Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous98-215 98-215 98-215 Philip E. Blackburn Jr. John Ben Carrabba Carrie M. Dobrovolny 208 Southwest Parkway East P.O. Box 603 P.O. Box 405 College Station, Texas 77840 Crockett, Texas 75835-0603 Wellborn, Texas 77881-0405 98-215 98-2I5 98-215 Simon Kahan Mills Finance Company The Rhett Group L.L,.C. P.O. Box 9256 P.O. Box 12615 226 Southwest Parkway College Station,. Texas 77842 Dallas, Texas- 75225-0615 College Station, Texas 77840 98-215 Allen R Swoboda 1607 Emerald Parkway College Station, Texas 77845 98-215 Philip E. Blackburn Jr. 208 Southwest Parkway East College Station, Texas 77840 98-215 Simon Kahan P.O. Box 9256 College Station, Texas 77842 98-215 Allen R. Swoboda 1607 Emerald Parkway College Station, Texas 77845 98 215 John. Ben Carrabba P.O. Box 603 Crockett,. Texas 75835-0603 98-215 Mills Finance Company. P.O. Box 12615 Dallas, Texas 75225-0615 98-21 S Carrie M. Dobrovolniy P.O. Box 405 Wellborn, Texas 77881-0405 98-21 S The Rhett Group L.I,.C. 226 Southwest Parkvvay College Station, Texas 77840 :Shirley Volk Scarmardo - Ashford.Square Reply. Page 1 From: Bob Mosley To: SVOLK~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL, Date: 9/14/98 1:47PM Subject: Scarmardo -Ashford Square -Reply The cure for the Ashford Square drainage problem, other than that required upon the Swoboda property, would require not only raising the floor of the detention pond by appro~amately two (2) feet and increasing the size of the detention pond to accomodate the runoff previously listed on the plans. My understanding of -this option is in the $35,000 to $40,000 range. Rather than the developer providing us the money to do this, f would be my preference for him to resolve this once and for all.lt seems the only enforcement tool Ileft to us is to withhold the CO's. do not believe that the sizing of the Ashford Square detention pond did not take into consideration the additional runoff from the Herikage at Dartmouth development. Therefore this development is still gning to have to provide accomodations for their additional storm water discharge requirements. LL CO EGE STATIC N P. O. Box 9960' 11.01 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 September 25, 1998 Fred Paine Kling. Engineering 4103 Texas Avenue, Suite 212 Bryan, Texas 77802 RE: Ashford Square Detention Pond Acceptance Dear Fred, The City of College Station will accept the :detention pond improvements on the Ashford Square property once: a) the drainage improvements are completed downstream on the Swoboda property and b) the improvements downstream aresufficient to allow the pond to drain dry. If you have. any further questions, please call. Veronica Assistant cc: file Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Bob Mosley, City Engineer Home of Texas A&M University Shirley Volk - Re Ashford Square Page 1. From: Shirley Volk To: 13mosley@City of College Station.Police Department Subject: Re: Ashford Square As I understand this particular project after talking with Natalie Ruiz (who conferred with V.Morgar»), the developer submitted some .kind of financial guarantee in the .amount of $300,000 to the City in ordler to ..get his plat filed. This guarantee was forwarded to Mark Smith for the files he was (and is) keeping on financial guarantees for infrastructure. Under normal circumstances in the case of platting property,. even building permits are not issued until the infrastructure is complete. However, this was. a case of replatting-a previously platted piece of property, so the streets and lots were already in place and could: have been built on even before anything at all was done there. With the replat, we required a drainage report (because the streets were being changed and the lot numbers were being increased) and at that time the developer's engineer determined that,: in order to meet our minimum drainage requirements, detention would be required. So, that is the background for this property. Now, I am not aware of any way at all to force the developer to take care of the detention problem within a certain .period of time, unless there is a time limit on the financial. guarantee. I don't know about that because the files are in Public Works. We had agreed that they should be transferred to our offices, but to date I understand that .has not been done. I am copying Mark,. Veronica and Jim Callaway on this and if they see anything that I have missed or that is misinformation, twould ask that they please correct me. As a P.S. to this note, the problems with detention on this project does also impact the project waitiing to break ground to the east of this project (across the creek), because that project was supposedly combined with this project (regarding runoff control} and we are not releasing building .permits for all of the new project until this problem is resolved because if this developer doesn't correct the detention problem before the adjacent property is developed, that developer may have to create on-site detention which will impact the footprint of the buildings an his property. »> Bob Mosley 08/19/98 03:52PM »> The contractor(Texcon) desires to get total. project completion for the start date of the warranty period. They have discussed a possible drainage solution for the detention pond with the owner of the mobile home park and quoted a price. to the developer. The developer indicated that he wanted to look at other options or solicit other construction quotes. Their quote for the additional work was in the order of $18,000. I believe that you previously quoted a bond of approximately $30,000 from the developer was being held be the City. I have a couple of questions related to this issue. What leverage do we have to force the developer to resolve his in a timely manner or is the issuance of C.O:'s the only way to do this? What period. of time must transpire before the City is allowed to cash the bond and initiate corrective action? Your thoughts to resolve this issue would be appreciated. CC: Jerry Jones -. From: Shirley Volk To: Bob Mosley, .Paul Kaspar, Veronica Morgan Date: 9/14/98 8:34AM Subject: Scarmardo -Ashford Square I've had a call from Stewart Kling this morning to ask the followin submits to the City a financial guarantee for the estimated cost ofontySwhat itlwiD takeSoa ure~the drainage problem that exists at Ashford Square, will we (1)release the rest of the adjacent propert 's permits (Heritage at Dartmouth), and (2)release the remaining 2 Certificates of Occupancy in Ash ord Square." We had previously spoken about-the requirement of submitting (or retaining) the 1nancial guarantee for the entire drainage infrastructure before we released the guarantee for the streets and sewer and mater, but that was before we found out that the letter of guarantee had already expired! Now we have nothing and they are apparently willing to submit a guarantee. for what it will take to fix their problems. My question to you is, is that enough? (B) I just got "part B" of the question: "Can they either guarantee the Swobodo solution or uara raising the pond (bottom) a foot?" (Keep in mind that raising the bottom of the pond will not take c~ a of the :Heritage problem, and would necessitate the Heritage to have on-site detention, and therefore I doubt we could release #hat area on Heritage.) Stewart, in his 2nd phone call would like for David to be able to ut u then be able to use it on which ever solution is to his benefit. As I and rstand?t~theo"Swo2boda~sol~tion would take care of both projects, but filling the bottom of the pond would only take care of Ashford Square. Let me know what t should tell Stewart. Thanks. CC: Jim Callaway, Natalie Ruiz,,. Shirley Volk w LETTER ~F COMPLETION... CITY ENGINEER DATE: / ~ ~O - ~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS RE: C LETiON OF ~r o~~~ ~~1 Dear Sir: The, purpose of our letter is to reqquest that the following listed improvements be approved and accepted as being constructed under city inspection .and completed according to plans and specifications as approved and :required by the City of College Station, .Texas..- This approval. and acceptance bythe City is requested in order that we may 8nalfze any sub-contracts and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter of :guarantee for the listed improvements on the above referenced project. The one year warranty fs hereby affirmed and agreed to by and by their sub-contractors as indica ed by signa uses low. WO /RK// CO/MPLETED DATE Owner: ~~i~ ~. ~~'~iaa~v Address: 1/L G~~ 2~~5~ ~~-~~~. ~. x ~y8~ Contractor: ~Ccn Addrass: ~~7 ~~~ ~~~ ~~n~'~.~ Utility Representative (s) A PT c & APPROVAL C ty ngYneer n..IOn2r99 k - ::, Shirley Volk Re Ashford Square Duplexes:.....:: ::..:...:::.::.:..::.::..::.::::::.::::::...::::.:.::.::..::.::..:.:..::,.:..::.:.::..:: Pa ge1~ From: Bob Mosley To: SVOLK@CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL Date: ?1/20/98 4:38PM Subject: Re: Ashford .Square Duplexes We have no further objections to the issuance of the C.Os. »> Shirley Volk 11/20/98 04:34PM »> Are you ready for issuance of the C.O.'s on the last 2 duplexes in this subdivision? We held them in the fall until the drainage was corrected. They've completed that work now, so they would like to get the C.O.'s. City' of College Station .Public .Works -Engineering Inter :Office Communication TO; Fred Paine Kling Engineering and Surveying, Fax. 846-8252 FROM: Robert W. Mosley, P.E., City Engineer DATE: October l9, 1998 SUBJECT: Ashford Square I am in receipt of your. memo of understanding concerning our situ meeting of October 16th and offer the following comments:. In addition to the additional rip-rap, I was of the understanding that an additional downshoot flume would be added to the corner of the parking lot to efficiently direct the flow of stormwater from the end of the parking lot into ithe detention pond without creating additional erosion problems. ~ While it is apparent that some of silt in the .detention pond originated from the Dartmouth development, it is not viewed as contributing to the "bulk" of 1:he sediment that currently exists in the structure. The Contractor agreed to the remedation of additional existing erosion that exists on the Ashford Square side of the. channel. The Developer stated that he has an existing agreement with the private land owner downstream that would provide a concrete low flow flume through the property and reestablish sidewall vegetation when weather conditions allow for completion of construction: This feature is paramount to the functioning of the detention pond` as designed!. Please advise me if your understanding of the discussion. and agreement did not encompass the above items. Shirley Volk.- Ashford Square Page 1 From: Bob Mosley To: Shirley Volk, Veronica Murgan Date: 10/12/98 42:02PM Subject: Ashford Square The detention pond still has problems. Drainage downstream has not been opened to allow the pond to effectively drain. Considerable erosion has occured adjacent to the drainage flume at the roadway intersection and has undercut the concrete structure. This has also occured at the beginning of the low flow concrete bottom of the creek toward Southwest Parkway. The pond has an abnormal amount of silt accumulated in the bottom. These items the contractor has agreed to work on. Other problems exist. They have used sandbags in an attempt to divert water flowing east down the back roadway from entering the closest parking. lot. This water along with other sprinkler runoff dues enter the parking lots on the south side of the street to a low point and then .flows into the detention pond at that point. There is on erosion control device at that point. and erosion is already taken its toll. Do we -have any way to get a remedy from the developer for this situation? ._ t, ... ........, .................Pa...e::1 <Shirley Volk - Scarmardo Ashford Square Reply . ......... ............_., 9........; A / From: Bob Mosle Y To: SVOLK cLDCITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL, Date: 9/14/98 1:47PM Subject; Scarmardo -Ashford Square -Reply The cure for the Ashford Square drainage .problem, other than that required upon the Swoboda property, would require. not only raising the floor of the detention pond by approximately two (2) feet and increasing the size of the detention pond to accomodate the runoff previously listed on the plans. My ~ understanding of this option is in the. $35,000 to $40,000 range. Rather than the developer providing us the money to do this, I would be my preference for fiim to resolve this once and for all.lt seems the only enforcement tool left to us is to withhold the C0's. I do not believe that the sizing of the Ashford Square detention pond did .not take into consideration the additional runoff from the Heritage at Dartmouth development. Therefore this development is still going to have to provide accomodations for their additional storm water discharge requirements. 10/16/98 ..15:40 ^Z1409 846 8252 KLING ENGR -~-~~ COCS YOLK/BIORGAN t~001 KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING TELECOPfER COVER SHEET ', ~ffa~ooV~-) DATE (~ l ~' ~g Please deliver'the following .pages to. Name: IQ ~.~ QZ-~ ~~2-CYCII~ c~~4~~ I, Firm• ~~ ~ ~~~j, ~~~ ~5 Fax Number: ~, From:~~~~`7~ ,~-t,~~ Kling :Engineering & Surveying 4103 South Texas Ave., Suite 212 Phone: (409)846-6212 Bryan, Texas 77802 Fax: (409)$4$-8252 We are transmitting ~ page(s), including this cover fetter from our fax number listed. above.. If any pages are :missing or incomplete, please contact sender. Regarding, ~i 0,,,~ ~~~~~~ v~`~~ Grp 10/16/98 15:41 ^U 409 846 8252 KLING ENGR ~-~-~ COCS ~~OLK/MORGAN I~ 002 -KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING Consulting Engineers • Land Surveyors 4103 Texas Avenue, Suite 212 Bryan, Texas 77802 Telephone 409/846-6212 Fax 4091846-8252 B.J. Kling, P.E., R.P.L.S. S.M. Kling, R.P.L.S. October 16, 1998 MEMO T0: Gary Arnold Texcon General Contractor FROM: :Fred Paine Bob Mosley City of College Station City .Engineer RE: Ashford Square /Dartmouth Addition Subdivisions Site Meeting of October 15, 1998 Detention Pond Final Acceptance Issues Post Office Bax 4234 Bryan, Texas 77505 David Scarmardo Developer The following is a summary of my understanding of the discussions that occurred during the above referenced site meeting: For final acceptance of the drainage .improvements for the Ashford Square subdivision Tats 2-7, block "C", and lots 1-6, block "D" and the. Dartmouth Addition subdivision lots 2-3, black 1, the following issues will be resolved by the corntractor. 1) The parking area that is utilized as a drainage way does not convey runoff to the detentiorti pond as intended, resulting irn accumulation of sediment and a thin Jayer of irrigation water in the end parking spaces. l~ grass berm has been built up which #urther precludes water from entering the detention pond under sheet flow conditions causing. a channelization of the water with subsequent erosion. The contractor agreed to place additional rip-rap on a constant grade from the concrete edge to the existing pond insuring positive drainage from the parking area/drainage way and to correct the erosion. 2) Erosion has occurred along the sides of the .concrete .pilot channels .entering the pond area. This is to be corrected by filling the void spaces in the rip-rap with smaller rip-rap and concrete grout. 10/16/98 15:41 C 409 846 8252 KLING ENGR -~-~-~ COCS YOLK/BiORGAN tQ]003 Ashford Square / Dartmouth Addition Memo -Continued October 16, '! 99$ 3} Excessive sedimentation has occurred within the pond area.' WhiUe some sediment is attributed to erosion from items 1 and 2, above, the bulk of the sediment is coming from the Dartmouth Addition lots 2 and 3 .construction where improperly installed and maintained silt fencing is observed. The Contractor agrees to clean the amount of sediment existing in the detention pond to date at a future time during the warranty period. This will be done when the pond has had time to sufficiently "dry-out" and equipment can be brought in without damaging existing grading. The City Inspector is `awa're of the improperly maintained silt fence and will be in contact with the contractor .for the Dartmouth Addition site to rectify the situation. 4} Positive drainage through the pond and outlet works will need to be assured. Current downstream channel cleaning allowed for positive drainage at the project outfall. Any additional downstream channel improvements are considered "private" in nature and left up to the Owner of the downstream channel and the Developer to negotiate. Pending irnprvvements include a low flow concrete flume and re-establishiment of vegetation. via ad and hydromulch. Upon completion of items 1 and 2 above, and visual confirmation of positive drainage through the outlet works, the Contractor will contact... the City Inspector for final approval and with final approval, `an acceptance letter issued by the City of College Station. this understood that item: 3, above, will be completed during the warranty period by the Contractor when weather permits sufficient drying of the pond. Please call should there be any additions, corrections, or comments pertaining to the site meeting discussions.. cc: Shirley Volk /Veronica Morgan City of College Station-Development Services ~~~a1s` ~~ ~~ City of College Station Public Works -Engineering TO' Fred Paine Kling Engineering and Surveying, Fax 846-8252 FROM: Robert W. Mosley, P.E., City Engineer DATE: November 4, 1998 SUBJECT; Ashford Square. I am in receipt of your fax dated November 3rd and offer the following comments: ~ My previous response. to your memo of :understanding. of our site meeting on October 16 'indicated that I was under the expectation that an additional drainage flume would be added, in. addition. to the rip-rap, to the end of the parking to allow stormwater from the parking area to enter. the detention pond without major erosion .impacts. My note stated that if this was not the agreement, I would receive a response. No response was received. The concrete flume at 'the southern end' of Ashford Drive. was not on the original plans and was added at a later date (May 12th vs original plan review of March 13th). The addition of'.this flume was to address,. not only maintenance access, but also the erosion that would result. from the channeling of'stormwater along .Ashford Drive from Southwest Parkway as it enters the detention structure. As acknowledged in your memo of November 3rd, the street from the .west would be flooded..: by a combination of off: site and on-site runoff should. the parking area not have been used to convey the stormwater. This condition is prevalent based upon surface drainage without the inclusion of underground interceptor storm drains. Your memo. also indicates that minor flows can drain. unimpeded over the rp- rap which is the outfall of the: parking/dranage way without scour ,problems where it enters the detention structure. The problem is that substantial stormwater flows :have '.been experienced entering. the detention pond and are expected to continue to cause major erosion problems. at that- location. Flans indicate that the edge of pavement of the last. parking area before entering he detention structure should have been constructed level at an elevation of 270.80 feet. It is apparent that the southern edge was constructed at a lower'elevation as evidenced by observation of drainage flow: It is also unrealistic to expect the drainage over the .rip-rap at the end of the parking area to be in a uniform i concentrated it is felt that the flow needs to .sheeting flow. Because this flows , be .routed to a controlled drainage structure (i. e. flume) where it enters the detention facility. Because of these issues, it is felt that the detention basin will not function satisfactorily until provisions for erosion control of the concentrated run-off are addressed. r-: ~, F , j r ~, - i~~ f : ~ .: .~- k E ;~_ i~~~~ ri H l v C' -J ~~ ~~ i ~~~ ~~8 ~~ W ro Sec. 212.014. Replatting Without Vacating Preceding Plat. A replat of a subdivision or part of a subdivision may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat: (1) is signed and acknowledged by only the owners of the property being replatted; (2) is approved, after a public hearing on the matter at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heazd, by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats; and (3) does not attempt to amend or remove any covenants or restrictions. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Sec. 212.015. Additional Requirements for Certain Reptats. (a) In addition to compliance with Section 212.014, a replat without vacation of the preceding plat must conform to the requirements of this section if: (1) during the preceding five years, any of the area to be replatted was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot; or (2) any lot in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot. (b) Notice of the hearing required under Section 212.014 shall be given before the 15th day before the date of the hearing by: (1) publication in an official newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the municipality is located; and (2) by written notice, with a copy of Subsection (c) attached, forwarded by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats to the owners of lots that are in the original subdivision and that are within 200 feet of the lots to be replatted, as indicated on the most recently approved municipal tax roll or in the case of a subdivision within the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the most recently approved county tax roll of the property upon which the replat is requested. The written notice may be delivered by depositing the notice, properly addressed with postage prepaid, in a post office or postal depository within the boundaries of the municipality. (c) If the proposed replat requires a variance and is protested in accordance with this subsection, the proposed replat must receive, in order to be approved, the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the members present of the municipal planning commiccion or governing body, or both. For a legal protest, written instruments signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the azea of the lots or land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed replat and extending 200 feet from that azea, but within the original subdivision, must be filed with the municipal planning commission or governing body, or both, prior to the close of the public hearing. (d) In computing the percentage of land area under Subsection (c), the azea of streets and alleys shall be included. (e) Compliance with Subsections (c) and (d) is not required for approval of a replat of part of a preceding plat if the area to be replatted was designated or reserved for other than single or duplex family residential use by notation on the last legally recorded plat or in the legally recorded restrictions applicable to the plat. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 345, Secs. 2 to 5, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd - Leg., ch. 1046, Sec. 3, eff. Aug. 30, 1993. 03/09/98 16:47 X490 346 3.363 KLING L;NGA sdx3t •NV~.as ~ ONI1,3Aaf1S 'P JNIa33N10N3 9NI~~ O O ' O 0 N d~ - - ~' ~r-- 7.00' ~ J-v- - - - - - - - - ~ _ N cs15' BUI ING LINE ~-.0' N O _~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~, z ~ _ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ rn o Oo ~I U' ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ fTl ~ 4.0' N -A ~~_~ 0 0 0 -» COCS \'OLK/A4ORGAN lQ 00.x. ~ OLD409Y0\490 0 N O 1 ~ N y C r _ ~ vV O m ~ ~ o ~ ~ N ' o N ~ ~ o ~ 1 -~ -` ,,' ~L/C D,Q,q/N,gGE ,cc `~ ~_ - D = C-' t]~ N ~ ~~ r ~~ ~ o~ ~ ~~ om ~~ ~ ~ O 03/09/98 16:48 rd`409 846 8252 KLING ENGR svx31 'NV,~ae ~NLl3~af15 ~ ONi~33N19N3 ~NIIH I~ Off- - - ~-- -~~-~ COCS YOLK/bIORGAN ~ 003 OL040940~140 _ N cn15' BUIL ING LINE 4.0' 1 fV C~ ~ O ~ z -~ -~ co ~ ~ ~ o Oo v ~~ ` "~ 4.0' ~~~ o 0 --` UBL/C , --~ -- ,- cn 0 ,. 0 `Tt D Ln r? r °° ~ ~~ ~ ~, r- ~~ b -~ ~ ~~ ~ ;7 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q 0~3/04/~,8 09:30 '$`409 846 8252 KLING ENGR ~~~ COCS YOLK/MORGF,,`~ L~ 002 70.00'. r"",~ i ~tsii'~?: t?,1A.`•e,. ~'~ . , . `: ~'.: 2"vR~:., . ."~ , i. ~ r ..c., ~:#; .; ~ '.b:...., :....... . 15 ' B U IL D I N G LINE ;F~:r~~~`:< rz~~~r:"`~ d` 0 ~~?~~s~ Ilv O EY _~ O 1 -P M~ W -~ ~y.9 ,M1c, ~, ~~ W ~~ : D ;~ (n nt O ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ \ J -~, ~ ~~ V 8 Fti X90 6 ~ P ~ V CJ'1 0 v N t :''poi? Uij~?~,'ih'. !Lt`SSS>J: t~iS>~li:i F:ti.°,'6~ L --~ N ~ Z7 ~ O? ~ IV r rJ ~ ~ ~ U ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fv y T frl ~ ~ O ~ ~ r ~, ~ o C I1 -~