Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/1990 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Vice Chairman Dresser, Members Colson, Michel, Davis, and Esmond MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Gentry STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services, Elrey Ash Senior Planner Kee, Assistant to City Engineer Morgan, Assistant City Attorney Banks, and Planning Technician Rosier. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of February 1, 1990. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of minutes - meeting of January 18, 1990. (page 1 - ~~Ms. Kee informed the Commission that Valleybrook exceeds the 600 foot cul-de-sac length requirements; it • is approximately 660 feet long.~~ Colonial was the cul-de-sac being referred to, not Valleybrook as typed in the minutes.) Mr. Dresser made a motion to amend the minutes of January 18, 1990 with the above mentioned correction. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: 90-100: A public hearing on the question of rezoning the following property: Eight tracts of land lying in the Texas Centroid Ranch, which is generally located in the southeastern area of the intersection of S.H. 6 and Greens Prairie Road, and in area which is commonly referred to as the Pebble Creek subdivision, from A-O Agricultural Open and A-P Administrative Professional to R-4 Low Density Apartments, A-O Agricultural Open, C-1 General Commercial, A-P Administrative Professional, R-1 Single Family Residential, and R-3 Townhouse. Applicant is TCR Joint Venture. Senior Planner Kee presented the staff report by first explaining the purpose of the request which is to establish zoning classifications for the development of the Pebble Creek subdivision and golf course. She stated that most of the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open which was placed on it at the time of annexation. She then explained the request for each portion of the subject property in greater detail. (see below) 1. A-O to R-4 (10.74 ac) 2. A-O & A-P to R-4 (34.94 ac) 3. A-O & A-P to A-O (25.85 ac) for park/school site 4. A-O to C 1 (4.13 ac) 5. A-O & A-P to A-P (10.02 ac) 6. A-O to A-O (56.95 ac) for golf course 7. A-O to R-1 (115.60 ac) 8. A-O to R-3 (22.86 ac) Ms. Kee explained the existing land use and this project's future land use plan. Kee's explanation was accompanied by a slide presentation. She addressed the following aspects of this project: street capacity, access, drainage, flood plain, special features, and water/sewer capacities. Another aspect which she addressed was the area zoned R-1 (out of the 115.6 acres) behind the lots adjacent to the unnamed street. She said that the developer called this area greenspace. Ms. Kee stated that since the current A-O is an interum zoning classification, the Zoning Ordinance requires permanent zoning to be established for the property to develop. Also, she said that the request for R-1 & A-O zoning matches the preliminary plat approved in 1989. Ms. Kee explained this project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the following: - Future Land Use Plan - Development Policies Land Use Density Separation Depth - Impacts w/ Existing Land Uses Ms. Kee said that future expansion to the landfill may call for access to Greens Prairie and the deletion of access to Rock Prairie Road. She stated that access to the R-4 tract from Greens Prairie Road will be determined at the time of development of this tract. In conclusion, Kee stated that staff has identified no conflicts at this time between this request and the Comprehensive Plan, the development policies, or existing land uses. Mr. Esmond asked how much of the subject property has been platted at this time. Ms. Kee pointed out those areas on the zoning map of Pebble Creek on the wall. Mr. Dresser asked why C-1 zoning was proposed. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 2 Ms. Kee said that originally, C-3 was proposed for that tract. However, it was decided that C-1 would be a better alternative. Since there were no other questions, Chairman Sawtelle opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against this item, so she closed the public hearing. Mr. Colson asked about future location of the internal road. Ms. Kee said that the exact location has not been determined. Therefore, it is being noted as a dotted line. Mr. Michel voiced concern over the proposed C-1 zoning because so many of the permitted uses of that particular classification may not be appropriate, considering the proximity to residential lots. (ie: garages, hardware stores, nightclubs, ...) Ms. Kee pointed out that an area of trees would provide a buffer. Mr. Michel asked what guarantees that the area will always remain wooded. Ms. Kee said that it is provided as a buffer area and would be maintained by the developer through a homeowner's association. Mr. Michel asked if the developer could chop down the trees in the future. Ms. Kee said that staff is researching other cities to see how the maintenance of a buffer is ensured. To answer Mr. Dresser's questions in regard to the maintenance of this open space, Mike Sheridan of 1308 Sussex came forward to speak on behalf of the developer. Mr. Sheridan said that this property would be dedicated to a homeowners' association. Mr. Dresser asked if the land would be owned by a homewoners' association which would be a legal entity. Sheridan said that Mr. Dresser was correct in his understanding. Mr. Esmond asked Mr. Sheridan what type of buffer was planned. Sheridan said that the current vegetation would provide the buffering unless it dies, in which case a physical barrier such as a fence would provide the buffer. He said that a natural buffer would certainly be preferred. Mr. Michel asked if he heard correctly that the original proposal was C-3 and was changed to request C-1. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 3 Mr. Sheridan referred the question to Dan Sears who was in the audience. Mr. Sears said that C-3 was discussed. Mr. Michel asked if the developer proposed C-3 and staff persuaded the change to C-1, or if staff proposed C-3 and the developer persuaded the change to C-1. Mr. Sears answered that he was not sure. Ms. Kee said that there was discussion of a restaurant facility being built on this tract. Therefore, staff recommended C-1. Mr. Dresser asked if the buffer is platted. Mr. Sheridan said that it would be included on the final plat. Mr. Dresser, Mr. Sheridan, and staff discussed the platting of the buffer. Mr. Esmond said that he had no objection to staffs' review and subsequent recommendation. Mr. Dresser said that he was not objecting to staffs' intent but rather to zoning a buffer C-1. Other members of the Commission corrected Mr. Dresser by saying that the buffering is proposed R-1. Mr. Dresser asked where the property line exists which distinguishes the C-1 zoning. He said that there is a space between the back of the lots, and where the C-1 zoning begins, which is not shown. Ms. Kee said that based on comments by the developer, it is her understanding that the R-1 zoning goes from the back lot lines to the proposed road. She said that staff would ensure that the metes and bounds description includes the buffer area as R-l. Mr. Esmond asked if the Zoning Ordinance requires screening. Ms. Kee said that it does require screening between commercial development and adjacent, developed, residential property lines. Mr. Michel asked what the bottom line is. Mr. Dresser said that it is his understanding that when they draw up the metes and bounds description for the ordinance, staff will ensure the inclusion of R-1 zoning of the buffer. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning which was seconded by Esmond. The motion carried unanimously in a vote of 6-0. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 4 ITEM NO. 4: A public hearing to receive public comment on the Capital Improvement Committee's project identification. Chairman Sawtelle explained how this item will be conducted. I. Staff Report presented by Elrey Ash II. Report by the Capital Improvements Committee III. P&Z Commission's questions of Staff and Committee IV. Public Hearing V. Commission's specific opinions Elrey Ash, Director of Development Services, introduced himself and explained his responsibilities in regard to the CIP Committee. He presented a brief history of the Capital Improvement Program and explained its relationship to bond elections. Mr. Ash's presentation was accompanied by a flow chart of the two committees appointed by Council: CIP Citizens Advisory & Library Committee. He said that this chart explained their progress up to this point. Mr. Ash explained that the role of the P&Z Commission is to act as a focus group. He asked the Commission to look at these projects and their prospective rankings for completeness and coherence with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the meeting was advertised as a public hearing and citizens will be given the opportunity to speak. Next, David Brochu, CIP Committee Chairman, came forward to speak. He pointed out that all utility projects were missing from the ranking because of the critical timing of the switch from Gulf State Utilities to TMPA. He explained the ranking system which was used by the CIP Committee as follows: 6 = Should definitely be funded (due to legal requirements or other impacts) 5 = Should be considered important for funding 4 = Important but could be cut if necessary 3 = Important if extra funds are available 2 = Not very important 1 = Should not be considered He proceeded to list those projects which were ranked as a "4" or greater. These were the top eleven projects on the ranking chart: 1. Traffic Signal Control System - current system is 10 years old, needs to be updated. 2. Extension of Rock Prairie to Wellborn Road 3. Welsh Street through Westchester Park (#2 & #3 ranked highly, due to their relationship to schools.) 4. Sidewalk Improvements - sidewalks are much needed, Sidewalk Committee will determine location 5. Rehabilitation of Collectors/Thoroughfares - is a 4 million dollar project to be divided over a 3 year period. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 5 6. Northgate - $500,000.00 to be used for consultant fees and/or projects that may arise. (that is the smallest amount that can be allocated to receive a federal grant of matching funds) Mr. Brochu said that these figures were provided by Staff. He also stated that the cost of these projects did affect their rankings. 7. Community Center Parking - much needed, Committee decided not to include this item with the other park projects. 8. Wolf Pen Creek Phase II - not the same as the phase currently underway. 9. Facilities Maintenance Building - important to establish a work space/storage place 10. Krenek Tap Rd. - high priority because it is the access to Central Park 11. Traffic Signal Enhancements - equipment needs to replaced/updated. In general, Mr. Brochu said that the Committee tended to shy away from high operational costs. He also pointed out on the ranking chart, the "standard deviation" which reflects the diversity of opinions of the Committee members. In conclusion, Mr. Brochu said that in his opinion, the general feeling of the group could be expressed as, "let's take care of what we've got". He said that Wolf Pen Creek was the sole exception displayed in the ranking. Mr. Ash then explained the format of the CIP ranking chart. Mr. Colson asked if the CIP Committee used any citizen surveys conducted in the past to provide information for the rankings. Mr. Brochu said that they did not. He said that the Committee consists of 19 people which they felt, represented most of the public. Mr. Colson expressed his displeasure, having been involved in so many surveys and not having his comments used for anything. Mr. Brochu said that he was not aware of the surveys to which Mr. Colson was referring. He said that the Library Committee did conduct a survey which was used in their report to the CIP Committee. However, Brochu said that the CIP Committee felt that they had too many issues to conduct a similar survey. Mr. Colson asked if the Committee was endorsing the top eleven projects which total a cost of about 8 million dollars. Mr. Brochu said that the Committee's function is not to determine a "breaking point" but rather to prioritize all of these projects. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 6 Mr. Colson asked where the sidewalks are being proposed to be placed. Brochu said that the Sidewalk Committee conducted extensive research in regard to sidewalk location. He said that the information regarding the sidewalk research could be provided to the Commission. Mr. Michel asked if the five members of the Committee, who were absent at the time of this ranking, would be given another opportunity to participate. If so, will this significantly alter the results of the project ranking. Mr. Brochu said that the other members will be given an opportunity to participate in the ranking when the Committee meets again. However, he said that the group has been fairly consistent in past rankings. Therefore, he did not believe that their results would affect the rankings very much. Mr. Dresser asked why non-revenue projects such as "Lotrak" were not included on the list. Mr. Brochu said that there were no dollar figures available to the Committee; basically it is still too uncertain. Mr. Dresser asked if the projects listed are candidates for the bond program. If so, he said that in his opinion some of the projects listed are annual expansions of the City which he believes should be requested in the annual budget. Mr. Ash said that he assumed that Mr. Dresser is referring to such items as Rehabilitation of Collectors/Thoroughfares and Park Renovations. He said that these items are considered too high in cost for the City's General Operating Budget. Mr. Dresser asked if these costs were a "one shot deal" or if they would be needed annually. Mr. Ash said that these items have typically been handled through bond elections in the past. He said that Council will decide if that is to be the procedure in the future. Mr. Esmond asked if these operational costs will be necessary every year from this point forward. Mr. Brochu said that some of the projects such as the Library would have ongoing operational costs. Mr. Ash said that the operational cost listed is to be split over a three year period. Mr. Esmond clarified his understanding by saying that these projects will create additional obligations for the City beyond the original costs which will appear in future budgets. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 7 Mr. Brochu said that Mr. Esmond was correct in his understanding. In referring to Fire Station #3, Mr. Esmond asked how the initial cost could be so low in comparison to the operating costs. Mr. Ash referred him to page 6 of the CIP notebook to see how figures were derived. Mr. Esmond asked why the CIP Committee's rankings were drastically different from the rankings given to projects by Council. He asked which ranking will be utilized. Mr. Brochu said that he believed that a blend of the two rankings will probably be the outcome. He mentioned that another stipulation to the CIP Committee's ranking process was that the quantity of 5's and 6's, were limited. He also stated that the Committee had a presentation for each item which affected its ranking. In contrast, Mr. Brochu said that the Council's rankings were more conceptually based. Mr. Esmond asked if costs of the projects affected their rankings. Brochu said the costs were considered but the Committee did not determine any figures to take to the public on a bond election ballot. Ms. Davis asked if the cost of equipment for the Fire Station was included in the operational costs. Mr. Ash referred to page 6 to answer her question. Chairman Sawtelle then opened the public hearing. Mr. Dick Haddox of the College Station City Council came forward. He said that he was not representing the Council but rather the people who elected him. He said that he wanted to add another project to the list; a city lake. He said that the idea had only been discussed conceptually and that was the reason it only ranked 43rd in the Council's ranking. Mr. Haddox said that Stuart Kling of Kling Engineering helped with the technical aspects of the item about to be presented. He said that Chris Kling, President of the Chamber of Commerce, is also here to endorse the merits of this project. Mr. Haddox presented the proposed location as being near the Pebble Creek subdivision and wilderness park. He said that he is Chairman of the Economic Development Foundation for College Station, and President Elect of the Joint Economic Development Foundation for Bryan/College Station. He explained the importance of this project for future economic growth. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 8 Mr. Haddox pointed out that the surrounding area is currently being developed by Fitch, Young and Global Resources. He said that they would donate the land for a 100 acre lake, if the City built the dam. In addition, he said that they would donate 12 acres for a City park and 19 acres below the dam that would tie in the lake and dam along with the wilderness park. He listed the following positive aspects of the project: - Allen Creek could be a water feature throughout the wilderness park (which could be maintained in such a way as to have a constant water level provided by the lake) - Lake would provide something for kids to do (which would help our efforts to combat the drug problem) - The lake cost of $250,000.00 is a bargain (F. M. Young would donate about $50,000.00 of dirt work.) - The lake would not allow motorized water recreation, just canoes, paddle boats, wind surfing, etc... - Developer could build houses by the lake except by the parking area - Panther Creek would be a more time consuming project, whereas this project could be complete within 6 months. - Development would utilize an already existing Waste Water Treatment Plant - Lake would be an asset to an already outstanding Park System He said that the City contractually has an obligation in regard to the College Station Development Park with W. D. Fitch to build a road in this area. The location of this road could depend on development of this area. Mr. Colson asked what portion of the road would be a City expense. Mr. Haddox explained that the cost for the road across the dam is approximately $180,000.00. He said that this would be an extension of a thoroughfare. He also said that this road could cause a domino effect in development in this area. Mr. Colson asked him to compare this proposed 100 acre lake to another body of water approximately the same size to help his comprehension of the project. Mr. Haddox said that it would be approximately 2.5 times the size of Carter Lake. He said that it would not be large enough for a City reservoir. Mr. Haddox said that Mr. Callaway and Ron Ragland did not believe there would be any problems with extending the city limits. Chris Kling, who lives at 1113 Ashburn and is President of the Chamber of Commerce, came forward to speak in favor of this project. He said that the project has vision and he believes that it is much needed. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 9 Stuart Kling then passed out some information sheets. Mr. Haddox said that this information attempts to demonstrate the dollar value of the land being contributed for this project. Ms. Davis asked about the figures on the 2nd page of the handout. Stuart Kling responded that they were typographical errors and cited the corrections as follows: the 6 should be 12 and the 12 should be 19. He said that the total would be 31 acres. David Brochu asked Mr. Haddox how much the operational costs were estimated to be for the lake and dam. Mr. Haddox said that he did not know. Mr. Brochu said that the item will have to be returned to staff for research. Hubbard Kennady said that he believes that this project would enhance the already existing Lick Creek Park. Councilman Gardner said that he had another project that he hoped would be put on the list. He referred to the property at the northeast corner of Dartmouth and Colgate which would be next to the Ampitheater and Dartmouth. He proposed that City try to purchase this land to be used for a Cultural Arts Center with a major library. Mr. Ash said that the $500,000.00 figure was selected because it is the minimum amount that could be allocated and still receive matching federal funds. He said that if the Council feels that the figure is too low, we can certainly raise it. Mr. Gardner said that this idea needs to be sold to the voters regardless of its price. He said that he hoped that it would not even cost $500,000.00. Mr. Gardner also expressed concern that the facility maintenance building be built with consideration to the neighborhood surrounding City Hall. Mr. Gardner asked if any members of the public were at the meeting since it was advertised as a public hearing. There was one member of the public in the audience. Mr. Gardner said that there was insufficient advertising done for this meeting. He said that he would like to better efforts toward increasing public awareness. Ms. Sawtelle said that she was of the understanding that the Eagle elected not to do anything. She said that she heard it advertised on the radio. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 10 Mr. Gardner said that he had seen it advertised on television but would have liked to have seen more in the print media. He asked if there were to be two more public hearings. Mr. Ash explained where the Committee is, in terms of the flow chart. He said that more public meetings with more advertising could definitely be considered. Next, Sharon Colson of 1116 Neal Pickett came forward to speak. She said that she believes that the deterioration of neighborhood streets is a real problem in College Station. She said that in her opinion, petition paving should have been ranked as a higher priority. She said that a 1984 City Survey concluded that most citizens feel that street maintenance is poor. She noted that while the projects regarding street extensions have no operational costs listed on the Committee's chart, at some point we must become concerned with street repair. Mrs. Colson said that she was told that the amount of traffic plays a part in determining which streets need to be repaired. She disagreed with using this criteria because a neighborhood street could conceivably never make the "list". She echoed Mr. Brochu's feelings of, "let's take care of what we've got". Mrs. Colson cited the Carters Grove Addition as a prime example of an area needing street repair. Mrs. Colson also stated that street improvement in historical additions would make them more desirable to live in. Mr. Dresser said that the description of petition paving, states that the residents of a street may sign a petition for its repair. He asked Mrs. Colson if she thought that the City should initiate the paving if there is no petition from its residents. Mrs. Colson said that she would hope so. Carroll J. Messer of 1203 Berkeley came forward to add to Mrs. Colson's comments. He expressed concern about the City's street system. He said that they were poorly designed. He believes that streets need to be reconstructed block by block. He said that his neighborhood has no drainage control and he believes the City of College Station to be negligent. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Messer how many miles of streets need to be replaced. Mr. Messer said that in his opinion, probably about 1.25 miles. Chairman Sawtelle closed the public hearing. i Mr. Dresser asked about the amount of money shown on the chart to be used for sidewalk improvements. P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 11 • :7 Councilman Birdwell explained how the Sidewalk Committee arrived at that dollar amount. He said that the proximity to schools was considered. He said that the $300,000.00 would build most of the sidewalks on their list. Mr. Ash named some of the streets on the sidewalk list. Chairman Sawtelle said that the Commission could state opinions but it was not their purpose to approve or re-rank. Mr. Esmond said that he believes that many of the infrastructure items should be placed above new projects on the ranking list. He said that he likes the lake project mentioned by Mr. Haddox. He said that he did not understand how Rock Prairie got ranked so high but he basically agreed with the others. Mr. Colson said that he believes that the rehabilitation of Collectors/Thoroughfares as a bond issue, is like borrowing money for our own maintenance. Mr. Dresser said that he was concerned that we must borrow money for improvements. There was general discussion concerning this issue between Mr. Ash, Councilman Haddox, Councilman Birdwell and members of the P&Z Commission. Closing this discussion, Mr. Dresser made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. Colson. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. (6-0) APPROVED: Chairman, Nancy Sawtelle C ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks P&Z minutes 3-1-90 page 12 • V Z Y Z Q r U •W O ~_ U /\~~ VJ r~ T /~ VJ T • ~n N t` P ~Y O ~O W N ~y ~O 111 ~O P ~7 1` P O P N ~1 N l!1 ~'- ~Y N P N ~t ti tf~ CO ~7 P ~7 ~ P P O P N ~ ti ~7 ~t M~+'~ t~ M ~t ~ 1` t!1 00 N ~1' o0 ~O V1 e0 ~ ~ Vl 00 N ~ ~0 t~ N ~ M ~ ti l!l ~ N ~7 P P ifl N M ~ !~ Lf1 O~ N 7 M M O f` t~ O ~O ~ N ~t ~ ~7 t~• c0 ~O P O M 1 I~ O ~ M ~O 7 I~• t O M ~ ti O 1 t` t~• ~t ~ M I~• M 00 N P M ~ ~ ~ •O o0 O ~ 1` ~ c0 M I` ~ N A .-- ti t!1 ~ ti M ti M •'"' lfl N ~ ti l!1 CO ti M ~ ~ ti f~ N ~O ~ N ~} ~ M Vl N N N t~ V1 CO N 1 M M M ~O O o t~ ~ 00 N ~ M c0 ti 00 N P O ~i' ti tIl M M N W 00 O ~ ti t1'1 M M ti ~ M_ P O ti lf1 CO N M 00 ti r- O 00 O P N ~ ~ N M M M N t~ ~O P N ~ ~ N M P O O ~O mot' ~O ~ N ~} .-- M ~O f~ O M ~ ti O M f~ c0 t!~ M M ~ M ~ M ~t P N ~ 1~ N in in P 7 in ~O ~ N ~ ~O N c0 ti ~ N P O ~ ti ~ M N `O N P ~i' P O `O ~ N ~ ~ N in N ti P P O M ~ ti 0 N I~ CO ~O c- P O M ~ ti 0 N ~O N P ~t P O t ~ LIl t0 M P c0 ti to O ti ~ ~ 1` P N P P ~O O ti lfl CO ti N c0 CO O ~O ~ N ~t ~O N M M M ~O O ~ ti to M •p ? •O ~O v~ t ~? in u~ N to M M ~'- `O ~7 N M M N N M ~T M N ~ ~- N ~ ~- N .p •p •p ll~ M ~ •p N t l11 ~t ~n .t in M M ~t M M ~t ~t M ~t M M M ~t •-- N N N N N N ~ ~O l!1 ~7 lf1 lf1 ~t ~O ~O M t11 .Y N M ~t ~t ~O ~7 ~t ~t ~t ~? ~t M M M M M ~t M M N N M N ~ •p ~t .t ll1 lf1 ~O ~t Vl ~t 7 ~ ~- M M ~t ~O M M tll M M ~7 ~O •- M ~t ~t N N M •- ~ N .-- N lf1 ~O ~O ~t ~O ~7' M ~n ~i v~ t M u~ ~t M M N M M N N M N •D M ~ ~ N ~ ~O ~i' ~i' M ~t N t!1 ~7 ~Y ~t ~i ~7 ~t ~t ~7 ll1 ~O ~O ~i' ~t ~t ~t r• ~ ~O ~Il lf~ ~t M ~7 M M ~i M ~- M ~"' tf1 ~t ~Y ~O ~ `O lf1 .t ~Il M M ~t M ~O N N ~t M N l/l ~t N ~t ~t ~t N N ~? N N r M N ~ N ~O ~O ~ t!1 ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N M N N N N N ~t N Vl N .t N ~n N N M N N N M ~7 N ~O .t N ~t l!1 ~i ~O ~O M ~t l!'1 l11 ~i• ~Y ~ ~t M M ~t ~n .t ~7 `O ~t ~7 N ~ r- ~t M M N ~- N M ~ t11 ~O ~O ~O M ~O l!1 ~t to ~t ~t ~t ~t ~t t!1 ~Y ~t M ~t ~ ~t ~t ~t M N ~t N M N N M ~t N N N M ~ ~O ~O ~t ~Y ~t r- ~t M M tIl ~t ~O ~7 ~t `O N tf1 lfl N M ~7 N M M M N N 1f1 ~t N N ~ N N N ~ t!1 ~O ~O M M ~O N ~ ~ M ~ ~ M M ~ M N ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ N to l!1 M M M •-- N M N N ~- M ~O •O ~O to ~t ~n M Y• ui ~n ~Y ~7 ~O ~t M M M M ~7 M M M ~ M M N N .-- N ~ ~t N r- N N M t!1 .O .1 lf1 ~ ~O l!1 ~O ~!1 ~t ~7 ~O ~t ~t M M ~7 M M ~t ~? M ~7 ~ M ~7 ~t ~ N ~ ~ M r- N N O O O O O O O O O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O U V V v V v V v V V V v v v v v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO o~ CO ~ ~ c0 c0 c0 0~ o~ ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ .-- ti ti ti N P P P f` ~O ~O ~O N N N N ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O M M O l!1 Ul l!1 tf~ ~ to ~n in ~O O O O o0 r- ~- O O O CO ~ ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O .t t M M M M M •- tn t! i in in t~ f~ f~ CO ~ CO P M M M M M M M ~ ~t ~t ui vi in ~n `O N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M Vl lfl Vl t!1 tll t!1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 o c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o ~ r~ o~ O: ~o o s ti ti u, o~ LIl ~7 1~ N 00 00 of ti CO O ti N ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . O tf1 Vl Lfl l!~ l11 O O t!•1 M M M P P 1~ N N ti N~ P M N N N ~t ~ ~ ~O ~O ~O ~ 00 O O .-- O P mot' ~t ~t ~i' ~O ~O ~O ~ M to t t` O to M ~O o0 ~O ~~••ee'~~ to P P to f~ ~ r P ~ ~ P ~ to ti !~ M ~ ~t I~ ti N M ~ O ~-- M ~ ~O O In O N ~t ~n ~O f~ O~ P ~t ~O ~O ~'- ~ M to P ~t ~ N ~ O ~t . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ l!1 ~~ ~O I~ ~ CO ~ P ~- ~ N N N N N N N f~ CO CO P O O .- .- N N M M tf~ Vl ~ c- ~ ~- e- ~ ~ ~ .- ~ ~- r- ~- N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O l!1 O O O O l1'1 O I!~ CO O O ~O O 00 l!1 O Lfl to N ll1 .Y P O O N 1` O Lh O O N O N O r- O O P V1 0 0 0 0 0 ~t N N P M N ~Y' 00 M ~- OJ ti .- M O ~O N ~O O Vl V1 O l!1 V~ O N ~t ~O M CO N M O Vl ~'- Vl N O N t!1 ~ ~ ~ V1 ~ N '- N O tIl •-- O ~ l!l ~ c- J tf\ N L!1 M ~1' ~T C > > v L _Y u~ O O 'p o L v c c c o c .II f0 L ~ Q1 (D U O d f0 m d' ~' J v- C > rn a~ E 41 L t C X O Q C U N 3 N m ~ 'Q Q1 L O C 7 ~ a-+ 7 ~ ~ cn ~ Q .~ ~ ~[ L V~ O V> O Q +-+ Q E cn ~ C ~ +~ >~ ~ v L ~ C > E •--• Q O N (n t O m m Q~ O O Q~ • ~ C ~~ 1~+ 1- •--• N v O Q L > C C L U O U 1-~ O a' to Vi \ ~[ U U E -• c0 O > (p c0 cD 7 C Q1 C L Q1 i-+ N L ~ ~ C J-+ •'-• >~ d C > O C J d L ~ ~ v ~• v 3 C L c9 O t9 c0 m C > O m Q) O L v > N > ~ ~ c •^ a o a r c s ~ v~ o c .n u~ c a ~• U a, ~> L > X ~ L O L .C E +-~ L v c O +~ ~ L ~ 1+ ~.- v E C C •~ p C QJ Q1 v w Q o (0 U • •- m Q1 U L 4. ~ W ~ X L Q ~ w ~ ~ ~ .--. . f- ~ ++ O p (/~ p ~ ~ 2 _~>> v v c M a~ w co E_ O v O rn~ a v~ v ~ v L O O -~ +~ ,C • •- ~ ?k ~ d •-+ m -~ O -+ .Y C f Q ~ L o ~[ U # ~ L L > cn (0 d L L ~ C v (0 ~ (Q O L d O L L [0 a' L •~ L p ~j N QJ C L Q O O a1 f~ C C N ~-+ ~ ~[ O Y a-+ O c0 > ~[ Y a~ d c0 ~ C t0 ~ p E O Y ~-+ E U U L O O• •- N L d L Q ~L d. a CJ L L Q d .n O d .L 1-+ O •- U .--~ U V7 d. • ~ • ~ L O cD (D L d. (0 (D .Y ~ 7 • -- C7Y ~ i-+ S (n O `F Ql >~ Q1 ~0 Vl J-• •.- L L d Y d ~ (O "a ,C d d U 41 ~.' ~L d 1-+ N 7 m Q1 ~ +~+ ~L O~ +-+ C •-- ~-- c0 c0 +-+ L v O 4. O O C O N N O C 4. N U U fn ~ cD Q~ 1~ U a-+ L 7 ~ ~ Q~ -~ O O 41 >~ O ~ ~ O L cD v ~ ~ O ~ L ..~-. N m C d •-- .~[ •~ (n n_ O c0 L <D 3 t~ J L L •.- i9 t0 3 U +~-~ L~ (n a~ C a-+ L 4- C .L 3~ .C ~ -~ v `t- E L L (,J L t (p L V (D ~+ L L .L (n U ••- fn O N N O 4- v ~ 41 cD ~ E v- •.- C v- v ~[ a-• m +~ a-• a-+ E a-+ L •~ a~ ~ a~ ~[ N ~ 7 N "O •-- N a-• c0 ~+ ~ 'p t L ~ U N N L U L •.- C N C 7 0 7 0 .f] +~ C C 7 U~ O~ L C L C u- vl L X a) ••- v O O O (0 L L •.- O (D v v Q) Q) O .L O Cil •-- dJ v di O ••- Q1 O Q) •~ <D (D O p •~ 1- w 3 cn ~ z U 3 w ~[ r- ~+-. a' p z U m U cn r-• cn m J n. U U cn J N 3~ u.. cn ~ -~ w x o VJ T O N .Q LL '~~ • ALUM CREEK LAKE AND ALUM CREEK = MP ROV EMENT S March 1, 1990 PROJECT CONCEPT Construct a 100 surface acre lake on Alum Creek at the Gulf States/Exxon easement corridor. The land is to be donated by: • Pebble Creek - 45 Acre Lake @ $2,200.00/acre = $ 99,000.00 - 12 Acre Park @ $5,000.00/acre = $ 60,000.00 • Global Nat. Res. - 95 Acre Lake @ $2,200.00/acre = $209,000.00 - 19 Acre Park @ $2,200.00/acre = $ 41,800.00 t • The dam is to be constructed so as to accommodate 39' pavement section with sidewalk on both sides (70' width). It is anticipated that Pebble Creek Parkway will be extended across the dam and serve as a major north-south collector parallel with Highway 6. The City is to receive a 20 acre park, of which ~ acres will have lake frontage and ~ nacres will be on the back slope of the dam, providing a connection along Alum Creek from the lake to the 515 acre wilderness park. Alum Creek is approximately 8,500 feet in length from the proposed dam to the east line of the wilderness park. The under brush would be removed and the creek widened to a width of 10-15 feet. Along this length, a series of four dams would be constructed so as to impound water within the banks of Alum Creek for approximately 8,000 feet. The College Station Wilderness Park, 515 acres, is a $1.5 million dollar asset which has limited use due primarily to lack of amenities. The proposed channel improvements should increase the useability of the park. A 24 foot wide road would be constructed from the end of Pebble Creek Parkway up to and across the dam. This road would be constructed so that it could be upgraded to a full 39 foot pavement section. The adjoining landowners are to donate the land for Alum Creek Lake and the City is to fund the construction of the dam. 1 ~ ~ I• ESTIMATED COST OF ALUM CR E E K LAKE ALUM C R E E K L AK E DAM CONSTRUCTION • Earthen Dam with 70~ top width. • Height of Dam - 25 feet. • Normal Pool Elevation - 235 feet. • Top of Dam Elevation - 242 feet. • Reservoir Surface Area - Approximately 100 acres. Estimated Cost $ 310,000.00 • Construction Donation - $ 50.000.00 $ 260,000.00 ROAD CONSTRUCTION • 24 Foot wide Road - approximately 6,000 feet. Estimated Cost $ 180,000.00 LAND ACQUISITION • Pebble Creek - 45 Acre Lake @ $2,200.00/acre = $ 99,000.00 - 12 Acre Park @ $5,000.00/acre = $ 60 000.00 • Global Natural Res. 95 Ac. Lake @ $2,200.00/ac = $ 209,000.00 - 19 Acre Park @ $2,200/ac = $ 41,800.00 Estimated Cost $ 409,800.00 TOTAL COST $ 899, 800.00 TOTAL COST WITH LA'I'D AND CONSTRUCTION DONATION' $ 440,000.00 • 2 v ESTIMATE D COS T O F ALUM CREEK = MP ROV E MENT S • Clear underbrush, widen channel to 10-15 feet, deepen channel to 4-8 feet. Estimated Cost $ 60,000.00 • Four earthen dams with 12 foot top width. • Height of Dam - 12 feet. • Length of Dam - 20 feet. Estimated Cost $ 40,000.00 • • TOTAL COST $ 100 , 000.00 S IJMI~ARY ALUM CREEK LAKE W i TH LAND AND CONSTRUCT i ON DONATION $ 440,000.00 ALUM CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL . . $ 100 , 000.00 . $ 540,000.00 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER .7 7. 8. 9. lo. lt. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25. NAME ADDRESS 1. ~l~!'a 4. ~iy~ 2u.-,tiv- Ij~ 5. --L-L' 6. DATE March 1, 1990 Lenin/ct~_ C , S ~z r ~wao ~L~ , ~~ c~ *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Dale of Meeting ~ - / "~ Commission Agenda Item No. Name Car-"a~l -~ IV1 esse.r Address ~ Z b 3 ~e~ ~C.,el ~ C b ~ I t' >° ,S~'a f/ O h House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And , Speaker's Official Capacity: ~UBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK tI SfY~.~~ 1}~~roVeh~~~~S o/ Car+-eY'S ~rYOV~, • ~ rn p ~o v e d Tr a ~ ~1 c ~ i 9 n ~ ~ 5'`1s -~ h-7 Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presld(ng officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish [o present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting '~ ~ / ` ~ ~i~ Commission Agenda Item No. Name -~L!~!'r n~ `~ ~'-L^z o'_r/i Address ~ ~~~ ~i~~4/, ~~!.~'1JE'~~_ ~~ ~! House No. tree[ City J IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: UBJECT ON WHICHP/ERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ~fvyLf-C-A~ fi'r~~1'_~'"/-E'~r~~~.l _ ~t-d~i/"~rrL -v ~ ~~- 5 Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker ilmlting an address on any one Item [o flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. *"`* REGISTRATION FORM `** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL) Date of Meeting ~ - ~ -- ~d Fit Z--- . , l _ C~-t-q-Feti~s+l Agenda Item No. ~'" Name - _ , i' ~. ~~f ~1`''s~? Address ~-*''~,~ F/~"l~'UU ~! !-~C_~.s:~~ ~~~'f~'~-~~~~. House No Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: t SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recog- nized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state yeEer name and residence before begin- ning your presentation. If yoi~ have written notes you wish to pre- sent to the Mayor and Council, PLEASF_ FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COUNCIL FILES. The Council will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one item to five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation.