Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence THE ELLISON FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 302 HOLLEMAN DRIVE EAST SUITE 76 COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS 77840-7000 CHARLES A.ELLISON MAILING ADDRESS AMY L.CLOUGH* P.O.BOX 10103 *also licensed in Wisconsin COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS 77842-0103 BRADLEY T.SHARPE JEFFREY C.HARRIS" TELEPHONE: (979)696-9889 "Board Certified-Estate Planning and Probate Law FACSIMILE: (979)693-8819 SARAH S.BRIEDEN August 22, 2008 BY HAND DELIVERY Veronica Morgan Mitchell & Morgan 511 University Drive East, Suite 204 College Station, TX 77840 Re: St. Joseph Regional Health Center and Spring Creek Holdings, LLC Dear Veronica: Enclosed herewith please find the following: 1. Consent and Authorization of Spring Creek Holdings, LLC. 2. Consent of Members in lieu of Special Meeting of Spring Creek Holdings, LLC. 3. Assumed Name Certificate filed with Secretary of State for St.Joseph Health System. 4. Assumed Name Certificate filed with Brazos County for St. Joseph Health System. 5. Periodic Report - Nonprofit Corporation. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly ours, k -Ai-- Charles A. Ellison CAE:bg Enclosures (00015349) c ct.li c cu CONSENT AND AUTHORIZATION OF SPRING CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC The undersigned (the "Undersigned"), hereby certifies the Undersigned's consent that CHARLES A. ELLISON is authorized and empowered, in the name and on behalf of the Undersigned, to execute and sign all plats, development agreements and any other documents necessary for the development of the real property located in the Robert Stevenson Survey, City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas. DATED this 22nd day of August, 2008. SPRING C EK HOLDINGS, LLC. By: ES A. ELLISON Sole Member .\(6 [000152691 21.p Consent and Authorization Page ` ,v W RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF MEMBERS IN LIEU OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SPRING CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC The undersigned Sole Member of SPRING CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (the "Company"), does by this writing take the following actions in accordance with Sections 2.13 of the Company Agreement of SPRING CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC: RESOLVED, that Charles A. Ellison in his capacity as Sole Member of the Spring Creek Holdings, LLC, is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute, acknowledge, receive and deliver on behalf of and in the name of the Company, all documents such as plats, development agreements and other instruments, containing any terms and conditions that he deems necessary or desirable for the development of the real property owned by the Company; and the affixation of the seal of the Company shall not be necessary: RESOLVED FURTHER, that Charles A. Ellison is directed to certify the Minutes of this meeting and the contents of these resolutions and to deliver such certification in support of the authority of Charles A. Ellison to act on behalf of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed his name. Dated: August 22, 2008. LES A. ELL ON, Member {00015266) MITCHELL MORGAN October 8, 2008 Jason Schubert City of College Station Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Re: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - 08-00500188 & (FP) — 08-00500215 Dear Jason, We are submitting the revisions to the Spring Creek Commons Preliminary and Final Plats as requested. Please understand that the note added to the Preliminary Plat to satisfy the Planning & Zoning Commissions condition is included UNDER PROTEST. As we have discussed with you on numerous occasions we do not agree with the proportionality calculations prepared by Kimley-Horn and we do not agree that the note we are being required to add as regards the construction of Lakeway Drive is proportional to the development. We would like to also advise you that Corinth — SH6 & Green Prairie, L.P. will be contemporaneously filing their appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commissions decision to the City Attorney's office. Please let me know if you need anything else to allow the Final Plat of Lot 13, Block 1 to move forward to the October 16th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. As discussed, I will have a mylar of the Preliminary Plat with the TxDOT driveway issue resolved in your office before 5pm Friday, October 3. Thanks for your help on keeping the Final Plat moving forward. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call our office at 979-260- 6•=3. erel let i �� eronica J.•: or ' n P.E., C.F.M. Managing Partne Cc: File Penny Busch, Hammes David Hall, St. Joseph Regional Health Center Et al 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204• COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963• F 979.260.3564 CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com (*.,111114 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Servwes 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570/Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM August 20, 2008 TO: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via v(c�mitchellandmorgan.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP)— Preliminary Plat Staff reviewed the above-mentioned Preliminary Plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. If all comments have been addressed and the following information submitted by Wednesday. August 27, 2008, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2008, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. One (1) 24" x 36" copy of the revised Preliminary Plat; and Nineteen (19) 11" x 17" copies of the revised Preliminary Plat. Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that if all comments have not been addressed, your project will be pulled from the scheduled Planning & Zoning Commission agenda. Your project may be placed on a future agenda once all the revisions have been made. Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting. http://www.cstx.gov/home/index.asp?page=2481. Please note that a Mylar original of the revised preliminary plat will be required after P&Z approval and prior to processing subsequent final plats. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Frank Mihalopoulos, Corinth Properties, via frankcorinthprop.com John Buckley, St. Joseph Health System, via ibucklev(a�st-ioseph.org Chuck Ellison, Spring Creek Holding, via chuck(a)ellisionlaw.com Case file #08-00500188 MITCHELL MM MORGAN August 27, 2008 Jason Schubert City of College Station Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Re: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - 08-00500188 Dear Jason, Attached please find the following: • One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Preliminary Plat, • Nineteen (19) 11"x17" copy of the revised Preliminary Plat, • Statements of Authority; and • Revised Preliminary Plat application asking for the variance to the 20ft PUE at rear lots STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - 08-00500188 PLANNING 1. Provide statements of authority for Frank Mihalopoulos, John Buckley, and Chuck Ellison to sign for their respective companies. Response: Please see the attached paperwork. 2. The Corridor Overlay zoning district (OV) exists on the majority of the plat. Please label the property's zoning to include OV and show the boundary line on the plat. Response: This OV is now labeled with the C-1 Zoning and the line has been shown. 3. The St. Joseph Urgent Care Clinic has been final platted as Lot 6, Block 1 of Spring Creek Commons, not Lot 1, Block 6. This corrected lot name conflicts with another proposed lot name. Please revise. Response: These lot numbers have been corrected. 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564 CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.corn 4. Identify the property to the northwest of the plat as simply being owned by the City of College Station, not the Future Spring Creek Corporate Campus and Greenways. Response: We have removed the reference to the future Spring Creek Corporate Campus and Greenways. 5. A Major Collector that connects the SH 6 frontage road to the future Lakeway Drive is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan but is not provided on the plat. Please revise. Response: As shown on the attached minutes, the following development actions have taken place on the subject property. • A Preliminary Plat was submitted on 9/6/05 & • Approved on 10/6/05 • A Final Plat for the northwest corner lot at Lakeway & WD Fitch was submitted on 10/3/05 & • Approved on 11/3/05 (this plat was not filed b/c Lakeway was not constructed) • A Revised Preliminary Plat (in order to prepare to subdivide the St. Joseph Urgent Care lot) was submitted on 7/16/07 & • Approved on 8/16/07 • A Final Plat for the St. Joseph Urgent Care Lot 6, Block 1 was submitted on 8/6/07 & • Approved on 9/6/07 None of the foregoing permits are dormant. Section 245 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the City to consider applications for permits solely on the basis of ordinances in effect at the time of the original application for a permit is filed. The original application for a permit on this project is the Preliminary Plat application filed on 9/6/05. The Thoroughfare Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan which is adopted by ordinance. Therefore, this application for Preliminary Plat must be considered for approval based on the Thoroughfare Plan in effect on 9/6/05. The major collector requested does not appear on the Thoroughfare Plan in effect on 9/6/05. The applicants respectfully submit that this application complies with the ordinances governing the application and request that it be approved as submitted. That being said we have provided a 30 foot private access easement in the general location of this Major Collector and intend to provide a primary circulation drive aisle onsite to function as this collector. It will provide a connection to both SH6 and Lakeway Drive. With our development plans that have been underway since 2005 we never anticipated the provision of this roadway and relied upon the Thoroughfare Plan that was in effect during the approval of these 4 development actions to layout, plan and finance our project. As such, we respectfully request that the requirement to provide this Major Collector be deleted. 6. The Phase Plan does not appear to provide accurate phase boundaries when considering the two fingers of Lot 8, Block 1 as well as Lot 3, Block 1. Response: The Phase Plan has been corrected. 7. Revise the Phase Plan such that the part of Lakeway Drive and potential parkland dedication area currently in Phase 3 will instead be part of the first phase(s) developed (final platted) between Phase 2, 3, or 6. Response: The Phase Plan has been revised to show that Lakeway Drive will be tied to approximately 15 acres of development, that of Lot 9, 11 and 12. We do intend to construct Lakeway Drive prior to or with the Lot 9 development. 8. When copied, the shading of the Signage Plan and Phase Plan are not clear, please revise. Response: The shading used on the Signage and Phase Plan have been modified. 9. Rename the "Signage Plan" to "Building Plots." Response: The name of this insert has been changed as requested. 10.Please revise the Building Plots such that Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 1 are incorporated into Building Plot 2 instead of Building Plot 1. Response: These three lots have now been incorporated into Building Plot 2 instead of Building Plot 1. 11.The lots within Building Plot 2 are considered a shopping center and the minimum throat depth (distance from street pavement to first point of conflict) required for them will be 130 feet. As such, the cross access easements proposed across Lots 4 through 7, Block 1 will not be able to be utilized for driveways with the site plan. Staff recommends utilizing the proposed easement at the back of those lots for that purpose and potentially provide cross access from Lot 8, Block 1 to Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 where the 130-foot throat depth is met. Response: This front cross access easement has been removed in front of lots 4-7, in order to provide the 130 foot throat depth. 12.It does not appear that Lots 2 & 3, Block 1 have cross access provided to them. These lots will not be able to receive a driveway on William D. Fitch Pkwy. Response: These lots are now provided with access locations on the cross access easement. 13.Lot 1, Block 1 is receiving access through the cross access proposed along Lot 8, Block 1. Accounting for throat depth and OV setback requirements, please ensure that the area and amount provides adequate access. Response: The cross access easement has been modified to allow Lot 1, Block 1 access deeper into the property. 14.Please be aware that Building Plots 2 & 3 will need to comply individually with the Non-Residential Architecture Standards for projects that are 150,000 square feet or greater as found in Section 7.9.F of the Unified Development Ordinance. These requirements will begin to be applied with the first lots developed, even if they do not themselves exceed 150,000 square feet. Building Plot 1 (Lot 1, Block 2) will comply with the standards according to its size when it is proposed. Response: Acknowledged. ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. Please label the off-site sanitary and storm improvements as well as their associated easements for the most recent St. Joseph Urgent Care Center development. Response: The offsite sanitary and storm are now shown as well as the easements associated with the St. Joseph Urgent Care development. 2. Please provide the required 20-ft PUE at the rear of all lots, these easements may be split between adjacent properties. Response: Because this is a commercial development we would like to request a variance to this regulation. The 20 foot PUE at the rear of all lots is a requirement that was originally intended for residential subdivisions as they typically require rear yard services. In the case of a commercial project, the utility easements are not necessarily located on the rear lot lines but rather under drive aisles or parking areas and do not follow a rear lot line pattern as they do in residential developments. We have indicated on this preliminary plat where all utilities will be provided and have shown the necessary easements over those locations. A 20 foot PUE at rear lots will not be used in this development case and to require that all utilities be located along the rear lots of this development would relegate utilities to areas that would not be accessible and therefore costly to maintain. 3. See TxDOT comments below: Spring Creek Commons (Preliminary Plat) (SH 6) - Access driveways to SH 6 must meet TxDOT's current "Regulations for Access Driveways to State Highways". Regulations are primarily based on posted speed limits and distances between proposed & adjacent access points. Where the posted speed limit is 50 MPH or more the required spacing between access points is 425'. Where access spacing is insufficient joint access will be required or access to internal/external streets. Appropriate data will be required for any future work/permits in the ROW @ this development site, which should include drainage data, etc. Response: Acknowledged. 4. It appears the existing drainage swell located along the eastern property line will be modified with the development of these tracts, these drainage improvements will need to take into account the 100-yr pathway and verify that the existing adjacent lots will not be negatively impacted. Response: Yes, these swales will be modified and with each site plan that is submitted which modifies the swale a full drainage report will be submitted documenting compliance with the City of College Station Drainage Ordinance. 5. All proposed utility easement widths are subject to change due to design constraints. Response: Acknowledged, as we move to design if the easement need to be widened because of depth or separation distance requirements we will adjust those easement accordingly. 6. Please revise Note 7 as it should apply to any lots/development which utilizes the proposed 23' Cross Access Easement and subsequent drive apron off WD Fitch Pkwy. Response: Note #7 has been modified to include the subdivision as a whole. 7. The proposed alignment of Lakeway Drive will need to be adjusted as the north east portion of the proposed alignment is encumbered by a 30-ft Pipeline Easement. Our Legal Department has stated right-of-way dedications that are encumbered by other easements will not be accepted. An alternative will be to have the Pipeline Company give the first right of refusal to the City of College Station. Response: The pipeline company has indicated that the pipeline has been abandoned. We are working with them now on a release letter for the easement. The easement language does state that if the pipeline is no longer in use, the easement will cease.. 8. Although some of the lots within this subdivision that are not adjacent to Lakeway Drive may final plat prior to the construction of Lakeway Drive, in regards to traffic, Lakeway Drive is viewed as serving the 50.547 acres as a whole. As stated with the previous preliminary plat of this property, although this comment does not require any action at this time, it was not intended to be disregarded. Response: Understood. 9. It is our understanding that Lakeway Drive is to be constructed with the next development within this tract, however Lakeway Drive does not appear to be phased that way, please revise. Response: We do intend to construct that portion of Lakeway behind and adjacent to Lots 11 and 12 with the first phase of development of the St. Joseph project, however we would like to construct it with the development of Lot 9 rather than that of Lot 13 because of timing reasons. Lot 9 and 13 will be developed essentially together but with a few months lag between them. Because of several coordination issues with the oil/gas pipeline company and with the adjacent Lowes development we did not want to hold up the construction of the St. Joseph building but rather have it tied to the next building which is the Medical Office Building. 10.The property is within the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact area (97-01) and impact fees based on Land Use Equivalents (LUES) will be due at the time of building permit. Response: Understood. 11.In regards to the Oversize Participation sequence, please find the following outline: Items required to prepare contract: 1. Approved construction plans 2. Associated engineering report demonstrating infrastructure less than what the City is requiring is adequate 3. Associated engineer's estimate quantifying the difference in cost between the required infrastructure and the lesser adequate infrastructure, as well as the total construction cost of proposed public infrastructure 4. Developer's participation request letter such that the requested participation does not exceed 30% of the total construction cost of proposed public infrastructure 5. Complete and Submit OP Information Sheet Application a. A current copy of a deed or title insurance policy showing the names of grantors/owners. i. Release of liens or subordinations are required if there are liens on the property. ii. If the title insurance policy was not issued within 90 days, a Nothing Further Certificate. b. Either a signed, sealed and dated metes and bounds with a depiction, and/or a copy of the approved Preliminary Plat. c. Corporate or partnership owners must furnish a copy of a corporate resolution or other proof of authority to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, or joint venture Items required to be placed on Council agenda: 1. The above "Items required to prepare contract" have been reviewed by City 2. Owner signs Oversized Participation Agreement contract prepared by the City Items required for City execution of the agreement: 1. Council approval of the Oversized Participation Agreement. 2. Performance Bond provided meeting standard City form for the total cost of public infrastructure. The Principal must be the owner/developer, or the construction contractor with the owner/developer as dual obligee rider with the City. Timeline Notes: In general there are standard submittal deadlines (in the Planning and Development Services Department for development projects) every other week for Council items which the meeting would then be six weeks after the submittal deadline. This time frame requires that all submittals are complete and adequate and that the owner's signatory is able to sign a contract on a short turnaround within that timeframe as well. Additionally, the preliminary plat should be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the agreement reaching Council for consideration. Finally, to be eligible for oversized participation, construction cannot have begun prior to Council's consideration and executiong of the associated oversized participation agreement. Items required prior to payment: 1. Letter of Completion issued by the City (for all completed and accepted infrastructure) 2. Within 30 days after issuance of Letter of Completion, Owner to submit: a. Written request for payment b. Notarized Affidavit of All Bills Paid with City's standard language 3. City will pay funds within 30 days after items in No. 2 above is acceptable Response: Understood. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Developer provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as installed by CSU for electric lines (where applicable, including street lights). Response: Acknowledged. 3. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries. Response: Acknowledged. 4. Relocation of existing Steel Utility Pole at entrance of Lakeway Drive to be at Developer expense. Response: We have already prepared preliminary design on the intersection of Lakeway Drive & WD Fitch and we are able to miss the steel pole but it will be located in the sidewalk. GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS 1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design. Response: Acknowledged. 2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser. Response: Acknowledged. 4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices and extend as required. Response: Acknowledged. 5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout. Response: Acknowledged. 6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU specs and design. Response: Acknowledged. 7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU). Response: Acknowledged. 8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and/or site plan. Email to: gmartinezAcstx.gov. Response: We will email a composite site plan (full development) to Gilbert for him to work on overall electrical layouts for the total acreage. 9. Developer provides load data to CSU as soon as it is available to avoid construction delays. Delivery time for transformers not in stock is approximately 40 weeks. Response: We will try to get Gilbert load data as soon as possible. Lowes has indicated that they have given their data to College Station Electrical already. 10.Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as designed by CSU. Response: Acknowledged. 11.To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at 979.764.6255. Response: Thank you for your help. SANITATION 1. Sanitation is ok with this project. Response: Thank you for your help. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call our office at 979-260- 69.3. Si c-rely, h' 0? Veronica J.B. 1/ .rg .E., C.F.M. Managing Partner Cc: File (*Affl"114 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Servicer 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570/ Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM September 24, 2008 TO: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via v(a�mitchellandmorgan.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - Preliminary Plat As you are aware, the above-mentioned Preliminary Plat received conditional approval at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on September 18, 2008. The following page lists the staff review comments that are the conditions of approval imposed by the Commission. In order for the Preliminary Plat to be considered formally approved, these conditions need to be met through revisions to the plat and then submitted to the City for verification that they have been satisfied. The revisions need to be submitted on the following documents for this verification: One (1) 24" x 36" copy of the revised Preliminary Plat; One (1) Mylar original of the revised Preliminary Plat. Please note that Preliminary Plat must be approved before subsequent final plats may be considered by the Commission. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. cc: Frank Mihalopoulos, Corinth Properties, via frank(a�corinthprop.com John Buckley, St. Joseph Health System, via ibucklev(a st-ioseph.orq Chuck Ellison, Spring Creek Holding, via chuck(a�ellisonlaw.com Case file#08-00500188 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans,that have not been requested by the City of College Station,must be explained in your next transmittal letter and`bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City,will constitute a completely new review 1 of 2 Print Form (kir PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Crry of COLLEGE SThTION TRANSMITTAL COVER LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. rDocuments for a previous incomplete submittal resting Project Submittal Project Name: I )pirtin.,9 C Ci,.., corx)7; y Contact Name: I,� Phone No.: L ��C a. plc i'7 97---/ - tet�. We are transmitting the following for PlanningJ& Development Services to review and comment. (Please check all that apply). Comprehensive Plan Amendment r Non-Residential Architectural Standards r Rezoning Application r Irrigation Plan r Master Development Plan ("Variance Request ei urinary Plat Development Permit , t mal Plat r Conditional Use Permit r Development Plat r FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR r Site Plan r Grading Plan r Special District Site Plan r Other- Please specify below r Special District Building/ Sign E Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: r Waterline Construction Documents r TxDOT Driveway Permit r Sewerline Construction Documents r TxDOT Utility Permit r Drainage Construction Documents r Drainage Letter or Report r Street Construction Documents (— Fire Flow Analysis r Easement Application r Other- Please specify Special Instructions: 006 (6q 29-Aug-08 Its)• �• V`I, s WEST,W EBB, ALLBRITTON & GENTRY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION — Established in 1982 — ATTORNEYS: 1515 EMERALD PLAZA COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS 77845-1515 STEVEN N.ALLBRITTON TELEPHONE: (979)694-7000 ROY D.BRANTLEY* TELECOPIER: (979)694-8000 TERRANCE D.DILL,JR. WEB SITE: http://www.westwebblaw.com MICHAEL H.GENTRY** JENNIFER D.JASPER *BOARD CERTIFIED KEITH L.KRUEGERt PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW DAVID T.POLING TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION KENDRA L.SUHLING **BOARD CERTIFIED JOHN C.WEBB,JR. October 1, 2008 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LAW GAINES WEST TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION OF COUNSEL: ***BOARD CERTIFIED FRED LOHMEYER*** ESTATE PLANNING AND PROBATE LAW TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION tLI CENSED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Writer's e-mail: mike.gentry@westwebblaw.com Via Hand Delivery Ms. Connie Hooks City Secretary City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Appeal of Finding of Rough Proportionality Dear Ms. Hooks: Please be advised that this firm represents Corinth-SH6 & Green Prairie, LP in connection with the development of the proposed Spring Creek Commons project in the City of College Station. Our client appeals the findings of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the City's retained engineer) in its report dated September 17, 2008 (attached hereto) prepared for the City that the requirement for the construction of Lakeway Drive over the entire Spring Creek Commons development is "roughly proportionate" to the impact of our client's development of their property. Pursuant to its rights under Section 212.904 of the Texas Local Government Code, our client requests a prompt hearing in order to present evidence and testimony to the City Council to dispute such finding. Please contact the undersigned as soon as possible of the setting of the proposed time, date and location of the appellate hearing requested herein. As a related matter, my client also believes that the condition imposed by the City's Planning and Zoning Commission at its September 18, 2008, meeting requiring the construction of Lakeway Drive is an unenforceable taking. P:\Gentry\Mihalopoulos 17734\LTR City 1.doc Connie Hooks October 1, 2008 Page 2 Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments about this request. Sincerely, Michael H. Gentry Enclosure cc: Carla Robinson via hand delivery City Attorney City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 Bob Cowell via hand delivery Planning and Development Services City Attorney City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 Frank Mihalopoulos via email frank@corinthprop.com 4645 North Central Expressway Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75205 Jay Grogan via email JGrogan@gbdallas.com 2808 Fairmont, Suite 150 Dallas, Texas 75201 Veronica Morgan via email v@mitchellandmorgan.com Mitchell & Morgan 511 University Drive East Suite 204 College Station, Texas 77840 P:\Gentry\Mihalopoulos 17734\LTR City 1.doc MITCHELL MM MORGAN October 6, 2008 Jason Schubert City of College Station Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Re: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - 08-00500188 Dear Jason, Attached please find the following: • One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Preliminary Plat; and • One (1) Mylar original of the revised Preliminary Plat. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - 08-00500188 PLANNING 1. In order to meet the block length requirement, revise the access easement proposed along common property lines of Lots 8 & 10 and Lots 9, 11 & 13 such that it provides a through movement for traffic from the State Hwy. 6 Frontage Rd. to the future Lakeway Dr. Ninety degree curves are not permitted or any curve sharper than a 200-foot radius. The driveway to the Frontage Rd. may be located at the common property between Lots 8 & 9 to up to 150 feet north along the Frontage Rd. as currently proposed. Driveway access to the Frontage Rd. will require a TxDOT driveway permit. Response: As discussed we are awaiting TxDOT's response to this. We will make a decision and revise the plat accordingly and deliver one 24"X 36" copy and one mylar original to you before close of business Friday, October 3, 2008. 2. Please add a note to the preliminary plat regarding Lakeway Dr., as I do not believe we can accomplish the City's as well as your stated intent with a phase plan. The note needs to address the construction or surety of Lakeway Dr. in its entirety from William D. Fitch Pkwy. in a contiguous manner, as not to create an "island" or detached section of pavement. The note needs to specifically relate this obligation to the next phase or lot planned for development within this preliminary plat. Obviously future developed tracts should share in this expense as they are sold off, final platted and developed. This comment is not specific to any one development but rather the entire tract represented on this preliminary plat. 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840 • T 979 260 6963 • F 979.260.3564 r C) CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS . SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS l� info©mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.corn Response: The note has been added and we intend to post surety with the City of College Station in an amount equal to (7,200 SF + 15,000 SF) / 250,000 SF * preliminary engineer's estimate for the entirety of Lakeway Drive prior to filing of the final plat. As we have stated before, it should be understood that we are proceeding with this requirement under protest. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call our office at 979-260- 6963. ', , cerely, l f dli t '�1. . "a P.E. Veronica J. . �,M , C.F.M. Managing Partne Cc: File MITCHELL MORGAN October 3, 2008 Jason Schubert City of College Station Planning and Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Re: SPRING CREEK COMMONS (PP) - 08-00500188 Dear Jason, We are submitting the revisions to the Spring Creek Commons Preliminary and as requested. Please understand that the note added to the Preliminary Plat to satisfy the staffs concern is included UNDER PROTEST. Please let me know if you need anything else to allow the Final Plat of Lot 13, Block 1 to move forward to the October 16th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Thanks for your help on keeping the Final Plat moving forward. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call our office at 979-260- 69.3. S n erely Ittitlirp a Veronica J.B( , or• • P.E., C.F.M. Managing P. ner Cc: File Penny Busch, Hammes David Hall, St. Joseph Regional Health Center Et al 'M )0 - (4' 00 CC) 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963• F 979.260.3564 CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS SUBDIVISIONS info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com s, f E-mail Correspondence From: Jason Schubert To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com CC: chuck@ellisionlaw.corn; Cowell, Bob; frank@corinthprop.com; jbuckley@st-joseph.org Date: 9/5/2008 2:52 PM Subject: Spring Creek Commons preliminary plat Veronica, We have received your response comments regarding this preliminary plat. Most of the items have been addressed but I wanted to make you aware of a couple issues that may affect it in proceeding to P&Z. First,your make the assertion that the plat is in effect vested back to the original plat filed in 2005 because Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code states that permits are considered solely on the basis of the ordinance at that time. That assertion alone is definitely debatable as that Chapter also lists exemptions to which a project cannot vest and you are propagating the notion that unlimited changes can be made as permitting steps are repeated without at some point being defined as a new project. Having said that, we may be willing to set that debate aside and focus on the plat at hand. With the initial preliminary plat,the access easements provided on the plat were interpreted at the time by staff as qualifying to break block length. As first proposed, they functioned as roadways by meeting design standards such as alignment, radius, etc and provided direct routes and circulation between Lakeway Drive and the SH 6 frontage road. That concept was carried forwarded within the plat that was approved last year. As currently enforced by staff, I want to make it clear that access easements do not break block length. We are willing however to still carry on the previous interpretation with this project. As proposed though, the design standards, direct route, etc are no longer provided and must be revised in order to meet the block length requirement. Another response was given for relocation of the power pole at Lakeway and William D Fitch. While the issue can be worked out with the construction documents of the final plat, leaving the pole located in the sidewalk adjacent to the street will not be acceptable. Lastly, the variance request letter for the utility easements was submitted but not with the required$100 fee. This amount is to be paid so the plat can continue to proceed to P&Z on the 18th. In addition, revisions to the access easements that accomplish the circulation provided with the previous plats will be necessary in order for the plat to proceed without a staff recommendation for denial. In making those revisions, one full size sheet and 19 11x17 copies will again need to be submitted. The deadline for the variance payment and submission of revisions is next Tuesday at noon (the 9th). I hope I have been able to explain these items clearly, please let me know of any questions you may have. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Josh Norton To: Morgan, Veronica Date: 9/10/2008 9:20:41 AM Subject: Spring Creek Commons (PP) CC: Cotter, Carol; Gibbs,Alan; Schubert,Jason Veronica, This e-mail is in regards to my previous comment#9 and your subsequent response. There needs to be a note added to the preliminary plat regarding Lakeway Drive, as I do not believe we can accomplish the city's as well as your stated intent with a phase plan. The note needs to address the construction or surety of Lakeway Drive in its entirety from WD Fitch with the next proposed development, as not to create an "island"or detached section of pavement. Obviously future developed tracts should share in this expense as they are sold off,final platted and developed. This comment is not specific to anyone development but rather the entire tract represented on this preliminary plat. We will be adding a staff review comment regarding this language to the staff report for this item as it is scheduled to go to P&Z on September 18th. Thanks-Josh Norton From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Josh Norton"'<Jnorton@cstx.gov> CC: "'Alan Gibbs-<Agibbs@cstx.gov>, "'Carol Cotter"' <Ccotter@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert- <Jschubert@cstx.gov>, "'David Hall"'<DHall@st-joseph.org>, "David Scarmardo"<david@scarmardofoods.com>, <darrel@bbengineering.ws>, <frank@corinthprop.com>, "'Jack Buckley-<JBuckley@st-joseph.org>, "'Penny Busch"' <pbusch@hammesco.com>, "'Smiley, Matthew-Matthew L" <Matthew.L.Smiley@lowes.com>, "'Chuck Ellison' <Chuck@ellisonlaw.corn>, "'Tony Pfitzer"' <TPfitzer@st-joseph.org> Date: 9/11/2008 2:47 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons (PP) Josh, Thanks for the email . I think I understand what you are asking but we have shown Lakeway Drive phasing at the property line between St.Joes and Lowes/Corinth. Talk through with me how the permitting on the EDI (next phase- lot 13)will go... 1. We submit this prelim plat & it is approved 2. We submit a final plat for lot 13&approved 3. We submit site plan for Lot 13&approved 4. Can we now get site permits for Lot 13? Before Lakeway Drive construction is approved and guaranteed or constructed??? What I told Jason is that we would have construction plans in for Lakeway(they are under design now-but just for st joes stretch) prior to submitting any final plat or site plan for lot 9 (mob#1). And Lakeway would be constructed concurrently with the design/construction of lot 9(mob#1). St. Joes wants MOB#1 constructed within 6 months of the completion of construction of EDI so all this will appear seamless even though they are separately permitted projects. Jason felt comfortable with this b/c we had tied so much acreage to Lakeway on the phase plan. Now we had only planned on the design and construction of Lakeway on St. Joes property(not Corinth).We figured that section would be done with Lowes construction. Certainly that lot is large enough to guarantee the construction of that portion of Lakeway. If we have to wait on Lowes that would be extremely detrimental to St. Joes b/c Lowes is in a"holding pattern" because of the economy.And to make St. Joes pay for that portion of Lakeway and wait to be reimbursed will never happen. St. Joes will be stuck in waiting until Lowes or some other developer is ready to move on their land, rendering St.joes property undevelopable until they have a neighbor willing to put down money for their portion of Lakeway. I understand your concern of making sure the remaining property is sizeable enough to be able to afford the development cost of Lakeway but each of these developments is large enough to construct their 1/2 of Lakeway. I cant the problem with having only 1/2 of Lakeway built..we have had that situation around town and I think it worked out ok. Maybe I am missing something with your concerns on the construction of of Lakeway, can you help me out. Thanks... Veronica From: Josh Norton To: Schubert, Jason Date: 9/10/2008 9:55 AM Subject: note Please add a note to the preliminary plat regarding Lakeway Drive, as I do not believe we can accomplish the city's as well as your stated intent with a phase plan. The note needs to address the construction or surety of Lakeway Drive in its entirety from WD Fitch in a contiguous manner, as not to create an "island"or detached section of pavement. The note needs to specifically relate this obligation to the next phase or lot planned for development within this preliminary plat. Obviously future developed tracts should share in this expense as they are sold off, final platted and developed. This comment is not specific to anyone development but rather the entire tract represented on this preliminary plat. From: Jason Schubert To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 9/10/2008 5:08 PM Subject: Spring Creek Commons Veronica, I called for you at your office earlier today and I wanted to pass this on to you. I think I have an idea that may help smooth the access easement issue. Josh's email sent earlier today regarding Lakeway will be put in the form of a Staff Review Comment for the plat. In further defining it with you over the last couple days, I believe I can form another Staff Review Comment that is ministerial in nature to address the access easement alignment. It will in effect state the extent or path of the easement with minimum 200' radius curves as we've discussed. I believe this to be a better option for both of us when it comes before P&Z rather than describing it with a recommendation for denial. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Jason Schubert-<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'David Hall"'<DHall@st-joseph.org>, "'Penny Busch"'<pbusch@hammesco.com>, "David Scarmardo"<david@scarmardofoods.com>, "'Chuck Ellison"'<Chuck@ellisonlaw.com> Date: 9/11/2008 11:31 AM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons Jason, That's awesomemil I know St. Joes will be very appreciative of a comment of that nature...It will allow us to give you what you need while making sure that we get all property owners coordinated. Thank you very much... Veronica From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Jason Schubert'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "David Scarmardo"<david@scarmardofoods.corn> Date: 9/11/2008 2:57 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons Attachments: 0815-MOB-Layout with cut-thru (1).pdf Jason, So that you know we are working on this here is one of our ideas. This one is David Scarmardo's first choice but we still have to get buy in from Lowes/Corinth... This has the 200'min radii on it... If you wouldn't mind I talked to TxDOT yesterday in a rather lengthy conversation and they are looking at an option for us installing lengthy accel/decell lanes and for that being able to line up the driveway with the property line (so this option is not out of the discussion yet) could you add something to that effect in your staff report as well? Thanks Veronica From: Jason Schubert To: Morgan, Veronica CC: Scarmardo, David Date: 9/11/2008 3:27 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons Veronica, It looks like what you've proposed would work. I believe I wrote my Staff Review Comment to provide the type of flexibility you're suggesting. Though its kind of wordy, I hope this works for you: "Revise the access easement proposed along common property lines of Lots 7&8 and Lots 9, 10& 11 such that it provides a through movement for traffic from the State Hwy. 6 Frontage Rd.to the future Lakeway Dr. This revision will remove the two 90 degree turns currently proposed near the Frontage Rd. by using curves that have no more than a 200-foot radius. The driveway to the Frontage Rd. may be located at the common property between Lots 7& 9 to up to 150 feet north along the Frontage Rd. as currently proposed. Driveway access to the Frontage Rd. will require a TxDOT driveway permit." Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Jason Schubert To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com CC: chuck@ellisonlaw.com; frank@corinthprop.com; jbuckley@st-joseph.org Date: 9/24/2008 5:25 PM Subject: Spring Creek Commons PP follow-up Attachments: Spring Creek Commons PP comments 2.doc Veronica, I have attached the comments for this preliminary plat as was conditionally approved by the Planning&Zoning Commission last week. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning & Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Jason Schubert To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com CC: Cowell, Bob; Gibbs,Alan; Norton,Josh Date: 10/3/2008 11:37 AM Subject: Spring Creek Commons PP note Veronica, I have reviewed the proposed note to address Staff Review Comment 2 for this preliminary plat. The note will need to be revised for the Preliminary Plat to be considered approved as it misrepresents the requirement of Comment 2. My recommendation is to strike the second,third and fourth sentences of the proposed note and leave the remaining language. The reason is that the Commission did not use a square foot figures when discussing proportionality. Also,the use of the proposed formula suggests that the proportional share of public infrastructure be determined solely by a hypothetic square feet of buildings on lots that are not platted. The Kimley-Horn analysis simply used square feet and uses as shown by site plans submitted to the City that the development potential of the entire preliminary plat was more than roughly proportional to require the construction of the major collector. Also,the response within the preliminary plat comment that Lot 13 will use that formula is not appropriate. In order for the preliminary plat to be approved and final plat proceed to P&Z, these revisions and, as we agreed previously, the access easement realignment will need to be submitted by the end of business today, both in a manner to satisfy the conditions. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert, AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.qov From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Jason Schubert-<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Alan Gibbs-<Agibbs@cstx.gov>, "'Bob Cowell-<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Josh Norton- <Jnorton@cstx.gov> Date: 10/3/2008 2:27 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons PP note Ok, if we do that who will decide how much surety is to be posted with each lot? Veronica From: Bob Cowell To: Jason Schubert; Veronica Morgan CC: Alan Gibbs; Josh Norton Date: 10/3/2008 3:04 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons PP note Veronica, We are working on those details directly with St. Joseph's administrators and their attorney. Thanks, Bob From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Bob Cowell-<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert"' <Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Alan Gibbs-<Agibbs@cstx.gov>, "'Josh Norton"'<Jnorton@cstx.gov> Date: 10/3/2008 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons PP note Ok thanks. We are revising the preliminary plat as we speak..... Veronica From: Randy Pettit<Ipettit@irr.com> To: -jschubert@cstx.gov"'<jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 11/5/2008 1:30 PM Subject: Spring Creek Commons(#08-00500188) Hello Mr. Schubert, I am appraising the 24.590 acres of land located at the northeast quadrant of SH-6 and William Fitch, owned by Corinth SH-6 Green Prairie. Our appraisal is for the owner's lender. I have reviewed all of the documents exhibits posted on-line regarding the subject's plat status,and understand that the City has not yet accepted the prelim approved final plat as"final". I also understand that this property plat(24.590 acres)was submitted for review along with the adjoining 21 acres to the north, both of which involve ROW dedication for the proposed Lakeview Dr. extension. My question revolves around the proposed Lakeview Dr. extension-Once the plat is approved as"final", does the proposed ROW land area essentially remain"in stone", or could another potential owner purchase this property and submit a new prelim plat without the Lakeview Dr. extension? In other words, is approval of the 24.590 acre portion "tied"to the approval of the 21 acre tract to the north, and must any subsequent owner abide by the proposed ROW dedication, even if he or she wants to replat the gross tract with a different number of lots? I'm trying to decide if a buyer of the entire 24.590 acre tract would net out the ROW area, or if there's an opportunity to remove it altogether and start completely over again with a new plan. I apologize for the wordiness-but the lender is asking lots of questions that I don't have answers to. Thanks very much for your help! Randy Pettit Assoc. Director Integra Realty Resources-DFW, LLP 12750 Merit Dr., Suite 801 Dallas,TX 75251 P: 214-437-6972(Direct) F: 972-960-2922 Email: Lpettit(a�irr.com Learn more about Integra Realty Resources at:www.irr.com/ From: Jason Schubert To: Pettit, Randy Date: 11/5/2008 4:36 PM Subject: Re: Spring Creek Commons (#08-00500188) Randy, I understand your questions and should be able to clarify things for you. First, let me provide a some background. There has been a phased preliminary plat approved that includes all the land referenced (24+acres and 21+acres). The adjoining property to the north has submitted their phases for final plat. Those have not been filed for record at the courthouse yet but that may be done before the end of the month. A final plat has not yet been submitted for any piece of the 24+acre portion in question though. As for Lakeway Dr, it is shown on the thoroughfare plan and is to be built or bonded with the final plat of this property. The two points of the alignment that are"in stone"as you say are the intersection with the existing Lakeway Dr to the south and where Lakeway Dr stubs to this property from the north. The final plat could slide the alignment of Lakeway around a little internally without having to do a new preliminary plat but if the 24+acres is reconfigured or proposed to be subdivided differently, a new preliminary plat will need to be approved before proceeding with a final plat. On another note, once the final plats are filed for record for the property to the north, revised preliminary plats would only need to include the remaining 24+acres. In summary, Lakeway is on the thoroughfare plan and is to be extended through this property. Lakeway will need to connect to the two points described and I would suggest, as in all cases, all development requirements (including the land and construction of Lakeway) be considered in the appraisal and market value of the property. I hope I have been able to describe my responses clearly, please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Randy Pettit<Ipettit@irr.com> To: 'Jason Schubert'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 11/5/2008 5:00 PM Subject: RE: Spring Creek Commons(#08-00500188) Jason, Thanks for taking the time to provide such a thorough answer. It has really helped me out, Randy Pettit Assoc. Director Integra Realty Resources- DFW, LLP 12750 Merit Dr., Suite 801 Dallas,TX 75251 P: 214-437-6972 (Mobile) F: 972-960-2922 Email: Lpettit@irr.com Learn more about Integra Realty Resources at:www.irr.com/ Transcription Excerpt from P&Z Regular Meeting dated September 18, 2008 HS: I move that we approve this with the note from the city and I'm not sure that this is clear in here but I want to make it clear that before anything further develops on this land that it kicks in that the city is assured of the building of the road, so I think that, I'm not sure that's clear in this note as to when that kicks in, so my 'motion makes it contingent on any construction approval on this land, then it kicks in JN: Let me understand the motion, the motion is to approve the Preliminary Plat with both staff notes but some additional clarification and language that assures or requires that it be built? Because the note says "needs to address the construction or the surety that it will be build." HS: I'm content with the a surety but what I'm not content with is a portion of this being built because its not large enough to trigger it, what I'm saying is any construction triggers it. JN: Well ok, that to me.....well let me see if there's a second to that motion HS: Well... JN: You added some language into the motion, I guess, unless you want to save that.. HS: What I was gonna say is if you want to word that differently.... JN: The note doesn't say that as I understand it, am I correct? The note does not guarantee that you have to construct part of Lakeway before you build anything on Lot 13... HS: Or the surety has to kick in.... JN: The surety yes, it does say surety BC: The way the note is written right now is the surety in whatever form would be required before anything could proceed...(interrupted by HS) HS: Then I'm good... BC: according to what we've talked about is you have just bought, let's say that's done through one of our normal guarantees you have a year for that to happen, construction could certainly go on building in that time frame. That also could be extended further by the City Engineer if you use some other mechanism such as Alan had suggested it may be some form of development agreement that would be in the form of a surety that the road is going to be constructed, presumably you could establish a different time frame in that so.... HS: If that's contained then that addresses my concern...my concern was that a small portion would be built without it kicking in at all, so I'm good with that JN: The Final Plat can't even be recorded until a surety is in place, that's what I understand the note to say. We'll leave it to staff to figure out what a surety is..... PG: Seconds the motion Commissioners each explain their support of the motion JN: ....motion to approve the Preliminary Plat with both of the staff review comments and notes included. All those in favor signify by saying aye CiCITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 8960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS 77842-9860 (409)764-3570 October 28, 2004 Jeff Johnston Quorum Equities Group, L.L.C. 17400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 216 Dallas, Texas 75287 Re: Conditions to the Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities Dear Mr. Johnston, This Driveway Permit is issued with the following conditions: • The contractor must construct improvements in accordance with the approved construction plans and City specifications • The construction associated with this permit shall be completed within 18 months of the date of issuance • The City will be provided access for inspection and compliance • The City will hold the Letter of Compliance and acceptance for the associated proposed median and turn lane improvements on Greens Prairie is contingent upon this proposed on-site-drive and apron completion • The property owner or developer is to provide/maintain barricades at the apron on Greens Prairie until the proposed drive is opened • The property owner or developer is to provide a joint access easement upon the adjacent existing drive removal • (As you agreed) In the future event that the existing adjacent driveway is not removed and a Site Plan is submitted utilizing the proposed driveway, it may be a condition of the Site Plan for the property owner or developer to construct a right turn lane from a distance east of the proposed driveway to the SH 6 frontage road. • (As you obligated) The property owner or developer that the future southbound Lakeway Drive intersection with Greens Prairie will have a "no right turn on red" • The proposed median opening will have "no u-turn" sign(s) posted Sincerely, Alan P. Gibbs, P.E. Development Engineer eCITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS 77642-9960 (409)764-3570 October 28, 2004 Jeff Johnston Quorum Equities Group, L.L.C. 17400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 216 Dallas, Texas 75287 Re: Right-Of-Way Permit for Proposed Greens Prairie Median and Left Turn Lane Improvements Dear Mr. Johnston, This document serves as the Right-Of-Way Permit for the Proposed Greens Prairie Median and Left Turn Lane Improvements. This permit is issued with the following conditions: All items listed the City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 3, Section 2: Right-Of- Way Maintenance are required. The following specific items are additionally highlighted. • Prior to construction, the contractor must be registered with the City and provide the insurance and bonds • The contractor must construct improvements in accordance with the,approved construction plans and City specifications • The owner is required to provide Plans-Of-Record (As-Builts) prior to acceptance • The construction associated with this permit shall be completed within 18 months of the date of issuance. • The City will be provide access for inspection and compliance • The City will hold the Letter of Compliance and acceptance of the proposed infrastructure contingent upon the associated proposed on-site drive and apron completion Sincerely, .zefriertAkic Alan P. Gibbs, P.E. Development Engineer