jreeves\Local Settings \Temp \GW }00002.HTM 2/16/2005 Jennifer Reeves - Fwd: RE: Williamsgr Sec 1 -3 Page 1 From: Bridgette George To: Engrs; Planners Date: 2/2/2005 2:44:21 PM Subject: Fwd: RE: Williamsgate Sec 1 -3 FYI Bridgette George '04 Development Coordinator City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 -9960 979.764.3570 www.cstx.gov »> "Randy Trimble" <rtrimble @btutilities.com> 2/2/2005 2:38:28 PM »> Mandi, BTU has no additional comments or requests for the Williamsgate plats for sections 1 through 3. It is acceptable as shown. Thanks, Randy Trimble Page l of l Deborah Grace - Fwd: Re: Meadowcreek From: Carol Cotter To: Deborah Grace Date: 2/2/2006 12:38:40 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Meadowcreek For file »> Gary Arnold <garnold @co.brazos.tx.us> 2/2/2006 9:34 am »> Meadowcreek was approved at Comm. Court on Tuesday Carol Cotter wrote: > What is the status on your end? Has it been approved by > Commissioners' Court? > College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \dgrace \Local Settings \Temp \GW }00001.HTM 2/3/2006 Page 1 of 2 Steve Duncan From: Charles Bayer [CBAYER @tceq.state.tx.us] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 1:59 PM To: sed @pkengineering.com Cc: James E. Michalk; Mark Rudolph Subject: Re: FW: Discharge into Detention Pond? Steve, Based on my conversation with you last Friday (03/04/05), it is my understanding that the detention pond is not designed to hold water permanently, but to just reduce storm water flow peaks. Therefore, based on the assumption that during dry weather conditions the waste water would just flow through the detention pond, it would be appropriate to assign the same uses and dissolved oxygen criteria to the detention pond as to the intermittent stream that the pond has been (or will be) constructed on. That is, a 2.0 mg /L dissolved oxygen criteria. Of course, if the actual conditions of the detention pond and /or the stream are different than the assumptions Used above, a different dissolved oxygen criteria might be appropriate. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Charles Bayer Water Quality Standards Water Quality Division 512/239 -4583 or cbayer@Iceq_state.tx.us tceq_state_tx.us »> "Steve Duncan" <sed @pkengineering.com> 3/3/2005 4:14:09 PM »> Steve E. Duncan, P.E., V.P. Pledger Kalkomey, Inc. - Consulting Engineers 7020 Coyote Run, Bryan, Texas 77808 979 - 731 -8000 (voice), 979 - 731 -1500 (fax) sed @pkengineering.com Original Message From: James E. Michalk [mailto:JMICHALK @tceq.state.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:41 PM To: sed @pkengineering.com Cc: Mark Rudolph Subject: Re: Discharge into Detention Pond? Steve, Regarding your voicemail and email question, there could be some concern, depending on whether the detention pond is considered part of the treatment system or not (I'm assuming not) and how big it is, how it behaves, perhaps whether the entire drainage basin of the pond is on the applicant's property, and probably a few other factors. If the pond is not considered part of the treatment system, most likely the Standards Team would assign some sort of dissolved oxygen criterion to it. If the discharge (typically) just flows straight through without filling up the pond, they might just consider it the same as a small intermittent stream (2 mg /L DO criterion); if it would tend to be a small to moderate -sized persistent "pool ", they might assign it a 3 mg /L criterion; if it's a bigger pond, they might even give it a 5 mg /L criterion. Or if it's of insignificant size and effect, they may ignore it completely and just say the 3/7/2005 Page 2 of 2 • discharge effectively goes straight into the waterbody beyond. The modeling evaluation could be largely dependent on the Standards call. Sounds like it probably would be better for the creek if the discharge went into the detention pond first, as you said. So just depends what effect having to meet any applicable Standards criteria in the pond would be. (There may be other Standards issues besides dissolved oxygen in the pond too, or maybe not, I don't know.) Do you have more detailed information about the pond that would help in its evaluation? This would not only help the Standards Team make their determination, but would also help us model it if needed. Wellborn Resources LLC, Permit No. 13850 -001 discharges to the Segment 1209 basin, which is actually one of Mark Rudolph's segments, so he may be able to address this specific case in more detail modeling -wise if you have additional questions (I copied him on this email). Mark is out sick today though. Or you might try the Standards Team Leader Jim Davenport ('jdavenpo (atceq.state.tx.us' / 512 -239- 4585), or Charles Bayer ('cbay r @tceq.state.tx.us' / 512- 239 - 4583), or someone else on the Standards Team to see if they have any specific guidelines regarding evaluation of detention ponds as part of permitted discharge routes. They are probably just evaluated on a case -by -case basis though, depending on the specific conditions. Please let me or Mark know if you have any additional questions. Thanks. Jim Michalk Water Quality Assessment Team (512) 239-4452 »> "Steve Duncan" <sed @pkengineering.com> 3/3/2005 12:42:54 PM »> Is there any concern discharging a WWTP effluent into a small stormwater detention pond prior to it hitting the permitted creek? I just spoke with Firoj Vahora and he said there is no permitting concern, but that I needed to chec with you guys in modeling. This is permit number WQ001385001 currently listed under Wellborn Resources LLC at 120,000 GPD. The pond is completely on our property and the discharge location from the pond /property is at the permitted location. There is nc concern from the stormwater pond backing up into the WWTP as the WWTP is considerably higher than the pond berm <><><> <> < ><>< ><> <> < >< >< >< > <><> <> < >< >< Steve E. Duncan, P.E., V.P. Pledger Kalkomey, Inc. - Consulting Engineers 7020 Coyote Run, Bryan, Texas 77808 979 - 731 -8000 (voice), 979 - 731 -1500 (fax) sed @pkengineering.com <><><> <>< > < ><><> <><> <>< ><><> <> <> <><>< 3/7/2005 Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Kever & McDaniel, L.L.P. 816 Congr enue Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472 -8021 Fax (512) 320 -5638 www.bickerstaff.com RECEIVED LEGAL DEPARTMENT April 5, 2005 APR 0 7 2005 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Mr. Mark A. Zeppa Law Offices of Mark H. Zeppa, P.C. 4833 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite 202 Austin, Texas 78759 -8436 Re: Meadow Creek Subdivision Phase I Final Plat Dear Mark: The City of College Station has asked me to reply to your March 31, 2005 letter to Bridgett George and Harvey Cargill. The City agrees that Wellborn Special Utility District is not required to have a CCN to provide retail wastewater service in an area not certificated to another retail public utility. However, your indication that Wellborn SUD will provide wastewater service to the Meadowcreek Subdivision is not consistent with other information concerning the subdivision's proposed wastewater service. Specifically, in a March 7, 2005 letter from Wellborn SUD to the Brazos County Judge, Wellborn's general manager indicates that Wellborn will operate the wastewater facility and only after a wastewater CCN is obtained. Since Wellborn SUD is not required to have a CCN, the letter's implication is that Wellborn SUD will operate the facility under another's CCN. Moreover, in a March 10, 2005 filing with TCEQ required under 30 TAC § 317.1(a)(3)(D), engineers for the developer identified Wellborn Resources LLC as the entity proposed to own, operate, and maintain the project through its design life. Copies of these two referenced documents are enclosed. It is important for the City to have assurances that Wellborn Resources LLC will not in any way render retail sewer utility service directly or indirectly to the public without obtaining a CCN. To give these assurances, please explain the inconsistencies identified above, and provide documents indicating Wellborn SUD is or will be the retail service provider. Such documents should include but are not limited to documents showing transfer or the process of transfer of the TPDES permit from Wellborn Resources LLC to Wellborn SUD, documents demonstrating a lease or conveyance of the wastewater treatment plant, and facilities from Wellborn Resources LLC to Wellborn SUD, and all developer agreements and operating agreements between Wellborn Resources and Wellborn SUD. Mr. Mark A. Zeppa April 5, 2005 Page 2 I am sure you understand the City's need to ensure that any subdivision it plats will have adequate utilities, including wastewater services, and that you will assist in clarifying the matter. Sincerely, ie J. William D. Dugat III cm enclosures cc: Harvey Cargill, City Attorney City of College Station Leonard Dougal _ 03/16/05 14:58 FAX 979 764 2F CITY OF CS ADMIN /LEGAL [j002 WELLBORN SPECIALUTILITY DISTRICT Board of Directors Jerry Ransom. President Gary Spence, Vice President Charles Robertson, Treasurer ■■• Theresa Schehln, Secretary iitEci ED A.P. Boyd LEGAL. DEPARTMENT Kenneth Goodman Mary Herron 2005 John Winder L�Q MAR 1 6 L U Jack Winslow March 7, 2005 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Judge Sims 300 E. 26 Street Suite 114 Bryan, Texas 77803 Dear Judge Sims: Wellborn Special Utility District has agreed to manage waste water operations for the proposed onsite facilities within the Main Street Homes -CS, Ltd. Development located on Koppe Bridge Road. The District's commitment to operate this facility is conditioned on the project meeting all State and Federal regulatory requirements, issuances of a water water CCN from TCEQ and all other requirements established by the Board of Directors. If additional information is needed, please contact me at (979) 690 -9799. Sincerely, d .• Gene :A Manager Wellborn Special Utility District • P.O. Box 250 • 4118 GREENS PRAIRIE RD. - WELLBORN, TX 77881 - PHONE (979) 690 -9799 • FAx (979) 690 -1260 03/18/05 14:39 FAX 979 764 ' 3 CITI' OF CS ADMIN /LEGAL 0 003 3, TE CON General Contractors Div. of CDS Enterprises, Inc. 1707 Graham Rd. - College Station, TX 77845 • 979- 690 -7711 • Fax: 979 - 690 -9797 March 10, 2005 Mr. Louis C. Herrin, 11I, P.E. TCEQ — MC 148 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 RE: Chapter 317 Summary Transmittal Letter Permittee: Wellborn Resources LLC Meadowcreek Subdivision LLC Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit Number: TPDES No. WQ0013850001 (Renewal replaces Permit No. 13850 -001; see attached) Project Name: Meadowcreek Subdivision, Phase 1 County: Brazos County Dear Mr. Herrin: The purpose of this letter is to provide the TCEQ with the information necessary to comply with the requirements of §317.1(a)(3)(D) of the TCEQ's rules titled, Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems_ The necessary information includes: 1. Engineering Firm: Texcon General Contractors 1707 Graham Road College Station, TX 77845 2. Design Engineer: Ginger L. Urso, P.E. (979) 764 -7743 Fax: (979) 764 -7759 3. Owner, Operator, Maintenance: Wellborn Resources LLC 4. No variances from Chapter 317 are planned. 5. No nonconforming or innovative technology is planned for this project. 6. The plans and specifications, which describe the project identified in this letter, are in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Chapter 317. 7. The project will include the construction of approximately 2,836 feet of sanitary sewer line, which will tie into an existing sewer line. The new line will service the proposed phase of the subdivision. The proposed sewer line is to be constructed of 03/18/05 14:40 FAX 979 764 CITY OF CS ADMIN /LEGAL EI 004 Mr. Louis C, Hcrrin, Ill, P.E, 3/10/2005 Pagc 2 6 ", 8" and 10" diameter SDR -26, PVC pipe which meets the requirements of ASTM- D3034_ The proposed manholes are 4' diameter manholes with sewer line slopes ranging from 0.60% to 2.04 %. The maximum distance between manholes is less than 500 feet, as required by the TCEQ. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (979) 764 -7743, fax (979) 764 -7759. Sincerely, 4 to .. ••• * • •-1 ■ •. lit GINGER L. URSO ‘80.9:3 � p Ginger L. Urso, P.E. Civil Engineer cc: Anna Dunbar, TCEQ Regional Office, Waco Chris Menger, Main Street Homes, Ltd. I � .( b March 31, 2005 TO: Joe Schultz, Carol Cotter, Lloyd Wasserman TEXCON, CS P &Z, County Commissioner FROM: Home owners of Hidden Acres Dr. and I &GN Rd. DATE: March 31, 2005 SUBJECT: Problems with proposed Meadow Creek subdivision. To whom it may concern; Listed below are the key problems that we see with the current proposal for the Meadow Creek subdivision and the potential negative impact on our collective properties. We request your consideration on the suggested remedies. Problem: • Discharge of the treated waste water into the creek on the adjacent properties will maintain constant 140,000- 480,000 gallons per day flow through the creek that was not there before. o Currently the "Unnamed Tributary" is dry approximately 85% of the year. o The erosion under this minimal flow condition is manageable. Repairs could be made on culverts and roads during dry periods. o There will be NO time to make such repairs because of the constant flow of the waste water. o The constant flow of water into the creek will equate to a large amount of erosion on ALL properties that creek traverses. o Potential problem when the creek is already holding waste water from the treatment plant and then we have another 14" rain storm. Solution: • Bury the discharge line from the treatment plant across the 3 effected properties. o This will manage the problem of constant water flow and erosion across the same. o The waste water will be discharged into the creek at a point where it is larger and will allow the waste water to co- mingle with other drainage water. o Once the water has crossed I &GN at Iris Ln. It enters undeveloped property and no longer poses a problem. • Problem: • A &R property elevation is lower than grade on more than 50% of the property. It contains several pond /marsh type areas that hold water that is absorbed over time. o Once the land is developed it will no longer detain and absorb this water instead it will be forced to run off, easily doubling the volume of water discharged into the creek at the property line. o Water draining from the adjacent Caldwell property will either be deflected to Rick Young's property or will be conveyed across the Mainstreet project without the chance to disburse across the property to lessen the impact of this drainage. o The Mainstreet project completely removes the creek from their property and then builds the outflow chute all the way to the property line and into the easement in an effort to discharge all drainage water directly onto the adjacent property owned by Larry Young. o Question as to the proposed size of the detention areas and the size of the discharge chutes in relation to the acceptable flow through the creek Solution: • Manage the outflow of the creek as it crosses the 3 affected properties. o Replace /add culverts with larger capacity concrete culverts with concrete wings to minimize erosion over time. o Clean and direct creek to manage increased water flow. o Installation of Articulated Interlocking Concrete Blocks to line the creek to stop destruction of creek and surrounding property. o Commitment to manage the creek over time. Problem: • With the sewer treatment plant is to be constructed within 100 feet of the southern property line, noise from the electric pumps will become an issue for any adjacent property owner. Solution: • Build a sound deadening barrier around the southern and eastern sides of the structure. The same technique used for deadening noise from oil field equipment. o This will also block the facility from view as to further enhance the aesthetics for any property adjacent to the Meadow Creek subdivision sewer treatment plant. Problem: • Verification that Brazos County Road & Bridge will maintain culverts and creek once the area is developed and maintenance is remanded to the county. Sent By: a; 979 731 1500; Mar -16 -05 2:09PM; Page 4 _ THEWS PERMIT WQ0013850001 �` ∎ )11 S [For TCFQ Office Use Only: - EPA 11) No, TX0118672J TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAI. QUA I.ITY This is a renewal that replaces P.O. Box 13087 TPDES Permit No.13850 -041 issued Austin, Texas 78711-3087 December 13, 1999. PERMIT TO DISCIIARGE WASTES undcr provisions of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code Wellborn Resources LLC whose mailing address is PO. Box6733 Bryan, Texas 77805 is authorized to treat and discharge wastes from the Wellborn Resources I.LC Wastewater Treatment Plant, SIC Code 4952 located 4,500 feet southwest of Farrn -to- Market Road 2154 onKoppe Bridge Road and approxiamatcly 1 mile south of Wellborn in Brazos County, Texas to an unnamed tributary; thence to Peach Creek; thence to the Navasota River Below Lake Limestone in Segment No. 1209 of the Brazos River Basin only according with effluent limitations, moni toringrequirements and other conditions set forth in this permit, as well as the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the laws of the State of Texas, and other orders of the TCEQ. The issuance of this permit does not grant to the permittec the right to use private or public property for conveyance of wastewater along the discharge route described in this permit. This includes, but is not limited to, property belonging to any individual, partnership, corporation or other entity. Neither does this permit authorize any invasion of personal rights nor any violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. It is the responsibility of the permittee to acquire property rights as may be necessary to use the discharge route. This permit shall expire at midnight, May 1, 2009. ISSUED DATE JUL 0 9 2004 /./L For the Commission " Sent By: a; 979 731 1500; Mar -16 -05 2:09PM; Page 5 ca , c, a �• 5 3 CS O 0 4.. o .0 C E m P- o oo aC u p � p ;a. 6 H u O Ca z t 0 V �°-' , - O D 0 tg, OD z s >, -a Ld 0 G u u �o c � ° do E �3 v - 3 o a. N 0 cL • G � _ W V 0 u v • p 0 d V] �. K, p w N E O F ea ° p v v v u v v ' y ,ia p 0 U E. 6. u y u g1 p G . y., 0, in cV a! t ti 3 "3 3 3 w ro o > 6 u FL 8 u 13 a u 8 q o o o P4 O w ° a! . } 0 1 sj • >> L ' N `'� O o s 3 0) u 'y • O C M tiJ �J O b W 41 O ° u cn U :: 0 y cc: s«, - d cc u 0 Y � � 5g y 0 c 14 o E u y v O — ell r -. s a O 0 .. O 1-4 A p cn Q C . , eel {,� i G O ' • . = y N 7 y ''a' G x �° • 0 .5 v.- 0 * m 0 s O O O .t E z .--. N In 0 W ' 7 ?' r 6e3 G c. 0 ^ V al q co f.n ^ U to 11 O 0 0 0 [z] G a� QJ ar r V \ 04 d3 g f . CZ • 'O a, u In "8 $ _Ng -, o o -a co f9 O ° o 0 ~ a \ Q r4 c, N o a e © ° 5 a. on O ,i u u c4 v , v cv M A W 0 0 a ' b u '0 '04.1 � o° o G - Q O m. ti u 2 X a — . v u x vi 6 g. -6 A y 0 o .3 . pq u o WA L � Q , n Q E ill b ul VI q o A 7 r = ¢.- a . u v N al C7 � c u p y i q r�, o u u O u u u .b y ou 0 © o u 6 pq j i 0 u 9 W W c k 4.,, W U E � w (Ni ri cr vi C 4 Sent By: a; 979 731 1500; Mar -16 -05 2:09PM; Page 6 Wellborn Rc..yurres I.I,C .1 Permit No. WQ001 3850001 DEFINITIONS AND STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS As required by Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 305, certain regulations appear as standard conditions in wastc discharge permits. 30 TAC §§ 305.121 - 305.129 (relating to Perrnit Characteristics and Conditions) as promulgated under the Texas Water Code §§ 5.103 and 5.105, and the Texas Ilealth and Safety Code §§ 361.017 and 361,024(a), establish the characteristics and standards for waste discharge permits, including sewage sludge, and those sections of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CE R) Part 122 adopted by reference by the Commission. The following text includes these conditions and incorporates them into this permit. All definitions in Section 26.001 of the Texas Water Code and 30 TAC Chapter 305 shall apply to this permit and are incorporated by reference. Some specific definitions of words or phrases used in this permit are as follows: 1. Flow Measurements a. Annual average flow - thc arithmetic average of all daily flow determinations taken within the preceding 12 consecutive calendar months_ The annual average flow determination shall consist of daily flow volume determinations made by a totalizing meta, charted on a chart recorder and limited to major domestic wastewater discharge facilities with a 1 million gallons per day or greater permitted flow. b. Daily average flow - the arithmetic average ofall determinations of the daily flow within a period of one calendar month, The daily average flow determination shall consist of determinations made on at least four separate days. If instantaneous measurements are used to determine the daily flow, the determination shall be the arithmetic average of all instantaneous measurements taken during that month. Daily average flow determination for intermittent discharges shall consist of a minimum of three flow determinations on days of discharge. c. Daily maximum flow - the highest total flow for any 24 -hour period in a calendar month d. Instantaneous flow - the measured flow during the minimum time required to interpret the flow measuring device. e. 2 -hour peak flow (domestic wastewater treatment plants) - the maximum flow sustained for a two -hour period during the period of daily discharge. The average of multiple measurements of instantaneous maximum flow within a two -hour period may be used to calculate the 2 -hour peak flow. f. Maximum 2 -ho ur peak flow (domestic wastewater treatment plants) - tbe highest 2 -hour peak flow for any 24 -hour period in a calender month. 2. Concentration Measurements a. Daily average concentration - thc arithmetic average of all effluent samples, composite or grab as required by tbis permit, within a period of one calendar month, consisting of a1 least four scparate representative measurements_ i. For domestic wastewater treatment plants - When four samples are not available in a calendar month, the arithmetic average (weighted by flow) of all values in the previous four consecutive month period consisting of at least four measurements shall be utilized as thc daily average concentration. ii For all other wastewater treatment plants - When four samples arc not available in a calender month, the arithmetic average (weighted by flow) of all values taken during the month shall be utilized as the daily average concentration, b. 7-day average concentration- the arithmetic average of all efflueut samples, composite or grab as required by this permit, within a period of one calendar weep Sunday through Saturday. c_ Daily maximum concentration - the m ucinnnm concentration measured on a single day, by the sample type specified in the permit, within a period of one calender mouth. d_ Daily discharge - the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24 -hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limitations expressed in terms of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the sampling day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the sampling day. • Page 3 Sent By: a; 979 731 1500; Mar -16 -05 2:10PM; Page 7 Wellborn Resources i:1.0 TPDES Permit No. WQ00 1 385000 The "daily discharge" determination of concentration made using a composite sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample. When grab samples are used, the "daily discharge" determination of concentration shall he the arithmetic average (weighted by flow value) of all samples collected during that day. e. Fecal colrfonnbacteria concentration - the number of colonies of fecal colifonn bacteria per 100 milliliters effluent. The daily average fecal conform bacteria concentration is a geometric mean of the values for the effluent samples collected in a calendar month. The geotnetric mean shall be determined by calculating the nth root of the product of all measurements made in a calender month, where n equals the number of measurements rnade; or, computed as the antilogarithm of the arithmetic mean of the Iogarithms of all measurements made in a calender month. For any measurement of fecal coliform bacteria equaling zero, a substituted value of one shall be made for input into either computation method. The 7 -day average for Fecal coliforrn bacteria is the geometric mean of the values for all effluent samples collected during a calcnder week. i'. D average loading (lbs /day) - the arithmetic average of all daily discharge loading calculations during a petiod ()lone calender month. These calculations must be made for each day of the month that a parameter is analyzed. The daily discharge, in tarns of mass (lbs/day), is calculated as ( Flow, MUD x Concentration, mgf 1 x 8.34). g. Daily maximum loading (lbslday) - the highest daily discharge, in terms of mass (Ibs /day), within a period of one calender month. 3. Sample Type a. Composite sample - For domestic wastewater, a composite sample is a sample made up of a minimum of three effluent portions collected in a continuous 24 -hour period or during the period of daily discharge if less than 24 hours. and combined in volumes proportional to flow, and collected at the intervals required by 30 TAC § 319 -9 (a). For industrial wastewater, a composite sample is a sample made up of a minimum of three effluent portions collected in a continuous 24 -hour period or during the period of daily discharge if less than 24 hours, and combined in volumes proportional to flow, and collected at the intervals required by 30 TAC § 319.9 (b). b. Grab sample - an individual sample collected in less than 15 minutes. 4. Treatment Facility (facility) - wastewater facilities used in the conveyance, storage, treatment, recycling, reclamation and/or disposal of domestic sewage, industrial wastes, agricultural wastes, recreational wdsles, or other wastes including sludge handling or disposal facilities under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 5. The term "sewage sludge" is defined as solid, semi - solid, ur liquid iesidue generated during the treatment of duruestic sewage in 30 "TAC Chapter 312. This includes the solids which have not been classified as hazardous waste separated from wastewater by unit processes . 6. Bypass - the intentional diversion of a waste stream from any portion of a treatment facility. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS i . Self- Reporting Monitoring results shall be provided at the intervals specified in the permit. Unless otherwise specified in this permit or otherwise ordered by the Commission, the permittee shall conduct effluent sampling and reporting in accordance with 30 TAC §§ 319.4 - 319.12. Unless otherwise specified, a monthly effluent report shall be submitted each month, to the Enforcement Division (MC 224), by the 20th day of the following month for each discharge which is described by this permit whether or not a discharge is made for that month. Monitoring results must be reported on an approved self- report fond that is s igncd and certified as required by Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 10. As provided by state law, the pennittee is subject to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, as applicable, for negligently or knowingly violating the Clean Water Act, the 'Texas Water Code, Chapters 26, 27, and 28, and Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 361, including but not limited to knowingly making any false statement, representation, or certification on any report, record, or ether document submitted or required to be ma intained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance, or falsifying, tampering with or knowingly rendering inaccurate any monitoring device or method required by this permit or violating any other requirement imposed by state or federal regulations. • Page 4 Sent By: a; 979 731 1500; Mar -16 -05 2:10PM; Page 8 Welhhorn Resources 1.1-.C. C['L)1_;S Permit No. WQ0013i1)0001 2. Test Procedures Unless otherwise specified in this permit, test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall comply with procedures speci ficd in 30 TAC § §3I9.11 - 319.12. Measurements, tests and calculations shall be accurately accomplished in a representative manner. 3. Records of Results a. Monitoring samples and measurements shall he taken at times and in a mannerso as to be representative of the monitored activity. b. Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the permittec's sewage sludge use and • disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as requited by 40 CFR Part 503), monitoring and reporting records, including strip charts and records of calibration and maintenance, copies of ail records required by this permit, records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, and the cet tification required by 40 CFR § 264.73(b)(9) shall be retained at the facility site, or shall bc readily available for review by a TCEQ representative for a period of three years from the date of the record or sample, measurement, report, application or certification. This period shall be extended at the request of the Executive Director. c. Records of monitoring activities shall include the following: i. date, time and place of sample or measurement; ii. identity of individual who collected the sample or made the measurement. iii. date and time of analysis; iv. identity of the individual and laboratory who performed the analysis; v. the technique or method of analysis; and vi. the results of the analysis or measurement and quality assuraw:e/quality control records. The period during which records are required to be kept shall be automatically extended to the date of thc final disposition of any administrative or judicial enforcement action that maybe instituted against the permittee, 4. Additional Monitoring by Pcrmittcc If the permittce monitors any pollutant at the locatiou(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit using approved analytical methods as specified above, all results of such monitoring shall bc included in the calculation and reporting of the values submitted on the approved self - report form Increased frequency of sampling shall be indicated on the self - report form. 5. Calibration of Instruments All automatic flow measuring or recording devices and all totalizing meters for measuring flows shall be accurately calibrated by a trained person at plant start -up and as often thereafter as necessary to ensure accuracy, but not less often than annually unless authorized by the Executive Director for a longer period Such person shall verify in writing that the device is operating properly and giving accurate results. Copics of the verification shall be retained at the facility site and/or shall bc readily available for review by a TCEQ representative for a period of three years. 6. Compliance Schedule Reports Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of the permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date to the Regional Office and the Enforcement Division (MC 224). 7. Noncompliance Notification a. In accordance with 30 TAC § 305.125(9) any noncompliance which may endanger human health or safety, or the environment shall be reported by the permittee to the TCEQ. Report of such information shall be provided orally or by facsimile transmission (FAX) to the Regional Office within24 hours ofbecoming aware of the noncompliance. A written submission of such information shall also be provided by the permittee to the Regional Office and the Enforcement Division (MC 224) within five working days of becoming aware of the noncompliance. The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the potential danger to human health or safcty, or the environment; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance, and to mitigate its adverse effects. Page 5 • „„, yv March 16, 2005 TO: Carol Cotter CS Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Home owners of Hidden Acres Dr. and I &GN Rd. DATE: March 16, 2005 SUBJECT: Proposed Meadow Creek Subdivision. To Whom it May Concern, We are contacting CS Planning & Zoning Commission to request your assistance in resolving several issues with the proposal submitted by Main Street Homes for the Meadow Creek subdivision. We, the adjacent property owners were not formally notified by Main Street Homes as to their intent for the property known as the A &R mobile home park. Neither were we given the opportunity to review the construction plans and their impact prior to the submission of said plans to CS Planning and Zoning, Brazos County Road and Bridge Dept. and to the office of County Commissioner Pct.l. The following will outline the correctable problems with the current proposal submitted by Main Street Homes and suggest remedies to reduce the physical damage and environmental impact to the adjacent properties and/or properties which maintain the outflowing creek known as the "Unnamed Tributary”. Current issues that should be addressed before proposals are approved. 1. Proposed sewer treatment plant was originally submitted to the TCEQ to support the 60- 100 additional mobile homes that were to be added to the A &R mobile home park. Their assumption is that the permit from the TCEQ will convey to Main Street Homes to service a total of 334 residential dwellings with no change to the plans for the treatment plant. a. TCEQ statement only takes into account the water quality of the sewer plant discharge and the existence of a creek to dump it in. b. No study was done on the environmental impact and property damage caused by the constant flow across the down stream properties. 2. Waste water from the sewer treatment plant is proposed to be discharged into the "dry" creek on the adjacent property owned by Larry Young. a. The creek starts as a result of storm drainage from the A &R property and the Jerry Caldwell property. The creek is normally dry 85% of the time and only has moving water during periods of "run off due to storm activity. b. Environmental impact due to constant waste water flow and the subsequent erosion it will cause has been ignored by the project planners. i. Average flow of 120,000 gallons per day. ii. Peak flow of 480,000 gallon per day. c. Economic burden imposed on property owners that own the creek have not been addressed by the project planners. i. Property owners have paid to install culverts, bridges and roads over the creek at several locations. ii. Natural erosion by rainfall and subsequent water "run off' through the creek is usually repaired during the summer months when property owners are insured several weeks, if not months of dry creek conditions. iii. The sewer waste water discharged into the creek will be constantly flowing 24 hours a day 365 days a year. There will no longer be any time when the creek bed will be dry to allow for repairs to culverts or bridges. 3. Drainage from the proposed Meadow Creek subdivision has been shifted completely to the adjacent property owned by Larry Young and subsequently properties owned by Greg Taylor and Jack Winslow. a. Currently at least 50% of the A &R property is below grade level and retains a substantial amount of water from rain and "run off'. b. The creek that currently traverses the A &R property is to be completely removed and the land built up to support the 334 proposed homes. i. The amount of water shed from the Meadow Creek subdivision will be several times the current amount once the homes, streets and other topographical changes are made. ii. Drainage studies only take into account the current flow across the property and do not address the increased flow due to reduced ground water absorption and changes in property elevation. iii. Proposed detention ponds are not sufficient to contain "run off' from entire property. c. Out flow for the final water detention area is directly on the property line, within the utility easement. Essentially discharging the waste water directly on the adjacent property. i. At the point where the water is discharged onto the property owned by Larry Young, the creek is less than 3 ft. wide by 2 - 3 ft. deep . ii. The discharge is dumped onto the property by two chutes that are 4 ft. wide by 2 ft. deep. iii. The destruction of property will be substantial as is the potential for flooding when this outflow hits the small creek when entering the adjacent property. Proposed remedies for water and sewage outflow from the Meadow Creek subdivision: 1. As proposed by Wellborn Special Utility District for management of sewer waste water discharge. a. Install drainage pipe from sewer treatment plant to traverse the 3 affected properties, Larry Young, Greg Taylor and Jack Winslow. b. This will divert the constant flow of water from the treatment plant away from the smaller portion of the creek and avoid the erosion problems associated with it. c. This will discharge the waste water into a larger section of the creek at a point where it travels under I &GN and across undeveloped land. d. The creek at this point contains existing water to co- mingle with the waste water from the sewer treatment plant and will further lessen environmental impact. 2. Main Street Homes to assist in the management of the creek across the 3 affected properties. a. Clean and deepen the creek as needed to allow the efficient flow of water leaving the detention ponds in the Meadow Creak subdivision. b. Installation of appropriate sized concrete culverts under roads on affected properties. This in an effort to minimize the cost incurred by the land owners due to the Main Street Homes construction project and the change in the amount of ground water flow. 3. Installation of privacy fence along the adjacent properties on the southern and eastern property lines. a. Few of the adjacent properties have the luxury of a tree line to block line of sight between the newly constructed homes in the Meadow Creek subdivision. b. This will also provide a sound barrier for the sewer treatment plant. In closing, I want to make it clear that the property owners listed below want to be good neighbors to the Meadow Creek subdivision, but we must insure that our collective properties are not damaged by changes made during construction and subsequent growth of the Meadow Creek subdivision. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, Home owners of Hidden Acres Dr. And I &GN Rd. Rick and Marla Young Richard and Karen Miller Jack and Donna Winslow 5250 Hidden Acres 5050 Hidden Acres Dr. 16004 I &GN Rd. Barry and Janet Young Lee and Johnie McCleskey Darin & Mary Menn 5220 Hidden Acres Dr. 5000 Hidden Acres Dr. 4949 Clayton Ln. Larry and Jonne Young Greg and Cathy Taylor Joe & Lori Gabriel 5205 Hidden Acres Dr. 15796 I &GN Rd. 4975 Clayton Ln. Carol Cotter Planning and Zoning City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 To Whom It May Concern: Attached is a letter sent to TCEQ asking that the permitting of a waste water facility held by Mainstreet Homes (under Wellborn Resources LLC) be amended or revoked. We ask that until this issue is resolved by TCEQ that no plat approval be given to the proposed subdivision, Meadow Creek. Thank you. Sincerely, 0a--7:Z /ay 701 Greg and Cathy Tayl r 15796 I and GN Road College Station, TX 77845 (979) 690 -7236 May 11, 2005 Office of the Chief Clerk MC -105 TCEQ P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711 • Dear Sirs: This letter is meant to express our concerns as homeowners with the Permit #WQ0013850 -001. This permit is now held by Wellborn Resources LLC (segment # 1209). Under the current permit Mainstreet Homes (under Wellborn Resources LLC) will develop a residential subdivision, Meadow Creek, as well as a water treatment facility. Waste water from the sewer treatment plant is scheduled to be discharged into the "dry" creek on the adjacent property owned by Larry and Jonne Young. The water will then travel via the creek over the property of Greg and Cathy Taylor and Jack and Donna Winslow. At that point it will flow into a larger section of the creek and travel across undeveloped land. We have concerns regarding the permitting of this water treatment facility. These are outlined below: 1. Proposed sewer treatment plant was originally submitted to the TCEQ to support the 60 to 100 additional mobile homes that were to be added to the A &R mobile home park. Mainstreet Homes will build a total of 334 residential dwellings with no change to the plans for the treatment plant. A meeting with them on March 31, 2005, revealed that they were ignorant of the course of the creek and of the problems that the landowners had with the flow of the creek. 2. No study was done on the environmental impact and property damage caused by the development of this waste treatment facility. Currently at least 50 percent of the Mainstreet property is below grade level and retains a substantial amount of water from rain and "run off". Sections visually appear as a bog replete with cattails. 3. At present, the "Unnamed Tributary" where the waste water will begin is dry approximately 85% of the year and only has moving water during periods of "run off" due to storm activity. These rainy periods have and will in the future quickly fill the creek to capacity. This is especially significant for the property at 15796 I and GN Road. An attached plat map shows that rain water not only flows down the creek from upstream, but enters the stream from Hidden Acres Road and the I and GN Road. These two latter patterns of rain drainage flow across the Taylor's property and enter an often times full creek. A third source of drainage is from the pond which during times of rain will allow excess water to drain into the creek through an overflow pipe. It is felt that the permitting of this waste treatment facility will put the Taylor Homestead in jeopardy of flooding on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the cost of damages will be born by the Taylor's. This too is a problem on the Jack Winslow property. 4. Outflow for the final water detention area is directly on the property line within the utility easement. This essentially discharges the waste water directly onto the adjacent property. At this point, the water is moved onto the property owned Larry Young. The Larry Young's (5205 Hidden Acres Dr.) and the Rick Young's (5250 Hidden Acres Dr.) have both installed culverts, bridges, and roads over the creek at several locations to allow them access to their homes and I and GN Road. The waste water will be discharged into the creek constantly flowing 24 hours a day 365 days a year. There will no longer be any time when the creek bed will be dry to allow for repairs to culverts or bridges. They will bear the expense of damming the creek to allow for repairs. They also will be monetarily responsible for any damages resulting from flooding of the creek. 5. An alternative route for the discharge of this waste water exists. This is to change the point of discharge to a location further downstream. Once past Jack and Donna Winslow's place, the creek crosses I and GN Road onto undeveloped land. The creek is fed at this point from at least four different locations and maintains a constant water level. It is between 8 to 12 feet wide and can support the additional water from the treatment facility. An outflow pipe could be placed across the affected properties which would drain directly onto the above undeveloped land. A h o-t plc •c ;11 u_; t c,a_t2 s Since, we, the property owners along the creek, were not notified in writing of the permitting of this waste treatment facility and of the subsequent transfer of it to Mainstreet Homes, we appeal to your agency to review this permit and to amend it or revoke it to protect the integrity of the proposed site of development as well as the property downstream from it. Thank you for reviewing these concerns. Sincerely, ( kalyikk i . Greg anV Cathy Taylor Rick and aria Young 15796 I &GN Road 5250 Hidden Acres Dr. College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 (979) 690 -7236 (979) 690 -1159 L � � VJ and/Jo e Young J and Donna Winslow 5205 Hidden Acres Dr. 16004 I &GN Road College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 (979) 690 -1099 (979) 690 -0963 (ir-i r " Planning and Development Services CITY OF COLLEGE STATION p,0. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764 -3570 August 29, 2005 Main Street Homes -CS, Ltd. ATTN: Rick Jenkins 900 Congress Ave., #L -100 Austin, Texas 78701 RE: Meadow Creek Subdivision Final Plat of Phase 1 Mr. Jenkins: I received your letter of inquiry on the availability of retail public utility service to the proposed Meadow Creek Subdivision and have forwarded it to the appropriate individuals. However, this letter affects the Final Plat for Phase 1 that was recently approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. During review of the Final Plat for Phase 1, you were informed that a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) would have to be obtained in order to provide retail sanitary sewer service to the subdivision, and that the CCN would have to be obtained prior to any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. You provided documentation that Wellborn Special Utility District (SUD) would own and operate the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that is required for this subdivision. Being a public utility, Wellborn SUD can provide retail utility service without obtaining a CCN. Therefore, the Final Plat was allowed to proceed to P &Z and was subsequently approved. Your letter now seems to indicate that Wellborn SUD may not be the owner and operator of the WWTP. If this is the case, then the Final Plat cannot be filed for record until a CCN is obtained. Please provide updated information regarding the Owner and Operator of the WWTP. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at 979 - 764 -3570. Sincerely, i aKc- Carol L. Cotter Graduate Engineer cc: Roxanne Nemcik, First Assistant City Attorney Home of Texas A &M University I am very concerned about the Main Street Housing development that is to go in on Koppe Bridge Road. I hope you will seriously address these following concerns. 1. How many homes are planned for that area. We have heard as many as 300 are planned for that 75 acres. 2. Since there are no city sewer services in this area ,how will waste from those homes be handled ?Since they are going to be stacked right next to one another on very small lots they can not be allowed to have septic systems.Will they have their own MUD district? 3. How have you planned to handle the additional traffic from those homes ?Each will have a least two cars per house.How will they all get out to work safely over a railroad track and intersection with no traffic light? That intersection is already difficult to manage safely at peak traffic times as it is now. 4. How will the additional demand for water affect the water pressure to all our homes in that area? 5. Are these homes planned for single family dwellings only ?Have you addressed the possibility of these homes becoming student housing? Many parents buy homes in this price range for their children attending A &M.They rent out the other rooms to others students. If this happens it will of course mean 4 -5 cars per house. Since the Main Street Housing Development has already bought and desecrated the land by bulldozing every tree, I am concerned that there is already an understanding with the city council and this is a "done deal" with no thought about the consequences of urban sprawl with all it's related problems.I hope I am wrong and urge you to be very thoughtful. I hope the council will look at how such development can adversely effect the quality of life in our community and plan carefully for the benefit of all it's citizens.I am looking forward to your reply.My sincere hope is that the council is a council concerned about the quality of life in this most beautiful community which,up to this time, 1 have been proud to call home. Susie Feldman 6501 Koppe Bridge Road College Station,Texas 77845 Main Street Homes -CS Ltd. 900 Congress Ave., #L -100 Austin, Texas 78701 OFF: 512 - 801 -8832 FAX: 512 -478 -5678 August 10, 2005 City of College Station Attn: Carol L. Cotter 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Inquiry on Availability of Retail Public Utility Service Dear Carol: Please be advised that Main Street Homes — CS, Ltd and Wellborn Special Utility District or the ultimate retail public utility purveyor of its choice intends to file an application with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) for sewer utility service in Brazos County. The proposed service area consists of 75 acres with approximately 340 lots (residential). The current development plan calls for 339 residential units or their equivalent service demands needing 5/8 x 3/4" or 1" water meters (roughly 10 to 15 gpm each per AWWA meter equivalency factors). It is anticipated that service will be needed on or about 8 months. Construction will be in phases. The initial service demand will be for 91 lots or lot equivalents. The property is located at Koppe Bridge Road, approximately 5 miles south of College Station, Texas. It is generally bound on the north by City of College Station and on the east by City of Wellborn. You have been identified as a neighboring utility of like kind and /or municipality with an extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) within two miles of the proposed service area. Pursuant to TCEQ regulations, Main Street Homes — CS, Ltd and Wellborn Special Utility District formally asks whether you are willing or able to provide waste water utility service to this property sufficient to meet the TCEQ's minimum service standards plus local demands thereby providing continuous and adequate utility service to the consuming public. Please fill out the questionnaire below and return to us. It will be filed with the TCEQ. Your timely response to this inquiry is greatly appreciated. If you do not respond within ten days of the date of this letter, it will be presumed that you do not desire or cannot provide utility service to the property. This fact will be reported to the TCEQ. Sincerely yours, Ric Jen ns Vice Pr: side t 05 — 1 D jp 3_11_0s- SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE TO 75 ACRES IN BRAZOS COUNTY 1. City of College Station is willing to provide sewer service to the property. yes no 2. City of College Station currently has the service capacities to provide continuous and adequate service to the property except for the mains necessary to interconnect the property with City of College Station's existing utility system. yes no 3. City of College Station will have to build additional service capacities to serve the property. yes no 4. The additional capacities that will be required to serve the property will require the construction of a complete onsite utility system(s) located on the property yes no 5. The additional capacities that will be required to serve the property will consist of: 6. The estimated cost to provide service to the property is $ , of which $ will be paid by the land owner /developer and $ will be paid by . 7. Service will be made available on , 200_ All other requirements for obtaining service from : (signature) (print name) (title) I ;), .' r '' BRAZOS COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT Richard F. Vance, P.E., County Engineer Randy Sims, County Judge Kenny Mallard, Commissioner Precinct 3 Lloyd Wassermann, Commissioner Precinct 1 Carey Cauley. Commissioner Precinct 4 E. Duane Peters, Commissioner Precinct 2 August 12, 2005 Joe Schultz, P.E. Texcon General Contractors 1707 Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 Subject: Meadowcreek Subdivision Phase 1 Dear Mr. Schultz: On Tuesday, July 12, 2005, the Brazos County Commissioners Court approved your variance re.quests to allow sanitary sewer lines to be constructed without encasement, and to allow streetlights to be installed behind curb and gutter in the proposed Meadowcreek Subdivision Phase 1. As addressed in the Brazos County Subdivision and Development Regulations (Article V, Section C, #27), the County will have no maintenance responsibility behind the curb. Please contact us (979- 822 -2127) should you have questions. Sincerely, e a"; hard F. Vance, P.E. County Engineer Meadowcreek - variance request - Cc:. Commissioner Lloyd Wassermann, Pct. 1 , ` Office file . _ . . 2617 Highway 21 West Bryan, Texas 77803 Office (979)822-2127 / Fax (979)775 -0453 CO PLIANC F= CES 1 N L] R P s rX R A E D CERTIFIED MAIL 70042510000723820283 October 31, 2005 Public Works Dept. City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 RE: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Notice(s) of Intent for Meadow Creek, Phase One To Whom It May Concern: As required by Part II.D.3.e of the TCEQ General Permit Number TXR150000 for discharges of storm water runoff from construction sites, Compliance Resources, Inc. is submitting the enclosed Notice(s) of Intent for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity under a TPDES General Permit. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Misti Shafer Enc.: copy of signed Notice(s) of Intent Application (3 pages) PO BOX 3000 #246 • GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627-3000 51 2.930.7733 PHONE • 51 2.864.7629 FAX • WWW.COMPLIANCERESOURCESINC.COM COMPLIANCE RESOURCES N C O R P O R A T E D CERTIFIED MAIL 70041350000441306277 October 31, 2005 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Storm Water & General Permits Team; MC -228 PO Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 -3087 Re: Meadow Creek, Phase One Dear Storm Water Team: On behalf of Main Street Homes, Ltd., Compliance Resources, Inc. is submitting the enclosed Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity under a TPDES General Permit. Please feel free to call if you require more information or have any questions. Sincerely, \& Misti Shafer Enc.: Notice of Intent Application (3 pages) cc: Steve Bartholomew PO BOX 3000 #246 • GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627-3000 51 2.930.7733 PHONE • 51 2.864.7629 FAX • WWW.COMPLIANCERESOURCESINC.COM !0 Main Street Homes -CS Ltd. , a� .* 900 Congress Ave., #L -100 fii" Austin, Texas 78701 OFF: 512 -801 -8832 FAX: 512 -478 -5678 E -mail: rickjenkins @pruowens.com September 6, 2005 City of College Station Planning and Development Services Attn: Carol L. Cotter 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Meadow Creek Subdivision Final Plat of Phase 1 Mrs. Cotter, I received your letter dated August 29, 2005 regarding the letter of inquiry on the availability of retail public utility service to the proposed Meadow Creek Subdivision. The inquiry letter that was sent to the City of College Station is a requirement of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to obtain a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) and must be sent to all neighboring utilities of like kind and /or municipality with an extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) within two miles of the service area. The process of obtaining a CCN does not change Wellborn Special Utility District ( "WSUD ") ability or responsibility to provide retail wastewater service for the Meadow Creek Subdivision that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As specified in the Wastewater Service Agreement ( "Agreement ") dated June 30 2005, WSUD will own and operate the wastewater treatment plant. A copy of this executed Agreement was sent to you as a condition for the approval of the Meadow Creek, Phase 1, final plat. As per the Article III, Section 3.1 of the Agreement between WSUD and Main Street Homes —CS, Ltd. (MSH), a joint CCN application is required to be filed with TCEQ naming WSUD and MSH as joint applicants. As per the Agreement, WSUD will provide retail utility service while the CCN application is being processed. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, 7 Ric 'enkins V President LAW OFFICES OF MARK H. ZEPPA P.C 4833 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite 202 Austin, Texas 78759 -8436 (512) 346 -4011 Fax (512) 346 -6847 mhzeppa(aattglobal.net qlewis1attqlobal.net Mark H. Zeppa Glen E. Lewis c -(512) 289 -4599 c -(512) 461 -9832 March 31, 2005 Ms. Bridgette George Development Coordinator City of College Station P 0 Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 -9960 Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. City Attorney City of College Station P O Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 -9960 Re: Meadow Creek Subdivision Phase 1 Final Plat Dear Ms. George and Mr. Cargill: am regulatory counsel for Main Street Homes and Mr. Rick Jenkins, the developers of the Meadow Creek Subdivision now before the City for final plat approval. As you are aware, state - approved central water and wastewater service will be provided to the subdivision by Wellborn Special Utility District, a water district created under Chapter 65 of the Texas Water Code through the conversion of the former Wellborn Water Supply Corporation. My clients have been advised that the City has problems approving their plat because Wellborn Special Utility District does not hold a utility CCN for the subdivision. Any district created under the Water Code may serve inside and outside the boundaries of the district subject only to limited restrictions involving service to residential customers inside cities.' As a Water Code Chapter 65 water district, Wellborn SUD is not required to have a CCN as a precondition to serve any area not already certificated to or served by another retail public 1 Texas Water Code §49.215 Ms. Bridgette George and Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. March 31, 2005 Page 2 utility. The subdivision has no current retail public utility service. A review of the TCEQ's certification map for this portion of your county posted on the Internet will confirm that the subdivision is not currently certificated to another retail public utility. Thus, Wellborn SUD is empowered under Chapter 65 of the Water Code to provide retail utility service within the subdivision without any further authorization from the state. Whether Wellborn SUD chooses to apply for CCNs (water, sewer or both) to ratify its monopoly on this service area is strictly a management decision of its Board. My clients have also been advised that the City is reluctant to approve their final plat because their wastewater discharge permit (TPDES) has not yet been transferred. The 30 TAC §305.64 TPDES transfer application is generally considered an administarial act, when the transferee, like Wellborn SUD, has no adverse compliance history with either the USEPA or the TCEQ. In my nearly twenty -seven years of water utility regulatory practice I have never known of a case where the agency refused to expeditiously transfer a TPDES to a transferee with a clean compliance history. I dare say that your regulatory counsel, Bill Dugat, III, a friend and colleague who is not quite as long in the tooth as me, has had a similar experience. Normally the TCEQ's processing time for one of these applications is less than ninety days. From the documents sent me, it appears the transfer process was started by Main Street Homes in February. Let us assume in arguendo that the TCEQ did delay in transferring the TPDES to Wellborn SUD. The subdivision still has a permit for a state - approved wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and associated sewer system. Wellborn SUD may still construct, operate and maintain a retail public sewer utility within the subdivision without any additional licenses or permits from the state. The developers only need to construct and allow Wellborn to operate their WWTP for them under the TPDES under some mutually acceptable contract pending transfer of the TPDES. The TPDES mandates the operation of the WWTP under the control and supervision of a licensed operator(s). Wellborn SUD can be that operator. This will certainly not be the only instance where this is occurring in Texas on an interim or permanent basis. In all due respect, I do not believe that your concerns about the Meadow Creek plat are well founded or are supported by the Texas Water Code. If you have 2 Texas Water Code § §13.002(19), 13.002(20), and 13.242(a) Ms. Bridgette George and Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. March 31, 2005 Page 3 any questions, please call me or have Mr. Dugat call me. Sincerely yours, Mar H. epp Cc: William Dugat, III Rick Jenkins Leonard Dougal