Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous
511 UnlVS~sity Or. East Suke ~ 201 coaepestenon,rx naao Voles X092602635. Fax 4a9 ea68224 w~rw.arkitea.oom 15 July 1998 Ms. Veronica Morgan The City of College Station P. O. Box 9960. College Station, Texas 77842: Re: Additions and Alterations to SATCHEL' S College Station, Texas Dear Ms. Morgan: E We have prepared construction documents for the referenced project .located at 315 Boyett in the N~rthgate district of College Station.. The site area is .14,034. square feet and contains a 1400 square feet structure that has most recently been utilized as. a'single family residence.. The existing impervious cover is approximately 2400. square feet, or .about 17% of the total site area. Proposed improvements include a paved parking area, sidewalks, and. building additions. The improvements produce. a ttotal impervious cover of approximately 7514 square feet, or about 53% of the.. total site area. The drainage for this site is sheet flow, generally from north to south at an overland slope of approximately 0:2%. The majority of the site drains into .Church Street. A small portion of the site,. about 40' deep along the northeasterly property line, /,, ~ drains into Boyett Street.. The proposed .improvements do not cause a significant J~ ~~/"/` amount of waterto be concentrated m any particular area. ~~ ~J Should.: you have any specific questions or need of additional information, please ~j ~~~ feel free to call. Sincerely, ~ f,~~ ~ ~t,,_ // 4~ / J ~''~ ®~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Gll $T ~G~ICZr~j' V ~~ ~le g S~t7'Lrd~, ~j'~ j\ ~ ~ ~ L~-r. v StF ~jV.C' ~~~ Chad Grauke, ,Principal ..- 5 ~ C I 'C Z ~-~- ~ H Ci`C.rr'Q'C [ `'t ~ E.~t, /~ vU G~. d/./ ~~a tJ v"c~fGS Principals ~11 Ct1p~~ ~.,~, ~~ Q-~-~Gc'fS 'f~ G~.O'4 Ca~O~ c ~~ Chartia Burrte, AIA I /,~" ~/ cbutris@arkitex.com ~ ~ ~"~~ ~V~ ~ ~ ~S ~~i~'-+ , ( ! 6 ~" ~lr~ C`t./i 4 ~ Chad Graaka, AIA ~0. C. D , t cgraukeCarkitex:wm 666 ABC (~iGL~ l ~A ~il~a~ ~( r' l,~as -~C~.iVtlr ~G{.r" C,T l ~ +~~ ~ S ~A.~ Dr. Elton Abbott, AIA ~ „) eabbott@arkitex.com -- /'~ ~ .~ / ` Miko Tibbetts, AIA ~ n / metibb@swbelLneY G / ~"``---~~~~ ~ 1'~~ o S~ ! 6L+^1. ~ f/O u~i G`1 ~,/~„ `~ ~ ! l ~i 1J "~ ~' y ~ SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS • ~ }~~ LIST CHECKED-0FF WITH 16 .r `~ FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW ~ ~°~~'~ ~` MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS ((ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: (~1. Sheet size - 24" x 36" 2. Title block to include: /) Name, address, location, and legal description b.) Name,. address, and telephone number of applicant c.) Name, address, and telephone number of developer/owner /d.) Name, address, and telephone number of architect/engineer /e.) Date of submittal f.) Total site area 3. Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. I~" 4. A key map (not necessarily to scale). 5. Scale should be largest standard engineering scale possible on sheet. C9' 6. Provide a north arrow. ..• ~" ~ ® 7. Topography, final grading plan, and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much r in n se crate sheet. information, show d a age o p ) 1~8. All existing streets, drives, buildings, and water-courses on or adjacent to the proposed project site. l~ 9. Locate l00 yr. floodplain on or adjacent to the proposed project. site, note if there is none on the site. 0. Location and size of existing utilities within.. or adjacent to the proposed project site.. ® 11. Proposed. location, type, and size of the following: ~.) Buildings and structures /b.) Off-Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn, tabulated, and dimensioned ~) Sidewalks Comm~n,,open space sites e Sites for solid waste containers 12. Proposed streets, drives, and curb cuts. For each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets, alleys, etc.) locate existing curbcuts on the same andoppositeside of the street to determine separation distances between existing and proposed curb cuts. Indicate driveway throat length as measured m the Driveway Ordinance. (See Ordinance 196? for driveway location and design requirements.) ~~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. AttVr~ipt to reduce or eliminate plantings in easements. Include information on the plan such as: a) existing landscaping to remain b)~required point calculations Vic) proposed new plantings with points earned I~ 15. Indicate unit type (number of bedrooms). ~~pp,,~~ ~~9' 16, The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project. 17, The gross square footage of buildings and the proposeduse ofeach building. C~ 18. to number of parking spaces required by ordinance and provided by proposal. C~ 19. Show dimensions to size and locate all structures, parking spaces, drives, curb cuts, parking islands, and setbacks. X20. Are there impact fees associated with this development? ( ~,) 21. Provide a water and sanitary sewer legend to include water demands (minimum, maximum and average ~% demands in gallons per minute) and sewer .loadings (maximum demands in gallons per day). 22. Show all meter locations: Meters must be located in easements or R.O.W. (City will size meters.) The following are typical standards for Plan Development established by Ordinance or Policy: 1. Building separation is a minimum of 1'S feet. ~"°~ ~~~ 2. Building setbacks are outlined in Ordinance 1638, Zoning Ordinance, 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. 4. Minimum drive width is 23' with head-in .parking or 20' without parking. 5. Raised landscaped islands, (6" raised curb) of a minimum. of l80 sq. ft. are located at both ends of every parking row. Additionally, 180 sq. ft. of landscaping for every 15 interior parking spaces .must be .provided. 6. Streetscape compliance is required which involves special plantings along streets 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 ig Weer.. No exceptions will be -made for areas designated as "reserved for future parking" 8. Wheelstops may be required on interior rows: longer than 10 spaces or in special situations. 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). r ® 10. Locations of dumpsters shall be such that dumpsters are not visible from streets. Gates are discouraged and visual screening from R.O.W. is required. 11. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible. 2. 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~" 13. 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 along an approved fire lane as the hose is laid off the truck. ~ 14. 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 City Engineer. Or 15. Fire hydrants must be .operable and accepted by the City and drives must have an all weather surface before combustibles can be brought on any. site. ?® 16. A twenty four foot setback from R.O.W. to curb of parking .lot is required. Parking may be allowed in this area up to a maximum of 7 contiguous spaces. ' ® 17. All plans must include irrigation systems for landscaping. Irrigation meters are separate from the regular water systems for buildings and must be sized accordingly and include backflow prevention protection. 20 November 1998 '' ~-- "/ ~~ /Z~- - ~ t t~3 Mrs. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator The City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 ` ~ .', ~ ~~ s,t i,~.~m,D~. test Nuke 201 CoLega litsOon,Tx 77940 College Station, Texas 77842 ~ ; ~~~ Re: Satchel's , , ~' ~.~ ° College,Station, Texas ~ ~ i~ _ ~' '` 't `~°` Dear Mrs. Volk: We have reveiwed the. Northgate Revitalization Bo d Report dated June 29, 1998 on the referenced project. A revised:. Site Plane addressi these comments was prepared in July 1998 but was not included in the plans submit d for building permit. Please find three . prints of the revised Site Plan attached forgo usage. A summary of our responses to the individual items is offered as follows: vac. 4092602935 ~}:` Screening of the parking is acheived ith a combination of fencing and landscaping. A Fe" 4098f99224 copy of the fencing approved by N is attached (Sketch #1). www.arkita=.oom ~" O. K. the previously approved landsc e improvements (Sketch. #2) are to be completed by he Owner: NRB indicated th any bollards along Church .Street were optional and approved. the'fence sketch no d above (Sketch #1). .The NRB approved a desi of .the storage huilding with the comment that the wood ~ ~ siding be painted to matc he restaurant (Sketch #3). '~ p ~ A letter to Veronica Mo an concerning the drainage for the site is attached. . ~ ~' O. K. ~ ._--7. There are no curb c s along Boyett S,lree .The head-in parking across Church Street i~' are noted on the S' Plan. ~- w N E~~ t~ ~ ~ ~ Refer to number above. u~- '"°~t~' Design of the ' igation system is the responsibility of the Contractor. - ~, A~ 10. Utility deman s are included. the Contractor will provide imgation water de nd. iP ,11. The existin /4" water meter at Boyett is to be ch ~=a~e and new 299 ~ ~ 'y,~ - ~.W meter will e provided near the back of the buildin (per Addenda No. 1). w ® , ~~ iii. ~ d ~.,D ~'~~ .~~I~. 2 , _: ~~ 1 . Th Site Plan has been replotted at 1"=10'-0". ~~ ~ ~ . S eral ofthe existing trees are noted to be protected. Typical protective fencing is Principa~s ~~ y~,, ~,~*,~ a ached (Sketch #4). '-1 y.,~d~i 18~ e revised Site Plan indicates additional landscaping along Church Street. Charlie Burris, AiA . ~'°"'~~r ~°j •~" ,.20 It is my understanding that this comment referred to the `.above .ground gas meter on ch a Gra , ~~~ Church Street, which is to be abandonedpe/rD/emo~lition Site Plan 10/Al. cgra arktex.co '~t7 Q~.O t~l! Itl'^~`~~ ~_"• _ Dr. Elton Abbott, AIA ~~G' v' 1~' eabbott@arkitexcam If you. have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. ldike Tibbetts, AIA metibb@9wbelLnet Sincerely, Austin office Chad Grauke; rincipal Voice St2/244.7870 Fax 5721244-0237 cc: Wick McKean, JaCody, Inc. s,.ooaav®a_s~H Natalie-Ruiz: Satchel's.....303 Boyett ..:....::::::::.:.....::.:::.:.:..:.::.:::::::.---::::::::::::..::.~.:~---•-----:~:::.~:.:..:::.:..... ...::::..~....::::::::::........:::..:::::...:.:._.~:..,.:::...:.::::::::::::..:::::.,Page..` From: Jim Smith To: PRC Date: Tue, Jun 23, 1998 3:45 PM Subject: Satchel's - 303 Boyett I've reviewed the site plan that was submitted and did not see a container location for this business. ' Since they are in the Northgate Business District, they cane use the roll-off compactor located between Church and Patrica Streets in the parking lot that has been. designated for use by all businesses in the Northgate Business District. Let me know if this is acceptable to Satchel's. Thanks. 1 ~~ j I i I i i fTT`r' Of COLLEGE STATION **~ CUSTOp9ER kECEIPT *** OPER: 19RODGERS CT DRAPER: i DATE: 6/17/98 00 RECEIPT: 8015968 DESCRIPTION OTY AMOUNT TP TM FILING FEEDS/BI fi88.B8 B7 CK SITE PLAN REVIEP THE ARKITEX STUDIO-CK4562 SITE PLAN FILING FEE MR TIME: 13:47:45 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK #100.00 APIOUNT TENDERED X108.88 THANK YOU 02/25/99 11:02 d ]001/006 a ~ ~~ ; _ ~,,. (~.~~~11'~~1 ~: ~ ~ ~ C~ hT 7I~~> ,ti~~yr~, .i.~x•rr.-rr ~~,• f li~r~>ri.- !'rc~~~wr.•~~rr+~,a~ P.O. BGX 12276, AUSTIN. TX 787112276 PAX: (51.2) 463-8927 FAX ME~r7A~T~: ~ ~ ~}~"~ ~ ' FROM: ` ~-~ l ~ . ~ } :.Phone:. 512 463- to: j~~~ ~~~r~ Name• J ~ ~' ~~" ~: Fax r ~ .... A enc : g Y ~~ #: Phone PAGES {Including cover sheet): Memorandum: ,~~ ,~ ~I ~~ ,. __ ~ oo2ioos 98-6-22509 Do Not: Scan If Ch Project .Name: City of College Station Agency No.: Description: facade improvementprogram ~ 303/305 Boyett Lead Agency: HUD, Community l7evelopment Block Jurisdiction: Federal TAC Permit. No.: ....Received Entered Due b/11/9$ :6/12/98 7/17,198 Counties: Brazos Lead - Reviewer:` "Second Reviewer:. Charles Peveto Third Reviewver: Reviewer 'Responses: Responded: ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Eligib Ineligible Undetermined Review Codes: Sites: Sites::. ~~ Sites: ~, Acres: ~~ ~,j E1i rble .Structures: L~ g Ineli ible Structuresr g Public Information Sent: Notes: °~-~ ~(~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I~.~ ~o ~-t.~G~.~. ~ ~-l . J~-+~Y ~~ ~~~ ~, r~ t tit ~ I, Date Printed: 6/12/9$ 02/25/99 11:03 d i~1003/006 y~Gli1 It '~'ATIQN OLLE E S ~- i 1'.O. Box 9960. • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77,~>~ i Tel: 409 764 3500 .(/p[~" '~ ~~~ ~U~ d dune 9, 1998 O,~j~~ ~ ~~ Mr. Jim Steely, Deputy ~ti Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer National Register Programs .Texas Historic Commission P.O. Box 12276 ' Austin, Texas. 78711 Dear Mr. Steely, The followingproperty owner is applying to participate in the City's Facade Improvement Frogram. Before we can continue with this project we need a determination of whether this property is eligible to be included into the Historic Register..... The property is: Don Gaimer 343/345 Boyett, College Station, Texas 77844 Enclosed is the "Historic Significance Survey )corm" with map and photographs. If you have any questions or need additional information please call at 449-764-3778: Sincerely, .. r. ~:~~ ~~ ssica Jitnmers Grants Analyst ~ ~l~~i'~1~ f~~ tY~~l i~ia~~i $~~r~i~~r a~ i-lis~~ri~ ~l~ces ~r~~ ~:1~~~1~ i~rt.~~ ~~~t~~lc~s~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~•~iiwtoric ~4ace~ ~ a , l~at~ Home of Texas A&M University 02/'15/99 -11:04 d 07]004/006 02/15/99 11:13 d 0]005/006 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCI SURVEY-FORM !~ DATE: ~~~/p~ AGE OF STRUCTURE:... ~ K . w S ~1 L°G~Y5 ~~ i ~ (~ ?~l !'1 /'l ~iJ~ BUILDER/ACHI~TECT: U~ x~4~~ ' NAME: ADDRESS: ,~D ~~D ~ ~d"Y °/~ STYLE: .~~ ~, ~-~e3„/~e. ~'z~ r~,.~ /~,- BLOGK/LOT: ~Jx I2, ~~ 21, .ORIGINAL USE:' f~~~t~e~rc~- / ~. ~ ADDITION:_~_~' ~Ul~l~! U / s L~j PRESENT USE: ~~ ~ CENSUS TRACT: RELATIONSHIP TO SITE: Original Sifie or z / ~ Moved from: !°t~ l/IpyV S ~ Q o?DoZ ~.~! ~ C. SIGNIFICANCE: ~d'e~/~llwS~ U5`~t' F PHOTOGRAPHS: MAP: i ~, i ._ 02/25/99 11:13 ^C] ~ ~. . Coos/oos • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION TEXAS HISTORIC SITES XNyENTt?RY FORM * RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FORM vscs a # County: ~ra7os Site #:49 Ql]a City/Rural; College Station 17ate: Factual Est.193© Additions: .Name: Commandant's House Architect/Buildec: .Address: 3Q3 Bovett Contractor: Owner: Historic Use: Residential - Parsona>re for Baptiste Church . _ . Legal Desc.: Lot 21, Blk l2z Boyett Subdivision Present Use:: Residential Property Type: Residential Subtype: Stylistic Influence: Integzity of: ^ location - ©design D setting ^ materials - ^ workrnar>ship O association a feeling History of Property: Previously located at 202 College Main as a Parsona>?e for he previous First Baptist Church . Areas of Significance (include justification): .Bibliography (include oral histories): i Surveyor: C. Hatch 8t K Bauch Date surveyed:. 2-18-95 Photo Data:. Ro1lfFrame 1:27, 4:2-3 _ through Ro11/Frame Sli s Designations: NR RTf-lL NABS Local F board/bariert aiding caxment _ Medium , shingles, asphalt DESCRIPTIONS: ~fiddst«teveneer ~fixad ~tite location: `back (sPeofy Dolor) decorative scmnwotic _tmtal (specify type} original location(camptss) wood shingle ~ (specify light configuration) -box rsves `craved (specify date) N/SJFJW f b X,synthetic siding asbestos siding - other X specify olha ~expoaed raRrr ends wig-sawn brackets.. ) ees ( uilding _E Stotss: _ _ Porches: t}oot's/Frttries: stick brackets - 1 specify # {i,l i/2,2,etc.) 2_specify # of bays single-door primazy eattaaco specify other Con}truction; specify NfSII:JW elevation E _doubloiloor prirrwy entraaae X frame _ shed roof X _X 2 primary rntrances Chimneys: _ solid brick (spxif'y color) l lid if s _ _ hipped roof gabk roof with tran;on~ with sidctiglrts specifynumber interior (specify placurtrnt} stone {spec y Do or) o _.. ~dy ~ _ X ~ y other Plan- _ _ _..turt~ed-wood poets Gable F.nd'I'rotmeat: -exterior (specify Ptacemrnq X same as welt surface .___1fPlart _~'~ Pow ~ bride -modified Lplan -chamfered wood posts tuoco _s - centrr passage plan. -brick piers -.wood shingle wood siding stone with corbelled caps (slrxifY # ofrooms dare) 2-room plan boxcolumns X classical columru {spaify) - decorative bargeboards - stuccoed __._ ~T-plan ,X Boric !windows specify other. ^bungalowplan -tapered box supports: X_vrnts spoof}' outer (}utbutldings: {specify # and type) -Bun plan -fall-height _,,asynunctrical plan on piers RoofType: image barn sp~dy other Foundation Materials: fabricated racial -squared-wood batusiers X~abk „hipped t - ~2_sl~l ~~Y °~ _X_picr-and-beartt stone fumed-wood balusters -jig-sawn brackets _flaVwith parape ~mbrrl Landscape Features: brick ~Ji&-sa~''r' Pont' freeze donnas: {zpuifY #) ____sidewniks ~sy other -tamed-work triexe th f ~ _~ble ed Iti ~~g X drives,diri ~atet for Watt Serrate: y o er speci pp _ shad well or cistern weatlrcrboard siding Windows: - - d drop siding X woad sash specify others ens --gar ~~ aluminum sash Roof Materials:. ~slone ` _X_doublo-bung -wood shingles.. STAFF COMMENTS Satchel's Restaurant i Case file #98-414 ~ ~ Provide a drainage report addressing the additional. impervious cover being added to the _ site. (Include topography, final grading plan and other pertinent drainage information.) I How will solid waste. be handled on site? ',~ Locate and dimension the opposite and adjacent drives along Church &Boyett Streets. i ~, _ The minimum setback for the proposed parking lot along Church Street is 6'. The minimum throat length for the driveway along Church Street is not met. Screen the proposed. parking along Church Street and submit the. screening details to NRB for review and approval. I ~~ Submit an irrigation plan or present arguments against having. one to the NRB. ~I Staff is concerned about the row of parking along Boyett Street. Staff suggested eliminating the 6 spaces to avoid backing. maneuvers onto Boyett Street and to provide more green space on the site. (As a policy, the City does not allow parking spaces to encroach into the street right-of-way as proposed.) Staff is concerned about the existing storage shed not matching the proposed restaurant. Provide a utility legend that includes domestic.and-imgation water demands in minimum, maximum andaverage flows in gallons per minute. Provide sanitary sewer. demands in ~ gallons per day. , ~' ~ .~' ° Show he proposed meter locations. (Staffwll .size. the meters based on the utility _ demands.) Show the proposed utility locations and services including where they'connect to the main. ubmi to etails th opose fe a sho det ' n s - Sidewalks required along Church &Boyett. C: ~" Modify the curb & gutter detail to include #4 bars at 12" O.C.E.W. Architect's scale? .... / (X~- Forum: College Station City Council Issues 1 of 5 Topic: The D~i~y Forum Topic Posted by: Mike McMichen (webmaster(c~,issues.or~) Organization: Issues.ora Date Posted: Fri Sep 11 1:19:15 1998 Topic Description: This is a forum for the daily topics. Daily topics will remain for approximately seven days. Topics receiving significant discusion may remain longer. You may also add additional topics. Just hit the "New Topics" button and follow the directions. ._-- .,.... ...~ ...._.... ._~ .._.. ,..__. _...~v.. __. __ ` '~. . Original Message: Posted by: Benito Flores-Meath (bflores~a elitesoft.com ) Date posted: Fri Jun 4 15:44:47 1999 Subject: Save 303 Boyett (Commandant's House) Message: June 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 protect. 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. wha~ is 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 ofthe ordinance: Historic Structures: Structures over SQ 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 far inclusion on the National Register 6/8/49 6:16 PM NetForum -Message Replies http://www.issues.org/cgi-bin/nettoriiin/cscityoounciUai~--b. iz.~F. i ' 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 methads and materials in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation", to preserve it. 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 i~ 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 vvas 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 ofthis 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 S 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 2 of S 6/8/99 6:16 PM NetFozum -Message Replies nttpa/www.issues.ozg/cgi-biniueiiurum/csc~tycounciUaJ$--8.72.4.1 ordinance to restore and preserve it in its original condition. Why did this hauuen? As I mentioned last night, it is quite passible that Community Develapment 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 sport-a-potty on site. The work crews should still be available, the original materials may be 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,lVlr. Garter has a lot of financial resources to draw from. He is listed nn the tax rolls as owning $741,1.10 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 oi~eial", 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 3 of 5 6/8/99 6:16 PM NetForum -Message Replies http://www.issues.org/cgi-bin/neil:orum/cscitycouuciUa18--8.72.1:1 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 canto restore this building to what it was. You can do it. Sincerely, [signed] Benito 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 Subject: Commandant's House Reply Posted by: Gary Halter Date Posted: Mon Jun 7 11;16:53 1999 Message: I am a little concerned about how the. residence at 303 Boyett became the Commandant's house. Research conduced several years aga by Dr. Paul Van Riper and the College Station Historic Preservation Committee indicate something different. This study by Dr. Van Riper identified many of the former campus houses that were relocated within the. community. The house at 30313oyett is not a former campus house that has been relocated. In determinilag this minutes of the AMC Committee on Housing, which are in the TAMU archives were used. These records indicate to whom campus houses were assigned. These records indicate that the residence #405, located at 420 Throckmorton Street was assigned to the Commandant from 1923 urlti11932. It was located directly behind the Trigon, or Military Science $uilding. After 1932 the records do not indicate who was assigned to this house. Some people remember it being used as a class room and office for some years. In the late 1950's until the 1970's it is known that the Commandant lived in the white brick house (100 Throckmorton) located next the president's house. This home is currentlyoccupied by the Vice President far Student Affairs. Both of these residences { 420 and l00 Throckrnorton St) are known in Aggie Lore as the Commandant's house. The residence at 420 Throckmorton was sold to Mr. And Mrs. M. M. Dowell and relocated to the East By Pass and occupied as a residence for many years. It was located very Hoar where FM 2218 intersects the East fay Pass. In the 1980's the City of College Station attempted to purchase the house with plans to relocate it, perhaps to Central Park. This did not happen and. the house was tarn down. It is .shame that it 6/8/99 6:16 PM 4of5 NetForum -Message Replies http:/lwww.issues.org/cgi bin/netfonun/cscitycouncilla/8--8.72.~t•.1 About NetForum - v.2.0.3 Tue Jun 8 18:14:49 1999 5 of 5 6!8199 6:16 PM I LLE~E STAT ON CO P. O, Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 I1~lro Dick Birdwell #3 porest College Station, Texas 77840 June 25, 1999 Dear Dick: In response to your letter regarding my a-mail to Benito, the Northgate Revitalization Board Subcommittee (NItB) did overlook the section of the zoning ordinance that would call for looking at the Secretazy of Interior Standazds for Rehabilitation when a structure is over 50 years old and is listed as medium or high on the City's 1995 Historic Survey, This was_an oversight, the NRB has been advised of this section and staff has taken steps to ensure that this does not occur again. As to whether the work would not have met these standards has not been determined. Due to construction materials and techniques found, there is even some. question as to whether the structure meets .the "50 year old" criteria. The zoning ordinance section would not apply in this case. As for the facade program, the Texas Historic Commission (TIIC) responded that they ~ R:. had no concern,abo t th~ proposed. work for this structure. THC also uses the same "Secretary of Interior Standards" referenced above. The work is being done in . accordance with all requirements of the facade program. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, ane .Kee Cit Tanner - _ - _ Cc: Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Satchel's file Home of Texas A&M` University Mr. Benito Flores-Meath 901 Val Verde Drive College Station, Texas 77845-5125 June 17, 1999- 1VIr. Flores-Meath In response to your inquiry regarding Sea 7.24.E:1.e, Ordinance 1638, the improvements to 3:03/305 Boyett (Satchel's). and your request for changes to the improvements; The improvements at 303 Boyett were reviewed and approved by the Northgate Revitalization Board and the. Facade Improvement Committee. The Texas Historic Commission ruled that the structure had no historic significance. Following that approval, permits. were issued for construction, The. construction to date has complied with those permits.. While these improvements may not comply with the above section of the City's ordinance, we believe that the property owner,. working under the authorization of all required approvals and: permits, has substantial vested rights and that the City of College Station can not cause him to change those improvements. Additionally, we have neither the funding nor the authority to purchase this property. and make any changes. I will advise the Northgate .Revitalization Board.: of this situation and take measures to avoid future recurrences. Thank you for your attention to this. Sincerely, Jane R. Kee, AICP City Planner Cc 1Vorthgate Revitalization Board Planning & Zoning Commission Property Owner - 303/305 Boyett. ;Jane- Kee -Fwd Follow U on Save 303 Boyett (Commandant's.House~!_ ~ yPageA1 From: <SciMan424~aol.com> To: <jkee@ci.college-stationax.us> .Date: 6/5/99 1044AM Subject: Fwd: followUp on: Save 303 Boyett (Commandant's House)!. Jane: I have been h!ghly critical of the city for subsidizing Mr. Ganter,'the owners of Texadelphia, and others in Northgate; and I often wonder what the pay. back must be for these favors. However, Benito raises some good questions here. Whyar•e we willing to change our codesand ordinances for just a few very privileged people? I guess my biggesf problem with all of these favors to Canter and others is that it makes our'city machine' look blatantly unethical and unfair in the handling of city resources. What hold does Mr. Canter have over you people? Do you-:honestly feel. that: this is the way HUD money was intended to be spent? Would another business owner (say in Southgate or along Texas Ave) receive similar favors? This type assistance would be okay if we were helping organizations like mental health facilities, hospitals, etc. if hey needed assistance to stay afloat. But why all he considerations for bars and taverns, owned by the rich? In a message-dated 6/4/99 3:22:11... PM Central. paylight Time, bflores@elitesoft.com writes: just spoke with Jane Kee (city planner),. I was told that: 1) The ordinance was wrong and needs to be changed. _(Of course, if the ordinance is in ,the way, let's.fix the ordinance and not the problem.) 2) The; NRB (Northgate ?Resources? Board): has discression on application of ordinances. (Gee, l thought the law applied to all equally,) .... . :Jane: Kee Follow tJpron .Save 303_ Boyett (Commandant's House) r :: , .::.:.....: ::..:.... .......::..__..:..:,:.... Page_ 1 from: "Benito Flores-Meath"'<bfloresr~elitesoft:com> To: "CS Discuss" <CS_Discuss~onelist:com>, "Steve Esmo:.. Date: 6/4/99 3:19PM Subject: Follow Upon: Save 303 Boyett (Commandants House)! Just spoke with Jane Kee (city planner): I was told that: 1) The ordinance was wrong and needs to be changed. (Of course, if the ordinance is in the way, let's fix the ordinance and not the problem.) 2) The.NRB (Northgate ?Resources? Board).. hasdiscression on application of ordinances {Gee, I thought the law applied to all, equally:) 3) Since the Texas H!storical Commssion,was not interested,.that it shouldn°t'be preserved. (The THC actually gave the building a rating of Medium Priority, not Low Priority. The ordinance statesshat Medium Priority qualifies for protection:) t feel that the City `is going to sit on this one until. the project is done. I've already been told that it may take a few weeks for them to look at it. By them it would be too late. If anyone cares about preserving. another piece of College Station history, please email or call the city about this. Or just sit back and let it happen. Jane Kee:. jkee@ci:college-stationax.us Sabine McCully: smccully~ci..college-stat!on:tx.us Thank you,: Benito Flores-Meath '°Time invested in improving .ourselves :cuts down.. on time- wasted in disapproving of others.'° -Anonymous ...:: -~-- -- 1` :Jane Kee -Header Return-Path: <bflores~elitesoftccom> Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18,149.35]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v59.34) with SMTP; Fci, 04 Jun 1999 16:22:41 -0400 Received: from athena.elitesoft.com {206-cdm-024.tca.net [206.96.206.24]) by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (vx) with. SMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 1999 1.6:21:58 -0400 Received: from arrakis ([206:96.206.214]) by athena.elitesoft.com (8.8.518.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05422; Fri, 4 Jun 199916:24::05 -0500 (CDT)_ Message-ID: <008501beaec7$91acd2e0$b401010a@elitesoft.com> From: "Benito Flores-Meath" <bflores~elitesoft.com> To: "CS Discuss" <CS Discuss cLDonelist.com>, "Steve Esmond @ Home" <see~rdmtexas.com>, "- Benito Flores-Meath°' <bflores@elitesoft:com>, "Bill Bingham" <bingham~myriad.net>, "Byron Young, Jr." <KGSNA@tamu.edu>, "Carl E. Vargo" <carlvargo@juno.com>, "Cynthia Esmond" <cle~rdmtexas.com>, "Dick Birdwell" <dbirtlwe(I@compuserve.com>, "Dorcas Moore" <dorcas@tca.net>, "Maureen Howells" <mhowells~cvmaamuedu>, "Mike McMichen" <mcvdeo@successresources.com>, "Mike Wheeler" <sciman424~aol.com>, "Norma. Miller" <normil@myriad.net>, "Sue McDonald" <SueMcDonald cLDTD1-Bl.com>, "Susan/Ronald Allen" <susy2007 r~aol.com>, "Swiki Anderson" <swiki@bihs.net> Subject: Follow Up on: Save-303 Boyett (Commandant's House)! Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:19:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMaiI-Priority: High X-Mailer::-Microsoft outlook .Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ~- ------ Page 1 ~- :Jane Kee - Mime.822 Received: from imo11.mx.aoLcom by mailgate; Sat, 05 Jun 1999 10:43:17.-0500 Received: from SciMan424@aol.com (8079:) by imol9:.mxaol.com (IMOv20) id uMDWa13277 for <jkee~ci..college-stationax.us>; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:44:51 -0400 (EDT) From:`SciMan424 cLDaol.com Message-lD: <b6b861a0.248a9ff3~aol.com> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:44:51 EDT' Subject: Fwd: Follow Up on: Save 303 Boyett (Commandant's House)! To: jkee~ci.college-station.tx.us MIME-Version: 9;0- Content-Type: multipart mixed; boundary="part1eb6b861a0.248a9ff3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 --part1_b6b861 a0.248a9ff3_boundary Content-Type:: text/plain; charset-"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jane: have been highly critical of the city for subsidizing Mr. Canter, the owners of Texadelphia, and others in Nouthgate; and I often wonder what the pay back must be for these favors. However, Benito raises some good questions here.. Why are we .willing to change our'codes and ordinances for just a few very privi eged people? I guess my biggest problem with,all of these favors to Canter and others is-that it makes our'city machine' look blatantty unethical and,unfair in the .:handling of city resources. What hold does Mr. Garter have over you people? Do you honestly feel that this is the way HUD money was intended to be_spent? Would another business owner{say in Southgate or along Texas Ave) receive similar favors? This type assistance would be okay if we were helping organizations like mental h8alth facilities, hospitals, etc. if they needed assistance to stay afloat. Butwhy all the considerations for bars. and taverns owned by the rich? In a message dated 6/4/99 3:22:11 PM Central Daylight Time, bflores@elitesoft.com writes: just spoke with Jane Kee (city planner). -I was told that: 1) The .ordinance was wrong and needs to be changed. (Of course, if the ordinance is in the way, let's fix the ordinance. and not the problem.) 2) The NRB (Nouhgate ?Resources? Board) has discression on application of ordinances. (Gee, I thought the law applied to all equally.) --part1 b6b861a1).248a9ff3 boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition:: inline Return-Path: <bflores@elitesoft.com> Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (x59.34) with SMTP; Fri, 04 Jun 1999 16:22:11 -0400. Received: from. athena.elitesoft.com (206.-cdm-024aca.net [206.96.206.24]) by ....., .. --- Page 2 Jane Kee - Mime.822 ......,,x.,:. .., .. rly-yc03.mx.aol.com {vx) with SMTP;.Fr, 04 .Jun: 1999 46:21:58 -0400 Received: from. arrakis ([206.96.206.214]) by athena.elitesoft.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05422; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:24:05 -0500 {CD'n Message-lD: <008501 beaec7$91 acd2e0$b404040a c~elitesoft.com> From:. "Benito Flores-Meath'° <bflores~elitesoft.com> To: "CS. Discuss°' <CS_Discuss@onelist.com>, "Steve Esmond ~-Home" see cLDrdmtexas.com>, "-Benito Flores-Meath° <bflores~elitesoft.com>, "Bill. Bingham" ~bingham cLDmyriad.net>, "Byron.Young, Jr." <KG5NA c~tamu.edu>, "Carl E. Vargo" <carlvargo@juno.com>, "Cynthia Esmond" <cle~rdmtexas.com>, "Dick Birdwell" <dbirdwell~compuserve.com>, "Dorcas Moore" <dorcas@tcanet>, "Maureen.: Howells" <mhowells~cvm.tamu.edu>, "Mike McMichen° <mcvtdeo~successresources:com>, "Mike Wheeler" <sciman424@aol.com~, °'Norma Miller" <normtl~myriad.net>, "Sue McDonald" <SueMcDonald@TD1-Bl.com>, "Susan/Ronald Allen" <susy2007@aol.com>, "Swiki Anderson" <swiki@bihs.net> Subject: Follow Up on: Save 303 Boyett (Commandant's House)! Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:19:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type;. textlplain; charset="iso-:8859-1'° Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority:. 1 X-MSMatl-Priority:: High: X-Mailer:-Microsoft Qu#look Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MtmeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 I just spoke with Jane Kee (city planner). I was told that: 1) The ordinance was wrong and needs #o be changed. (Of course, if the ordinance is irrthe way, let's fix the ordinance and notthe problem.) 2) The NRB (Northgate ?Resources? Board) has. discression on application of ordinances.. (Gee, I thought the law applied to aU equally.) 3) Since the Texas Historical Commission was not interested:,-that it shouldn't be preserved. (The-THC actually gave the. building a rating of Medtum'Priority, nohow Priority: The ordinance: states that Medium Priority qualifies for protection.). I feel that the .City is going to sit on this one. until the project is done. I've already been told: that it may take a few weeks for them to ook at it. By then. it would be too late. if anyone cares about preserving .another piece of College Station history, please. email. or call the city about this. Or just. sit back and let it happen.. Jane Kee: jkee~et.college-stationax.us Sabine'McCully: smeculty@ci.college..-stationax.us Thank you, :......:. ..:..: ......:.~........: .:...,.. _ ......,v. . , Page 3 ` :Jane Kee.- Mime.822 Benito Flores-Meath "Time invested in improving ourselves cuts down on time wasted in disapproving of others:" Anonymous part1_b6b861 a0.248a9ff3 boundary-- ---- :Jane Kee -Who Should Pay_To_ Save_Commandant's House? "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .Page: 1, From: "Benito Flores-Meath" <bflores@elitesoft.com> To: <jkee@ci.college-stationax.us> Date: 6/7/99 1024AM Subject: Who .Should Pay To Save Commandant's House? Federal tax dollars are wasted giving free rides to.those who don't need it. There are far more deserving individuals and groups in this city. Now we have a case where the Commandant's House, which also served as a parsonage,. was approved for a Facade Improvement. The project completely changed the look of the historical building. Now that the project is well under way, we find that it may not even be, in compliance with the city's zoning ordinance. Who should pay to restore it to the standards of historical buildings? first stated that the owner, ;Mr. Ganter, should. As much as I disapprove of his getting that $100,000+ of our federal tax dollars, as much as dislike the whole: Northgate :mess, his project was approved by the city. Why and by who? The City should know and follow its own laws. The phrase "due diligence" comes to mind... So let's ask ourselves, if the City approved of the project, then who should pay for their mistake? The city should concentrate on preserving. our history, not tearing down and rebuilding. with a "vision". This reminds me about our nice "old" city hall,. which) visit often, being replaced by a megadollar"'new".city hall.. Do we really need it? While we still can, let's restore the Commandant's House. and preserve. another piece of our City's History. The. only way that will happen is if the Cityzen's (thanks Norma} let the City know they want it. Thank you, Benito Flores-Meath "Time invested in improving ourselves cuts down on time wasted in disapproving of others." -Anonymous Page 1 :Sabine McC~tilly Re Preserving Commandant's House? ---....:~::,::.... ....r.... ...~... :::.. ....,,.... .~., .:.:....::....:::, ::... ......... ..::.... ..... .,... ..... --.., ,.. From: "Benito Flores-Meath" <bflores cLDelitesoft.com> To: "Sabine McCully" <Smccully@ci.college-station.tx.u,.. Date: 6!8/99 4:25PM Subject: Re: Preserving Commandant's House? Sabine: It would be counterproductive to waste time searching forwhom to blame. What. really is needed,-.NOW, is positive action by the zoning of#icial in determining what can be done#o remedy this action. The later the action, the more it will :cost to bring back into: compliance. f believe the NG portion of the. ordinance dates back to 1986. 1 was very disappointed to have the very first response to my query-be "thatthe ordinance,is wrong". You can. imagine how many red flags went up with that one.. Can I put my trust in you to do the "right thing"? Benito ----- Original- Message ----- From:. Sabine McCully <Smecully cGOci.college-stationax.us> To: ebflores~elitesoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 4999 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Preserving Commandant's. House? benito: we are still looking into the satchel's matter. at this time, it appears that the .permit-holder may have a vested right tv complete work on the building per the approved plans. i also believe that the nrb review subcommittee acted with a good faith. effort to ensure that the intent of all of the n-g restrictions were followed. we will verify these questions and get back with you. »> "Benito:Flores-Meath" <bflores~elitesoft.com> 06/07/99 1119AM »> Sabine,. Since Ms. Kee. is away, I'll fi l you. in on what has been-happening. The latest is from the Texas Historic Commission. I was told #hat, regardless of whether they consider the project; appropriate for the National Register of Historic Places, the :project should not violate the city ordinances. 1 faxed her a copy of the ordinance. Below I've listed some of the correspondence that has been posted to www.issues.org about the property at 303 Boyett (Commandant's House).. I can also fax or mai(you .copies of the City's ordinance :and the. THC's-fax that lists the age and Medium priority. Anything #o assist you. How can you help us preserve this city landmark? - Benito ;Sabine McCxull Re Preservin Commandant's House? .,.____ .Page~2 - --- Original Message ----- From: Jane Kee <JKEE~ci.college-stationax.us> To: <bflores~elitesoft.corn> Sent: Monday,_June 07; 1999 10:24: AM Subject: Re;Who .Should Pay To Save Commandant's House? I'll be out of the office until Monday, June 14th enjoying the fresh cool air of the: Rocky Mts. Jim Callaway or Sabine McCully can help you in my absence. ----- Original. Message ----- From: Benito Flores-Meath <bflores civ'Delitesoft.com> To: <jkee~ci.college-stationax.us> Sent:. Monday,. June 07, 1999 10;24 AM Subject: Who. Should Pay To Save Commandant's House? Federal tax dollars are wasted giving free rides to those who don't need it. There are far more deserving individuals and groups in this city. Now we have a case where the Commandant's House,. which. also. served as a parsonage, was approved #or a Facade Improvement. The .project completely. changed the. look of the historical building. Now that the project is weU under way, we find that it may not even-be in- compliance with the city's zoning. ordinance. Who should pay to restore it to the standards of historical buildings? I first stated that the owner, Mr. Ganter, should.. As much as t disapprove of his getting that $100,000+ of our federal tax dollars, as much as dislike the whole Norlhgate mess, his project wasapproved by the city. Why and by who? The City should know and follow its own laws. The phrase''due diligence" comes to mind. So let's ask ourselves, if the City approved of the project, then who should pay for their mistake? The city should .concentrate.. on .preserving our history, not tearing down. and rebuilding with a "vision"..This reminds me about our nice "old" city hall.:, which I visit often, being replaced by a megadollar "new"' city hall bo we really need it? While we still. can, let's restore the Commandant's House and preserve another>-piece of our City's History. The only way that will happen is if the Cityzen's (thanks Norma) let the City know they want it. Thank you, Benito Flores-Meath "Time invested in improving ourselves cuts down on time,wasted in disapproving of others." - Anonymous ::.. .. P 3" :.Sabine McC~Uq Re Preserving Commandant's Houses _ ._ _ ~~~ ......,... age Subject:: 303 Boyett and city favors Reply Posted by; Mike Wheeler (Sciman424Laol.com Date. Posted: Sat Jun 5 11:14:29 1.999 Message: A message sent to Jane Kee: t have been highly critical of the city for subsidizing Mr. Canter, the owners of?exadelphia, and others in Northgate; and I often wonder what the payback;must be for these favors. However, Benito raises some good questions :here. Why are we willing to change our codes and ordinances for just a few very privileged.. people? t guess my biggest problem with all of these favors to Canter and others is that it makes our'city machine' look blatantly unethical and unfair in the handling of city resources. What hold :does Mr. Canter have over you people? Do you honestly feel that this is the-way HUD money was intended to be spent? Would anotherbusiness owner (say in Southgate or along Texas Ave) receive similar favors? This type assistance would be okay if we were helping organizations like mental health facilities, hospitals, etc. if they needed assistance to stay afloat. But why all the considerations for bars and taverns owned by the rich? Subject: Follow Up after Conversation. with Jane Kee Reply- Posted by: Benito Flores-Meath (bflores~elitesoft.com Date. Posted: Fri Jun 4 15:49:52 1999 Message: I :just spoke with Jane Kee (city planner). l was told that: 1) The_ordinance was wrong and. needs-to be changed. (Of course, if the ordinance is in the way,. let's fix the. ordinance and.. not the problem.) 2) Thee NRB (Nouthgate ?Resources? Board)..has. discression on application of ordinances. (Gee, I thought the law applied to all equally.) 3) Since the Texas Historical Commission was not interested, that it shouldn't be preserved. (The THC actually gave the building a rating of Medium Priority, not Low Priority. The ordinance states that Medium-Priority qualifies for protection.) feel that the City is .going to sit- on this one until: the. project is done. I've already. been told that it may take a flew weeks for them to look. at it. By then it would. be too late. If anyone cares about preserving another piece of College Station history, please email or call-the city about this. Or just sit back and let it :happen. Jane Kee: jkee~ci.college-stationax.us Mayor Mcllhaney: Imcilhaney@ci.college-station.tx.us Thank you, Benito Flores-Meath Posted. by: Benito Flores-Meath (bflores@elitesoft.com ) :Sabine McC:~lly Re Preserving Commandant's Housed ~age.~.4: .:...............-------......,...---~----., .::.... ---.., . .. ...:,.... .. ,... ----....., ....:.,..... ....... :.., ......,. , .. ...,,......----:::,::... ,....:...:.....:::,: -......:::::::::..:::::,,:::---:.:,:: F.....:: Date posted: Fri Jun 4 15:44:47 1.999 Subject:. Save 303 Boyett (Commandant's Nouse) Message: June 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 8~ 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. l since have reviewed, via an Open Records Act request, information on this project. I believethat all the .HUD and College Station requirements for the FIP have been met-by the city.l also know that the Texas Historical Commission judged this site to not be eligible forthe 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 ocat zoning ordinance 1638, section 7.24.E.1.e. Let's: review tha 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 724.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 fromthe 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 ikely) severely Page..5 iSabine McCully :Re`..Preserving Commandant's House? modified from its original. tate. Frankly, the FIP award is so out of line with the original building's value that l 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 iswhetherthe building violated the-:ordinance. That's all you. have to decide. And it should be quite. easy.. # 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 took like asmall-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 l visited thissite, 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 resitlent of this-home would probably not even recognize it. could list the federal requirement that the building violates, but there are so many, it°s a waste of time. As-1 mentioned last night, 1 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 considerthe 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 forthe previous First Baptist Church. It is also fisted 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 L 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. t would recommend thafthere 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 4K. 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 stilt ;.Sabine: McCully Re Preserving Commandantys.House~ :.. ;:: _:: _:, ,::.._. . _..,,,... ..:..... Page:6 ongoing. When visited last night, the. building. wasn't finished;: I even saw a port-a-potty on site. The work crews should still. be available, the original materials may be 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 l 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 1 have submitted on eligibility. All: you need after. that is,a .quick visit to he 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 hat 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 additionneeds to adhere to the federal requirements. Since a quarter million dollars was the budget for the structure, and halfi was a grant to the applicant, much of the funds are already there. As far as any additional funds, Mr. Ganterhas 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, hisability to get a loan is never !n 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.: Ln 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, l'm-sure you want to preserve the past history-of our proud city. I'm confident that you will do all you canto restore this building to what it was. You carr do it. Sincerely, ..[signed] ; ..::::: ..: .:.::.:::.:.Pa.....::.. -:. Sabine,McC~lly, Re_ Preserving,`Commandant s Houses :. . Benito Flores-Meath 901 Val Verde Drive College .Station:, TX 77845-5425 409-846-2340 Work 409-696.-8295 Home 409-846-4367 FAX Proud B/CS resident since 4979 CC: Jo Carroll, Community Development Chairman, Historic Preservation Committee a~~v COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box.9960 11.01 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 August 3, 1999 Don Ganter Dixie Chicken, Inc. 307 University Drive College Station, Texas 77840 RE: Parking Lot Improvements Tied to Satchel's Project Dear Mr. Ganter, mailed and faxed to 846-2322 Members of the Facade Improvement Program (FIP) Advisory Committee and Northgate Revitalization Board (NRB) have asked that L remind you of the parking lot improvements required as part of your Satchel's project. In April of 1997 you agreed to provide improvements to your parking lot west of the Satchel's. project (between Patricia and Church Streets). According to Development Services, your Certificate of Occupancy for the Satchel's project is contingent on you having first satisfied the noted parking. lot improvements. If you have any questions regarding those required improvements, please call Natalie. Ruiz, at the City's Planning Department. As staff to the NRB, she can provide you more detailed information. She can be reached at 764-3754. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have questions or require additional information please call me at the City of College Station's Community Development Office at 764-3778. Sincerely, Randy J. Brumley Housing Programs Coordinator cc: Natalie Ruiz -Planning. Technician Jo Carroll -Community Development .Administrator Lance Simms -Building Official FIP and NRB Committees Home of Texas A&M University ~i,~lti~ ~~ U`~ NORTHGATE REVITALIZATION BOARD REPORT Apri129, 1997 TO' Don Canter, Dixie Chicken Restaurant 307 University Drive, .College Station, 'TfX 77840 FROM: Northgate Revitalization Board: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner Steve Homeyer, Assistant to the City Engineer Julius Gribou, NRB Chairman Cheryl Anz, NRB .Member Tara Sopasaks, NRB Member Richard Benning, NRB Member James Massey, P&Z Representative Others Attending Natalie Ruiz,:Planning Technicia Shirley Volk, Development Coor in for Laverne Akin, GTE Representative Tony Michalsky, Electrical Operations Coordinator SUBJECT: Parking Lot Plan - Shadaw Canyon Parking Lot; discuss the landscaping originallyrequired with the development of Shadow Canyon and a proposed fence around the existing parking lot located on lots 1, 2 and 3, block 9 of the..Boyett Addition, on the northeast corner of Patricia and First Streets. (93-707) A Northgate Revitalization Board Subcommittee (NRBS) meeting was held Wednesday,. April 23, 1997 to .discuss the above .mentioned parking lot plan.. The Board .reached a consensus that the original landscape plan. should be .installed. The applicant is encouraged to use larger trees than the 1 1/2" caliper size oak trees on the plan. If larger trees are used, .fewer trees may be required depending on the landscape point requirements. The Board: also agreed that. a fence approximately 2' to 3' in height -along the Church Street frontage would. help to inhibit vehicles from jumping the existing parking lot curbing. The Board suggested the use of cedar posts with a split rail design or stone columns using the same materials planned for the redevelopment of 301- 303 Church Street. The Board. requested that the applicant submit sketches of a few fence design alternatives to be reviewed and approved by the Board. Staff will mail or fax these sketches to the various NRBS members for heir review instead of having a special meeting. COORDINATE SUBMITTAL WITH DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SHIlZLEY YOLK OR PLANNING TECHl~ICIAN NATALIE`RUIZ AT (409) 764-3570° 20 November 1998: 511 UnlversRy Dr. East Suke 201 Collage Stetlon, Tx 77840 vaoo aos zso 2sxs Fax aae3 eas ezz4 W W W.Rrlritni.00D1 Principals Charlie Burris, AIA cburris@arldtex.com Chad Grauke, AIA cgrauke@arldtex.com Dr. Elton Abbott, AIA eabbott@arlutex.com Mike Tibbotta, AiA metibb@swbell.net Mrs. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator ..The City of College Station P: O.`Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Satchel's College Station, Texas Dear Mrs. Volk: We have reveiwed the Northgate Revitalization Board Report dated June 29, 1998 on the ..referenced. project. A revised Site Plan addressing these comments was prepared in July 1998 but was not. included in the plans submitted for building permit. Please find three . prints of he revised Site Plan attached far your usage. A summary of our responses to the individual items is offered as follows: 1. Screening of the parking is acheived with a combination of fencing and landscaping.. A copy of the fencing approved by NRB is attached (Sketch #1). 2. O.K. 3. The previously approved landscape improvements (Sketch #2) are to be completed by the Owner. NRB indicated that any. bollards along .Church Street were optional and approved the fence sketch noted above (Sketch #1). 4. The NRB approved a design of the storage building with the comment that. the wood siding be painted to match the restaurant (sketch #3). 5. A letter to Veronica`Morgan concerning the drainage for the site is attached. 6. O.K. 7. There are no curb cuts along Boyett Street. The head-in parking across Church Street are noted on the Site Plan. 8. Refer to number 1 above. 9. Design of the irrigation system is the responsibility of the Contractor. 10. Utility demands are included. the Contractor-will provide irrigation water demand. 1L The existing 3/4" water meter at Boyett is to be changed,to a 1" meter and a new 2" meter will be provided near the back of the building (per Addenda No, 1). 12. O.K. 13. O.K. 14. O.K. 15.O.K. 16. The Site Plane has been replotted at 1"=10'-0". 17. Several of the existing trees are noted to be protected. Typical protective fencing is attached (Sketch #4). 18: The revised Site Plan indicates additional landscaping along Church Street.. 19. O.K. 20. It is my understanding that this comment referred to the ..above ground gas .meter on Church Street, which is to be abandoned per Demolition Site Plan 10/AL 21. O.K. 22.-0.K: If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Austin office Chad Granke, A rincipal Voice 5121244.7870 ' Fax 512/244.0237 cc: Wick McKean, JaCody, Inc. 15 July 1998 Ms. Veronica Morgan.: The City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Additions and Alterations to " A SATCHEL'S CollegeStation, Texas Dear Ms. Morgan: We have prepared construction documents for the referenced project located at 315 ~, . ~ ~ ~ : Boyett in the Northgate district of College Station. The site area.... is 14,034 square ~~g~~~~..a feet and containsa 1400 square feet structure that has most recently been utilized as 5„ ~~t,,.ran,,o~ East a single family residence. The existing impervious cover is approximately 2400 5°ne 2°' square feet, or about 17% of the total site area. Proposed improvements include a College Sratlon, Tx 77840 - ~ol~, 4092602635 paved parking. area, sidewalks, and building additions. The improvements produce Fax 409&i68224 a total impervious cover of approximately 7514 square feet, or about ~53% of the www.arkita:.oom total Slte area. li The drainage for this site is sheet flow, generally from north to south at ~~ an overland slope of approximately 0.2% The majority of the site drains into Churcli' Street. A small portion of the site, about 40' deep. along. the northeasterly property'`'` line, .drains into Boyett Street. The proposed improvements do not cause a significant amount of water to be concentrated in any particular area. Should. you have any specific questions. or need of additional information, please .feel free. o call. Sincerely, ~0.~ ~; ~ ~ .. `, _~ E Chad Grauke, ,Principal , r 4 -. ~y E p 4 p Princi als P Charlfe Burris, AIA cburris@arkitex.com Chad Grauke,AlA cgrauke@arkitex.com Dr. Eltoa Abbott, AIA eabbott@arkitex.com Mika Tibbetta, AIA w metibb@swbell.net Austin Office Voice 512/244.7870 Fax 5121244.0237 FILE NOTE Satchel's Restaurant Case #98-414 NRB 1Vlembers Present: Cheryl Anz, Richard Benning, Elton Abbott, Leslie Randolph, Jane Kee and.Paul Kaspar. Staff Present: Natalie Ruiz Applicant: Chad Grauke, Architect's Studio ®n Wednesday, August 24, 1998 the Northgate Revitalization Board Subcommittee (NRBS) met to discuss the Satchel's Restaurant. at 303 Boyett Street.. The NRBS approved the. project on June 24, 1998; however, the applicant wanted to discuss a few outstanding items. The Board reached a consensus on the following elements: _ If the owner wants to install a fence around the off-site parking area on Church Street, it must be a split rail cedar fence with the irregular shaped stone end treatments as proposed. (This detail is the third fence option on the Satchel's Restaurant elevation drawings.) A fence is not required at this location; however, the owner would like to install a fence to keep vehicles from jumping the curb. ® .The screening of the new on-site parking lot. on Church Street shall consist of the same split rail cedar fence referenced above: However, in order to adequately screen the parking lot, shrubs should be placed between the fence and the parking lot. The proposed stamped and dyed. concrete for the sidewalk is acceptable. The sidewalk that was shown near the parking lot along Church Street should be placed adjacent to the street. ® The NRBS required that the out building look more like the proposed restaurant facade at their meeting in June. At today's meeting, the Board agreed to allow the .applicant to paint the building to match the main building and provide. irregular shaped stone treatments at the corners of the building on the Church Street side of the facade. Natalie ghomas Ruiz Assistant. Development Coordinator September 7, 1998 0. ~~ FILE NOTE Satchel's Restaurant ~~-~ ~/ ~ ~--' 1` .Case #98-414 ~ ~~~ NRB Members Present: Cheryl Anz, Richard Benning, Elton Abbott, Leslie Randolph, Jane Kee and Paul Kaspar. ', Staff Present: Natalie Ruiz. Applicant: Chad Grauke, Architect's Studio On Wednesday, August 24, 1998 the Northgate Revitalization Board Subcommittee (NRBS) met to discuss the Satchel's Restaurant at 303 Boyett Street. The NRBS approved the project on June 24, 1998:; however, the applicant wanted to discuss a few .outstanding items. The Board reached a consensus on the following elements: _ If the owner wants to install a fence around the off-site parking area on Church Street, it must ~ be a split rail cedar fence with the irregular shaped stone end treatments. as proposed. (This detail is the third fence option on the Satchel's` Restaurant elevation. drawings.) A fence: is not i required at this location; however, the owner would like to install a fence to keep vehicles from jumping the curb. _ The screening of the new on-site parking lot on Church. Street shall consist of the same split rail cedar fence referenced above. However, in order to adequately screen the parking lot, shrubs should be placed between the fence and the parking lot. _ The proposed stamped and dyed concrete for the sidewalk is acceptable. The sidewalk that was shown near the parking lot along Church Street should be placed adjacent to the street. _ The NRBS required that the out building look mare like the proposed restaurant facade at their ~ meeting in June. At today's meeting, the Board agreed to allow. the applicant to paint the building to match the main building :and provide irregular shaped stone treatments. at the corners of the building on the Church Street side of the facade. f ~~ Natalie homas Ruiz Assistant Development Coordinator September 7, 1998 I I LIEGE STATION CO P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue ,College Station, TX 77842 TeL 409 764 3500 April 20, 1999 Wick McKean JaCody, Inc. 2400 Frost College Sation, Texas 77845 Mailed and Faxed to 696-7745 RE: Follow-up to Stop Work Notice Dated 4/13/99. Satchel's Facade Improvement Project - 303/305 Boyett Dear Mr. McKean, Your request to substitute the Colony 104 siding material for the material specified in the contract documents is ..approved. As you know, the. Owner and Architect have given their approval to .the 'substitution. Additionally, Northgate Revitalization Board and Facade Committee staff have found the substitution to be acceptable. We have also confirmed with your supplier that the specified material is not available locally. It appears the substituted material will result in approximately a $300 material savings. Since the city's Facade Improvement Program funded the exterior siding in full, the amount of Facade funds available to this project will be reduced accordingly. Please insure that ongoing. work follows.. the material and application guidelines as specified in the bid packet and contract documents. Please notify my office prior to implementing any future changes in material or application on this project. If you need additional information or have questions, I can be reached at the City of College Station's Community Development Office at ..(409) 764 - 3778. Sincerely, G G~i Randy J. Brumley Housing Programs Coordinator cc: Don Ganter -Owner Jo Carroll -Community Development Administrator Sabine McCully Senior Planner Lance Simms -Building Official Home of Texas A&M University 11:13 ^C X1005/006 DATE: T /~/• (I A rya llr. n~rr,r T.-vr...., ,-. . „ _ ~z _~. / t1 - -- NAME; ~? !ti 7~t t'I 7~~~ BUILDER/ACHILTECT: (/I7 ADDRESS: 3tl 3~3~ ~ f~d`~ v~ P p/er ~' ~Z~ ~ ~'1~ - s7B.Gy STYLEc z,.~„Q. / ~' ~ f 1•~„vi BLOCIClL,OT: _~JJ~ ~Z, t~~ 2J , ' ORIGINAL USE: ~1i~6Y P/l~f CP ADDITION: I.3d"t' ~~ ~~~t U / S Cdl.! PRESENT USE: I~tGGZIi CENSUS TRACT; RELATIONSHIP TO SITE: .Original Site or Moved front: lev~oy(!S ~' ~ v7D~ ~I/eae, /LL SIGNIFICANCE: ~d'~°Ut~Sl~i U,S~r ~- /Ja~r~Y1 ~?Ae ~/" ? cv~c C~~n2 MAP: ~---~ see ~G r /99 11:13. ~ C~ 006/006 TEXAS.IIIS'I'ORICAL COMMISSION TEXAS ffiSTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM *' RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FORM County: Brazos Site #:49 USGS Quad # City/ltural: College Station Date: Factual Frst.1930 Additions: Name! Cotnrnantlant's FIousc Architect/Btlilder: Address: 303 Bovett Contractor: Owner. Iiistaria Use: Residential- Parsana for Baptist Church Legal Desc.: Lot 21. Blk 12LBovett Subdivi~i42Present Use: Resideniial ~~~ Property ~'l~• Residential Subtype: Stylistic. Influentx: Integrity of: " ^ location.. ®design ^ setting ^ materials ^ workmanship ~ association ^ feeling history of Property: Previously logted at 242 College Main as a Parsoaa~e for the. nreviaus First Baptist Church Areas of Signifit~nce (includt; justification}; Bibliography (include oral histories): Surveyor: C. Hatch 8t K. Bauch Date surveyed: 2.18- 5 Photo Data: 1to11/Frame 1:27; 4:2-3 through.Roll/Frame Sli Designations: NR RTI-II, I-iABS Local Priority. Medium AESCRIPTIUN$: ~ e~g ~ve s ' ~ Mt _ composition shingles. asphah ~fieldstone rt c ~f tile Location: brick (specify Dolor) _deoorative sta+txr,work w -metal (specify tyPH txiginat location(tctmptes) -wood shingle :. (specify light ~8~r+t+m+1 box eaves -moved (speeifydate} X syntfutiasiding _expoaed taller ends _E building faCCS (N/5/EJW) _X_aslxstos siding -other specify other _ jig-uwn brackets Stories: Porches: 1)oors/Entries: nick brackets _t specify i1 {t,t E/2,2,eta.) Z,spet:ify # of bays „_singleadooc primary eatraeoe _ specify other Constraetton: _E specifylV/S/FJWelevation double*cborprinwyenfranoe X Erma _X_sted roof X 2 primary'eatrnnoes Chtmne~rs: rsolid lx+ck (specify color) _hippexl roof with transom -specify Dumber solid stone (specify Dolor) -gable roof with sidelights interior (specifjr Placement} spaity other X inset specify otltar Plan: fumed-wood posts Gable Ltird'rr+eataoeat: exterior (specify placerrKnt) ,~L-plan squaro posts. X_same as wall surface -modified Lplan _cl:ttmfered wood poets _si,teco ~~ oa,ter passage plea brick piers wood shurgle stone (specify # of rnonu deep). box oolurtun -wood siding with corbelled caps _2-room plae X classical columns (specify) _deeorativr bargeboards stumped _T-plan _X bona wi:tdows ~ specify other ~bungalowplan tapered box supports: X vrnts t7ulbulldln=ss -~B+rq ply -fall-height specify other' {specify # ~ ~YPo) _,asynuextrical plan _on' pier RootType: ^garage spocify other ~fabricaled metal X~abl4 barn Roundatlon Materials: -equated-wood balustt:ra hipped. - Z shed ?CCier-and.beam fumed-wood baluster •_AaVwith parapet _ other sP~Y stone ~ig~sswn brackets _gnmbrrl Landsnpe Featuro: brick ~, ji~sawn pore6 frieze ~dornwn: (spoei(Y N) :idawr~Ucs specif3r other turefed-work frieze _~ble ^~~g ~:teHor Wall Surface: specify oll,er _~PP~ X drivesdirt _weath«boat'dsiding Wlndosrss -shod _ _wcU orcistem drop siding; _X,wood sash Y other ~m stucco- -aluminum sash Roof Materials: -stone X doublabung wood shingles °' Compass Bank L° N `~ / 7 ~ N"I ~' a o~5 ~ ~ y ~K ~o w September 21, 1998. i ~ Mr. RandyBrumley Housing Program Coordinator City of College Station Community Development Office P. O. Box 9960 College .Station,. Texas 77842 RE: Don. Canter Dear Mr. Brumle y Please be advised that Don Canter is a very valued customer of our bank.;and has been so for several years. We have numerous. credit .facilities extended to entities owned by Mr. Canter, with all obligations having been handled in a most satisfactory manner. In addition, we have been in discussions with Mr. Canter regarding the proposed financing of a restaurant facility at Northgate. Although the exact details ofthe loan transaction have not yet been finalized, this has more to do with the fact that he has. not yet decided on how he desires to structure the transaction and is finalizing details. on his end. We have a very high confidence in him-:and anticipate that we will be able to consummate the transaction to everyone's: satisfaction. Please call me at 764-1309 if you have any questions or need additional information. I incerel Jerry ox City President _ 2405 Texas Avenue .South College Station, Texas 77840 409/693-6930 1200 Briarcrest Drive Bryan, Texas 77802 409/764-.1330 Brazos.~AD Properties http://www.taxnetusa.com/BrazosDetail.cfm BRA.ZOS CAD Real Property Information This value information is based on the working values. There were l2 matches: Displaying Records 1 - 12 : _ -- - - __.~_._._.__.__ Address------------ ~~- .~ -.._ - -- ---- :-_..___-- ~Swner ._:.. __ ; ~~Value - - ~. O 'A:MI [:,E DIZ A TER, D N B AN E A D ( 311~6~60 _ ~N A 1~°M ~ - SANDY PrI' RD A TER, D B k 1 , .00 ~N, A R ~ ~ KS1DE DR AN ER, D B ~ ,32 . ~ r2~~00 RAYnDO_.~.T..N..__-.__- --.._._-...-- --_~A1~TER, MARY AN~t $~1,10~.00 ~ ~N7A ~Iv12~ 1 ~ -~~SAI~D~ PT~ RU---- ____ ~iANTER, DON B ---- ---. _ ;~ '- $73,760.00 _.._ (~,TA NTA---- --__.-----~.:. --------- GANT~R, ~GI~ B $25,Ob~.00 N A N A '~T~1~ DAB 1, 7 0 NANA AN R D NB E- 14 . (I~7A NIA- _.__._~, _--_:~_..----.~__._._.__ ._...~:,GANT~R, DOI~ B _~_-T __._ _._ A .~_ $~0 00~ (NTA N7A_._ _~.__:_ --------__~_~_---.~ . - ..._._.- GAI~T~iZ, DUN:-B------ -----------__ _ .~ $5.06 - _ -- --- ~NTA 1~/A.._-_ _ --- ----GANT'~R,~6N B ._.._ _ . $~.~0 A p ~ A ER, MARY A ~ ~..~~ 11 1 0: ~v Another Search by Short AccountNumber Another Search b,~. Long Account Number Another Search. b~T 4t~~ner Name Another Search by Address !III a Brazos C!~.D Properties ~; http://www.taxnetusa.com/BrazosDetail.cfm BRAZOS CAD Real Property Information i ~ This value information. is .based on the working values. There were 11 matches: Displaying Re cords 1 - 11 i _ ~ Address ~~ _ ~~- caner _ _ _ 9$ Value 3 B ,"I'"I T I KE I DIXIE _ 5,5 ~~ _ N A N A A A 3 FD`--~IE~HICI~EN IN __ 1 . DI IE HI KE IN ~ ___ ~ 177 . ~ '! ~N~7A ~ A _:_ _ __ _ _ _ ~IX~~CHI~KEI~NC ~~ ~,95b~6 ' NIA N7A DIXIE CHI~~EN INC __._._._ _._._ __ $27,bd~.d0 'iNrA~1CA_._._:~.~.__~::..__-- _.. _ ._~___~~ __ DIXIE CI-TICKEl~`INC I ~ - $27,000.0 2 )1 PA"CK1 IA DI I HI E I ~ -$43,~L~b~ _ _ ~6 S LLE E A 1/ ,D XI HI N IN ~ -~ - 1 : 0 - i 3~b~-~6b~~ ~~~~E~~:AVE _-:.~._____~ ___ ..3 ~DIX~E C~IiCI~EI~IN~ ~ $1~7,1~~.Ob 217 LINIVEIZSIT~DR VV ~__ ~ ; _ i~7IX~~ITTTC;K-EI~N~ E _ ~~1~(~$~~.0 __ - 12 WALT'(5N ---- ... _ -~DIX~E ~I-IIC~EN I~tC~ '~ I .... ........ ~ ~~~0~().6b ...... Another Search by Short Account Number Another Search by Long Account Number i Another Search bar Owner Name Another Search by Address i I 1 . . J i 'I I ~i 1 of 1 3/10/99. 1:51 PM ~~i~ E G _, dam: ~ ~, f ~ _ ~ ~(~~ - ~ ~C~ . ~ 3 ~~~~ w ,~) (~~,z~- , ., . ;a ; ~ ~~'~~ ~~ w~ -~~~ r , f ~ ~.~ .h~ i~~2 ~-Z~. o I ~~ ~.J ~~ ~ .,~.~ ~ ~ Flo ~e ~ ~'2~~ C~~c ~ ~~-Q ~ _~ .. . 51tUnlwnky Dc East s+,ne 261 College Ste[Ion,TX 77840 vaa M9 260 2633 Fax 400 846 8224 aww.a:kita:.eom E~~ ~~ y Principals Charlie Barrla, AIA cburris@4rlatez.com Clad Graa$e, AIA cgrauke~~arkitez.com L>r. Elton Abbott, AIA eabbott@arkitez.c~3 Mike TD~betta,AIA metibb@swbell.Det Austin Office Voles 5121244.7870 fax 312!244-023Y 15 July 1998 Ms. Veronica Morgan The City of College. Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Additiorbs and Alterations to SATCHEL' S College Station, Texas Dear Ms. Morgan: We have prepared construction documents for the referenced project located at 315 Boyett in the Northgate district of College Station. The site area is 14,034 square feet and contains a 1400 square feet structure that has most recently been utilized as a single family residence. The existing impervious cover is approximately 2400 square feet, or about 17% of the total site area. Proposed improvements include a' paved parking area, sidewalks, and building additions. The improvements produce' a total :impervious cover of approximately 7514 square feet, or about 53% of the: total site area. The drainage for this site is sheet flow, generally from north to south at an overland' slope of approximately 0.2%. The majority of the site drains into'Church Street. A small portion of the site, about 40' deep along the northeasterly property line, drains into Boyett Street. The proposed improvements do not cause a significant amount of water to be concentrated in any particular. area. Should you have any specific questions or need of additional information, please' feel free to call. G~ Sincerely--,s,` ~ ~ej~". S fc..or/u..~a~r ~ Co l~ e S z~c f. ~~, ~G;~, ~-~ ` 1 GJ~ t~.vSf: Lj{ Gad / Chad Grauke, ,Principal J 5 ~~ ~. ~ ,~' ~ l vt cvc~,~ i s.~ ~ t_~, ~ ~a ti `~7 -~/o w ~^~fcs ~~ to cc4.Q eu.5 th 22vo' ~(/ w.s ~airctr `11.r' U l~ ~~-G ~ S t~ ~ ~ ~`~ '~ ~ ~r%c. ~} ~P o S.e~ ! wt ~ vc v.2 ~^.~. ~ ~ GJ ~ %~ Gt o '7` G~~( v,GvS G ~~c c'?~ ~ `''~- cX oLJ Gt S7`~"~-~h~ OL G~c/ .~G ,e„ St's s fe~..~. ~ ~L~/ 1~~~~~ ., t~°L~..> a- ~~J a~ c ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~~ 8 ~a~~. -~~ ~ /~ ~ - `~ _ ,.~ . ~. %~~ - . ~~ fi ~~ V~~ - ~ e~ ~ - ~, ~~ . (~