Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1985 - Regular Minutes City Council MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STUDENT GOVT. LIAISON: VISITORS PRESENT: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Bond, Tongco, Boughton, Brown, McIlhaney, Runnels None Assistant City Manager VanDever, Direc- tor of Capital Improvements Ash, City Engineer Pullen, City Attorney Locke, City Secretary Jones, Assistant Direc- tor of Planning Callaway, Deputy Fi- nance Director Schroeder, Assistant City Attorney Clar, Director of Plan- ning Mayo, Utilities Office Manager Piwonka, Assistant Utilities Office Manager Albright, Energy Specialist Shear, Purchasing Agent McCartney, Parks Director Beachy, Aquatics Super- intendent Szabuniewicz, Planning Tech- nician Volk, Council Coordinator Jones Mike Hachtman See guest register. Agenda Item No. 1 - Signing of a proclamation designating the week of October 20 - October 26, 1985 as "National Business Women's Week" in College Station, Texas. Mayor Halter signed a proclamation designating the week of Octo- ber 20 - October 26, 1985 as "National Business Women's Week" in College Station, Texas. Ms. Naomi Carter, representing the Bryan/College Station Chapter of the Business and Professional Women's Association, was present to accept the proclamation. Agenda Item No. 2 - Presentation to the City Council by the Texas A&M Student Government in appreciation of the Council's continued support. Student Government Liaison Hachtman introduced Mr. Douglas Baird, Student Government Vice-President of External Affairs, who pre- sented the Council with a plaque in recognition of the Council's continued support. Mayor Halter accepted the plaque and thanked the Student Government Organization for their consideration. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 2 A~enda Item No. 3 - A~roval of the minutes of the S~ecial City Council Meeting, September 18, 1985, the S~ecial City Council Meeting, September 24, 1985, the S~ecial City Council Meeting, September 25, 1985 and the Regular City Council Meeting, Septem- ber 26, 1985. Councilman Runnels moved approval of the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, September 18, 1985, the Special City Coun- cil Meeting, September 24, 1985, the Special City Council Meet- ing, September 25, 1985 and the Regular City Council Meeting, September 26, 1985. Councilman McIlhaney seconded the motion which was approved unan- imously, 7-0. A~enda Item No. 4 - A public hearin~ on the necessity of street improvements on Morgan's Lane in College Station, Texas. City Engineer Pullen presented the item. He located the proposed repaving project on the map, noting that more than fifty percent of the property owners along Morgan's Lane had petitioned paving of approximately two-thirds of it as a minor street. He pointed out that the street is surrounded by commercial zoned property on both sides and at some point in time will probably intersect the Dartmouth Street extension. He noted that the street is current- ly a fifty foot wide right-of-way allowing for a twenty-eight foot wide street. He stated that with the street being bounded by commercial properties on both sides the staff would normally recommend that a commercial street be constructed in a seventy foot right-of-way with a forty-seven foot back to back street. He stated that this proposal was presented to the Council at a previous Workshop Meeting, noting that the staff was directed to prepare the assessment costs for a seventy foot right-of-way with a forty-seven foot back to back street. He estimated the total cost of construction for the entire length of Morgan's Lane at about $195,000.00 with the assessable portion estimated at $161,000. He stated that the city would need to acquire ten feet of property on each side of the street at approximately $25.00 a linear foot. He explained the cost estimates associated with the proposed project. Councilman Brown asked if the petition was for the entire length of Morgan's Lane. City Engineer Pullen replied negatively, not- ing that the petition was for 1065 feet of the total 1536 feet. Councilman McIlhaney asked if the city would be responsible for the paving of the remainder of the street and if so what funds would be allocated for the project. City Engineer Pullen stated REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 3 that the funds would be allocated from the Street Reconstruction Fund. Mayor Halter opened the public hearing. Mr. Dub Brackeen, representing the Group 5 Joint Venture, stated that the petition was initiated in order to provide for the im- provement of the street to facilitate development of property along Morgan's Lane. He stated that they requested the assis- tance of the city to improve the street because it would be vir- tually impossible for the individual owners to do it. He stated that the Group 5 Joint Venture would prefer to have construction of the street in a fifty foot right-of-way with ten foot ease- ments rather than in a seventy foot right-of-way, which would limit the amount of parking space available. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 5 - Consideration of an ordinance declaring th~ necessity for street improvements on Morgan's Lane in College Station, Texas. Councilman McIlhaney noted that the Council had developed a list of priority street reconstruction projects, and asked if the pro- posed project was included on the list. City Engineer Pullen stated that Morgan's Lane was not included on the list. She asked if there would be sufficient funds available to proceed with the list of priority projects if this project is undertak- en. City Engineer Pullen stated that it would probably have some effect on the list of priorities. Councilman Tongco suggested that the item be tabled until a re- view of the other projects can be undertaken to determine what effects, if any, this project would have on them. Assistant City Manager VanDever referred to the list of recon- struction projects associated with the Operating Budget, noting that funding for Morgan's Lane would come from Bond funds and would have no effect on that list. Councilman McIlhaney asked if the funding for Green's Prairie Road would be from Bond funds and if so could those funds be encumbered by approval of this proj- ect. Assistant City Manager VanDever replied affirmatively. Councilman Brown asked if there would be any problems created if only the petitioned portion of Morgan's Lane were paved. City Engineer Pullen replied negatively. Councilman Boughton noted that the Council directed the staff to prepare this ordinance for a seventy foot right-of-way with a forty-seven foot back to back street. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 4 Councilman Bond asked from a planning standpoint if in consider- ing the amount of money the city would be investing, would the funds not be better utilized to construct a street in alignment with Brothers Boulevard rather than at Morgan's Lane. City Engi- neer Pullen stated that Brothers Boulevard was not planned to cross Texas Avenue, noting that the crossing was planned at Miller's Lane. Director of Capital Improvements Ash stated that Morgan's Lane was recommended as a forty-seven foot back to back street because it is surrounded by commercial zoned property on both sides and not as a means for moving traffic from Texas Avenue to Dart- mouth. He pointed out that the Plan calls for traffic to be moved from Texas Avenue to the Dartmouth Extension via the exten- sion of FM 2818 down Miller's Lane. Councilman Boughton moved approval of Ordinance No. 1617 declar- ing the necessity for street improvements on Morgan's Lane in College Station, Texas. Councilman Tongco seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. Councilman McIlhaney requested that in the interim the city staff review the overall financial picture in relation to the other street reconstruction projects that are on-line. A~enda Item No. 6 - A public hearin~ concernin~ an a~eal of the Plannin~ and Zonin~ Commission's a~roval of the College Heights Assembly of God Church Conditional Use Permit to build a church facility in the Glenhaven subdivision. Mayor Halter thanked the parties involved in this matter for sup- plying the Council with written materials in support of their ar- gument. He explained briefly the rules for conducting the public hearing. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He summarized the events concerning this item that have transpired in the last several weeks. He stated that the Planning and Zon- ing Commission on 09/05/85 approved a conditional use permit for the development of a church on a 10.357 acre tract in the Glen- haven subdivision. He explained that the applicant was request- ing approval of the proposed use of the site and presented to the Commission a conceptual site plan. He explained that prior to actual development of the tract the Commission will have to ap- prove a finalized site and landscape plan, which will follow an- other public hearing. He listed the uses approved by the Commis- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 5 sion as follows: (1) church; (2) day school; and (3) daycare fa- cility. He stated that on 09/13/85 the Council received a peti- tion appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's action. He noted that churches are classified as conditional uses under the city's Zoning Ordinance. He provided a definition for a condi- tional use and the requirements that are delineated for the granting of the conditional use permit, noting that a conditional use permit approval does not change zoning of a property, but zoning remains as it was prior to the issuance of the permit. He listed the three basic findings that the Commission should make prior to granting a conditional use permit, noting that addition- al conditions can be placed on a proposed use. He stated that the Commission voted (6-1) to recommend approval of the permit and included in their action eleven conditions, which are delin- eated in the "Offer of Compromise" included in the packet. Mayor Halter opened the public hearing and asked for individuals in favor of the granting of the conditional use permit to speak initially. Mr. Calvin M. Durham, Pastor of the College Heights Assembly of God Church, summarized the events that have transpired in regard to this request. He stated that the philosophy of the Church is to minister to the needs of the people and with that in mind the Church is attempting through the conceptual site plan and pro- posed facilities to develop a ministry that will meet the needs of this community. He displayed a copy of the initial conceptual site plan in order that the Council could compare it with the conceptual site plan incorporating the eleven points of compro- mise. He listed and briefly explained the eleven points of com- promise. He pointed out that the church auditorium will seat ap- proximately 800 to 900 individuals, the daycare will accommodate approximately 100 individuals, and the school will accommodate approximately 200 individuals. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the Church and the homeowners attempt to negotiate a compromise plan, which the parties at- tempted to do without success. He stated that when a compromise could not be reached the Church presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission the eleven points of compromise. In conclu- sion, he addressed several of the objections concerning the pro- posal as follows: (1) with regard to drainage, the curb, gutter and storm sewer insured in the contract with the seller of the property will be adequate; (2) with regard to noise, it is not currently a quiet con~unity due to its proximity to the East By- pass; (3) with regard to traffic, individuals traveling any sig- nificant distance to the Church would use either University Drive or the East Bypass; (4) with regard to lighting, the city's spec- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 6 ifications and the use of beautification type lighting would en- hance the area and would aid to lower the crime rate; (5) with regard to aesthetics and property valuation, he referred to a letter from Mr. J.D. Moon, attorney, who was involved in two studies which polled homeowners in similar situations; and (6) with regard to ministry development, he stated the Church's be- lief that if it is to do what it is intended to do it must devel- op a ministry that administers to all aspects of man. Councilman Brown referred to compromise no. 6, asking how strong the consideration for it is and what type of fence is proposed. Mr. Durham stated that in the meeting with the homeowners there was some discussion with regard to an ornamental fence and the Church was willing to consider the proposal, but was informed by the homeowners that no type of fence would be acceptable. Councilman McIlhaney noted that on the proposed conceptual site plan the majority of the development is adjacent to the East By- pass and questioned if the two curb cuts on Glenhaven are neces- sary. Mr. Durham listed three reasons for the curb cuts on Glen- haven: (1) fire and safety; (2) the church could grow and would require additional parking; (3) the need of the elderly to avoid travel on the East Bypass. Councilman Runnels stated that he was uncertain about the Church's position on constructing the fence, and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission delineated the construction of an ornamental fence as one of the conditions for approval of the conditional use permit. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway stated that the Commission indicated they would like to see the fence when reviewing the site plan for the proposed development. Councilman Tongco asked if the forty foot greenbelt includes city property from the curb. Mr. Durham replied affirmatively. Mr. Hank McQuaide, representing Brazosland Properties, referred to the packet of information he submitted to the Council, noting that he would answer any questions concerning the material. He stated that the Glenhaven subdivision was platted in 1983 as a mixed use, full amenity subdivision. He reported on the progress of development of this subdivision. He made several comparisons between the Glenhaven subdivision and the established Carter's Grove subdivision, located adjacent to the Glenhaven subdivision, concluding that they are approximately equal in size. He stated a05277 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 7 that development of the proposed church facility will be entirely in the Glenhaven subdivision. He pointed out that four to five lots in the Carter's Grove subdivision are within 200 to 300 feet of the proposed site and an additional four or five lots within visual distance as compared to the Glenhaven subdivision, which has eighteen to twenty lots within 200 to 300 feet of the pro- posed site and an additional forty to fifty lots within visual distance. He stated his opinion that the proposed church facili- ty will not be detrimental to the lots located in the Glenhaven subdivision. He further stated that they have attempted to mini- mize the impact of this facility on the established residential neighborhood. Councilman Bond asked Mr. McQuaide if he would have any objec- tions to developing a single row of residential dwellings front- ing on Dominik. Mr. McQuaide stated that he would not have a problem with ~at from the position of a developer, but the Church did extensive research to determine the amount of property needed for the proposed development and would have to be con- sulted to determine if the proposal would be acceptable to them. Mayor Halter asked for comments from individuals in opposition to the granting of a conditional use permit for a church facility in the Glenhaven subdivision. Mr. George Bass, 1612 Dominik Drive, spoke as a representative of the residents of Dominik Drive in opposition to the granting of the conditional use permit approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1985. He read a prepared statement which delineated the residents' concerns and reasons for request- ing the revocation of the conditional use permit for a church facility in the Glenhaven Subdivision. A copy of the statement presented by Mr. Bass is included as part of the official record of this meeting. Councilman Brown asked if a single row of residential dwellings were developed on the north side of Dominik Drive would the same opposition to the request for a conditional use permit be ex- pressed by the residents. Mr. Bass stated his opinion that the majority of residents of Dominik Drive would be agreeable to the proposal. Mr. Raymond Martyn, 7803 Appomattox Drive, stated that his con- cern in this issue stems from being an involved citizen in the community and his experiences as a former member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated his opinion that a project of the magnitude proposed is not appropriate for the single family residential zone. He noted that the City Attorney advised the Council that if approval was not granted for this conditional use REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 8 permit legal action may be taken against the city based on a past history of granting conditional use permits for churches in res- idential zones. He stated his disagreement with that argument, noting that the very nature of the conditional use permit is not subject to precedent. He referred to the city's Zoning Ordfnance No. 850, Section 10-C.2.3, regarding the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit, stating his opin£oa that a project of this magnitude would negatively and substantially impact the es- tablished residential neighborhood; therefore, granting of the conditional use permit would be in direct conflict with the in- tent of the permit and would constitute a great injustice and abuse of the authority of the Council. Mayor Halter stated for the record he wanted to indicate that contrary to the statement made by Mr. Martyn concerning prece- dent, no such legal opinion has been given by the City Attorney concerning the granting of conditional use permits. Mr. Rudolf J. Freund, 1508 Dominik Drive, addressed the issue of compromise. He stated that the position of the residents of Dominik Drive is that they oppose in principle the development of the proposed project of such great magnitude adjacent to an es- tablished residential neighborhood. He pointed out that in the meetings wi~ the representatives of the church it was obvious that they were not willing to compromise on the magnitude of ~%e project. He pointed out that the curb cut on Dominik was prohib- ited by the city staff prior to discussion of the matter at the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that the residents did discuss several compromises which did address the central issue of avoiding the development of a project of the proposed magnitude and listed them as follows; (1) a land swap with the Parks Department for land in the Richard Carter Park; and, (2) an agreement with the Church to develop only a church. He pointed out that neither of the two compromises previously mentioned were viable. He noted that if this issue had been ad- dressed by requesting a zoning change on the property it would require a buffer of approximately 200 to 300 feet. He further stated that the compromise of one row of single family residences on Dominik was discussed and was turned down because it would create a problem situation. He concluded by stating the resi- dents have attempted to compromise in terms of the real issue in the matter. Councilman Bond asked if the residents would have the same excep- tions if the proposed development of this react of land was for an elementary school. He questioned whether there is anything less compatible about a church project than ~ere ~s about an el- ementary school. Mr. Freund stated that if the proposed project were for development of an elementary school it would require that the residents consider the broader needs of the commun~Fm. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 9 Dr. H. Phil Hobson, 1608 Dominik Drive, made a statement compar- ing parking lot sizes in College Station. He stated that the current conceptual site plan of the proposed project includes 315 parking spaces as compared to the initial conceptual site plan, including the retirement center, which included 450 parking spaces. He stated his opinion that the retirement center will probably be added later if the current proposal is approved. He pointed out that the College Station Municipal Building and the Redmond Terrace Shopping Center each have a total of approximate- ly 200 parking spaces , thus the eventual size of the parking lot immediately across the street from his residence will be over twice as large as either the College Station Municipal Building or the Redmond Terrace Shopping Center parking lots and al,host identical in size to the Skaggs Shopping Center parking lot, which includes 475 parking spaces. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 7 - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a church on a 10.357 acre tract in the Glen- haven subdivision. (P&Z Case No. 85-709) Councilman Bond moved approval of granting the conditional use permit for development of a church in the Glenhaven subdivision contingent upon the developer agreeing to construct a single row of single family dwellings on lots of 125 feet in depth. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. Mayor Halter asked Mr. McQuaide what would his reaction be to the proposal. Mr. McQuaide stated that he would be agreeable to the construction of a single row of single family dwellings on lots of 110 feet in depth. Councilman Bond asked what are the city's minimum lot size re- quirements. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway stated that the minimum lot size requirements are 5000 square feet with a minimum depth of 100 feet. Mayor Halter asked Mr. Durham if the proposal was acceptable to him. Mr. Durham replied that there had been extensive research done to determine the amount of land necessary for development of the proposed facilities and he would have to discuss the proposal with the Board of Directors of the Church. Councilman Bond moved approval of the conditional use permit for the development of a church facility in the Glenhaven subdivision contingent on acceptance by the developer that he is willing to REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 10 construct a single row of single family dwellings on lots of 110 feet in depth fronting Dominik Drive on the north side. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. Mr. Durham stated that the Building Committee had determined that any tract of land less than ten acres would be unacceptable. Mayor Halter suggested that the Council consider tabling the item so that Mr. Durham could present the proposal to his congregation to determine its acceptability and reschedule further considera- tion of the item on the Regular Meeting Agenda, October 24, 1985. Mr. Durham stated that he would be acceptable to that suggestion. Mayor Halter asked Mr. Bass if the residents would be acceptable to the proposal as moved by Councilman Bond. Mr. Bass stated that in his opinion the residents would accept the proposal and would present no further opposition. Mr. Durham asked if in considering the new proposal would the Church be able to return to its original plan, which included the retirement center. Councilman Bond stated that the Church can review the proposal and submit a plan to the Council, but it must include the stipulation of development of a single row of s[agle family dwellings on lots of ll0 feet in depth fronting on Dominik on the north side. Councilman Tongco stated that what the Council is considering is not a church, but rather a religious complex. She pointed out that the proposed facility will have ongoing and varying traffic patterns. Mayor Halter pointed out that he has some problems with some of the objections raised in the discussion that attempt to ask the Council to define the bounds of acceptable religious practices. He suggested that the Council proceed with caution and pointed out that a church with an attached school may be an unusual sit- uation in College Station, but in many other States it is very common. Councilman Tongco stated that the Council is considering the ap- proval of a conditional use permit for development of a religious complex in a residential neighborhood, noting that ~e question that must be answered is whether or not the proposal will ad- versely affect the surrounding neighborhood. Councilman Runnels expressed his agreement with Councilman Tongco's statements. He stated that the proposed project i..~ e,~- tirely too large for development in a residential neighbor~oD4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 11 and would adversely affect the surrounding area. He pointed out that the conditional use permit was designed to facilitate minor changes, and a project of this magnitude represents a zoning change. After further discussion, Mayor Halter stated that a compromise has been proposed, suggesting that further consideration of the item be tabled and rescheduled on the Regular Meeting Agenda, Oc- tober 24, 1985. Councilman Runnels mDved to deny the granting of a conditional use permit for development of a church in the Glenhaven subdivi- sion. Mayor Halter stated that the motion to deny was in direct opposi- tion to the motion on the floor a~d was unacceptable. Councilman Bond reiterated his motion to approve the granting of a conditional use permit for development of a church in the Glen- haven subdivision contingent upon the development of a single row of single family dwellings on lots of 110 feet fronting on Dominik Drive on the north side, subject to approval by the de- veloper. Councilman Brown reiterated his secoad of the motion. Councilman Brown moved to table further consideration of the item and reschedule it on the Regular Meeting Agenda, October 24, 1985. Councilman Tongco seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 6-1 as follows: FOR: Mayor Halter, Cc)uac~lmen Tongco, Boughton, Bond, Brown, McIlhaney AGAINST: Councilman Runnels Agenda Item No. 8 - CONSENT AGENDA: BIDS: Electric System Materials, Misc., Bid No. 86-14 Vehicle, two-door sedan, Bid No. 86-15 Ail items were approved by common consent. Agenda Item No. 9 - Consideration of a resolution supporting adoption of the new Texas water plan at the November 5, 1985 Con- stitutional Amendments Election. Mayor Halter presented the item. He stated that the water plan proposed by the Texas Legislature addresses the long-term future water needs of Texas. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 12 Councilman Tongco moved to approve Resolution No. 10-10-85-09 supporting adoption of the new Texas water plan at the November 5, 1985 Constitutional Amendments Election. Councilman Brown seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. Agenda Item No. 10 - Consideration of a resolution amending Ordi- nance No. 1569 to comply with standards of the Fair Labor Stan- dards Act. Personnel Director Dickson presented the item. She stated that one of the proposed changes designates the actual work week and work cycle for the Fire and Police Departments and the second change eliminates the use of compensatory time in place of over- time. She stated that the proposed changes were presented to em- ployees of the Fire Department and were determined to be accept- able. Councilman Bond asked what is the deadline for compliance. Per- sonnel Director Dickson stated that implementation of the pro- posed plan should be inspect by October 15, 1985. Councilman Bond aske~l ~.~ ~le the proposed plan conforms to what other cities are implementing. She stated that the plan has been approved and presented to the Department of Labor. Mayor Halter noted ~al~ C~.ty Manager Bardell discussed the pro- posed plan with the City Manager candidates. Councilman Bond moved approval of Resolution No. 10-10-85-10 amending Ordinance No. 1569 to comply with standards of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. Agenda Item No. 11 - Discussion of ~ro~osal to return Gulf States Utilities Rebate. Utilities Office Manager Piwonka presented the item. She stated that in 07/84 Gulf States Utilities filed a request for a whole- sale rate increase with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which was granted on 09/84 and remained in effect until 02/85. She stated that on 09/30/85 the city received a rebate in the amount of $634,475.00 from Gulf States Utilites. She noted that the current Energy Fund balance with the addition of this rebate is $1,430,440.00. She summarized the schedule "C,~rrent Status of Fund" included in the packet. She pointed out that in prior dis- cussions, the Council indicated that they wished to return REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 13 future rebates to the utility customers. She explained that City Manager Bardell suggested that the rebate be issued on 12/2/85 to the customer in the form of a check. She listed several positive effects that the proposed plan would have on the economy as fol- lows: (1) customers will receive extra revenues at at time of year when they are needed; (2) the local economy will be boosted because of additional buying power in the market place; (3) local businesses will receive a rebate check and additional sales re- sulting from use of rebate checks for purchases; and, (4) the city will have increased sales tax revenue. She briefly ex- plained the two proposals formulated: Proposal I - involves re- bating only the most current rebate in the amount of $634,475.00 less the cost to rebate the monies; and Proposal II - involves rebating the current rebate of $634,475.00 in addition to $366,165.00 to be taken from the Energy Project Fund, for a total of $1,000,000.00 less the cost to rebate the monies. She briefly explained what the average rebate would be for each class of utility customer under both proposals. She stated that the Ener- gy Management Committee reviewed both proposals and voted (4-1-0) to recommend approval of Proposal II. She noted that if Proposal II is approved, a balance of $429,800.00 will be left in the En- ergy Project Fund. In addition, she stated that the city will work with ~%e Chamber of Commerce and businesses in the community to develop a plan to offer special discounts to customers using the rebate checks to make purchases. Councilman Runnels moved to adopt Proposal II as the method for returning the Gulf State~ Utilities Rebate. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. Utilities Office Manager Piwonka stated that the funds remaining in the Energy Project Fund will earn approximately $31,000.00 in interest. Agenda Item No. 12 - Consideration of contractual services to conduct an archaeological survey at Richard Carter Park. Parks Director Beachy presented the item. He stated that the Texas Antiquities Committee informed him that additional archae- ological work is required at the Richard Carter Park prior to any development occurring. He explained that the work will involve a more detailed study of the sites that are thought to be specifi- cally the "old homesite." He stated that the proposed cost of the work is $4,144.61 to be appropriated from the Parks Project Fund. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 14 Councilman Brown asked if the relics found in the archaeological work become the property of the State. Parks Director Beachy re- plied affirmatively. After further discussion, Co~.~-~.l',lan Tongco moved approval of contractual services to conduct an archaeological survey at Richard Carter Park in the amount of $4,144.61 to be appropriated from the Parks Project Fund. Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. A~enda Item No. 13 - Consideration of 1986 Parks and Recreation User Fees. Parks Director Beachy presented the i. Lem. He noted that the Parks and Recreation user fees are reviewed on an annual basis by a staff committee and several Parks Board members. He pointed out that the proposed 1986 fees reflect several changes from the 1985 fees as follows: (1) adjustment of the adult team sports fees to reflect the level of service provided; (2) inclusion of a summer family pool pass; (3) inclusion of an individual annual pass (Gold Card); and, (4) adjustment of pavilion fees to include reduced "week.14y" rates and multiple day discounts. He further stated that the proposed reco~mendations were presented to the full Parks and Recreation Board and no objections were voiced. He pointed out that the fees for Lincoln Center were forwarded to the Lincoln Center Advisory Board for consideration and will be brought to Council at a later date. Councilman Brown moved approval of the 1986 Parks and Recreation User Fees. Councilman McIlhaney seconded the motion which was approved unan- imously, 7-0. Agenda Item No. 14 - Consideration of award of contract to pur- chase Pecan Tree Park. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that Parkway Circle Associates s~lbmitted the only bid for the purchase of Pecan Tree ~ark. In the amount of $4800.00, the bid also in- cluded fees to cover costs for the closing, appraisal, survey and advertising. She explained that the value of the tract is ~educed because the city has easements crisscrossing it, and noted that the only types of construction permitted on top of the easements are parking lots and l~dscaping. She further stated that this is the second time the item was advertised, noting that the first time there was a minimum limit placed on the bid and the city did not receive any bids. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 15 Councilman Runnels moved ~,o award the contract for the purchase of Pecan Tree Park to Parkway Circle Associates. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved by a vote 6-0-1, with Councilman Bond abstaining from the vote. Agenda Item No. 15 - Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Contract for Sale and Warranty Deed for Pecan Tree Park. Councilman McIlhaney moved approval of Resolution No. 10-10-85-15 authorizing the Mayor to execute a Contract for Sale and Warranty Deed for Pecan Tree Park. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 6-0-1, with Councilman Bond abstaining from the vote. Agenda Item No. 16 - Consideration of a change order for the Dartmouth/Holleman Street Pro~ect. Director of Capital Improvements Ash presented the item. He re- ferred to the Dartmouth/Holleman Street project which was awarded to Young Brothers Inc. He explained that in a preconstruction meeting with the contractors it was determined that a great many problems would be encountered because of the existing sewerline, which he located on the map. He stated his opinion that a change order could be initiated for the constc~lc~.on of a new sewerline. He located the proposed sewerline on the map, and stated it would result in savings to the city and help to alleviate many problems during eoustruction. In addition, the proposal w~].l free some developable land in the area. He stated that if the new sewer- line is constructed the city will abandon the old sewerline. He explained that in the last Bond Program it was proposed that the city would parallel the existing sewerline w[~ ~ ,~ajor sewerline sometime in the future. He recommended that a change order be negotiated with the contractor for the construction of a thirty inch sewerline and the abandonment of the easements in which the current eighteen inch sewerline is located. Councilman Bond asked if Young Brothers Inc. bid the job with the fact ~hat the channelization of the project would h~ve to accom- modate the existing sewerline. Director of Capital Improvements Ash replied affirmatively. Councilman Bond stated tha~ a credit would then be in order for the change order. Mr. Ash stated that the change order would be negotiated with that in REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 16 Councilman Bond asked if the proposal to abandon the easements containing the existing sewerline had been negotiated in ad- vance. Director of Capital Improve],l,~-r~t~ ~h ,'~.i, lfed affirmative- ly, noting that he presented this proposal in an attempt to com- plete the construction of the thfut, y inch sewerline with the cur- r~,~t contract. C].ty Attorney Locke stated that included in the negotiations for the acquirement of right-of-way for the Dartmouth/Holleman street project was the proposal to abandon the easements containing the existing sewerliae when construction of the thirty inch sewerline paralleling it was complete. Director of Capital Improvemeats Ash stated that ~e property owners were told that the project would be on-line within the next twelve to eighteen months. Director of Capital Improveme,~ts Ash stated that the change order for the proposed project would represent more than ten percent of the c~rrent contract price, and would require approval by Coun- cil. He noted that the estimated cost of the proposed project is $240,000.00. Councilman Bond asked if the proposed project should be rebid. Mr. Ash replied negatively. Councilman Bond asked why the proposed project for construction of a thirty inch sewerline should not be bid as a separate job. Director of Capital Improvements stated that he has no objections to bidding the proposed project as a separate job, noting that he presented it as a change order to the current contract in order to facil~.~-~i:.,~, i:he completion of all projects on this site in a timely manner. Councilman Bond stated that he would rather wait on the co~%.~torUC- tion of the thirty inch sewerline. Councilman Tongco stated that she would like to have more defi- nite cost estimates. Director of Capital Improvements Ash ques- tioned if a two week delay in consideration of this item, in or- der to formulate more definite cost estimates, would have any ef- fect on the project. Mr. Boyd, the contractor, replied negative- ly. Councilman Tongco asked how long the bidding process for this project would require. Mr. Ed McDow stated that it would require approximately six weeks. After more discussion concerning construction of the proposed thirty inch sewerline, Mayor Halter suggested that further con- sideration of this item be delayed. The Council concurred. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 17 Agenda Item No. 17 - Consideration of Green's Prairie Road design and contract. Director of Capital Improvements Ash presented the item. He stated that the contract for construction of this project was awarded to Young Brothers Inc. in the amount of $1,047,273.00. He explained the or~g~u~l ~s-sections and layouts of the road- way, noting that the bridge design is for twenty-five year full development. He stated ~%at construction on the project was halted on August 13, 1985 due to discovery of a conflict with the Producers Gas Pipeline. He listed several alternatives for alle- viating the conflict wi~% the gas pipeline as follows: (1) move the roadway to the south; (2) relocate the pipeline; or (3) con- struct retaining walls. He stated that Mr. William Fitch re- quested the city to c~3nsider the relocation of the roadway to the south, in additioa, relocating the bridge to the east of the Gulf States Utilities ease~e~t aad changing the design criteria for the bridge. He summarized three alternatives for resolv£ng the conflict with the gas pipeline. He stated that Alternative No. I would involve mov[,~g ~%e roadway to the south, maintaining the bridge at the original site and design standards and mainta~..%[ng the original design cross-section of the roadway. He estimated that Alternative I would result in an increase of $70,000.00 over the original contract price for a total project cost of $1,117,000.00. He stated that Alternative No. II would ~nvolve moving the roadway to the south, widening the roadway to fifty- seven feet to i,~clude a thirteen foot center turn-lane, and changing the drainage design criteria. He explained that the changes in the drainage design criteria would help to lower the net change in the project cost considering the increase in the amount of pavement. He stated that with Alternative No. II the chances for inundation of the roadway will increase; therefore, construct~o,~ o~ a 100 year present design bridge is reco~m~ended. He estimated that Alternative No. II would result in an increase of $188,000.00 over the original contract price for a total proj- ect cost of $1,235,000.00. Councilman Brown pointed out that the greatest percentage of traffic will be making right-hand turning movements rather than left-hand turning movements. Councilmau Tongco asked why the problem with the gas pipeline was not discovered prior to the start of construction on the proj- ect. Director of Capital Improvements Ash stated that the city staff was responsible for determining the exact location of the pipeline and made several assumptions during the process for lo- cating it. He explained that the assumptions ~%at we~ ,~ade im- peded the discovery of this problem. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 18 Director of Capital Improvements Ash stated that Alternative No. III would involve moving the roadway to the south, widening the roadway to fifty-seven feet, and moving the bridge to the east. He e~plained that moving the bridge would require channelization to the existing creek and several ~%anges at the landfill site. He stated that Alternative III would result ia arq increase of $449,000.00 over the original coatract price for a total project cost of $1,496,000.00. He pointed out that the total project cost for this Alternative is still within the cost estimates brought to the Council initially. He explained that the city will lose the use of approxk,,l~ely .~,~ ~oO two acres of the land- fill s[te or three to four months off the life of the landfill. Director of Capital Improvements Ash listed the assessment back to the abLlttlng property on the project as follows: (~) $51.00 per linear foot under the curreat co,~ract and Alternative I; and, (2) $63.00 per linear foot for Alt~nat~ves II and III. He noted that Alternative I will use the exist~.~%g dc~aage design criteria of ~%e current contract. Councilman Boughton moved approval of Alternative I for the de- sign of Green's Prairie Road. Councilman Tongco seco,%ded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. A~enda Item No. 18 - Consideration of an ordinance authorizin~ the Ma~or to execute a ~arkin~ a~reement with Boyett Investments Inc. and Ski~er Harris. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that ~.h[s or- dinance addresses a problem situation in the Northgate area. She explained that Boyett Investments owns a trae~'~ o~ land that has been used as an unauthorized parkiag lot by Texas A&M University students and employees. She noted that the property has been leased to Mr. Skipper Harris, who intends to develop a parking lot on the property. She noted that Mr. Harris ~.~ attempting to develop the lot at a minimum cost because a limit of one year has been placed on the lease. She noted that a change was made on Item No. 4 to read "in compliance with the approved plan," noting that the plan was approved by the Project Review Com~i~otee. Councilman Runnels moved approval of Ordinance No. 1618 autho- rizing the Mayor to execute a parking agreement w~th Boyett In- vestments Inc. and Skipper Harris. Councilman Brown seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 19 Agenda Item No. 19 - Consideration of a resolution authorizing the acquisition, by voluntary ~urchase or condemnation, of a por- tion of the ~ro~erty owned by Glynn A. Williams, Jr., located ad- jacent to Central Park on Krenek Tap Road in College Station, Texas. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that this triangular tract of land is located off of Krenek Tap Road adjacent to Central Park. She explained that the proposed resolution would authorize the city staff to negotiate for the purchase of the property or otherwise begin condemnation procedures if this ~s ~ot feasible. Councilman Brown move,1 appcoval of Resolution No. 10-10-85-19 au- thorizing the acquisitioa, by voluntary purchase or condemnation, of a portion of the property owned by Glynn A. Williams, Jr. Councilman Tongco seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. Agenda Item No. 20 - Hear Visitors. No one spoke. Agenda Item No. 21 - Closed session to discuss ~ending litigation [6252-17(2)(e)], personnel [6252-17(2)(g)] and land acquisition [6252-17 (2) (f) ]. A. Personnel [6252-17(2)(g)]. 1. Discussion of Administrative Appointments. 2. Discussion of Citizen Co~muittee Appointments. B. Land Acquisition [6252-17(2)(f)]. 1. Water tower site. 2. Waste disposal site. The Council moved to closed session and later reopened to the public. Agenda Item No. 22 - Action on closed session. Councilman Boughton moved to appoint Mr. Eric Herzik as a regular member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments to serve out the unex- pired term (4/86) of Mr. Spencer Wendt. Councilman Tongco seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 PAGE 20 Councilman Brown moved to award the contract for I~e cc).npletion of the additions and modifications to the Central Fire Station to Construction Resource Group, Inc., the low bidder, as recommended by Transa,m~r~.'~ i~l~urance Services. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 7-0. A~enda Item No. 23 - Adjourn. Mayor Halter adjourned the meeting at 1]: 3,9 ~.',~. Dian Jones, ~ Secretary CITY (~OUN('IL ,)F ,7.;[.I.~,;~' HI'A: I,~N My name is George Bass. i Live at [612 Dominik Drive. I speak to you first as representative of the residents of Dominik Drive who appeal the conditional use permit approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1985 (Agenda item 85-709). As each of you has received and read our petition, I need not speak in detail on traffic, sound, lighting, aesthetics, drainage and the certainty of decreased property values. Simply put, no one can seriously question that the conditional use permit will drastically change the character of our neighborhood. Daily traffic generated by a private school for 200 children and a day-care center for 100 children, in addition to the expected church membership of 900, obviously would far exceed the traffic generated by many types of commercial offices or small businesses that would never be allowed on the same piece of land. The minor grading already done at the south end of Glenhaven has caused severe flooding on Dominik Drive - neighbors have fought to avert mud and water from their yards and homes. A paved area of the size proposed is sure to cause much more severe, even catastrophic flooding, resulting in property damage not only for the residents of Dominik Drive, but f~r those of Tara Court below. Let us not forger the m,~n~,~,i,~ city council 2 of the proposed development. The auditorium will seat nearly as many people as the Bryan Civic Center. The entire development will cover more than ten acres. Culpepper Plaza, I understand, encompasses only eighteen acres, including the large space behind the buildings fronting its east side. Would any of you, today, purchase a family residence directly across a narrow street from Culpepper Plaza, even if there were a 40-foot gr~an belt, as proposed for the north side of Dominik? There is, I quickly add, an even wider green belt between Culpepper plaza and Texas Avenue. Noise levels on Dominik will surely rise to levels exceeding those from some commercial establishments. The only problem, from the beginning, has been that the conditional use permit was applied for by a church. This has put us in the position of appearing to oppose a church. I think that I speak for the entire neighborhood when I say that had a conditional use permit been granted for the construction of a church, there would be no objection whatsoever. But this conditional ~se permit is for far more than a church. Because of the size and nature of the proposed development, we feel its effect on the surrounding neighborhood will be the same as that of a commercial ~',_~nter, and that th~ conditional ,~se permit is, in effect, a city council zoning change. The issue should be of concern to any resident of College Station who lives near undeveloped property and feels his neighborhood is protected by the city zoning code. That citizens are concerned is clearly demonstrated by over one hundred signatures quickly gathered on the petition randomly distributed to city residents living outside our neighborhood. Only two people of those contacted chose not to sign it. I believe, therefore, that this gives a representative sample of the entire population of College Station. The College Station comprehensive plan for the next twenty years recommends that the area be reserved for single-family development and that the city should discourage the location of high intensity development which will place undue traffic burden on fronting streets. The plan further states that the city should discourage activities in locations where they would present conflicts due to traffic, noise, lights, or other high activity levels. And the city should protect the integrity of single family residential areas, providing a beautiful, safe amenable environment for all citizens. The Planning and Zoning Commission ignored the CoileKe Station M~ster Plan. Why did it vote against the plan? [~ did not act to protect the interests of the ti ti :~ns il: ao57-" city council 4 College Station. The citizens of College Station have not and are not asking for this development. At this late date, not a single voice has been raised in public hearing in favor of the development, save for the voices of the developer and a representative of the church. Should not residents as much as outsiders decide what a neighborhood needs? I would like to make the final, personal observation that my neighbors deal~ straighforwardly with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Durham implied that his side made all offers of compromise, saying the neighborhood refused to compromise. This was taken at face value and repeated in an Eagle editorial. Unfortunately, it is not true. In fact, the only efforts to draw the two sides together were made by the neighborhood. Even the meeting place was provided by a neighbor. We did offer compromises that were not presented to the council. Mr. Durham told the Commission that his side had compromised by abandoning the proposed retirement center. Since Mr. Durham had told me by t~[ephone even before the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that there were no real plans for the r~tirement center, due to lack of funds, this hardly seems the compromise he called it. The Planning and Zoning C~,~mission allowed no rebuttal of such statements. Such city council 5 statements, however, not only hurt the neighborhood's case, but they make me wary of what other surprises may be in store if our appeal fails tonight. We all know how little control there is after re-zoning takes place; will the neighbors have to spend the next twenty years fighting periodically against new requests for a retirement center, or for a larger recreation field, or expanded parking lots. We have fought too lomg and too often - not to look out forever over empty fields, but to preserve our neighborhood. We deserve better from our own city, which we all have served well and loyally. For all these reasons we ask that you revoke this particular conditonal use permit, in accord with our petition. September 13, 1985 RECEIVED SEP _. ?.: .... A PETITION College Station City Council FROM: Certain Residents of the City of College Station SUB JEC T: College Heights Assembly of God Application for a Conditional Use Permit on a 10.357 Acre Tract as Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1985 (Agenda 85-709) The subject tract is bounded by Dominik Drive, State Highway 6 By-pass south frontage road, Glenhaven Drive (not completed), and an indeterminate boundary on the undeveloped land. The tract is currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residences. e We, severally and jointly, appeal the approval of this Conditional Land Use Permit by the Planning and Zoning Commission and request its revocation by the City Council. Let it be immediately clear that the undersigned petitioners have little or no objection to the construction of a church on the subject property. However, we strongly object to the granting of this Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons: a. Inconsistency of Plat Plans The original Master Preliminary Plat for the Glenhaven Estates depicted three (3) rows of single family residences bordering Dominik Drive. Why was this changed to replace these residences with a parking lot? How many changes will be considered? b. Traffic Congestion A projected church membership of nine hundred (900) along with the other uses of the area and facilities, is bound to create serious traffic problems. Dominik Drive was originally constructed as a residential street and not as a thoroughfare. It already has inadequate structural defects for the existing traffic. The intersection of Highway 30 and the frontage road is already a serious traffic bottleneck. c. Property Devaluation The most affected part of the immediate neighborhood comprises homes with appraised values ranging from $80,000.00 to more than $150,000.00. A semi-public parking lot immediately across from these homes will reduce their value by a factor of ten (10%) to twenty (20%). In fact, any future sale of these homes will be seriously jeopardized. de Variance from Master Plan RECEIVED SEP I 3 1985, --- p, .. The College Station Master Plan relates to this proposal in numerous ways. Some of the policies expressed in that Plan are: 1. Recommends that this area be zoned R-1. o Reserve appropriate close-in areas for single family development in the future. w Discourage the location of high intensity development which will place undue traffic burdens on fronting streets. 4. Protect the integrity of single family residential areas. Provide a beautiful, safe amenable environment for all citizens. e. Aesthetics The proposed plan is not of such character to be aesthetically acceptable as an adjunct to a long-established and well-maintained neighborhood. f. Drainage Adequate paving for 315 parking spaces, access drives, sidewalks, and building will present serious drainage problems under conditions of an occasional torrential rain. g. Inequities of Conditional Use Permit The approved procedures for granting such permits for a variety of land uses that do not readily fit into the ordinary pattern of land zoning has some serious defects. It has some of the aspects of eminent domain. The process needs to be carefully scrutinized to see if it cannot be improved. Our pleading is quite simple. We pray that the College Station City Council will disapprove the subject Conditional Use Permit as submitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Agenda Item 85-709. We further pray that the College Station City Council disapprove any revision of this plan, or any other plan, that does not specifically require single family residences on that portion of the subject property that lies within two hundred and thirty feet (230') of Dominik Drive. We are attaching signed petitions from numerous residents of College Station who have voluntarily joined in this pleading. This petition was delivered to a representative of the City of College Station on September 13, 1985 as indicated by t_~he signature below. Received by: tS~.~_~_~~~, ~ at 1:10 P.M., 09/13/85. RECEIVED SEP 1 3 1985 ?,z ,--,p. General Information to be Attached to Formal Petition When several of us arrived here and purchased our new homes along Dominik Drive over 20 years ago, we were assured that it was a highly restricted residential area and would remain so. We were told that the then young city of College Station had the foresight to initiate a zoning ordinance which would protect those individuals, especially on the fringe of a development, by bringing all new developing acreage into the city, zoned single family residential. Since that time, we have had to defend our properties twice previously against the encroachment of apartment complexes and business establishments, which have included this same tract of land. We are not against change and certainly not against anyone's right to request a change. We are very much pro church, but this is not simply a small church in a quiet residential neighborhood. We are definitely, however, against any change which would benefit one individual at another's expense. The city fathers, in their wisdom, have agreed with us in the past. Our unanimous objections to this proposed change consist of the following: Traffic congestion: The projected number of worshipers for the Sunday morning and Wednesday evening services has been set at 900. The Monday through Friday day care service has been projected for 100 children. The day school attendance has been projected at 200 children. The day care service and day school enrollment, potentially involve multiple trips per day by the parents to and from the facility. The recreational area may involve extensive additional traffic, depending on use, by both automobiles and bicycles. The traffic congestions on the frontage road of the east by-pass and Hwy 30 also at times is already very bad, and could be expected to be much, much worse, especially when the frontage road is made one way south to Hwy 30. Churches, also, no longer generate traffic only on Sunday morning or at other regular "church service time". They are being designed for seven day a week use, as well they should be. However, this adds to the traffic problem. In addition, various types of service trucks will be required for a development of this magnitude. Sound: The sound generated by all this traffic, up to 900 worshipers coming and going, parents delivering and picking up as many as 300 children, especially around 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and up to 300 children playing in an outdoor playground, and the coming and going of delivery and garbage service trucks, would probably exceed considerably, that of commercial zoning. This is in addition to the noise already associated with the Hwy 6 by-pass. Lighting: It is assumed that the parking lot would be lighted extensively as well as the recreational area. If this should be the case, the light itself would be quite objectionable in the residential neighborhood. Anesthetics: The proposed plan shows extensive parking lot development immediately adjacent to Dominik. This means that we would be looking out our front windows into a parking lot. The "proposed" 40 foot "green belt" on the revised plan is grossly inadequate to screen this very large parking lot. A 50 foot "green belt" currently exists, which includes flowering shrub plantings, between Texas Ave. and the Culpepper Plaza shopping center. Few, if any, residents are even aware that this so called "green belt" even exists. We have been advised by a city planner that a minimum of 150 feet is required for adequate screening. The developer has declined to provide this distance or to install a solid brick fence. Fences of other materials, which currently exist RECEIV . SEP 1 3 1985 along streets in College Station are generally aesthetically quite undesirable and poorly maintained. Mowing and trash pick up between the fence and the curb is rarely done with any consistency, Draina§e: The development, to this point, has created extensive drainage problems for several of the residents. With the preliminary opening of Glenhaven Drive onto Dominik Drive came deluges of water and mud, repeatedly filling the street and driveways with up to six inches of mud. Several of the homes nearly flooded. A levee now controls most of this. Paving of a large share of ten acres, however, could present catastrophic problems. One of the residents affected by the drainage problem, visited with the city engineer, who expressed the opinion that if this amount of land is developed, that the culvert under the east by-pass will not be able to carry the run off. If such is the case, then his house and many others will probably be flooded. Within the last 20 years, at least twice, water has run 6-8 inches deep over the top of Dominik Drive. This was with no development at all. Decreased propertx value: Approximately one-half of the property owners here are, or have been, involved with residential real estate sales. Thus, they are familiar with the effects of this type development on the adjacent property value. In order to be impartial, however, one of the largest family home real estate agencies in the area was contacted. Their opinion was, that you immediately eliminate the majority of the buyers for this price range home. Potential buyers would not buy a home adjacent to this type development, at any price. In their opinion, the financial sacrifice to the owners of these homes would be about 20%, or approximately $20,000 to $30,000 each, or a total of $180,000 to $270,000. These are all very fine homes with all of the lots being extra large. Most of the lots are approximately 100 X 300 feet. One of the residents who sells real estate, was involved with the sale of a home adjacent to the parking lot of the Church of Christ on the west by-pass (rt. 2818). The home was on the market for an extended period of time (during the time when most homes sold quickly). The owners were eventually forced to sell for at least 20% below comparable market values. Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan for the next 20 years and beyond, recommends that this area be zoned for single family residences. It further specifies that the city "will continue to reserve appropriate close-in areas for single-family development in the future, that the city will discourage the location of high intensity development which will place undue traffic burden on fronting streets, discourage commercial activities in locations where they would present conflicts due to traffic, noise, lights, or other high activity levels, control development and regulate activities as necessary to provide a beautiful, safe, amenable environment for all citizens, and protect the integrity of single family residential areas. Commercial Development: The projected gross income from this development (not including the church) would be: 100 day care children at $2,~0 per year (Frills and Freckles) : $240,000; 200 school children at $1,600 per year (Brazos Christian School, College Station) = $320,000, or a total of $560,000 per year, not including the church budget. The initial request included a retirement center. This will very likely be added later. If it is built for 100 residents (Waldon retirement center to include 180), at $12,000 per year (Waldon figure), the projected gross income would be $1,200,000 or a total projected gross income RECE 'F&b 1 3 of $2,560,00. The preliminary plans showing proposed building(s), parking lots, etc., were they not labeled "church", would be assumed to be a commercial development. A rose is still a rose by any other name. This is a commercial development asking to be placed in a R-1 zoned area. Need: There are eight private schools in the Bryan-College Station area for children beyond kindergarten. Several of these schools are in the College Station area and are religious related schools. There are 40 day care centers in the Bryan-College Station area, a high percentage, of which include a nursery school and kindergarten and are located in College Station. Waldon Retirement Center is scheduled to open soon. Several other facilities are available for the retired, with and without nursing care. Several of the above facilities were checked and all of those checked had plenty of openings. It is our understanding that the existence of a Conditional Use Permit is a mechanism whereby the specific needs of a given community can be met, regardless of the zoning. We do not feel that a need for these facilities has, in any way, been demonstrated. The adjacent residents on Dominik Drive were not contacted prior to the initial submission of the request for the Conditional Use Permit and essentially all learned about it only through the registered letter notification of those within 200 feet of the project. Contrary to the implication in the letter of C.M. Durham of 8-28-85 to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it was a resident of Dominik (Phil Hobson) who made all the necessary contacts for a meeting of the representatives of the church, the developer, and the other Dominik residents and provided his home for the meeting in an attempt to work out a compromise satisfactory to all. The Glenhaven Subdivision preliminary plat on file with the city (for which two of our group spoke before the P and Z at that time) shows two and one-half blocks, minimum, of single family residences adjacent to Dominik Drive. We agreed to accept only one block of single family residences, provided the city and the developer could satisfactorily satisfy the others objection. We feel that this was a major compromise, and should be the absolute minimum buffer that the city would require for a development such as this, adjacent to an established neighborhood. The 40 foot "green belt", which they proposed as a compromise as we have previously stated, is not an effective buffer. The home owners volunteered to speak to the Director of Parks and Recreation when the developer proposed to switch properties with the city-land which is now designated as city park (this would have moved the proposed development 640 feet to the north and would have placed the end of the park adjacent to Dominik). The home owners did talk to the Director of Parks and Recreation, but were told that it was impossible to switch properties at this time. The home owners were in no position to speak for either the city or the developer, thus, any bargining that could possibly be done had to be done between these two parties. Movement of the outdoor recreational area to the north in the revised plan resulted in an open area on the southwest corner of the tract. However, this area would most likely be intended for a future parking lot or retirement center. There is, to date, no comparable area where Conditional Use Permits have been granted. To grant one for a development of this magnitude immediately adjacent to an existing residential subdivision would indeed set a dangerous precedence and be totally unfair to the adjacent property owners. Thus, we feel that is is imperative that the city council deny this application for a Conditional Use Permit. We, of course, have not had the opportunity to pole the complete citizenry of the City of College Station, but those who were poled, unanimously shared our concerns and voluntarily added their names to our petition. It is incomprehensible that a ten plus acre development in the heart of College Station could be approved, unless appealed, without the City Council even being aware of it until the submission of a final plat. R~CEIVED $£p 1 3 1985 P.'/ We, the undersigned, residents of College Station, Texas, do hereby petition the memb rs f t ~ ~ e o he Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, to deny the conditional use permit application of the College Heights Assembly of God on a 10.3 acre plot of ground zoned R-1 along Dominik Drive in College Station. Name £ ~. ~~~ Address ? ~'~r,~,.,.,,,: x'. We, the undersigned, reside.nts of College Station, Texas, do hereby petition the members of the P1 aha Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, to deny the conditional use permit application of the College Heights Assembly of God on a 10.3 acre plot of ground zoned R-1 along Dominik Drive in College Station. = -"ECEIvED SEP I 3 1985 Ne, the undersigned, residents of College Station, Texas, do hereby petition the members of the Pla and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, to deny the conditional use permit application of the College Heights Assembly of God on a 10.3 acre plot of ground zoned R-1 along Dominik Drive in College Station. Address - /",/o. $£P I 3 1285 We, the undersigned, residents of College Station, Texas, do hereby College Station, Texas, to deny the conditional use permit application of the College Heights Assembly of God on a 10.3 acre plot of ground zoned R-! along Dominik Drive in College Station. Name 7)- ,~ ~ ./Y Address '"05 We, the undersigned, residents of College Station, Texas, do hereby petition the members of the P g and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, to deny the conditional use permit application of the College Heights Assembly of God on a 10.3 acre plot of ground zoned R-1 along Dominik Drive in College Station. Name Address n.r),57c 7 R£c~Iv£ We, the undersigned, residents of Colle§e .Station, lexas, do petition the members of the Plannin~ and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, lexas, to deny the conditional use permit application of the College Heights gssemb]y of Cod on a 10.3 acre plot of ground zoned R-1 along Dominik DriYe in College Station. Name Address n 0 5 ~ c'.~_ .. We, [he undersi§ned, residents of College Station, Texas, do hereby petit, ion 1:he members of 1:he Planning and Zoning Commission of the Cit.y of College Si:al:ion, Texas, 1:o deny 1:he condi1:iona] use permit application of 1:he College Heights Assembl~v of God on a [0.3 acre plo1: of ground zoned R-[ alon§ Dominik Drive in College Station. N am e Address ~t.l~ o 'f C le a ~ wzru ~ C,$. RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-85-09 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF THE NEW TEXAS WATER PLAN AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 1985 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ELECTION. WHEREAS, rapid economic expansion and population growth are taxing the state's existing water resources to their limits; and to meet the current and mid-term needs of the state will require the construction of at least 44 new reservoirs, 200 major wastewater treatment systems and scores of large-scale flood-control proj- ects; and WHEREAS, the cumulative cost of the water resource fa- cilities that need to be provided between now and the year 2030 could approach $100 billion -- an amount that far exceeds the ability of local governments to finance without state assistance; and WHEREAS, the 1985 Texas Legislature approved a new pro- posed Texas Water Plan that, upon voter adoption, will establish a sound methodology for addressing the state's diverse water problems, and create a major new role for state government in helping finance the solu- tions to those problems; and WHEREAS, the new Texas Water Plan will appear on the November 5, 1985 statewide constitutional amendments ballot as Amendments 1 and 2 and, if adopted, would: (1) Create a $400 million state fund to guarantee water resource bonds issued by municipal gov- ernments, thus saving city taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in interest costs; (2) Allocate $400 million in funding for state participation in the cost of oversize capaci- ty of reservoirs and other facilities that exceed immediate local requirements, thus al- leviating short-term financial strains on lo- cal governments; (3) Authorize the issuance of $580 million in state bonds to be used for loans to cities and other local governments, including $190 million for water supply facilities, $190 million for wastewater projects and $200 mil- lion for flood-control facilities; and Resolution No. 10-10-85-09 Page 2 (4) Establish a state loan fund to assist farmers with the purchase of water-efficient irriga- tion equipment, and provide state financing for agricultural water conservation research programs; and WHEREAS, state legislation that will be implemented up- on adoption of Amendments 1 and 2 would enhance the preservation of the state's water resources by estab- lishing safeguards for bays and estuarine areas; pro- viding incentives for water conservation; and by autho- rizing the creation of voter-approved mechanisms to protect underground water supplies; and WHEREAS, voter adoption of Amendments 1 and 2 is essen- tial to insure the state's future wellbeing and the continued prosperity of Texas cities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of of the City of College Station endorses Amendments No. 1 and 2, and urges their adoption by the citizens of College Station at the November 5 constitutional amend- ments election. ATTEST .- Dian Jo~s/ City Secretary Passed and approved this the 10th day of October, 1985. n~5 ?~ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-85-10 ~TTEST: WHEREAS, On January 24th 1985, the City adopted Ordinance 1569, accepting the Personnel Policies and Procedures Handbook; and WHEREAS, The Handbook shall be amended from time to time to reflect changes that may be necessitated by State and Federal laws; and WHEREAS, The Supreme Court has ruled that State and Local governments must now comply with the Fair Labor Standard Act; and WHEREAS, Certain City policies have to be altered to reflect those federal standards; now THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas, that: The City Council adopt the amendments set forth in Section III. C. I. and Section IV. C. of the Personnel Policies and Procedures Handbook. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this October , 1985. lOth day of APPROVED Gar jr ~i~-I · / i an Jo City Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-85-15 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A WARRANTY DEED FOR THE SALE OF PECAN TREE PARK. WHEREAS, it was decided by a majority vote of the elector- ate of College Station on April 6, 1985, to sell Pecan Tree Park, a 0.687 acre park in the Crawford Burnett League in College Station; WHEREAS, bids for the sale of Pecan Tree Park were submit- ted to the City Council for review on August 21, 1985; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 1985, the City Council awarded a bid for the purchase of Pecan Tree Park to Parkway Circle Associates for the sum of $4,800.00; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of College Station that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter a contract for sale and to execute on behalf of the City of College Station a Warranty Deed to Parkway Circle Associates for the 0.687 acre park in the Crawford Burnett League in College Station known as Pecan Tree Park in consideration of the sum of $4,800.00. PASSED and APPROVED this 10th day of October, 1985. AP P ROV! ATTEST City Secr~r-y' ,yor n057 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZOS NOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: BIDDER'S CONTRACT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, by majority vote of the electorate of the City of College Station, it was decided on the 6th day of April, 1985, to sell the tract of land currently designated as "Pecan Tree Park"; and WHEREAS, said referendum required the City Attorney to give notice to bidders of the requirements for bidding for the property, the property was placed to bid, and the bids were ac- cepted by the City Council; and thereafter the City Council pick- ed the highest bid. THEREFORE, this Contract of real property is made by and between Parkwa~ Circle Associates , (hereinafter referred to as BIDDER) and the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, a Texas Municipal Corporation situated in Brazos County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as CITY), upon the terms and conditions set forth herein: ARTICLE I PURCHASE CITY hereby agrees to convey the property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference - 1 - for all purposes, together with, all and singular, the rights and appurtenances pertaining to the property, including all right, title, and interest of CITY in and to any improvements, and fixtures, situated on and attached to the property, for the con- sideration and subject to the terms, provisions, and conditions hereinafter set forth. CITY hereby agrees to convey the property described in the attached Exhibit "A# in exchange for the sum of $4,800.00 . City hereby reserves its interest in rights-of-way adjacent to the property and the easements speci- fied in the attached Exhibit "B#. ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES The parties mutually represent and warrant as follows: 1. There are no parties in possession of any portion of the property as lessees, tenants at sufferance, or trespassers. 2. There is no pending or threatened condemnation or similar proceedings or assessments affecting the property or any part thereof, nor to the best knowledge and belief of CITY is any such proceeding or assessment contemplated by any governmental en- tity. 3. All applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, stat- utes, rules and restrictions relating to the prop- erty or any part thereof have been complied with. - 2 - CITY warrants and represents that the property has full and free access to and from public highways, streets, or roads, and to the best knowledge and belief of CITY there is no pending or threatened governmental proceedings which would impair or re- sult in a termination of such access. ARTICLE III PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CITY shall submit a legal description of the property prepared by a licensed surveyor with the executed Agreement for Sale of Real Property. ARTICLE IV RESTRICTIVE COVENANT This property will be subject to restrictive convenant that no structure shall be constructed on easements. Easements shall be used only for greenbelts, parking lots, or other similar uses. ARTICLE V CLOSING The closing shall be held at the City Attorney's Of- fice, the City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, within thirty (30) days from the execu- tion and tender of this Agreement by BIDDER, at such time, date, and place as CITY and BIDDER may agree upon (which date is here- inafter referred to as the "closing date"). At the closing, CITY shall: - 3 - nnSX - 1. Deliver to BIDDER a duly executed and acknowledged General Warranty Deed conveying good and marketable title in fee simple to the property described in Exhibit "A", subject to the reservation of specified easements but free and clear of any and all liens, encumbrances, conditions, assessments, and restrictions. 2. Deliver to BIDDER possession of the property. Upon such performance by CITY, BIDDER shall: 1. Pay all costs and expenses of closin~.,~ to amaximumof $100.00. 2. Pay the cost of an appraisal which has been deter- mined to be $300.00. 3. Pay survey fees of $100.00 . 4. Pay the cost of advertising, $100.00 . 5. Pay CITY $4~800.00 in exchange for the conveyance of the property described in the attach- ed Exhibit "A" subject to the easements reserved in Exhibit ARTICLE VI BREACH In the event that either party fails to fully and time- ly perform any of their obligations hereunder said party may en- force specific performance of this Agreement. - 4 - ,,-, 0 5-:-, 7 ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS Survival of Covenants Any of the representations, warranties, covenants~ and agreements of the parties, as well as any rights and benefits of the parties, pertaining to a peried of time following the closing of the transactions contemplated hereby shall survive the closing and shall not be merged witf the deed. Notice Any notice required or permitted to be delivered here- under shall be deemed received when sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, ad- dressed to BIDDER or CITY, as the case.may be, at the address set forth opposite the signature of such party hereto. Texas Law to Apply This contract shall be construed under and in accor- dance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in Brazos County, Texas. Parties Bound This contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns where permitted by this con- tract. - 5 - Legal Construction In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this contract shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this contract shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. Prior Agreements Superseded This contract constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any prior understanding or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. Time of Essence Time is of the essence of this contract. Gender Words of any gender used in this contract shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and words in the sin- gular number shall be held to include the plural, and vice versa, unless the context requires otherwise. Memorandum of Contract Upon request of either party, both parties shall - 6 - promptly execute a memorandum of this agreement suitable for filing of record. DATED this 27th day of September , 1985. BIDDER: CITY: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS / - 7 - NETES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO 0.687 Acre Park Tract College Station, Brazos County, Texas Being all that certain tract or parcel o[ land lying and being situated in the CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE in College Station, Brazos County, Texas and being all of that 0.687 Acre Fark Tract of PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO as recorded in Volume 390, Page 287 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 0.687 acre tract also being the sume land conveyed to the City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas by J. B. Hervey and Dor~ey E. McCrory by deed recorded in Volume 351, Page 444 of the Deed Records and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING: at a ~-iflch iron rod found marking the most westerly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract, said iron rod also marking the istersection of the southeast right-of-way line of Southland Street With ~he southwest boundary line of said PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASP. THENCE: N 55' 45' 48" E conginuing along said Southland Street right-of-way for a distance of 93.58 feet to \a ~-inch iron rod fotmd at the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right; , THENCE: 39.27 feet in a southeasterly direption along the arc of a curve having a central angle of 90° 00' 00", a radius of 25.00 feet, a tangent of 25.00 feet and a long chord bearing S 79° 14' 12" E for a distance of 35.36 £eet to a ½-inch iron rod found at the Point of Tangency of the northeast line of the said 0.687 Acre Tract; THENCE: S 34° 14' 12" E for a distance o4 218.79 feet to a ~-lnch iron rod found [or the most easterly corner, o4 the said 0.68? Acre Park ~ract; THENCE: S 45° 28' 20" V Eot a distance o~ 119.53 feet to a {-inch iron rod £ound £or the most southerly corner of said Park Tract; THENCE: N 34° 26' 44" V for a distance of 265J15 feet to the POINT' OF BFX~INNING and containing 0.687 acres o£ land, more or less. SURVEY BY: Registered Public Surveyor No. 2859 STATE OF TEXAS /o, '~~~' ' . · · .. "!< ................. 7"7 ,c. :.' ~..~ .. ~.! ...'.:' .- . ,/ Y~TF_q ~/I) I~JI~DS 0.401 Acre grlLnage and U~/~tcy ~se~nt P~ TR~ ~AT~ PI{ASE ~ ~llege StucCo., Br~zos ~uncy. Part I' ~0.251 Acres) '~, Be!ne al! Chat cerceLn tract or pares/, et~ land ]!ytng and ~e/ng ,trusted the C~RD BU~ ~E Ln ~11ege S~atLon. ~zos ~unCy. Texas and beLng a part oE the 0.687 Acre Park ~cc o[ P~ ~ ~AT~ P~SE as recorded ~n Vol~e ~90, Page 2~7 o[ the ~ed Records oE ~atos Texas. R~d 0.687 ac~e ~rac~ aZno being t~ s~e Zend conrad to ~e C~cy oE ~11ege Sca'c~on, Bongos ~y, . Texan by J. B. Rervey and ~rsey ~Crory by deed r~ocded. ~n ~o~ 351, Page ~4~ oE cbs ~ed ~rds and ~CZHG: ac a ~inch Lr~ ~..~o~d ~rk~p; the ~sc vescerly corner the ,id 0.687 Acre Park ~acc, said ~n rod also ~r~ng the oE the southeast rLghc~E~y L~e. oE ~ucMand'Screec ~ch the boundary ZLne oE ~td P~ ~'~ ~g ~; ~CE: H 55' ~5~ ~8" g along ~a~d sou~easC l~ne oE ~uch~ad Street a d~scence o~ 21.31 Eeec co ~e ~ OF ~E: ~ 55' ~5' 48~ E continuing along ~d ~uch~nd Street righc~E-vey Eot a d~scance o~ 72.27 EeeC Co a ~-~ach ~ron rod ~o~d ~or corner; ~: 3~.27 [eec ~n · iouchee~ce~ ~treccton iLo~3 the icc o~ · curve 25.~ ~eec ~nd · ~ong ~ord ~er~nG ~ 7g* Z~* Z2" ~ tot · dLi~ce oE 35.36 ~eec co ~ ~-Lnch ~ron r~ ~oun~' ~C the ~o~nc oE TenGenc~ o~ Cbc no,cheese L~ne'o~ the M~4 0.687 Ac~e ~r~ ~c~' ~C~: S 3G' ~G' 32" ~ ~o~ · dtsc4nce oE 2~8.7~ Eeec co m ~tnch tron ~ound Eot the mosc e~sccr~y co~ner oE the Mtd 0.~7 Acre ~k T~CE: S 45' 28' 20~ V for i d~nce of 40.62 feec aXong the ~oucheasc l~ne oE ~td Park Tract Eot corner; ~CE: N 51' 32' ~" V ~rougb the ~ncerior o~ ~d Park Trot Eot distance oE 1~6.17 EeeC Co a stake sec Eot corner~ THEHCE: R 24' ~$' 23# V Eot a dLatance oE &&.37 feet co a stake set [or corner; ~dEHCE: S $1' 32' 50" E ~or a dLacence ot 192.90 ~eec co a stake sec ~or corner; TREtdCE: H &5' 28' 20" £ ~or ·dtacance oE 13.86 Eeet co a stake aeC Eot corner; ~tE~CE: H 3G' IG' 12" V Ear a distance o[ Z81.69 ~eec co · Jcake sec Corne~ EXHZB~T 'B' 0.(.03 Acre DraLnage end (]CLItCy ~asemenC P~AI~ TR££ ESTATES PliAS£ ~;O - Park Trace Parc [Con'c PAG£ 2 TffF.~C~:'~S S5' &5' G8# V /or a dtzcance o[ 71.O3 (eec co · stake sec [or corner; THENCE: ~ $1' 32' ~0~ V ~or · dLsunce o~ 20.95 ~eec co che PO~/~I' OF B~ZNNZ~ and concaLnths 0.251 aerea o~ land, ~re or ~e~,. Parc ZZ C0.152 Acres) BeLng ell chac cercaf~ crecc or parcel o£ Zend ZyLng and b~ng aLcuaced the CRAtfFORI} ~t/~KLrlT~ ~ ~ege S~c~on, ~a~s ~cy, Te~s ~nd be~n~ a parc oE cbc 0.~7 ~re Pqk ~acC ag P~~ ~A~ ~g as recorded tn YoZ~ 3~, Pa~e ~7 o~ ~e ~ed ~orda o~ ~a~os ~uncy, Tens. n~d O.M7 acre ~F~C al~ hLn~ ~ sm hsd ~nveyed ~ the o( ~lZe~e S~C~u, ~s ~Cy, Te~s by J. B. ~rvey and ~rsey ~C~ry by deed r~rd~ La Volw 35Z~ Page 44~ o~ che.~ R~rds ~nd bLnl mre ~rc~cuhrZy deKrL~ by ~ces i~d bo~ds n~ foZZovs: B~ZNNZN~:' ac a ~ch L~A ~ ~o~d mrktng the ~sc ~scerly corner ~e ntd 0.687 ~e Pa~K~, lard ~ro~ rod a~so M~%n~ the ~nCeriecc~on o~ the ~u~asC rLfhC~y lLne at ~u~land Street ~ch ~e souchvesc ~undary Ztne o~ ~Ld P~ ~A~ ~E~; ~: N 55° 4S~ 48~ g a~l ~td souvenir ~Lne o~ ~uC~and Street Ear a dts~Ke o~ 21.31 feeC ~or ~rner: d~scance of 20.9S feec co a ~ eec for corner~ ~CE: S 2~* ~ 23w E ~or i d~s~nce of ~G.37 f~ec co a s~ke sec for ~CE: S 34* 26' AAa E for a d~i~e o~ 177.44 feec co a I~b sec ~or corner: ~: H ~5' 28* 20~ E~or · d/s~e o~ ~2.57 feeC co ( s~ sec for corner; ~C~: S SI' 32' ~a E f~ i disuse o~ 20.15 ~eeC ~or corner, sa~d corner aIM beL~ ia c~ s~Chessc lLne o~ ~he llLd 0.~7 ~re Perk Trace; ~: S 45' 28' 20~ V for i dL~nce o~ 78.91 feec co a ~Lnch tron rod found for the mac sou~erly corner o~ ~d Park ~(~CE: N 36' 26' 44~ t- for t dL~e o( 265.15 fee~ ~o the ~l~ OF B~[NKrNG end conceinLnS O. 152 icre~ of lend. Mre or leas. Re8tecered PubLic Surveyor No. 2839 STATE OF T~JCA$ WARRANTY DEED STATE OF TEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF BRAZOS ) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, GRANTOR, of the County of Brazos and State of Texas, for and in consideration of the payment of TEN and NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00), cash, and other valuable consideration to the undersigned paid by GRANTEE herein named, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has GRANTED, SOLD and CONVEYED, and by these presents does GRANT, SELL, and CONVEY unto PARKWAY CIRCLE ASSOCIATES, of the County of Brazos and State of Texas, all of the following described real property in Brazos County, Texas, to-wit: Being all that certain tract or parcel of ~and lying and being situated in the CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE in College Station, Brazos County, Texas and being all of that 0.687 Acre Park Tract of PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO as recorded in Volume 390, Page 287 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 0.687 acre tract also being the same land conveyed to the City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas by J. B. Hervey and Dorsey E. McCrory by deed recorded in Volume 351, Page 444 of the Deed Rec- ords and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING: at a 1/2-inch iron rod found marking the most wester- ly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract, said iron rod also marking the intersection of the southeast right-of-way line of Southland Street with the southwest boundary line of said PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO; THENCE: N 55' 45' 48" E continuing along said Southland Street right-of-way for a distance of 93.58 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found at the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right; THENCE: 39.27 feet in a southeasterly direction along the arc of a curve having a central angle of 90' 00' 00', a radius of 25.00 feet, a tangent of 25.00 feet and a long chord bearing S 79' 14' 12" E for a distance of 35.36 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found at the Point of Tangency of the northeast line of the said 0.687 Acre Tract; THENCE: S 34' 14' 12" E for a distance of 218.79 feet to a 1/2- inch iron rod found for the most easterly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract; THENCE: S 45' 28' 20" W for a distance of 119.53 feet to a 1/2- inch iron rod found for the most southerly corner of said Park Tract; WARRANTY DEED STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZOS KNO~ ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, GRANTOR, of the County of Brazos and State of Texas, for and in consideration of the payment of TEN and NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00), cash, and other valuable- consideration to the undersigned paid by GRANTEE herein named, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has GRANTED, SOLD and CONVEYED, and by these presents does GRANT, SELL, and CONVEY unto PARKWAY CIRCLE ASSOCIATES, of the County of Brazos and State of Texas, all of the following described real property in Brazos County, Texas, to-wit: Being all that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE in College Station, Brazos County, Texas and being all of that 0.687 Acre Park Tract of PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO as recorded in Volume 390, Page 287 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 0.687 acre tract also being the same land conveyed to the City of College Station, ~razos County, Texas by J. B. Bervey and Dorsey E. McCrory by deed recorded in Volume 351, Page 444 of the Deed Rec- ords and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING: at a 1/2-inch iron rod found marking the most wester- ly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract, said iron rod also marking the intersection of the southeast right-of-way line of Southland Street with the southwest boundary line of said PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO; THENCE= N 55" 45' 48" E continuing along said Southland Street right-of-way for a distance of 93.58 feet to a ]/2-inch iron rod found at the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right; THENCE: 39.27 feet in a southeasterly direction along the arc of a curve having a central angle of 90° 00' 00", a radius of 25.00 feet, a tangent of 25.00 feet and a long chord bearing S 79° 14' 12" E for a distance of 35.36 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod found at the Point of Tangency of the northeast line of the said 0.687 Acre Tract; THENCE: S 34° 14' 12" E for a distance of 218.79 feet to a 1/2- inch iron rod found for the most easterly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract; THENCE: S 45' 28' 20" W for a distance of ]19.53 feet to a 1/2- inch iron rod found for the most southerly corner of said Park Tract; - 1 - THENCE: N 34' 26' 44' W for a distance of 265.15 feet to the POINT OP BEGINNING and containing 0.687 acres of land, more or less. SAVE AND EXCEPT, and there is hereby reserved unto GRANTOR, its successors and assiqns, the free and uninterrupted use and easement of passing in and along a certain area described more particularly by course, width, and c~nterline on the attach- ed Exhibit "A', known as the 'Easement Arel", and any additional area outside the easement area necessary to' install and attach equipment, guy wires, ann anchors necessary and incident to the uses of the Easement Areal to erect, construct, install, and thereafter use, operate, inspect, repair, maintain, reconstruct, modify, and remove the following: Electric transmission and distribution linesl Water lines and sanitary sewer lines, connecting lines, access facilities, and related equipment~ Storm sewers and collection facilities~ Television, telephone, and communications lines~ Drainage ditches, drainage pipes and all other drainage structures, surface and subsurface~ upon, over, and across said property as herein described and any ways, streets, roads, or alleys abutting same~ and to cut, trim and control the growth of trees and other vegetation on and in the easement .Area or on adjoining property of GRANTOR, which might interfere with or threaten the operation and maintenance of any public utility equipment, accessories, or operations. It is understood and agreed that any and all equipment and facilities placed upon said property shall remain the property of GRANTOR. This conveyance is made and accepted subject to the restriction prohibiting the construction of structures on or over easements, but allowing for the use of easement areas for greenbelts, parking lots, or driveways as documented in the Bidders Contract for Purchase of Real Property recorded in Volume , Page . , of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. - 2 - TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described premises, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, unto the said GRANTEE, its successors and assigns forever; and GRANTOR does hereby bind itself, its successors and assigns, to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND all and singular the said premises unto the said GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. EXECUTED this the 10 ATTEST:, City Sectary day of October , 1985. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Mailing Address of Grantee~ Name: Address: STATE OF TEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF BRAZOS ) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT This instrument was acknowledged before me on the /~t~ day of .~~-~ , 1985, by GARY HALTER, as MAYOR, of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, a Texas Municipal Corporation, on behalf of said corporation. the State of T E X A S Printed Name: P~m,%~(~ P.O"O~F-~ My Comm. Exp.: tOfll/~ ? AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Office of the City Attorney City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 PREPARED IN THE LAW OFFICE OF: Office of the City Attorney City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 HETES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION O.&03 Acre Drainage and Utility ~asement PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE T~O Park Tract College Station, Brazoa County, Texas Part I {0.2}1 Acres) Being all that certain tract or parcel of lend lying and being situated in :he CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE in College Station, Erazos County, Texas and being a part of the 0,687 Acre Park Tract of PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE 1140 as recorded in Volume 390, Page 287 of the Deed Records of Erazos County, Texas, said 0.687 acre tract also being the same land conv~yed to the City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas by J. B. Harvey and Dorsey HcCrory by deed recorded in Volume 351, Page 44~ of the Deed Records and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follovs: COmmENCING: at s i-inch iron rod found marking the most westerly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract, said iron rod also marking :he intersection of the southeast riiht-of-way line of Southland Street with the southwest boundary line of said PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO; THENCE: N 55' 45' 48" E along said so,:heast line of Southland Street for a distance of 21.31 feet to the Pg'INT OF BEGINNING; THENCE: N 55' &5' 48" E continuing along said Southland Street right-of-way for a distance of 72.27 feet roa ½-inch iron rod found for corner; THENCE: 39.27 feet in a southeasterly direc%ion along the arc of a curve having a central angle of 90' 00' 00", a radius of 25.00 feet, a tangent of 25.00 feet and a long chord bearing S 79' 14' 12" E for a distance of 35.36 feet to a ½-inch iron rod found at the Point of Tsngency of the northeast line of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract; THENCE: S 34' Il' 12" E for a distance of 218.79 feet to a ½-inch iron rod found for the most easterly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract; THENCE: S 45° 28' 20" W for a distance of ~0.62 feet along the southeast line of said Park Tract for corner; THENCE: N 51' 32' 50" W through the interior of said Park Tract for a distance of 196.17 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: N 24' 65' 23" W for a distance of 64.37 feet co a stake set for corner; THENCE: S 51' 32' 50" E for a distance of 192.90 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: N 45° 28' 20" E for a distance of 13.86 feet to a stake sec for corner; THENCE: N 36' 14' 12" W for a distance of 181.69 fee~ ~o a stake set for corner; EXHIBIT A 0.403 Acre Drainage and Utility Easement PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE T~O - Park Tract Part I Con't PAGE 2 THENCE: S 55° 45' 68" W for a distance of 71.03 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: N 51° 32' §0" W for a distant& of 20.95 feet to the POINT OP BEGINNING and containing 0.25! acres of land, more or less. Parr II (0.152 Acres) Being all that certain tract or parcel of land lying and b~in8 situated in :he CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE in College S:ation, Brazos County, Texas and bein8 s part of the 0.687 Acre Park Tract of PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO as recorded in Volume 390, Page 287 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 0.687 acre tract also being the same land conveyed to the City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas by J. B. Hervey and Doreey E. McCrory by deed recorded in Volume 351, Page 644 of the Deed Records and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING: at a ½-inch iron rod found marking the most westerly corner of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract, said iron rod also marking the intersection of the southeast right-of-way line of Southland Street with the southwest boundary line of said PECAN TREE ESTATES PHASE TWO; THENCE: N 55° 65' 48" E along said southeast line of Southland Street for a distance of 21.31 feet for corner; THENCE: S 51° 32' 50" E through the interior of said Park Tract for a distance of 20.95 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: S 24° 45' 23" E for a distance of 44.37 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: S 34D 26' 44" E for a distance of 177.44 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: N 45D 28' 20" E for a distance of 52.57 feet to a stake set for corner; THENCE: S 51' 32' 50" E for a distance of 20.15 feet for corner, said corner also being in the southeast line of the said 0.687 Acre Park Tract; THENCE: S 45' 28' 20" W for a distance of 78.91 feet to a ½-inch iron rod found for the most southerly corner of said Park Tract; THENCE: N 36° 26' 66" W for s distance of 265.15 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containin8 0.152 acres of land, more or less. SURVEY BY: icfael R. cCluro ! Registered Public Surveyor No. 2859 STATE OF TEXAS RESOLUTION NO. 10-10-85-19 WHEREAS, the City of College Station has determined the necessity of expanding its existing municipal park facili- ties now located at Krenek Tap Road and the East By-Pass in College Station, Texas; and WHEREAS, the City Council having determined that it is necessary to obtain the property owned by Glynn A. Williams, Jr. described on the attached Exhibit A to this resolution, and that the public need requires the acquisition of same in such manner as to make the property available for lawful use for such purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of College Station that the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto shall be acquired by the City; the reasonable cash market value of same shall be determined and paid according to law, either by voluntary purchase or by condemnation; and that the City Manager, the Mayor, and the City Attorney are authorized to take any and all necessary actions to obtain and pay for such property, including the marketable title thereto, free and clear of any restrictions or covenants inconsistent with the use of same for all law- ful public utility purposes. Further, that the City Attor- ney is by this resolution expressly authorized to initiate and pursue condemnation proceedings and any other necessary litigation incident to the purpose herein set forth. ATTEST: City Secr~y PASSED and APPROVED this 10th day of October, 1985. JOE ORR, INC. Surveyors & Engineers Office Phone 693-3378 · Rt. 3, Box 413 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 KRENEK TAP ROAD ADDITION GLYNN A. WILLIAMS, JR. TRACT MORGAN RECTOR LEAGUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 16 SEPTEMBER 1985 Ail that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the Morgan Rector League in College Station, Brazos County, Texas, being a part of that 0.46 acre tract conveyed to Glynn A. Williams, Jr. by deed recorded in Volume 735, Page 173 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas~ and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southeast line of Krenek Tap Road and the southwest line of State Highway No. 6 (East By-Pass). Thence S 43" 38' 48" W - 112.42 feet along the southeast line of Krenek Tap Road to the most northerly corner of College Station Central Park; Thence S 47" 57' 26" E - 19.31 feet along the northeast line of Central Park; Thence N 42" 30' 00" E - 106.55 feet through the said Williams 0.46 acre tract to the southwest line of State Highway No. 6 (East By-Pass); Thence N 30" 46' 27" W - 19.86 feet along the southwest line of State Highway No. 6 (East By-Pass) to the Point of Beginning and containing 0.05 acres of land more or less. ~nursday, October 10, 1985 7:00 p.m. ~o. ~"~ ~ c~ ~" ' "· I7. 005332