Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous07/01/96 16:19 C^]409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS I~00] r ~:k:k~x;:x:k~:~~k:xxe~:k:k%kxe~:~k*~kx;~~~k~k* ~~~c ACTIVITY REPORT ~~:~ ~m:~~xe~~~~~~~~:~~~~xc~~~e~~~~~~ TRANSMTSSION OK TX/RX N0. 6527 CONNECTION TEL 9p7740053 CONNECTION ID EAGLE START T I 14fE 0 7/ 0 1 16 :16 USAGE TIME 02'25 PAGES 8 RESULT OK 17/29/96 14:52 '$'409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS I~ 0 O 1 ~~ :~~:x: ACTIVITY REPORT ~~:~ TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 6841 CONNECTION TEL 9p7740053 CONNECTION ID EAGLE START TIME 07/29 14:51 USAGE TIME 00'39 PAGES 1 RESULT OK 96-220 David Scarmardo & Sam Campise P.O. Box 4508 Bryan, Texas 77805-4508 96-220 Martha Cannon 903 Munson College Station; Texas 77840 96-220 William B. Smith 1040 Rose Circle College-Station, Texas 77840 96-220 Tom Aughinbaugh 103.0 Rose Circle College Station, Texas 77840 96-220 Janet Boutton 1034 Rose Circle College Station, Texas 77840` 96-220 Dianne Thompson 1042 Rose Circle College Station, Texas 77840 96-220 Oran W. Nicks 901 Munson College Station, Texas 77840 96-220 McClure Engineering Attn: Mike McClure 1722 Broadmoor; Suite 210 Bryan, Texas 77802 96-220 Dr. David Bailey T032 Rose Circle College Station, Texas 77840 96-220 Leonara Awre 903 Munson College Station, Texas 77840 96-220 Martha P. Cannon 903. Munson College Station, Texas 77840 901 Munson Avenue College Station, TX 77840 18 July, 1996 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Re: Proposed Grand Oaks Subdivision Ref: City of College Station Planning Division letter dated July 3, 1996 The .platting request presented in the subject letter has been considered. As adjoining. property owners, the following comments are offered.. Overall, the pre iminary planning for the Grand Oaks Subdivision appears attractive. If the developer conforms to city ordinances and zoning laws, places .utilities underground and prepares the entrance to the property as indicated, the development should offer an attractive residential neighborhood_ Concerns caused by the development proposal are: 1. The lots having minimal frontages detract from the value of he residential area. A reduced number of homes with wider lots on the southeast side of the development would be more in,keeping with the adjoining community. 2: An `emergency entrance to the area for firefighting equipment should be considered, to reduce the risk to the subdivision and adjacent properties. If the above concerns are suitably addressed, we believe the development could be in keeping with the residential plan ehvisioned by the Planning and Zoning Commission as represented by the current Master Plan. To support this cause, we have offered to sell the back,portion of our lot to the developer so that an entire rectangular plof of about 6.5 acres may be better optimized for this subdivision.. .~ '3 ~~.~~~ Oran W. Nicks ~- ~~ ter Phyllis V. Nicks CITY OF COLLEGI/ STATIOI`I '~ E~ost t`}#'r3se Bsarc ~~~~k ~ .`:ti 'e ~xas !~ve~ea~ {~t9~t) 7~,~-3'~~G~ October 16, 1996 Mr. John Hicks Chairman of the Board First National Bank 2807 Texas Avenue Bryan, TX 77802 SUBJECT: Grand Oaks Subdivision being developed by David Scarmardo Dear Mr. Hicks: The City of College Station .offers a developer a choice of two possible methods to follow to get a plan of property filed for record in the Deed Records of Brazos County. One way is for the plat to be submitted and go through the review and approval process and then the developer can build the infrastructure. After the infrastructure is completed and accepted by the City, the City will file the plat for record and the developer can begin to sell lots. The second method is for the developer to post a financial guarantee with the City for the cost of the infrastructure after going through the review and approval process. The City would then file the plat for record and the developer would be able to sell lots and build the infrastructure. Under this scenario, no building permits would be issued on those lots until all the infrastructure is'installed and accepted by the City. I have included pages from the. City's Subdivision Regulations which contain the sections which address the timing of building infrastructure and filing plats. I hope this will answer the question David Scarmardo reported that you have regarding building infrastructure, but if it does not, please call me for clarification. Yours ery truly, ;~ . ~"~- C Shirley J. V~ Development Coordinator Attachments ,~`, xc: ~le David Scarmardo ~~~(,ar~ge~ ~a~ r+w_. r rr~~~d _. ~" 03/21/97 12:48 $408 822 1763 SCARMARDO PROD. [~3j002 I)rwid Scarmarclo P. 0. L'ux 4543 airy Vin, ' I'exa~: 77$05 X09=ii9-720 (1's~x}~0~3-H'~'?-1763 ~~v ~ ` ~ ~,~ ,~ ,(~~ ~~ ! ter' - ~ `' ~~'`~ ~ ~~ r ~~~ ~d ~ ~~``~ L7 (7`P ti..~,.~ _ _ -. l~~s- ~ r~UlsJ ~ ~°~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~. ~Glf/. ~~ ~. ~~ ~~,.~. ~~ 3 c ~~ ~~~._.__ ~~ © ° ° C~ ~ \ ~ cn r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... A A ~ ~ ~ C A ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~c ~, cn ~ ~,- ~* S~'' ~ N r~ H -~ .~ Y ~` c-~ 6~. V ~~ ~- n ~~..... e ~ x ~~ ;~ _~ ~4 ~'-; ~+ , .,. City of College Station PO Box 9960, College Staff CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`~ R' I~~1~X ~~ ~ Y Phone: Fax phone: CC: 77842. Date: ~ /~C.Y97 Number of pages including cover sheet: ro ~ Phone: (409)764 3570 Fax phone: (409) 764 3496 STAFF NOTES Grand Oaks Replat Case #97-225 Ordinance Requirements: _ The replat is not a minor plat and must be reviewed. by the Planning and Zoning Commission.. Revise the title blocks to include the Planning and Zoning Commission and .the City.. Engineer. Revise the date in the title block. Correct the scale in the title block. SUBMIT THE MYLAR ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES BY WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1997 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1997 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL ROOM AT 1101 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH AT 7:00. P.M. ~' 8(~ ~~ - ~~ - ~ ~~2 ~~ ~-' ~- U~ ~~ c E• ', •~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I LEGAL DEPARTMENT 1101 TEXAS AVENUE S POST OFFICE BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 7643507 MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee ~y~ ~ ~ ~- CityPlanner FROM: Carla Robinson L~~ Assistant City Attorney RE: Grand Oaks Plat DATE: July 24, 1996 Last Thursday, July 18, 1996, a public. hearing was scheduled to consider approval of a final plat for the Grand Oaks Subdivision. Several adjoining property owners were present .and requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission") table this item until the developer had addressed some of the concerns of these property .owners including the type of fence enclosing the subdivision, the , size of some of the lots, and traffic on Munson Drive. Commissioner Lightfoot made a motion to table the item which was seconded. Jane,. you then reminded the Commission that. they had 30 days from the date the plat was filed to act on the plat. The plat was filed June: 28 and the Commission was not scheduled to meet again within the 30-day period. You also reminded them 'that, if all zoning requirements and subdivision regulations had been met, their approval was mandatory. The Commission denied the plat. Issues You asked me whether the decision was a valid one and, if not, what steps should now betaken. Short Answer The .Commission is authorized to deny approval of a plat when the proposed plat fails to meet requirements under state law .and local ordinances. However, a denial ;Shirley Volk Re Fwd...Grand Oaks 1..Year warranty.: Reply,.:::::..:::.::::.:...:..:::::::.::.. :::.:.::.:....::::::.:.:::.:.::.:...:.,,-.,:......::.:..::----.:.::::::.:..:...: ::.:::::::...:.:..Pag .....:: From: Shirley Volk To: MSMITH~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.POLICE DEPARTMENT Subject: Re: Fwd: Grand Oaks 1 year warranty -Reply Yeah, I knew about that and the fact that there were problems that needed to be taken care of before the warranty period ended was what I called David about last week. He said he would have the contractor take care of it pronto. He was going to call me back to give me an update. Anyway, that call: never happened,. and it sounds like the problems have not yet been addressed either. I told him when I was #alking to h!m that the fact that the one yearwarranty expires does not constitute acceptance by the City, and the problems must be addressed before we accept everything. »> Mark Smith 03/26/98 04::31 PM »> I think you were cc'd by Logan and Rob Wesley but here's the scoop. They dug up the manholes and the lines were tv'd. They found quite a bit of mud in the lines. Scamardo is kind of acting like it's not his fault, it's the plumber.& what can he do about it and how do we know it's his mud. We are working it. »> Shirley Volk 03/26/98 04:04PM »> Mark: Have you heard anything more on this? !'talked to David-Scarmardo one day late last week - probably Thursday -and he was going to get with the contractor and make him take care of the problems and then he was going to calf me back. I haven't heard anything back yet!! »> Mark Smith 03!17/98 05:41 PM »> see .attached. We have not been able to gain compliance and in my opinion we will not until there is some incentive for that'.compliance. If the problem is not resolved. say by next monday, we need to withhold CO's or permits or whatever. Otherwise, next Friday will pass & there. will be absolutely :nothing we can do to ensure that the problem. is resolved. 1 will write a letter next Monday if need be. Logan will let them know what needs to be done between now & then.