Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousJune 4th, 1999 Jane Kee, City Planner City of College Station Ms. Kee, As per my request to staff at last night's Hear Visitor's section of the Planning & Zoning Commission, I'm requesting that the Zoning Official inspect and determine if the project at 303 Boyett (Satchel's) is in violation of City Ordinance 1638, .section 7.24.E.1.e -Historic Structures. On September 24th, 1998, the City awarded a Facade Improvement Program grant for the purpose of facade renovation of 303 Boyett. I since. have reviewed, via an Open Records Act request, information on this project. I believe that all the HUD and College Station requirements for the FIP have been met by the city. I also know that the Texas Historical Commission judged this site to not be eligible for the. National Register of Historic Places. So what's the problem? Although the project meets those federal and state requirements, it seems that it doesn't meet the local zoning ordinance 1638, section 7.24. E.1 .e. Let's review the requirements of the ordinance: Historic Structures: Structures over 50 years in age that are reflected as high or medium priority structures in the Northgate Historic Resources Survey or have been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places shall be treated using methods and materials in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as outlined in Attachment A. The structure is located in section NG-1 of Northgate. As per the fax that the THC sent me on this site, the structure is listed as being around 68 years in age (built circa 1930). The survey lists the property as being Medium Priority. The age and survey qualifications for Historic Structures according to 7.24.E.1.e are easily met. Since the qualification requirements of the ordinance are met, then the structure should "be treated using methods and materials in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation", to preserve it. What has been done that violates the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for this project? Part of the description of the award, which is listed as Agenda Item #7-C, is for additional interior and exterior, beyond the FIP award. Approximately $256,700 was to be spent on the project, part of it for interior and exterior work. When you consider that the property is valued as $35,540 and that the matching funds from the FIP award alone are $112,795 (over 3 times the value of the entire property), then one should conclude that the structure is either being meticulously restored or (more likely) severely modified from its original state. Frankly, the FIP award is so out of line with the original building's value that I have to ask myself: just how much is this building being renovated or is it just a pretext to effectively replace it with a generous donation from Uncle Sam? Well, the merits of the FIP award don't matter to this case. What is being decided now is whether the building violated the ordinance. That's all you have to decide. And it should be quite easy. I attended the September 24th City Council meeting and saw a prospective drawing presented for the project. I also visited the site, before construction started, and since then numerous times. The building used to look like a small house, with a small, inset covered porch. The top view plan would show the structure as quite square. It was. a quaint home from the '30s. Last night I visited this site, again, and saw how it has changed. The building has doubled in size, and is now rectangular in shape. There is a new covered deck, nothing like the original old-fashioned porch, with vertical supports that are shaped like pyramids. It looks like the interior was gutted. Not only is the architectural style of the structure radically changed, but I dare say, a previous resident of this home would probably not even recognize it. I could list the federal requirement that the building violates, but there are so many, it's a waste of time. As I mentioned last night, I believe category 5 is the only category that it doesn't violate. Why is this building historically significant? Although the ordinance doesn't require it, we should consider the historical significance of this property. This property is not just any old house. The building was previously at 202 College Main, used as a parsonage for the previous First Baptist Church. It is also listed as the Commandant's House. The historical significance of these two uses alone should provide the motivation behind enforcing the ordinance to restore and preserve it in its original condition. Why did this happen? As I mentioned last night, it is quite possible that Community Development followed all the FIP requirements, but may not have considered the specific P&Z ordinance section, nor communicated with your department about this. I would recommend that there be more communication between CD and. P&Z on FIP awards, to prevent this from happening again. It might also be useful to review the other FIP awards, although what I saw on Loupot's, Sparks, and Holick's projects seems OK. I don't know what is being done with Texadelphia, since it looks like no work has begun (its due in December 31st). Is it too late to act? Not at all. It should not be too late to act, as the project is still ongoing. When I visited last night, the building wasn't finished; I even saw aport-a-potty on site. The work crews should still be available, the original materials maybe available, and the structure can still be brought back in compliance with the ordinance. I was first made aware of this ordinance on Wednesday, when I borrowed a copy, and started browsing through the book. Imagine my surprise to find that something as basic as the zoning ordinance was not. being followed! You were provided with the fastest notice possible (at last night's meeting). Normally I have time to properly document everything for you, as I am now doing so. However, you need to fast track this inspection. It should take a mere 5 minutes to review the information that I have submitted on eligibility. All you need after that is a quick visit to the site or a cursory review of the original and proposed plans to agree with my assessment. Can it be done? Quite simply, it seems feasible to restore or modify the project to meet the federal requirements. It is possible that any original material removed has already been disposed of, so substitutes would be necessary. The covered porch and those out-of-character columns need to be removed. Any missing inside walls. need to be restored and windows need to be of the original style. The building's addition needs to adhere to the federal requirements. Since a quarter million dollars was the budget for the structure., and half was a grant to the applicant, much of the funds are already there. As far as any additional funds, Mr. Ganter has a lot of financial resources to draw from. He is listed on the tax rolls as owning $741,110 of property, and his company, Dixie Chicken, Inc. has another $945,195. That is a total of $1,686,305 of real estate in his possession and control. As you can see from the bank's letter, his ability to get a loan is never in question. What actions need to be taken? You mentioned that there is currently no official "zoning official", but that you or Sabine McCully serve in that position. So I address my request to whoever is the appropriate person. In summary, It is obvious that the project should have never proceeded to its current .condition. You can remedy this by enforcing the ordinance. Mr. Canter's financial standing is quite: robust, so his ability to meet the requirements is not in question - he can get the funds.' There is no reason to permit this project to progress as planned. Instead, we need to restore it to the original state, complying with the federal standards. It's that simple. As City Planner, I'm sure you want to preserve the past history of our proud city. I'm confident that you will do all you can to restore this building to what it was. You can do it. Sincerely, enito Flores-Meath 901 Val Verde Drive College Station, TX 77845-5125 409-846-2340 Work 409-696-8295 Home 409-846-4367 FAX Proud B/CS resident since 1979 CC: Jo Carroll, Community Development Chairman, Historic Preservation Committee J. R. (Dick) Bidwell Consulting Engineer # 3 Forest College Station, Texas 77840 (409) 260 2076 (800) 294 0475 FAX (409) 260 9288 June 22, 1999 Jane Key City Planner City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Dear Jane: I saw a copy of your e-mail to Benito Flores-Meath regarding the improvements to 303/305 Boyett. Your stated in your e-mail " I will advise the Northgate Revitalization Board of the situation and take measures to avoid future recurrences." This statement confuses. me. Is this an admission that the work at 303 Boyett is a ..violation of current ordinances and or the facade improvement program? Yours very truly: Dick Birdwell .;Shirley Volk:-:Satchels Restaurant ............. age.: 1.r From: Natalie Ruiz To: internet:cgrauke@arkitex.com Date: 5/19/98 11:48AM Subject: Satchel's Restaurant This is a follow-up to our predevelopment meeting yesterday. I just wanted to get back with you on what needs to be submitted for NRB review of the site plan. Please submit the following information by noon on any Wednesday to either Shirley or myself in order to be scheduled for a NRB meeting: Completed site plan application. _ $100 application fee. 1S copies of the complete site plan (7 of which have the elevations attached and the landscaping information). Photographs of the existing site. (The same ones you presented at the predevelopment meeting are fine.) { _ Colored renderings/elevation-drawings of the site. (Also include color and material samples.) ~ I hope this clears up some of the questions from yesterday. If you need additional information please call ore-mail me. Thanks! CC: yolk i t~ f i. ~~ I - FROM a ~gRKITEX STUDIO INC PHONE N0: 409E46E224 Jun. 11 199E 11:25AM P1 `:~;': FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET ~1®~~- ~, ~~'l z -3570) COMPANY: CS Development Services Schmid ~ DATE: 06/il/98 ~+ FAX NUMBER: 764-3496 '"'```~~~~~`"~`"~'"~~ NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: Q 513 Unf~erstcy Drvc Fn a. s.a« aei Cw.~. $eaeon T.~s7"rdaD VDicr lpi/?~,f(15 RaM~O9rtl~6.l~a I~you do not receive all indicated pages, please ca.lt immediately. The Arkitex Studio, Inc. 511 University Drive East, Suite 201 College Station, Texas 77840 voice - 409-260-2b35 fax - 409-846-8224 NOTES: A few questions concerning the site submittal for Satchel's Restaurant in Northgate (Lots 21 & 22 of Block 12 -corner of Boyett & Church Streets): 1} Ownership and zoning of abutting parcels. 2) 100 year flood plain -who has this info? 3) Existing utilities on or near site. 4) R.O.W. for both streets. 5) Location(s) ~f fire hydrant(s). 6) Extent of irrigation system requirements. ~~ 06/11/98 17:28. L 409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS I~J001 :~:~:~ ACTIVITY REPORT xc~~: TRANSbIISSION OK TX/RX N0. 4467 CONNECTION TEL 9p8468224 CONNECTION ID START TIME 06/11 17:27 USAGE TIME 00'46 PAGES 1 RESULT OK .-~ .~~~.: ~~I,-~-,.,~.. ~, >, ~~ ______~ _._~___.______._w Reorder From Day Timers, Inc., Allentown, PA Sty _ ~~~~~ _.......,...__....._..,.s.....~._____~__.... ~~~ ____~___~.__._.. _..,._.~..__~~~,._.,_____~._...._...~._~_._ le M637 ~ Prod #61304 ®1966, 1989 Blanchard Training & Development Inc. Printed in USA w.__ __ _._ ____ __ __ __ __._. __ __~ _~_.._ _______ __.._._ _____.~ _____ J ___._ c~ ~.~~~ ~~ ,~~~,~ Y'~~~ :- ~ i ,.F ~' ; ~, ~~ ~n ,~ ~,it7_~i ~ ~ . ~. ~ `~,, 17 ~ ? 1 18 ~ 1920 11 2 2 `~ 1 '~ 10 9 24 ~I 7 ~ 26 '~ 6 27 o~ ~~~ 5 4 J 1 - Q' ~, `~. 6 3 111 • 15 `~%~ s'~ 2 ,~~~ O g 16 !~ 1 ~' 8 1 18 ~ 7 `~ ~ '~PJ~ ~~ 6 19 5 ~5 4 1617 ~, 3 2 1 ~ ~ c F ~~. 9i~ UN/ V /V u' ry. (S.) COLLEGE AV 0 Y .= ~. `, :J o a ^~ a °~ 0~ 0 n wo ~ ~ 0~ D b4ob4~ 4 0 ~® D o e 0 0 ~~o q 00 p o 0 ~ D Wq U EP ER DR cad' 9~ 9d° 9d' 9p° ~' g`~ 9`~' $°~ c~° 9tE yd° 9d' q~ ~' S`° ~' '~ MIIAM V ~o Z Q m O v cii NAGI.E ST ~ ooh o a^ D m ~° ~ ~ 0 a STASNEY ST ~ _ ~ o qp0 ~, _ ~ =O® U ~ j o Q oo ;~ ~ W p ^ ~ TAUBER 3` . ... . ® W ~ ~ n~--I O JO C~ p n U oL11-ol ~~ COLLEGE MAIN d ~a~ ~ d~ o W Q opDopo° ~~p o0 ~ ~ ® ECOND ST a a d p~ d. o Q Q 80 0 ~ ~a~~ b o a p o ~ ST p a o0 0~ 0 00000o~oooppDD pro°o ao ~ Fl a~ oo p ~ ~ o~ D~ pp p o - a~Qp ~ a ~pD p ~aDD fop p o ® WELL80RN RO N SP ~~. Q ~' ~~ 0 'r r, r1M r E ~ .. `'j CITY Off' COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409), 7643500 June 4, 1996 ., Don Canter __ Dixie Chicken Restaurant 307 University Drive West College Station, TX 77840 Re: The existing storage: building at 301 Boyett Street. Dear Mr. Canter, This letter is a follow-up to our recent telephone conversation concerning the outstanding permits: for the storage building at 301 Boyett Street. The following items must be addressed before the final inspection can be completed and power turned onto the building: {1) Submit the specifications on the stainless steel barbecue cooker that was previously installed. The building and fire departments will review these specifications and inspect the' property to ensure that all codes. are met. (2) The interior plumbing work must be inspected. (The plumber pulled a permit for the work a year. ago .and has not requested an inspection. 'Since that .time, the permit ~,.1 has expired.) I have agreed to allow the plumber to submit a letter requesting an extension of the permit and a final <inspection. This will keep the plumber from having to re-permit the job and pay he associated fees. (4) A final building 'inspection must be completed' through the fire and building departments. The plumbing permit must be completed before the final building inspection is done. I hope this clarifies the items remaining to be completed before electricity will be turned on. ff you .need additional information or further clarification, please contact me at (409) 764-3741. Sincerely, Lance ..Simms .Building Official cc: Planning case: file#97-408 Home of Texas Ai;M University ~ ~-~o From: Jim Smith To: CITY HALL(Smccully) Date: 4/21/97 1:03pm Subject: PRC - Wednesday, April 23, 1997 -Reply -Reply It seems to me that if Shadow Canyon is adding a fence aroung the property and that fence will make .collection. impossible, that. we can and should comment. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. »> Sabine McCully 04/21/97 11:10am »> 301 boyett - this is a two-phased project. the first is a small accessory building in the back that they want to operate as a smoker and carry the bbq back to the chicken.. no on-site consumption. what type dumpster will they need? can they use the one at the chicken until a community dumpster can be installed? at shadow canyon they are not changing. anything except landscaping and perhaps adding a fence .around the property. i don't think we can make comments on the dumpster location because this is not coming under review. 315 church - yes, they want to use the future community dumpster. however, this. project will go in before that dumpster will be there. we have made the note that they need to provide a temporary dumpster location until the community one is built. i have a question about that. they will have 3 to 4 lease spaces - one will be burger boy, 'the rest we don't know yet. what size dumpster do they need for their 'temporary? quality suites - we gottcha covered already on the angling.. »> Jim Smith 04/18./97 03:53pm »> Parking Lot Plan- Site Redevelopment,,;301:j303 Boyett Street I didn't see anything on this. one. I assume they will utilize the I3orthgate community container. Lf not, please let me know. Parking Lot Plan - Shadow Canyon Parking Lot: Can we have the container turned so that I can access for collection? 45 degrees should'do it. Get with me if you need information on location and direction. Parking Lot Plan - 315 Church Street: Again, I assume these folks will utilize the "community container". Parking Lot Plan - Quality Suites Hotel (97-406): Can we have the container turned so that I can access for collection? 45 degrees should do it. Thanks!L! y -~~ From: Shirley Volk To• NRUIZ Subject: Don Canter - .301 & 303 Boyett Street -Reply »> Natalie Ruiz Ob/03/97 10:20am »> I just wanted to update you on the status of the "BBQ storage building" at 301 Boyett. .The following items must be addressed before the final inspection can be completed & power turned onto the building: (1) Submit the specifications on the stainless BBQ cooker he installed. The building & fire depts. will need to review the specs. & inspect the property as well. (2) The interior electrical work was done without a permit. The electrician must pull a permit and have the work inspected.. The electrician did pull a permit for the 100 amp service on the exterior of the building but he did not pull a permit for anything else. (3) The interior plumbing work must be inspected. The plumber pulled a permit for the work a year. ago and never called in for an inspection. Since that time, the permit has expired. Lance & Maurice have agreed to allow the plumber to submit a letter requesting an extension of the permit and an inspection. This will keep the plumber from having to re-permit the job & pay the associated fees. (4) Have a final building inspection completed with the fire & bldg. departments. The plumbing & electrical permits must be completed before the final building inspection is done. Lance spoke with Don yesterday who seems to be somewhat confused & upset about the entire process. He feels like we keep "making him jump through more hoops just to get electricity". He wants power turned on to the building and we are not willing to do that until all of these items have been addressed (especially considering the history of this project). I thought that Don might contact. you since you worked with him initially. I will write Don a letter letting him know what still needs to be done. Thanks.