HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousPL~4~iiV~ ®I~T5I~IV
Post O~~ice fox 9960 11.0-1 Texas Avenue
Go~iege S~a~ion, Texas 7784-0~6Q
~40~~ 764-370
t~.u~~.~t' l~, ~~~?
MEQR~~t~Ul~
T0~ Plu~~i~ ~• ~c~~ cc~~~~idr
~'F~ J~.a~c R. ~cc, ~~sc~ P? ~n~ r
~E P~~~~~~d ~~ni~~ ~d~~~.~ce e~d~ne~ta
~~.~ ~~d~~~~d a.~e~d~~~ta c~ ~~~ ~,~~~da: i~t~~l p~~ a.
hQU~~~I~~~i~~ ite~ aid ~~ its tc ~.ddrea~ ~ ~~cb1 e~. ml~e
r~~=i~~.~n ~~ t~ d~rr~it~r~g ~.~~.~~t~~~ is ~~~~*h~.i~~ ~~~~ ~~ve
needed` t~ _d~ ~'c~r ~~h~.~e. ~'~.~ ~~-r~c~~ der~iti€~~ pr~~l~d~s
~~~ ~~~~~te ds~r~a ~~d t~~ ~ c,~~~~d ~mer~d~e~~t ~=~uld a31d~~ ~cr
such.
~'he amen~e~t ~~l~~~~~ a. ?~~:d~ca.~e pF~r~.~~ce ~~c~~~da~~~ fc~
~c~~ls ~s ~. ~esp~ns~ t~ ~I~'s ~r~hle ~.t tine nee J~.
I~~:h ch~Vl~ ~Tic~l~3~ ~~.t~e` ~ ~~~h. h~~.ld~r~ t~ ~~nd end
~a.r~~.~,~ r~ti~oe T~.~ ~~~r~d g~.~°i~~.~~ lct~ ~.a a ~~t t~~~i~a~l~.~
l~~~e er~cu~'h t~ ~~.~~.d~ ~.d~~;'~a.te ial~~d spa,~~ ~~~
~.a.~ds~~.r~~ tc ~e~t the ~~a~~s re~~red h~.~ed ~n t~.e la~r~c.
1
site needed fir the h~~~.ld~.~.
June 11, 199:0
argument for changing an ordinance, it did once again focus our
attention on the several valid reasons for doing so. I would ®ffer
the followin ar uments for a revision in the lan:
g g p
1. The developed part of this site is approximately 5Sy,000
square feet. of that-roughly 250,000 square feet is either
occupied by he building itself, or concrete- areas where
nothing can be planted. The formula makes no prov ion for
how much space is .available for planting which in this case
requires the andscape to be crowded into a relat-ively small
area.
2. In order to get all the trees shrubs onto the site, a large
percentage( of them :have to be p aced at he rear of the campus ,
which renders them barely or not visible at all to the public.
Some revision should be made for reducing the requirements in
areas to thee: s-ides and rear of buildings not adjacent to
public thoroughfAres.
3. The architects designed what they, rand we, consider to_be a
very attractive building on the exterior. It does not- need
to be hidden behind trees and shrubs. ether typed of
structures might benefit aesthetically from additiona
landscape. Some credit should be'given` for the aesthetic
value of the building design.
4. No credit is given for grassy areas. We believe that some
open green pace with scattered trees is more aesthetically
pleasing than densely planted trees and shrubs. When the
trees are fully grown, they. will be touching each other, and
maintaining a good grass cover will be a problem.
i
5.
Densely: planted spaces around a school limit the usefu~.ness
of open....spacers around the building. Also when the landscape
is fully developed it could become a security problem and a
safety problem (i.e. children running into drives and pa~•kin
g
areas from behind trees ~ We bel eye that some credit fo~.^ the
type activity conducted on a site should also be weighed in
the point system for landscaping.
6. This site ;is not on a major thoroughfare throw h the fit .
g y
Some consideration should be given toward the location when
applying the points ystem.
7. Landscaping has continuous costs, and the maintenance of full
y
landscaped property is very expensive. Dur grounds crew will
soon be larger than the rest of the maintenance de art,ment
p
combined. Irrigation systems are constant headaches: and
maintenance problems around a school. The s rinkler heads are
p
used-for golf tees, and .:generally good targets for vandals.
We should be looking for ways to reduce the number rather than
increase. Also,, the cost of the water to feed all the
landscape is .another budgetf item which must be rovded for
p
in lieu of educational priorities. Finall as we found out
y~