Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout42 Development Permit 397 Sneakers Parking LotIMPORTANT MESSAGE /O· ~A.M. • P .M . WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU TOPS ' FORM 4006 .. / (IMPORTANT MESSAGE) WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU FORM 4006 ( ( CITY OF COLLEGE S~ Ricky Miller Sneaker's 504 Harvey Rd. PO_ BOX9960 COLL EGE STATION . TEXAS 77842 -0960 (4 09) 764 -3500 August 21, 1990 College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Improvements to Adjacent Parking Area Dear Mr. Miller, N £Copy We are aware of your recent efforts to solve the existing parking problem created by the Sneaker's Nightclub. However, the adjacent area which presently serves as a parking lot is not in an acceptable condition. The exposed dirt area that drains toward the creek is highly erosive and can cause considerable damage to Wolf Pen Creek. Unauthorized clearing of this area is a direct violation of our Drainage Ordinance and the owner is subject to fines and penalties. There are several inexpensive ways you can mitigate this situation, or at the very least, prevent any further damage to the creek. One option is to provide hay bales or some other approved erosion control method to the area on the lower end of the lot . Therefore we recommend you contact us regarding a development permit for clearing that has already occurred, and discuss measures to prevent further erosion in the area. Sincerely, D~ ;/~f=:-:. .. Z-u Deborah Leslie Keating, P.E. Project Engineer cc: David Pullen, City Engineer Jim Callaway, City Planner Wes Castolenia, Code Enforcement Officer Ho m e o f Te xas A [, M U niver sity I, DEBORAH LESLIE KEATIN G , P.E., Project Engineer of the City o f College Station, Brazos County , Texas, do hereby certify and attest that this is a true and correct copy of a record from the official documents of the En g ineering De p a r t~ent re g arding Mr. Ricky Miller. Da te: Q.~~ )17'1 0 D~~~= DEBORAH LESLIE KEATING~ Project Engineer City of Colle g e Station ~~ fi•*( CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ '?J PLANNING DIVISION Po st O ffic e Bo x 996 0 1 101 Texas A v enue Col l e g e Sta t i o n, T exa s 77 842-0960 (40 9 ) 7 64-35 70 August 30 , 1991 MEMO TO FILE FROM: Shirley Volk On Wednesday afternoon, August 28, 1991, Ricky Miller contacted me to ask about a proposal he was working on to provide additional parking for his business, Sneakers, which is located on Harvey Road. While we were talking, he had another phone call and put me on hold, and then never came back on the line. I eventually hung up and he didn't call me back. Before 5 p.m. I told Jim Callaway about our conversation, and he said he was driving by Sneakers to visit with Ricky and to pick up a preliminary or conceptual site plan from him that evening on his way home. On Thursday morning, August 29, 1991, Jim gave that conceptual plan to me to take to Debbie Keating, our drainage engineer, to see if the information shown on the plan regarding the location of the floodway of Wolf Pen Creek was accurate. Debbie worked with me on Thursday afternoon to try to make a determination regarding the accuracy of the information submitted, and after a very preliminary review of the conceptual plan, she determined that the information submitted by Ricky was not correct, and in fact, it would appear to her that the floodway would be located in the middle of the conceptual parking lot. I called Ricky back at Sneakers in the middle of the afternoon of the 29th and told him that our drainage engineer thinks the information he has submitted is in error, and asked him to have whoever provided him with that information to call us to schedule an appointment to go over the information so we could determine where any errors were made. Ricky said that Don Garrett had provided the information and he would contact Don about setting up a meeting. Later the afternoon of the 29th, Ricky called me back and said that in fact , Don had Just gotten the latest floodway information the morning of the 29th , so the information on the conc e ptual plan submitted on the 28th was in error , and he would have to try to locate some other l and on which to d e velop a park i n g lot. x c : Ca thy Locke Jim Cal l a wa y D ~bbie Keating I WORK ORDER I Datemme Needed Ff?.._.J D ~ Requested by: __.D~:...!.·-...:..~-=---=::;i...,.__ ____ _ D PLEASE COPY Need ___ copies D Copies to: ------------ Original: 0 Return to: _______ _ 0 File under: _______ _ 0 PLEASE PRINT/TYPE (circle one) 0 Paper type 0 City letterhead D Department letterhead 0 Plain white D Please prepare envelope 0 Proof and print 0 Special Instructions:--------- D ORDER D Warehouse order D Description __________ ~ 0 Special Office Supply order Where ------------1 t em #/Description--------- 0 Supporting Material attached 0 Other ------------~ &J'OTHER D Special Instructions -------~ ~ _}_A__ "::C? ~ :n~1 =a -~ \,\ b ) " n t J) (\ r:-- " -K ~ J ti .l ;»+ ' t f ) l {JI l r-~ t ft ~ _l<....6?v '..S • .P e F ,..;-. CW' ~ E',,r .:;> °"::); (jY\ 7 .....;::::. """' -s -}y-...... c_:::{-. i tl "-• r---s~~. -b 0~ 5rJ~ \:2-o -p o.e-::s ri + cs-to p ~ .;l.v h I~ P""v "'A.', {-V\-e,~VS ~ 6 ~ ~I o ...... +l-c..+ .f2o.,... pk a..~--c p:f?v-......_ ~~. ( ( ) 5AU:¥1 ic..e-t!..'.s 4 · 3 o Debbie Keating. Engineer. -Please state your full name. -Where do you live? -What is your occupation? -Please describe your formal education. -What kind of work experience do you have. -By whom are you currently employed? -What job title do you hold? -How long have you been in that job position? -What are your job responsibilities? -Are you familiar with Sneakers? . -Where is it located?~!'...( ~~~Fe... D /:: v !::."?.. D f' ,_, G"-1 T p €fl /"1 I T FILE copy -Have you investigated any ordinance violations in connection with Sn e akers? -What did you find? -Did you send any correspondence to Mr. Miller in an attempt to secure compliance with the ordinances? August 21, 1990 Letter from Debbie L. Keating [Susan], please mark this Plaintiff's Exhibit # for identification. -Your Honor, may the record reflect that I am now showing John Hawtrey Plaintiff's Exhibit # for identification. Ms. Kee, I am handing you Plaintiff's Exhibit # please tell me what it is. - Did you prepare this letter? Did you mail this letter? Your Honor, we move that Plaintiff's Exhibit # for identification be admitted in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit # . Have exhibit marked in evidence. -Did Ricky Miller receive this letter? [how does she know] "A letter, properly addressed, stamped and mailed, gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the letter was duly received by the addressee." Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valencia, 679 S.W.2d 29, 35 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1984) affirmed 690 S.W. 2d 239 (1985), citing Mobile America Sales Corp. v. Gradley, 612 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont 1980, no writ.); Mayad v. Rizk, 554 s.w. 2d 835 (Tex. Civ. App. [14th Dist.] Houston 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Rule 803(6) The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted ( ( by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by affidavit that complies with Rule 902(10), unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. "Business" as used in this paragraph includes any and every kind of regular organized activity whether conducted for profit or not. There are no cases directly on point of introducing a letter as a business record, but there are cases on establishing the predicate of regularly conducted business activity. University Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Security Lumber Co., 423 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. 1967). The court held that testimony as to how certain invoices, loading tickets, and delivery tickets were made during the regular course of business satisfied the regularly conducted business record rule. -Did Mr. Miller come into compliance based upon this letter? -Did Mr. Miller contact you with regard to this letter? -What did Mr. Miller tell you about his clearing of the adjacent property? Rule 801 - A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is (A) his own statement in either his individual or representative capacity; or (B) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth; or (C) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject; or (D) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; or (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and furtherance of the conspiracy. Rule 803 -The following are not excluded by hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (24) Statement against Interest. As statement which is at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, or to make him against another, or to make him an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable man in his position would not have the statement unless he believed it to be true. ( Robinson v. Harkins & Co., 711 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.1986). "There are three general interests considered under the rule: Pecuniary, penal and social. Thus while a particular statement may be self-serving in one respect, it may simultaneously be contrary to another interest. Admissibility, then, necessarily requires a weighing and balancing of competing interests." Evans v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 579 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. Civ. App. -Amarillo 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Any statement made by a party or on his behalf which is inconsistent with his present position on a material matter is receivable as an admission. "Admissions made by a party to the suit or his agent are admissible not only for impeachment but also as substantive evidence on a material issue to which they may be relevant." -What did RM tell you about the parking by Sneakers patrons on the adjacent lot? Rule 801 - A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is (A) his own statement in either his individual or representative capacity; or (B) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth; or (C) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject; or (D) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; or (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and furtherance of the conspiracy. Rule 803 -The following are not excluded by hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (24) Statement against Interest. As statement which is at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, or to make him against another, or to make him an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable man in his position would not have the statement unless he believed it to be true. Robinson v. Harkins & Co., 711 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.1986). "There are three general interests considered under the rule: Pecuniary, penal and social. Thus while a particular statement may be self-serving in one respect, it may simultaneously be contrary to another interest. Admissibility, then, necessarily requires a weighing and balancing of competing interests." ( ( • Evans v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 579 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. Civ. App. -Amarillo 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Any statement made by a party or on his behalf which is inconsistent with his present position on a material matter is receivable as an admission. "Admissions made by a party to the suit or his agent are admissible not only for impeachment but also as substantive evidence on a material issue to which they may be relevant."