Loading...
Emailsr I Bob Mosle}" -A&M Chu~ch of ~hrist Drainage Issues From: To: Date: Time: Subject: Place: Spencer Thompson Administrative Conference Room # 3; Bob Mosley; Carol Cotter; Spencer Thompson 3/18/2004 4:00 PM -5:00 PM A&M Church of Christ Drainage Issues Administrative Conference Room # 3 Meeting to discuss citizen complaints concerning the drainage design for this project. Please respond to acceptance of meeting time or conflict. thx st Spencer G. Thompson, Jr. Engineering Services City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Ph. 979.764.3570 Fx. 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov 1-'age 1 I I Bob Mosley -Re: Bob Mosley accepted A&M Church of Christ Drainage Issues; (18 Mar 2004 16:00) Central ~tandard 11meage 1 I ,,, .. ' . From: Spencer Thompson To: Bob Mosley Date: 3/15/2004 1 :31 PM Subject: Re: Bob Mosley accepted A&M Church of Christ Drainage Issues; (18 Mar 2004 16:00) Central Standard Time I have not heard back from them on this time. They said they were open all this week. I'll let you know. st »>Bob Mosley 3/15/2004 12:59:47 PM»> Bob Mosley accepted A&M Church of Christ Drainage Issues; (18 Mar 2004 16:00) Central Standard Time I Bob Mosley: -A&M Church of Christ Drainage ' c ; ' t From: To: Date: Subject: Mr. McClure, Spencer Thompson Mike McClure 3/15/2004 9:41 AM A&M Church of Christ Drainage The City would like to meet with you concerning your drainage design for the A&M Church of Christ project. According to the Drainage Report you are the engineer of record on file. Citizens in the area have stated that ever since the project started they have experienced considerably more drainage than ever before. Letters from area citizens have been sent to the church, City staff and members of the City Council. Please let us know when you have a convenient time to meet with City representatives. I will schedule a meeting. Thank you st Spencer G. Thompson, Jr. Engineering Services City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Ph. 979.764.3570 Fx. 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov CC: Bob Mosley; Carol Cotter; Kelly Templin; Natalie Ruiz Page 1 I ,_ ... I Bob Mosleyi -Letter from Mr. James J. Jochen From: To: Date: Subject: Celia Hernandez Bob Mosley; Mark Smith 2/27/2004 4:56 PM Letter from Mr. James J. Jochen Reply requested when convenient The attached letter was recieved in the City Manager's Office. If you could please check into this and get back with Tom and Glenn with a response. Thank you, Celia CC: Glenn Brown; Tom Brymer Page 1 l Mr. Brett McCulley Flood Plain Administrator 1101 Texas Ave. February 26, 2004 College Station, TX 77842-0960 Dear Mr. McCulley: 2500 Raintree Dr. College Station; TX 77845-4119 979-696-6718 As you will recall, there has been an ongoing dialogue between severa~ residents of the Raintree Subdivision, The A&M Church of Christ, and your office. Dr. Russell; chair of the church building committee, in his letter of February 18 to me, suggests that we, the residents, urge the appropriate city official(s) to become engaged. It seems to me that this might be productive as to clarification of several issues that seem to be in play. The storm water drainage plan for the church property was reviewed and approved by the city. It is not clear to us whether the prime construction contractor originated. the plan, or iftpe. plan was originated by qualified members of the building committee, qr if an independent engineering fjnn did this work for the church; The question arises ,hecause Dr .. · Russell states: in his .letter '.'Since :we cannot deviate .from .. the plan the city has required of us with respect to -st~rm drainage, lam.at .a loss asto what to qo un#l : the city is willing to address the issue'~.·· l have included a copy of this letter for your reference, as other matters are discussed as well. Of particular concern is the reference to the city's position that "they do not see a problem, and nothing has materially changed with respect to storm drainage''. The tone of the letter seems to infer that once the city has approved a plan, that plan is locked into place and cannot be revised, even though improvements or corrections might provide benefits to al1 parties. A review of my property deed documents and restrictions reveals interesting facts. It is stated in the deed restrictions section, Par. 6, that each lot bears an easement for the city utilities maintenance. These ea~~Rts are indicated on the plat as 10' in width and extend exactly on each property line. Par. 6 further states "Said easements are also reserved as drainage easements". There is no other wording referring to drainage matters. There is no reference to drainage ACROSS private property outside the easement areas from adjoining properties, city streets, or anywhere else. The plat displays these easements clearly on every property line of every lot. I see no other indication of drainage easements on the plat. The correspondence and conversations with various persons associated with this project give the impression that the purpose of the retention pond is twofold, ie: to collectand.control the distribution of the storm waters which result from rainfall onto. the. 'improved' areas of the prop.erty; and to hold and permit a degree of clarification/settlement of the waters prior to discharge. I understand that the pond is presently complete as to it's original design . I have been told that.discharge control is effe~ted by the arrangement of the difference in size of the outlet versus the inlet(s). The outlet, I.am told, is 18" _ _,,....... diameter, and is located at the lowest point of the pond bed. I find it difficult to visualize how this arrangement can provide for the stated mission of the pond. With an 18" diameter outlet the volumes of water can be overwhelming as evidenced by the videotape of a rainfall event drainage on October 9, 2003. On this occasion, the rainfall measured at my home was 4.64", not entirely unusual in my rainfall records kept since 1987. Very unusual, however, was the volume of water delivered across our properties, when compared to past rainfalls of 6", 8", even 1 O" on a number of occasions during the past 16 years of monitoring. There has been discussion of introducing some additional discharge control at the pond exit. I assume, however, that this is impossible, since the existing plan has been approved and changes cannot be considered. As to the function of clarifying the collected waters prior to discharge, this, too, seems virtually impossible, since the waters routed to the pond drain as fast as they enter, permitting no settling time. It might even be speculated that the discharged waters are of poorer quality than when they entered the pond, as they rush across the soil of the pond bed, carrying mud and soil out of the pond. Evidence of this is quite apparent in the yard of the Davis residence, as well as in that part of my Jot across which the drainage flows. It is entirely fair to say that the retention/clarification pond neither retains nor clarifies. -•. I feel that a considerable amount of relevant information has been overlooked by the designers of the drainage system. During the past week, I have spent a number of hours walking about the church property and the Grumann-Northrup property in an effort to better understand the existing drainage patterns compared to what they obviously were 6 months ago. I have accumulated dozens of pictures illustrating what I have observed. While the pictures provide excellent tools for recollection of viewings, they are not nearly as demonstrative as a personal observation. I have had to revise my previous mental concepts of the general area since making these recent observations. The Grumann property has unntistakable manmade wide waterways, as well as integral ditching within the waterways, along its north and east property lines just as one would suspect the deed restrictions specify. Also on the Grumann property are several other manmade waterways, all provided to route the storm waters first to the east, and then to the south off the property to continue in a generally southeast direction. The direction of waterflow is evidenced by the 'bent' of the vegetation therein. The church property, likewise, has such a manmade waterway the length of it's east property line, and this waterway connects to the Grumann waterway at the junction of the two properties. The ditch along tb.,. .snuth property line, together with the contiguous Grumann waterway would drain alJ the now-improved church property were it not for the roadway now along that property. The curbing along the roadway denies waters access to the waterway and forces it to the retention pond. Observation of the 'unimproved' areas and the frontage/service road indicates that the drainage, prior to improvements, was generally southward and eastward. One must believe that, if this were not, indeed, the case, why would the manmade waterway along the east property line have been provided. The exception to this general condition may be the final 50' or less along the length of the north property line. Viewing the frontage road it appears that the crest may be slightly to the south of this property line. The net result of the improvements on the church property has been to deny the storm waters access to it's preferred directions of drainage, and, instead, route them aJJ to the pond for discharge to an area they would not, otherwise, seek. A great deal of effort and monies have been expended to create the improvements to the property. I believe that it is probab1e that if closer attention had been paid to the conditions existing prior to the beginning of planning, a different conclusion might have been reached. There is, however, a solution to the problem so simple that I am surprised it has not already occurred to everyone (perhaps it has). It is a solution that might be the least costly and most effective of any possible alternatives that I have heard discussed. It would involve several easy revisions involving the pond and the ditch constructed to cany pond discharge away: 1. FilJ the ditch and seal the present pond outlet. 2. Add a new drain outlet somewhere at the south end of the pond, not at the bottom of the pond, but at an appropriate height, so as to have a constant water level in the pond, as well as a water level height which could drain into a new ditch leading the water to the existing waterway/ditch which runs the length of the south property line, per deed restrictions. This would restore the former conditions for all those waters which, in the past, did drain into that waterway. It would)also provide settling time for clarifying purposes in the pond. It would provide a further service of permitting any oily substances from the parking lots or roadways to collect on the pond water surface for periodic skimming. The pond drain piping might be elbowed downward several inches beneath the water surface level to exclude any surface oils from water leaving the pond. 3. Restore a shallow waterway. west to east, generally along the access road and along the treelines, in the most practical route, to connect with the existing north-south waterway along the east property line. It might be advantageous, when grading , to maneuver the moved dirt into a sort of berm at the curbing of the access road as well as along the rest of the length of this waterway so as to discourage migration of waters northward, and, instead, encourage eastward movement. This action would leave only the rain actually falling on the access road itself draining into the culvert at the junction with Appomattox, or, hopefully, following the Appomattox gutters northward . I hope the foregoing may be helpful and provide you the means to relieve the impasse at which the several interested parties linger. I am sure that the affected residents of Raintree can make themselves available for a meeting/discussion, if needed, so that forward movement can be accomplished. Sincerely, James J. Jochen Attachment : Letter copy, Dr. Russell Copy this letter: Rev. Grove, Dr. Russell, Dr. Long, Mr. Davis, Mr. Grona (Fretz), Mr. Brymer Brett Mccully -Re: Irate From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Spencer Thompson Bridgette George 8/26/2003 1:37 PM Re: Irate Brett Mccully; Kelly Templin Page 1of1 I have told Mr. Smith that Brett is checking into the matter due to a letter from a neighbor sent to the City. also told him I would call him when I had any additional info. The last time I spoke with him I informed him of "the letter". I spoke with TCEQ Stormwater Division in Waco concerning this site. I tried to get them to do a site visit. They have 1 inspector for the entire division. They're not coming. Mr. Smith has left 3 messages I know of since my last conversation with him. I had no new information to relay to him. Mr. Smith constructed a deck and storage building out into the drainage channel that goes from the church to Raintree drive. He is complaining of the storm water that goes through the channel. He said it never did that before. st Spencer G. Thompson, Jr. Development Services, Engineering City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Ph. 979.764.3570 Fx. 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov >>> Bridgette George 08/26/03 10:30AM >>> Alan Smith just called and said that he's left you 1 7 voice mails and you have not returned his call. I explained that you have been very busy and were out on Friday and asked if there was something I could help him with. Apparently you were supposed to be checking with the State about the flooding problem he's experiencing with the Church of Christ development. I have his number and will gladly give it to you, but I would also be happy to call him if you would like to fill me in. He mildly threatened getting a lawyer (if he had to). but was hoping it would not come to that. Bridgette George Asst. Development Manager City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842-9960 979.764.3570 bgeorge@cstx.gov www. ci. college-station. tx. u s file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\bmccully\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.H... 8126/2003 Mr. Brett McCully, P.E . City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77842-0960 Dear Mr. McCully: July 26, 2003 2500 Raintree Dr. College Station, TX 77845-4119 Thank you for your recent letter describing the situation with regard to drainage of storm waters from the A&M Church of Christ property, now under development. I should probably have included additional historical information that might have provided a better understanding of the possible unintended consequences of planned drainage from the property. When Raintree subdivision was in development, the lot which is now 2502 Raintree Dr. was unoccupied, because it included the natural drainage opportunity for storm waters from the areas to the south, including the 'church' property. The lot was not suitable for development, because there was not room for a house to be built on it. Further, the bank of the drainage area was gradually eroding further as time passed. However, following the alterations which were provided by the city in the areas to the south, whatever they were, the waters which fell on those areas and drained through my property and also through 2502 Raintree Dr. subsequently drained elsewhere. The flooding, and erosion stopped. The owner oflot 2502 Raintree later brought in fill dirt, added approximately 30 ft. of surface out into the drainage path, and this made possible the utilization of the property for a residence to be built on it. Subsequent owners of the house added improvements, including a storage building, down in the very areas which were formerly subject to flooding. I am not aware of how much of this information is known to the present owners of 2502 Raintree. It is, however, very likely that if the drainage alterations which the city made in the early 1980s have now been changed by present activities, it may, somehow, permit flooding in spite of the retention pond now present. In the early years of the development of the subdivision Mr. and Mrs. J. Vincent, now deceased, were the original owners of the southeasternmost lot/house on Appomattox St. Storm waters from the undeveloped areas to his south, the 'church' property, did seriously invade his property, flooding his garage and back yard a number of times. He kept his fishing boat stored on the ground next to his garage, when, on one occasion, the flooding was severe enough to float his boat out of his yard, through my property and downstream until it was snagged in underbrush. It was Mr. Vincent and, perhaps, the owner of 2502 Raintree who prevailed on the city to do whatever it was that was done to divert most of the waters elsewhere. As I have pointed out, it was after this action by the city that the flooding ceased. Again, I have no reason to think that subsequent owners of this property have any knowledge of the history of these events. I should mention that neither before nor after the changes to the drainage patterns were made by the city, have I had serious problems of flooding or erosion which affected my property. You have -~ -..--:---.L-- ~ . ' ,. :. pointed out that the purpose of the retention pond is to retain the water collected, so that it can be released in a controlled manner and this, I fear, is going to create a serious problem for my property. The natural drainage opportunity which is present from the southwest comer of my lot, diagonally to the northeast for approximately 130 ft is not a pronounced channel, but rather a very gently sloped feature which causes a wetted area of from approximately 10 ft to almost 40 ft in width. The 2.3" rainfall which occurred on July 4 was followed by a continuing trickle of waters from the 'church' area for nearly a week. With the forecast of further rains on the 16th, I had to cut the grass, then over 12" in height, barely able to do so because of the muddy condition of the area. The mower wheels (not a riding mower) left deep ruts across the entire still wet area. The 0.4" rain of July 16 was followed by a similar trickle of water for 2 days. The 0. 6" rainfall of July 23 seemed to finish draining by the next morning. I did not take time to investigate, but I presumed that the contractor, by now, had taken measures to contain the drainage. Formerly, prior to development activities, almost any rainfall, slight or heavy, drained quickly and my back area dried promptly. However, now with the extended periods of drainage, the continued passage of water through my yard, even though insignificant in volume, does keep a large portion of my lot wet, muddy, and too sodden for any activity whatsoever. Even though we do not have any 'improvements' in this area, we do make an effort to maintain its appearance, so that the several Appomattox homes which back this area do not have to view an untidy area from their backyards. If my back area remains wet and untenable for extended periods due to 'controlled drainage' from the retention pond, it will be very difficult for me to maintain it in presentable fashion. Further, there is the possibility that a mosquito breeding area might be provided. I apologize for this lengthy recitation, but I do feel that you need as much information as can be provided in order that you can make informed decisions. I would summarize the foregoing in the following manner: 1. It is possible that 'church developments' may have, unintentionally, undone the 1980s good work of the city, and may again introduce flooding which will do harm to at least 1 home on Appomattox and the home at 2502 Raintree Drive. This in spite of the retention pond provided to prevent flooding. 2. Controlled drainage from the retention pond could cause extended periods of 'wetland effect' in the back areas of my lot, preventing appropriate care for esthetic purposes. I forsee no flooding or erosion problems on my property. Thank you, again, for your interest and assistance in avoiding any unforeseen problems. ce ely, _ O ap-l. .A es J. Jochen (;/7" , tfP' ~"~'-- Copy: Dr. B. Don Russell Chair, Church Building Committee \-' '•-.. ti .. '· ,,• •' '· ~·*(CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ w DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 9960 110 1 Texas Avenue July 24, 2003 Mr. James Jochen 2500 Raintree Drive College Station, TX 77845 Re : A&M Church of Christ Dear Mr. Jochen, College Station . Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 As the Floodplain Administrator for the City of College Station , I am responding on behalf of Mr. Brymer to your letter dated July 18, 2003. While we have been unable to locate any prior written or e-mail correspondence from you , we hope the following information addresses your concerns. First of all , as you surmised in your letter, the drainage improvements on the church property are not complete. Once construction is complete , rainfall runoff falling on the improved areas of the church will be collected and routed to a detention basin . The outlet of this basin will regulate the flows that leave the church property so they are no more intense than those that existed prior to the development of the property. Until that time, the contractor has the flexibility to route some of the flows away from his construction activities, as long as they leave the church property at the same location , and as long as siltation control devices are installed and maintained. Upon our visit to the site, we did observe that the siltation devices were not installed, therefore we are contacting the Church's contractor to obtain compliance with this regulation. If you would like to meet to discuss specific concerns not addressed by this letter, or view the approved drainage plans for the church property, you may contact either myself or Spencer Thompson at 764-3570. Thank you fo r your involvement and understanding. Development Engineer Cc: Tom Brymer Kelly Templin Spencer Thompson '"Building a Better City in Partnership with You " July 24, 2003 Mr. James Jochen 2500 Raintree Drive College Station, TX ___ _ Re: A&M Church of Christ Dear Mr. Jochen, As the Floodplain Administrator for the City of College Station, I am responding on behalf of Mr. Brymer to your letter dated July 18, 2003. While we have been unable to locate any prior written or e-mail correspondence from you , we hope the following information addresses your concerns. First of all, as you surmised in your letter, the drainage improvements on the church property are not complete. Once construction is complete, rainfall runoff falling on the improved areas of the church will be collected and routed to a detention basin. The outlet of this basin will regulate the flows that leave the church property so they are no more intense than those that existed prior to the development of the property. Until that time, the contractor has the flexibility to route some of the flows away from his construction activities, as long as they leave the church property at the same location , and as long as siltation control devices are installed and maintained. Upon our visit to the site, we did observe that the siltation devices were not installed , therefore we are contacting the Church's contractor to obtain compliance with this regulation . If you would like to meet to discuss specific concerns not addressed by this letter, or view the approved drainage plans for the church property, you may contact either myself or Spencer Thompson at 764-3570. Thank you for your involvement and understanding. Sincerely, Brett Mccully, P.E. Development Engineer Cc: Tom Brymer Kelly Templin Spencer Thompson I Brett Mccully -Drainage Complaint from Mr. Jochen From: To: Date: Subject: Kelly, Brett McCully Kelly Templin 7/24/03 10:33AM Drainage Complaint from Mr. Jochen We are aware of several issues regarding the A&M Church of Christ Project, and Spencer has been in contact with at least 2 other residents in the area, but have not heard from Mr. Jochen prior to this time can summarize the situation in four areas. A) The diversions mentioned in Mr. Jochen's letter were contrary to city drainage regulations as they divert flow from the original drainage patterns by using undeveloped property not owned by them. B) The ultimate drainage improvements are not yet complete, so we will in fact see an improvement over the current situation, however it may not return the flows to the perceived pre-construction condition (since it was incorrectly diverted) C) Due to the lack of city inspection of private drainage improvements, we are unable to obtain compliance with our temporary grading and erosion control requirements without stalling our plan review process. This is allowing the contractor temporary diversions around his working areas that are making the situation appear much worse. D) Because these residents were very opposed to the church project, we are seeing a very 'heightened' sense of concern over normal construction operations and impacts. Please let me know if we need to respond directly to Mr. Jochen. Brett CC: Kelly Templin; Spencer Thompson Page 1 I .. • July 18, 2003 #. Mr. Tom Brymer, City Manager 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mr. Brymer: 2500 Raintree Dr. College Station, _.._. ~ te: ~-t-,,b' f f'/'rz,~ JUL 2 1 axJ3 CITY MANAGEA"S OFFICE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Several weeks ago I wrote (email) your office stating concerns about stonn drainage problems created by developments adjacent to my residential property in the Raintree subdivision. Since I have received no response, and since the problem remains, I assume my original communication was lost, and I will restate these concerns. The problem resides in the area which is being developed for occupancy by the A&M Church of Christ immediately south of the Raintree subdivision and fronting on the service road, northbound, of the 'east bypass'. We occupied our present residence in August, 1981 during the development of the subdivision. As the drought of the late 1970s passed and rains again visited the area, it became evident that natural drainage from the unoccupied lands to the south would cause problems of flooding and erosion involving the homes on the extreme south end of Appomattox St., my property, Raintree Park, and, perhaps, other properties along the natural drainage opportunity presented by the existing terrain. This problem was called to the attention of the city, and action was taken to divert the waters from the unoccupied lands elsewhere than the Raintree subdivision. Subsequent storm drainage water was confined to that which fell directly on the properties formerly being flooded. During the following years heavy rains, sometimes as much as 8" to 1 O" caused no problems. After the work began for the A&M Church of Christ property, and terrain shaping activity effected changes in the grade features, it became evident that something had changed in the storm drainage system. With even a modest rainfall, the rear areas of my property remain a 'wetland' for days, preventing access for mowing and, I fear, providing a breeding ground for mosquitos. The wetted area is fed by a continuing trickle of waters from the construction area. Upon following the 'trickle' upstream to its source, I observed that a large catch basin has been constructed on the church property. A concrete lined drain ditch is under construction to carry waters from the catch basin. The drain ditch terminates near the north property line of the church, and will aim its discharge directly at the driveway of the southeasternmost home on Appomattox St. I cling to the hope that this is not the permanent solution to drainage from the church property, as it does not seem reasonable that the city would allow deliberate flooding of private property. I do not like to imagine what will occur with the next heavy rainfall if the present drainage is allowed. The rainfall ofless than 'h " on last Wednesday (16~ is, today, still feeding the wetted areas of my property as well as that of my neighbor at the rate of about 'h gallon per minute. As I pointed out, this is not merely a tiny stream across my property, but rather an extended area of wetness and stagnant puddles which prevents access to a large area for care. I happen to be a retired senior citizen, and, therefore, we have the option to relocate elsewhere. We do not wish to be forced to exercise this option, leaving a serious problem for some other unfortunate citizen to cope with. I urgently request that someone in the city administration visit this area and view the situation. I further request that, having done so, I be notified as to what action, if any, is to be taken, and what the result is expected to be. I make these requests in order that we can plan our future without undue delay. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. s· rely, ~~<l ,~ sl Joctifn 9 Copies: Rev. Foree Grove, A&M Church of Christ Charlie Haldeman, KBTX-TV