Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/2000 - Regular Minutes - Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee WOLF PEN CREEK OVERSIGHT COMM EE PRE-DESIGN CHARETTE WORKSHOP NOON, JUNE 2, 2000 COLLEGE STATION CONFERENCE CENTER 1300 GEORGE BUSH DRIVE Members Present: James Massey, Dennis Maloney — City Council; Kay Henryson, Phillip Kelby, Alternate Design Review Board; Sharon Colson, WPC TIF; George Dresser, Alternate — Parks & Recreation ..ard. Members Absent® Marsha Sanford, Alternate — WPC TIF; Sarah Birkhold — Parks & Recreation Board; Wayne Rife, Judith Warren, Alternate— Planning &Zoning Staff Present: Steve : chy, Eric Pl•-ser, David Wi• - Parks & Recreation; Glenn Brown, City Manager's Office; Frank Simoneaux, Bob Mosley - Public Works; Kelly Cole Public Relations; Charles Wood - Economic Development; Jim Callaway, Jane Kee Development Services; Pamela Springfield, Committee Secretary Visitors: Tom Woodfin, TAMU Department of Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning; Mike McClure, Kent Laza, Bob Ruth, Landscape Architect — McClure Engineering; Paul Clarke, Jim Dunlap — Clarke & Wyndham, Inc.; Scott Shafer, TAMU/Greenways Council; Elton Abbott, Mike Record — The Arkitex Studio, Inc.; Chara Ragland, Bill Trainor — Design Review Board; Brian Weihausen — Kay Henryson, AIA; Lynn Mcllhaney, Mayor; Anne Hazen, Winnie Garner—City Council Pre-Design Charette Worksho Call To Order: James Massey called the meeting to order with a quorum of the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee (WPC) present, at 8:16 a.m. James thanked everyone for being there. He said it was important that everyone understood where the project was currently, and where it was going (see graphic at front of the attached handout). James stated that the committee's charge was to oversee the implementation of the WPC Master Plan and keep it on track. He stated that the US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) had become a very important part of the project, providing a regulatory dimension to the project. The restrictions would be discussed. James said that at this workshop stage, the goal was to come up with ideas beyond the regulatory limits of what the project could be. He explained that along with those limits, Tom Woodfin of TAMU Department of Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning, would have his class do market studies over the summer to establish who the potential users/customers of the corridor will be. Also, Scott Shafer with the Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences will be providing demographic data and accessibility studies that had previously been done. All the information combined, will help to define what could be done from Texas Avenue to the Earl Rudder Freeway. The design charette would then be held in October. Kay Henryson stated that she had two goals in mind for the charette (page 2- 4 of the handout)® Get all the different groups together so that all the information meshes. Divide all participants into four or more different groups, which would target the major areas of the whole corridor. • After the charette is over, have something visual that could be used for marketing purposes Kay said it was important that the goals of the charette be defined for everyone who would be participating in it® An overview of the City's status with the Corps was given by Kent Laza and Bob Ruth of McClure Engineering. Throughout the process questions and concerns were raised and addressed. Tom Woodfin also addressed the group. A summary of the workshop discussion follows: WPC Oversight Committee-June,2000 Pre-Charette Workshop Page 2 Conceptual Plan: The conceptual plan, which had been approved by the WPC and submitted to the p a s a a o Corps, was the result of months of negotiating - coming up with ideas that the Corps would accept which could be developed around. It wasn't the first plan submitted® If the conceptual plan changes at this point, McClure Engineering would have to start over. Aquatic Environment: The Corps wants to recreate an aquatic environment along the channel: Qp They want to put back as much natural vegetation as possible. • They want the stream to flow by itself, creating pools, with natural meanders and a mud bottom ® no channel linings or concrete® • They want to allow sediment to pass through ® no sediment traps. Sediment is good for the aquatic environment downstream® US Army Cors of Engineers Design Restrictions (page 6 of handout): It was known early on y g g that the Corps would be involved, when a study indicated that there were wetlands in the project (no p endangered species). Also, any time fill or dirt work is done in a channel area of a project, the Corps g gets involved. ® The comments and feedback received from the Corps after the initial conceptual plans had been submitted, were used to develop the first four design restrictions. • Clarification was requested on restriction #4 regarding the meaning of 7n the immediate vicinity of the stream'. Kent stated that the restrictions were received by e-mail from the Corps representative, however, they weren't from taken from a book that states what can and cannot be done. The restrictions are a little •ray, but this was McClure Engineering's interpretation® Other Design Restrictions (page 6 of handout): • Item #1 is a City restriction created after hydrological stu•.ies of the channel were done for the restaurant developments along Highway 30. • Items #2 and #3 are FEMA restrictions. Concerns: • Risingwater from the Wolf Pen Plaza development � The developer has stated that the development was modeled so that it will not affect the floodway by more than one foot. City staff has reviewed this extensively and agrees® McClure Engineering has expressed similar concerns to the City and everything has been addressed® A new floodplain model has been submitted to FEMA. • People being drawn to water/keeping children out of the stream area for safety reasons ' The normal flow is only about 3°®4' wide and 6" deep. It will not be attractive to most people. Will not really be able to keep children out® It's possible to have some overlook areas. • Concerns about what was actually being developed/trading off wetlands in one area for another The Corps is looking at this as a restoration project and the more closely their definition of that is followed, the easier it will be to get the permit Every time the wetlands are moved, they have to agree to the redesign. ® Developing the prof in such a way that would allow development close to the water, and identifying areas where that could be done as soon as possible before the engineers fy g o individual e m get too far along '' Developing it differently would require an individual permit from the Corps and o significant environmental assessments would have to be made. Because this is a flood area, the g o � o o e individual a o Corps advised keeping it a restoration project and not getting into individual permits. Every aspect of o m e development has been considered - from a riverwalk-type project to nothing ® and development outside and at the top of the creek was the only place the Corps was comfortable doing anything permanent. Minimal interaction with the creek, like the bridge area between Kona's and Johnny Carino's, will be a much easier scenario to achieve for this site than getting people down low to walk along the edges of the water. This is true for two reasons. There won't be much water to see when it floods, if something is built uphigh, it won't be washed away or dammed up with normally; 9 debris. WPC Oversight Committee-June,2000 Pre-Charette Workshop Page 3 • Removal of trees: Bob Ruth said he tried to save every tree by creating a pathway system through the natural creek and cutting another channel through another area, but the Corps wouldn't agree to it. The Corps will allow trees to be protected via retaining walls made of timber or rock as long as they are kept isolated and are not uniform throughout the project Wetland Areas: • The entire project itself is not a wetland. The wetlands are along the channel where water is running, and there are pockets of wetlands in surrounding areas. There is no map showing the wetland areas. • It is possible to trade a wetland in one area off for a wetland to be created in another area® This was addressed when the Corps representative was here, and they know that almost all of the wetlands in this project will be destroyed and will have to be recreated somewhere else within the project. McClure Engineering does not feel that it is necessary to establish the percentage and location of wetlands currently there. • Sidewalks or development close to the stream, would not be compatible with the aquatic environment the Corps wants recreated® Boulders, rocks, and natural objects, which would create the little pockets and allow the plant life that's needed to support the wetland environment, would be compatible® • A highly manicured park setting will not achieve the goal that the Corps is after. They want something that's more or less left alone® There may be room for compromise ® areas with wetlands and cattails, etc. - but also areas that can be mowed® • There will be one permit given for the entire project from Texas Avenue to Earl Rudder Freeway® It may not be possible to do the project all at once, but the permit will be in place. The Corps understands that the City intends this to be an asset (retail opportunities and park settings) as well as a drainage project What needs to be done: Mike McClure stated that the wetlands are so dense, it is hard to know what's there® Need to: • Go to the site with field crews and define what the limits of the floodway are plus the 20'. • Get field notes written for easements, so the City can acquire the land. That way anything within that boundary cannot be changed. • Clear out some of the underbrush so you can see what's there® • Do a tree evaluation — some specimen trees will be kept, which may require a meander added to the channel in order to save something® • Have another meeting after these things take place to discuss what could possibly be done out there. Goals & the Charette: Tom Woodfin stated that a package would be put together over the summer for the charette. It will be done in a consistent format so that everyone sees the same thing and so that each of the teams will know what the opportunities and the restrictions are. The package would be neutral as far as information content but would express the goals of the stakeholders. It would have strong graphic content and show some of the detail work that's already been done. It will be brought back toward the end of summer for review. The students will create an 11" x 17" foldout that could be mailed, describing what the event will be about. Tom said that the charette should involve all the stakeholders, including developers and the private sector and should allow the developers' interests to be expressed and committed to on everyone's part. In this way the profit potential for the development is there and what occurs on the undeveloped parcels of land fit into the whole image of what the corridor is® Everyone should be working as a team leaving opinions at the door. Tom wanted everyone to decide on what the image of the entire district, the creek corridor, and the image along the street should be® A list of goals and a list of participants for the charette were compiled. Formatting of the charette was also discussed. (See attached "Vision for WPC Goals", "WPC Design Charette Participants", and "WPC Design Charette Format".) WPC Oversight Committee-June,2000 Pre-Charette Workshop Page 4 James reminded everyone that the regularly scheduled WPC Oversight Committee meeting was cancelled due to the workshop, but there would be other meetings before the charette took place. Further details and ideas for the charette could be worked out at future meetings. Adjourn: The workshop adjourned at 11:44 a.m.