Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/2001 - Regular Minutes - Historic Preservation Committee Minutes Historic Preservation Committee Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shawn Carlson, Chair; Bill Lancaster; Thomas Taylor; Myron Gantt; Marsha Sanford, Monte Trenckmann. MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Jasek, Margaret Giffith, Robert McGee, Graham Sheffy. STAFF PRESENT: Deborah Grace, Jane Kee, Lee Battle, Molly Hitchcock, Sabine Kuenzel, Natalie Ruiz, Steve Hill, Development Services, Randy Brumley, Community Development; Tony Michalsky, Public Utilities. VISITORS PRESENT: Mike Luther, Benito Florez-Meath, Dennis Maloney. 1. Call to Order: Shawn Carlson called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. 2. Consideration &Approval of Member Requests for Absences: No applications were turned in. 3. Approval of minutes from the December 6, 2000 meetina of the Committee: Tom Taylor made the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Myron Gantt seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. 4. Hear Visitors: No visitors spoke. 5. Historic Uahtina Proaram Update: Tony Michaisky told the Committee that in this fiscal year, 80 antique park lights should be installed. The poles are in and the lights are on order. Tony handed out and explained to the committee the layout for the South Side Historic District Antique Lighting Project. Tony explained to the Committee that the 80 proposed lights for this FY will be placed at all the intersections. The lights will be placed at the best location. Holleman Drive will be left until the end because there is some lighting on the existing poles and he does not know if the Committee wanted to put up the antique lights along with the exiting lights. Tony explained the 65 exiting tights that are between intersections. Several years ago the Electrical Department surveyed and tried to meet what the current city ordinance requires at every intersection (lights every 300 feet) the best they could. It is anticipated that it will take another 65 more lights to change out what is existing. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,January 10,2001 Page 2 Shawn asked Tony if he talked to homeowners before the lights were installed. Tony explained that when street lighting is planned they stick a stake in the ground stating that it is for decorative lighting. Once the stakes are set the Electrical Department waits for comments. It takes several days before the lights are actually installed. In the past, the Electrical Department did receive one call from a citizen not wanting a bush removed in order to set a pole. The light was moved across the street with no problems from that homeowner. Tony told the Committee that 160 total lights would complete this area. Shawn asked if the newer subdivisions have lights every 300 feet. Tony replied that streetlights are placed at every intersection and every 300 feet. The lights can be placed anywhere between 250 to 325 feet. The pole is 30-ft with an 8-ft arm and cobra head light. The developer decides which material the pole will be made of. On the collector and thoroughfare streets the taller poles are used. Bill asked if the 65 exiting lights would remain in the same place. Tony replied they would stay in place once the 80 decorative lights are in place. Tom asked if it made sense to put in the decorative lights along Holleman since it is a thoroughfare with the taller poles existing. Tony replied that as far as aesthetics it would. What will probably need to be done is put 16-ft arms with a 200-watt bulb to give the street the type of lighting it needs. The city is working on a thoroughfare lighting plan to see what it will take to bring thoroughfares up to compliance as far as proper lighting. Tom questioned the possibility of some overkill in some cases. Tony stated that they could leave the city lighting off the existing utility poles or they could put the 16-ft arms with the 200-watt lights for the type of traffic the street carries. Tony spoke about the lighting of George Bush. The city will have to work with the State on that area. Myron asked what size are the decorative lights. Tony replied that they are 100 watt, basically what it out there now. Tom said his concern is having so much stuff in an area that it defeats the purpose. It becomes less decorative and more congested. Shawn asked if there would still need to be lights along Holleman. Tony said what they would do is add the thoroughfare type lighting. The power line along the south side of Holleman would add longer arms to get the proper light over the road. Every pole that is on Holleman would get a tight installed. Tony explained to the Committee that Holleman carries a lot of traffic. The decorative lights are short and bright. When you have a street carrying a high volume of traffic you need to get the light up to cover more area. Tom and Shawn felt that the lighting on Holleman should be looked at more. They felt that other lights were needed on the thoroughfares and the decorative lights could be placed in the interior of the neighborhood instead. Tony said that if the decorative lights are wanted on the north side of Holleman they could do it but it would be some overkill. Tom asked if there was an estimate when this all would be completed. Tony said that if would be a couple of years Tony handed the Committee the lighting layout for the East Gate Historic District. Tony stated that they would like to do the intersections first in the Southside and then go to the Eastgate area if lights are desired there. There are supposed to be meetings with the residents in Eastgate to discuss the lighting. Kato*Preservation Committee Minutes,January 10,2001 Page 3 6. Presentation Northaate Program Sabine gave the Committee a history of Northgate. Redevelopment Plan In 1995 the City Council made a commitment to upgrade the area, and made it a strategic issue in 1995 to come up with a plan for the area. By 1996, consultants had drafted the plan and it was adopted. The implementation became the number 2 ranking strategic issue that year. The plan analyzed the area as it existed, and made recommendations for city policy changes to reach the study's recommended goals. This area was being focused on at a time when the rest of the country was looking at its downtowns. It was referred to as "New Urbanism". Character of Northgate Northgate was identified as an area that included a variety of housing types in close proximity to one another, and in close proximity to low scale commercial buildings. Northgate was originally subdivided to be a single-family residential area but it did not develop into that. It grew into much more of a commercial dense area. Very little private or public investment was made in Northgate. The city had done basic maintenance through CIP projects. The ordinances pretty much discouraged development in Northgate. There either was not the infrastructure there to support it or there were conflicts with the ordinances that applied to the properties. Mix of Residential Uses The city's choice was to go back to the urban style. This would take the existing development pattern and encourage it to continue to develop and redevelop. Higher density of development was encouraged. Zoning that existed at the time for the residential areas consisted of single-family, duplex, and multi family; each district had mix of the types. Typical suburban approach would be to force the separation of these uses but the recommendation was to encourage higher densities that are more typical of a small downtown area. Parking/Traffic There was a lot of discussion and analysis of the parking situation in this study as well as a subsequent parking study. What was recommended in Northgate was to supply public parking areas in the form of surface parking lots and parking garages. It was also recommended that perhaps some parking requirements for the residential areas increase, however, this is one part of the plan that was not implemented. Tom asked what increasing of the parking requirements for multi-family means. Sabine explained increasing it from the requirements that were in place at the time the zoning was for duplex, multi-family and some single family. Increase it over and above what those zoning districts required at the time. Historic Preservetton Committee Minutes,January 10,2001 Page 4 Pedestrian/Bike/Vehicular Conflicts The plan also recommended additional bike lanes and sidewalks throughout the entire area. The plan also called for a pedestrian area on Patricia Street where the promenade is now. Older Infrastructure Before 1995, the only public projects within the Northgate area were in response to basic maintenance needs. They were not development driven, nor were they intended to enhance the area. The plan recommended a more proactive approach, with entire street reconstruction projects, utility improvements that would increase the capacity to allow more intense development, sidewalk improvements, etc. 1-2 Story Commercial Area The typical suburban method of regulating commercial development is to isolate commercial uses entirely from residential uses. Again, the more urban style is becoming increasingly popular. What was being encouraged was to achieve an area where entire city blocks contain a variety of uses. Example: 2-3 story buildings containing commercial uses on the ground floors with residential or office uses above. Church Proximity to Businesses Churches are a very important presence in Northgate. There may be some conflict when dealing with an alcoholic beverage permit but the benefits far out weigh those type problems. Churches have much more of a legal ground to locate anywhere. Little Development or Rehab in Area In order to encourage some development in the area additional public projects were funded. Regulations were created to get uses in the area that would be in keeping with the plan, but to also take out some of the obstacles i.e. setbacks. The setbacks have been reduced and in some areas there is only one setback. Tom asked does conflict happen with this getting into older areas. Sabine said she would be getting into that later in her presentation. A review process was created for Northgate that is different from the standard review process. Some of the projects include College Main reconstruction, Promenade, Spruce water & wastewater replacement, sidewalk reconstruction phase 1 & 2 and Cherry Nagle sewer replacement. Tom spoke about the dorms being built and how it must have complicated the infrastructure in that area. Sabine said that there would be an infrastructure master plan that will be worked on with other departments that will eventually point out where the additional infrastructure will be required. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes,January 10,2001 Pape 5 Pending CIP Projects - Infrastructure master plan - Cherry Street reconstruction - Sewer capacity increase - West Side utilities - Electrical substation Monte asked how much additional infrastructure is proposed for Northgate. Sabine said the city does not want to be in a position where it is reacting to the developments but rather have the infrastructure in place. Creation of NG Districts Three subdistricts have been created for Northgate - NG- 1 Historic Northgate - NG-2 Commercial Northgate - NG-3 Residential Northgate The NRB Review Subcommittee was created because the ordinance had a lot of discretionary items using Council adopted design guidelines. Existing Ordinance Zoning Ordinance Section 7.24 E-e Historic Structures —this section gives guidance to those wanting to do work in the NG Districts. Sabine said her thoughts about speaking to the HPC was her interest in knowing if there is a big concern from the Committee that needs to be incorporated in the discussions with the consultant. The City is going to be revising the Northgate Ordinance provisions in the near future, and at this time, the consultants are not proposing to include any requirements for historic preservation. If it is a Committee desire to preserve certain sites, than the specific sites should be identified and discussed with the consultant. Are there any areas needing to be preserved and handled carefully? Should their development be discouraged? If so, then the sites and areas need to be identified. Sabine said that if this Committee is going to recommend that all the buildings that were identified as high or medium priority in the Historic Resources Survey be handled in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards that will be in direct conflict with the development plan. Shawn stated that she understood that all the historic buildings were identified and ranked. Shawn asked where is the Committee's input. Mr. Lancaster said that the Committee never gave its input. The buildings were ranked in the Northgate Historic Resources prepared by Joey Dunn. Sabine told the Committee that the existing ordinance requirements could be read two ways 1) if these areas are going to be restored in a similar manner then there is a guide that can be followed; 2) everything that is within the area on the map is strictly preserved and restored back to its original character. Shawn stated that one of the reasons for ranking is so that you don't have such strict guidelines. Sabine replied that the ordinance lanauaoe is the first attempt at trvina to mesh historic Pneservebon Camino*Minutes,January 10,2001 Per 6 some of the preservation of character goals. It does not do a good job of it. The language needs to be modified to make that clearer, or if the intent or desire is to use these restrictive standards for development or redevelopment of the sites, then that will be a strong statement that needs to reconciled somehow with the goals of the initial redevelopment plan. Tom gave an example. The building Café Eccell currently occupies the former city hall. His opinion is the building is historical for College Station as well as the old Depot that was torn down. Is there anything to prevent someone coming in and tearing Café Eccell down. Sabine replied not at this point. Molly told the Committee that a USGS benchmark would protect a building. Tom asked if someone wanted to buy the property and wanted to build a gas station there is there anything to stop that from happening. Sabine replied no at this point. Pending Ordinance Changes Sabine told the Committee that there have been talks for two years now about revising the ordinance in conjunction with the NRB. As with all districts that don't follow a "tried & true" model, it takes a while to work with one and apply its standards to get a good idea of its strengths and weaknesses. The City is working on a major code overhaul — Northgate will be changed significantly based on the experiences we've had over the last 4 % years. The Economic Development Office is working on this and the concern is what impact preservation requirements are going to have. If there is concern about certain buildings that need to be handled differently the Committee needs to make a note of it. Lee told the Committee that a meeting is still being worked on with the Consultant. Northgate Façade Improvement Program Randy Brumley from the Community Development Office spoke to the Board concerning the Facade Program. The Facade Improvement Program uses Federal Grant funds to match with owner contributions in the renovations of commercial properties. It is available city wide but within the targeted redevelopment area i.e. Northgate that have more latitude to do more aesthetic type improvements. The Facade Program Committee has a permanent tie to the HPC. Deborah Jasek is now serving on the Committee as well as local merchants. The property owners are required to look at any code & safety issues and address them first. In the Northgate District they are allowed to use the funds for renovations and substantial improvements to the property. With regard to the historic review obligations that the use of the Federal funds places on the city, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 required a certain level of review for project using Federal Funds. When a project is brought before the Facade Improvement Committee to review renovations that a property owner is hoping to do, the first thing is to get the historic significance information that is in the local sources i.e., Resources Guide. That information along with other information and photographs is forwarded to State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in Austin. What is being asked from the SHPO's Office is to review the property and determine whether that property is eligible for inclusion into the Historic Register. They will report back whether or not that property is eligible for inclusion into the Register of Historic Places. Randy passed around a letter for the Loupot's Bookstore at College Main that was denied. What that letter tells the city is that we do not have to take into consideration with regards to renovations the Secretary of the Interiors standards for rehabilitation. Historic Preservation Cornmttee Minutes,January 10,2001 Page 7 Shawn asked Randy if he knew how many structures in College Station are on the National Register. Randy said he did not know. Randy told the Committee that the Sparks building was eligible for inclusion. The architect had to put together a scope of work for the renovations, forward it to the State Historic Preservation Officer for their review. The scope of work is looked at and they advise back on things needing to be changed. Tom asked once a building is included in the Register, does it have impact on future destruction of the buildings or it is a modification issue. Randy answered if Federal Funds are being used to demolish a structure; this would impact the ability to do that. Bill asked if a letter is sent stating the reasons why a building is not included in the Register. Randy replied no and that would be very interesting to know. Bill questioned the Sparks Building and Loupot's being the same age. How strange for one to be included and not the other. Randy said that if he was to guess the difference was the Sparks Building was reviewed in 1996 and Loupot's in 1999 and there was different staff in the review process. Monte spoke about 3 buildings that were torn down because of being structurally unsound, but was registered. Can that play a factor in the decision? Randy said it does play in the factor. If the building becomes dangerous it does not make sense to salvage it. 7. Historic Home Plaque 1008 Park Place—Gladys Jones Taylor Shawn told the Committee that she read the application and it is a good example of how the applications need to be done. Marsha made the motion to accept the application. Myron Gantt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 8. Agenda Item No. 8: Historic Ordinance Preparation Shawn told the Committee that this would be put on hold until a meeting with the consult could be arranged. Benito asked since the city staff would be meeting the next day with the consultant, could they ask the them to look at either strengthening or weakening the preservation of the buildings at Northgate and maybe adding a clause to somehow prevent them from being demolished. Shawn said that would be part of their discussions. Mike suggested letting the Consultant know of their concerns for buildings being demolished in Northgate. In the future they could notify the Committee of any buildings being considered for demolition 9. Agenda item No. 9; Historic Neighborhood Award Program. This will be placed on the February 7 Agenda. 10: Agenda Items for future meetings. a. Historic Neighborhood Award Program b. Historic Ordinance Preparation Historic Preservation Cannnittee Minutes,January 10,2001 Paye 8 Lee told the Committee that he got a call from Clara Mounce with the Public Library. At their next meeting they are going to be discussing "Brazos Valley Historical Collection". They are collecting as much information as they can from this area. Whatever information they can get will be housed at the Carnegie Library. They have asked that someone from this Committee attend their next meeting. Molly and David Gerling will attend as well as anyone from this Committee. The meeting is January 16 @ 5:15 at the Carnegie Library. Lee told the Board that the next project in the Neighborhood Planning Program would be the Eastgate Area. The first kick off meeting will be sometime in February. Lee said that one of the things that he thinks is nice to have in a planning document is a history of the neighborhood and the area. Lee said he thought it might be a project that a couple of people from this committee would be interested in doing. Lee showed the Committee a plan that was done in Austin. 11. Adioum: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M. APPROVED: a AArn Shawn Carlson, Chair ST: Asc.), Deborah Grace, St= Assistant 1111 i.. . .. .� IMP Northgate Ordinance 11119 linhin I I Redevelopment Plan Character of Northgate • Strategic Issue 1995 • Mix of residential uses • Council adopted 1996 • Parking/traffic ru • ID'd problems/opportunities • Pedestrian/bike/vehicular conflicts • Recommendations • Older infrastructure • 1-2 story commercial area 11251 4PP • Church proximity to businesses ••• • Little dev't or rehab In area Mix of residential uses Parking/traffic x Separation of 3 main uses x Require off-street parking IPlan solution-encourage only ✓Plan solutions higher density dev't /public pkg X increase pkg reg' Pedestrian/bike/vehicular Older infrastructure conflicts X Improve vehicular circulation X Basic maintenance "Plan solutions 'Plan solutions /Additional sidewalks&bike lanes /Street upgrades /Bike parking /Water/sewer main upgrades ✓P:.estrian zone — /Lighting installation minme /Sidewalk Improvements II IV 1 1-2 story commercial area Church proximity to x Separate zoning classifications businesses /Plan solutions /Plan solution /Mix uses 'Additional areas for commercial A Allow anywhere in NG !III s t a__._a_ Little dev't or rehab in area Implementation /Plan solutions ✓CIP projects /Fund public projects /Creation of NG districts /New district regulations that encourage ✓Review process dev't/rehab 41ij Completed CIP projects CIP projects under construction /College Main reconstruction /Promenade • Sewer replacement-Church /Spruce w&ww replacement • Ngate sewer rehab /Sidewalk reconstruction Ph.182 • Church water replacement /Sewer replacement-Cherry at Nagle • Parking garage 2 Pending CIP Projects Creation of NG districts *infrastructure master plan • NG-1 Historic NG *Cherry Street reconstruction • NG-2 Commercial NG *Sewer capacity increase • NG-3 Residential NG *West side utilities • NRB Review Subcommittee *Electrical substation Existing Ordinance Existing Ordinance —Parking (con't) —Landscaping —Screening height —Sign aesthetics —Building heights —Parking/dumpster screening aesthetics —Bike parking —Other site aesthetics —Attached signs only* —Building aesthetics —Historic structures* —Permitted uses by subdistrict —Minimum density —Setbacks Pending Ordinance Changes Historic Structures —Review process-less discretion —Not a focus of Redev't Plan —Uses-expand NG-1 —Section E.1 e.intent —Incorporate policies/practices •Facade Improvement program —Parking in rear •Staff link to HPC —Increase landscaping req'ts •Guide for restoration projects —Increase parking req'ts in res,area —Issues •Potential Interpretation-strict preservation —Include light commercial In res.area • Conflict with plan goals —Require two stories •Conflict with ordinance rent; —Delete/modify historic structures •Lack of experience enforcing SISR 3 c. CONDITIONAL USES PERMITTED: The following conditional uses shall be allowed m addition to any use allowed under section 8.12 provided the Commission determines them to be compatible with the general character of the particular area within which they are proposedto be located and provided these uses do not adversely affect or limit uses of adjacent or nearby property: (1) Apartment Hotel (2) Fraternity or sorority houses and fraternity or sorority meeting places (3) Group Housing (4) Night Clubs d. REVIEW PROCESS: (1) The review process for this section for proposals involving new construction, site development, redevelopment, rehabilitation or facade work in the NO-1 Subdistrict is the same as that established in Section 7.24C herein above. (2) Proposals involving solely rehabilitation or facade work shall require approb the review subcommittee of the Northgate Revitalization Board ), as established in Section 7.24C.1 herein above. Such propo s must be in compliance with Section 7.24E.1.e. herein below regarding the treatment of historic structures. APPEAL: Appeals from decisions of the NRB shall be to the Planning and ZoningCommission. The appeal procedures are the same as those established in 7.2C herein above. e. 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. f. AREA REQUIREMENTS: As required by Chapter 3, Building Regulations of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances. Refer to Table A. g. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Off-street_parking shall be as required by the NRB/PRC in accordance to parking and traffic impact study data. h. BICYCLE PARKING: Projects involving site development or redevelopment require the installation of bicycle parking spaces. For commercial businesses a muumum of 2 bicycle parking spaces per business plus 1 additional space for each 1000 square feet of floor area above 2,000,square feet shall be required. For apartments or residential condominiums, a minimum of 1 bicycle space per dwelling unit shall be required. In no case shall more than 20 bicycle parking spaces per business or apartment building be required. i. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: A landscape plan shall be required for all proposals involving site development or redevelopment, and shall be reviewed by the NRB/PRC in accordance with the following standards: (1) Landscape/streetscape improvements shall be required along at least 1/3 of the length of aroperty s frontage onto public streets. Doorway widths and driveways shall be excluded-from frontage calculations. Live plant material must be included where feasible in eac proposal. Zoning Ordinance Page 7 -44 • o' I J MILE 1 ( \ \ f 9 MINI I , 1 tilblift. 1 1 kij 12 1 ' --...., ..... 31 Siii s‘ LLillie3 3,3 34 35 J INC ri 5D \ r 738 114 ....,_..., .ILL,J6 41 i 42 43 -Tr , 11171 it . 1 27------N r-L- ---- , 4 4_, 2t C2 <> r I 245' 1 1 irkj 3 48 #0 IC 06 25 ...... .L.1.10 44-6] 1111r...... ,. 1 -.. ! 53 JAI 22 I V 54 D 55 7 t DL win . 1 HO OCIEl30 ii:ri- 62 64 "--------- 56 57 5859 60 ...... E 1 631E CI65 4 811ij ...- * ° efts& PREINVATION?WRIT NORTHOATE HISTORIC RESOULCIES 1995 glin mg lEn MEDIUM Gaiety Aida, Tx 4 4 2602 0 = WW rOsI 43 1 A 73 1.3A r i % 1 i W e $ 1 $$ 1Ilit o - : kp D ® 49 <y. INs�-0 tisN� . s e P I. > e z V • J 000 41 -kki A.. F. 4... 4t(i: 0410%10, j e 4. ti e e Qg 1 4 •‘9 r` ,l '• •/ ° ,NGS�� S�b0 yp = �� ?P - PJ NyJ>iJ 5th' '(!'Sda sJN t' s /N/7 '1 Eby 4 y,F„ dp c Po 40a O,, is1>y p�14° • , O (9 �O .' c .' .1b 3 4 .,� mJ it. ' . a; bJ3s0� 4� yy o2 3�b Ns 7 /0 SIJ S�b0 dJ c O. 1t,- .g b ,fie e I ybJSOy ‘ 3 �01>1e •Q. 4 7� 2 • J . 411111i0 .1,/b 0J bby ® b yF2 49004,," ear e + iJ 1>oe rhe K ® c �O ra O� O y 10 1J �bS`rb�if -� 4 i •u �u s '71>34/ 7b 4' .. • N01hM 4- 41 i�- J 4� :f.' / . s� /' , „7 ,, 4. e r1 ' 2 Q •- 00 U• tiJ /�.� �� is, Oyybl dye, J d p N ., ��y N G��GLC IlIPw 3v 7 ..+'IHS h 1S b sd�! .iF mn e `•. 2 S° haOa i F /�.,, 9 / F y Ail' w z ....4r ln 3 T� cy CPo CP,, 1'oa0o4w� v Ii X00 � ! ,/ e�e.s�0 oe Soh Sr Q��O � O ��, �� \ �•� V 9 ` ©2 Q N . Qs GT G�Q� ;, 1/REMOVED BY REQUEST �_ E ST 062 4 �� pq- •10'W ��\ ti0 •� ., RG1 (gyp 34/EXISTING ANTIQUE STREET LIGHTS fGST©2 ('�O ; ZrO<' y�GQ 0 y�°o'moo S ST a , F ST T �� p�� 4 0 20/EXISTING ANTIQUE PARK LIGHTS (0 A/ G�0 ,_ •� �/ ST ,\S y0`�� J��� P' ' • 80/PROPOSED ANTIQUE STREET LIGHTS G i', FIT p� ti •p NOTE: PROPOSED LIGHTS ARE SUBJECT 0 �� - F` p� � ©P �O`� 9y eye o �10 TO CHANGE LOCATIONS AT ® \ `� �� p� ,z•\: ENTERSECTIONS. GS \\' O- JI.' Pork / �\� 2- y� Jc', O� ® J\ 000 �Op `�� 65/EXISTING CITY OF C.S. STREET LIGHTS / �-i, r ,, *o Q� p 1110,; Sdj 14.08„ �ti Q� 0 SOUTH SIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT /cti•1,0 i�,�L �S�S,S, Jd 4, O� \�\ G RD oS 4( 4> qL\ �v\ F�F� WAND ', O �� 0QG S \.\" lb \ : +. ,S> Olc:\ pR DQE J meq/`,F F�111* O1:>,(42., G PJ.. �P\SES N R\O • \ 4.. o? i� v� r� ,;)° q` O S Cs �S , �Q5 • O ,0066 ,<N<11%.") 0�. T o ( / v© v\ F< `Z Pep �F(Sy � 4 a C�S�! -o "iti0 c)- 0 e qi, off' /Ty \ 3 G Q C5, 0 5 p •yam 404 4111011Si./ r`�co C 'PO�� -PC9 S S \V� `O �fe^o o Off/ Sl. ;, sj �� �e �iF �y y0� by O P Q� 0�2 "Pp F`,,, 11S ��'�O 0�fT 9© ��P ST �g ., \pN ..% . ,v „,,, • i,_,9 ,.. ,� 0� CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Si, e� 1' • F% wn�u�..wanra. iii,, ,\/, 2.Qp (\''' '1, 9 O isoureoE NBTOIiO DISTRICT ♦ ///4v "'t^l 111)M `ran S. mLM�.ma..M n