HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
.....
'a.~(CITYOFC~lJ.-E~~ STATION
;fUtt.~l[ EngmeenngD1Vlsion (s)2lP
~j ~cl,~ '~lC ~
0L ~~3 ~
\ J[~ ·
i~~. ~cf-~
~\lMW .',.'....,.. '. .',;~ . ·
~...,WV~' "', I
~.., "".> , - ~ ~
~~ ~'~ l\lG~ ~
~, , .~. '--\h I ...',. .. ,()tL ~
'-,' .~ ~ Q~ '
~,.~.
~
et: ,~taL
.>~
~
4.~r CITY, OF COLLEGE STATION
V.' ,'EngineeringDiviSion 3/' IS/a,1
"1'~~~r. r'
1~(oct-~fMltfUull~ '.fD
.' '~N:If ~ N. .
. , · v
~7 ~".....~ At~ ,....,., '.., , "
.....,.,.'.'.'....,.'.......'..~..' ;~ ~. P~.Jf. _
· ..... '... .'.>A..J 6 ..'",.. " to ~ i~.
l1i)t jtMv ~... · tu ~k
u,..,.. ,~ VWM-,.,...,...".... " ~ ,.,~._L.,J~ 1fT
~..,..~M]f) ~ fA;{) @0
../... t ....h.. '.. ' ~. 2-
iIV~~/U.~ j;Md ~UJM
~ bt-. Qt' W ~
1 .. p~tk.~;lJ~~ tJ.'
~.~ z '.~ iNYL-
~"...',.,'..........,..' ~.'l " "evrlAI.~~' ,
/~~,.iitf) oOl'~ 1-0
fJJ ~Jr1 ~ 4 <;Ri.
ct:~:~~W
Printed by Shirley Volk
10/14/94
3:49pm
From: Joey Dunn CONFIRMED
To:
Jane Kee, Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley
Volk
Subject:
fwd: Meridian Apts.on Redmond
Dr.
===NOTE===============10110/94==3:53pm=
i need some background on this.
apparently the apartment ownership is
changing hands because they are
requesting from me a letter to their
lender verifying thezoning\ .for 'the
property. the zoning map shows that
most of the complex is 'located in R-6
High density which is ok. However, it
appears that the newly rennovated
apartments section located just behind
jj's is in C-l &R-l districts. I
recall that these apartments .were
almost totally rebuilt last year. If
they were nonconforming in terms of
use, how did we allow that to happen
without zba action (ichecked &edid not
find it in the excel database) ora
rezoning?
shirley, could you pull the file on
this also? i think itisintlie 90-500
range.
Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==10114194==9:11am=
Fwd to: 'Joey Dunn
JOEY: What ~as the outcome on this?
Please update me because it continues
to be a very sticky subject from
time-to-time - especially since we
won't consider any applications for the
final stage until one or more of
several options are chosen and
documented~y the applicant.
Fwd=by:=Joey=Dunn=====10114194==2:50pm=
Fwd to: Shirley Volk
thanks for getting me the file~ i used
it to review thehistory,to<dothis
letter. i basically told them that
phase 2 is nonconforming ,in, terms ,of
use because of its location inC-l and
R~I, and that the parking is also
nonconforming. the settlement
agreement allowed for the site to
retain its nonconforming status
(despite the absence of board action).
the management or lender'didn't tell
me what they were up to, but it's my
guess that the mgmt/prop is changing
hands. that's about it; ireally
didn't get any other details such as
the sta.tus of phase 3, etc.'
-----~--~-------------------~-----~-,~-~
Page: 1
..it/~~,
'."..~
~~~.~<
v
RE: RENOVATION OFAGGIELAND APARTMENTS, PHASE 2; COLLEGE
STATION,TX
(;1I!!t~'iI.s"~.a-
October3!, , "1990
TO:
Wol.fcreek partners,. Ltd. ,3303 Northland Dr . ,
suite <212,Austin,TX. '" 787.31
Jauregui"Inc.,<6504>Bridgepoint Pkwy'. suite #304,
Austin, TX.7'8730
FROM:
Project ReviewComnrittee
Jane . Kee ,sen.iorPlanner
veronica Morga.n, Assist. to City Eng.
'Craig Hall,.,.P&Z.,.Commissioner
others ".". Attending
S(ilma.ntha" ~~i-'t:~I,)Eng. Assist. Water Dept .
Bill Riley"..'..operationsMgr. Water Dept.
Kean Regi~iter,>Lone Star, Ga.s
Ray, .' Haven~I, ..:St.tpt _ E,lect,rical Dept.
Morgan ."CoC)~,<FireDepartment
Harry D~V+,S;t> Fire Marshal
Laverne ,Alf'~l"l1 . .G. T . E .
ShirleYV?~kiDev. Review Coord.
Mark smitliIiAss.ist. Dir.. of Public Services
Sutton Rosier" Planning Technician
SUBJECT: site Plan - Meridian Apartments Phases 2 & 3 to be
located in ,the existing 9pmplexwhich is being renovated
along Redmond Drive (formerly Aggieland'Apartments) 90-503
and ,90-504
Terry Jone.s the representative 'fo,r th'e Meridian Apartment ' s
owner, explained ,.the 'purposeo.f ,this proj ect . Hespoke
briefly regarding the planned water detention facility to be
Glons:tructedon TAMU, property. ,He said that the University
n~edthatthe City has not been a part of these
disl~ussions.
PHASE 2
~:. I
WATER~~~~a~rl=~;E~~molition and capping withI)ean sharp:,B -l{p;k#~~,
If additional.firehydrants are required, submit plans
to Water Dept. with 20' minimum width easements.
ENGINEERING:
Note width of easements and drives.
Submit topo/gradingplan.
Obtain a drainage development permit. (prior to
demolition permits.) McClure ShdUld contact Debbie
Keating. .
Show',100 year floodplain line..
Clarify sanitary sewer line location. (under
electrical lines)
Note width of easements for sanitary sewer.
Note volume and page numbers of existing easements.
,~
'~'..
: ' ____ {) ~ t~ (3-vLR--'
Show fire hydrant lqcations. ' "',~
Clarifyripr~not~s? ,',;.'.. ,'.)-:" ~ ,
Showopposite?':ariyes, .and l?djaceng drives.
Show radius of existing drive.
Indicat.e,one-waY>lJla.r;king,ondrive.
Combine curb cuts. (Permissible if in effort to
preserve green space?)
Show flows and pressures of .water lines.
LONE STAR GAS:
Coordinate with KeanRegister to establish natural gas
service.
ELECTRICAL:
Submit letter requesting underground service.
Provide numberandsize,of units for individual
metering. H
Coordinate demolition efforts'with Ray Havens.
Relocate l,ines?
FIRE:
Electrical lines ,have created ,problems regarding
clearance ',. for trucks .
Show turning. rad-ius . (Turns. too sharp).
concernfor.'possible.. problems with, entrances.
Coordinate hydrant location with Fire Dept.
Landscaping in front! must not interfere with aerial
access.
Be aware of requirements regarding numbering and
labeling of apartments. (Also signs)
FIRE MARSHAL:
1 hydrant ,may not give required coverage. A hydrant
must be within300feetof< farthest point of the
building as ,the hose lays from the hydrant to the
building,off,trllck.
Coordinate 'fire'. lane designation with Fire Marshal's
office. (interior and exterior lanes required)
G . T . E.:
Coordinate with Mr. Banta because he knows what is
currentliY inexistence.
BUILDING:
5% of total number of apartment units must be available
for, the handicapped. (Coordinate with Coy Perry if
requirement cannot be met and Board consideration of a
variance is needed.)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
Dumpsters must be located outside of the floodplain.
Dumpster location requirements - 12' X 12' concrete
pad, same grade as surrounding surface, positioned for
rear loading trucks.
Define City easement in back. Show dimensions.
Fencing would eliminate. access by City equipment, if it
is the City's responsibility to maintain the'area.
PLANNING:
Submit site .plan which.... is not blurred.
Raised planted islands are required. "Islands"
designai:edby painted stripes do not meet 'ordinance
requirements.
PHASE 3
WATER/WASTE WATER:
Clarify'manhole and easem,entlocations.
ENGINEERING:
Submittopo/gradingplan.
Indicatelocationsiofadjacent and opposite drives.
Note'lOOyearfloodplain.
Indicate fir,ehydrant locations.
Show'sizeof' water,line.
Sewer line location. Label, "'easement.
Coordinate' curb deletions with Engr. office.
Obtain drainage development "permit.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
staff willdiscussp,arkinginR.O.W. situation. It is
not an ideal situation. Staff will work with applicant
on possible alternatives.
ELECTRICAL:
Same comments as in Phase 2. Need separate letters
requesting underground service for Phases 2 & 3.
BUILDING:
Same comments as in Pllase 2.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
Same dumpster comments. (no gates on dumpsters)
Same ,drainage easement comments.
Coordinate with Mark'Smith to determine access.
PLANNING:
Applicant may either submit landscape plan or a letter
stating that one will be slJbmitted within 45 days of
adoption of revised ordinance.
Plantings in sewer easements should have shallow root
system.
Showadjacentz'oninga~d land uses.
Provide raised islands!. Striped" islands n do not meet
ordinance :r"equirementsi.
CONCLUSION:
Before",certificate of,OccuPClncy will,beisslled on Phase Two
orPhaseiThree, landscaping must be installed and approved
AND arrows, ,spall be painted on the drive as per approved
site plan-Phase One.
f:1s McCLURE ENGI~EERING, INC.
December 20, 1990'
Mrs'. 'Veronica ,Morgan
As,sistant ,to:",city ','Engineer
CITY OF COLLE'GE "STA.TION
P..O. ,B,():x 9:9'6,0
Colleg,e Station, "'I'exa's 7784()
RE,H:. T'HE,"MERIDIAN ',PHASE TWO",Apartments
'Lots 18, 1'9 ,& ,20, 'BlOck 4
REDMOND TERRACESUBDIVIS,ION
Dear Veronica:
a' ,',......',' '"",'e" WOLF (ZREEK,.PA;Ri'N'ERS,', ',LTDwf()Wnersoftbe,iabo:ve referel'lcedprojects
... planning ,', improv~melltsto "tbe ,.,parking" ", faci.lities ,of, their
apClrtJllent.s~ ,,' ,'rheseimproV'ementsconsisto:f demol! tionofsome bui ldings
andconstructingn.ewparkinglot.f.;an~.grElen ,ar~asin 't.heirplace f plus
t'he' 'reconstruction, of "existin,g,'"deteriorated""parking areas,.
The "pr,oposedimprovemeBtsas idetltifi.ed, on the Architect 's site
p:atterns" "f,ortb.e'",storm, ,water' ':runo'f'f"'will" ,remain "the same .
cosme:tic ",frolll"a,,'.drain,a.ge ,p~erspective., ',,' ,The",l>Qst-construction"storm
wa.ter ,r'l.1l'1offwill'beequ'a.l ','toor',l.,ess .than.,,",'the ,pre-ooin,struction
con,dition.
should you. have anyque'stions," please advise.
Very truly
M~l ~.
f-~
R.P.'L.,S .
MRM/:m.lm
x'c:Mr. Luis Jauregui
JAURE'GUI ARCHITECTURE
1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 . Bryah,Texas 77802 · (409) 776-6700
1i.~"CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
~fJ . PLANNING DIVISION
" .' Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409) 764-3570
NOVEMBER 19, 1990
MEMO TO FILE
FROM JANE
HE: MTG.W/ CATHY HE: SNEAKERS AND MERIDIAN
SNEAKERS:
CANNOT CONSIDER DEV. AGREE. TO ALLOW GRAVEL LOT WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE SPACES REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE . MUST PAVE ADDITIOl'JAL
SPACES. I ~1ILL SEND EJ~FORCEMENT LETTER GIVING 60 D~t\..yS FOR
ADDITIONAL PARKING TO BE PROVIDED.
l\~NY DEVELOPMENT OF PRO!)ERTY FOR PARKI~JG TO EAST OR WEST ,,yILL
REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WI WPC ORD. THIS MEANS DEVELOPMENT OR
DEDICATION OF PROPERTY BEYOND MIN. RESERVATION LINE.
MERIDIAN:
ANY BUILDINGS IN PHASE 2 OR3THAT ARE IN FLOODWAY CAN BE
REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED. THE PARTICULAR BUILDING 10
SUSPECTED OF BEING IN ]~LOOD"lAY UNDER~NATHEi'r M.Lt\IERS STUDY
ALSO INHIBITS PROVIDING A 20~ FIRE LANE. IT COULD PROVIDE
AREA FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AS,WELL.
PRe WILL VOTE ON WHETHER TO REMOVE PARKING FROM ROW IN FRONT
Af\TD WHETHER TO .ALLOW IT ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DRIVE.
ANY PARKIl\JG IN FRONT INHIBITS THE REQUIRED 20' FIRE LANE AND
STAFF WOULD MOST LIKELY l,yANT TO SEE IT REMOVED. PLANNING
HAS CONCERNS ABOUT RED~JC ING THE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING
PARKI!\IG R.ATIO,BUT IF It\DDITIOl\IAL>PARKING C.AN BE PROVIDED BY
REMOVIl'JG BUILDINGS THEN PLANNING FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE.
SITE PLAN WILL NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL DRAINAGE PERMIT IS
APPROVED.
cc: VERONICA MORGAN
DEBBIE KEATING
JIM C l\1L.Lt\.l'\l A Y
DAVID P1JLLEN
ELREY ASH
MARK SMITH
~~~
~....,~ho.4i.L Z. ' IO(~I40
/~~~o\.~~
1~U>t.,~t,~~~~'~? Wui.~
~~~~~~~ol~~?
~" ,<<1f~~~~'Va..?
~. lO\)irr~~~~
J.~~ss ,?
I.~ !ilPC4~~ ~
I. r'p!~ ~~-~\\\~~~ ?<l~s)
I, ' c>'t)t\:i.i4f'YtS\ ,141.~<~l~ ?
./ ~t~ ,', ·
~~~~ i" ~ ~ \~ = (g-~~)
. . ~
~~~,~ ~\\{~
~ cw.b oJb
CIT"VOFcotliEGE.,STATION
PostOfficeBox9960 ,,',' , ," " 1101TexasAvenue
College Station. Texas, Tl842~960
(409) 764.3500
April 23, 1992
Mr. Juan 'Creixell
CSAManagement" Inc.
3303. NorthlaridDrive, Ste. 212
Austin, TX78731
Dear Mr. ,Creixell:
We have reviewed theinformation"youprovideclregardingsubstantialimprovement on
the Meridian Phase II Apartments. Given the information provided, we have ruled that
buildings 10 &,11 are, being substantially improved.
If you have any furtherquestions,pleasedonothesitateto call'me at (409) 764-3570.
Sincerely
cc:Meridian Phase II File
Ve~ica Morgall,ASst.to the City Engineer
&k1'rley Yolk, Development Coordinator
FI LE NOTE
~\N~
'Date:
Re:
April 6, 1997
Meridian Phase II and III
.Site Plan File
Meeting with Philip Wingo, Juan Creixell,&, LuisJ uaregui
I met with Philip Wingo, Ju~n CreixeII,andLuis JuareguiPHMarch 31, 1992 to dis,cuss
Meridian Phase II. They came in atabput 12:00\Vithout having set up a meeting. I met with
them through lunch and did 'not get anyone else to sit inonthemeeting as it was unexpected and
most staff had already gone to lunch.
, I talkedto them about bringing in a very specific proposal containing information about how
they propose to handle buildings 10~11, the twobuildings in question, that lie within the
floodplain. The, meeting lasted for a{Jlproximately 30 minutes in which time they talked to me
about the fact thattheywill construct We detention pond and we should not hold things against
them. ,.They wouldtry,to,work with\l~bu~eU1phasizedtheimportance that buildings 10 & 11 be
constructed with theentireprojectbeqause their financing was based on the entire project.
Mr. Creixell gave mea letter that explrHned thatthey would not tile any insurance claims on
buildiI?-gs 10 or llif they were ever ~~wageddue to floods. I asked him specifically if those
buildiIl.gswouldbe covered by insuraj~!ge. He stated that yes they will be covered with flood
insurance. Their financing requires t:h~~Jhex be covered by floodinsurance, but they are just
giving us their word that they will nq~if~lyaqyflood insurance daimson those two buildings. I
askedflim if buildings 10& 11 could?~~eft. off their policy., He>said,no, their financing
requires.thatbuildingslO & 11 are covered with flood insurance.
After much discussion theydecided thattheywould come back in with a plan that deleted
buildings 10& 11 so they couldwor~onthe other buildings in the interim while they're
addressing theproblems with buildin~~110 & 1 L ! did tell them that all items we discussed in
that meeting, and thesugge~tions I ga.:ye,~~eU1were my opinions as to what they might try. I was
in no way giving them an assurancet~~~ ~hat I was telling them to do would fly with all the
, reviewing agencies, that there, was nO"1ms~ib~e way I could know if the agencies other than mine
would have problems with their, propq~aJ. ;
)'
At thattime,theyasked if we could r~t\lrnthe plans faster than five days., ,I told him that I could
make nopromises,buttheycould s~~k.~~ Shirley.,.! felt sure she ,#ould certainly ask the
reviewingagen9ies to return it fasterth<.l.n fi\l"edaysbut:wouldnotmake them any promises.
c~rleY Volle, Deve1optn~nt Coordinator'
Deborah Keating, Project Engineer
David ,Pullen, City Engineer
f
~;.
4-.,tCITYOFCOLLEGE STATION
~PJ " ENGINEERING DIVISION
.. ..' Post Office Box 9960 ' 1101 Texas A venue
College Station, Texas 77842~0960
(409) 764-3570
FILENOTE
8/7/92
Re:Meridian Curb on Redmond
Talked with David Dobbs regarding the above. He said that
the Meridian pla,cedapproximately 43 1. f. of curb' that will
be billed to Mark Smith. This is per our verbal agreement
between myself and Mark smith and Philip Wingo.
In a later conversation with Philip Wingo, he said it was
approxi~a ly45 l.f.
~
Veronica.
cc: Mark smith, Asst. Director of Public Services
D.Pullen, P.E., City Engineer
D. Dobbs, Quality Assurance Inspector
Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator
FILE NOTE
April 2, 1992
On Tuesday,March 31, 1992 Coy Perry and I met with Luis
Jauregui, Juan Creixel and Phillip Wingo to talk about what
must be,.doneto,obtain a Building Permit for Phase 2 of the
Meridian Apartments.
Coy & I explained that the requirements were spelled out
very clearly on the l.astreview of the plans which were
returned to Mr. Wingo on 3-25-92.
Coy explained what he would require for "water-proofing" the
buildings after they explained that they wanted to finish
the upper floors and only the boiler;room and the laundry
room for "occupancy". He read from the Southern Building
Code the requirement that moisture content ot the wood
cannot exceed 1996, therefore, any wO,od left in ,the first
floor to be used when it is finished out later must be
protected. He further explained that somekindoi treatment
must be applied to structural elements in 'order to support
the second floor of the building, and the boilers themselves
must be raised above the floodplain in order for hlmtobe
able to sign a building permit for these buildings.
I then explained that a variance to the Drainage Ordinance
could be applied tor, and offered to give them an
application. I explained that the City Engineer's office
would be the city agency through which to submit the
application .for a'variance, and the Zoning Board of
Adjustment would be the body to consider the request.
Coy explained that a variance to the building code could
also be appliedior, and offered to give them an
application, explaining that it would be a separate request,
and would be heard by the Construction Board of Adjustment
and Appeals.
We then reminded the applicants that the entire process
would be much' easier for them" as well as mol' e exped it i OUS,
if they would simply deletebul1dlngs #10& 11 from the
plans, construct 'the water lines and the fire hydrants, and
furnish the information needed by the sanitation department.
They agreed eventually that they would consider removing
those 2 buildings from the plans, and they stated they were
not aware that the fire hydrants would have to be installed
prior to bringing any combustible materials on the site.
Coy and I again explained that neither of us had the
authority to grant varIances to the ordinances, and
additionally, that no staff member had that authority, but
rather, any requests lor variances to any of the ordinances
Council. With that, Coy & I left the meeting after again
of l,eri ng to suppl y the men wi th <forms on whi ch t hey could
apply for variances. They followed us to our office and
e,achof us gave them a va,r i ance appllca t lonf or m -one for
ZBA and one for the Construction Board of Adjustment and
Appeals.
At one p.m. on 4-1-92 Coy&. I went to the apartment sIte and
roughly measured the distance between the existing ;fire
hydrant a t RedmondandTe~as, andd,et,ermi ned tha t3iol the
buildings would beat least partially,if not compl~tely
covered ( i.e., fall wlthl~l 300 feet of the hydrant>',.t .."We
also walked through the cqmplex and determined that!i!so~e
repair work had been takllJ1g place without benefit Oit la
building permit. We trle~ to find Phillip Wingo,bit.lt<he was
not in his office nor on the site.
I called Bland Ellen aSSClon as we got back and told him of
our finding, and asked that he have someone do a more
precise measur.ement, justii in 'case these men asked t,o :have
separate building permitsi!for the buildings which might! fall
within the 300 footmeasu~ement . ,Bland said hewou!l~,!ake
'care ol that. Veronica ~~rgan indicated that shel\i~,*~~ihave
no problem issuingsepara.'~e permits for those build:iqg;;
which lell within the 30Q'lifoot distance, which woul:~ If'fre
the applicant time toget'liconstruction plans submititedft,nd
approved for the water 11~es and fire, hydrants, and'rth~,rest
of the permits could be l~sued for buildings 3 or4--~ when
the :fire hydrants were in$talled and operable.
In the afternoon of 4-1-92 Phillip Wingo brought in some
revisions to the bUilding'plans, and attaclled or inserted
them into 3 sets of build~ng plans. At 4:55 p.m. he gave
those 3 sets to Coy and a~ked if he could get a building
permit on 4-2-92 to whlch!!Coy replied. that he could not.
At approximately 9 a.m. on 4-2-92 I took a set of "revised
plans" to Sanitation for review, and Jim Smith would not
approve them because he still could not tell what was beirlg
done to bring the pads for the dumpsters out of the flood
plain. Mr. Wingo had included information regarding the
size and type of compactor being proposed, but never
indicated the elevation of the pads, nor did lIe furnish an
elevation of the dumpster on the pad so Jim Smith could see
if what was being proposed would function according to City
specs.
I then took the plans to Ray Havens who indicated that as
long as the plans were for buildings 1-9, he would be able
to sign them, and did so.
Shortly after I returned to City Hall (sometime between 10 &
11:00 a.m.) I receIved a call from Terry Jones asking if the
"rules had been changed" s.ince a long tlmeago a decision
@I
<'Iii
had been made by Davld Pullen that the renovat,ions bein'g
proposed did not constitute "substantIal renovation" and
therefor,e therequirementsfor>taklng the buildings out of
the flood platnorfloodproofing the buildings did not
apply. Iexp.lalned that whilel was not at some 'of the
meetlngs/t owhlchhereferred,l d Idremembersee iog a
letter regarding:."substanttalrenovat Ion", but informed
Terry that s inceitha tmeetlng, Da vid Pull~nhad>s ent me..a
memo. spelling out thatspeici fi callybutldlngstO &. 11 mIlS t
b.e~l~hCfr reDloYi~(): froiD tbe;flo()d 'plain or'f.l()()~proofed,and
thoseriequi reme,nts ...." hadbeenindlca t ed on the 2. set sol
redli:lne:d plans ,whilchtheCit y. hadret urned to the ,appl1icant S
- AFTE~t h~Dlee!1;,t!~~sbe,lDe'nt lo~ed. Ter rY,!sa,ld, Itseem~d
that sOjDlethlnghaid changed s ince t hose meet logs., and he
wondere:d: if the,rules>weretoughened up1r the middle pf
thlsre,view. I stated that tomy knowled:ge,the rules,were
thesamie< they had always been, a'nd we wou~d nrJt;be. In tIle
habit o'l chang iog ther equi r ement s in the ml dd'le of a'
pro ,tect,.
I then told him of these newest revisions which still did
not apply, and asked if he wanted me to continue with the
review, and he replIed that he does.
I tried to call Veronica to tell her this latest saga but
could not reach her, so I did verbally report this to David
Pullen.
XL:
Opy
December 9, '1991
~ 1'2)/3/7 I
fi2G J'/~
C~s'
~L n"j ,
n wt.) I n c 4D
David J. pullen,. P.E.
CITY'OF COLLEGE STATION
1101 Texas Avenue
College station, Tx.77842-0960
RE: Renovation ,of Aggieland Apartments, Phase 2.
Dear Dav'id:
I received your letter dated November 25, 1991, rel,easing
Phase 2 of, the AggielandApartments,'for the renovation work.
Regarding the two buildings that are at or below the
extrapolated flood elev.ation, we ,are not going to occupy the ground
floors until we can 'define a solution to remove the risk of
flooding,eventhough,as<noted in your letter, the buildings do
not have a history of flooding.
In the near future" we will resubmit our construction drawings
including the comments and revisions given to s on October 1, 1991
after the last plan review.
Ju
ell, Partner
PARTNERS ',LTD.
WOL
cc :, Veronica, Morg, an, ",Assista~t to the city Engineer
Deborah Keating, P.E."project Engineer
~ Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator <llfIIII
Mike McClure, P.E.WCP Consultant
3303 NORTHLAND DR., SUITE 212,
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731
512/453-6566
FAX: 512/453-6579
Ii
,. ",",' '" (Pill f:{1."u_.,~ ....
.
.~
~
r- - ..-. .~.." ,
"'.,,---..,....----...--...#......".,.-.,-..,-.....-...' ...,...., .-._~-".,._- ./.,,-,,'---"-"''''-' ....." ~. ,~.. -" '-"-""
i(j). '_, ..". ..,.."..-.-.f-.~~~~ """~
.~~.,""",""""",.,.".
f_
~~~v, .',.. ... ".~
,~,.;'" uu.,."""., ,...,' ','"
,',.,'",.. ". " '0_ ...,.d'.~~
"".'. "',.~""',.,I::/}~;i~.?{6?>h~ij!L,-:,
. ,..,.,' ,~...".".,' ,~"" ,.".....". "... ,.' .,." - < ",it!"..,."".."., .........,.
.,"~""~, .'. '~. -~~~~~ '
_~~m.~_ >H_~~~~- ~~.. ~..~
, """~.~..~"",.,',.u,"',.,"',.,""",.,'-""',.".~,.$b!:':. ,""_."..".,"""""",'.""","",.,",.,'""""',.,"'~
~
~.
'{,., ' ,..,.' ... ".,._.._~.,"dU,~M.~ ,,'
,~,.',_d~__
""., ",' ,_..~...,_..__." ."",.~.~._~.lIbt{l."" -_ '. .., "', . "",.,',..._/-'
I
I
I
! .
I
,
11
!i
:i
., .' 0'__.... ~__ .,.._..." ....., ,_, . <. .'_mo'.._"" .,_.._ _.,..~
,~~ _.~~-~~ , ~
""",.,', ..~,",,',.,' "11",,;,, ,___ ',',- ",~"'.-,,"",~ ',' '"",".,-.,1,',-,:,__ '".'. .'.".",/1..""."."",.'_".".'...:',.,.'"..,.'"",."I._..~,...""""."",...,.",,__-.,..,'.. ,~,.,',...,..".. '.. ""/""".,_"".""".,,,'., .""'"".,'",..,'".".,...".,, ,..,',',.,."..,',..,'...~"., ,...."."',',.,',,.,..,.,,',."', ,','".',.,'":",,,.,.,,',.,..,"",..,.. _"'~" '"., ,'.."'" ',' ,........' _',' '
,.' d~l.i:~,~~~>.~r::;:~.~, '?!~,' " ' ·
H~',~, ~",~',""'~~
I
;i
~
!:., '
Ii
Ii
.4' '.'- , .
il
I
r
. ~
...
"
~
DIVISIOf'J
1101 Texas
T exas77842-096D
(409) 764-3570
TO:
',pavidPullen, City Engineer
;/Veronica'Morgan, As.sistanft() the ,City Engineer
J imCallaway ,Planning ., Director
Jane Kee,.Senior ,Planl1er
Coy Perry, ,Building Official
Cathy Locke, City P~ttorney
DebQrahKeating, Project Engineer ~%
Janua 16, ,1991
( Merldian'Ph~V
,i __--/~,,---~---
"'----~---
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Both the engineer (McClure) and owner (Holland) have been informed the
location ofthefloodwaycurrently shown on the site, plan for MeridiCill Phase II is
unacceptable., The Jocation is based on a 1981 study that has since been updated. .
We request the. site plan reflect the, latest available information before the site
plan is approved. The latest available information affects the buildings (i.e. one
or more of the buildings lies within thc'floodway)., At this, point, the developer
has several options, as outlined in Section5-GoftheCity of College Station's
Drainage Policy and Design . Criteria, 1tSpecialProvisions for Floodways".
l)Submitc()mpleteengineering report fully demonstrating the encroachments
Shall,. .notiresultiniany, increasein.\Vater ,hazard, upstream, within or
downstream of the encroachment location.
2) Demolish the buildings located withinthe'floodway.
3) Obtain (via . development . agreement} "permission .to leave. affected buildings
, abandoned until such time drainage improvements move 'floodway location.
4) Put project on hold until all parties (TAMU) agree to participate In
improvements.
Mr. Holland is requesting a meeting regarding this subject as soon as possible.
DK!ejm
M-ecf -
~~)
~ :'~kUJ&t. ~11eF- ,.
.. tJa".,fV'. /
4('!fMl2j~ ..L~iiZ-~/&s!t;
~.',.;....'.' ..,.,iCITy,.' OFCOLLEGE,S, l:,ATION~"
~".~ "",'.. ,ENGINEERING DIVISION ".A
College Station, Texas 77842-0960 A
-(409) 764-3570 ~~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: shirleyVolk, Development Coordinator
David J., pullen,CltyEngineer
Debbie Keating, Project Engilleer
.,
FROM: Veronica. Morgan, Asst to City Engineer ~
DATE: Thursday, A11gUSt 22, 1991
..~,,-~
RE : MERIDIAN PHASE IV~I.~
I rece i vedthe site plalls fort11e above referenced project
on Monday. NicHolla.nd Jlas shown on the plan the revised
floodplain informat ion~as reqllested in the attached , m,emo.
Debb,ieKeatlngandl.have verified the channel sections and
100 year floodplain, elevations as shown on this site plan
wi ththe Nathan DiMa:ier study ,alld the revised FEMAstudy
a,nd they do not match . 'The revisedFEMA maps show
elevations ofthel00yearflo'odplain of approximately 292
feet 111stead of the 289.2 and 287.6 that are shown ot1the
SUblultted plarls.
Accordil1g to tJ1eclraiJlage olrdirlallce however, t}llildings that
wi 11 be substant iall-y Improvedlllllst be 1 foot above the
floodplain.. T'hisrequirementwill,.affect quite a few of the
buildings inthtsPhase tt I spo'ke wi thNic Holland today and
reminded him ofth.isrequirement,. He s'a idhe was unaware of
this "requirement. He asked what he could do to get a
"cbnditionalsite plan approval". At this point I would
feel 'comfortable with the following, done prior to approval
of the site'plan:
1. Revisefloodplai'11 elevatlollS to reflect those on
the current FEMA nlaps.
~
2. Depending on which option is chosen to deal with
the buildings in the floodplain.
a. Show which buildings will be affected and how
they will be effectively taken out of the
floodplain. (i.e. demolished, raised, etc.)
OR
b. Submit construction plans for channel
impriovementsordetent i on facilities that
will. ,reduce the floodplain el.evations along
with the runs that show what those revised
elevations wi lbe.
MEt'-10 TO FILE
AU~lUS t= 63' 1 ':~92
Jane Kee, Veronica Morgan, Ed Hard and Su Volkmet this aumu with
the con'tractor, Phil ip Win~~o, to discus:s di fferenc€-?s be inJeen the
apprcfvE~d site plan for the j\-'ieridian and t;Jhat ~}as ,actual y built"
The following requirements were very carefully explained to Mra
Wi nfJCf aftt~r he ex pI ill nf:?dt hi:-l t · to 5c:\ ve mOf1~~Y ~ certain
modifications were made to the approved site plan without the
City's knowledge or agreement:
1. I: Th(~ cone rete mus t be r€-?Iilov€-?d I: rom t:r,€-? €~~:~ i.:; t i nq Ii 5 t r i ped Ii
islandsu Ordinance requires rais~~islands? not less than
6 II i n he .i 9 h 1; 1\'"7I.i t h a bo 'C i;om c c. n t i 9 U 0 tfs \oJ i t h 'e 7~ i s tin 9 so i 1 to
be ], 0 eel tE~d bet~"'e€-?n f~very .1~,) 1 nter lor pt:i r k infJ rCi~}S and
between every 20 periphery parking rows"
2= Curbing between the concrete and the creek must be replacedu
3# Fire Lanes must bepainted= Coordinate with the Fire
Marshi.~J.' S ()i= *{= i ca for requi rt;;~ments and loca t ions;;
4ft ~andscaping must beinstalledQ If more than 2 trees are
(chanqed from tne approved Landscape Plan, a new landscape
, 'j r')" ... n w i 11 b ~~ r e (1 Ii i r ~ "j
p'" J. d, .... ... 1;;* *'f ....... !:.. !.. I:
\
5. ,trl:ingOf the parking ~ot must be complete.
6. lhe Tence aroundtne pOOL must be complete.
7 u ,,///(Ht~"*desi fJn the -F rClnt elr i ve entran Cf.~ to conform ~\}i th
.:/"",/'" c.:smpromi ~5€.~ s tanda rds des Lr- i bed by V It tzlorgan 8:: Ed f'1a r*ej II TtH~
opening must be at least 24 feet in width with some type of
monol i i;hi c curbing (or agreed upon ali;i;,?r-nate) .3t-ound the
edgesu (Bottom of this island does not have to be
contiguous with existing soilc)
8n Prc::vide soil testing resul ts retJel1pdin~~ compact~cln i:1nd
dE?nsi ty fCrt.. the .area alon~~ the creek that t"t?qui red paVemf?n1;
repair due to some type of wash-autu
9u Submit a revised site plan showing exactly what is being
submitted for approval and issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy for this projectu
10.. Coordinate with Sani t~:irySupEqpintf?ndent Jim Smith at ?64....
3690 regarding dumpster requirement..
Compliance w~th all of the above requirements must be met prior
to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any building in
th.iE, projectu
CityofColleg,eStation
P.O.Box9960
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
RE: WolfCreekPartners,Ltd
3303 NO,rthlaIld Drive, Suite 212
Austin, TeJCas 78731
IRREVOCABLE LETTER 'OF,CREDIT#043
We hereby issue this Letter of Credit # 043 in favor of The City of College Station, for the
accounto~\yolfCr~kPartners,..Ltd., for an aggregate amount of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND
AND NO/lOODpLLARS, ($18,000.00), available by your draft at sight on us.
The amountof thi~,Letter of Credit will be available by sight draft drawn on First American
Bank, Enrol, Texas, when accompanied by ,the following additiona1documents:
l'tp.soriginalLetterof Credit a10ngwith a sworn statement of.an officer of The City of
Coll~ge Station certifying that Wolf, Creek Partners, Ltd~js.jndefault.
This ; Irr~"oCf-bleLetter of Credit. is, except as ptherwise expressly stated, ,subject to., "Uniform
Custom~'ffl<1PracticeDocumentary Credits", 1983 Revision, Internationa1 Chamber of
Commerce, Publication No. 400.
We hereby ,agree with ,,'youthat a1l,drafts, drawn under ,and in' compliance with the terms of this
credit will be duly honored ifdrawn and presented to us on or before December 9, 1992, before
2:00 ',p.m. ,,',central standard ,time.
1111 Briarcrest Drive
Bryan, Texas 77802
(409) 268-7575
The dumpster lEbcations' shown on this plan are temporary, Wolf
Creek Partners is actively working to provide off-site detention
facilities on the Texas.A&M golf course to reduce the base flood
elevation.
We understand that no certificates of Occupancy will be issued
on the 4 unitsinPh~se II which are currently unfinished,until
the floodplain, elevation is' lowereq per plans, and the'.dumpsters
are relocated, to the rear as shown on ',the site plan, and the
parking is restored as shown on, the site plan which was approved
,with the building c.onstruction d09uments and buil<i~ngpermit.
512/4'53-6'566
512/453-657:.9
It;~ ~
~ 9Hw-tet :
r~ t9f'JP ftN ,~/T~~
S;)~ ,~,~ MfttDfI1'J ~ 'Z'
9'~ ~, ltt?lot\11re. .~ ," ,.",.,
OF 2. ~~' '., rf4, ' "
Tf4\1ftlfi'tfo/ ~T1CtJ '--
~ 1'0 ttft\'6~N , :tt:P
ffft'ft499f~9> ~qo ~
, ~~ J ftT ~ ~rat< cr ~.
I
I ~ nt19t$'/f'J coMf~J~~
fmJor'~ Or ~ F1il'P aeJttT10N ·
,":. ~ tefcJfJ ·
9(, .., .'..",.,~
~tC' .' .~"'.".....' . ' .. .1
r7: ,{\V;()L~ ~D OM ' .', " .... 1
J A U REG U f~tc. AR ~ lET 'E · 0 N S T RU C T 10 N ·
5000 PLAZA ON THE LAKE, SUITE 290 · AUSTIN, TEXAS 7,8746
FAX 328-7720 ~.Jj~~~t8-7706
CSA
.
" .......~_.__~_.-..-....,-::a.....,_..........a.... ~....,...._,.__..~-___. ..;-:~ ----- _._-,,---.'- ~_..... ..--'-....-------. .___~_~_._"t
monogernen t, I,nc.
Septembel~151 1992
,Ms Ii Shi'L-leyJ:.. Valk.
lopment 'Coc~:t:cllna.tor
OF C()LIJEGE ,. STATIOli
1'ex'asAvertue
station, T~Kas77842
"" 'I
'\.."
'......
rl(1~l:
1=) i Q r~~:] t e In 1)01"" a r y f ~i 0 1 f
l-} _L' U .~ t'j f f = f; t t e d e t~ E1 fit, :.l 0 r-~,
t:-t~e base fl()()
y will be issued
shed i' ttl1t:i 1.
t tie {jllTnr)atera
an j arld ,the
was apl-11-:(}ved
perrn1.t e"
Pa,:rtr~er
r)
f}lJ · ~1/
~J / J\ '
',' , ' ~ n A'J
',I)Jr l ~r}
lfl \ ;p; ~y ~
, /)- \ ~ t \ t"- '
, ',) '~' f l.'t), , h ~
\r V'; \t
fY\v?
6\
F};J=~f:rl~ERS f "LTD ~
~
3303 NORTHl,A,ND
AUSTlN. TEXAS
512/{l ,6566
FI\X: 5 12/4 53 · 65 7 9
CITY Of COLLEGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas TI842-Q960
(409) 764.3500 -
September 15, 1992
Mr. Nic Holland
Jauregui, Inc.
5000 Plaza on t he Lake Su i t 4~ 290
Austin, TX 18146
Dear Nic:
To follow-up ourpbone ,conv.~rsation with written information
regarding approval of the slte.plan with the proposed temporary
dumpster location, I would offer you the information given to me
by Jane Kee which lists the requirements for approval of that
plan:
The City :requires a leltter from the owner which states the
following:
1) that the duml?ster locations shown on this plan are
temp,o.l'/ary;
2) that the dumpsters will be relocated to the rear
as shown on a site plan when the floodplain
elevation is lowered per plans; and,
3) that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued on
the 4 units in Phase 2 which are currently
unfinished untl1thedumpsters are relocated and
the parking ls restored as shown on the site plan
which was approved with the building construction
documents anc:l building permit.
Nic, if- you can renil,nd Juan of these requirements so he can
submit the required letter and site plan, wewil! be able to
approve the plan wlththe temporary dumpster locations and get on
wlththe rest of the project. Thanks for your help in this
matter.
Home
Post-lt™ brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages ~ /
To AI I I ' A I From L
1 c.. n () L..1.-Fl IVj .::? 1-11 eL,c '" 0 LK
Co. ~ . J ' -r- Co
;)Aflee~() I J J"AJc t::::.lry Orc;~ ~~
Dept. Ph ~', # ./ r:
4'Pi. 7b~"'3~ 70
Fax"4~ Ib~~!>'fq"
.
~
"f,/~
fr~
erN""
~ '7ttl
t\OI
c:DVV
77Bt2
fe'~
... 41 ~J 1_.'
'~l tv
os
I
.
I
"91ns
, fCf'
~
f
y
JA U R E GIUI INC. ARCH I T EC T U R E · CON S T R U C T ION
50'00 PLAZA ON THE LAKE, SUITE 290 · AU.STIN, TEXAS 78746
FAX 328-7720 512 328-7706
TS
N'
UW
i
I
~
FIRST .
erlCan
i&.BANK
CD P Y)
August 14, 1992
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas ' ' 77842-0960
RE: Wolf CreekPartners,Ltd
3303 Northland "Drive,Suite21~~
Austin, Texas7873~
IRREVOCABLE LETTEROF' CREDIT #038
Gentlemen:
We hereby issue this Letter of Credit '~~038 in favor of The City of College Station, for the
account'of Wolf Creek Partners, 'Ltd., 'for, an aggregate amount 'of ',EIGHTEEN THOUSAND
AND NO/IOODOLLARS, ($18,000.00), available by your draft at sight onus.
The.' amount, of ,this ,Letter ,of Credit wil.lbe"available",by sight, draft" drawn 'on First, American
Bank, ,Bryan, Texas, when ,accompanieelby the following additional documents:
Tl1is',original, Letter"'ofCredit,'along,witha"'sworn,statement bfan, officer'of'The ,City' of
CellegeStation certifying thatW olfCreekPartners, Ltd. is in default.
This Irre'Vocable Letter of Credit is, <exeeptas otherwise expressly stated , subj ect to"U niform
Customs ,and Practice Documentary Credits", 1983 Revision, International Chamber of
Commerce, Publication No. 400.
We hereby 'agree .'with you' that all" drafts ',drawn under' and incompliance' with the,' terms of this
credit 'will be duly honored if drawn and presented to us on or before October 10,1992, before
2:00" p.m. central standard time.
F~ST, AM"",."E" RI,", C,,' A, NB,....,ANK,~".".,".."..'"..".,','."',.,',,.,.. "".,','".""..,.,',..,.,,",.,',., .,',,"',,','..'.. _
BY. ~1
Joe "..Salvato, Sr.VlcePreSldent
1111' ,Briarcrest Drive
Bryan, Texas 77802
(409) 268.7575
Post Office Box 1033
Bryan, Texas 77805
Member FDIC
Minutes ',from Meeting
September 1991
Attendees:
Shirley ',Volk,Development," Coordinator
Jane 'Kee"Senior."Planner
D...~borah Keating, Project Engineer
....l\7eronicaMo~gan" Assistant ,to the City Engineer
Coy. Perry, Building Official
Cathy . Loc}{e, .'"City Attorne),
Roxanne ,Nemcik,SeniorA$sistantCity 'Attorney
Eric.. Hunt, ",Fire.,.,Inyestiga tor
Mike Wiley, Risk Manager
Discussed the sitepl~n that had just, been', turned in by the,' applicant. ,Explained
the problems with the floodplain line and thecommentsmadeto Deborah
Keating and Veronica Morgan by Mike McClure, the engineer on the project.
Discussed what options the applicant has loget the site plan approved but
ultimately to get the site renovated. The following.was the outcome of the
discussion:
1. We need "a copy of the, agreement with TAMUand a time ,frame. for those
improvements to'. be. "",complleted.
2. We need floodplain elevations corrected. When the corrected floodplain
inforll1ationissubmitted on the site plan, we wiUbe able to issue a
conditionally approyed site plan.
3. We needa"development""agreementto address the parking in ",Phase ," III
and, phasing approyalto go to ,Council. ,,(If applicant wants to phase)
4. There will be no building permits issued for any buildingJessthanlfoot
(1') above floodplain and those buildings must be fenced off from the
public, until drainage improvements are' complete', or with notes "regarding
ways"to.bring<all".buildings 'into'" compliance.
...
lejm
C:\WORD\VERONICA\MERIDPH2.DOC
/i-ArCITYOFCOLLEGE STATION
"PJ.' ,," LEGAL DEPARTMENT
· . ,. Post Office Box 9960 11 01 Texas A venue
College Station" Texas 77842-0960
(409) 764-3507
~I'
M E M 0 RAN D UM
TO:
veronica Morgan, Engineering
DATE:
cath, Y, La, eke" ,City", "A, ttarneY/l./JA --"
~ ~,
Me idian Pha:el~ ~ ~(j:fe
FROM:
RE:
. ,
I have reviewed your memo of: September 13, 1991, pertaining to
Phase II of Meridian ApartmE~nts. I do not believe that there is
anyway to "guarantee" that A&M will not alter the pond after
construction. If A&M didtclkeout t,he pond, any resulting prop-
ertydamage that was proximately caused would subject A&M to
liabilityonlY,ifthe Legislature gave the property owners the
right to sue the University. Despite thelackQf control over
A&M,it might be a little arbitrary to refuse to allow develop-
ment; particularly, in, light of the effectiveness of other flood
prevention measures taking place on Wolf Pen Creek.
with regard to Terry Jones' reject of the offer to allow the
fencing off of the site, it seems tome that unless he offers a
viable alternative then we go back to standard procedures. He
should not be able to receive an occupancy permit until the
ordinances are complied with.
CL:di
CEWEDSfP23'.
,ocr I. oJ 19SI
,~", 1
t/iJe N ~+e :
177 {?A4;<ia'h~I-f. ""',.. 5
uj."it,:JC!J)/1eQ ;0hlt~
!ll ctke. }/i])/c
~,("cJI~, '
" l
P h :r::c-
1()lfj~COpy
tJel,~~f).,iJlje
~.fZ);4 4~s,;6J VJ.ce~ ~eci ~o ~ d
tU.)ed~fJ)a;,e '.," jT .q~le C003~C4C4J
~~Il-M~ 'l5~$~I;J~ /~/l. ~
l' .' .' '...'.. ..,d.e.J(t
r-evrDV~,/l '...,,' ',.. ,"/
M~ atlo0 tv~C>. ,~OoU1Ivt~t-eW/O) cia;,
~'2iea-kr. 'bLJ6-rk.~><le~ ~'.;..d~/~ ds;etvtL.
Coh.C)rxSIORf.O;ialVl1 ~(i#~ fo...~ hS>11 tJ
-!>> 6aA64v /~ z-/a/~ ~ .~~ ,.'L-. SDt ~~cf~~
r2~ ~. ~
FILENOTE
Date:
October 22, 1991
Re:
Meridian Phase II Development Permit File
I spoke with Cheryl Chatham with thle FEMARegional Office. She said she received a
call fromMr.Creixel associated witllTerryJones in the Meridian Development who was
inquiring about the definition of substantial improvements. She referred him to me as the
floodplain administrator of College Station. He insisted that he wanted her interpretation.
He indicated to her that the improvements they were planning on doing to the Meridian
Phase II were merely cosmetic, and to bring the development into code. She.gave him
the definition, of substantial improvements as per FEMA'sinterpretatioon andrhaswritten
that ina letter to be sentto him and copied to me. I brought her up todatewi~hthe
problems in that phase ,of the, Development, in that some of the existingbuildipgs lie ,well
below the floodplain elevation. , She said she didn't realize there was an elevation
problem and he hadn't indicated there was a problem.
She asked for some more information. I told her that it was my understanding that there
had been flood damage to some of tillose buildings previously . She stated if the
improvements were in response to flood damage as well as to bring up to code, he could
not waive the elevation requirements and would have to meet the City's drainage
ordinance in that respect..
I told her I would verify the amount of flood damage that the buildings receive in the
past, and the description of improvernents the City had in mind that the developer was
going to do and would fOlWard that information to her. She said she would get back with
mewJh an official response after she received that information.
cc:vVeronica Morgan, Assistant to the City Engineer
David Pullen, City Engineer
Cathy Locke, City Attorney
Roxanne Nemcick, Senior Assistant City Attorney
DKlejm ~'-;?<,~,. , .
,..'.G
dk\fn\l0-22-2.doc
cc:
~~,,",~
1,.*...",.",...".... <....CITY"',..OF...COLl..EGt::iS TAT ION
".'~'..~ ,..'.'.'.'."." "'., '. ',' ENGli'EERING DIVISION , ' ,'.','
........,".., , ,"'."...,.,', ' .,." ,',.,',. Post Office Box 9960 ", ,.' "..,,11Q1TexasAvenue
C,ollegeStation,>Tex8s77842-0960 .
I (409}'764-3570
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
This is my understanding of 'where we are on this project as
of today.
Back some timeago,{lO/22/91) lie had a meeting with Juan,
etal.to dtscusstheproject. In this meetlngJuansaid
t ha t hehadta I kedto,FEMA.:reg(~rdi ngthefl oodinsuranceand
thatFEMAmadetwostatementswith this regard.
1.FEMA said that AS LONG AS the improvements to the
apartments were tobring,the bl11i lding up to code and' NOT TO
ANSWER A FLOODING PROBLEM that what they were doing would
not be considered substantial renovation.
2 .FEMAsaid that glven tJhe statement above that the
City of College station would IN'OTplaceour flood insurance
at risk .
Subsequent to this>, Debbie Keating ,called ,carol .Chatham and
discussed the information that Juan had given us 1,1') the
meeting. " According to, Debbie ':smemo,Caroltoldherthat if
there had been documented floocjdamage to these buildings
thenwecouldnotwalvethe elevation requirements (here we
are talking about the extra l' above floodplain
requirement). If there had been documented flood damage
then Juan, would. have to meet the requirement.
David taqlked i th.repre'sentativesatthe building division
and fire artmenttosee if they had ever seen water in
THIS PHASE. The answer he received was no. Therefore, he
could not substantiate the flood,ing claim on this phase. As
suchtgiven FEMA's comments, we do not need to enforce the
extra l'requirement.
David then met with Juan on 11,/25/91. My understanding of
the outcome of thIs meeting is as follows:
1. The buildings that ,are abovethef loodpl~ in but NOT
ABOVETHE1'REQUIREMENT as stated in the drainage ordinance
canberenovatedwtthout any floodprooflng or brInging them
up to meet the l' requirement.
, .." ~', ",,' "'~"
/../'-:'"
'~""""'",."",,,, ,,'.',,/../,.,../ VII
/...'~
~/ 18
..'7
2. The bul1dings that are wi thl n the floodplain will
have to meet the requirements of the drainage ordinance
(i.e. floodprooflngorelevating,etc.).
At this point weare in the sItUation where the applicants
next step istoaddressthecon'cerns in the original, PRe, if
not already answered. And submIt to us 5 copies of the
revised site plan wlth an attachment addressing what they
propose to do to the 2 buildings affected that are within
the floodplain. One of these copies is for the planning .
file, while the other 4aretb be attached to the building
plans for review.
~~
<1C't-UjS ~ 5fec s #
y<'$~, JJ'i5 I 0 ~ t I. / NeW-(\~/':' ~ reles~Jn~/~ J
I}~ ~ Sfect~\ t:"loodH a.z.~d. 'CVu/I~S~/:"
-('eV1e0 T did V10~ see tu~--the'e.... 6u~ lJ~-s
twek,~l'~r (~i€ct.~ Is Ot4e -foDtcabcN€- ~
btlSe ..{!apJ elfk:>Ji~,. S~~ r;-:',F. t, ei'e~
4.t(fd @~,C:c1e.C~t~ 1'3 cel/"l're' ~ JlI/ Y1e~
CoVlst-u.c:.i;~,,~ aMy ",<&u..bstatlt;J'wf""'€-MeJ- ,~{
a"v:y(e~:de-J1;J ,~tyuof-we ~blt Ii .h~ye ~/o~e~1
#Iv~ t ,?v/u)7'~ bdLseVVle""t / a f ~,.e levCQ.to ~ iLl-
l-eft6f, onefoo I ;:pbovetie 6bt:: f?jod e/;'v~f~~ ." )'
.J.. (>(9.\I\}'\ot C€CDWl/Me'1 d -dte~ ~,b<-t.t)d.~~s as. 4
ftl/l' f-&-jc:z tit/I Ji~ fle!7JYl/' / ?t~ kss /J?eC( ~~ CVe.
y{t;iebJ ~ re dUe<=: p~ y?~DcI )eZzCs?/c1 /P) de.>-e
&U;JJi;3 ,
/Je ~I!ic~~s, ,&btftp~lun/~ ~ CY/f e-
aV4r/~c~ ",<5hodcl~~ w/s6.3 ~///~
6CYj2oz,l t-k,.e s&~e;k ,~';)~%iyJ ~~
~~-U~7l?olJ /~6c0' ~" ~-t,aJ};'JlY/)Zt: V
';r~~..........'..~..$.~ '.
.V.~.~
e~~.,W!I-€
(1(f~, .,,~4f/4ffle
RECEIVED J~ 61992
FILE NOTrll
January 3,t992
Terry Jones -FloodDetentionFacilities at George Bush Dr. and Texas Ave.
City Manager Ron Ragland asked that ,I return a call from Terry Jones, Developer
who is involved in redeveloping the former Aggieland,Apts.by agreement with
the City, nqwcaHed the Meridian Project or Apartments. 'Ron had spoken with
Terry on 'December 18, '1991 regarding Terry'sconversationswith the, City
Engineer., 'As Ron explained it to ,me, Terry had asked David Pullen if the City
wouldsponsoraFEMAmap, amendment which ,is necessary for his firm to
construct a storm water detention facility on A&Mproperty at the corner of
George Bush and Texas Ave. , near where their preseqt golf course hole number
4 is located. Ron also advised me that in ,additiontosponsoring the amendment,
thatthei' City could getttie application fees waived if it sponsored this FEMAmap
amendment'for Mr."Jones1.company.
On January 3, 1992 I called Terry and discussed this with him. Briefly, he
explained that the flooding that is occurring downstream on this branch of Wolf
Pen Creek that affects his apartment complex is due to development on theA&M
Campus upstream. ,While initially the University wanted to solve it by increasing
channel capacity downstream, they have agreed to accept Terryls solution which
is that ,a storm water detention facility be built at the corner of George Bush Dr.
and Texas Ave. near Hole, number 4. This projectwould be built on A&M's golf
course property, and would be constructed at the, expense, of, Terry1s firm at an
estimated cost of $150,000 and would involve the reconstruction (raising) of three
holes of this golf course,. Terry stated in his opinion this isa significant flooding
area that according to the City1s data, a 100 year flood atthisintersectionwould
be under 3 to ". 5 feet of water. From his prospective it would seem that. the City
would,beinterested in seeing that this project be, built. He has worked for2112
years to get A&M to build this facility at his cost.
Terry explained that it requires a two part process. The first part is getting the
FEMA>mapamendment,and the second part is building the facility. , To obtain
the FEMA map amendment, he wc)uld like to work with the City because the City
is the officialflood plan administrator. Thereare two ways to apply for the
amendment, the city could sponsor it, or he could apply foritas a third patty. He
believes that it would be beneficial if the city sponsored it because it would save
his firm reviews fees and time and show thecity'ssupports fortheproject.
Heexplalnedthat up to this point that David had not seem willing to sponsor this
amendment. I told Terry that I would talk to David Pullen and get his views and
call him back>on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
cc: R.Ragland
E. Ash
D.PuUen
~
RECiEIVELl..JAN ,~O 1992
~.----~--------------
Honorable LarryJ.Ringer
Mayor, City" of College 'Station
P.o. Box <9960
CollegeStation,TX 77842
Dear Mayor Ringer:
Flood,damageinformation from the recent 'flood ,disaster declaration for Texas
indicatestha~ yourcommunitymayllaveexperienced damages. ,As"a, participating
community in the National Flood ,Insurance ,Program (NFIP), ,the provisions 'of your
local floodplain management orciinallcearesignificant during this period of flood
recovery.
As, ,you',know,participatlon".,inthe NFIPis"'contingent, upon, the local'adoption
and enforcement of > adequate floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed
the NFIPminimumcriteria. Inretllrnforthe adoption and enforcement of these
regulations" theFederal.Emergency]~anagementAgency""which"" administers, ,the ',NFIP ,
provides the availability of ,flood ,'ins~rancecoverage throughout your community.
Certain specific ,standards are contained in' your local floodplain management
ordinance and the of the NFIPthat are intended to prevent the
unwisedevelopmentor,redeyelopmen'tofstructureswithin the floodplain. Among
these are' the",', following ".requiremen,ts:
1.
Development Permits must ,beobtained.forallproposed.construction or
other deve lopment,includingpo stdi sasterrepairs , within the '. identi fied
flood hazard areas of the, community. Development is defined as any man-
made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited ,to buildings or other structures, , mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drillingopera.tions,orstorageof equipment
or materials;
2.
1. Substanl.a damage, means 'damage of any orJ..gl.n sustained
ya structurewherebythecostofrestoringthestructuretoitsbefore
damagedconditionwou~dequalor,exceed50 percent of the,~~~~~tvalueof
the" ,structure ,be fore.tht3damage()ccurred. ~~~, "-'li~eii~~~;:~~!j;I~!l!~~~s
T:~~~~~~~~~u 'U~' ~'~~i:~='j::!::=::~~~ii;;::
term includes structures which h;~-~" ::i~'~L~rred
regardless of the actual repair work performed.
-h. '
"1"
Page 2
3. All new construct ion and/or 'substantial improvement "of non-residential
structures shall either have the lowest. floor (includingba.sement) elevated
to orabovet.he identified BFE or be designed so that the area below the
BFE iswatertightwithwal1st.hat are substantially impermeable to water
and are capable of withstanding hydrostatic, and hydrodynamic pressuresj
4. Encroac,hmentsincluding,f ill, new construction, substantial 'improvements,
substantial restoration andotherdeyelopmentareprohibitedwithin an
adoptedregulatoryfl.oodway if it'is,determinedthat the encroachment would
result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the
occurrence of the 100 year flood; and
5. Variances shall only be issued upon: (a) a determination that the variance
is the minimum necessary, c:onsideringtheflood hazard, to afford reliefj
(b) a showing of good and sufficientcausej (c) a determination that
failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the
applicant jfd}a >determinat:ion that the granting of the variance will not
resultin>increasedflood heights, additional threats to'public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict 'with existing local laws or
ordinances.
These requirements found in your local floodplain management regulations are
designed to mitigate future losses of life and property during times of flooding
and will contribute toward breaking the cycle of loss to structures. Failure
to enforce these measures will jeopardize your community's continued
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and affect future federal
assistance.
Enclosed is abooldetentitled "Answers to Questions About Substantially Damaged
Buildings" which expands on the contents of theNFIPRegulations and contains
very straig.ht'forward,answers. Refer to the top of page 15, question 32 for
information regarding the issuance of permits and their use in determining which
structures must be elevated.
. If you have any questions regarding this information, please let me know by
writing t.o the above address or by calling (817)898-5127.
Sincerely,
~~
rR. Dell Greer, Chief
Natural Hazards Branch
Enclosure
JuanCreixell
CSA Management, Inc.
3303 Northland Dr., STE
Austin, Texas 78731
RE : RENOVATION OF AGGIELMTD ,APARTMENTS ,PHASE
STATION, TX
your let,ter of November 4, 1991.
I have
cc: Veronica Morgan, Assistant to, the City Engineer
DeborahKeating,P.E.,ProjectEngineer
Shirley Volk, DevelopmeptCoordinator '
Planning file 90-503 \I/'
,90-504
CITY Of COLLEGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101T exas Avenue
College Station,T~as 77842-D960
(409)764-3500
May 22, 1992
Mr. ",Phillip Wingo
Wolf Creek Partners Limited
306 Redmond Drive
College Station, ,Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Wingo:
We have reviewed the letters sent to you by Mr. Rick Robertson of
Robertson Consulting Engineers. We are in agreement with Mr.
Robertsons assessment of the damage and ,m,ethodof repair., We request
that prior to commencing construction of the repairs that one of our
inspectors check the dmnagedareatoassureyouare incompliance with
items number ,1 and 2 in Mr. Robertson's · letter of May 6th. ,Once our
inspector is assured YOllhavecoJ11pliedwith theseitemsyounlay
proceed with the repair. ,Weas,kthatyou submit to this office a copy of
the soils testresultsrrom the repair work that will verify the compaction
results ,as stipulated !in Mr. Robertsons ,letter.., If all test results .' meet Mr.
Robertsol'lsrecommendationsyoumayproceedwiththe placelTIent of the
concrete pavement.
W ewould like to point to the last two paragraphs of Mr. RobertsonsMay
6th ",letter. " Wewill,belooking forrepail;ofthe dmnagedsections ,of the
riprap lining withthedrainagedesignofthedet~ntion facility and
channel improvements. ' " ' ; :
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
attachment
cc:"";ruanCreixell",\\ToIfCr~ekPartrIer~Ltd.
Shirley""Vo]k"""Develqpment'...Coordinator
David.."Pullen."..,City)Dngineer
David Dobbs,Illspector
Meridian Phase II Site.,'PlanFile
'., ,., ': ..~ '. .:"/ . .;'-., "
~",,~c '
ROBEHTSO~ CONS ULTING ENGIN EE RS
'i't~1~~;r~t:~::~ertson, 0" En9~r:~~~:rincipal Traffic
May 6, 1992
,..?~.,."PhillipWingo
';t-,,;<t;:,i!~~.Wolfcreek Partners Limited
-' 306 Redmond Drive
College station, TX 77840
RE: Parking Lot and Riprap Dete.rioration
The' Meridian PhCl.seTwo - College station! TX
Dear Mr. 'Wingo,
. ,In response to your request for additional information, the
follow,ing is added to supplement my letter of 4130/92.
Thep"arkinglotrepairstorestore its structural integrity
need to bemadeinthefollowingma.nner:
1. Inspect "for >$ignso:Elostfill support, especially
along the edge of the stream channel. If in doubt about
any area break ,through the pavement to determine the
underlying conditions.
2. Remove anyobvibusly 'damaged,.,sections of pavement and
break pavement'back to the limits of lost fill support.
Remove"'any,."surface debris, ',','vegetation" "roots' and
organic materials down to ,undisturbed natural subgrade.
! ", ", ' , ',' ' , !
'3. Replace lost fill with select fill" ,mater,ial. Select
f1.llsoil>shall:befreeoforganicmaterials, have a:
maximmn 'liquid 'limitcf3C. ",..,~'plasticity index Jess
than 15, ,andlesst!lan3 5% mater ial passing, the #20 0
sieve." ,Fill materials shall ".",be placed "in "maximum ,12
inchlifts,moist,ened t09ptimul1lmoisture content, and
compacted to ~,~"percentofmaximum ,as determined by
ASTM "'0 698. .'.
4. Replaceareasrelllovedwith concrete pavement of
equivalent, thic]{ness,reinforcing".,and, details to that
of new areas of pavementplannedfortheproj E!ct,.
17228 roadm oorSuit e .212
Bryan, Iexas77B02
(409)776-5711
Fax (409) 776~611 9
5. Where water penetration appears to have occurred from
standingwat,eratthecurb provide 6" wide openings in
the curb. Make certainthe~openingsdischargewater on
to the existing concrete~iprap lined sections of the
channel bank.
with regard to the damage to the riprap lining of the
channel bank, those damaged areas, need to be repaired to prevent
any new damage to the paved areas., They are not critical at this
time to the structural integrity of the pavement. ,I am proposing
that the repairs, be delayed until the drainage design for the
detention facility and channel improvements are completed and
accepted, which is anticipated to be less than six to twelve
months'.
The chan"nel improve:meritswil"llikely require "the re-shaping
of some of the areas requiring repair. By delaying, repairs can
take place that will conform with anoverallplan'consistent with
revised flood conditions. If the detention fac~lity or channel
improvement plans are not approved, or are delayed beyond that
time period, then the repairs to the riprapshould be made to
limit the ,possibility of fut\lre pavement;damage.
I appreciate the opporttlnity 'to assist you further on this
proj ect. Please let me k110WJkfyou have any 'further questions or
comments.
Sincerely, "
. ." I '" /)t 1:;:::::
, -I~1 c,'., 1/, -....),~,',./ "/,'r",;..(.:V," ,',' ' ,. ',-----
~_,1i-" /t. ~
-\
R()BERTS(),N C()NSlJlTING ENG IN EE'RS
Civil
Su~wml Dmmage
RichardG. Robertsonj D. Eng., P.E., Principal
Traffic
April 30,1992
Mr. Phillip Wingo
WolfCreekP,artners Limited
306, Redmond'Drive
College station, TX 77840
RE: Parking Lot and Riprap Deterioration
The Meridian Phase Two -College station! TX
Dear Mr. Wingo,
I have been to the site and looked at the areas of damage to
the parking lot andchannelriprap.Thedamages,allresult from
water penetrating and washing out the underlying supporting fill.
The loss of fill appears to have occurred over the life of the
project - the damage only becoming apparent when a critical point
was reached.
The parking lot will be utilized by the "public" so repairs
to restore its structural int.egrity need to be made. Accordingly,
for all areas of the parking lotto b~placedinto service:
1. Inspect-for signs oj; lost fill support, especially
aloJ;1gthe edgeofth~ stream channel. If in doubt about
anyareabreakthroughthe.pavementtodeterminethe
underlringconditions.
2. Remove any obviously 'p.amag~d ,sections of pavement and
break pavement back to the limits of lost fill support.
Replace lost fill with sele-::tfillmaterial compacted.
to 95% ,maximum 'dens,i.ty.
3. Replace areas removed.with>concrete,pavement of
equivalentthickness,reinforcingand.detailsto that
of new; areas ofpavementplannedfortheprbject.
4. Where wate,r 'penetration appears 'to have occurred 'from
standing, water at the curb "p1:"()vide 6" wide openings in
the>curb.Makecertainthe,openings discharge water on
to the existing concrete ripraplinedsectionsof the
channel", ,bank.
1722 BroadmoorSuite2J2
Bryan, Texas 77802
(409}776-5711
Fax (409) 776-6119
Meridian Apartments - Phase II
Pavement and,Riprap Damage Assessment
2
The damage to the riprap lining of the channel bank does not
appear to be critical at this time, but will need to be addressed
in the next year. As you know the drainage design for the
detention facility and channel improvements are proceeding
forward. When completed, the ,entire length of the channel will be
addressed and>any ,,' necessary repairs or ireconstructioncanthen
takeplacetha.twillconform with an overall plan consistent with
revised flood conditions.
I appreciate the opportunity to assist you further on this
project. Please let me know if you have any further questions or
comments.
.c~relY, ~
~#
fi'
Rick Robertson, P.E.
ivy.
parking
needs to
health
They
PostOfficeBox 9960 1101TexasAvenue
CoUege Station, Texas ,77842-()960
(409)764~3500
April '7, 1992
Wolf "Creek Partners J
306 Redmond
CollegeStation,TX 7,7840
Attn: Mr. Phillip Wingo
Dear Mr,. Phillip Wingo
On March 31, Shirley VoTkandI walked through Meridian
Apartments ,phase II and we not-ice .t.hatwor:k was" being done
withoutape~t. ,IintormedyouonApri16to stop work
being, done ,without a permit. "I:fyou "donotcomplywit.hthis
stopworkoI:dE!r, the 'nextst.epwillbe to file charges in
Municipal Court.
Sincerely.,
O~,~.
xc:
FILE NOTE
AprIl 2, 1992
On Tuesday, March 31,1992 CO~l l~erryand ImetwJth Luis
Jauregui, JuanCreixel andPhll1ipWingo to talk aboutwllat
must be dOfle toobtaln a BuildJngPermit for Phase 2 of the
Meridian Apartments.
Coy & I explained that the requirements were spelled out
very clearly on the last rev,lew of the plans whicll were
returned t oMr . Wingo on 3-25-92.
Coy explained what he would require for "water-proofing" the
buildings after theyexplalned that they wanted to finisll
the upper!l oorsandonlyt he boll er'room and t he la undry
room for troccupancy". He l"eadfrom theS,outhern Bu i ld i ng
Code therequi rementt hat moist ur econt entoft he wood
cannot exceed 1996, therefore, any wood left in the first
floor tobeusedwhen 1t is finished out later must be
protected. lie further explained that some killdof treatment
must be applIed to structural elements in order to support
the s econdf loor,ofthebu i Idi ng ,and t hebo 11 er s t hemse 1 ves
must be raised above the flood plain in order for him to be
able to sign abuildlngpermltfor these >bui ldings.
I then explaIned that ,a,'varianceto the Drainage Ordinance
could be applied for, and offered to, give them an
application. lexplafned that the CIty Eng.ineer 'soffi ce
would be the city .agencythroughwhi ch> to submi tt he
applicatlonforavariance, and the Zoning Board of
Adjustment would be the body to consider the request.
Coyexplatned that.avariancetothebuildingcode could
also be applied ,for"andof,fered",to "glve"",them, an
appl1catton,explalnlngthalitwouldbea,separate request,
and wouldbeheardbytheConstructlon Board of Adjustment
and, Appeals,.
We then reminded the appllca.nts that the entire process
would bemucheasfer forth.em,aswellasmoreexpedltious,
If they wouldslmply deletebulldlngs #10 &1dlfrom the
plans, construct the, w'aterl1nesandthe firehydrants,and
furnisll the information needed by the san flat iondepar t ment .
Theyagreedeventuallytbat they would conslderremoving
those2buildfngsfromtheplans, and they stated they were
not ,aware that the fJ,rehydrants would have to be installed
prior to bringIng any combustible materials on the site.
Coy and Iagai n expla lned tha tnei t hero! us had the
author i ty <to grant varJancestotheord Inances", and
addltlonally,thatnostaffmember had thatauthority,but
rather. anvreQuestsforval"Jance~ to anv 01 thp o1f'rlin~n(""p,~
Council. 'Wlththat,Coy<& I lefttllemeetillg after again
offering to supplytheDlen wlthforms onwhlchthey could
apply for ,variances.. ",They followed us to our office and
eacll of us gave themavarlanceapp 1 i ca tionf orm - one for
ZBA and one for the ConstructIon Board of Adj list mentand
Appeals.
At one p.m. on 4-1-92 Coy Ix. I went to the apartment site and
roughly measured thedJstance between the existlngflre
hyd rant a tRedmondancITe,xas, a ndd e term 111e d tha t30f the
bu i ld l.ngs would beat leas t.part lally, if not complet:el y
covered (i.e.,fal1withiin<,3:00 feet of the hydrant)... We
also walked through thecomp:lexand determined that s:ome
repair work, had<beentakiing:Pilacewithout bene!! t ofa
building permit. We tried toflnd Phill1pWlngo, but he was
not in hIs office nor on the site.
I called Bland Ellen as soon as we got back and told him of
our finding, .andasked that:.he have someone do a more
precise measurement, Just incase these men asked to have
separatebul1dingper<mi ts fpr the buildings which might fall
wlthin,the300footnieasurelDent. ,Bland,saidhewould take
care of that. Veronica Morgan indicated that she would have
noprob leml ssu lngseparati~, permi ts for thos e bu 11 di ngs
whi ch fellwithinthe300fpotdi.stance, "which would give
the appllcantt Ime to get tcr;pnstruction plans submi t tedand
approved for the water lin~~and, fire hydrants, and the rest
of the permIts ,could be iSjsHedforbuild lngs ,3 or 4-9 when
the fIre hydrants were installedan.d operable.
In.. the" aft,ernoon,","o.f,'"4-1-92,'.,...?hllllp,",,Wlngo .,brought 1,n s'ome
r evl sionsto ,thebulldlng:I?Jans,anda t taclled or inserted
them Into ,3sets,ofbul1d:lll~plans. ,At 4:55p.m. he gave
those 3 ,sets to"C()y andask~dif he could get a building
permlton4-2-92to whichCpy replied that he could not.
At ", approxlmately"".9""a.m.",."",on'.:i4-2-92' ,I,took" ,,'a, set"of, ,"rev..! s,ed
plans" ,toSani tatlonf,orr:eview,andJlmSmithwouldnot
approve "them because he stifl conld not ,tel1wha twas,bei n,g
done, ,'to "",bri ng'"",'t,hepads ""for. the' 'dumpste,rsoutof ,.,the',"" fl'ood
pIal n. Mr.WlngohadJnclu(jedinformatlonregard l,ng the
size and type of ,comeactor, i~eingproposed, but never
ind icatedthe elevatlonof'~hepads, nord-idhe. furn ish an
el evation ,of the dumps ter~r<the pads,oJ imSmlth C oul dse e
if what was betngproposed:"ould function according toClty
specs.
I then took the plans 10 Ray Havens who Indicated that as
long as the plans were for buildings 1-9, he would be able
to sign them, and did so.
Sllortly' after 1 returlled to CltyHall(sometlmebetweenl0&
11:00a.m.lI receJveda call from Terry Jones asking lithe
"rulesh.adbeenchan~edn since a lon2'ti me .32"0 ~' decr~i on
had been made by Davld Pullen that ,the rellovati onsbeing
pr 0 posed d i dno teon s tltuteUsu bsta n tla 11' en ova tio n nand
therefore the requlrementsfortaklngthe buildings out o'f
the> floodplainotfloodproofing the buildings did not
apply." ,l,expla ined thatwllile>Iwasnot at ,5 ome" of ,t he
meetings to whichhe,referred, IdJd remember seeing a
letter regarcli ng"substantialrenova t lonU,but informed
Tel' rY'.,t ha t ,since "",thatmeet,lng:"""""...Da\rid ,Pull en ,had""", sent me . ,a
memospellJngou.t that spe:clficallybulldlngs 10&.11 must
beel t herremovedfrom.th.e'<flood ,pIal n ,ortl oodprooted ,and
thoserequlrementsha(lbe~111nd:lcated on the 2 sets?!
redllned plans which theyJtyhad returned to theap:Jjl,lJiC?ants
- AFTER the meetings heJll~jn:t1oned. Terry said itse,~m~C\t
that S omet hing hadchang~<Jij ~ince t hos emeet i ngs ,a.n,<J!, h~
wondered if the ru 1 es , wel1T~,toughened up in the ml~~J!9f
this review. I stated~~a.t~Q my knowledge, thertll~s'.l9i~re
the same theyhadalwaysi}~,ee~,andwe wouldnotofJ,tlfl t'.}le
habit of changing the requirements in the middle ,of 'a
project.
I then told hlnl of thesenewestrevislons which still did
not apply, and askedlfhewanted me to continue with the
review, and he replied that he does.
I tried to call Veronlcato tellller this latest saga but
could not reach her, so Ididverbal1yreport this to David
Pullen,.
9~
'1-*:CCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
~.~' .... ',' PLANNING DIVISION
" , " Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409) 764-3570
December 16, 1991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Development Review Team
Shirley Yolk P'(
Site, Landscaping & Building Plans
Meridian Phase Two (90-503)
TO:
FROM:
The attached s,lte plans have been reviewed several times by
each rev~ewing area, and each, time lheapplicanthas failed
tolncludecertalnpertinent information.
Please revlewthe attached site planandbuildlng
constructtonplanscare:fully, and make sure that all of your
requirements' from each meeting are met. If they are not,
please do not sIgn and date the plans as approved, but
ratherplaceareferencenotewher'eyou would normally sign
approval of the plans and writey()ur additional requirements
fnred on the plans.
The applIcant has Indicatedby,telephonethatthese plans
comply witha.ll City requirements,anda brlefreview will
be all that is necessary before they are approved and a
BuildIng PermIt can be issued~ That Is theIr ultimate goal.
Call,me<whenyouhave completed your revIew and I will
eitherplckt,heplans up or tell you who to pass them on to.
Thanks onceagalnloryourcooperatlon, and I will be
toucblngbasewithyouabout Thursday to see how far along
you are ','in"",your review.
fls
McCLURE"ENGINEERING, INC.
1722 Broadmoor,Suite 210
Bryan,Texas 77802
(409)776-6700
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
DATE:
8/9/91
TO:
Ms.Ve'ronicaMorgan
Assistant to City Engineer
CITY OFCOI.JLEGE STATION
p: ,m.Box9960
ATTN:
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND:
. The Arch:i:tectof the MERIDIAN APARn1ENT PROJECT h.as requested that
I ,send yo'uthisadditional copy of the attached letter tobe.attached
to his Site Plan Submittal.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED TO YOU FOR, THE FOLLOWING REASON:
For Approval
)<J{
Your Use
Revisions Made
As Requested
For Review and Comment
Returned after Loan to Us
RECEIVED BY:
DATE: .
R.P.L.S.
August 16,1991
Veronica Morgan
Assistant to City Engineer
P.O. Bo,x 9960
CollegeStatidn, 'Texas 77842-0690
Re:The Meridian Phase II
l),earrVer,onica:
Pursuant to your request-during our phone conversat.ion.ofApgust 15, 1991,
I have "enclosed' 6: bluep:r;ints of the, Phase II subjec.t area, ',loca,ting , the
100 Year Flood Haz.ard Area acccn:dingtoWolf Pen Greek eorridor: Study,
(performed by'Nathan ' D.Maier~onstllting Engineers, Ine,. ,:19,89, and as
transmitted, to lis by-Michael R.McClure,P~E.)with respect to the Existing
Buildings' in "the 'Phase 'II subject area.
Wolf Creek Partners '" LTD., -developers of<, the,pr0perty"seeksto~mpr'(:>ve
PhaseII-asan.'independ'ent projec t,distinot 'and'sepa.rate fr:om, Phase III,
and, 'to secure' Site"'J"la.napprovalfor,"Phas,e, II "only. As you'-mentiot1edov~'r
- the'phone, Site"P1ana.pproval iscontingent..upon showingt11el-ine of the
NathanD. MaierStudy,,!on oUF.Site Plan ,for your review.
Please letmekrlowthe' Eesllltsof your'r'eview'at your'earliestconvenianceo
Ver ,sincer~y,t,. i ", fA,." .. . ' ., "
l, ) " lL1Jl,t=====>~~
~;: Ho. land
t'
~ ~
J A ,UREG UI INC.
5 00 0 P L A Z A 0 NTH E
FAX 328-7720
AR.C'Hl T EC TU RE.. CON S TRU C TI 0 N
LAKE, SUiTE 290 · 'AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746
512 328-7706
Cds
RECEiVED J.~N 0 ~ f1J1":.
McCLURE ENGINI;ERING, INC.
December 20, 1990
Ms. Veronica Morgan
Assistant to City Engineer
CITY OF GOLLEGE STATION
P.O.' B,ox 9960
College Station, Texas 77840
RE: THE MERIDIAN PHASE TWO Apartments
Lots 18,19& 20, B1ock4
Red.mond Terrace Subdivision
Dear Veronica:
WO'LF CREEK PARTNERS, LTD., owners of th,e abovereferencedprojae1;s 'are
planning improvements to the parking facilities of their apartments. These
improvements consist of demolition of some buildings and constructing new
parkinglots and green areas in their place, plus the 'reconstruction of
existing deteriorated, parking areas.
The proposed improvements as identified on the Architect's Site Pla,n (fo
not increase the amount of impervious cover and the flow p,atterns for the stQ!t;fit
wa.ter runoff will remain the same.
These proposed grad,ing improvements are ,designed to improve t~e:ap~:t'r1ztn~nt
pr9 Ject' sappearanceanddesirability, and are somewhat cos:me'tl.~~ ' ',:trom:. a
d.rain.ag.e perspective. The' post- construction storm water runoff will>be. equal
to or less than the pre-construction condition.
Should you have any questions, pleas:e ad.vise.
Very truly.yours,
R. . Meel ure, P. E., R.. P . L. S .
MRM/mlm
xc: Mr. Terry Jones
WOLF CREEK PARTNERS, L,TD.
Mr. Luis Jauregui
JAUREGUI ARCHITECTURE
1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 - Bryan, Texas 77802 -(409) 776-6700
f -
-.- ~'."".
. McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC.
R CE1V 0 ocr 2 1 1991
October 16, 1991
Mrs. Veronica Morgan
Assistant to city Engineer
CITYOF,COLLEGESTATION
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: MERIDIAN APARTMENT REMODELING PROJECT
_Redmond Terrace.. Add,ition
College,', station., Texas
D,ear ver,onic"a:
Attacbed.,ple-ase", fi. n<i.,one' ..bll.l(illi.nep;r:int..,of,tb~R~d1ltQnd: .,Terrace
Additi.qnin .,Wbi.'C'b ",',tb.~" '. p:ropo$edM~II)J:AN "A.PAR'1'MENT>;r:empdeling
proje~t.,i$ '"lpeateCl~ " ".',' " YO'lili ,," YJddl"., ,note .ttl;a.t .',', I ..bave ' i.<ientifi.edthe
site,ull'dermy' .'supiervision,.
I .'$ubmit '~~.e;tll'aW'ingt~o ,s'I;lllUBa)!'i.ze '. PU;r: .1llutu.~1.tq:1det'standing of
thecnrr;e'mt e,QD,diti:o;nsas. .H,di'scus;s,ed.' "iny-our "Qf.fice',',ol10ctobe.r 10,
1991.
present.ed" 'pl\ea.se' 'a;dv,ise.
Very truly
v;
MichaelR. Mc~Clu:re,,' ,P,.E,., R.,P.L.S,.
MRMjmlm
att,ac'hment
xc: Mr..", 'Juan .,' ,.Creixell
W-o'1! "Cre.ek",P,artme-rs." Lt'd,.
1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 oBryan, Texas 77802 · (409) 776-6700
I!-~'
I
,1' "f
.. . 'tl
STORM-WATER DETENTION PROJECT AGREEMENT
TEXAS'A&MUNlVERSITY GOLF COURSE
This Agreement, dated AlJ~A ~+ 23 , 1991, is entered into by and
between Wolf Creek Partners, .Ltd. (the "Partners"), a Texas limited partnership, and
Texas A&M, University .("TAMU"), a Texas, state ,institution' of higher education
( collectively the' "Parties").
WHEREAS, the Partners 'propose to provide engineering, design and
construction of certain improvements to assist in the control of storm-water run-off into
the storm-water channel system of the City of College Station, Texas;
WHEREAS, suchimprovementswillestablish a berm and drainage structure on
the TAMU Golf Course near George Bush Drive and retain storm water for a period of
time sufficienttoeliminatebrminimize flooding of streets and property; and,
WHEREAS, TAMUhas reviewed engineering data provic.Ied by the Partners
and supports the. use of the TAMUGolf Course as a detention basin for controlling the
water level in Wolf Pen. Creek (the "Creek"), subject to certainc()mUtions, covep.ants,
and agreements 'of the Parties.
NOW, THEREF()RE, it is agreed ,'as follows:
I. ,GRANTOF.LICENSE
TAMUherebygrant~to the Partners the right to use that ,property which is
necessary to' COllStruetthe Regional Detention Facility as more particularly' described in
the September, 1990, Proposal forConstruCti()nofa Regiomil Flood Control Facility
Wolf Pen Creek Watershed, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, prepared by
MichaeIR.McClure,P.E., R.P.L.S.and Dr. Richard G. Robertson, P. E., attached as
Exhibit A (the "Project").
'11. PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The Partners at no cost toTAMUshallprepare, or have prepared, final
engineering analysis, complete construction drawings, plans and speCifications,
including sh6p drawings, for the Project, and all items inCidental thereto. No
construction work shall be performed until these plansand,specificationshave been
approved in writing by TAMU.After, such approval has been given, no changes or
alterations sballbemade without the written approval ofTAMU.The TexasA&M
University System (liT ANfUS"). Department, of FaCilities Planning and Construction will
act on, behalf, of T AMU in, design .review and approval matters. The following' design
requirements ,will apply:
A SpiIlway and Berm Construction-Any berm spillway constructed in ,
connection with the Project shallnotexceed300-feet median sea
level ("MSL")," With berm construction to transition from height of ~
existing structures '"to , spiIlwayheight,toallow for joining of existing '.
s~ructures,bermandspillway.Shouldconstructipn ,ofany30o-foot
MSLberm spillway,deterniinedbyTAMU to be inadequate to fully.
control and accommodate a tOO-year ,flood, thenthe Partners shall
COllStruCt, ','devise",and/orestablish'" additio~alimprovements," d,evices
andjormeasures ,which, will'ensnre that the ,,' Creek ,will contain ' the
residualruri-offofany such tOO-year flood.
Page'2of12
B. Green' Reconstruction -' The .Partners shall, rebuild, the three (3)
greens located in the floodplain and any and all greens ~ffected by
the Project to the elevationof300-feetMSL.Any and all greens
effected shall be rebuilt to United States Golf Association
specifications.
c. City 'of College Station' and '",State Department ", of 'Highways and
Public Transportation Requirements - AILrequirements of the City of
College Station and the State Department of' Highways and Public
Transportation shall be complied with and fully met. In that regard,
berm, design' shall provide for current and/or future inclusion ~f
pedestrian and/or bicycle paths and such, design shall not restrict 'any
future widening of, or other improvements to, George Bush Drive as
maybe required for future. traffic demands.
D. Electrical Systems - Any required electrical systems will be designed
to provide 'usualvoltagesusedby TAMU' such ,as 277j480 'volts ,and
120/208 volts. Any other vol~ageswhich will require special
transformersarenotrecommended. Use, of special' voltages ' must be
approved .byTAMU.
E. . Utili~System - The Partners > will be responsible for the design and
installation of taps 'into the TAMU> utility ,.' system. The design "and
installation' shall lJe approved byTAMU and no" installation shall
begin Withouttheapprpvalof theschedulebytheTAMUDirectorof
Physical Plant. TAMIJpersonnelarethe. only 'persons authorized to
a~ivate or deactivate the utility system. "To the extent applicable,
meters will be 'iprovided on ,all electrical" service, water service, and
gas service. Taps into storm and sanitary sewers will be made at
Page3,of12
manholes. The Partners will be charged for all utilities used at the
same rate as Auxiliary Enterprise facilities.
F. Future Modifications -Any future changes or modifications to. the
Project shall be subject to the approvalofTAMU. Should-the
Partners alter or otherwise modify the Project" the Partners shall bear
the cost of such alterations or modifications.
G. Payment and Performance Bonds -The Partners shall require . that
any contractor engaged, to construct the Project execute in
accordance with the provisions of Article 5160, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes, the following bonds so as to provide protection to TAMU ~s
dual obligee, as well as the Partners: (l}Performance Bond in the
amount 'of the, total contract price, conditioned "on, the faithful
performance of the contract; (2) Payment Bond in the amount of the
total contract price, solely forthe,protectionoftho~e supplying labor,
materialsandjor equipmentintbeprosecutionofthe contract.
a.Eacb<bond shall be executed by a corporate surety or
corporate sureties duly authorized to do business in the State
: of Texas. .If any sure ty up on any bond furnished in connection
.withihe,'construction of the ,Pr9jectbecomes insolvent, or
otherwise not authorized to do business in the State of Texas,
the contractor shall-'promptlyfurnishequivalentseCutity to
protecttheinterestsofTAMUand the Partners, and of
'persons ,'. supplying labor, materialsandjor., equipment in the
prosecution of thecoIitract.
b. Each bond' shall" be accompanied by ,a validPower-of-Attorney
(issuedby,theSurety ,.Companyand attached, signed' .~nd ,
Page 4of12
sealed, with the corporate embossed seal, to the bond)
. authorizing the agent who signs the bond to commit the
company to the terms of the ,bond and stating on the ,face of
the Power-of-Attorney, the limit, if any, in,the total amount
for which he is empowered to issue a singlehond.
H. Construction, Cost ,Guarantee - No construction relating to the
Project shall begin until the Partners have established an escrow
fund, or ,such other device acceptable to TAMU, adequate to
guarantee payment of all costs associated with the construction. Such
escrow fund, or other device, to be accessible by TAMU through
Power-of-Attorney, appointment or ,other mechanism acceptable to
TAMU.
I. LostRevenue....ThePartnersagree to reimburseTAMU for golf course
revenue lost due ,to construction and "recovery period in 'connection with
the ,Project. Lost revenue shall be calculated by using the following
Average Daily, ~eceipt, Figures:
June$1,545.00
July $1,338.00
August $1,160.00
To the extent golf course revenue drops ,below the Ayerage' Daily Receipt
Figures., the Partners agree to reimburse 'TAMU an,' amount,' calculated to
bringgolfcollrserevenueequalto ,the. AvetageDailyReceiptFigures
except that such reimbursement shall be limited to no 'more than, $25,000
during the ,three.. month" period., 'TAMUwillmake, all reasonable efforts
to continue full revenue generation 'operations 'atthegolf course' during
this period. If disruption of course activity, due to action by the, Partners,
continues b~yon4 the three month period, loss of revenue will be
Page 50! 12
calculated in the same manner using ,the Average Daily Receipt Figures
for the affected days with the Partner's liability limited to 25% of the
Average Daily Receipt Figures for each day.
III. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. Ri ght, to Revi ewRequirements- TAMU reserves the' right to review
the insurance requirements of' ihissecti on during the effective period
of this agreement and to adjust insurance coverages and their limits
when deemed necessary and prudent" by TAMUS ,Office of Ris.k
Management based upon changes in statutory law, court decisions
an,dJor the claims history of the Partners.
B. Types and Aniounts - Subject to the Partner's right to maintain
reasonabledeductiblesin such amounts as are approved by TAMU,
the, PartIlers shall obtain and maintain in full. force and effect for the
duration of this agreement, at the Partners' sole expense, insurance
coverage written by companies ' autho~ized to do ' business in the State
of Texas and approvedbyTAMU, in the following types and
amounts:
1. 'Worker'sCornpensation
2. 'Employer's" Liability
Limits of Liability
Statutory
$lOO,OOO'each occurrence
$300,000 aggregate
3.Cofuprehensive General Liability
a. Bodily Injury
b.. Property ,Damage
$500,000 each occurrence
$100,000 each .,occurrence
$300,OOQ"',aggregate
Page 6 of 12
4. Comprehensive Autom()bileLiability .
a. Bodily Injury
$300,000 each person
$500,000 each occurrence
$300,000 e/ach occurrence
Combined limit,for bodily
injury and property damage
of not less than $5,000,000
b.Property Damage
5. Umbrella Liability,Insurance
to, follow form of the primary
liability coverages above
c. Additional ,'Policy ,'Endorsements - TAMU shall be entitled" upon
request, and without expense, to receive copies of the policies and all
endorsements and may make any ,reasonable request for' deletion,
revision, or modification of ,particular policy'terms,conditions,
limitations, or exclusions, except where policy provisions are
established bylaw or regulation binding upon neither of the Parties
or the underwriter of any such policies. Upon such request by "
T AMU, the Partners "shall'. exercise reasonable efforts to accomplish
such changes in policy coverages, and shall pay the cost thereof.
D. Required Provisions - The Partners agree that with respect to the ..
above required insurance, ,all insurance ' 'contracts and ,certificates of
insurance. will contain and state, ,in writing, on the certificate or its
attachment, the following required provisions:
1. NameTAMU,TAMUS, their officers and employees as
additional insureds, as the interests of each insured ,may.
appear, as to all applicable coverage;
2 Provide for forty-five '(45) days notice to TAMU for
can c ellati() n, ,non-renewal, ,or material ,change;
Page? oflZ-.
3. Provide for an endorsement that the "other insurance" clause
shall not apply to TAMU orTAMUSwhere T AMU or
.TAMUS is an additional insured shown on the policy;
4. Provide for notice toTAMU at the address shown below by
registered, mail.
5. The Partners, agree to waIve subrogation against TAMU,
TAMUS, their officers and employees for injuries, including
death, property damage, or any other 'loss to, the extent saIlJle
maybe ,covered by . the proceeds of insurance;
6. . Provide that all provisions of, this Agreement concerning
liability, duty, and standard of care, together with the
indemnification provision, shall be underwritten by
contractual liabilitycoy~rage sufficient to include such
obligations within applicable policies.
E. Indemnification.. The Partners hereby agree to indemnify and hold
TAMUentirelyfreeand harinlessfromally andallli~bilityfor claims
for damages arising out of incident to orin any Illannerconn~cted
withth.e Partners' construction, maintenance ," or operation 'of, the
Project, including attorney fees and costs.
PageS, of 12
. *, ....
IV., TERM OF AGREEMENT
This, Agreement is to continue in force so long as the Project continues in
operation, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this or other
agreements.
V.NOTICE
All,' notices 'required ,under this agreement must be given by ,certified mail or
registered mail, addressed to the proper party, at the following addresses:
TAMU
WesleyE. Peel
Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction
TheT exasA&MUniversitySystem
Depart111ent, of F acilitiesPlanningandConstruction
College ,Station, Texas ,77843-1586
Robert Smith
ViceiPresident for 'Finarice' and Administration
Texas A&M , 'University
College Station, Texas '77843-1247
WolfCreek,'Partners, ,Ltd.
TerryG.Jones " ' " "
Managing -General Partner
3303<Northland,Suite212
Austin, Texas7~731 -
VI. ,PARTIES BOUND
This Agreementshallhe hindingupon,and shall inure to thehenefit of tbe
Parties and their respective successors and assigns when permitted by this
Agreement.
Page 9', of 12
VII. NONASSIGNABLE
This Agreement is personal to the Partners. It is nonaSsignable and any-
attemptto assign this Agreement will terminate the rights and privileges granted to
the Partners.
VIII. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of
the State of Texas, and all obligations of the Parties created by this Agreement are
performable in Brazos County, Texaso
IX. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION
In the evertt,anyone or more of the provisions contained ,in thisAgreeme~t
shall for any reason", beheld by 'a court of competent 'jurisdiction 'to be invalid,
illegal, "or unenforceable' in "any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or
unenforceability shall J?otaffectany other provision of the Agreement, and this
Agreement shall be constrp.ed as if the invalid" illegal, or unenforceable provision
had "never ',been included in the Agreement.
x. 'INTEGRATION
This ,Agreement <=onstitutes the, sole and -.only.. agreement of the. Parties .to
the Agreement and supersedes allY prior understandings or written or oral
,agreements between the Parties respecting the' subject matterof this Agreement. "
Page ,.10 , of 12
('
... ,
XI. AMENDMENT
No amendment, modification, or alteration of the terms of this Agreement
shall be binding unless itis.1n writing, dated subsequent to the date of this
Agreement, and duly executed by the Parties to this Agreement.
XII., ,RIGHTS AND ,REMEDIES CUMULATIVE
"The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are cumulative, and ~he
use of any one right or remedy by either party shall not preclude or ~waive that
party's, right touse.any,orall other remedi"es.The rights and remedies provided in
this Agreement are in addition to any other rights: the Parties may have by law,
statute,' ordinance,oro therwise.
XIII. WAIVER OF BREACH
AwaiverbyeitherrrAMUor the Partners of a breach of this Agreement by
the other party does not constitute a cont~nuingwaiv~r of any subsequent breach of
XIV.ATTO,RNEY'SFEES AND COSTS
If," as "a result. of a breach of this AgreeIllent., by either party, . the ,'"other party
employs,. an' attorneyor.',.attorneys'to enforce >its, rights, 'under ,this' Agreement,.', then
the breaching or defaulting party agrees to pay the', other party the reasonable
attorney's. f~esandcostsincUrre.dtoenforcetheAgreement.
Pagel1>of12
~ '
, .. .1'
xv. FORCE MAJEURE
Neither TAMU nor the Partners shall b.e required to perform any term,
condition, or covenant in this Agreement so long as such performance is delayed or
prevented by force majeure, which shall mean acts of God, strikes, lockouts,
material. or 'labor' restrictions by any governmental authority, civil' riot, floods, and
any other cause not reasonably within the control of TAMU or the Panners and
which by'.tne exercise of due diligence, TAMU or the Partners is unabl~, wholly 'or
in part, to prevent or overcome.
Theundersigned execute this AgreementonAu~J~c;,+ '2 '?:l
at ~ I \ege SWtQV1 Be.a:2:0.S County, Texas.
, 1991,
Texas A&M University
~~'
"-~,
.~~ (~['" 'I J::~
t.,...,) t .
-.."'~' ...........",.,.,.".,! !.-_~~,
MEMO
~It",~iEERII'JL-; ,[) i \/
~< 9960 11 [1'1 Texas, \ ','
ation, Te><,3s 77862
( 409) 764- 3 -; CJ
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
David Pullen, City E,nglneer
/Veronica Morgan, }\"sistant to the City Engineer
Jim Callaway,PlannirlgDirector
Jane Kee",Senior Planner
Coy Perry, ,Building ()fficial
Cathy Locke, City Attorney
Deborah Keating, Project Engineeri~~~
L--J
JanuarY 16, 1991
/~/"-~~-----~~--_.')
/ Meridian Phase~r./
TO:
Both the engineer (McClure) and owner {Holland)-have beeI1 inform.ed, the
locationofthefloodway currently shown on the site plan for Meridian Phase II is
unacceptable., '",The . location is", based on"'a1981 study that has since been, updated.
We request the site ,plan reflect the latest available ,information before the site
plan, is approved. ,The latest available, information affects the buildings (i.e. one
or more of the buildings lies within thetloodway). ,At this point, the developer
has several options, as outlined in Section5-,Gof the City of College Station's
Drainage Policy and Design Criteria,IISpecial Provisions for Floodwayslf.
1) Submit complete engineering report fully demonstrating the encroachments
shall not result in any increase in water hazard upstream, within or
downstream of the encroachment location.
2}Demolish the buildings locatedwithinthefloodway.
3) Obtain (via development agreement) permission to leave, affected buildings
abaJ)doneduntilsuch time drainage ,improvements move floodway location.
4) Put project on hold until all parties (TA1\1U) agree to participate in
improvements.
Mr. Holland is requesting a meeting regarding this subject as, soon as possible.
DKlejrn
Meridian Phase II
., 'AQr~
\ l~}\.iLYV--' -'\\
~\\J- N ~w, ':,,',I~,'."f~,,\1 !,~
'\,J '\JL
().{ ;
l() -
Minutes from. Meeting
September 1991
Attendees:
Shirley'" Yolk, ,Development, Coordinator
Jane ,Kee, ,Senior ,Planner
Dpborah' Keating, Project Engineer
--Veronica Morgan, Assistant to the City Engineer
Coy Perry, Building Official
Cathy Locke, City Attorney
Roxanne Nemcik, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Eric Hunt, Fire Investiga tor
Mike' Wiley, Risk Manager
Discussed the site plan that had just ,been turned in by the applicant., Explained
the problems with ,thetloodplain line and the 'comments made to Deborah
Keating and Veronica Morgan by Mike McClure, the engineer on the project.
Discussed what options the applicant has to get the site plan approved but
ultimately to get the site renovated. The following was the outcome of the
discussion:
1. We ne,ed ,a copy of the, agreement with TAMU and, a time frame for those
improvements to be completed.
2. We need floodplain elevations corrected. When the corrected floodplain
information is submitted on the site plan, we 'will be ,able, to issue a
conditionally approved site: plan.
3. We need a develoPrnentagreementtoaddress the ,parking in Phase III
and phasing approval to ,go to Conneil. ,',(Ifapplicantwants to phase)
4. There will be no building permits issued for any building less than 1 foot
(1') above floodplain and those buildiJ}~smust be fenced off from the
public ,until,"drainage' ,improvements (ire complete or ,', with 'notes regarding
ways to bring all ,buildings ,', into compliance.
lejm
C:\WORD \ VERONlCA\MERIDPH2.DOC
~,S,~.~," ',".,- ',.,.',C,<IT"y",' ,O,FC""',',O,',',.,,L, L"",EG" E,"".,""""S,TATIO"N
~'.PJ.,..; LEGAL DEPARTMENT
, ' Post Office Box 99601101 Texas A venue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409)764-3507
MEMO RANDUM
TO:
veronica Morgan, Engineering
:: ~Y,d4I: " , .~
Septe '. ',,' " 1991 f-DfoklGllC_71J\f0.e
,/ u
I have reviewed your memo of September 13, 1991, pertaining to
Phase II of Meridian Apartments. I do not believe that there is
anyway to "guaranteeUthatA&M will not alter the pond after
construction. If A.&M did take out. the pond, any resulting prop-
ertydamagethatwasproximatelycausedwould subject A&Mto
liability only if the Legislature gave the property owners the
right to sue the Univer~lty. Despite the lack of control over
A&M, it might be alittlearbitra,ry to refuse to allow develop-
ment; particularly, in light of the effectiveness of other flood
prevention measures taking place on Wolf Pen Creek.
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
With regard to Terry Jones' rejecto.ftheofferto allow the
fencing off of the site, it seems tome that unless he offers a
viable alternative then we go back to standard procedures. He
should not be'abletoreceive an occupancy permit until the
ordinances are complied with.
CL:di
R, ',~,t,.C~,r:f\,f&,'E'D'. ',: (~t"'r~
~- ',b.l. ~ " ' ',' ~,' ",' ' ...,'~ 2' "3" tOOt, "'"
.. ''''''''''-I ~I
1':
i '
t:
t:.
Ir !:;:-r
BsJ
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
FILE NOTE
I~,~ J,.'.~
" '-"
October 1 0,1991
RE: Meridian Apartments -Phase II (formerly Aggieland Apts.)
A meeting was conducted concerning the approval ofa plan to
reconstruct Meridian Apartments, Phase II. Present at the meet-
ingwere: BlandEllen,ShirleyVolk, Debbie Keating, Veronica
Morgan, Mark Smith, Coy Perry <and I. Representing the developer
were Rob Solomon and Juan Creixell.
CreixelllSolomon proposed that the City give them unconditional
approval.to,r.econstruct Phase II before the construction of a
proposed retention pond on ,Texas A&M> property despite ,the fact
thatunt~lsuchtimethat the detention pond is ,constructed"the
majority of the buildings in Phase 1.1 were below the, flood plain
and subject to flooding. Mr. Creixell stated that his engineers
believed that the risk of flooding was marginal.
veronica Morgan explained to the builders that the data their
engineers employed in the site plan to reflect elevations was
incorrect. Moreover, she explained that when the correct data
fromtheNathanD. Meyer study is substituted, it reveals that
the majority of the, buildings in Phase II were actually below the
floodplain rather than above as the site plan reflected. For
this reason ,the risk off loodingwas muchmorethan"marginal"
as Creixellhadcharacterizedit. As. a result, the city could
not unconditionally approve theproposedsi,teplanfor recon-
struction,becauseit, would violate,bothFEMA requirements and the
city's drainage ordinance. It was therefore necessary that the
builders ,firstreso,lve the drainage problem before the City could
unconditionally approve their site plan.
Creixellcountered that their agreemen,twith ,Te,xasA&M which gave
thema1flicense" to construct a drainage retention pond on the
A&Mgolf course and proffered this fact as evidence of the
builder's intent to construct the drainage pond. Further, ere ix-
ell stated that they would not construct Phase III until the
drainage pond was, actually completed.
IinformedMessrs.CreixellandSolomon thatA&M's decision to
give them a license to 'icons'truct did hot sufficiently assure to
the city that the retention pond would be constructed for several
reasons. First, the construction of thEa retention J;>ond on A&M's
property was conditioned' on A&M's approval of.,the builder's engi-
neering plans. Second, the plan had to be approved by FEMA; and
Meridian Apts. - Phase II
(formerly Aggieland Apts.)
October 10,1991
Page 2
third, even if both agencies had approved the plan, there was no
guarantee that the builder would construct the retention pond
after Phase II was occupied. Additionally, I informed them that
because of the danger of flooding, even if th,ebuilder recon-
structedPhase II, the City would not give them certificates of
occupancy until, the retention pond was actually in construction.
Another reason precluding the city's unconditional approval was
that to do so would jeopardize the Cityts'ability to maintain
flood insurancewithFEMA.
For these reasons, the City could not unconditionally approve
their plan.
Solomon was reluctant to accept no for an answer and asked
whether we. 'would entertain another proposal from'him at a later
date. The staff agreed to meet with him to consider any other
alternative plans he might develop.
Roxanne
RN :bb
cc: Veronica Morgan
(ji/e Ncs~e:
If}./Vt.h;cltcih ...'IJp....~. :5
/JJ ~l-e. J/~,jj)lc
~, " ',.
~.,,('Jl~
Ph:LC
tJ($f~ltl!) JJl;/e
~. 0;c ~GS/~tq c.eut~ecicv-o Uqcl
tU);eth~f2/;~5€-_2I{I~)-eCD0S ~C(C M
cJ-G ("lL t44J (r:5'c~ o~I;UJ /~F ~
Yre~DV.d~ (I /
~,,'i;h .~,~5/ihi;Y~ ~e~v~ ~cf "
/11tLy aiIo0[U6//c, ,.j;: ,&U4~ ~C -eW/ c5 chi j
~. 3#ea-~ .w.~k .q)eve1r~dk/~c1[;eML.
{PI Fffhl1 tP~/ ,8 l;$tth/ "~w ,hA ;{'-as
, CblrJ 6Jtc~/ORJ. ()lalt/V] ~ te!#~ f0,~Fe>11 JJ '
Oeser; b/~ 'lC:ubs;fJ;cif [Je vt().J r&o ~ " f2 ~ Ie
M- !--wh./J-;t . O~6#~~ '~,CO~~.
Lyatc! tV'~;j!/7~,&7T~ d "
(j~~61r~~es!;~v;~) '~tVa/k.5 7S.k ~
~ 6u! .Gziv7~ z-/a/~ ~ ~" L-SD~5cd+al~
r<~
~t~~
F IEE<N()TE
Re:
Meridian Phase II Development Permit File
1 spoke with Cheryl Chatham with the ERMA Regional Office. 'She said she received a
call from Mr. Creixelassociated with Terry Jonesin the,Meridian Development who was
inquidngabout the definition Qfsubstantial improvements. " She referred him to me as the
floodplain administrator of College Station. ,H'e',insisted that he wanted her interpretation.
He indicated to her that the improvements they were planning ondoing to the Meridian
PhaseJlwere merely cosmetic, and to bring the development into code. She gave him
the definition of substantial improvements as per FEMA'sinterpretatioon and has written
that. in a Jetter to be sent to him and copied tome~lbrought herup to date with the
pro1;>lems in that phase of the Development, in that some of the existing buildings lie well
belowthe floodplain elevation. ,She said she didn't realize, there was an elevation
problem and he hadn't indicated there was a problem.
She asked for some more information. I told her that it was my understanding that there
had been flood damage to some of those buildings previously. She stated if the
improvements were in response to flood damage as well as to bringuptocode, he could
not waive the elevation requirements and would have to meet the ,City's drainage
ordinance in that respect.
I told her I wouldverifytheamountof flood damage that the buildings receive in the
past, and the description ofJmprovements the City had in mind that the developer was
going to do and wouldforward that information to her. She said she would get back with
me w~ an official response after she received that information.
cc:v\feronica Morgan, Assistant to the City Engineer
David Pullen, City Engineer
Cathy Locke, City Attorney
Roxanne Nemcick,Senior'Assistant,City Attorney
DKlejm '~/)L-.~
dk\fn\l0-22-2.doc
CITY OF COI....l...EGE STATION
PostOffice Box 9960 1101 'Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas ,77842-0960
(409)764-3500
Juan,Creixel1
CSA,Management, Inc.
3303 Northland Dr., 212
Austin,..' 'Tex,as"'78731
RE:RENOVATION OFLAGGIELANDAPARTMENTS,PHASE 2; COLLEGE
STATION, TX
I have reviewed your letter of November 4, 1991. I have
investigated the history of the phase 2 area,withrespectto
flooding and cannot substantiate a history of flooding in
the area. Accordingly, I am> releasing the proposed Phase 2
area for work. This letter is not a variance to any of the
provisions of the city's codes, especially Chapter 13, Flood
Hazard Protection, of theCityCod~ of Ordinances, nor is it
a development permit as required by Chapter 13. Buildings
which have their lowest floor elevation below the flood
plain elevation must be flood proofed or alternative
measures taken to remove them from, the risk of flooding. It
is my understanding that two of the proposed buildings of
Phase 2 are at or below flood elevation.
cc: veronica Morgan, Assistant ,to the city Engineer
Deborah Keating, P.E., Project,Engineer
ShirleyVolk, Development Coordinator
Planning file ,~~=~~~ ~
Home,of Texas A&M University
t~.'~
ti-AD..<CITYOF<:OLLEGESTATION
.~ ................. ...... . ..... ...ENGlN::E:RINGOIVISION
............ ........... ..... ...... . Post OfflceBoK.9960.. .. 1101 Texas Avenue
Col1egeStatlon,Texas 77842-0960 "
(409) 764-3570
MERIDIAN PHASE II SITE" PLAN
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
This is myunderstandtng of where we are on this project as
of today.
Back some time ago, (10/22/91) we had a meeting with Juan,
etal. to discuss the project.. In this meeting Juan said
that he had talked toFEMA regarding the flood insurance and
that FEMA made two st.atements with this regard.
1. FEMAsaid that AS LONG AS the improvements to. the
apartments were to bring the building up to code and NOT TO
ANSWER A FLOODING PROBLEM that what they were doing would
not be considered substantial renovation.
2. FEMAsaid that given the statement above that the
City of College Station would NOT place our flood insurance
at risk.
Subsequent to this, Debbie Keating called Carol Chatham and
discussed the information that Juan haagiven us in the
meeting. According to Debbie's memo,C.arol told her that if
there had been documented flood damage tothe.sebui Idings
then we could not waive the elevatfonrequirements (here we
are talking about the extra l' above floodplain
requirement). If there had been documented flood damage
then Juan would have to meet the requirement.
Davidtaqlked ithrepresentatives at the buIldIng division
and fire artmenttosee if they had ever seen water in
THIS PHASE. The answer he received was no. Therefore, he
could not substantiate the flooding claim on this phase. As
suchlgiven FEMA's comments, we do not need to enforce the
extra l' requirement.
David then met with Juan on 11/25/91. My understanding of
the outcome >of this meeting is as follows:
1. The buildings that are above thefloodpl~in but NOT
ABOVE THE l' REQUIREMENT as stated in the drainage ordinance
can be renovated without any floodproofing or bringing them
up to meet the l' requirement.
.~
~/
2. Thebuflidtngsthat ...... arew ithinthef loodplainwi 11
have to meet the requirements of.. the ..drainage. ordinance
(i.e. floodproofing()relevating,etc..J.
At this point we are in the situation where the apPlicantsla.f
next step is to a.ddress the concerns in tl1e original PRe,
not already answered. And. submit to us 5 copies of the
revisedslte.planwithanattachmentaddrE;ssing what. they
proposetodotothe2bui Id ingsa ffec.tedtha ta rewi thin
the floodplain. OneoE thesecopiesls.for. the planning
file, whl,le t:he other 4areto be attached to the building
plans for review.
Shl~le7 ;
fllECOPY /L/;l/~I
k?e: mei,d,d-.. 4/0$ PhtJL.#A- Ie
I 'h<J-oJLf'~t~~ ~ cLV't-<Ji s J Stees ·
.~ ~l JJ~~ I 0 ~ II are ~-( cA,:. .~ '&s~)I1~/~ J
{}e.o-. .~ S feCt~t +lodcJ}'{lLZ-~J. . SJ)u/J~sWtt
f'eVtek:> T dtcl Vlo4 see t~J--r:he~€-6iu~'lJl~
twebet'vt~ r~-t€ct.J is Ovre--{oDt. calaqve. ~
bttSe. -?/ChS J e/~d~. seJi~ 5-- E. (, . Jf o~
~((~t ()t-~ C:J~c4t~ ):S~el/tl're' ~ .4// Y1e~
CoqS t-QGi~~ ~ Chv1y<&4b$l~fl.nt k.PlwrQ)i)eMed-~ {
CtV:Y ('e~:c1eJcJ5trU&Let5 ha II hfLye ~ loGc:Je~1-
.f/P~l 1~~/uj1 ~ bcPseW1e~flaf ~. ~/eY:CIl.to~ tLl- )'
l-eft6~0J1efo.ol #6ove.tle ~bC .j?~oc! elev~f~; ""
.~C (9.\I\~of CewW]V1I1eL1 8i-Cte~ ~1o<'('1' }d~~ 5 Cl ~ 4
f~l- ~. 6).... dl./,JJ~~e,7YYl;1 u~kss P7e~sures CVe
/z;leVJ ~..re clue c:. k~#~o c/ )tZZCs;,/J /~ ~-e
~u;lcIt;$ ·
aV4-1~c a ...617e>~c1jf~Co/:S!. . T ~///~
Jlluv~ .. 7Y67~.
.V'- m+ ~.~
(?~~fi!~
{J~ :~~ffP4;:r-1e
RElr-.F=~'.f~-='r".~ ~ i~ ~'t; 0 ~ .,on"
. _ , !l.....l . k.:. .._' ~,.~ <.J ,:;;:t l.
~~~p
\~
Terry Jones. - Flood Detention Facilities at George Bush Dr. and Texas Ave.
City Manager Ron Ragland asked that I return a caUfrom Terry Jones, Developer
who is involved in redeveloping the former Aggieland Apts. by agreement with
the City, now called the Meridian Project or Apartments. Ron had spoken with
Terry on December 18, 1991 regarding Terry's conversations with the City
Engineer. As Ron explained it tome, Terry had asked David Pullen if the City
would sponsor a . FEMA. map amendment which is necessary for his firm to
construct a storm water detention facility on A&Mproperty at the corner of
GeorgeBush..and Texas Ave., near where theirpresentgolfcourse hole number
4 isJocated. Rpnalso advised me that in addition to sppnsoring the amendment,
that the City coulpget the application fees waived if it sponsored this FEMA map
amendmentfor.Mr. Jones' company.
On January 3, 1992 I called Terry and discussed this with him. Briefly, he
explainerdtttat the flooding. that is occurring downstream on this branch of Wolf
PenGreekth[;l~affects his apartment complex is due to development onthe A&M
CamplIsqpsJreram. WhilE3initially the Universitywanted to solve it by increasing
channel,<cp.pacitydownstream, they have agreed to accept Terry'ssolutipn which
is that a storm water. detention · facility be built at the corner of GeorgE3iBushPr.
and Ter)(as,A.ve.near hole number 4. This projectwould be built on Jj\$tM'slJolf
course property, and would be constructed at the expense of. Terry'slirm atan
estima.tedcostof $150,000 and would involve the rec~mstruction (raisin~~of three
holes o.f thisgolfcourse.. Terry stated in his opinion this is a significantfloodi~g
area th~ta.ccording. to the City's data, a 100 year flood at thisintersectiqn woqld
be under3t()~feet of water. From his prospective it vvould seem that.theGi:ty
would beinterE3sted in seeing that this project be built. He .has worked for 2 142
years to get A&M to build this facility at his cost.
Terry explainedthatitrequiresa two part process.. The first part is getting the
FEMA map amendment, and the second part is building the facility. To obtain
the. FEMAm~pamendment, he would like toworkwith the City because the City
istheofficia.lfloodplanaqministrator. There are two ways to apply for the
amendment, the . citycouldsponsorit,or he could apply for it as a third party . He
believes that it would be beneficial if the.citysponsoreditbecause it would save
hisfi rmrevi ews fees and ti me andshowthecity's supports for th e project.
Hee)(plaiof3(jtftat up to this point that Davidhad not seemvviHing to sponsor this
amendmernt.< 1 toldTerry that I would. talk to David Pullen a.nd get his. views and
callhlm back on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
cc: R.Ragland
E.Ash
D.Pullen
~
RECEIVED JAN J 0 1992
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region VI
Federal Regional Center
800. North Loop 288 ~.'. _ 'f II
Denton, TX. 76201-3698 ~} v
~-~------------------
NTH
~~~.
JAN22 1992
HonorableLarryJ.Ringer
Mayor., City of College < Station
P.o. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Dear Mayor Ringer:
Flood damage information from the recent flood disaster ..declaration for Texas
indicates tha~yourcommunitymayhaveexperienced damages. As a participating
community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),theprovisionsof your
local floodplain . management .ordinance are significant during .this period of flood
recovery.
As you know, participation in the NFlp. is contingent upon the local adoption
and enforcement of adequatefloodplain.managementregulationsthatmeet or exceed
the NFIPminimum criteria. In returnfortheadoption.andenforcement of these
regulations, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administerstheNFIP,
provides the availability of flood insurance.coverage throughout your community .
Certain specific standards are contained in your local floodplain management
ordinance andtheminimumcri.teriaof the NFIP that are intended to prevent the
unwise development or redevelopment of structures within the floodplain. Among
these are the following requirements:
1. Development Permits must be obtained for all proposed construction or
other development, including post disaster repairs, within the identified
flood hazard areas of the community. D~velopment is defined <as any man-
made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings.orother structures, .. mining, ,dredging, filling,
grading ,paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment
or materials;
2 . All new construction, substantial improvement, or restoration to
substantially ..damaqed~;,residentialstructureSshall .ha ve . the . . lowest .f loor
(including.. .. ,basement)... ......~levatedto<or<above.. the. identified base . ...flood
elevation. {BFE1.. . . Substantial damage means damage of any origin . sustained
bya structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to. its before
damaged condition..would.'equal...or..exceed50 percent of the .market .value of
the structure before the. damage occur17ed.... . "Substantial improvement" means
any. reconstruction,..rehabi1itation,.........agdition, ...or..other......improvement..... of ..a
structure, the cost <of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the structure before t.he "start of construction" of the
improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred
"substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed.
" JJ.;.''''JJ''..M~'~l~~'.!.ittai1ti!1ItijjJ&rJIllltj:iW~tll'h,
Page 2
3. All new construction and/or substantial improvement of non-residential
structures shall either havet.he lowest floor {including basement) elevated
to or above the . identified BFE or be..designed..so that..,the area below. the
BFE iswatert.ightwith walls that are substantially impermeable to water
and are capable of withstanding hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures;
4. Encroachments including fill, new construction, substantial. improvements,
substantial. restoration and other development are . prohibited, within an
adopted regulatory floodway if it is determined that the encroachment would
result in any increase in flood levels within the community "dllring the
occurrence of the 100 year flood; and
5. Variances shall only be issued upon: (a) a determination that the variance
is the minimum necessary,considering the flood hazard, to. afford relief;
(b) a showing of good and sufficient causei(c) adetermin'ation that
failure to grant the variance would result inexceptionalhaJ:"AFh~p to the
applicant; (d) a deterrninationthatthegranting of the variaI1cewill not
result in increased flood heights, additional threats to:publlic safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing lo'cal laws or
ordinances.
These requirements found in your local floodplain management regulations are
designed to mitigate future losses of life and property during times of flooding
and will contribute toward breaking the cycle. of loss to structures. Failure
to enforce these measures will jeopardize your community's continued
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and affect future federal
assistance.
Enclosed is a ,booklet entitled "Answers to Questions About Substantially Damaged
Buildings" which expands on the contentsoftheNFIPRegulationsandcontains
very straight. forward answers. Refer to the t.opof page 1S,question 32 for
inforrnation'regardingtheissuance of permits and their use in determining which
structures ..... must be elevated ·
If you have any questions regarding this information, please let me know by
writing to the above address or by calling (817)898--5127.
Sincerely,
~.~
Greer, Chief
Hazards Branch
FILE
OnTuesday,March 31,1992 Coy l--erry and I met with Luis
Ja uregul, J uanCrelxe 1 and Phi 1 ipW'i ngo tot a lk a bout wha t
m.ust be done to obtain a Build ngPermit for Phase 2 of the
Mer fa fan Apart ments.
Coy&. I explained that the requirements were spelled out
very; clearly on the last review of the plans whicll were
retur-!ned to Mr. Wingo on 3-25-92.
Coy explained what he would require for "water-proofing" the
buildIngs after they explained that they wanted to finish
the upper floors and only the boIler 'room and tIle laundry
room for "occupancy". lIer ead from the Southern Bu i ldi ng
Code!therequlrement that molsturecontent of the wood
cannot exceed 1996, therefore, any wood left in the first
floor to be used when it Is ffnished out later must be
protected. He further explained that some killdoftreatment
must be applIed to structural elements in order to support
the second floor .of thebu i Idi ng, andt he bo i lers thems el yes
must be raised above the. flood plain In order for hIm to be
able to signa building permIt for these buildings.
I .thenexpla.ined ...tha t .a var i ance....to. the.DraInageOrd lnance
could be applied for, and of feredtogive th.eman
appllcaitlon. lexpl'ained that the . CltyEnglneer' s office
wouldbethecltyagencythroughwhlchto submIt the
applJcatJonforavariance,andtheZonlngBoard of
AdJustment would be the bodyto<conslder the request .
Coyexpl~lnedthatavariance.totdhebu tIding ..code. cou 1 d
also be applied < for, . and offered to give them an
application, explalnl ngthat .ltwou.ldbeaseparatereques t ,
and would be heard by the ConstructIon Board of Adjustment
and Appeals.
Wet hen remInded theapplfcantsthattheentir epr o.cess
would be mucbeasfer for them,<> as well as mor eexpedi t lous,
iftheywouldslmply deletebul1dlngs#10& 11 from the
plans, construct thewaterlinesandtheflre hydrants,and
furnisllthe .lnf.ormatlonneeded.. .bythesanltation..department .
Theyagreedeventual1y.tbat . they would consIder removIng
those2bulldingsfromtheplans,andthey stated they.were
not aware that the fire hydrants would have to be installed
prIor to bringing any combustible materials on thesfte.
Coyandlagalnexplalnedthatnelt her of .us had the
authority to grant variances to the ordInances,. and
addltl onal1y,> t hatnosta ffmemberhadt ha tauthor lty, l)u~
rather. anvreauests for val" lances to anvof th~of'nidn;l/"~r:;~
Council. With that, Coy &. I left the meeting after again
offering to supplY the men with forms on which they could
applY for variances. They followed us to our office and
each of us gave them a variance application form - one for
ZBA and one for.the Construction Board of Adjustment' and
Appeals.
At one p.m. on 4-1-92 Coy &. I went to the apartment site and
roughly measured the distance between theexlsting fire
hydrant atftedmondand Texas, and determined that 30f.the
buildi ngswouldbe at least partiallY, if not completel~
covered. (i.e.., .fallwithin 30.0 feet of the hydrant). We
also walked through the complex and determined that SOIll~
repair work had been taking place without benef it of a
building permit. We tried to find Phillip Wingo, but he was
not in his office nor on the $.ite.
I called Bland .Ellen as soon as we got back and told bImof
our finding, and asked tbat he bave someone do>amore
precisemeasurement,<just in casetbesemen asked to have
separate buildingpermHs for. the buildings wbiccnntigl1,t fall
within the 3.0.0 foot measurement · Bland saId hewoo.ldtake
care of that. Veronica Morgan indIcated that she wou~d bave
no problem isSuiJIgseparate permits for those bui ings
which felT. wIthin the 3.0.0 foot dlstance,whicbwotHdgive
the applicant tIme to get construction plans sub~~tted and
approved for the water lines and fire hydrants, and the rest
of the permIts .couldb~ Issued for buildings 3 o~' 4-9 when
the fire hydrants were installed and operable.
In the afternoon Of4_1-92PbJlliPWi?gobrOught in some
revisions.to the building plans, and attached inserted
them into 3 sets of build.ing plans. At 4: 5Sp be gave
those .3 sets to Coy and asked if he . could get a building
permit on 4~2-92 to which Coy replied that he ld not.
At approx imately>9a..m... on 4-2-92' t . took asel {\ f "revised
plans" to sanItatIonforrev'iew,and.J im SmIth. would not
approv.ethembecause he still>could not tell w.bat was being
done lobrlngthepads.for the dumpsters out the flood
plain. .. Mr.Wingol1ad jncluded information reg;i,rding the
sizeand.tyPe. ofcompa>ct or belngpr opos ed, but never
indicated the elevation of the pads, nor did furnish an
elevatlonoflhedumpster ontbe pad so Jim.. th could see
if what was being proposedwouldfuncllon aC(.:J,rding to City
specs.
I then tooktlie plans to Ray >Havenswho Ind ed that as
long as the.plans were for buildlngsl-9,bewould be able
to sign them, and .did so.
ShortlY after I returned to City llaTl (sollle~lme betweent.o &.
.... .nllti m)I received a call t:romTerry J s asking if the
... _.... __ ....4 "'., n .;:tti p c i ~io n
w
had.. been made by DavJd . .Pull en....... t ha t....the..renovatl ons being
proposed did notconstltute Itsubstantialrenovationn alld
ther efore th>erequ lrements for taking t he bull dings out 0 f
fheflood plainorfloodprooflng the buildings dld not
apply. lex,plained that wh i leI was not .atsomeo f the
meet lngs to.wh ich.he ...... referred, l>didremembers eeing a
letter .regarding "substantial renovation", but in.formed
Terry that since that .. meeting, Da\rld . Pullen had sent me a
me:mospelling..out.that specifically .buildlngslO.& 11';.lllllst
beeitherremo'Vedfrom~hefloodplaln orfloodproofed, and
thos~ reqlllrementsha.d been indicated on the 2 s~tsof i
redl ined plans which th~Ci ty had ret urn~dto th~;appl1 cant s
-AFTERthemeet ingshe.menti oned. Terr-ysaid its~e~ed
thatsomethlng ha.d ,changed s lncet hose . m~etlngs,.anQJle
wondered 1ft he rules . w~re toughened.. up~nthemidcJle()f
this ,review. I stated that tomyknowletlge" the.rul.es were
the> same they had alw.aysbeen, and we would not be in tile
habi tof changing the requi.rements in the middle ofa
pro j eel..
I t hent 01 dhlmoft hesenewes trevfsi onswhi ch st i II di d
not apply,and asked if he wanted me to continue with the
review, and he replIed that he does.
1 tried to call Veronica to tellller this latest saga but
could not reach her, so I did verbally report this to David
Pu lIen..
....\91z,2/q j
wW~\ill&L .~
· . w .-b.......~~(1~~(cY\~~}~t
.~.........N ........................
1z fu'~....~.~tL.~\~.vui~~~~N\-r~~
fu\l~ ~.~ ~~
..
t)lJJV \.fIA.Il.UvUVVl ~
.c~e~l<JU/ 'd~)
... ........ ....:+. . ~A.....-
i ,,~. ~. "'U
......... ii.....~..~...........~.......~.......CkLL............~....19................~......~........&.%......
-- ---,- - - 1..;".:., ~_ _ ._ - . _
.
C'SR
monogemen t,lnc.
,
September 15, 1992
Ms. Shirle.y J. Volk ,
Development Coordinator
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
1100 Texas Avenue
college station, Texas \77842
We understand that noC~rtificates of Occupancy will be issued
on the 4 units in Phase IIwhioh are currently unfi.nish~d, until
the floodplain elevati.on is lowered per plans t and the dumpsters
are relooated .to t.he.rear as shown on the site plan, and the
parking is re.st.ored as shown on the site plan whioh was approved
with the building' onstruotion docum.ents and build!nq permit.
eixell
ng General Partner
CREEK PARTNERS, LTD.
3303 NORTHLAND DR.. SUITE 212
AII~TIN T~)( A!-1 7~7~1
'9 .
l) ~ }\1/
\"Jt 1),/' ~
lfl~\ I~ ~
· . . . jP.' ',trt.\ t..~ .
~~. {j f\~ \yt'
[y~. ~jf)
6\
512/453.6566
t=A,{' ~1?/.:1l::'~."'''7Q
.
8> ~ fb r4 2-
c~4~ J. ~sc.1fte ~ Q~ ~Y'~
I:) +rt~~tv\ ~&~. JeJv-hd.
'1,) fvf'~m c::~~ *' .NM ~~;J~ 1~~Hf
pJ cl~~.1W6..... ....~.T...IR.u.1 TiPJ...Jli.k~ jMV~
. mA S~ 1" ~UJ..e .. ~ II.
.... +.)~i.eA/ cd 6/~.M.M ~ .b~ s ~ 4 .uJ.. (a.
...... SJ&L~~.~J-fr# 8~1 .~.~~1t~
.,. ~~. ~ ~Il $L of1
... ~. It .~~.. R~~ DviV7 ~
...-~~IJ-, 4~M~. ~~ ~~
... ~ ~~. ~ ~jlfi1".
'~)f~ ~~ ~ 10.4
~,) ~ g,f..~ ~~4 8eEY'w"
... &) 'f3/~ a.Jr(~ j..V'~d St<lIM"v~ fa.:, I.
'1J N.dt~ ~~. kJ.M.J dub~e,
10) ~ c{l..!J)~ ~c~ ~~ {d~
.. ~ fcWk:WI1 le.+ fo. ~~ ya.vJ.
,\'~~) ~
;::.., i" ~~~, .
.1'2.J _~...I'. · ,~ OJ~~.... ~tMt..~ ...... /d~.~, ~r -J#r:fk-
. 01. Lku.. . ""[ $;W. t44 ('2) ~/h~ ~ '4 ~
. -stM-d ~U, \ .J
..L3..WL ~~C)~I rfM+.~ o-t~/
. ~
,., ..,
jf:L~~~~4.~ ~ ~ 8'S-9Z.
'f..'.!' .... . \ p~{'. ~
m/,:1) No 0VC~ .MJdk. ~~'\ tW t2~"
'1'...:.......1 .. ... ,. ....~. '. ....,' itS.. I' W5e&
], ';2.. .. .. I ." , "/1. . 2-
.i! ) &i) ~J\ ~otlJ..7 .~ ~L \ 1$0 ~
i"-;>'" ~); 9^/J -r: 01f;,;,^/1 .o1..L j \ =0 7!Q~
r:;;!') L'9 .... fVd:l. I Lf l~':"tf'.'V""<> ~ If v~ I 0 . ,
'11'-+) Go) ~.. .~dUMk~ ~ ~ ~ [to (,c--VI:
.......".,..,.........."...'.1,'...:'... ~JQ) .~. J~[ ~\bfAI.^,J...~... I ..... \ 't>7o ~ CoO.,P/.
. .....;,: .. ..Y r-:r ~v~ '15 (~
11
"'. '11'
i-f'
to.