Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/31/1958 - Special Minutes - City Council
z 3 a C� [.El CL. Cb C1� 0 0 M e Ld V) Ld CL CzJ 0 co MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING May 31, 1958 Members present: Mayor Langford; Councilmen Anderson, Boyett, Landiss, McCall, Orr, Sorrels; City Manager Boswell; City Engineer Benson; City Attorney Dillon. Visitors present: A. D. Folweiler, M. K. Thornton, C. D. Wells, and Ron Logan. Purpose of meeting was to receive the report of a committee appointed March 21, 1958 to make recommendations relative to streets and street improve- ments. The report of the committee was read in full as follows: May 12, 1958 Mr. Ernest Langford, Mayor and Members of City Council City of College Station Subject: Streets - Report of Committee Gentlemen: In compliance with your request of March 21, 1958, we offer the following recommendations on the questions listed: 1. Question: Your recommendation as to type of construction on streets which may be designated as thoroughfares. You need not at this time give much attention to designating thoroughfares as that will be a question to be settled after the area planning program is completed. Recommendation: This question can only be partially an- swered at this time. This Committee feels the only streets rating a classification as thoroughfares are those now designated as State Highways, with the one exception of Jersey Street from Old Highway 6 to New Highway 6. Thor- oughfares should be paved with concrete, with a minimum width of 41 feet, back to back of curb, and careful con- sideration should be given to division of traffic with a 20 foot esplanade where such right-of-way can be provided. 00"o Minutes of City Council Continued: Page 2 May 31, 1958 z Recommendation: For thoroughfares see No. 1 above. For 04) residential streets we recommend three sections or types, Old Highway 6 is in need of widening and Jersey Street avEh; should be rebuilt in the near future and cooperation of the College and perhaps the State Highway Department CL. should be sought on both. 2. Question: Your recommendation as to what should be done on an existing street which is in good condition and which 0 obviously has several years of life left. 0 storm sewers to relieve low spots or concentration of storm rn Recommendation: Maintenance to insure a sealed surface and improvement of drainage to insure quick run-off of water D_ from the pavement. 3. Question: Your recommendation as to what should be done on a street which is for all practical purposes worn out. Recommendation: Reconstruction as soon as funds can be pro- vided, to standards as outlined in No. 4 below. Existing surfacing material should be salvaged when acceptable as base material. 4. Question: Your recommendation as to the proper width of street for both thoroughfare and residential use. 00641 �� Recommendation: For thoroughfares see No. 1 above. For 04) residential streets we recommend three sections or types, to be constructed in lengths of not less than one block, avEh; and selection of type to be left to the desires of property owners: (a) Country Section: Twenty-two foot flexible base six inches thick, with 20 foot width of one inch asphalt surface, BMJ to be constructed to drain, with adequate side ditches and storm sewers to relieve low spots or concentration of storm water. City to pay one-third and property owners two-thirds D_ of cost. (b) 27 Foot Curb and Gutter Section: Flexible base with concrete curb and gutter. Base to be 6 inches thick with t one inch asphalt surface. Width to be 27 feet, back to 0 back of curb, with storm water inlets and storm drains as 0 60 required. City to pay one-third and property owners two - thirds of cost. 00641 �� a Recommendation: We commend the City Council for adopting a 0 Minutes of City Council Continued: Page 3 May 31, 1958 Q should result in a very good system of streets in a reasonable 1.4 (c) 37 Foot Curb and Gutter Section: To be constructed I where designated by the City and where property owners are LTJ willing to participate in the cost. Flexible base with concrete curb and gutter. Base to Interest on such a loan will cost the City less than mainten- LLJ be six inches thick with one inch asphalt surface. Width LL to be 37 feet back to back of curb, with storm water inlets CZS and storm drains as required. Cost to property owners to L61 be the same as (b) above, City to pay balance of cost. LL 5. Question: Your recommendation as to how much attention should 0 be given to the question of adequate and proper drainage on ca any street. Recommendation: Proper drainage is always of prime impor- tance. on "Country Section" the side ditches must be kept open and to proper grade. The City must maintain control of this situation. 6. Question: The present council is not in favor of any kind of a bond issue for street improvements. We do favor a pay-as-you-go proposition. By adopting a program like this at least another year must elapse before any considerable amount of money will be available. We would like therefore to have your recommendations as to just how far the city should go in repairing streets in the meantime. Recommendation: We commend the City Council for adopting a 0 pay-as-you-go policy as against a bond issue for street improvements. Proper application of funds as contemplated should result in a very good system of streets in a reasonable 1.4 period of time; however, we feel that time is of the essence and the Council might be wise to borrow an amount of money 0 sufficient to complete about two miles of the worn out streets. Interest on such a loan will cost the City less than mainten- ance on such streets. The City Engineer could, under such a L:.! procedure, begin construction as soon as he has developed an acceptable order of sequence, property owner's contributions L61 are secured, and plans and specifications are completed. LL Respectfully submitted: S/Codie D. Wells, Chairman SIC. K. Leighton 0 SIF. J. Benson M Minutes of City Council Continued: Page 4 May 31, 1958 I agree with this report except, (4a) a single bituminous treatment will be sufficient in many cases, (4b) -Type adequate but should be discouraged on existing streets, (4c) I disagree wholly with the use of this section. 0 S/Gibb Gilchrist LY.1 May 12, 1958 laJ Cb To: Mr. Ernest Langford, Mayor ® and Members of City Council M City of College Station Gentlemen: In response to the invitation in the last paragraph of your letter of March 21st for other suggestions we offer the following: In our contacts with Mr. Benson on this Committee we find that des- pite his many College activities he has a better grasp of the situation on the streets and their practical solution than any one with whom we have come in contact. We urge that he be asked to detail and supervise any line of action on which you may decide. Also we urge that he be authorized to employ an assistant engineer, even though he be part time, to relieve him of many necessary details. We think our City is fortunate in having such an outstanding engineer to advise us and we believe you should carefully weigh his recommendations in light of present conditions. Iie is both able and practical. U Sincerely, N N a 6J SIC. D. Wells, Chairman SIC. K. Leighton e S/Gibb Gilchrist LTJ A supplementary report by Mr. C. K. Leighton was read as follows: I.:,1 C 0 M 0 0064 DC Minutes of City Council Continued: Page 5 0 May 31, 1958 M May 26, 1958 To: Hon. Ernest Langford, Mayor and Members of City Council City of College Station College Station, Texas Gentlemen: Respectfully submitted, S/C. K. Leighton cc: C. D. Wells Gibb Gilchrist F. J. Benson OUS44 Supplementing report dated May 12, 1958, by committee appointed March 12, 1958, to study street construction problems in the City of College Station, Texas, and composed of C. D. 'Wells, Chairman, F. J. Benson, Gibb Gilchrist and the undersigned, I would like to make more specific recommendations on certain items covered in the report a and listed below: ® .As I see the problem, it is primarily one of municipal street reconstruction. The ultimate design then should be a curb and gutter section of sufficient width to provide for the required number of Ld moving lanes of traffic together with side parking. In my opinion, () any construction of a permanent nature should be at a grade line es- < tablished in accordance with accepted city street design standards. a- Regardless of the width of street paved at this time, the portion so CZ5 constructed should be at a longitudinal grade line and to a transverse section that will properly fit the ultimate street section. I am a firm believer in streets of adequate width to handle both moving traffic and parking, and therefore, strongly recommend that a 0 minimum street width of 37 feet back to back of curb be used except for short dead end streets. This section is the minimum that will allow for two moving lanes of traffic with parking on both sides. Respectfully submitted, S/C. K. Leighton cc: C. D. Wells Gibb Gilchrist F. J. Benson OUS44 Minutes of City Council Continued:., Page 6 May 31, 1958 i On motion by Councilman Orr, Seconded by Councilman McCall, the majority report of the committee was accepted with Councilman Landiss Z voting No on (4c). W On motion by Councilman Boyett, seconded by Councilman Anderson, U < the city engineer was authorized to prepare at the earliest possible Ld moment plans for the complete reconstruction of Kyle street. CL On motion by Councilman ,Sorrels, seconded by Councilman Anderson, the city manager and the city engineer were authorized to proceed with the maintenance of those streets which in the opinion of the city engineer 0 can be salvaged and made usable for a period of at least five years, with 0 the provision that cost of such maintenance be limited to 650 per linear foot. The council adjourned subject to call. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: 0 City Secretary �. Z %Wj�q pi Cd (p ©oa4-fic �2'� 1