HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousVim' • .. ,- .:..,.. n ..-. ,- .: '5i „ti .~'L;e_. ~i`ti i-~"`. •"^ ',,.
- ~ ~ ,. _~,
E' _ - ~~
f L, f
.'
Cit, ofi ~o0:lege Sta~i®n To °.,-~' .~~ ~~.-~~.~,~~,~-~,
Y. ~ ,~
' ®~~ POST OFFICE. BOX 9960 1101,TEXAS AVENUE ~~ ~
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 4 ~ ~ ~~
Planning Division ~,~-~' , p1f' FI • --'`
.,~
•
f r--.....,,.... ~-_.
/ / ' ~ _
FROMd=
~~ _
DATE ''~~
MESSAGE '"~°~, ;~. `~' `" ~ ~,~.' ~. ..yG-a:':..
•
~,e` •-~=--
,~'' t
/`° ~ ,
~~_ s
,~, ~
Frora: Jim Smith
To: City Hal1.SKUENZEL
Date: 10/5/95 2:53pm
Subject: PRC - Wednesday, October 11, 1995
Parking Lot Plan - A Neatherlin Self Storage (95-406): This plan is a little
confusing. There is an attachment with a "Proposed Fire Truck Turning Radius"
showing that a fire truck could not make the turns within the project. My
trucks have approximately the same turning radius as a fire truck. Therefore,
I do not think that I can make the turns within the property either. What do
you think?
Parking Lot Plan - Budget Mini-Storage Expansion (95-416): I could not find a
container location notated on this plan. They will need at least a 4-yd. FEL
container.
Thanks!!
CC: City Hal1.SVOLK
Printed by Shirley Volk 9/08/95 8:29am
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shirley Volk
To: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan
Subject: fwd: Neatherlin Storage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===NOTE====------=====9/07/95==9:58am=====__________=_________________=_____
CC: Jane Kee, Kent Laza, Natalie Thomas
Well, although Garrett turned in something on this project, it wasn't a
complete submittal, so PRC for next week is out of the question.
My question remains - why do we need a PRC on this? They are changing the
site somewhat in that they are adding a building, but I doubt that would
have anything to do with the "prc", i.e., the P&Z rep! From what I'm seeing
on this, a real good technical review is in order. The fire lanes, the
radii on interior drives, the location of the fire hydrant - these are the
things that appear to me to be questionable, and I wonder if we'd be better
off time-wise to do a real good staff review and not mess with posting a
meeting, etc., and even taking up a commissioner's time!
Now on to some other "engineering type" questions on this proposal. When I
called Earl this morning to tell him the submittal was not complete - that I
hadn't received any drainage info (and still haven't and it's almost l0 a.m.
on Thurs.), he pointed out that he has not been hired to do any off-site
drainage easements, and according to the "new drainage ordinance", off-site
easements are necessary, even tho' the water goes to a drainage ditch (or
something) that has been carrying water forever without an easement. .It's
a "natural" drainage way, but Earl says Mark Smith told him an off-site
easement would be necessary.
I called Kenneth Neatherlin this morning and told him we would not be taking
his revised proposal to PRC next week because the drainage information was
not turned in, thus is an incomplete submittal. I also mentioned to him
about the off-site easement for drainage that Earl referred to, and assured
him that I know absolutely nothing about drainage, and if he has questions,
he should be talking to Veronica. I told him I would get a message to V,
with the information (questions). I explained that Windsor Pointe was
required to submit off-site easements, as is U-Haul, etc., and is not a new
requirement. As far as draining to a natural drainage ditch without an
easement - I really don't know.
Kenneth called me back after talking with Earl, and said the "ordinance
addressing off-site drainage easements" is not even an ordinance, so we
can't enforce it. I told him again that I really don't know much about
drainage easement requirements or the drainage ordinance, but there is every
possibility that the existing ordinance had some requirements addressing the
subject. He said he would be talking to Bill Thornton about whether we can
enforce something that's not an ordinance yet! I couldn't seem to stop
that!
Anyway, all this is for your information, and edification - and please try
to take a look at all the '°stuff" (if it ever comes in) and let me know if
you think a PRC is necessary, or if we can do the review on a staff level
and simply begin it when everything comes in.
Thanks. Also, if any of you are interested in talking to Kenneth Neatherlin
about this, his phone number is 778-0206, ext. 13.
Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=9/07/95==1:46pm_______________________________________
Fwd to: Kent Laza, Mark Smith, Shirley Volk
.............................................................................
hey, mark and kent. the above is just fyi for you guys. Shirley, i will look
at the "incomplete" stuff that garrett brought in yesterday and will call
kenneth neatherlin to try and clarify some things.
Fwd=by:=Mark=Smith====9/07/95==2:49pm_______________________________________
Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan
CC: Kathryn Anthony, Kent Laza, Paul Urso
............................................................................
1. I did not tell Earl that an easement was required. I did say that the
City Engineer's office was the appropriate place to ask about drainage
Page: 1
Printed by Shirley Volk 9/08/95 8:29am
requirements.
2. He's right in that the "new ordinance" has not been approved and we can
not make requirements based on it.
3. The existing Policy (adopted by ordinance) says, A pathway for this
stormwater shall be identified and provided from its source to its discharge
into amain channel of the primary drainage system. The designated pathway
shall be wholly contained within designated drainage rights of way and
easements except in areas of existing development." This is on page 7 of
the Drainage Policy and Design Standards.
This is not one of the confusing parts of our drainage policies.
Fwd=by:=Kent=Laza=====9/07/95==3:lOpm_______________________________________
Fwd to: Mark Smith, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan
............................................................................
FYI. Mr. Neatherlin has contacted Larry Marriott about why we are requiring
off-site improvements and/or easements when the ordinance has not yet been
approved. I explained to Larry we have that authority under the existing
ordinance, but that we haven't required anything yet because we havn't
received anything from the engineer yet. Larry was a bit miffed at Mr.
Neatherlin after he heard this. He said something about his mother.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
,~,
..
~,m
~ ~
4 / - .~' ~~
`~ _.-
j~
~ ~~--mac-- °' ,.
~ ~~
~~
~~ ~ ~, ,
~' >
~~.
,.
~~ u__~
i
I `
~ P
i
~. ~. ,.
~~~
Page: 2
! •
' y • ` '
~
1.+...~..... •~
~~.~ it
I ~'
•
•
~
'
'
r L•.'.'.•%. . . . . . . .
,
.c.
.
.
~
Q 1
•
'
•
•
•
•
•
• ...~...,...~. 111 ..-~_ .,
) I I .
.
.
.
. 1.
.
.
.
e II
I
I
~ i
I
-7
/v I
~
I ^J
I
/ II
JJJ .
I I
C 1
~ I .'~'. '
I
C
I
Z
:.: I
'
7~ ..... ........ I
~
- ~ I
a:
...
.
I i
li
:~~;~;~
;~ I;
O . I
i
~ I I
..
.
.
. ..
..
....
..
..
..
...
..
..
..
..
....
..
......
.:'1'.'.'.'R
~
~~W ~.~•. .. r. I' I~
c c ~ '.'/ '.•.'.•A'i' '~
4
C11 '~' ' '
'
'
O ) • •
' •
r /
•
'
• .'
m m
~
.
• .
•
..'. ••
~~
i .,.
'
~ m r
'
'
•
•~•
' ~. ~.
.
•% .
.. ..•
~
~'
'
'~'~ •
~•
S r y
A Y fn • • '
•
.
.
•
'. i .~. .'.'.
~ •.
O Gl N Y /
~
7a rn ~ o
•.i.7.•....~i. -
~ ............
'
'
'
'
'
.
~ .
' D ~•!•.'.'.'1.. .
.
.
.
.
.
~ '
'
'
'
' '
' 1 .
.
.
.
.
.f :'.'.'J'.'. . i s
' ..:.:.:.'
I :.~._.
i
/
~ ~• ~
~ ~i
1 /
7 •
~
1 , I
~ t 1 .'.
SEP-21 12:56 PATTERSON ~ ARCHITECTS
TO:.
Q 409`l'1650D4 Pal
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Veronica Morgan
COMPANY:. City of College Station - Engineering
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 764-357{}
FAX NUMBER: 764-3496
FROM: Abigail Butler
NUMBER OF PACES TO FOLLOW
DATE: 09-21-95
Tf i/ou do not recieve alt of the x~,~c~>~~s, ?llf~asf~ call back gas soon as pns+sif~l~:.
PATT'ERSON ~~
ARCHITECTS
2402 l3rnacimoor
Bu.i.ldutg E1 Suite 201
Bryan,Tex~s 77802
voice - 409 77~ 0$09
fax - 409 776 5004
NOTES: l~ollow.ing is a portion o:f the A-Ne~itherlin Solt-Storage site.
The questions 1 would like you tea address are:
!. The drive ent~ ance to the site was approved 262'-0" from the c;c;ntciline
of our drive to the opening of the closest dnve (~t is supp~seci t~ be
275'-0" but was ~~pmved 1t 262'-0"}, I am riow proposing that i.t bc;
25T-U."
2. ".1'l~e tl~tt~at d<ypth is suppou;d to be 55'-0" min. on a major. ailerial, the
' best sohitio.n to oihei• site problems makes this dopth only 32'-0." Vtjill
this be allowed`?
SEP-21 12: 5'l PRTTERSON ~ ARCHITECTS 0 409'l'165004 PD2
~~
i,
-7 a ~
„ 380'-0"t Td NEXT GU~B CUT ,~ ~1J f " t?'~ `
`~
September 14, 1995
Mr. Don Garrett
.~--'°."
CITY OF COLLEGE ~TATIOI`I
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-9960
(409) 7643500
Garrett Engineering
4444 Carter Creek Parkway -Suite 108
Bryan, Texas 77805
Dear Mr. Garrett:
Enclosed is the drainage computation for the Neatherlin Self Storage Complex. It is being
returned without review because it does not include information required for a drainage
report by the City of College Station's Drainage Policy. It is not sufficient to provide
computer printouts, hyrdographs, and charts in a report form and expect the City's
Engineering Department to research all other information itself.
Future reports on this and other development applications will also be returned
unreviewed until they are complete.
Sincer y,
Kent Laza
City Engineer
enclosure: Drainage Computations
cc: Kenneth Neatherlin
Shirley Volk
Veronica Morgan
Home of Texas AEM University
r ~ ~ b T PI A A.J / V Q A~ ~~L°`~~ ~L /~ ~~D /Q~ I G~ C;
~~ ~in
_... r, IJ rJ O v T ~ ~ ~ ~ ,2 G r t.S T T o c_v Q 2 ~~ ~2~
l h~`~ l.~ U S Ttr1M ~.1/' ~ ` l 1 ~ U ~ f L ~ ~ - J ~~ l/~.S (/ p /=T St ..r~o.
[~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~VANiZtcQ c.~ ~ t~.~ cc~'hs.r h t~ c~ +o b ~
i N ~S ~ G- I I .Q, j~ C]~ '7 ~ ~ ~ l `i' 1 U !~ ~"~ ~~ b w (-^ p ~ ~e
~S~f'1~3n eN' t~.~ L ~ I ~ e- C.S ~ e 0 ~-' o l~'}'`2~--
ao~~
Pry LG~.
'~-.~~ Q~ c~TUns C G. ~.
~~~ ~~`
~,~.
~_~
~G~~3S'b2
_- t ~.
~-, ~..
-~~- ~ ~~
~~
~.-- ~
P
L
~~ r~
s ~~
J~ ~ ~ ~
~° ~ ~'
~ ~
.~~~,~~~
,,
~/ ~;~
~,
®.
\® \
~ ~~`
~ ~
i
'~!
r-`-~-
,,,.
i ~ ^
_____
_~
~.
_, N
~~
\~~
~.
r ~
~
~ ~ a
~
~.
J
('~ ~,
1'
-.
~~
~ ~
o
z'
F
O
~
j
~ J~~'
Q J,
~
tD J
~ ~
C a
tb
~
Q'
n ~• cQ
~D q ~b
~*
~ ~ n
~
~ ~
~ 1
~
~
0 ~
0 0 0
Q ~ p Cr
~
o ~ ~
~, ~
~~.~
0 0 ~ o
ti
.
j ~ ~.
y, ~O J ~
ppn
J
O C ~ 1
V T
r
0
I ~'
:,,.: ~ ~
------~." ~; ~ ~ N
fl °~
~`
~ 4 0
_~
~~ ~ ~ ~ w t.
Q ~~~ r n
~ ~ J ~
J~
e
d
\\
~~ ~
a
~@
I
i
s
W 9
/~
,`
e
w
N_
L~a
~J
a
._
~ y` n 1\
~1~ 11'~+!; !.I ~ ~ ; ti ~ ,~I :~~j ill f!I 'I
7 ii I' ' ~ ~ , t '~ ! I~ j II '!
iIYI
i !,
'
~ ~~ ~ ! ~ ~
I ~ ~ II ~~~ 'I ' ~ ~ 'I
' i 1 ~
1 ~ I I ~ '' I` ' ~
~~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~' ~~
i ~ ! i ~ ~ f
I li!I it j
li ~I ~I ~ ,~
II I ' ~~ ~~ ..
i I (~ ,
i i
~ ~ ,i
II~i
i~ ,~
~ j I ~ ~ i
i II ~i ~lI i III ilil~ '
......................
%L
.................
__._____
9
U
~~~~~
GG
•~"'~~
e i . _ /1 '/1 .~ i 6/~ t R + it is: f.~.~ eAw .e9~ ~ n n t 1 ~sQ _
~7~-aao6 '~i3
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CHECKLIST
Date: /~ / Project:
a
ELECTRIC: (Ray 3680, ony 3438)
/~ s~ ~,~
ENGINEERING: Covers Water, Sewer, Drainage Site U 'ties, Impact Fees
(Kent 3581 ~ a 3763, Steve 3592
(David D. 777-3942, ern W. 777-0192 Jerry J. 7 -3557, John L. 759-3970)
l~~' ~~~~~ ~:~ O'er ' ,~~
~'~~ ~~ i
~~~ ~!~
FIRE: (Jon 3781)
LEGAL: Ja 35
(Easement?) ~,~!`~'~-~ ,a ~_
~~/~ ~
I `~ - ~~~
~° ~ ~ ~~~
~~~ ~~
~ ~~~
ZONING/PARKLAND/LANDSCAPING/DUMPSTER LOCATION & SCREENING:
(Sabine 3782, Joey 3748) --
/D // ~~
DUMPSTER SERVICE: (im S., ally, Freddie -all at 3690)
l ®l~` ~i~
77~ oao~~j3
CERTIFICATE ®F ®CCUPANCY CHECK~.IST
Date:
Project:
~~
ELECTRIC: (Ray 3680, ny 3438)
~q%~ ors
LEGAL: (Jan 3546)
(Easement?)
(Sabine 3782, Joey 3748}
/®1
~°
®/
Dl1MPSTER SERVICE: (Jim S., Wally, Freddie -all at 3690)
B - ~ ~ ~~~
C
~ ~
From: Steve Homeyer
To: SVOLK
Date: 10/16/96 2:58pm
Subject: Neatherlin Easement -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply
This is the gazillionth reply for this item, but we got the letter and it is up in Legal. Jan said that they had all the info they needed.
»> Shirley Volk 10/16/96 01:39pm »>
Have you ever gotten a copy of the revised letter?
»> Steve Homeyer 10/09/96 04:09pm »>
I think we need to get a copy of that letter first. Once we get that letter, I do not see holding up the CO.
»> Shirley Volk 10/09/96 04:04pm »>
Nope. Is he aware that he will be holding up Kenneth's C.O.? I haven't told Kenneth this, either. Or, have you decided that perhaps it doesn't need to hold
up the C.O. What say?
»> Steve Homeyer 10/09/96 04:OOpm »>
I have not recieved the letter. Maybe Jan has?
»> Shirley Volk 10/09/96 02:37pm »>
Did we get this yet? I believe Kenneth wants to have his grand opening tomorrow or the next day, so he'll have to have the C.O. before then.
»> Steve Homeyer 10/07/96 11:43am »>
I spoke with Don Garrett this morning and he said he will get us the letter in the next day or so. If he sends it to you, please forward a copy to me and I will
do the same.
»> Jan Schwartz 10/04/96 04:03pm »>
Yes, a letter from Garrett as you suggested would be acceptable to Roxanne.
»> Steve Homeyer 10/04/96 03;35pm »>
I reviewed Garrett's information and found that the drainage easement does not match the submitted layout. However, he does not need to provide an
easement for the detention pond. He needs to provide a metes and bounds description for the overhead electrical that is shaded on the layout. This should
take care of his easement requirements. In regard to the easements Roxanne wanted us to research, we would feel comfortable with a letter from Garrett
stating the location of all easements (proposed and existing) and that the proposed easements do not encroach upon an existing easement. He would also
need to seal that letter with his RPLS stamp. Would Roxanne feel comfortable with this scenario? Let me know what she thinks and whether or not I need
to call Garrett.
»> Jan Schwartz 10/03/96 02:Slpm »>
I have talked to Roxanne about the problems you are encountering with locating the old easements on the plat. She said it is up to you whether or not you
want to proceed with the project without locating the old easements. ff you are comfortable with the easements you were able to locate and don't want to
pursue tracking down the other easements, that's strictly up to you.
However, we do need a clarification on the locations of the new easements since Garrett's diagram did not correspond with the metes and bounds he
provided us with.
Please advise in writing how you want to proceed in this matter.
1 i 1.3~#43T:~s3T F•• ~~~
o]CT- 1 5-96 S~iT 1 ~ : 0G Ph1 MEpTHEf2l..I hl H~P1ES
° MiclYael Riee
° -
NEATHERLIN e
~ -
In Bryan:. In CailcBc Srarion;
L740 East Bypass Highway 6.4014 Texas Ave., S. Hwy. 6
~/,mile North oFHighway 2] • '/1 mile South of Rock Prairie Rd.
449-778 38 17 • 409-690-b777
~~~
~ ~~
~~~
4
,7UL-®'l ®®:55 PATTERSON ~ ARCHITECTS
__
9~1~165®®4
~ 4®
PD1
'
~f `
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER
COMPANY:
TFIwEPHONE NUM8IER:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE: ~ ,,~ l Jl,,.'~ ~~~
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW : J
1 f ynu do not receive aII of the pages, please ca11 back as soon as passible.
2902 Broadmoor
Buildin A Suite 201
Bryan,~exas 77802
PATTERSON °~°
ARC~iIT'ECTS
voice - 409 776 0809
fax - 409 776 5004
NOTES: ~ IrL~CxirZ. GL..[~ 5 X Co ~~ ~ C ~ ~~
~ Lls~~.~-~~r~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ = icy ~t 7
l (~
~~
/~i~i s~ ~la~C ~o ~
~o~z~~ .
7 ~~ o~ o~ X/~