Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/1997 - Joint Minutes City CouncilMayor LYNN MCILHANEY Mayor Pro Tempore HUB KENNADY City Manager GEORGE K. NDE COLLEGE STATION Council Members STEVE ESMOND LARRY MARIOTT DAVID HICKSON DICK BIRDWELL SWIKI ANDERSON MINUTES JOINT MEETING Planning and Zoning Commission & City Council CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 2, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mcllhaney, Councilmembers Mariott, Esmond, Birdwell COUNClLMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmembers Hickson, Kennady, Anderson COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Parker, Rife, Gribou, and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Silvia STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Noe, City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, City Engineer Laza, Planning Technician Ruiz, Staff Assistant Charanza, Assistant City Manager Brymer, Transportation Analyst Hester, Transportation Planner Hard, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Director of Development Services Callaway, City Secretary Hooks, Director of Public Works Smith, City Attorney Cargill, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds Chairman Massey and Mayor Mcllhaney called the joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to order. Mayor Mcllhaney explained the purpose of the joint meeting was to allow the Council to hear the Carter Creek Relocation Project Presentation in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Commissions to hear their discussions and recommendations. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Presentation of Carter Creek Relocation Project by Mike Davis Assistant City Engineer Morgan opened the presentation by explaining to the Commissioners and Council that this item related to an important element of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Her presentation focused on the overall picture including Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives that refer to Open Space/Preservation/ Linkages, limitations within the current ordinances, and short and long term alternatives to help the Council achieve their goals and objectives. Providing Customer Service Excellence Special 10~2~97 Page 2 Ms. Morgan stated that Objective 5.1 in the Comprehensive Plan Goals states: "College Station should prohibit the reclamation of the floodway associated with Carter Creek, Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek, and the Brazos River to prevent upstream flooding, avoid long term structural and erosion problems associated with floodplain reclamation and to provide a City-wide network of natural open space." She explained that this objective statement gives the City direction for the future. These objectives must be converted into ordinance form before Staff can begin to implement them. At present, the City is extremely limited in our ordinances as it relates to protection/preservation of open space or these linkage areas. The current drainage ordinance was written as a flood hazard ordinance and it speaks directly to the control of flooding and the prevention of flood damage. The City cannot preclude the use of a person's property with the ordinance unless it poses a flooding problem. The City currently allows the development of entire floodplains and the relocation of entire floodplains/floodways associated with creeks, streams, drainage swales to allow development to occur, unless there are flooding impacts. In the long term, an acquisition program must be researched which would consist of a detailed master plan delineating those areas that are desired for open space and how much of the floodway/floodplain is necessary to achieve that goal. In the short term, Staff is suggesting that through the ordinance revisions, the review time change for development permits in Carter Creek, Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek (east of SH 6 bypass), and the Brazos River basins. This change in review time would allow staffto approach Council regarding the proposal and consider acquisition or negotiation with developers prior to development. The Carter Creek Relocation Project is pending permits related to this discussion. The project is located in the vicinity of University Drive and Harvey Road. It is one of the largest scale reclamation projects the City has ever seen. It has already been started through the permit process, but there are several permits that must be granted for a project of this magnitude, including the City of College Station Development Permit, a FEMA CLOMR and LOMR and the US Army Corps of Engineers 404 (wetlands permit). The 404 permit is currently being phased out and the permit issued on this project has an expiration date of January ~998. The Corp has asked the applicant to reapply for an individual permit due to the magnitude of the project, its current status and the proximity of this expiration date. Under the individual permit process, the Corp will mail out requests for public comment to adjacent property owners, Parks and Wildlife, EPA, and other government agencies involved in the wetland permit process. The applicant has submitted the necessary documents for this project to the City for the Development Permit. The submittal has been reviewed and the permit was denied due to the design not meeting ordinances. The applicant may now revise the design or request the appropriate variances. Once this is complete, the development permit can be issued. The applicant has not submitted the project to FEMA as of this date. Projects of this nature are first approved at the City level and then transmitted to FEMA for their review and approval. The FEMA approval consists of two parts (CLOMR and LOMR). The CLOMR Special t 012197 Page 3 is FEMA's comment on a proposed project that would, upon construction, altar the HydraulicslHydroiogy characteristics and result in the modification of the existing floodway. The LOMR is FEMA's modification of the FIRM based upon completion of project. Mike Davis, developer for the project, approached the Commission and stated that this project was submitted to a former Council and Planning and Zoning Commission t ~ years ago in conjunction with the City of Bryan. A resolution was approved in support of the project, however, the project has not been completed due to the economy in 1987188. Mr. Davis explained the different processes that the City and other government agencies require and stated that one project did not always suit all parties within their guidelines. He explained that the intent of the project is to take the water at the upstream end coming from Bryan on Carter Creek, run it through a drop structure and put a restrictar in the creek channel so no change in flow and property owners upstream will not be affected. The drop structure allows the flows to be balanced at the project floodway. The project intends to carry the water through a channelization through Bryan back in through College Station on the Carter Creek Channel. The velocities were increased slighUy to have a stable channel design within the system. A lot of time was spent trying to balance itto keep sediment from causing a problem now or in the future for the ease of maintenance. A major retention area was created upstream of Highway 30 so all the water coming from Scott and White, Varsity Ford, Hollywood Theaters, and some of Sam's to eliminate flooding during major storms. Approximately one-third of the total property is designed for greenspace, wetlands, and channel design. Mr. Davis stated that the Corp of Engineers and Parks and Wildlife require a natural bottom channel. The channel would be roughly 40 feet wide to be reached on both sides by back hoes for maintanance. The side slopes are above this for easy maintenance and to place equipment on and maintain anything within the channel. To help preserve the bottom a very Iow slope was kept and force blocks will be placed at intervals each time the bottom is raised two-three inches to avoid erosion of the bottom of the channel. To keep the creek from meandering, four foot concrete sidewalls will be installed on the pilot channel for maintenance without the meander through the system. An ultimate channel design was created to carry the standard project flood as well as the standard t 00 year flood. Most of this channel carries 2~ ,800 cubic feet per second as a 100 year flood level according to the FEMA numbers. The standard project flood is 35,600 cubic feet per second flow. Greenbelt designs have been added to the side of the channel all the way up with bike paths. He emphasized that the design includes as much existing infrastructure in the area as possible. Commissioner Lightfoot asked Mr. Davis to explain why this project was presented after the Comprehensive Plan was approved since the project has been in existence for a number of years. Mr. Davis responded that the actual drainage proposal was presented in June to city staff, prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Special t 012197 Page 4 The designs were being changed from the original which caused the delay. The side slopes were changed, more mitigation areas were added, increased the hardwoods area, and portions of the greenbelt. It took longer to make the submittal than expected. A resolution had already been presented for this project to get land dedication. Commissioner Lightfoot asked if Mr. Davis followed the development of the Comprehensive Plan as it would affect this piece of property. Mr. Davis explained that the first versions of the Comp Plan did not preclude flood plain development. He thought this project would meet the conditions pertaining to the Plan. Commissioner Rife asked how he planned to control the sediment problem. Mr. Davis explained that he would place a restrictar in the creek channel so the velocity would not be increased. Mr. Rife asked about the 90 degree bend. Mr. Davis said that the 90 degree bend is just before it enters their channel. Commissioner Parker stated that the two 90 degree turns in the plan and a potential problem could be when it hits Carter Creek. Mr. Davis stated that there will be a small section where it would be widened out to increase the velocity on the turning point. Commissioner Garner asked what the time frame would be on this project. She has concern for the transition of the flow of water would contribute to flooding in the area. Mr. Davis stated that the design was set everything up in design sediment ponds so the pons in the property would be constructed prior to entering into the creek. Ms. Garner asked if there is a guaranteed completion of the project? Mr. Davis said that the owners will only receive any benefit from this project if it is totally taken out. The project at any point of construction would not increase the flood plain, flood elevation, or the flooding in any other area. Commissioner Lightfoot asked how much excavation would be involved? Mr. Davis stated that some trees would be removed, some trees would be filled around, some dirt would be compacted. He explained that some of the older trees would be saved. Most of the area is a one foot type fill, only a small amount would be deep fill. Commissioner Gribou said that a one-foot fill would basically kill any tree. Mr. Davis explained that if you carefully fill just the dip circle around the tree. Chairman Massey said that more development usually means more runoff potential, is the project designed to accommodate the excess volumes? Mr. Davis said that it would be somewhere in the 500 year range. Mr. Massey asked how many similar projects Mr. Davis has had involvement in. Mr. Davis stated that this is the only one similar to the project, he explained that he has done small reclamation projects in Oklahoma. Councilmember Birdwell asked if the plans included filling up the old channel once the new channel is constructed. Mr. Davis replied that sections above Burton Creek, a section around the intersection of Hwy 60, and smaller section downstream would be filled. The remainder would stay the same. There are no plans to change the bridge. Mr. Birdwell asked if there are any changes to the drainage structure. Mr. Davis said they would be stopping approximately 500 feet from Highway 30. Special t 012197 Page 5 Chairman Massey asked about long term maintenance, he wanted to know if the City would be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Davis said the maintenance quesUon was sUII opened to whether the City should be mowed 3-4 times per year to have adequate care. He said that they have someone who would mow it and pick up the debris 3-4 Umes per year for basically the cost of fertilizer. Mr. Massey asked what the length of the channel from Highway 30 to end of the development. Mr. Davis said it is approximately 7500 feet from Highway 30 to the north end of development. Ms. Morgan explained that the proposed amendments (explained in Agenda Item Number 3) actually do not apply to the pending project. The project has been submitted under the current regulations and the new regulations (amendments) cannot be retroactive. If the applicant complies with all of the ordinance requirements the permit will be approved, there is no discretion in the permits. The applicant must meet other guidelines to be approved including zoning, which is discretionary. The current zoning on the property is R-t, if the applicant desires a change in zoning he would have to request a zoning change to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Site development and building permits must be obtained, these are technical review. There has been discussion about realigning the City Limits. The City of Bryan must also approve the project. Chairman Massey opened the floor to comments from citizens regarding the proposed Carter Creek Relocation ProJect. The following people spoke regarding the Relocation Project: Mark Shavers, Chapter President of Brazos Audubon Society and representative of Brazos Greenways Council Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive (Windwood Homeowners Association President) Christian Turner, Representative of Brazos Greenways Council Scott Schaeffer, Representative of Brazos Greenways Council Wayne Schebelski, Winwood Resident Wilfred Gardner David Scoff, Representative of Brazos Greenways Council Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group (Engineer for project) The following are the comments made regarding this project: · Too many questions have not been answered. · Prior to a decision, citizens need a chance to comment on the project. · There should be a citizens group developed to address the project with Council, Commissioners and Staff. · The development would be a massive change in the land and waterflow in the area. · The drainage from Burton Creek and Carter Creek will be changed, by not running where they exist now. There will be an increase in the pollutants in the water and an increase in mosquitoes in this area. Special t 012/97 Page 6 · Can the bridges handle excessive increased water flow? · There are some large problems associated with this project including engineering, environmental, cultural and economic. · The property owners downstream are concerned with increased water levels and velocities. · Concerned about channel maintenance. · Concern that this project is something the community will not be proud of in the future. Chariman Massey closed the public comment session. Commissioner Rife expressed that the project was new to him and most of the Commissioners. His concern was that this is the most visible floodplain area in the city and a plan is being presented that would likely eliminate the area as we know it today. He believed it should be developed to preserve as much greenspace and added that the Council should make a decision about whether or not we should stand behind the intent expressed in the Comprehensive Plan to maintain greenbelt areas. He believed greenbelt areas can be an asset to the City in the way of "rural charm" or "natural areas". Commissioner Gribou commented that it is the right of the owner to develop the property, but it needs to be balanced with the Comprehensive Plan goals and the City's commitment to how we are willing to work with the Comp Plan. The City needs to take into consideration the greater good for the citizens. The owner does have the right to develop but the impact of the City needs to be taken into consideration. It will be up to the Council to see how much the City is willing to back the Comprehensive Plan, and this project will be a good test to that effect. Commissioner Rife asked staff to clarify the impact of the previous resolution on this project and the Comprehensive Plan. Assistant City Engineer Morgan understood their concern related to the council's committment to the existing resolution. City Attorney Cargill explained that a resolution is not a law and is not legally binding on a future Council. Mr. Rife asked what effect the Comprehensive Plan would have in these decisions. Mr. Cargill responded that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by resolution. The Comp Plan is a guide to how the city should be laid out and what should be achieved through the overall picture. The Plan is not a law. Commissioner Lightfoot asked if this project is the same as the project presented in 1986. Staff explained that they would have to research the initial plans or documents. Mr. Davis explained that the project is not identical to the original one in 1986. It has been modified to include additional wetlands and greenspace and other things to meet all City requirements. Commissioner Garner expressed her concern of the completion of the project. She felt that since the project was presented ten years ago and not completed du to the economy the same may stand today. She feels that a project of this nature should be completed with a guarantee to be completed within a specific time frame. Special t 0~2~97 Page 7 Chairman Massey asked Assistant City Engineer Morgan to comment on what other cities have experienced with this type of development. Ms. Morgan replied that several cities including AusUn, Dallas, Ft. Worth, McKinney and cities in north Texas, have worked together to create projects such as 10-mile creek. A lot of projects throughout the state of Texas have tried to accommodate trail systems and natural greenbelt areas and they found that they do promote growth in those communities. Tulsa has a tremendous system where they have had flooding and they created greenbelt areas to try and miUgate flooding impacts. Staff has recently had conversations with Harris County Flood Control district about some of these projects. Harris County Flood Control has built a number of these types of channels throughout Houston and surrounding areas. In discussions with them, they stated that they were trying to avoid building these projects in the future because the public did not want them any longer. They were trying to go back to the natural settings and avoid some of the large scale projects. Chairman Massey asked about guidelines for environmental study on this area. Ms. Morgan explained that the Corps would do the study because it is an individual permit. Mr. Massey asked what the City of Bryan's position on this project. Ms. Morgan stated that Staff has worked with the City of Bryan during the whole process. Bryan is basically in the same situation as College Station. Bryan has denied a permit to the applicant until some of their comments are addressed. Bryan requires the concrete lining to proceed up the sloped sides of the channel to the 25 year storm event. Commissioner Gribou asked if the City is capable of doing anything other than just going through the permitting process as far as land acquisition. Ms. Morgan stated that the City has the ability to negoUate with the land owner to acquire some of the property. Ms. Morgan reiterated that the proposed drainage ordinance amendment is not applicable to this project but land acquisiUon is not out of the question. Commissioner Parker stated his concern regarding the engineering of this project. He emphasized the importance of reviewing more data before he could make a decision. Councilmember Birdwell stated that the only way to create greenbelts and links would be a~ong the existing creek. The City would have to but the right-of-way which would require a bond issue approved by the voters. This project provides a bikeway at no cost to the City. He was very concerned with the drainage downstream. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Presentation and discussion of proposed drainage ordinance amendment. (Comprehensive P~an Implementation-Drainage Open/Space). Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that a new Drainage Variance Board would be created and the review time for development permits for certain drainage areas would be changed to 30 days with the proposed drainage ordinance. Special t012197 Page 8 Variances to the Drainage Ordinance would shift from the Zoning Board Adjustments to the newly created Drainage Variance Board. The variance board would be a Council appointed citizen's board consisting of five members. The membership would consist of three professional engineers licensed in the State of Texas, one real estate professional and one member with an environmental/conservation background. Drainage variances are usually extremely technical and differ significantly from the Zoning Board of Adjustment's scope. They are typically brought forward very seldom and as such, it is difficult for a board not versed in this background to learn enough about the variance process and technical requirements. Having a board comprised with this background will make the technical interpretation problems less difficult. Currently there is a 10 day review time period allowed by the ordinance to respond to these development permits. In the amendment, it would allow a thirty day review period to give Staff a chance to present to Council on these types of developments. These amendments actually do not apply to the pending project. The project has been submitted under the current regulations and the new regulations (amendments) cannot be retroactive. The development permit is basically a technical review. If the applicant complies with all of the ordinance requirements the permit will be approved, there is no discretion in the permits. The applicant must meet other guidelines to be approved including zoning, which is discretionary. The current zoning on the property is R-t, if the applicant desires a change in zoning he would have to request a zoning change to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff would like the Commission and Council to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Goals at a future meeting. Mayor Mcllhaney thanked the Commission for allowing this joint meeting to happen and explained that this meeting was for informational purposes only. Mayor Mcllhaney adjourned the City Council at 9:t0 P.M. and the Planning and Zoning Commission continued with the remainder of the agenda. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 7th day of January, 199_~8. APPROVED: Mayo( Lynn Mcllhaney / /A~F~EST: City Secretary Connie Hooks