Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceL Molly Hit chcock - 1350 Earl Rudder Fwy, (02 -265) Page 1 M From: "John Gale" <rojo97 @hotmail.com> To: < Mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 2/17/03 3:38PM Subject: 1350 Earl Rudder Fwy, (02 -265) My name is John Gale. I own the property at 1609 Leopard Court, directly behind the property listed above. Due to an error in addressing, we did not recieve notice of your upcoming Thursday meeting and were informed by an associate this afternoon. I hope it is not too late to make a few comments and that this is one of the proper ways in which to do so. If it is not, please let me know. I would like to begin by saying that I am in favor of the development of the property in question as a church. That said, there are a few items I would like to see addressed. First, Phase III, should remain or should be zoned for single family residential like the surrounding area. As such, the church would still have the ability to utilize the property for its' own use should it want to expand but development that might have a detrimental effect on the surrounding homes will be minimized. Second, this property is basically the top of a hill, all water drains down from it. Some form of retention should be incorporated to minimize the run -off from any parking areas and building rooftops and the subsequent impact on the surrounding homes. Third, and relating to Item Two above, paved areas both parking and sidewalks should be kept to an absolute minimum. Fourth, landscaping should utilize as much of the natural, existing plant material as is possible. Non - native species such as Crepe Myrtles should be kept to a minimum. Non - native species have, for the most part, much greater water requirements. Please refer to Item Two above. The majority of the landscaping needs to be used as a buffer between the church buildings and parking areas and the surrounding residential property. This buffer should be as large as possible with the major areas of construction being located along the freeway frontage. Fifth, the fence between the residential areas and the church property should be an eight foot cedar fence, not just a six foot "wooden" fence. I have seen six foot wooden fences built out of treated 1 x12 corral boards and it is not a pretty sight. Since the majority of the church property will be open access, the eight foot fence will be a much more effective deterrent to anyone intent on trespass, vandalism or burglary of the surrounding residences. Remember, most houses back up to other houses which helps to reduce the threat. Sixth, the surrounding area is residential therefore thought must be given to the site lighting. The residences face away from the church site and most houses have the bedrooms in the rear. Thirty foot pole lights that burn all night would not be appreciated by those trying to sleep. I would suggest smaller, lower lights similar to those used by the city in the historical areas and installed in Northgate. As I mentioned earlier, I hope this is the correct forum for these comments. Please let me know as soon as possible if it is not. Thank you for your time. John & Alicia Gale Molly H itchcock - 1350 Earl Rudder Fwy, (02 -265) Page 2 Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http: // clinic. mcafee. com / clinic /ibuy /campaign.asp ?cid =3963 CC: <sstarman @msn.com> i Molly Hitchcock - Fwd: Re: Letters of Completion _ _Page 1 From: Brett McCully To: Mark Smith Date: 2/20/03 1:38PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Letters of Completion I agree whole - heartedly. It's their responsibility to get it right, and it's our (both DvSvcs & PW ks) responsibility to make sure they do before they go on to other things. Thanks for your patience!! >>> Mark Smith 02/20/03 01:30PM >>> If we have not yet issued acceptance and the co will not be issued 'till we do then lets tell the developer that the problems need to be corrected before we will accept. It needs to be the developer /contractor's problem to get it right. Mark Smith Director of Public Works 979 - 764 -3690 >>> Brett McCully 02/20/03 01:19PM >>> Mark, I have managed to stay off the soap box for a while, so I'm overdue.... This is a public storm drain line. The line was designed, approved and inspected as such. The transmittal sent to Bob with the plans explained why the line was approved by Ted Mayo to be public. This line has not yet been accepted. The backfill and revegetation over the line resulted in a change in drainage pattern from pre- construction conditions. The contractor also failed to reconnect the fence they accessed through off of Glenhaven, and failed to replace the landscaping they tossed to the side. The contractor will need the acceptance letter for this line prior to CO of the structure the Church is wanting to construct. The church is planning additional storm drain modifications on -site, so we anticipate the same contractor will be there again in the near future. We have been told by legal that denying a developer's subsequent request is not appropriate (legally defensible) recourse for us not requiring compliance during construction of a permitted improvement. If the issue comes up tonight, P &Z will be given the factual information listed above. Your staff has all the leverage you need to make a contractor fix a construction problem on an improvement that they have the regulatory authority to inspect and determine acceptability thereof. My question is: Are you going to back your staff so they can use their authority and get this fixed, or wait until the citizen complaints get hot enough to generate a bunch more bad -will in the CMO, then you end up having to tell Paul Urso to take care of it with our own guys? sermon over, amen;-] >>> Mark Smith 02/20/03 12:04PM >>> I think denying the CUP until the drainage issue is rectified is a good outcome. Our problem with asking or requiring the contractor to go back & make reparations is that we have no leverage over the developer or contractor. I think that we can get them to cooperate if further approvals are withheld. Mark Smith Director of Public Works Molly H itchcock - Fwd: Re: Letters of Completion Page 2 979 - 764 -3690 >>> Brett McCully 02/20/03 11:35AM >>> I understand the hesitation on PW involvement in the surface drainage issue. I also understand that part of our inspection process should be to insure that projects we inspect do not change surface drainage without such approvals. In this case, the first house changed the pattern contrary to our policy. The second house also changed the pattern, but it was also contrary to the policy because the are supposed to deal with what is existing at the time they develop (they don't get to dump in a direction just because that's where it went 20 years ago). The contractor who installed the pipe changed the pattern again, also contrary to the policy. Our bind is that only one of those operations was inspected, and only one of those operations is not yet administratively complete. The owners are intending to press the issue, and I can guess who the owners and builders will gang up on, 'the City. There is the possibility that they will appear before P &Z tonight to oppose a CUP request for the rest of the church improvements, based on this drainage issue, and our lack of enforcement. I think we have the authority to have the contractor go put the ground and sod back just like it was. I think we can ask him to improve on the situation beyond what was there before him, but not require it. If he is made to go back in and take the obstructions out, removing 6 inches is just as easy as 4 inches. If you (or Mark) are not comfortable with that, I understand, but I need that confirmed so I can clarify our inspection policy to the homeowners. >>> Bob Mosley 02/19/03 01:59PM >>> I talked to John and Mark about this issue. John did say that there was an swale in the back yard of 1611 Leopard Ct. that, when the storm drain was constructed was partially filled and does divert flow toward the back yard fence. The original contours of the Cat Hollow Phase II subdivision did not indicate the existence of a swale and storm water flow was generally in a southeasterly direction. Since this is not a public drainage easement, I am still reluctant to assume responsibility for providing and maintaining surface drainage provisions within the public utility easement. It would appear that the lady living at 1611 Leopard would have some cause to question our authority to remove her fence again and disturbed her yard to recontour the surface. >>> Brett McCully 02/14/03 08:28AM >>> I talked with John again after he went out and looked at it, and maybe the two of you should chat as well. I think there is an obstruction that is the result of the storm drain contractor's work, and that the process of fixing it could fix the whole issue. Would you let me know what you think after talking with John? Thanks >>> Bob Mosley 02/11/03 03:51 PM >>> We pulled the Cat Hollow Phase II plans. The detention pond is fed by storm water from inlets along Cougar and Leopard. The houses on the south side of Leopard had only a public utility easement in the back yard (no swale) and plans indicated contour run -off to be toward Dominik. I assume the builder added more fill on those lots but the drainage pattern was not changed. There are no drainage easement anywhere in that area. I do not think we have the right to go back in the back yards of the houses along Leopard and dig a swale to attempt to get run -off to flow to the detention pond which would be blocked by the side fences anyway. Sounds like this is a similar issue to the complaint we had from the Westfield Phase I II resident except this is considerably after the fact. >>> Brett McCully 02/11/03 11:33AM >>> The complaint in this case comes from Becky and Don Mundine (779- 2134)at 1609 Dominik, on the south side of where the drain went in. Molly Hitchcock - Fwd: Re: Letters of Completion Pa 3 The main contention is that there was a swale that ran between the houses where the storm drain went, that was not re- established after the project was complete. Water from the lots at the end of Leopard Court is draining onto the yards facing Dominik instead of going to the detention basin next to Glenhaven. There is more history and issues between the two houses, but I believe that if the contractor creates a nominal swale along the north side of the fence line, that drains into the basin, this will be resolved. We currently have some revised proposals for more work on the Church site (none offsite) so let me know if I can bring a little pressure to bear through the developer. I will call the Mundines and let them know how this is to be approached (from a drainage complaint to a contractor warranty issue) and give them your contact info. I appreciate your help and taking this over. Brett >>> Bob Mosley 02/11/03 10:12AM >>> I remember this well. It was a Mike Hester project that essentially was a private storm drain line put in the public utility easement and hence made a public storm drain line. It went through back yards of existing houses in Cat Hollow Phase II. John was the inspector and the contractor was Mike South. Mr. South was provided a letter of completion form but never submitted the completed form and hence never accepted. I assume the complaints are from the residents whose back yard was disturbed. Please forward the complaints and we will see what can be done. >>> Brett McCully 02/11/03 09:59AM >>> Bob, Last March, plans were approved and a DP issues for a public storm drain line in Cat Hollow Subdivision to serve the proposed Seventh Day Adventist Church. The construction apparently happened during the summer, and I have some complaints that should be warranty items for that contractor. I need to know who inspected the work (for repair inspection), and when it was accepted. I also would like to know if these issues are not something that I should hand off to you instead of handling the warranty process myself. Thanks for your help. CC: Bob Mosley; Carol Cotter; John Logan; Kelly Templin; Lance Simms; Natalie Ruiz; Spencer Thompson Molly Hitc hcock - Pub He aring on Seventh Day Adventist C Conditional Us eat P &Z Page 1 From: "Sharon Colson" <Sharon @kamugate.tamu.edu> To: < Mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 2/19/03 3:48PM Subject: Public Hearing on Seventh Day Adventist Church Conditional Useat P &Z My husband and I, C. Lynn and Sharon Colson, own property at the end of the cul de sac on Cougar Ct. that backs up to the property being the subject of the hearing Thursday. I will be working out of town but, hopefully, my husband will be able to attend. In the event that neither of us is there, there are several conditions that warrant attention: 1) The zoning of the church property should be continued as R -1, single family. 2) Drainage of the property should be oriented to the east toward the frontage road and away from the residences. Since that property is at the top of the hill, the runoff is already swift. Additional asphalt and or concrete will only increase the volume and speed of drainage. There is potential for major problems to existing homes if this is not monitored carefully and requirements set in stone. 3) Fencing should be high quality and higher than usual for safety to the neighborhood. Green space buffering should also be a requirement using local native plants to be sure the green space stays green. 4) Lighting on parking areas (or even accentuating the building) could be dreadful for homeowners whose bedrooms would likely be at the back of the houses. Low light standards like the historical light that is in the adjoining park would be preferable - - -and that on a very limited basis. Perhaps these concerns could be addressed early in the hearing so that discussion could center on these points among others. I hope your office staff will work to protect the property owners that surround this area. Thanks so much. Sharon Colson Page 1 of 2 Hi Molly Got your message and will work with Hester Eng. on proposal. I will be out of town until the 21 st of Jan and will be doing some of this via internet. Can I give you comments and /or questions fopr the people who have made comments on the site plan and ask you to forward those on to them via e -mail? We are eager to get this project moving and seek to cooperate to the best of our ability with you and the staff. Thanks! Bill Dr. William S. Davis Pastor [emsg.txt] > Afternoon! I hope you had a good holiday! > I received your message and am forwarding a list of > comments we made on > the first submittal (you probably received these last week > from > Bridgette). Also included are the forms discussing > presentation > expectations and equipment requests. Usually, when > churches are > considered, the P &Z and Council wants to hear from the > applicant what > will be happening on the site (services, Sunday school, > day care, > meetings, soup kitchen, etc.) and how the church plans to > mitigate any > negative impacts on adjacent residential. Other than > that, they like to > know the applicants are there to answer any questions they > may have. > The members will have a copy of the site plan and > application. > Please let me know if you have any other questions! > Molly Hitchcock > Staff Planner, Development Services > City of College Station > 979.764.3570 > mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us file: / /C:\Documents %20and %20Settings \mhitchcock \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW } 0001... 12/31/2002 Page 2 of 2 > College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future. > [Attachment: P0007286.doc] > [Attachment: Presentation Equipment Request.doc] > [Attachment: Project Presentation.doc] file: HC: \ Documents %20and %20 Settings\mhitchcock \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW 1000 1... 12/31/2002 - Tammy Macik - PDMT: Plan Revision for 7th Day Adventist Church : Bill Davis 775-4362 Page 1 From: TommyMaok To: Pre OGroup Date: 10/21/2002 Time: 4:00:00 PM'5:00:OO PM Subject: PDyWT: Plan Revision for 7th Day Adventist Church : Bill Davis 775'4382 Place: DSCR Thonks, Tammy K4ouik<>< Secretary City of College Station -079-764'0254- Moll�� Hitchco 1350 Earl Rudder Fwy, (02 -265) P age _1 From: "John Gale" <rojo97 @hotmail.com> To: <Mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 2/17/03 3:38PM Subject: 1350 Earl Rudder Fwy, (02 -265) My name is John Gale. I own the property at 1609 Leopard Court, directly behind the property listed above. Due to an error in addressing, we did not recieve notice of your upcoming Thursday meeting and were informed by an associate this afternoon. I hope it is not too late to make a few comments and that this is one of the proper ways in which to do so. If it is not, please let me know. I would like to begin by saying that I am in favor of the development of the property in question as a church. That said, there are a few items I would like to see addressed. First, Phase III, should remain or should be zoned for single family residential like the surrounding area. As such, the church would still have the ability to utilize the property for its' own use should it want to expand but development that might have a detrimental effect on the surrounding homes will be minimized. Second, this property is basically the top of a hill, all water drains down from it. Some form of retention should be incorporated to minimize the run -off from any parking areas and building rooftops and the subsequent impact on the surrounding homes. Third, and relating to Item Two above, paved areas both parking and sidewalks should be kept to an absolute minimum. Fourth, landscaping should utilize as much of the natural, existing plant material as is possible. Non - native species such as Crepe Myrtles should be kept to a minimum. Non - native species have, for the most part, much greater water requirements. Please refer to Item Two above. The majority of the landscaping needs to be used as a buffer between the church buildings and parking areas and the surrounding residential property. This buffer should be as large as possible with the major areas of construction being located along the freeway frontage. Fifth, the fence between the residential areas and the church property should be an eight foot cedar fence, not just a six foot "wooden" fence. I have seen six foot wooden fences built out of treated 1x12 corral boards and it is not a pretty sight. Since the majority of the church property will be open access, the eight foot fence will be a much more effective deterrent to anyone intent on trespass, vandalism or burglary of the surrounding residences. Remember, most houses back up to other houses which helps to reduce the threat. Sixth, the surrounding area is residential therefore thought must be given to the site lighting. The residences face away from the church site and most houses have the bedrooms in the rear. Thirty foot pole lights that burn all night would not be appreciated by those trying to sleep. I would suggest smaller, lower lights similar to those used by the city in the historical areas and installed in Northgate. As I mentioned earlier, I hope this is the correct forum for these comments. Please let me know as soon as possible if it is not. Thank you for your time. John & Alicia Gale Molly Hitchcock - 1350 Earl Rudder Fwy, (02 -265) Page 2 Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http: // clinic. mcafee. com / clinic /ibuy /campaign.asp ?cid =3963 CC: <sstarman @msn.com> The City of College Stat Texas \ Embracing he Past Exploring the Future. % � P S P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue 0 College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764 -3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us February 3, 2003 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -USE AND SITE for 1350 EARL RUDDER FREEWAY for a religious facility. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -USE AND SITE request for the following property: Applicant: SEVENTH -DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH Subject Property: 1350 EARL RUDDER FREEWAY (See attached location map.) Proposed Use: FOR A RELIGIOUS FACILITY The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, FEBRUARY 20, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the request. The City Council will also hold a public hearing to consider the request and the Commission's recommendation on Thursday, MARCH 13, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. The public hearings will be held in the City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764 -3547 or (TDD) 1- 800 - 735 -2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (979) 764 -3570. MOLLY HITCHCOCK Staff Planner Home of Texas A &M University Home of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum Molly Hitchcock - Development Permit for Seventh Day Adventist Church From: Carol Cotter To: wdavis @txsda.org Date: 3/3/03 1:28PM Subject: Development Permit for Seventh Day Adventist Church Dr. Davis - A Development Permit cannot be issued for the project until the Site Plan has been approved. The Site Plan still needs to be approved by City Council, and is scheduled for the March 13th meeting. We are also waiting on approval of the driveway permit by TxDOT which is also a requirement prior to a DP being issued. At this time you may request a Clearing and Grading permit, but you will only be able to do just that. Please call if you have any questions. Carol Cotter Development Services Engineering 764 -3570 Page 1 j CC: Molly Hitchcock; Spencer Thompson