HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousT4 ALL ItVI`ERESTED PEF~~~~
ANA PARTLES:
~ JST ;CONCRETE has made registration-:with the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Gomrnission
`for Standard Exemption No. 71 under Standard
Exemption Registration No. 19358A to c~ns~ruct a
Concrete Batch Pant in College Station, Brazos.::
County, Texas. The proposed location is 101 West
Loop;.. West. Additional information concerning this
registration is contained in the :;public. notice section of
this newspaper.-This notice is to be published on
Monday, May 1, 1995 and Tuesday, May 2, 1995.
125 Legal Notices
TO ALL INTERESTS D
PERSONS AND'PARTIES
You are hereby notified of the
opportunity for public com-
ment concerning the applica-
tion for Standard Exemption
No. 71 by JST CONCRETE
under Standard Exemption
Registration No. 19358A to
construct. a Concrete Batch
Plant in .:College Station,
Brlazot; County, Texas. The
proposed location Is 101
West Loop VJest. This facility
will emR the foNowing air con-
taminants;partlculate mat-
ter' (Including, but not IIm-
ited to, cement,;aggregate,
and road dust).
-A roov of,all materials in the :
125 Legal Notices
public file is available for pub-
lic Inspection at the Texas
Natural Resource Conserva-
t I o n C o m m I s s l o n
(TNRCC)Waco Regional
t~fflce, Alr Program, at
6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite
2500, :Waco, Texas 76710,
telephone (817) 772-9240,
and at the TNRCC Central
Office, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, BUlld-
ing C, Austin, Texas 78753,
telephone (512) 239-1000.
Inquires about the exemption
registration should be dlrec-
tad to'Ms. Helga Chatelle'
with the TNRCC Office of Alr
Qualfty,.New Source Review
Program (P.O,' Box 13887,
125 Legal Notices 1125 Legal Notices 125 Legal Notices
Austin, Texas 78711-3087) Ito hold a contested case
' must state (1) your name,
mailing address
and daytime
In Austin or the TNRCC
Waco Regional Office. hearing
rf the basis of a
request Is determined to be ,
Gone number; (2) the permif
unroasonable. All written number or other recognlza-
All Interested persons may comments and hearings ble reference to this registra-
lion; (3) the statement '"I/wed
inspeet_these materials and
§ubmit written comments tp requests for a contested
case hearing must be request e public hearing' ; (4);
the Offico of Alr Quality, New ' received In writing by no later a brief description of how
Source Review Program of than -15 days after the sec- You, or the persons you. rep-
the TNRCC. Any person re-' and publication of this notice. resent would be adversely
siding in a permanent rest- All written comments submit- affected by the granting of
dance within one-quarter led to the ~xecutivo Director the registration;, (5) a descrlp-
(1/4) mile of the proposed lo- shall be considered in a de- tlon of the Iodation of your
cation of the plant ma.. clsion do the application. All Property relative to the. appll-
'
request a contested case comments will t)e made oval- s operations; and (6)
cant
hearing-from the Commis- labia for public inspection at Your proposed adjustment to
slon -pursuant to Section tale ThRC~ r9glonal office. If the registration./permit which
382.056(d) of the Texas You wish to request a public Would satisfy your concerns.
Heakh and Safety Code. The hearing, you must aufxnit and cause you to withdraw
Commission Is not regulred Your requ@st In wrRing. You your request for hearing.
- -- -- - - - Requests for a public hearing
on this registration should be
submRted in wrltina to Office
of the Chief `Clerk, Texas
Natural Resource Conserv~-
tlon Gommsslon, P.O. Box'
-13.087„ Austin, Texas
78711-3087, Telephone
(512) 239-3300..
Thlsnotice Is to be published:
- on May 1, 1995
and May 2, 1995.
From: Shirley Volk
To: SKuenzel, JDunn
Date: 3/27/96 4:47pm
Subject: JST Concrete
Greg Truitt just returned my call from last week and I was pointing out the
lack of required landscaping reported by you. He disagrees, saying that the
MORE than 24 cedar elms were containerized as agreed to by you, Sabine, that
he planted at least 120 red tipped photinias and at lease 250 dwarf youpons.
He offered to walk the site with you when you come out again. He is going to
mow and slick it up a little and call me next week to schedule another site
inspection because he maintains he has more than the required points reviewed
and approved planted.
He is also going to fax me the name of his supplier so I can confirm that the
elms were containerized.
Now - remember - don't kill the messenger! I simply conveyed your message to
him and his to youse guys.
CC: JKee
From: Shirley Volk
To: SKUENZEL
Date: 5/8/96 8:29am
Subject: jst -Reply -Reply -Reply
O.K. Do you want to do it, or shall call him and tell him we need to set up
an appointment.
»> Sabina Kuenzel 05/07/96 05:24pm »>
no, we were in a hurry cause we had 4 things to look at in about 45 minutes
(we made it, too!) i wanted to go back out there first without him anyway.
but it looks like we need to schedule something with him now.
»> Shirley Volk 05/07/96 05:17pm »>
I take it that you didn't call him to meet you as he requested.
»> Sabina Kuenzel 05/07/96 04:46pm »>
joey and i went out just after lunch .and counted again. we found 6830 total
points of the required 7,074, for a deficit of 244 points. the discrepancy
between what greg says is out there and what we counted could be due to the
fact that we could not give credit for many of those dwarf yaupons - they look
dead. it does not look as if they have been watered and plus they are overrun
with weeds. so we only gave credit for 50 dwarf yaupons, and even these are
destined to die real soon.
also, the grass looks awful. there's hardly any of it and it's mostly weeds.
the ordinance requires 100 live grass groundcover.
From: Shirley Volk
Ta; skuenzel
Date: 8/2/96 10:17am
Subject: JST Concrete.
Sabine, it's past time to check the. landscaping at this site. Let me know
what your plans are, please. Thanks.
CC: JKee
REC~6V~D MAY 9 2 1995
;:;,;, ~ Interoffice Memo
To: Sabine Kuenzel, Planning Division
From: Jim Smith, Sanitation Division~SS
.Date: May 12, 1995
Subject: Review of Project Review Committee Agenda; May 17, 1995
Parking Lot Plan -Wayne Court's Snow Cones (95-410):
I do not see any container location or reference to garbage collection on this plan. The minimum garbage
collection for this business will be a small commercial container located next to the building, or they can
utilize the Texaco Station's container currently on site. In either case, the Sanitation rate for this location
will be $48.40 per month.
Parking Lot Plan -International Supply (95-411):
No problems with this site plan.
Parking Lot Plan -J.S.T. Concrete'T(95-412):
No problems with this site plan. ~~-..,.._.,„.~,
Final Plat -Brandywine Subdivision (95-219):
No problems with this plat. Any idea what will be built on these lots?
I have routed these plans and plats to Paul Urso, Street Superintendent for his review.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
sabinel~s
•
~, l~l
/ p l/. I/L///
``9 9~ ~f /~J~
/ /~
~( ite~.J
~U'q~"
o
o
-- ~`
SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS
LIST CHECKED-0FF WITH 16
FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS
__ -
~` 1. Sheet size - 24" x 36"
^ 2. Title block to include:
-tea.) Name, address, location, and legal description
mob.) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant
~:) Name, address, and telephone number of developer/owner
mod.) Name, address, and telephone number of architect engineer
e.) Date of submittal
~'
3. Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels.
4. A key map (not necessarily to scale). /
5. Scale should be largest standard engineering. scale possible on sheet. ~~ ~ °
L~I~ 6. Provide a north arrow.
a~
7. Topography, final grading plan, and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much
information, show drainage on separate sheet.)
^ 8. All existing streets, drives, buildings, and water courses on or adjacent to the proposed project site.
9. Locate 100 yr floodplain on or adjacent to the proposed project site, note if there is none on the site.
10. Location and size of existing utilities within or adjacent to the proposed project site.
^ 11.•Propposed location, type, and size of the following:
tea.) Buildings and structures
fib.) Off-Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn, tabulated, and dimensioned
~' c.) Sidewalks
d.) Common open space sites
°® ``''i) Sites for solid waste containers
~_ ~ .
Ca~ 12. Proposed streets, drives, and curb cuts. For each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets,
alleys,. etc.) locate existing curb cuts on the same and opposite side of the street to determine separation
distances between existing and proposed curb cuts. Indicate driveway throat length as measured u- the
Driveway Ordinance. (See Ordinance 1961 for driveway location and design requuements.)
13. The total number of residential buildings and units to be constructed on the proposed project site.
^ 14. Landscape plan as required in Section 11 of the Zoning.Ordinance (See Ordinance # 1638.) The
landscaping plan can be shown on a separate sheet if too much information is on the original site plan.
Attempt to reduce or eliminate plantings in easements. include information on the plan such as:
a) existing landscaping to remain
b) required point calculations
c) proposed new plantings with points earned
15. Indicate unit type (number of bedrooms).
16. The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project.
. ,/
® 17. The gross square footage of buildings and the proposed use of each building.
18. The total site area and percent of building coverage of site.
19. T3esignate number of parking spaces required by ordinance and provided by proposal.
^ 20. Show dimensions to size and locate all structures, parking spaces, drives, curb cuts, parking islands, and
setbacks.
The following. are typical standards for Plan Development established by Ordinance or Policy:
1. Building separation is a minimum of 15 feet.
^ 2. Building setbacks are outlined in Ordinance 1638, Zoning Ord'-nance,
Table A (Sec. 7, P. 30)
^ 3. Minimum parking space is 9' X 20', or on a perimeter row, 9' x 18' with a 2' overhang. All multi-family
parking lots must be screened from rights-of way.
^ 4. Minimum drive width is 23' with head-in parking or 20' without parking.
^ 5. Landscaped islands of 6" raised curb are located at both ends of each parking row.
^ 6. Landscaped islands are also located every 15 spaces or interior rows and every 20 spaces on perimeter
rows. Streetscape compliance is required which involves special plantings along certain specified in the
City's Streetscape Plan.
^ 7. A 6" raised curb is required around all edges of all parts of all paved areas without exception. (To
include islands, planting areas, access ways, dumpster locations, utility pads, etc.) Curb detail to be
approved by City En~neer. No exceptions will be made for areas designated as "reserved for future
parking".
^ 8. Wheelstops maybe required on interior rows longer than 10 spaces or in special situations..
~i 9. Sidewalks are required at time of development if property has frontage on a street shown on the
sidewalk Master Plan or if the Project Review Committee determines the necessity. (Refer to Section
10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance).
^ 10, Director of Public Services determines number, and size of dumpsters. Locations shall be such that
dumpsters are not visible from streets. Gates are discouraged and visual screening may be required.
^ 11. Parking islands are 9' X 20 ; or 180 square feet.
^ 12. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible.
13. Fire lanes of a minimum of 20 feet in width with a minimum height clearance of 14 feet must be
established if any structure of any type is more than 150 feet from a public street or highway.
l 14. Any structure in any zoning district other than R-1, R-lA, or R-2 must be within 300 feet of a fire
hydrant as measured along a public street or highway.
15. Fire hydrants .must be located on the same side of a major street as a project, and shall be in a Location
approved by the Fire Marshal's office and the Superintendent of Water and Sewer.
16. Fire hydrants must be operable and accepted by the City and drives must have an all weather surface
before a building permit can be issued.
^ 17, A raised island not less than 6" in height and not less than 8' in width shall separate parking areas from
public rights-of--way. Eight foot setback from R.O.W. to curb of parking lot.
Painted by Shirley Volk 6/02/95 1:33pm
From: Roxanne Nemcik
To: Cathy Locke, Jane Kee
Subject: fwd: Concrete Hatching Plant
===NOTE====------=====6/02/95==8:58am=====______________________=_____=___=_
Your request for legal assistance was received in the Legal Department on
May 22, 1995 and assigned to me for a response on May 30, 1995.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether there is any relationship between the City°s regulations and TNRCC
approval of the batching plant?
Does the issuance of a building permit vest any rights in the property owner
to construct the plant?
Is the city liable if we issue a building or plumbing permit when TNRCC
subsequently denies the permit pursuant to the Health and Safety Code?
SHORT ANSWERS:
Yes.
No.
No.
DISCUSSION:
Section 382.001 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code, otherwise known as
the "Clean Air Act", regulates air pollution by controlling or abating it
and emissions of air contaminants, consistent with the protection of pubic
health, general welfare, and physical property, inluding the esthetic
enjoyment of air resources by the public and the maintenance of adequate
visibility.
Section 382.058 of the Health and Safety Code regulates the permitting of
Certain Concrete plants. It provides as follows:
"A person may not begin construction on any concrete plant that performs wet
batching, dry batching, or central mixing under an exemption adopted by the
board under Section 382.054 unless the person has complied with the notice
and opportunity for hearing provision under Section 382.056. Based on the
newspaper ad, the prospective batching plant owner is complying with the
require~ents set out in 382.056.
City's zoning power is unrelated to the state's authority to regulate under
the Clean Air Act. With regard to building permits our permits only
authorize construction in compliance with our own ordinances.
Because state law prohibits construction on any concrete plant prior to
permitting or exemption to permitting by the state and compliance with its
procedures, the issuance of a City building permit prior to state (and,
where applicable, federal permits) or in the absence of state/federal
permits would be void. Where state or federal law conflicts with city
ordinances the federal or state law takes precedence. Similarly, the
applicant would not accrue any vested rights through any City permit issued
for the same reason.
The Clean Air Act authorizes civil penalties and/or injunctive relief
against those who construct without a permit. Liability in this case is
imposed upon the person constructing and not the City. I confirmed this
determination with Mr. Salal Tehiric of the TNRCC on June 1, 1995. He is
the TNRCC staff member handling this application.
Although we are not liable for the issuance of a building permit prior to
the state approving the concrete batch plant because the applicant's
obligation to obtain a permit is independent from meeting the City's
Page: 1
~.
Punted by Shirley Volk 6/02/95 1:33pm
ordinance requirements, I would recommend one of following options to avoid
any confusion:
1) issue the permit if he has met the City's requirements but put in the
building permit a provision that it does not take effect until the applicant
obtains any state and/or federal permits that are required.
2) wait until the applicant can bring in written permission from the state
to operate before the city issues building permits.
3) issue the permits with a provision that states "the issuance of this
permit does not waive the applicant's obligation to meet federal and state
requirements with regard to permitting.
If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact
me.
Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======6/02/95=10:30am_______________________________________
Fwd to:
David Moore, Jim Callaway, Roxanne Nemcik, Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley
Volk
............................................................................
FYI - I've printed a copy for our files. Shirley, you decide which option
you want to take to work with Mt. Truitt.
Thanks Roxy.
Page: 2
Printed by Sabina Kuenzel 6/22/95 10:17am
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sabina Kuenzel
To: Shirley Volk
Subject: fwd: greg truitt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===NOTE====------=====6/22/95==9:57am=====____________=__=____=_____________
Jane and i went out last week and looked at the site. it is true that it is
difficult to see most of the frontage area of the site due to a combination
of the rr, the underbrush within the rr row, the underbrush that is located
on the northeast corner of the jst lot between the fence and the property
line, and the honeysuckle that is growing on the fence. however, if the
state comes in and clears out the row, there will be areas that will not be
screened. in addition, as this area is a part of greg's property we will
require basic maintenance of the northeast corner and the honeysuckle will
need to be trimmed so that it is not unsightly.
once this maintenance is done, there will be holes in the screening.
perhaps greg can get something to grow on the fence?
also, there is no vegetation on the fence in the northeast corner. there is
room between the row and the fence for photinias or other hedges.
greg and i have been playing phone tag so he may call in asking for you. i
am printing this for the file.
Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==6/22/95=10:03am_____________________________°___=____°
Fwd to: Natalie Thomas, Sabina Kuenzel
FYI
Page: 1
~~~~
`~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
G SIGN
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
May 22, 1995
e , d~~
TO: Greg Truitt, J.S.T. Concrete C~G'~~
101 West Loop West, College Station, TX 77840
FROM: Project Review Committee
Jane Kee, City Pla er
Veronica Morgan, s' st nt Crty Engineer
Craig Hall, P&Z Repres ntative
Others Attending ,1~
Natalie Thomas, Planning Technici~
Don Lusk, Electrical Line Coordinator
SUBJECT: Parking Lot Plan -J.S.T. Concrete; proposed concrete hatching plant to be
located at 101 West Loop West, previously Wickes Lumber Supply near the
Dowling Road intersection. (95-412)
A Project Review Committee meeting was held Wednesday, May 17, 1995 to discuss the above
mentioned parking lot plan. City Planner Kee informed the Committee that the existing site is
losing its nonconforming status due to the change of use of the facility. The property must
comply with all current codes and ordinances. Assistnat City Engineer Morgan moved to approve
the proposed site plan with the following discretionary items, ordinance requirements and
comments:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Discretionary Items:
All conditions of approval imposed by the TNRCC must be complied with as well as the
following ordinance requirements.
The following is a list of ordinance requirements identified by the Project Review
Committee. This list does not relieve the applicant of total compliance with all current
ordinance requirements.
Ordinance Requirements:
Show the required 6" curb around the perimeter of the parking area.
-The landscape and streetscape calculations are acceptable.
\/ POST OFF PLANNIN DIVI o
® PLANNING ~IVISI~N
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
E COLLEGE STnTiON.tE%AS nea2-eSao E%AS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960.
(a~~ ~flaJS~a
(409)764-3570
Printed by Jane Kee 7/27/95 4:04pm
---------------------------------------
From: Roxanne Nemcik
To: Larry Ringer, Skip Noe
Subject: Concrete batching plant
---------------------------------------
===NOTE====----=-=====7/27/95==3:50pm==
CC: Cathy Locke, Jane Kee, Tom Brymer
.......................................
This is a follow up to Jane°s E-Mail
dated 7/21/95.
The City's regulation of this property
through zoning and city .permitting for
drainage and development is independent
and mutually exclusive of the TNRCC
regulation and permitting of the
concrete batching plant. Thus, we can
regulate on these issues and .are not
pre-empted by state law.
On June 1, 1995, I spoke with the staff
member of TNRCC who was handling this
permit. His name is Salal Tehiric. He
indicated that the TNRCC was going to
have informal meetings with those
residents located near the proposed
plant. If TNRCC determined that the
facts in this case warranted a hearing
they would initiate one. However, he
stated that he did not think that his
plant permit process would necessitate
a hearing.
Precluding development of this site
through the exercise of the City's
zoning power to downzane the property
could precipitate litigation on the
basis of a regulatory taking which, in
my estimation, the City would lose. I
agree with Jane that it is too late to
downzone because the concrete batching
plant is a permitted use in the M-2
zoning district and they have been
issued a development permit, water tap
and gone through the city's site plan
process and been approved. They have
already expended funds in reliance on a
legitimate use in this zoning
classification.
Unless the applicant fails to meet some
standard imposed either by TNRCC or by
the City, I do not know of a way to
preclude this use of the property.
Page: i
[15/12/95 ].3.43 'd`409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS
[~ ool
~e~::~~~~e:x:x~~e~x:~:~c>k~::x:~xc~x::~:~~x:~:x:
x:x;:x ACTIVYTY REPORT ~:~~
x::x~::x~:sx~~~;:~~~:~e:x:~:x:~:u~:x~x:x:~:xx:x::x
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX N0. 2011
CONNECTION TEL 9p6900261
CONNECTION ID
START TIME 05/12 13:42
USAGE TIME O1' 33
PAGES 3
RESULT OK
~u ~~ ....
~i
I~
~- ~ ° ~.,
~.
.,
6 !~+ ~
ControR
~ ~ Drop Sheol
Sherd Point
~ ~ ~ ~ ~C:l9tl ~1~317C:~1~1~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a
° ~ ^ ~
Silos
~ Ba~house ~ ~
~ ~ Radial ~ ~
~ Shed ~ Stacker °~ °~ ~ ~ ~-
,! t
i
~~.
~~
~,~
~,' ~ s,~"
s ~-
January 5, 1995
Mr. Greg Truitt
J.S.T. Concrete
101 West Loop West
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Greg:
Wanted to drop you a note to wish you a Happy New. Year and to remind you
that according to the agreement. reached with the Fire Marshal and you at the
meeting on December 8th, your site renovations will be complete by the end of
January.
I also wanted to remind you that if you are still thinking about making some
landscaping changes to the plans which were previously approved, you should
contact Sabine Kuenzel to make sure your changes are acceptable and will meet
ordinance requirements.
We hope your new business is successful.
Yours very truly,
Shirley J. Volk
Development Coordinator
cc: Jon Mies, Fire Marshal
Veronica Morgan, Asst City Engineer.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
May 22, 1995
~~~~~.`
TO: Greg Truitt, J.S.T. Concrete ~ ~'
101 West Loop West, College Station, TX 77840
FROM: Project Review Committee
Jane Kee, City Plan{ier
Veronica Morgan, s st nt Crty Engineer
Craig Hall, P&Z Repres ntative
Others Attending ~~ 1.,;~
Natalie Thomas, Planning Technici~
Don Lusk, Electrical Line Coordinator
SUBJECT: Parking Lot Plan -J.S.T. Concrete; proposed concrete batching plant to be
located at 101 West Loop West, prevnously Wickes Lumber Supply near the
Dowling Road intersection. (95-412)
A Project Review Committee meeting was held Wednesday, May 17, 1995 to discuss the above
mentioned parking lot plan. City Planner Kee informed the Committee that the existing site is
losing its nonconforming status due to the change of use of the facility. The property must
comply with all current codes and ordinances. Ass>stnat City Engineer Morgan moved to approve
the proposed site plan with the following discretionary items, ordinance requirements and
comnnents:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Discretionary Items:
All conditions of approval imposed by the TNRCC must be complied with as well as the
following- ordinance requirements.
The following is a list of ordinance requirements identified by the Project Review
Committee. This list does not relieve the applicant of total compliance with all current
ordinance requirements.
Ordinance Requirements:
PLANNING DIVISION
~. ' II ~
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
~s.oFF~~E ~o~~~~ES.a.~o~.,ExAS~,a.sa~oE=asa~E~~E
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960
(409) 764-3570
u~~ ~caano
Show the required 6°' curb around the perimeter of the parking area.
_ The landscape and streetscape calculations are acceptable.
Exhibit A, Figure 1
~4 eAR (rrP)
~~
2'
4 BARS (TYP)
CURBING OPTIONS
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
Page9-3
7.nninG Ord1P12.T1Ce
E-+ ~
~ C~2
~ ~ ~.
o
~ ~
W
U
E.., ,~ - -
w a
~ a ~
Q ~
~ N @ R'
w Q o o
,~ J ~ ~ W~ m
W F~
Q ~ ~ H z~'
~ W F.
f.~] •. U1
0 ~ ~ ~
~
O F
~ ~
y
~
Q
-~ -GG U~--
-=
~-
~
~- to ~j
:twwY~~p 0~~. 4~~
ioi~ ~i~~
e
~ o
• ~'
~
~
/li
V ~ •U
~
~
s.., ? :,~oF.ee~
Q
~,0-~~'
c.i
o
z ~
'- ~~
~ w
O
~ 5_
C~J ~~~
wv
~ w ~g
~
~ ~
- ~ a
z ~
a ~
o ~ oz
~ ~3
Q co a
- -
o a
a `~
O Q 4 `~ z w
~~ F=
~
°' a a o
a
~ ° ~ `~
~.
~
Q
~
a~
o ~t c
~
o0
d q
_~ .ate. pn~t
r~ I
II
~~
w
v
Q ~
- ~-
~:~ 2b, 1995
~'o: Shirley V®1k, I3e~e~oprnent C,~c~r ator
F°raa Greg Truitt, J.S.T. ~c~neret~
~.Ol VV`est L~~p West, ~~~l~ge St~tia~, TX '~fi~40
S~:bject: Seer ~xetia~~ o~ ~~ter provided by pr+~p~ased 4" water ~i~e.
n,--;,,t-A~ h~~ ~l~irlev Volk 5/26/95 4:19pm
From: Shirley Volk
To: Jane Kee, Kent Laza, Natalie Thomas, Sabina Kuenzel
Subject: fwd: J.S.T. Concrete
-==NOTE====------=====5/23/95==3:47pm=====__________________________________
(formerly the Wickes Lumber Supply site) I have had 2 calls this afternoon
from Greg Truitt accusing the City of "double dealing" him! Once I got him
to explain, it boils down to this: He is reading his PRC report and there
are some things included in the report which were not mentioned at the
meeting. I got that explained, then asked. him for specific complaints. He
said the requirement to provide screening "...along the east side along the
stockpile area." was specifically discussed with Sabine who had told him
that because he does not own the land adjacent to the Wellborn\, screening
would not be required in that area. Also, he said that Veronica said at the
predevelopment meeting that a drainage report would not be required because
it was a fully developed site and he would not be breaking ground. She did
tell him that he should show how he would be holding the aggregate on the
site. (The PRC report calls for a drainage report with desilting
information, etc.
He also said no one asked him to show the proposed vehicle storage area, but
he doesn't mind including that on the site plan. I thanked him!
Please help me with this. Thanks.
Fwd=by:=Kent=Laza=====5/23/95==4:16pm_______________________________________
Fwd to: Jane Kee, Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan
It•appears•reasonable.to.require•the•developer•to~show.how•he•intends•to••••
keep .stockpiled materials (such as sand or other aggregate) from being
washed onto adjoining property or into a drainage system. If he will
provide that, no other drainage studies will be necessary.
Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=5/23/95==4:28pm_______________________________________
Fwd to: Jane Kee, Kent Laza, Natalie Thomas, Shirley Volk
at the•predev't•meeting, v did•assure•them.that•they•would•not.have•to•.••.•
submit a drainage report, so this will cut down on their costs because they
will not have to hire a private engineer. the site plan does not have to be
drawn by a pe in this city.
i did also tell them that we would more than likely not assess .the east side
for streetscape but i never assured them that screening would not be
required. if he is having stockpiles here, i agree that we need to screen.
i also thought i had made it clear that this nonassessment of streetscape
points and street trees along wellborn would only be my recommendation and
that the prc had the final vote on this issue.
printed by Sabina Kuenzel 6/14/95 4:33pm
From: Sabina Kuenzel
To: Jane Kee, Veronica Morgan
Subject: fwd: greg truitt
===NOTE====------=====6/14/95==2:41pm==
Jane, v, shirley and i met with him
yesterday and he is adamant that the
screening on the east side as stated in
the prc conditions was never discussed
at prc. if it was he does not remember
it. he argued that the existing fence
has greenery on it, and that .that 8'
fence combined with the rr tracks
screen better than a 6' wooden fence
would. i offered to go out and look
before we talk about this more. since
you and v were voting members of the
prc i want you both. along. when do you
want to go?
Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======6/14/95==3:18pm==Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel
Aren't you and V doing preprc reviews
in the AM? After those, in case there
are other things we need to look at,
holler at me and we'll go look. I have
no mtgs. scheduled until 2.
Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/14/95==4:15pm==
Fwd to: Jane Kee, Veronica Morgan
........................................
ok - after preprc it is!
Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/14/95==4:30pm==
Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel
ok
Page: 1
A; , .
°~ I
~~~9~~ ~~ ~~~
9`°"~~y ~~a ~9~~
~~. ~a ~. ~r~~l~r
°~~x~ 7~~
A~~.~~, ~E1~.~sk~ fc~~ y=c~~t ~~~aa ~ ~~~~~ t~a~ y~~~~. ~~~~ ~~ ~r~,j~y~r~
i E"Y~Rwd~"~ ~ ~ s
$~~t~3"
Business NamL:~-=- _-.--
Locatian:
`T'ype of Inspection pr Test: r
~ ~ ~~~~ _
Date Request was Received: ~ ~~,, ~ ~~
Pass I Fail ~~~~
Date. of Inspection; ~~ - ~
~---G y~~_-~--.
Remarks: c~ n ~' ~ 4 _ " ~~ ~ ~, ~~~~~~
n.
r ~
~_ ., to~~r~ , ,..3~
t~ VY ~ \ ~ nom- y-~lL=1-'~~-
-- r---
Ivame of Person making inspection: ~
~~ ~~
~. ~~ `~,+s REGEiYE A ~ 1995
Cot.~..~ (sz:_ S ~t-~--`c ~r~i , `T~ . ' '~-~-~-~~-' -its t
rnN~TRIICTI()N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
NAME OF APPLICANT: Aggieland Paintball Warehouse ~ _ ~ , ~ / ~ .~
MAILING ADDRESS: 101 West Loop FM 2818
TELEPHONE NUMBER: No number .yet
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: Greg Truitt
LOT.:
BLOCK:
o~vr~`~ ~n~'
SUBDIVISION:
DESCRIPTION: The old Wicke's lumber warehouse at the corner of F.M. 2818
and Welborn road. Crawford Burnett League, abstract #7 College Station,
Brazos County, Tx.
ACTION REQUESTED: We respectfully request a variance for the fire code
that is preventing us from building inside of the building, (putting in a fire
sprinkler system.) Without the variance we can't afford to open our
business.
CURRENT ZONING OF SUJECT LAND:
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION:' t9tG a~ Oc-ro~L +o, ~~+~+
~F..cTi qhl g ~ ~ - $ . ~ ®~~ ~ ~ Ai'P2oV ~D r~u'ro ~ ~A-T ~ ~ S~RIrJ t~L'ER 5`! S'cE. M S~tat~-.
~- '~yZoV t~S~ tN C~R_out~ re- ~Y.~m3~-Y oGCU'~As~C~ES(~:C.EPT
CFit,3SLC6FES~ ~ l~Jfk~YJ !°!"~tSS'E?1n~~'I Zo-rpiL ~=l-002 HRBA
E`I,CGEl~S
1. We request that you a11ow us not to sprinkler our warehouse of 10,000
feet.
2. This variance is necessary because without it, it will be much too
:expensive for us to open our doors. We feel we would be more of a benefit
to the community if we were open than if vve don't exist.
3. We would like to offer the following alternatives;
a. More fire extinguishers. (To committee satisfaction.)
b. Fire .alarms to encompass the entire business area.
c. Covers for the lights to aviod breakage and sparking.
4. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest because the
smoke alarms and fire extinguishers will be used to warn and control any
fires before t-hey can get out of control.
The facts stated by me in this application are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
Applict Date
Printed by Shirley Volk 7/18/95 3:12pm
---------------------------------------
From: Shirley Volk CONFIRMED
To: Don Lusk, Tony Michalsky
Subject: fwd: JST Concrete
---------------------------------------
===NOTE====------=====7/18/95==1:18pm==
Hey Guys: Greg Truitt is coming in at
2 p.m. today to go over the site plan
AGAIN, and if he agrees, and wants to
get his water tap this trip, we are
prepared to sell it to him. There
won't be a building permit involved, so
the water tap is the only hold we've
got. Do you have a problem with that?
Fwd=by:=Tony=Michalsk=7/18/95==1:33pm==
Fwd to: Shirley Volk
.......................................
We are meeting him today to discuss
electrical needs. It's okay with us.
He knows he needs electricity to
operate.
---------------------------------------
panA• 1
From: Shirley Volk
To: SKUENZEL
Subject: JST Concrete -Reply -Reply
Great. Here's what Pll do. When I hear from him, I will remind him I want something from the supplier -either his itemized bill or a phone # & person to
talk to. Then when that contact is made, Pll have one of the Debs set up a site visit with Greg, You & Pete and put it on your calendar. How's that?
»> Sabina Kuenze103/28/96 01:52pm »>
ok, here's what i think:
i don't recall a conversation where he said he was going to change the b&b to containerized but that does. not mean it did not happen - i am a bit puzzled that
if the conversation did take place, that there's no note of it on the plan. that's all really irrelevant - if he can get us the proof that's ok.
i dont' mind walking the site with him but i want someone there who knows something about plants, like pete v. i also don't think that i should make a trip
out until we get proof from the supplier.
»> Shirley Volk 03/27/96 04:47pm »>
Greg Truitt just returned my call from last week and I was pointing out the lack of required landscaping reported by you. He disagrees, saying that the
MORE than 24 cedar elms were containerized as agreed to by you, Sabine, that he planted at least 120 red tipped photinias and at lease 250 dwarf youpons.
He offered to walk the site with you when you come out again. He is going to mow and slick it up a little and call me next week to schedule another site
inspection because he maintains he has more than the required points reviewed and approved planted.
He is also going to fax me the name of his supplier so I can confirm that the elms were containerized.
Now -remember -don't kill the messenger! I simply conveyed your message to him and his to youse guys.
CC: JKee, JDunn
COLLEGE STATION
February 14, 2003
Milan Powers
5011 Harbour Town Ct.
College Station, TX 77845
Re: 101 FM 2818 West
Dear Mr. Powers,
P. O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842
Tel: 409 764 3500
Certified Receipt # 7099 3220 0000 7848 4241
The City of College Station's City Council passes ordinances to ensure its citizens a safe, secure, and
attractive city in which to live. With these goals in mind, it is necessary to inform you that the above-
stated address is in violation of the City of College Station zoning regulations. There is non-
compliance with the approved landscaping plan and unscreened landscaping materials adjacent to
the right-of-way. These are violations of the Zoning Ordinance Section 11 Landscaping, which
requires the landscaping of commercial properties according to an approved plan and Section 10.2.H,
which requires visual screening of outdoor storage.
This property needs to be brought into compliance by planting new vegetation according to the
approved landscaping plan and moving the Brazos Valley Turf materials behind the existing fence.
This correspondence is to serve you notice of the potential penalties. Failure to complete the
required landscaping improvements and outdoor storage screening within forty-five (45) business
days of receipt of this notification shall constitute a violation of these sections of the Zoning
Ordinance. A citation will be issued and can result in fines of up to $2,000 dollars per day per
violation. Each day can be a separate violation.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or need to receive a copy of
the Zoning Ordinance and/or the approved landscaping plan for 101 FM 2818, please do not hesitate
to call me at (979) 764-3570.
Sincerely,
~-~~-~
Molly Hitchcock
Staff Planner
Cc: Code Enforcement
Home of Texas A&M University
Milan W. Powers
5011 Harbour Town Ct.
College Station, TX 77845
979-690-1119
Fax 778-8223
E-mail - milan owers hotmal.com
May 30, 2003
City of College Station
Development Services
College Station, TX
Molly Hitchcock
Re: Landscape plan for Harvey Mitchell Parkway,
Dear Ms. Hitchcock:
As per your request I am writing this letter to explain some changes in the existing plan we discussed
and set forth a timetable in which I hope to complete the project.
The Primary change is to eliminate the outer row of hedge and trees at the front of the parking lot. I
would then use those points to better cover the chain link fence and warehouse buildings of Boral Brick
at the back of the propertyfrom the Sprint tower to the back end of the main building.
I would .hope to have the wood privacy fence to cover the landscape rock inventory built and
approximately a third of the hedgerow planted as well as a few trees by the end of June. The balance
to be completed by the end of October after the summer heat passes.
While I will make every effort to complete this project as I have scheduled I would hope the city would
be tolerant of weather conditions and costs associated to the project with respect to my available funds.
Sincerely;
._
__..._ __ _.__..-~..._..,.~n,.
,~
Milan W. Powers
~~
Note to file:
I inspected the site at the beginning of July. There was some new landscaping
planted. The fence did not completely screen the landscape supply storage from
the ROW. I called on July 10, 2003 and left a message that when we re-inspect
in October, the fencing will have to be extended to screen all of the storage.
The City of
Colle a Station Texas
_ g
® Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764-3500
www.ci.college-station. tx.us
October 14, 2003
Milan Powers
5011 Harbour Town Ct.
College Station, TX 77845
Re: 101 FM 2818 West
Dear Mr. Powers,
Certified Receipt # 7099 3400 0017 6090 1132
We wish to thank you for your cooperation thus far in starting to bring the landscaping and screening
violations at 101 FM 2818 West into compliance with the ordinances of the City of College Station
(Section 11 Landscaping of the Zoning Ordinance/Section 7.5 Landscaping and Tree Protection of
the UDO, which require the landscaping of commercial properties according to an approved plan and
Section 10.2.H of the Zoning Ordinance/Section 7.11 Outdoor Storage and Display of the UDO, which
require visual screening of outdoor storage). As described in the City's letter to you dated February
14, 2003 and in our personal meetings at City Hall on March 6, 2003 and May 22, 2003, this property
needs to be brought into compliance by planting new vegetation according to the approved
landscaping plan and moving the Brazos Valley Turf materials behind the existing fence.
Your schedule of compliance was extended beyond the normal timetable granted to property owners
so you would have the time to budget, take advantage of a more condusive planting season, and
physically complete the work required yourself. In your letter to the city dated May 30, 2003, you
stated what we had discussed in our meetings--that the work would be completed by the end of
October.
This correspondence is to serve you notice of the potential penalties. Failure to complete the
required landscaping improvements and outdoor storage screening by November 1, 2003 shall
constitute a violation of these sections of the Zoning Ordinance/UDO. A citation will be issued and
can result in fines of up to $2,000 dollars per day per violation. Each day can be a separate violation.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call meat (979) 764-3570.
Sincerely,
Molly Hitchcock, AICP
Staff Planner
Cc: Code Enforcement
Home of Texas A&M University
Home of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum
Page 1 of 2
Molly Hitchcock -old 7ST Concrete site
From: Molly Hitchcock
To: Eric Hurt
Date: 5/21/2004 8:40 AM
Subject: old JST Concrete site
CC: Jane Kee; Natalie Ruiz
I have another enforcement issue for you!
Re: 101 FM 2818 West
This site:
. does not meet its landscaping plan (UDO Section 7.5.F.1)
. has outdoor storage (landscaping materials) that is not screened (Section 7.11.6.4) and
. has non-permitted signage (landscaping banner) (Section 3.12.A)
We have been trying to work with Mr. Powers for over a year with little success:
. We started enforcement on landscaping and outdoor storage in Feb. 2003.
. We met with him on March 6 to discuss the requirements and his landscaping options.
. We met with him on May 22 to discuss his (lack of) progress and establish a timetable for compliance.
. He sent us a letter May 30 stating that the landscaping materials would be screened and specific
landscaping would be planted by the end of June, with the rest of his requirements fulfilled by the end. of
October.
. We inspected the site at the beginning of July and found that a fence was built but did not completely
screen the landscaping inventory and that some new vegetation was planted. I called and left him a
message that the fencing would have to be extended to screen all of the storage and the landscaping
would have to be completed by the end of October.
. We sent him a letter on October 14, 2003 to remind him that his deadline for compliance was
approaching.
. After being left a message, I called and left Mr. Powers a message November 7 and extended his
deadline to the end of November.
. Due to the death of his mother, he asked to have the deadline extended until Christmas. We agreed to
the end of the year.
I left for maternity leave at the end of Dec. I came back a couple of months ago and have slowly been working
through everything on my desk. When I saw this file, I went out to look at the site. The landscaping has not
been completed, more outdoor storage has appeared in the parking lot, and they've put up a sign that is not
permitted, nor would it be because we consider it a second freestanding sign. Staff has tried to help Mr. Powers
so he could space his plantings out financially and be able to plant in spring and fall planting seasons for better
landscaping success, but he has now had over a year and three planting seasons. Not only that, he has allowed
the site to become more noncompliant.
I'll send copies of the letters to you. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
Molly
Molly Hitchcock, AICP
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mhitchcock\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001... 5/21 /2004
Page 2 of 2
Staff Planner, Development Services
City of College Station
979.764.3570
979.764.3496 (f)
rn h tchcock@ cstx..gov
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mhitchcock\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001... 5/21/2004
From: Sabine McCully
To: City of College Station. City Hall(CWarren, JMies, ...
Date: 4/28/97 8:21am
Subject: Tuesday's predevelopment Mtg -Reply
probably will not require any site upgrades cause the use is conforming with
the zoning and the use is not changing. I'd be interested to know what they
are going to change - anything new will need to meet current requirements.
but since there is no parking upgrade required, we'd loook at each change
separately.
if this is the 10:00 i will not be there.
»> Shirley Volk 04/25/97 04:52pm »>
This is to discuss what needs to be done to the old Wickes building to be used
as a similar lumber company use.
~~~ ~ ~-
~~~-/~ ~~
~,~.~`` ~ °~~ -,.ma C ~~`~~~~
~;
r
(/, U
~~~ "
1 ,"~6
® CITY OF COL.LEGI/ STATIOI`I
Post Office'Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-9960
(409) 764-3500
Apri129, 1997..
~''~
Fain McDougal.
McDougal & Company
7607 Easrinark Drive
College Station, Texas 77840
RE: 101 F.M. 2818 West
Dear Mr. McDougal:..
Per your request, I am providing. the following list of requirements for the above referenced address. The
.following items are based on acursorywalk-through and on the assumption that no new work will be
performed.
1. Provide handicapped parking per ANSI A.117.1, (total number required based on total number
of Parking spaces).
2. Provide striping for parking spaces, (total number to be determined by the planning department).
3. Verify that all illuminated exit signs are in good working order.
4. Repair parking lot as needed.
5. Provide designated fire lane around building percity requirements.
6. Replace landscaping as needed to comply with site plan on file.
7. Provide handrail on stairs per building code requirements.
8. Correct existing :electrical hazards, (i.e.; exposed conductors).
9. Additional exit may be required from. warehouse area, (to be determined by building department).
l0. Install drinking fountain on wall between bathroom doors.
Other items may be required based on plan review or conditions discovered during inspections.
Contact me at 764-3742 if I can be of further assistance.
Sin ,
r~`~-~---f7
Simms
Building Official
LS/ih
Elome of Texas Ai;M University
From: Sabine McCully
To: City of College Station.City Hall(JKEE, Lbattle), ...
Date: 6/2/97 4:17pm
Subject: JST Concrete -Reply -Reply -Reply
nah, i think we're ok - just as long as fain and those guys understand that
„~ the storage area needs to remain limited access with no real retail use!
thanks,
»> Shirley Volk 06/02/97 01:16pm »>
You did address it as being all retail earlier, but perhaps I wasn't clear
with this version of what's going to happen. The front part, which is now
office, will be the area where the items are on display for people to come and
shop. The rear part, unheated, uncooled, but with only a door to separate it
from the front part, will have a lot of stock in boxes, etc., which are not
actually on display, but would be where stuff is stored and shipped out of -
the public would not be prohibited from going back there to perhaps watch
while they pick up the cabinets or whatever he bought as the result of looking
at the item in the front of the store. And if it is the decision that the
earlier decision was the correct one, so be it - just tell me and I'll get
that info to Fain. I had only thought that perhaps with this explanation a
more clear picture of what was being purposed for that site would be gleaned.
Sorry I bothered you with this AGAIN.
»> Jane Kee 06/02/97 10:20am »> -- - --
I thought we answe_______red ths___a_long time ago Our -ord. req. 1/25.0 for retail
space, 1/1000 for warehouse space Anything else needs to be defined and go
-'~--moo P&Z for es a~hment of a req. I thought we had told Fain this and he was
going to ask P&Z for a req. for retail space but that sells large items or big
ticket items.
»> Shirley Volk 05/30/97 01:17pm »>
Lee, did you talk anymore with the Planners about the parking requirement at
this site if it turns into the office use in the front with warehouse-type
uses in the rear with nothing on display, but which is not heated or cooled,
has a door between the office and this area, but does not PROHIBIT customers
from going back to the bins of lumber or the merchandise which is in boxes.
Fain McDougal is waiting for an answer to the question, "knowing this, is the
parking requirement for this prospective owner still 1/250 sq. ft.?".
~fi~n
d~~?
}+ ~
4U ~ ~~i r i 1
~~
From: Jane Kee
To: City of College Station.City Hall(Lbattle), SVOLK
Date: 6/2/97 1:52pm
Subject: JST Concrete -Reply -Reply -Reply
if the part in the back is not really display area but storage then I'd assess
it 1/1000. It's not display if you can't browse thru it or buy it. Just
because you can watch them load your item doesn't make it retail space. We
just need to make really sure whether it's actually storage or display/retail
space. If it retail space, but they feel that because it's big ticket items
the traffic is less, they need to have P&Z establish a parking req. for that
type of use. They need to base this on something however, not just a whim.
We'll research what we can also but the ball should be in their court. I
don't mind being bothered with this. I just thought we'd resolved it already.
Sometimes, maybe I assume too much. the last I do remember I did have have as
much info as you just gave in this e-mail. It sounded like all retail space
to me. The way you describe it it sounds more like warehouse.
»> Shirley Volk 06/02/97 01:16pm »>
You did address it as being all retail earlier, but perhaps I wasn't clear
with this version of what's going to happen. The front part, which is now
office, will be the area where the items are on display for people to come and
shop. The rear part, unheated, uncooled, but with only a door to separate it
from the front part, will have a lot of stock in boxes, etc., which are not
actually on display, but would be where stuff is stored and shipped out of -
the public would not be prohibited from going back there to perhaps watch
while they pick up the cabinets or whatever he bought as the result of looking
at the item in the front of the store. And if it is the decision that the
earlier decision was the correct one, so be it - just tell me and I'll get
that info to Fain. I had only thought that perhaps with this explanation a
more clear picture of what was being purposed for that site would be gleaned.
Sorry I bothered you with this AGAIN.
»> Jane Kee 06/02/97 10:20am »>
I thought we answered this a long time ago. Our ord. req. 1/250 for retail
space, 1/1000 for warehouse space. ,Anything else needs to be defined and go
to P&Z for establishment of a req. I thought we had told Fain this and he was
going to ask P&Z for a req. for retail space but that sells large items or big
ticket items.
»> Shirley Volk 05/30/97 01:17pm »>
Lee, did you talk anymore with the Planners about the parking requirement at
this site if it turns into the office use in the front with warehouse-type
uses in the rear with nothing on display, but which is not heated or cooled,
has a door between the office and this area, but does not PROHIBIT customers
from going back to the bins of lumber or the merchandise which is in boxes.
Fain McDougal is waiting for an answer to the question, "knowing this, is the
parking requirement for this prospective owner still 1/250 sq. ft.?".
CC: City of College Station.City Hall(SMccully),
ENGINEERING: Covers Water, Sewer, Drainage, Site Utilities, Impact Fees
(Kent 3581, Veronica 3763, Steve 3592)
(David D. 777-3942, Vern W. 777-0192, Jerry J. 777-3557, John L. 759-3970)
FIRE: (0 81)
~ D~~_~~ mod'
LEGAL: (Jan 3546)
(Easement?) ~ .
,~ .tr , ~: Rn _..
ZONING/PARKLAND/LANDSCAPING/DUMPSTER LOCATION & SCREENING:
(Sabine 3782, Joey 3748)
~ ~.
DUMPSTER SERVI (Jim S., NVally, Freddie -all at 3690)
,s
J f ~ I ~ /~
/4/////
From: Sabina Kuenzel
To: SVOLK
Date: 5/8/96 9:llam
Subject: jst -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply
if you could call him that would be great. i want pete to come with me for his opinion on what is dead and to help give greg some advice on what to do for
those poor little green things.
by the way, I'm pretty swamped so it may not be this week -this is ok cause since there is no co we'll treat it as a code enforcement thing if we have to. a
delay in code enforcement is not as bad as a delay in permits or co's...
»> Shirley Volk 05/08/96 08:29am »>
O.K. Do you want to do it, or shall. call him and tell him we need to set up an appointment.
»> Sabina Kuenze105/07/96 05:24pm »>
no, we were in a hurry cause we had 4 things to look at in about 45 minutes (we made it, too!) i wanted to go back out there first without him anyway. but
it looks like we need to schedule something with him now.
»> Shirley Volk 05/07/96 05:17pm »>
I take it that you didn't call him to meet you as he requested:
»> Sabina Kuenze105/07/96 04:46pm »>
Joey and i went out just-after lunch and counted again. we found 6830 total points of the required 7,074, for a deficit of 244 points. the discrepancy betweer}
what greg says is out there and what we counted couldbe due to the fact that we could not give credit for many of those dwarf yaupons -they look dead. it
does not look as if they have been watered and plus theyare overrun with weeds. so we only gave credit for 50 dwarf yaupons, and even these are destined
to die real soon.
also, the grass looks awful.. there's hardly any of it and it's mostly weeds.. the ordinance requires 100% live grass groundcover.
CC: pvanecek
From: Veronica Morgan
To: SVOLK
Date: 5/9/96 9:36am
Subject: 7ST Concrete -Reply -Forwarded -Forwarded -Reply
no, i am not ready. i need to resolve the fire hydrant situation between j st and the roofing place behind them. whats his name said he was going to take case
pf it, and i just need to find out why he isnt.
»> Shirley Volk 05/09/96 09a0am »>
I never got an answer on this V. Also, alre you all ready to release this? Sabine isn't, and I don't know about Fire. There really isn't a C.O. involved, but we
were trying to work with him to avoid going into Code Enforcement on this. I need to have an update on outstanding requirements. Thanks.
From: Sabine McCully
To: SVOLK
Date: 5/2/97 3:47pm
Subject: JST Concrete -
former Wickes -Reply
let's all talk about it in monday's staff meeting. lee had asked me about the
parking and i think we are in one of those really fun grey areas where we have
to make a call. the question in my mind is to determine whether or not the
new use will be more intense than the old use in terms of parking.
the hold may have been as a result of landscape problems - just guessing.
»> Shirley Volk 05/02/97 03:08pm »>
Sabine: Have you determined if the uses proposed by Fain will work in M-2 or
not? Also, can you remember any reason a hold was placed on the computer in
the building dept to preclude issuing any additional building permits on that
building? Veronica doesn't think she has any reason to put a hold on it, so I
thought perhaps you may have done it. Also., if you have decided they can't
use the building as Fain proposed, have you called him? I would hate for him
to sell the building to someone for a particular use because we told him it
was o.k. (I did based on your a-mail, which was based on what Fain told me
over the phone), and then have it not to be the case! Thank goodness it's
Friday afternoon of a VERY bad week!
JST CONCRETE Co., Inc.
101 W. Loop W.
College Station, TX. 77845
(409) 696 - 9354
March 7, 1996
Ms. Shirley J. Volk
City of College Station
EO Ilox 9960
College Station, TX. 77842-0960.
RE: Letter dated 01/05/1995
Dear- Shirley,
I have completed the work on site as requested by the City. The work
was completed on January 31, 1996. I have contacted your office four
times (including this letter) since completion, and received no
confirmation.
I spoke with Jon Mies and he said, the work is com leted. I will assume
everything is finalized, until I hear otherwise.
0~~
~ ~ ~
y
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Greg Truitt