Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousc. AA~(`I I IRS ~N(~II~IF~RIN(~ IN(: November 11, 1998 Mrs. Shirley Volk Development Coordinator CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: ALEXANDRIA SUBDIVISION CITY STAFF COMMENTS Dear Shirley: Attached please find ten (10) folded blueline prints of the above referenced Master Preliminary Plat, revised as per City Staff comments. I respectfully submit the following answers/comments to the questions as numbered on the red-lined print of the submitted Master Preliminary Plat: L We can only plat what we own. We have negotiated a land swap with Mr. Leschper that will convey to Mr. Froehling the land needed to extend Alexandria Avenue from Barron Road into the remainder of the development. Mr. Leschper's tract could ultimately be developed with a culdesac that would align with Mullins Court at the intersection at the intersection of Alexandria Avenue. 2. Yes, the exact limits of the developable property will need to be addressed after the storm water detention facility is designed. 3. Until there is a definite school plan, our preference is to leave the alignment as shown. 4. I am not sure what is needed. 5. John Szabuniewicz has contacted us with regard to our providing sewer easements which would allow a 15" .sewer line along the northeast and northwest property line to his and the school district's proposed developments. The proposed alignment has been shown on the plat. 6. A preliminary plat will be prepared for these areas when more definite plans are known. Water and sewer are readily available in Newport Lane and Chesapeake Lane. 7. The 16 acre greenway and stormwater detention area incorporate both sides of Alexandria Avenue. This has been more clearly labeled. 8. The sewer line within Danville Court has been extended further to the south. 9. The Base Flood Limits shown on this'... drawing matches the published City of College Station Stormwater Management Plan. We have modeled the watershed and confirm the accuracy of the plan. A formal drainage report will be prepared prior to submittal of the final plat. The report will include the analysis of the stormwater detention facility at Alexandria Avenue and South Fork of Lick Creek. 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 776-6700 FAX (409) 776-6699 Mrs. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Alexandria Subdivision 2 14. Zoning. information has been added. 11. The owner desires to receive some credit for parkland dedication. 12. Verification of this will be made prior to final plat submittal 13. Additional R.O.W. will be provided .along Barron Road. 14. Near Alexandria Avenue 15. Stormwater from Phases 1 and 2 is proposed to be undetained. Outfall will be into a designated primary channel (South Fork of Lick Creek.) The construction of the embankment and bridge structure at the South Fork of Lick Creek during Phase Two will provide stormwater detention far the remaining development. The intent of this plan is to balance the "pre" and "post" conditions for the entire property. I hope I have address all your concerns. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly your ,~~~~ ichael R. McClure, P.E., R.P.L.S. President MRM/mlm attachments COLLEGE STATION P. O: Box 9960. 1101 Texas Avenue - College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 January 12, 1999 David Neal Deputy Superintendent for Business College Station Independent School. District 1812 Welsh Street College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Mr. Neal: Thank you for your letter dated November 23, i 998, postmarked December 17, 1998 and received December 21, 1998: The enclflsed document titled "Potential School Sites", prepared by us in 1995, is helpful in understanding your recent questions and comments regarding the Alexandria Subdivision Preliminary Plat. As you note in your letter, we advised you in the 1995 report that the C. S. I. S. D., as a land developer, would pay the normal development costs for street construction required by the City's thoroughfare plan as part of the development process. Streets are eligible for oversize participation if the street width exceeds the width required by ordinance in order to provide additional capacity for development outside of the development constructing the street. The 1995 site report reviews various potential school sites identified by the District and our estimates of infrastructure costs associated with each tract. The site purchased is identified in the report as Tract G2. The various infrastructure costs, including street costs, were estimated for each tract using the best information available at the time. Street locations were approximated based on information including the 1994 City Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan as weii as several schematic maps of alternate street patterns made for the site analysis. study. All of the schematic maps in our files reflect a street labeled as "Street A" crossing tract G2 at some location. You may recall that when we presented this report to District staff we pointed out that. the property owners (developers), including the District, would submit development plans, plats and proposals which would determine tbe exact location of the future. streets. I have researched the points raised in your letter as well as those you raised in comyersations prior to your letter. I will attempt to address those points below. ', In recent conversations you indicated that you had been given a map that clearly reflected the east west collector street. proposed for this area as being centered on the common property line between the'. District's tract and the adjacent Rivers tract to the south. You further indicated that this was labeled and identifi~~ as the City's. thoroughfare plan. I have reviewed all related maps in our files and rear. We have several maps on file which are titled"City of College Station C. S. I. S. D. School Site Evaluation" that reflect alternative alignments for the collector streets to and through the various proposed sites. Each of these maps includes an inset map that is a reduced copy of the 1994. thoroughfare plan. One version of this map on file does. clearly reflect the east-west collector street as being centered; along the southern boundary of the District's tract. This map, dated October 28, 1997, and also titled "City of College Station C. S. I. S. D. School Site Evaluation" and including the same inset thoroughfare,plan, was prepared by Cheatham & Associates and submitted to the City as a proposed revision to the alignment of the street labeled as "Street A" Home of Texas A&M University You are correct in that this street is reflected on the October 6, 1997 Thoroughfare Plan. However, the plan does not determine nor dictate the location of the street with respell to property lines. Neither the scale nor the schematic nature of the thoroughfare plan provide for such determination. Again, this determination is made through developer submissions, .City review and subsequent actions of the appropriate City boards. Following receipt of the school site analysis, data and comments from the City, the District submitted a Preliminary Plat for the 49.0298.. acre tract an Graham Road This was the appropriate point in the development process for the District to propose and receive approval for a specific location and alignment for the street in question. The District elected not to do this and proposed, by notation and delineation, to indicate that "R.O. W. FOR FUTURE STREET "A" TQ BE LOCATED GET`fERALLY IN THIS AREA PENDING FINALIZED ALIGNMENT"' with a boundary for the "GENERAL LIMITS OF FUTURE R.Q.W. DEDICATION" reflected on the plat. The District proposed this approach in order to coordinate .the street location with the proposed Westfield subdivision. It was our understanding that the District's intentions for street dedication and development were exactly as :stated on that preliminary plat and that the street would be located within the area indicated. The designers of the Alexandria subdivision also retied on that statement of uttent reflected on the preliminary plat. In your letter you indicate that you feel our position in this matter is not consistent with the stand.the City has taken with other developers. In prior conversations you made this same point, :suggesting that We street cost should be shared by the tract that abuts your property. You also suggested that there should be a requirement for the adjacern property to dedicate right-of--way and pay for half of the street oast. Our position in this matter is consistent with that taken with all developers in the same situation.. In the Westfield development, the developer proposed that Victoria Street be centered along the common boundary with the. property adjacent to the west.. That was acce~able to the City but the obligation to obtain the right-of--way and pay for the street remained with the developer. This was also the casein Emerald Forest where the developer proposed to center North Forest. Parkway on his northern boundary. After failing to alrtain the right-of--way, the developer constructed'North Forest Parkway an ,his property.. A developer would not be able to plat a street that was split by a boundary of another tract without participation by that otber tract as our subdivision regulations preclude platting half rights-of--way. In prior conversations you indicated. that the Alexandria subdivision should have W dedicate the roadway, stating that the property to develop first: is the property that should plat the street. In this case, I agree with your comment However, in thin case the .District's tract i& the "~perty to develop first" having filed a preliminary plat for development almost a year prior to Alexandria.: As stated above, on this plat'... the District indicated. the area within which the street dedication wouM be. On March 11, 1998, the District submitted a final plat far the Graham Rd school site. This final plat included a 17.396 acre portion of the 49.0298 acre tract. The remainder was to be platted at the time of development of the elementary school. This phased platting approach was used by the District to avoid posting a financial guarantee far the construction of the east-west collector street across the southern end of the property. Again, the specific location of the east-west collector could have been determined and finalized by plat but was. deferred. The location of this future street had been-well discussed throughout the development of the Graham Rd. tract. The District has participated in the evolution and development_of the area street system. During the review process District staff requested to not locate the specific alignment across the tract until the WestSeid streets were finalized .There were numerous references to thestreet location and timing relative to the elementary school during the review process. The street was discussed during Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council considerations of the preliminary plat. The street was discussed during the Commission's consideration of the final plat and conditiorrat use permit for the tract. It is referred to by notation and :area definition on the preliminary plat. The District designed the final plat for the tract to defer the construction or filing financial surety to guarantee the construction of the street. The area map Letter to David Neal 1!12/99 page 2 we prepared and attached to the City's staff repoR on the use permit application (providedto the District prior to the Commission hearing) reflects the street as being on the District's tract. The street was reflected as being on the District's property on a preliminary elementary. school site plan recently presented to staff by the District. Both City staff and the Alexandria designers have relied upon this understanding of the street Location in the design and review of the .Alexandria subdivision. In your letter you state that you were "told that the if the City thoroughfare plan called for a street on, through, or along a~ of these properties, CHASSID would bear any costs of the road construction not assumed by the City for oversize participation." You "accepted this as a standard developmenrt requirement, and presumed that all developers had been, and would be, required to ~ the same." That is exactly what bas occurred on the Graham: Rd schoot tract- the District has indicated, by plat, where it intends to build the street as reflected on the thoroughfare plan. The District was. not asked or required to build any other streets.. All .other developers are building any streets necessary for the implementation of the thoroughfare plan and the development of their tracts. In previous conversations you referenced the Rock Prairie Elementary School site as an example of a case where the District and the a~acent owner were each required to pay for half of the street that their respective tracts fronted While that may trove occurred, that is not analogous to the Alexandria situation. In the Rock Prairie case the District and a third party developer took part of the then defunct Family Tree subdivision (now Westchester), divided out separate tracts and negotiated cx~sts, utfrastructure responsibilitiesand developed the property. You may recall that the City also purchased a portion of the subdivision: and participated in ttu± development and the development costs. In that case the City, the District and the third party developer each assumed the responsibilities of the previous Family Tree developers. In closing, I am sorry you feel like the District has somehow been treated differently or unfairly in the development of the Graham Road area. I disagree. The extension of the east-west street across-the District's tract is consistent with the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Development Services staff relied heavily on this same thoroughfare plan when we took our position before a split Council and recommended against requiring the District to add anorth-south street along one side of the 49 acre Graham Rd, school tract. The thoroughfare plan did not call for such. a street and we, at the staff level, felt it would be unfair to make that a requiremern (although area traffic patterns would have been enhancxxn. And in this case the District is being treated exactly tike the developers of Emerald Forest, Westfield and other devetopmentsa We provided to the District a site analysis in 1995, based on the best available. informationo Street locations became better defined through the plats prepared and. submitted by the District and the adjacent Westfield development.. And again, both the. Cityand-the Alexandria designers have relied on the District's intentions to Locate the street as stated an the District's preliminary plat. The C. S. I. S. D. still has some latitude. in developing this street across their property. The acxuat location has not been defined by plat. We are prepared to work with you if you want to negotiate with We Alexandria development to :center the street along your common boundary. We will also work with you if you want to coordinate with the Westfield development and move the street northward so that it crosses your property at another location. In either case, please ~ not hesitate to contact me if I ~ be of assistance. verytruly ya ~~ Janes M. Callaway Development Services Director jc Letter to David Neal 1012/99 page 3 "< GoVyE E S q~'°; College Station Independent .School District 2' v d a ~~~ , q`5 excellence In ~dueation....An Investment In 2re future ANT scan°y November 23, 1998 Mr. Jim Calloway Director of Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Subject: Alexandria Subdivision Preliminary Plat Your File Reference 98.331 Dear Mr. Calloway: To follow up our conversation regarding street development, I told you that when CSISD was evaluating sites forpurchase, the City staffprovided us with estimated development costs for various sites that we were considering. I really appreciated this information and it was very useful to us, in determining what our overall cost of ownership would be for each site. I was told thatif the city thoroughfare plan called for a street on, through, or along anyof these properties,. CSISD would bear any costs of the road construction not assumed by the City for oversize participation.. We accepted this as a standard :development requirement, and presumed that all developers had been,and would be+requred to do the same. I have attached a copy of the report provided to CSISD with the: estimates we were given for various sites. As you will notice, without exception, any property which had a proposed road shown on the thoroughfare plan has costs included for us to pay fore the road. While cost was not the only factor considered in our site selection process, it was a major factor. Our decision may have been different had we known that we may not be required to pay for streets on the thoroughfare plan. In my mind, .the position you have. taken with regard to the Alexandria development is not consistent with the stand that City staff took with. us, or that it has taken with. other. developers. The street. in question is shown on the City of College Station Thoroughfare Plan dated October 6, 1997. Yours truly, avi Neal ty Superintendent for Business cc: Dr. Scales 1812 Welsh Street College Station, TX 77840 JIM SCALES, Ph.D. 409-764-5455 FAX 409-764-5492 Superintendent of Schools .POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITES The following information was compiled to assist CSISD in locating potential sites for new school development. The numbers calculated below are preliminary estimates only and should not be substituted for a detailed engineer's estimate for the project.. All estimates below are in 1995 dollars. The following infrastructure was examined for potenual development costs: extension of public water, extension of public sanitary sewer, construction of public streets in accordance with the City of College Station thoroughfare master plan and any sigmficant drarnage difficulties and cost potentials. Not included in 's analysis are: electrical, gas, telephone, cable or private on-site utilities or drainage systems. Acreages have been calculated for the "developable" areas and written on the large map for ease of reference. *Note: If infrastructure extended is sized for ultimate development, there is the possibility of City participation. The participation amountis calculated as the cost differential between the size of infrastructure necessary for the use vs. tiie size for ultimate development in the area, ~~ SITE Gl WATER- Water is available and"sufficient. Existing 12" waterline recently built along Graham Road. COST = SO SEWER:- Sewer to this site is not, available. Proposed improvements consist of Phase III of the Sanitary Sewer Service Area 92-01 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program. At the time the report was written the approximate cosC of this Phase was $122,000. Due to increases in construction cost since the report, this estimate has been increased. This cost would actually be paid by the City of College Station because it is a Phase of the impact fee sewer lines. The school would' only pay. impact fees. toward this line. The school fee below was based upon the existing service provided to A&M Consolidated High School (2' - 4" meters and 2 - 3" meters) COST = $150,000 (CITY) COST = $25,000 :(SCHOOL) STREETS - CIP funds have been allocated within the next five years for an upgrade to Graham Road. This upgrade will bring Graham Road up to urban standards. Street costs associated with the Eagle Avenue extension and the construction of Street "A" would be as follows: COST = $1,100,000 DRAINAGE - Drainage from this.. tract is to the rear to the South Fork of Lick Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are .not detailed. Floodplain would have to be established for this branch prior to development. COST = $10,000 SITE G2 WATER -Water is available and sufficient. Existingl2" waterline recently built along Graham Road. ..Cost = $0 SEWER - Sewer to this site. is not available. Proposed improvements consist of Phase III. of the Sanitary Sewer Service Area 92-01 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program. At the time the report was written the approximate costof this Phase was $122,000, due to increase in construction cost since that report this estimate has been increased. Due. to increases in construction cost since the report, this estimate has been increased. This cost would actually be paid by the City of College Station because it is a Phase of the impact fee sewer lines. _ The school would pay impact fees toward this line. COST: = $150,000.00 (('ITY) COST = $25,000 (SCHOOL) STREETS - CIP funds have been allocated within the next five years for an upgrade to Graham Road. This upgrade will bring Graham Road up to urban standards. Street costs associated with the'.:construction of Street "A".would be as follows: COST = $95,000 DRAINAGE - Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the South Fork of Lick- Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are not detailed. Floodplain would have to be established for this branch prior to development. COST = $20,000 SITE G3 WATER -Water is available and sufficient to the front of the properly. Existing 12" waterline recently built along Graham Road.. Water will have to be extended to the rear of the property. Cost = $20,000 SEWER -Sewer to this site is not available. Proposed improvements consist of Phase III of the Sanitary Sewer Service Area 92-01 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program. At the time the report',was written the approximate cost of this Phase was $122,000, .due to increase in construction cost since that report this estimatehas been increased. Due to increases in construction cost since the report, this estimate hasbeen increased.. This cost would actually be paid by the City of College Station because it is a Phase of the impact fee sewer lines.: The school would pay impact fees toward this line. COST = $150,000.00 (CITY) COST = $25,000 (SCHOOL) STREETS - CIP funds have been allocated within the next five years for an upgrade to Graham Road. This upgrade will bring Graham Road up to urban standards. Street costs associated. with the construction of Arnold Road would be as follows: COST = $75,000 DRAINAGE -.Drainage from his tract is to the rear to the North Fork of Lick Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are not detailed. Floodplain would have to be established for this branch prior to development. COST = $20,000 .SITE B 1 WATER -Water is not available and would have to be exrtended. Approximate costs= $95:00/l.f. Site B1 would require 1,400 l.f. of extension. COST = $175,000 SEWER -Sewer to this site is not available. Sewer would have to be extended up the North Fork of Spring Creek. It would consist of a 27" sewerline that would serve ultimate development of the area. For Site B 1, approximately 3,200 l.f. would have to be extended at a cost of $ 55.00/l.f. COST = $230,000. .STREETS - Baron Road is currently a rural standard thoroughfare. CIP funds have not beers allocated to upgrade this facility within the next 5 years. Street costs associated with Southern Plantation, Morgan's Mile, and Laza Lane would be as follows: COST. _ $1,500,000 DRAINAGE - Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the North- Fork of Spring Creek. Floodplain maps of this area. are not detailed. Floodplainwould have to be established for this branch prior to .development. COST = $30,000 I~ SITE B2 ~I (**Srte B2, m and of itself is probably not large enough to be developed as a school site but costs have been computed ) WATER. - Water is not available and would have to be extended. Approximate cost = $45.00/l.f. Site. B2 would require 2,050. l.f. of extension. COST = $255,000 SEWER - -Sewer to this. site is not'available. Sewer would have to be extended up the North Fork of Spring Creek. It would consist of a 27" sewerline that would serve ultimate development of the area. For Site B2, approximately 3,850 Lf.' would have to be extended at a cost of $ 55.00/Lf. COST = $275,000 STREETS - Barron Road is currently a rural standard thoroughfare. CIP funds have not been allocated to upgrade this facility within the nexrt 5 years. Street costs associated: with. Southern Plantation, Morgan's Mile, Laza Lane and Santa's Lane would be as follows: COST =$1,100,000 DRAINAGE -Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the North Fork of Spring Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are not detailed. Floodplain would have to be established for this. branch prior to development. COST = $35,000 SITE B3 WATER -Water is not available and would have to be extended. Approximate cost = $95.00/l.f. Site B3 would require 3,600. l.f. of extension. COST =$450,000 SEWER -Sewer to this site is not available. Sewer would have to be extended up the Norih Fork of Spring Creek. It would consist of a 27" sewerline that would serve ultimate development of the area. For Site B3, approximately. 5,400 1.f. would have to be extended at a cost of $55.00/l.f. :COST = $390,000 STREETS - Barron Road is currently a rural standard thoroughfaze. C]P funds have not been allocated to upgrade this facility within the next S years.. Street costs associated with Victoria Avenue, Morgan's Mile, .and Santa's Lane would be as follows: .COST = $2,360,000 DRAINAGE - Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the North Fork of Spring Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are not detailed. Floodplain would have to be established for this branch prior to development. This site has a major tributary running through the middle of it. This tributary drains all the flow from Barron Road in both directions.-This cost to move or place this underground will be significant. COST FOR DRAINAGE STUDY ONLY = $40,000 SITE B4 WATER -Water is not available and would have to be extended. Approximate cost = $95.00/l.f. SiteB4 would require 4,900 l.f. of extension. COST = $605,000 SEWER.- Sewerto this site is not available. Sewer would have to be extended up the North Fork of Spring Creek.. It would consist of a 27" sewerline that would serve ultimate development of the area.. For Site B4, approximately 6,700 l.f. would have to be extended at a cost of $55.00/l.f. COST = $500,000 STREETS - Baron Road. is currently a rural .standard thoroughfare. CIP funds have not been allocated to upgrade this facility within the next 5 years. State Highway 40 will clip the southwest corner of this tract. COST = $0 .DRAINAGE. - Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the North Fork of Spring Creek. Floodplain maps of this area. are not detailed. Floodplain would have to be established for this branch prior to development. CO5T = $45,000 j 9 SITE B5 WATER -Water is not available and would have to be extended. Approximate cost = $95.00/l.f. Site BS would require 3.,500 l.f. of extension. COST = $450,000 i SEWER -Sewer to this site is not available. Sewer would have to be extended up the South Fork of Lick <Creek. It would consist of the extension of an 18" sewerline that is already extended through the $pringbrook Subdivision, this would serve ultimate development of the area. For Site B5, approximately 3,500 Lf. vrould have to be extended at a cost of $45.00/l.f. COST = $205,000. STREETS; Barron Road is currently a rural. standard thoroughfare. CIP funds have not been allocated to upgrade this facility within the next 5 years. Street costs associated with Southern Plantation, Victoria Avenue, and Street "A" would be as follows: COST = $1,175,000 .DRAINAGE - Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the South Fork of Lick Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are not detailed.. Floodplain would have, to be established for this branch prior to development. COST = $25,000 SITE B6 WATER -Water is not available and would have to be exrtended. Approximate cost = $95.00/l.f. Site B6 would require 2,100 l.f. of extension. COST = $2:60,000 SEWER - Sewer' to this site is not available. Sewer would have to be extended up the South Fork of Lick Creek. It would consist of an 18" sewerline that would serve ultimate development of the area.. For Site B6, approximately 2,000 l.f. would have. to be extended at a cost of $45.00/l.f. COST = .$120,000 STREETS- Barron Road is currently`a rural standard thoroughfare. CIP funds have not been'. allocated to upgrade this facility within the next 5 years. Street costs associated with Southern Plantation, and Street "A" would be as follows: COST = $870,000 DRAINAGE - Drainage from this tract is to the rear to the South Fork of Lick Creek. Floodplain maps of this area are not detailed, Floodplain would have to be established for this branch prior to development. COST =$20,000 ~', ~~ ILA, I, i EXISTING DEMANDS (source: CS Utility Billing) JAN '95 159,000 GAL. MAR '95 137,000 GAL. APR '95 136,000 GAL. MAY '95 144,000 GAL. JULY '95 71,000 GAL. AUG. '95 106,000 GAL. SEPT '95 156,000 GAL. OCT '95 145,000 GAL. j LIFT STATION .DATA LIFT STATION #1 j EXISTING RATED CAPACITY = 520 GPM MAX EXISTING FLOW = 31,500 GALLONS?? CAPACITY W/:UPGRADE _ LIFT STATION.#2 EXISTING RATED CAPACITY = 520 GPM MAX EXISTING FLOW = 31,500 .GALLONS?? LIFT STATION #3 EXISTING RATED CAPACITY = 350 GPM MAX EXISTING FLOW = 32,200 GALLONS?? CAPACITY W/ UPGRADE* _ (*proposed upgrade includes a new pump - approx. time frame for upgrade ~ August'96) I,I i `_ ~~~-~~~ FAX. COVER. SHEET City of College :Station.... Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South. (409) 764 3.570 Phone College Station, TX 77840 (409) 764-3496 Fax TO: Mike McClure,lVlcClure Engineering. via fax #776-6699 FROM:. Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator DATE: May 28, 1999 City staffas well as Brazos County 911 has reviewed the revised. street names on the Alexandria Subdivision -and has the following comments;. .The section ofMarkham Lane that ends in a cul-de-sac should be named Markham "Court". The .South, East and North. directonals on Mullins Loop should be removed.. I know that we originally asked for these designations; however, at the time, this was based on Caxdinal Lane punching through. Since Cardinal Lane will not connect with this subdivision, the directionals should be removed. and it should be simply, Mullins Loop. (Sorry about the confusion on this one.. The,preliminary plat that I worked with them on did not show the connection and I didn't mention it because I didn't realize that it made a;difference) P11 be on vacation the week of June la; however, I'll leave the mylar up front with our receptionist for you pick up. Thanks for your patience on this one!