HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc.
~
TRANSMITTAL
LETTER
AlA DOCUMENT G810
PROJECT: /1,21c' /,z,<< ~.,,-?/?/flI~ C?eA/1'~
(name, address) ~c)""eVdFsr. &/ZRMlAcI
~ fe>eA S /I",e.
w..... 'O.U......~". U" ". A\.._::,i"". \,~".... L.. /, ,.." A' ", .'.....1.... . ~, ......:' .'!.:...' ,'", "S:.:' ".
'0" il J \.. . , . "-. ;,' .. . . 1
-- -' ""'" ""-- t i '- -' i.. . '~"_ : '.._ ..,. ,
eo. Box AR College Station, 1 exas
,ARCH.lTECT'S .. 1 A /I rI..4n L::..
.",',.,1>ROJECT NO: U/n ~/L/~
DATE: I ~...'1""M
TO:
r <::'.1"-/ oJ:
Coue"&d'.5rhlr/ON
-,
ATTN: L ~lIl1tl.t(
WE TRANSMIT:
(wherewith ( ) under. separate cover via
( ) in accordance with your request
FOR YOUR:
( ) approval
( ) review & comment
(~ use
THE FOLLOWING:
( ~rawings
( ) Specifications
( ) Change Order
-.I
If enclosures are not as noted, please
inform us immediately.
If checked . below, please:
( ) Acknowledge, receipt of enclosures.
( ) Return enclosures to us.
distribution to parties
reco rd
( ) information
) Shop Drawing Prints
) Shop Drawing Reproducibles
)
) Samples
) Product literature
COPIES
DATE
REV. NO.
DESCRIPTION
ACTION
CODE
ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmi'tted
CODE B. No action required
C. For ~ature and return to this office 0
REMARKS .. t:iffA~f!' 5~'7../):! ~ r-;fC
Me, · ..1zt2ALJ L#~I'~
, . . ,
,#~/// /il
If ~e A,#
a
D. For signature and - forwarding as.- noted below under REMARKS
E. See REMARKS below
(with enclosures)
o
o
o
o
D
,he #A~~Y ~/2CH ,fit
&. &7 4F:.?~~
/J/J,4cA' ~.
~~~$ I Ma
.
L9g1
~ 4/~K
4~
.d,~
AlA DOCUMENT G810 · TRANSMITTAL LETTER .. APRIL 1970 EDITION .. AIA@ · COpy @ 1970
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACH.USETTS AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
ONE PAGE
TRANSMITTAL
I.
AlA DOCUMENT G810
PROJECT: PARK PLACE PL,AZA
(name,add ress)
ARCHITECT'S
PROJECT NO:
W A 8405
DATE: 4/19/84
r
~
TO:
City of College . Station
PO 'Box 9960
College Statii:on, 'Tx 77840
ATTN:
LA' Mayo
WE TRANSMIT:
(x) herewith L ) under separate
(, ) ,in accordance', with your request
FOR YOUR:
( i approval
( ) review & comment
( x) use
THE FOLLOWING:
(x) Drawings
( ) Specifications
( ,.) Change Order
..J
If enclosures are not ,as noted, please
inform us immediately.
If checked below, please:
( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures.
( ) Return enclosures to us.
cover via
) distribution to parties
) record
')
(" ) information
Shop Drawing Prints
Shop D.rawing, Reproducibles
) Samples
) Product Literature
I COPIES I DA Tf. REV. NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION
~ CODE
~ " II
1 .~ I Accepted site plan signed by the Fire Marsha I I
...~
:
and the Sanitation Inspector
I
I
. . , . '..'.' .- . . . P.-'. - . .....
ACTION' A. Action indicated on item transmitted
CODE B. No action. requ ired
C. for signature and return to this office
REMARKS
D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS
E. See REMARKS below
~ES -;~l;'_ ~,...~"~, L ~ '.lIo-(With:;;;s~res)T
.. .81
DI
o~
I
_i'l~
A$ADOCUMENJ.C810 · 'TRANSMITTAL LETTER,' APRlt1970.IDfTION · AIAift). COPYRIGHT @ 1970
Tl..lE AJ\1ERIC..I\NINS'TI.TUTE ()F ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W.,WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
~
:..:
:: ::.
~!'~~
Robin Bruno
ONE' PAGE
WOOD ASSOCJA TES ARCHITECTS
P.O. Box AR College Station, Texas
TRANSMITTAL
LETTER
AlA DOCUMENT G810
PROJECT: COoOnlwe~1' ~~WAyGflD~P/1U6CTl<.
(name, . address)
TO:
r . C,Ty
It
of
@cc4f~e.STATIO,v
\
\
\
\
1
\
\
\
\
I,
I
\
\
\
\
ATTN: L "SHIRLEY
WE TRANSMIT:
(~erewith () under separate cover via
( ) in accordance with your request
FOR .YOUR:
( ) approval
( ) review & c;omn,ent
(~se
THE FOLLOWING:
(U/l5rawings ...
( ) SpecificatiQj1s
( ) Change Order
:ARCHITECT'S =If
.",',,1>ROJECTNO: wA 84o~
DATE: 2-~3--34
-,
-.I
If enclosure,s are not ,as noted, please
inform us immediately.
If checked below, please:
) Acknowledge, receipt of enclosures.
) Retu rn enclosu res to LIS.
) distribution to parties
) reco rd
)
( ) information
) , Shop Drawing Prints
) Shop Drawing Reproducibles
)
) Samples
) Product Literature
COPIES
REV. NO.
DESCRIPTION
ACTION
CODE
DATE
1\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted
\ CODE B. No action required
~ C. For signature and return to this oftiice
\ REMARKS fll/:AS'" > 5;#1' .. (I"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
PRe
.i.2
D. For signature. and' forwarding as' noted below under REMARKS
E. See REMARKS below
A ~Al .~ /~/~/.tr.
\
DPfES TO:
\
\
\
\
(withenclosu res)
o
o
o
o
D
\
I
\
1
DOCUMENT G810 · TRANSMITTAL LETTER · 'APRIL 1970EDITION.. AIA@ · COPYRIGHT @ 1970
\~MERICAN INSTITUTEOFARCHITECTS, 1785 M'ASSACHUSETTS AVENUE,N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
\
\
ONE PAGE
f
/
City of College Station
f>()S'l' ()l;FICJ'~ r~()Xnf)(){) ll(}! 'rf~X/\"S i\\'E,Nlrl.::'
(J )LLF'J;t~ S"L"YrK)N. 'IT::'X/\S 77f{LU)
February13~ 19,85
Wick McKean
Jan-W';c, Inc.
2553 Texas Avenue S.
College Station, ,.Texas 77840
RE: Early Electrical Turn-On fortheAll>SeasonsCleane.rs locat,edatlOO
Southwest"Parkway, l3uildl;ng'Il, SuitelO@, Park Plaza.Shop~ing Center
Dear' ','Mr. McKean:
This letter-when properly executedbelow>will serve as . an a~reement between
Mr. Wick McK,ea na'n,d .theCi,tyofC;ollege Stati'on that an early tu,rn ~ anaf
electric<il service (for testing Of equipOlent} will.be made to the above
referen~d bus i ness.Al so <isp<irtof ehis, . agreement the. . City will issue. no
further permitsor~erti fica~esofOccupaJ1~Y(c.O' s) on. build; ngsCand 0
unt'il theproblemwiththep.enetrationof,firewalls has been resolved to
the Gity 's .satisfactiof1..
This:letterrende'rsnull and vo'idth.el'etterdated and signed February 1,19>85.
13th cJay of February 1985.
Ire B. As h
Of rector of Capital Improvements
City of College Station ,
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS
This instrument is acknowledged on this the 1_3/1 day of
__f/o/,'/j'/>j , 19 .?:-,,~- 't by .JI/I:';;' /l;l~!JI) and
tr'
as B u 11 de r · /l <: . , ./ I/" . f,." . .~ '.r.
{:.t.t'I((L X. u4c.//'i-i/ J/If.[(l-v.,-f (
Notary' Public;nand~or
The State of Texas
il / /"JI! r d
fL-/!cP'~I~~- .
l.lickMcKean'
Jan-Wic,Inc.
My Commission Expires:
. .' , ;.'
'.' '...... t /
City of College Station
POST ,OFFICE ,BOX 9960 1101' TEXAS AVENUE
COUEGE.$fATION~'TEXAS 77840-2499
February 1, 1~t15
for
MyCommissfoA Expi;res:
{)c0\ /~
Jq~~~--"
The
, and
.---
I'
>~
(3)
(4)
(5)
~. (7)
-"'(8)
.... (9)
FROM:
Project 'Review Committe'e: t...7
Al ~ayo.D i rect~r of P!anni ng .~..
Dav'( clPu 11 en, C .uyEnglneer
DavrdHil1~ P&ZRepresentatlve
Place:,:(S:h9pping C,enter),:'located at
.. .. ...... ParkwayS<Texas AvenueY84'-404
,.....-::. ,.":,<".:-.:- ....'. :",: ," <....: ::..:.......:..::...
~.. -.,:.... ::" ", .:'.', :" . ":.:.> : ....\. .' ." '.-::
revlewtheabove,'mentioned parkll1g lot plan
,'"'
the<;follow i ng "condItions :-'tk
(1)
"<'~,:';::<:' :">~',::'"
COd.rcfinateallutlli ties with
tb.e"::p tCl'ttlng"pr0cess~ and
exact~'.<:..".:. .."',""',....,.,';' '.:' ',"'>:, .,,"":...',.,":..,..'..,..:'.'.' .<,::",:,:':
A 6ft. cent 'nueus . sol id screen ingfencelsrequ iFed.betw~en th i s
project..and theexistingm()bUe h()mepark. .>i>.
The parallel..,parRing ,sPClc:es:must.be'22':f~~t" in ,lerl'gtry';..,,::::
Maintain,,'th~,required8.::'f~o,t setback,from"the ~.O..'.W~:,:.::t.o the parking
area. .'.'::,:"0::" "..,: '., ,'.' ."",..".",,",',,.,
Dumpster numbers, sizes and_'locatrons must ,be,chahged to accommodate
individual stores-and must comply wlth, the directions given by the
Ass't. Dir.of Public'Services, Bob Epp's. Marntain a 50 ft. clearance
for maneuvering the garbage trucks.
There is iriadequate number 'of parking spaces available for e~ployee
parking for this center. A vari~nce must be granted by the Zoning
Board of Adjustments prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Rel ocate'thesi gns so they will be morereasonabl y dispersed i nth is
center, or create a ,development agreement which limits theent ire'
center to one sign.
Do not p~t large canopy trees under utility lines' in th~ utility easements.
Show the drainage pipes on, the landscap'ingplans. The location of these
pipes may affect the size of the trees to be planted In islands over them.
(6)
Conti,nued on page 2
1.
/QA\~ . '.,.()~.
,. l~,.~f1 r...
x.
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
June 18, 1985
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Al Mayo, Director of Planning
Mark Smith, Assistant City EngineerllM
Park Place Shopping,genter
.~~
Jan:-Wic, INC.
GENERAL 'CONTRACTOR
POST OFFICE BOX 9935
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
(409) 693 -3955
June 18, 1985
Al Mayo
City of College Station
Dear Mr . Mayo :
This letter serves as intent to complete striping
of the parking lot in.thevicinity oftheWinn.Dixie
Supermarket. Also, the screen fence behind BuilCling D
will be completed as soon <as weather permits.
As stated in the attached letter ,;the handicap
signs are ordered and will be posted when completed.
In addition, as discussed with Mark Smith, the
headwalls on .Texa~.Av~nueand sidewalks.. on Southwest
Parkway, including wheelchair ramps will be completed
wi thin, ',two weeks.
Thank you,
JAN-WIC,
w. A. McKean
President
mlj
A\ \ ~<<l~-.. .1- ~S .
tPt-/1M1 ~
I
McCORMICI(..COFFER ""OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO ·
PosLQffice Box 3231
61 o West Carson
Phone "'( 713)',,822-68 81
BRYAN,' TEXAS. 77801
,JlJ.l1e 1 '1,<1985
City of College Station
College Station, Texas
Gentlemen,:
}?leasebead~Jised tllatwe are in tl~eprocess
o rna]<ingHand1calj'Parlclngsignsfor
,Jarl v~lc,.Inc. TJ'1er;e \\1i.l1 'lje se,\ren (7} double
faces:Lgnson.stakes arlcl fotlr (4)'sl11g1eface
signs on stakes.
These \4/i11 becotnpletecl as soon as. F)Ossible.
Sincerely,
cc: ...JanVJic , Ine.
* HIWAY BULLETINS
*P LAST Ie
* N EO N
* PAINTED SIGNS
~~,..
,,;;
City of. College station
POSTOFFICEBOX9960 1lOlrrEXAS AVENUE
COLLECiE,'STATION, TEXAS. 77840-2499
Maret'l2] ,1985
MEMORANDUM
TO,:
Steve Hansen,Jan"'Wle,lne,,255J Texas Avenue S, College Station
FROM:
P rojectRevlew . CommJ tt.ee:l~
~lMayo,Dlrector ofPlannlng W'. ..
David Pullen, City Engineer
DavicJBrochu,P&Z Representative
Others",,'Att.enct,i,"ng,,:
Janecl(~e,..'.',Z(jn:ing Off tela]
I<.lm,.Johnson,,',..AssistantZoning Offlcla 1
ShlrleyV~il:l<,,,, ,PlanlT ing' ",Te,c hnre'i~n
SUBJECT: VARI.-AXN:OE::,~E.QUESTIOLAN[)SCAPING"REQUIREMENT - ,84-404:, Request
toP:~~:setan(1s-Bapirlgir1to~,hre~.,{3)'phases to allow, issuance
qf,C~~.i's~y>p~~$e....etth~r t.hanal.l .at once whenenti reproj ec t
,h~?been",cC)mlirl~ted II
. " ..
The P.~g~.~eti~?:~~;~rsd~>~l1t.())rev iew the ethove mentioned proj ect> and
has ~~lr'~~!iJ' tot>~~~~9Ul1.~t~!~hail1l~n(!lrbhange: The. building on the
nort~.>~I;?~.}'jfii~~~;;P~~si~>I.t l.b~iJ din~\\lfTich . has been shawn. as I 'Phase I 1'1,
will;i~~,~ii'ilide~~\iIf!,~jl,(P~~~~stern(appx. )>qOQOsq. feet to be in Phase II
and~~7~(1!~t~r:~ r~a.if'ld~i~Q;F bui Idlf'lg,tobe in. Phase Ill. All parking and
1 andsQapll'l!lfor each pliase will becomp lete pri or toi ssuance of C. O.
for "t:natphase. '
x..\~\ .
~\\)
POSTOFPICE BOX .9960 1101' TEXAS AVENUE
C01..1EGE. 'STATION. . TEXAS, 77840.2499
~!
>ill
'/
Yourt:ClSsis~' 'is ~tedi.rfm-ingingthisna.tter ,to,.a'Satisfact:ory
SC>1'1€lUSion.' '
()~~
CoyH.~
Building ,Offical
CHP: je
if itJl
"iii
City of. College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
January 31, 1985
TO:
Elrey Ash
FROM:
Coy Perry - Building Official e.(J.
SUBJECT: Park Place Plaza Shopping Center - Firewal1s
(Permits 11749, 11750, 11751 &11752)-
During plans check we advisedRob~nBruno, Arthitectfor Project, about the
inadequacy of t.hefourho,urpartywal1s. This meeti'ngtook place som.~tjmes
after June 6, 1984.
same
1 .
2.
3.
These problems must be cleared up before any certificate of occupancies ,can
be issued on the ,shell b'ui1di'ng or any tenantoccupanc'ies.
Printed by Sabina Kuenzel
8/17/95
9:44am
From: Sabina Kuenzel
To:
Elrey Ash, Jane Kee~ Jeff
Kersten, Jim Callaway, Joey Dunn,
Nanette Manhart, Peggy Calliham,
Pete Vanecek,Skip Noe, Tom
Brymer
Subject:
fwd: winn dixie shopping
center
~-~-'--~--,-~--------------_._'---------'---
---'-N', ' 0", T'E' -, -,-, '-----,-.-.;.---" -, -,-,-8'/,,"'1', ,5"','",/,, 9'",5, --,"1','2' ,. 29,'pm' ,',---
---- - -----------~--_....- .". .,.-' --' - - - '. ~-
by now most of you haveheard'thatall
but 4 of the trees in the center were
cut down this morning.
here's whati know about it:
guy named james vanya (runs penthouse
billard) came in,onf:r:idayaskingif he
could replace S.OME of the trees to gain
better visibility into the square. i
explainedthelandscapingrequirements
to him and told him ineededa
landscape plan showing the trees he
wished to cut,keep, and showing new
plantings.
on mondayhe drop;pedoffaplan thati
did not get a chanc-eto look at until
tuesday morning. he called me at home
monday, nighttoil1forlllmethathehad ,a
good deal on trees if, he cc>uldget ,them
delivered overnight., itoldhim,hewas
taking a riskbecauseihad/notlooked
at the info hehCiddroppe.d off because
a) i had previous customers who needed
me on monday.', and b) iwanted to touch
base with the city planner.
tuesdaymorningilooked .'at the plans
and realized that the majority of the
existing ,trees were to be replaced.
the new, "plan" ,.shows ,', that the center
will ,still, meet ,.andslightly~xceed
point requirements that were required
in 1984 (thedcltethecenterwas
approved). iwasnot informed of the
timing of the cutting, "which occurred
during the timeiwas stillloo,king
into the matter.
by 10:30i had ,looked at the ordinance
anddiscussedour.optionswi thj aneand
nanette. i ,biad "found ,nothing in, the
ordinance that gives us authority to
preven.t ,thedestJru,ption,efthe trees.
we had decided t..Q;at least try te talk
to these guys tco €onvincethemte take
Page: 1
Printed by , Sabipa Kuenzel 8/17/95 9:44am
only the trees that were necessary and
to think about otherplanting.schemes.
imet withvanyac:lnd'hislandscape
person to explain that we have concerns
that thiswi1.lhappenelsewhere and
even at this site in the future, and
that we may be seriously looking at an
ordinance amendment. 1 also explained
that iwould notallow'thereplanting
until we get an official plan in here
and that i, wantedthelllto "pay more
attention to existingare,as.
-unbeknownst tome they had already cut
the trees or 'atleastwere in the
process.
at this ,point, i'lunotsure"who is
untlimatelyresponsiblE!for the
decision to cut them all down. " the rtc
still ownstheprapertybuti think
they aregoiBgt.os'ell at the end of
this month .ido,n'tknow whether this
action was a condition of the closing
or not.
theonlythingithinkthat ,we."cando
for the tim.e being is to make sure the
site m~e.tsall !>pin'ts. for the future,
i "intend tos$'lldu.p a.:t:flato see if we
misseds:omething"""and toget,a
recommendati en, ,regarding an ""ordinance
amendment.
peggy, if you need me to ~alkto the
media, iwillbegladto., ',' there are a
lot of upset,people,.out ,there,already
and i must sayidQn'tblamethema
bit.
Fwd=by:=Jim==Callaway==8!15!95==5:01pm===
Fwd to: Sabina Kaenzel \
cc: JaneKee
. .. . . ... .. . .. '........ . ....... . .. . . ., . . . . .
W.e need to makesurethatourpos ition
is defensible. Itismyopinionthat
we can only make them landscape to the
originalpoint'"",:l:eqairement,BuT we ,need
to make sure th:atwearerightTHUS we
n.eed aRFLA' a,s per your "st.atement
above.
FWd=by :=sabina=KUE!llz.e=8/16/95==5: 40pm==
Fwd ,to: 'JimCallalMay
. . '. . .. .. .. . . .,.. .., -. '.. .'.,. . .. ... '.. ,. ,'. . . . .. . .
okie,dokie, ,$1l\GkJ.e." ,realiz~that this
will s:lowdown these folks putting in
the landscapingal7ldtheyareinahurry
...,closingpendingat,theendofthe
month,i think., ,i know, poor, poor
babies, but if they get.. to charges of
Page: 2
Printed by Sabina. Kuenzel 8/17/95
foot-dragging they may have a case so
can you help me get it "thru the red
tape quicker than 111.Y rfla's generally
tend to be treated?
Fwd=by:=Jim=Callaway==8/17195==8:31am==
Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel
cc: Elrey Ash, Jane Kee, Tom Brymer
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .... .. . . . . . . . .
I think I can get this one speeded up.
Make sure thattheRFLA addresses the
question of replacement- That is, is
there any way 'we 'can make, these guys
put in points needed for the current as
opposed to the<old 's'tandards.
My first reaction is their
closing. However-we-donTt-need to
react that way. If s.ome6neis going to
buy that center and make an effort to
get tennantsin therewed.on't need to
impeded their progress. We stand to
gain more" from.an'occupied center than
from a' vacant ,center.
----~---~~---~,~--~.-~~-,-'~~-~-~'~-~,-,_._~---~-~-
9:44am
Page: 3
08-14-1995 05: 36Af"'l FROr"1 AIR PURIFICATION
to
MEMORABL.E L.ANDSCAPES
QUAlITY,,- ,SERVICE. ,SATISFACTION
Commercial
D~ian '&' f\.1aintenaJ)ce
Sprinkler System5
, Proposal
for
R.T.C.-ParkPlacePlaza
c/o Property Asset Management
2402 Broadmore Bldg. D2Suite # 121
Bryan,T~s71802
.'
Attn: ,Mr. Jobn' Sleeper
Invoice for thefollo~Qg work;.
RemovaJ of grass in areas where new beds have been installed
InstaUation ,of garden-mix topsoil for bed, areas
Installation of plant mat eri a1 (see list below)
Installation' of mulch where "necessary
Tree stump renloval
Clean-up after job completion
PL^NTLIST
Quantity
t
68
16
14
S2
400
190
Plant Name
Cledaf'.~x ,'OfiYl5
Live Oak .'."",.
Bradford Pear
Youpon Tree
Crepe Myrtle
Indian Hawthome
SecGreen Jumper
Mexican Heather
Lantana
14097744111 P.02
Size,' <
t 'IZI:11J
2 inch "
l5gallon
6 foot
6 foot
1 gallon
I gallon
20 per flat
20 per flat
August 14, 1995
,j) (0 e~.(/l Is
/5tJ
1/5
7S-
,40
l/t)
l(l
It?
4l'115.
0h(
, .I fj:) '.,
5/00 ~
1~6'o)
,f;~'~
P&ftJ"
'It?6'6'
I?v~
155.1~
Y;4~/"..eht1C7/?7.".~~c~~7f3t!1 }..15,........_--,
~-kllU?/1,~(!p~~~~7!~sV: ~jNvcb F 'f1.f'41~l>ls~
~ 0"",,'.,., ...",.',.,... : ~/nls I3asecllrY'~/A1 Ex/sf-t\!1d ;DkPlsJ
t-oJ~
1662 West Sam Houston'Parkway North-,Houston, Texas 77043 ..(713)465-4219
, ~)
*
*
*
* * * * * *
CITY OFCOLLEGES1"'ATION
D EVELO Pl\1ENTSERVICES
110 1 TEXAS AVE.
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
*
*
*
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
,1 4
TO: ? C+
COMPANY:
PHONE:
FAX:
FROM:
&III/1AJ&UJ
(jrN();:~{W5t ck01)
COMPANY:
PHONE:
'FAX:
DA TE:
?/;G
PAGES INCLUDING THIS
COVER SHEET:
~,
I
COMMENTS:F4dni{tA6-Y0 ..fl41cL6: 71) 1-1tL.-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(409)764-3570
(409) 764-3496F AX
08/16/95
13:55
'5'409 764 3496
TRANS~fISSION OK
TX/RX NO.
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION ID
START TI~IE
USAGE TIME
PAGES
RESULT
"'DEVELOP~r:ENT SVCS
~001
***************************
*** ACTIVITY REPORT ***
***************************
2968
97643049
08/16 13:54
01'07
2
OK
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DA TE:
Planning and Zoning ,'Commission
Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner
August 30, 1995
RE:
Discu.ssion' of ordinance amendment - tree cutting
By now I'm certain that many of you are aware of the recent tree cutting at WinnDixie
Shopping Center. Attached please find, a copy of the newspaper article regarding the
action. In summary, the, City currently has no ordinance restrictions against the cutting
of ,trees. At this time, the best that we have been able to do is to require that any
landscaping that is temoved from.. a developed site be replaced and that the new
landscaping be in accordance with the ordinance that was in place at the time a ,site was
approved. Due to the fact that a large number of citizens responded negatively to this
most recent act, Staff b.elieves that much of the community would .favor an 'ordinance
amendment that ,would' protect trees.
The current'ordinance requires that landscaping, be put in upon development of a site.
At the time a site plan is approved, all of the trees that are within the first 24' of the
frontage of a tract that are four inches in caliper or larger must be saved. However,
this provision does not preclude a property owner from cutting treesdownb.efore an
application for development is made. It also does nothing to save trees located on the
interior of tracts, nor are undeveloped tracts addressed.
Staff is requesting input' and direction regarding 'an ordinance amendment. So far, we
have found the following possibilities:
1. Change, the Zoning Ordinance to require that on developed sites where the
landscaping is to be changed, that all current points be required. With the recent
adoption of Streets cape requirements, this option would translate to an additional point
requirement above the original landscape assessment and possible parking screening.
Staff is cuttentlycheckingwith the Legal Department to make sure that such an
altemativewould b,elegally sound and if an ordinance change would be necessary.
2. Change the Zoning Ordinance to require th.atalllandscapingput in as apart of site
plan approval be maintained and that trees put in as a part of the points required cannot
be cut down without special permits.
3. Change the Code of Ordinances ,to require a special permit for removal of any trees
that are four, inches in caliper or larger and are on the local list of native trees.
For Council Meeting Of: ~28 1995 ~
Director Approval: ~ ~ ~~
Executive Member Approval: -Jt< .
;' '. " well-planned residential areas, 2) Community Appearance, 3) Housing
>~' , ' '" ' / Strategy.. Standards/Maintenance . .
~!," ,/
l\' . Item: Discussion of a zoning ordinance amendmentto preserve existing,
'I mature trees which are required as apart of original site development. (95-
810)
#v~
.\J
~i}f
/J
tt:~
){
[KlRegular Item
D Consent Itern
D Statutory Item
Item Submitted By:
Sabine Kuenzel. Senior Planner
Item Summary: In response to the negative public reaction from a large
numberofcitizehs regarding the recenttreecuttingat WinnDixieShopping
Center, Staff requests input and direction regarding the possi~ility of an
ordinarlceamendment to preserve existing trees. In sU.mmary, the City
currently has no,ordinancerestrictionsagainst the cutti'ng of trees. The
currently policy is to require that any landscaping be in accordance with the
ordinance thaf was in ,placeatthe lime a site was approved. On September 7,
1995, Staff received input frormthe Planning andZoning Commission to look
further into requiring compli~nce,with c~rrel1t landscaping and Streetscaping
standards when landscaping on developed sites is completely removed or
significantly reconfigured.
Financial Summary:N/A
Staff Recommendation: N1A
City Attorney Recommendation: N/A
Council Action Desired: Further discussion and Staff direction
Supporting Materials:
1. Memo toPlanning.& ZoningComrnission
2. Planning & Zoning Commission minutes from 9-7-95
3. Eagle Newspaper article
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion concerning land~caping requirements and preserving
existing trees on both developed and undeveloped property. (95-810)
Senior Planner.Kuenzel informed the Commission that at the. present time, the best that staff has been
able to do . with the preservation of trees is to require that any landscaping that is removed from a
developed site bereplaced andthat the newbmdscaping be in accordance with the ordinance that was in
place at the time a site was approved; Dtle to the fact. that .a large number of citizens responded
negatively to the most recent act atth~.WilUlDixie shopping center, staff believes that much of the
community would favor an ordinance!a.melldment that would protect trees. The current ordinance
requires that. landscaping be put in upo~.de~elopment ofa site. At the time a.site plan is approved, all
of the trees that are within the first 24' 9fth~frontage of a tract that are 4" in caliper or larger must be
saved. However, thisprovisiondoe~in~tpr~clude a property owner from cutting trees down before an
application for development is made. It:als()poes nothing to save trees located on the interior of tracts,
nor are undeveloped .tracts addressed.j.Stafi' requested input and direction regarding an ordinance
amendment with the following possibilities:
(1 ) Change the Zoning Ordinance to require that on developed sites where the
landscaping is to be changed, that all current points be required. With therecerit
adoption of Streetscape . requireI)1ents, . this option would translate to an a.dditional
point requirement above the original landscape assessment and.possible parking
screening. Staff is currentlyc~ecking with the Legal Department to mal<e sure that
such an alternative wouldi be legally sound if an ordinance change would be
necessary.
(2) Change the Zoning Ordinance to require that all landscaping put in as part of site
plan approval be maintained and that trees put in as a part of the points required
cannot be cutdown without special permits.
(3) Change the. Code <of Ordinances . to require a special permit for removal of any
trees that are 4" in caliper lor larger and are on the local list of native trees.
Commissioner Gribou stated. that he is in favor of a tree preservation ordinance~ however, he is
concerned with the .enforceability and realistic application of each of the. three suggestions. Number
two is. probably reasonable andenfqrceable~ however, .. number one is a little more difficult and
somewhat of an overlap. . Ile suggestedl that the City at least protect what has pr~viously been approved
since the major issue is mature trees.!. Proposal three is good in theory~ however, it is going to be
difficult to enforce and may not.be realistic to preserve every tree over.a certain caliper size.
Commissioner Lightfoot explained that he has lived in a. place where proposal. three was an ordinance
and. it creates a tremendous expense for development. He stated that he is concerned about what
happened at the \Vinn Dixie center anq that something needs to be done to correct the weaknesses in
the current ordinance. There should be a mechanism to make someone accountable for removing such a
large number of mature trees.
P&'Z'Minutes
September 7, 1885
Page 7018
Commissioner Hall stated that he is concerned that so much goes in to working with a developer on a
landscape plan only.to allow them..to remove the landscaping at a later date with no .recourse. He
suggested that each property be required a point value that they must maintain at all times. Then if a
developer comes in and clears out alFofthe trees, he is in violation of maintainin~the point value even
for that one day. If someone would like to change the total complexion of the property, the most
current landscape requirements. shouldb~ required instead of what was required when the property
originally developed.. Commissioner Hall. expressed concern that the city is not requiring developme~ts
to meet currentre9uirements. If someone wants to rehabilitate a . building or ~dd onto an . existing
business, then the landscaping shouldmeetcurr~nt standards. ~ealso stated that he does not wantan
ordinance that is so restrictive that sOl11r<:m~ s1;lchas Post Oak Mall ~annotgoo~~and cutdown a few
trees if they ex~~ed the point requirelll~l1ts.:. As long as a\)usiness mai?t~in~! the minimum point
requirements, tl1eyshould be incoq1pliance. Commissioner Hall alSO! .~f,a~,~d. that active . code
enforcement should be taken against existing businesses who are in violation (}f th~' ~~ndscape ordinance.
Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that the easiest way to enforce the landsca~eordinance for existing
businesses is when a building permit~s required. Staff will normally tell thf,~p~li~ant that upoIl final
inspection, the landscaping must be intcOIl)pliance with the ordinance that \\1a~iiiIl!,efectatthe time the
development was built. Rightnow,str~!doesnot have the tillleto do majoI"~od~enforcement sweeps
throughout the city and require existing sites to come into compliance.
Commissioner Lane suggested .that staft.contact older Texas cities. to see. how they handle tree
preservation. He expressed concern with creating additional requirements and placing too much control
over development in College Station.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7:
Other business.
Commissioner Hall expressed concern with the garbage cans located at the Summit fourplexes that are
visible from F .M. 2818.
Commissioner Garner informed the Commission thatthe Community Enhancement group is currently
addressing the. garbage can situation and gateway entrances to the city.
City Planner.Kee informedthe.Commission that the. consultants of the Comprehensive.Master Plan will
meet with staffneXt week to look at possibl~ land use scenarios. After that meeting, there will be two
more community meetings before the las~meeting ill which the City Council will adopt the plan. The
plan needs to be adopted by the end of the year in order for the parks department to apply for grants.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8:
Adjourn.
Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
CommissionerHall"secondedthemotioni which passed unopposed (6 -0).
APPROVED:
Chairman, Kyle Hawthome
ATTEST:
Planning Technician,NatalieThomas
P &Z Minutes
September 7, 1885
Page 80f8
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Zoning ,Commission
Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner
August 30, <1995
RE:
Discussi.onof ,ordmance,amendment - treecuttmg
By nO\v l'mcertaillthatmany of you are aware of the recent tree cutting at Winn Dixie
ShoppingCenter.A.ttach~please find a copy of the newspa~r(lrtic1e regarding the
action. In summary f the City currently h~sno ordinance restrictions against the cutting
oftr~s.> At this time, the best that we havebeellableto do is to require that any
landscaping .th~t is removed from a developed site be replaced and that the new
land$Caping be in accordance with the or(iinance that was in place at the time a site was
approved. Due to th.e fact that a large number of citizens responded negatively to this
most recent act, Staff believes that much of the community would favor an ordinance
amendment that would protect trees.
The current Qrdinanc;;erequires that landscaping be put in upon development of a site.
At the time asiteplan,is.,'approved, all of the trees that,are, within . the ,first 24' of the
frontage of a tract that are four inches inc~i~ror 13l"germust be saved. However,
thisprovisiond~snot precludeapropertyownerfrOlllcutting trees down before an
appli~~onfordevelopment is made. It also does notl1ing{O save trees located on the
interior of tracts, nor are undeveloped tracts addressed.
Staff is requesting input and direction. regarding an ordinance amendment. So far, we
have found the following' possibilities:
1. Change the Zoning Ordinance to. require that on developed sites where the
landscaping is to be changed, that all current points be . required. With the recent
adoptionofStreetscapetequirements, this oPtl()n\Vouldtranslate to an additional point
requirement above the original landscape assessment and possible parking screening.
Staffis currentlYichecking>with the . Legal Depcutment to > make sure that such an
alternative would be legally sound and if an ordinance change would be necessary.
2. Change the Zoning Ordinance to require that all landscaping put inasa part of site
plan approvalbemaintiUnedMd thattreesiput.in as .a.pcut of the . points required cannot
be' cutdown4w.ithout special permits.
3. Change the Code of Ordinances to require a special permit for removal of any trees
that are four inches' in caliper . or · larger and are on. the locallistofnative< trees.
Printed by Joey DUl)n
8/15/95
2' : 12p:rn
-- -- - -,- - -- - - -,.... - ~ --'.....'~ ....---.,~ ...... --:--"~ ...."- -- ~..... ...._~ ----- - --..... ~..iiIi..: -=.... --. ~... - - - -.---.... - - -'-,... - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - --
From: Sabina Kuenzel
To:
Elrey !\sh,Jane Kee, Jeff Kersten,.Jim Callaway, Joey Dunn, . Nanette
Manhart, Peggy "calliham,.Pete Vanecek, Skip Noe, Tom Brymer
Subj ect :win.ndixieshoppingcenter
~-~-~~-~-'-~-~~-~~'~.-'~-~-~--'~:~~-~~~~~-~~--'~-~--~~----------~~-~----------------
---, -, -N, ',0" TE.......,---,' -, -, .......,-' , -,,' '-,,', '," -, -~,---,'-. ,'-,',',',',,',~,',8',,' "'/'," ,,',1, ',', 5"" ",."/.",',9",,',,5-,, ,'""1"",,'2,, ",. '2, ',9" P',',' m'" ,-,','-", ',-",',---',',-" ,'"'-,, ' -,'," --, -,' -,---",,'-,', -......." ,'-......., ,---,'~,'-' . '-----.......-,'-,-' -,,' -, ,-, --, ------
--- --------............--......--...........-. . . ", .' --' : : "... . - - -------------------------------------.....-----
by now most 'of you have heard tha,tall but 4 of the trees in the center were
cut down this morning.
here's what i know about it:
guynamedjames vanya (runs penthouse billard) came in on friday asking if
he could replace SOME of the trees to gain better visibility into the
squar.e. i explained the l,andscaping requir'ementsto him and told hi'm i
neededalandscap,eplanshowing the trees he wished to cut, keep, and
showingnewplantings.
on monday he dropped off.l5l plan that ididnot get a chance to look at until
tuesdaymorning. he yal1e(ime.. at. home monday night to inform me .that he had
a good deal on trees ifllecould get themdeliveredovern:ight. i told him
he wastak:ing.a ris]{. because. i.had not. looked at. the info.he had dropped off
because a} ihadprevious.customers who needed me on monday and b) i wanted
to touch base with the .cityplanner.
tuesday >morning i.lookedattheplans and realized that the majority of the
existing trees were to b~>replaced. .thenew"planushows.that the center
will, still meet a.:n.d slightly exceed point requirements that were required in
1984 (the.datethecenter<wasapprovedl. i was notinfo17med of the timing
of the cutting"wh.ich occurred during the time i was still looking i.nt.o the
matter.
by 10: 30 i had looked atthe.ord.inanceandldiscussed our options with jane
and. nanette.. . i .had. found.nothinCjJin . the ordinance that gives us authority
t.o , prevent the "destructio1"lofthetrees. we had decided ,to at least try to
talk to. these 9\tYStocOnvincethemto tak~ only the trees th.at were
necessary and to think.al:>out other planting schemes. . i met with vanya and
his landscape.li>ersen.toexplain that we have concerns that this will happen
elsewhere and .e'Ven iat.th.is.sitein the future., and that we may be seriously
looking at ano:rdinance >amendment... i also explained that i would not allow
the replantin<1f un1pil.we get an official plan inl1ere and that i wanted them
to pay mal1reattem.t.iorltoexisting areas. unbeknownst to me they had already
c:ut thetreesara.tleastwere in the process.
at this point,.. ilm not sure who. is untlimately responsible for the decision
to cut them. alldoWR. .tl1e.. rtc still owns the property but i think they are
going to sell att.be end ,of this month. i don't know whether this action
was a condition, of the closing or not.
the only thing it,hink that we can do for the time being is to make sure the
sitemee.tsallp9i;mts. fer the future,i intend to send up a rfla to see if
we missed someth.im,g,and't.o get a 'recommendation regarding an ordinance
amendment.
peggy, if you. need.metotalk to them.edia, iwill be glad to. there are a
lot of upsetpeapleoutthere alreadyandi must say idon'tblamethem a
bit.
-,~ - --_~ - ~:~ _:~...a... ~ ~,__,_-~,-.....~"~"~ ~_:'"......... __ ~ _-.. ~... ~ ~ ~ ~ ....,'-.... __ ~_........... __.... ~ _ __ ~,:_' ~ _ _._.... __... __.~ __....... _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _'..... _"_ _ ___
Page: 1
Brazos CAD Properties
Page 1 of2
BRAZOSCAD]leal}>roperty Information
Brazos Account Number: R23,652
Cross Reference Number: ",194000-0060-0240
Owner's Name
and Mailing
Address
Location
Description
TaxIng. EntIties
KRUHL, RONALD J
1023 HARRINGTON AVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840-2211
I 1023 HARRINGTON
. College Station, TX
I COLLEGE HILLS, BLOCK 6, LOT 24
Code
G1
S2
C2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Name
Brazos County
College Station ISD
College Station
Value information reflects the. '2000 Proposed Value' . This information current as
of 2000-06-01.
I PROPERTY II VALUE INFORMATION I
ExemptIons Tax Year '2000 Proposed Value'
---------
---------
Freeze Amount .000 Total Improvement Value $49,700
Number of Improvements 2 Land Market Value $12,050
Land Acres
Year Built 1939 Total Market ,Value $61,750
Deed Date 03/04/96
Deed Volume 2552 Total Assessed Value $61,750
. Deed Page 114
Another Search by Short Account Number
Another Search by Lon2Account Number
Another Search by Owner Name
Another Search by Address
http://www.taxnetusa.comlBrazosdetail.cfm ?theKey= R23 652
6/15/2000
q )1& RJlte:;1;Jftl,I?:Xl.1:I1 qt:1,q:
~4 1,;;zt?ClI x ~t? :::=-11 gm,q poivrfh kJ e~
{C:>OC/" . I " . ~.-
~ J lJ~~4 ft'lV\ J?'
? L- c/OM maN NA1l'l& &o1m1 (~l Nd VJle
~I V~ OAr- q~ (tUl1 VI ;-qfnft?
(?eAOttI~p f!R~ ~lI1 (U t? ~e~ite
,
1kufbN IItf V(l(Y'li+OY1t.\
uede 'flr{~ft6 L4qe~rotmi4lnJ(M.
J -tH1iptr' J4V1'lru(U~ ~~V'I\^m
1~it{V\ H-qwfutfn~ fz<f'niofep{~);0 !Ct;,
? 1}J6\+t'V' O{1,~ ,', aveYuu~tJ;6t(t?
,~)s ,0'
~vit1'IDVW
o ]1'71 q t7 -~ cUeJ Wt1i&t ad W-.1 aim tt1{
/0i!IWC; MEVd Vtue. .;;1(i;,).~kMq J1~
t rtU./1ci'Uvtfe<<) * ~,f0J.,~i~u
w (' P;U'~fJCAJH.
, .'._. 1~,nX~J$\\lfi1.~j~"~~l\'\"f'l~^,~l!l~~~:lB]tmrm,~I.~[~w'~L~iJ~,\.mrr:~~~'~7=~'.'''\
c( l{ t{ nfrfz1
~
l~
/4
tj2,
/qo
4t70
e.
1Joref1
I V\ t(IU//J () +- tfit?"
e,ttl \ ~
(I .
h1 ~rfb tf.S ~If/'
"~m
':'
OUR MISSION: To preserve and enhance the scenic character of the visual environment.
Logo Signs to Include
Shopping Malls
The 74th Texas Legislature was relatively quiet with
respectto sign control, but one bill that did pass expands
the definition of businesses ..thatcan. advertiseo}l'LOGO
signs to include major shopping areas. This in addition to
GAS,FOOD, LODGING and CAMPING businesses already
permitted to advertise on LOGO 'signs. The bill' also increases
the number of businesses that can be on an individual
LOGO sign from fourto s~, and expandsthe kind of
highways eligible to have LOGO signs to include highways
with speed limits of65 located outside an urban area with
population of 50,000 or more, and interstate highways that
are located in an urbanized area with a population of200,000
or more. Previously; only interstate highways located in
counties with populations of less than 20,000 could qualify.
Unfortunately;' the bill does 'not prohibit busines~es
participating in the LOGO sign program from advertising
on billboards, but perhaps with a much ,more appealing and
cost effective alternative like. LOGO, signs' available to them,
businesses won'twantto. Nonetheless, Scenic Texas will
continue,toencourage a prohibition policy with theTexas
Department of Transportation, ' the administrating, agency
for the LOGO program. Fora, copy of the' bill language,
please call (713)86 7-8840. < ,4 "t ~ -. *' ,
-f;JiJ-- ~ ~ i.-st I)
Tree. Preservation G'Mns Ground
Not only is Houston ,actively drafting a tre.e preservation
ordinance" but recently SanJ\!!!QDio has picked up the
mantle. June KachtikorsceiiIESanAntonio will serve as
a delegate to the committeethathasjust started
deliberations on a tree ,preservation ordinance.
In Dallas, a group of concerned residents raised
$34,000 for an advertisement in the Dallas Morning\News
protesting Presbyterian Hospital's plan 'to chop down
century-old trees to make way for a power plant. That
advertisement,andthe public outcry following it, led the
hospital to change its construction plans to avoid cutting
down 80% of the 92 trees originally scheduled to be
removed. (Two of those trees to be saved are 150 year old
bur oaks). The hospital also agreed to relocate approximately
41' smaller trees to another spot on the , hospital grounds.
In addition to saving trees, the hospital stated<the new
plan is $500,000 cheaper than the original.
Billboard Industry Seeks to
Undermine Houston IS
. Billboard Ordinance
Thebillboard,industryis trying to gut Houston's billboard
ordinance 'that bans all. billboards in the year 2013 under the
guise of a settlement to a long-running lawsuit with the City:
Scenic Houston recently learned that negotiations have been
ongoing, which they hope will result in a certain number of
billboards being allowed to stay forever and the ability to
relocate sho1.1ld they-be destroyed or have to be removed for
any reason. In return, the industry would drop its action
against the City that contests the constitutionality of using
amortization to remove billboards as well as a laVlsuitit won
against the~ity regarding permit fees. In that case,the courts
found the .ann.ual permittees being charged bilfuqatd operators
excessive, 'Y"lllch resulted in a $1.7 million judgment against
the City: Now on appeal to the Texas Supreme; Court, the
City isconcemedaboutthe precedent this might have on
other permit fees the City administers.
In 1980, when the ordinance that bans the construction
of new billboards was passed, ,there ,was over 11,000 billboards
within, the ci~ Fifteen, years later,'" that number has dropped
to 6,500. Through normal attrition, billboards are coming
down at a S%rate per year. The billboard industry knows
that if it do~~n't,do something now to ensure permanence
and reloca~on, it willlos~another 1, 000 boards before the
turn of thecentuI)T. By the year 20 13,when all boards are
renderednoJjl-conformingand have to be removed, that
number will have dwindled even further.
Scenic Houston is working to ensure that our billboard
ordinance is:maintained.You can help this effort by writing
the Mayor and City Council@P.O. Box IS62,Houston, Tx.
77251, or call 247-1000 and ask for your council
representative. For more information call'(713) 867-8840.
For Your Information: Sally Oldham, President of Scenic
America will be the guestspeaker at a reception hosted by
Scenic Fort Worth on Thursday, October 12th. Call Judy
Harman,@ (817), 926-1100for info. Ms. Oldham also plans
to meet vv'ithmembers of Scen ic Austin on' October 14th.
Call GirardKinney@ (512)472-5572 for info.
~
Gracio~~lf undelWitten with a grantfrom the William Stamps Farish Fund.
'pund l[SlJ1!dSdw1!:IS w1!!l1!Mal[J woJjJU1!Ja 1! l[J1M ua:nlMJapuntfJsnol:J1JJ{)
'auf '-ea/Jawv a/uaasJo aJ-enJJJvuv
SVXH.L :JINH:JS Xq pal/Sllqnc/
~~
~
6,. L tl~O '8ll Xl NO' 'T:l \oJ! S
'"."",", ~,~~' 3931)0),
3nN31\,\fS'Xil HH L .
3 3)1 ~ '. 3N\lr
dj I'W "'it S9500 '
r'd t/ H J::'
ISL.8
s-exal 'UOlsnOH
OIVd
'~bO lJjOJd-UON
Fort Worth Succeeds
In CUrbing Billboards
Lasqnonth, the Fort Worth CityCouncilunanimo'!$1r
approved thedesignationof36~cenicdistricts~d corridors
where the new construction of billboards, will be banned. 'Months
of negotfation between the lli11board industry and.the city's
Scenic Preservation Commission led toa compromise package
that includes 10 scenic, cultural, and historic districts as well as
a stretch. ofl -30 and much of I-SSW ",Late last year, a ,legislative
proposal to ban the new construction of bi1llioardswithin the
entire city failed by one vote.
Margaret DeMoss, Chairman of the Scenic Preservation
Commission, and aboard member of Scenic Fort Worth, feels
that this is a positive first step to curbing the continued proliferation
of billboards in Fort ,Worth. nIn the long term,thebanonnew
construction will have a tremendous impact. Iffor any reason,
those boards go 'down, theycan'~ rebuild." said DeMoss.
Scenic Galveston Working Hard to
Fight Billboards and Create Beauty
Formed just 4 mon1;hs ago,' Scenic Texas' newest and fifth
chapter, Scenic Galveston, is already actively promoting several
projects to enhance the island resort's visual beauty: Chaired by
Evangeline Whorton,', Scenic, Galveston's Board, of Directors has
adopted long term goals that include, a ban on the new construction
of billboards as well as tree preservation and the designation of_
scenic corridors.
Many of Scenic Galveston's board members have, participated
in the ongoing struggle to. clean up the wetlands estuary on
either side of 1-45, the primary-transportation gateway into
Galveston. That two year effort led to near funding of $1.8
million ISTEA Enhancement money to complete the project, but
intense lobbying ,by one billboard operator and several elected
officials opposed to ,the project caused ',TxDottoturn down the
grant request late last year.
Undaunted, Scenic Galveston has received pledges totaling
$400,000 from numerous individuals to purchase the land
privately, restore itto wetlands state,and · remove the billboards.
01789- L.99-f IZ
I 1171-80ZlL. S-exal'uolsnoH 1117 I 9 xog .oa
.
The Texas ,Department of Transportation is, also' ~g
action against 3 billboards located along 1-45 that are believed
to ,have been, rebuilt illegally after natural causes destroyed the
structures beyond the 50% 'replacement value rule. ,Despite
repeated citations and warnings, the billboard operators rebuilt
anyway which. prompted, TxDot to, ask ,the Attorney General's
office to bring ',action against them., An administrative, hearing,
(the first-ever in the history of TxDot's sign control division),
is scheduled for. October in Austin. If TxDot is successful, they
will be able to physically remove the boards without incident.
For more information onthisprecedentsetting case as well as
the 1-45, Estuary Gateway project, please call Evangeline Whorton
@(409), 744-7431.
SPECIAL NOTICE: The public hearing on the proposed ban on new
construction'ofbillboardsin.Galveston isscheduledfor October 26th in
City Council Chambers. If you wish to send correspondence in support of
the ban, fax it to Mayor Barbara Crews and City Council @ (409) 763-4847.
Federal Scenic. Road Ban on New
Billboards Threatened
Tragicall)r,the House of Representatives passed the National
Highways System Bill which includes an amendment to repeal
the ban 01]. ,new, constrllction of billboards-,' put-in- place by ISTEA,
on federal-aid. Interstate ,and primary highways that have been
designated'scenic by the states.
Congressman Bud Schuster (R-PA), friend of the billboard
lobby and Chairman ,of the House Transportation Committee,
tacked on an amendment to the 'NHS bill to undo this ISTEA
policy; which will open up an additional 15 , 000 miles of roadways,
less than 1 % of the total number of roadways in America, to
billboard, construction. The bill now goes to a conference
committee to reconcile with the Senate version which does not
have"this language.
Our national affiliate, Scenic America, is working diligently
to convince those members likely to serve on the conference
committee to strike this ,language , (Section 325) from the NHS
bill. Your help is needed.. Please call Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
and Senator Grammimmediatel~ The capital switchboard # is
(202) 224-3121. Senators JohnChafee (R-RI), John Warner (R-
VA), Bob Smith (R-NH),Max Baucus (D-MT), and Daniel Patrick '
Moynihan (D-NY) along with Rep. Bud Schuster (R-PA), Rep.
Tom Petri (R-WI), and Rep. Nick Joe Rahall(D-WV) are expected
to serve on the conference committee. Your callto them will
also be helpful.
For more information, call Frank Yespe at Scenic
America @ (202) 833-4300.
would constitute a violation by Landlord of his obligation under such underlying
leaseiprovlded,holrJever ,thatTenant 'sagreernent in this regard is premised on
Landlord fa assurances to the effect that tbe terms of thlslease do not violate such
underlying lease. .
26 . 9 The laws of the state!n 'Which the demised Pl:emisesarelocated shall govern
the interpretation, validit:y, performance and enforcement: of this lease. If any
provision of this leaseshould~e heldt:o be invalid or unenforceable, the validity
and el'lforceabl11ty of the renalnlng provisions of thlsleaseshallnot be affected
thereby. . Venue . for . any act:ion . under this lease. shall be the county in which rentals
are due pursuant to 'Section 4.1 ahdS.ectlon 1.1 of this lea~e.
26.10 The captions used hereIn are for convenlenceonlyand do not limltOI anplify
the provIsIons hereof.
26 .11 Whenever herein the singular' nunt>er isqaed, t:hesameshall include the
plural, and words of any gender shall inClude/each other gender.
26.12 The terns, pro\}'lslons'andcovenants contained In thls lease shall apply to,
inure tot:he benefit of.andbe~indlng uponthepart:ies hereto and their respective
heirs, successors In Interest and legal representatIves except as otherwise herein
expresslY,provlded.
26.13 THIS LEASE CONTAINS THE ENTIRE AGREEl1ENrBETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND NO BROCHURE,
RENDERING, INFORMATION ORCORRESPONDENCESHJ\LLBEDEEMED To BE A PART OF THIS
AGREEMENT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY, INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. "IN. ADDITION, NO
AGREEMENT .SHJ\LL BEEFFEX:rlVETOCHANGE, MODIFY, OR TERMINATE THIS LEASE IN WHOLE OR
IN PART UNLESS SUCH IS IN mITING AND DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM
mFORCJ1l1ENT "OF "",SUCH OIANGE", MODIFICATION. OR TmMI NATI ON IS"SOUGHT.
26.14 This lease consIsts of ,twenty-six artIcles and Exhibits A through--F-
(any space left blank will be deerred t:o have beenconpleted wi t:h the word "none" ) ,
With the exceptIon of Article VI, In the event any provision of an exhibIt-or other
attached page shall be lnconslstentwithaprovlslon In the body of the lease, the
provision asset forth In the eXhIbit shallbedeetnedtocontrol. .
26 .15 THIS LEASE DOES NOTCONSTI'lUI'EABINDING '~ UNTIL EXEa.JTED BY BOTH
LANDLORD' AND "1'E.NANT.
;!\;~~""
26.16 ThIs lease agreement 1s subject, to and contIngent upon its approval by
Landlord's Interlmorperrranentlender and the managing partner of Larldlord. ,In the
event saId approvals are not obtaIned, then thIs lease nay be terminated by Landlord
wlttllnthlrty days after Its fInal execution. In' the . event this lease is not so
terminated by landlord, thenlt wIll contInue 1n full force and effect.
26.17 Landlord and Tenant expressly agree that there are and shall be no lrrplied
warranties of merchantability, habitability, ,fitness for a particular purpose or of
any other kInd arlslngout: of thIs lease, and there are no warranties which extend
beyond those expressly set forth In this lease.
26.18 Tenant agrees not to sell pizza so long as Little caesar',s Pizza is open for
business., and, in the' ,Shopplng,..'Center.
26 ,19 Tenant. agrees. not: to. conduct: anyact:1vftythatnay be deerOOd. inappropriate by
the City of GollegeStatlon,theothertenants of the center, and/or the neIghbors'
of the shoppIng center '. Jnaddlt:ion, Tenant agrees not to allow, to the best of its
ability, its customerstoengageinanydisprderlyconduct or behave ill anynanner
that nay be deemed offensIve to the other tenants or theIr customers 1n the shopping
center.
26.20 Tenant agrees that: any excessive trash in thecomoonar.eas caused by the
Tenant orthelr customeJ:s will be rerooved at the Tenant's expense.
; ,*\
19,
"
Timber!
Tree replacement causes stir
in College Station
page At
.
I
CJn