Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-00500289 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY il� CASE NO. b—k " iI DATE SUBMITTED` 1- -' -6LI COLLEGE STATION ` '315p�, DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board (Check one) yr NG-1 ❑ NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC ❑ OV Staff Review Only MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Application completed in full. / $200.00 Special District Application fee NA Ten (10) folded copies of facade details (including signage) with dimensions. (for Facades only) i/ Ten (10) folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only) hit Color and material samples. If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign placement. Date of Preapplication Conference: -,,per, ,gyp p�� sli NAME OF BUSINESS Z/.'-Paeft-01-10(k / J UV [ttMcK ADDRESS 211 ()NH I vee- ,-ri / , IS �•r Itv.ast Pr. (� . LEGALr\ESC r'r�i r'r,!1 p I I LLs f'1L L1 ESCP.:P PT:ON PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY VNi J r ()Iii 1-c,NC,- ©�R C- ecRCY-ALS,-tog' PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY Tl�i ) Ann, nay.) TG (i4-1itI,v4 ive c1 -.Q-o--- APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: /', r� .1 �u, 0l 1,1J�-- Name Mof' �+rl Py It Or 6)( Qgel\\ �\G`11-1 U LQ�& CA: irV1X11---bF t Street Address (ti o'4 aNwP rr City — f rz-yA-1-1 State -TA Zip Code 77'O2 E-Mail Address Mor3eq It CO w&Low,/vet Phone Number q-1 - qCa-5s (, Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name IN LL ik -4 Street Address ava-4- g.__c-rt-- F i'. City 9),L.141,4 State 77 Zip Code 7-713'e i E-Mail Address Phone Number ' 2-2- 52-36-- 2- Fax Number 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 r DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES CR-a-`tc tc&L 1)il514-64 At11kiifeO, 6,5*' w(,a ki, A-L. . 5.- 5i z t_ vis co-a S ,e i• 4_ 10.)V- 344- b y z s-'4-- r 15 ` -:- 5e� 12 f4- 6 CC- *L. e, r,,,-...),,,4L.. .. AL - f.:IL 6..•-4... C Lt:"C �. ,T *L olQ s' 3 n - AND/OR 07 ATTACHED SIGN ^� ❑ FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage / ` Square Footage All applications (except Overia •istrict applications) must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a meeting is scheduled, th •plica t will be notified of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss the proposal with the ;•ard. Th: applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits :ttached h: eto are true and correct. A II 11 /71 ov Sig tura i • ' A 'ent ora pplicant Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 Girle115111111111 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning&Development Services Minutes Design Review Board Friday, March 11, 2005 Administrative Conference Room City Council Office 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 AM Board Members Present: Alan King, George McLean, Richard Benning, Bill Trainor, and Fred Patterson Board Members Absent: Scott Shafer and Nancy Sawtelle Staff Present: Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka and Staff Assistant Mandi Alford Others Present: George Sopasakis and David Slattery AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Alan King, acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Scott Shafer Mr. Trainor motioned to approve the absence request. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(5-0). Nancy Sawtelle was also absent, but did not submit an absence request; therefore the Board did not take action on her absence. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes for January 28, 2005 and February 11, 2005. Mr. McLean motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Trainor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration, and possible action on a proposed sign, facade changes, and a portable structure for Barbershop Bar, located at 215 University Drive in Northgate. (JP 04-289) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the staff report stating that the old Bill's Barbershop was recently re-opened as a bar. There have been several facade changes to the building, including exterior color and alterations to existing windows. She added that the proposed sign will be applied to the existing facade, where the previous sign was located. Staff Planner Prochazka stated that the applicant has also located a temporary storage structure on the east side of the Barbershop Bar building, between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. The Board had questions for the applicant whom was not present. Mr. Trainor motioned to deny the applicant's request. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(5-0). The Board would like for the applicant to be present to provide more information on the paint color and signage. The Board added that the portable structure should be removed or moved to a location that is not visible from public property. Additionally, the Board stated that they would like to see the black material from the windows removed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion, consideration and possible action on a proposed sign for Burger Boy, located at 311 Church Street in Northgate. (JP 04-55) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the staff report stating that the applicant was proposing a 48" diameter round sign on the west facade of Burger Boy in Northgate. The proposed sign will have red neon rings around the sign, and a yellow logo to be internally lit by fluorescent tubes in the center. The applicant stated that the sign would only be 36" instead of the 48" to reduce keep the cost of the sign. Staff Planner Prochazka informed the Board that the Northgate Design Guidelines state that signs should be illuminated externally not internally as is being proposed by the applicant. After some discussion on the difference between a sign being illuminated externally and internally, Mr. Trainor motioned to approve the logo, sign design and color of the sign as proposed, with the exception that the sign will have to be illuminated externally instead of internally. The Board also stated that neon is acceptable.And they were not opposed to the sign being 48"instead of 36"in diameter. The Board directed the applicant to look at his options and present a modified sign proposal for staff to approve using the guidelines set out in the motion. Mr. Patterson seconded the motion which passed unopposed(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion, consideration and possible action on proposed attached and freestanding signage for the Arctic Wolf Ice Rink, located at 400 Holleman Drive East in Wolf Pen Creek. (JP 03-315) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the staff report and stated that the applicant was proposing a freestanding monument sign, approximately 11 feet tall. The proposal is an internally illuminated sign with an aluminum cabinet. The applicant is proposing the bottom portion of the sign is to be an electric reader board. The applicant is also proposing an internally illuminated attached sign on the north façade of the building that is approximately 115 square feet in area. Ms. Prochazka also went over the criteria for commercial signs for businesses in the Wolf Pen Creek District as stated in the Unified Development Ordinance. • Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which is principally relates. • Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. • The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. • The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. • Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. Ms. Prochazka provided photos of existing signage in the area, the approved site plan, building elevations, and building materials to the Board to determine whether the criteria had been met with the applicant's proposal. David Slattery, the applicant stated that the material for the monument sign came from the aluminum window walls of the building. He also stated that they are asking for approval of the LED sign, which will not be used until a later date. Mr. Slattery stated that since there is a significant amount of frontage on the Artic Wolf property and that the fire station does not have a sign they will not be competing for attention. Mr. Benning motioned to approve the applicant's request as proposed, Mr. Tranior seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO 8: Adjourn Mr. Benning motioned to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. McLean, and passed unopposed(5-0). APPROVED: Scott Shafer, Chairman ATTEST: Mandi Alford, Staff Assistant • __,_. %.0.. .......> -o r m w _. m 15 0q,... 0 M g fts‘le N Z a a1331 LA 1 A. eN rn 7! i , t 2 " n r ,- P ib F t co �, s 0 F. L x, t A N m v a IP.. — z 11 c. x m -. R - ( 4:1106 rqH g v ti V -1 e 7, R ikIth' ‘ N f1 C• 'illtit yr Z. rn P _./ t *. . ix, r• z .„_2 4 Liii. r in .:. z I,h D oci1 mila ' ,_ ,... .......> "0 r 1 ,.... or, A‘ 0q:..%. 4_ m Zft.,‘"Ti d n � N c - 'r -111 Z .1, 0 m A. r• m -t ,,, 4: 2 r r.. A • , _ F V Z. s fi t I N m vs t ° �- z .1 CT F 2. $, o x I m -. r,, h r ", 4, A 4 ili66. 11 R , r9 J . wki 1 4,::i O G O ;teo ..) F 7 # 1.! . _, .,,, ki.,, , ,..,. ›, , jib ". m rn rn � C D '1 Z m r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM April 1, 2005 TO: Design Review Board FROM: Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planner & Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Planner SUBJECT: Building Material Substitution In October 2004, the City Council adopted 7.9 Non-Residential Architectural Standards as an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. The amendment includes the specification of what building materials may be used on commercial structures, and gives the Design Review Board the authority to approve or deny requests to vary from the list of building materials. Section 7.9.D.2.a of the UDO states that "stucco, EIFS, concrete products as described above, hard board, or any material equivalent in appearance and quality as determined by the DRB, shall not cover more than 75% of the overall façade." This item includes a determination for two materials to be used as EIFS equivalents: The first is a request to use a product called ESP in place of EIFS for the development of the proposed Southwest Crossing at Bee Creek shopping center. The second request is for the use of textured paint on tilt-up concrete wall construction in place of EIFS for the proposed Holleman Retail Center. Samples of both materials will be available at the meeting. Attachment—ESP specification sheet cc: Case file #04-241 Case file #05-042 Home of Texas A&M University Product Catalog http://www.insulated-panels.com/Electronic%20Product%20Catalog/... 1111.01115 ESP Wall Panel SSP Roof Panel RWP Roof/Wall Panel ESP Wall Panel IPP Wall/Partition Panel EWP Wall Panel Rockwall Coating Description: This architecturally pleasing panel is ideal for applications Textured Finish that require a flat appearance. Minor striations in the exterior skin [Back] provide for a linear appearance in vertical applications while blending with the side joint of the panels. This Tecfoam panel is filled with non CFC polyurethane modified isocyanurate foam achieving R-values up to 40.0. Dimensions: Nominal 36" or 42" coverage; Thickness (T)—2", 2 %2", 3", 4" and 5". 36"or 42"Coverage Material: Exterior—24 ga. steel (std). 22 ga. also available. Interior—26 ga. steel (std). 24 and 22 ga. also available. Finish Options: Exterior— Dura-20 (silicone polyester) Royal K-70 (Kynar 500/Hylar 5000) Interior- USDA White (standard) Dura-20 (silicone polyester) Texture: The exterior and interior skins are embossed only. Length: The maximum recommended length is 30' 0". Contact IPS for panel length options. IPS offers standard details for stack joint applications for walls over 30' 0" high. Fasteners: Concealed, 14 ga. steel clip. Test Data 1 of 3 1/14/05 4:40 PM Product Catalog http://www.insulated-panels.com/Electronic%20Product%20Catalog/... Test Purpose Procedure Results Determines Good R values for an Thermal insulating ASTM C 236 HCFC Foam System Resistance properties of the Guarded Hot (see published values panels Box for panel type and thickness) Measures air ASTM E 283 The leakage rate for Air Leakage leakage Chamber panel will not exceed through the panel Method 0.01 CFM/SF at 40 psf joints pressure differential Measures water ASTM E 331 Water leakage Chamber No water penetration at Penetration through the panel Method pressure differential joints of 50 psf Determines the load/span ASTM E 72 Panel load/span and Strength properties of the Chamber deflection tables roof and wall Method are available panels Self-ignition temperature Ignition Determines ignition is 860 degrees F. Properties temperatures ASTM D 1929 Flash-ignition of the panel core temperature is 842 material degrees F. Core Material (5") Flame Spread 20*, Underwriters Smoke Developed 400 Laboratories Determines the UL 723 Finished Panel surface (ASTM E 84) 2"to 5"Wall Panel Flame Spread 15*, Surface burning Smoke Developed 250- Burning characteristics of 450 the core and panels Southwest Research Finished Panel Institute 2"to 5"Wall Panel ASTM E 84 Flame Spread 10*, Smoke Developed 145 Evaluates the Room Fire burning of roof Factory Mutual Panel is rated Test and wall panels in a STD. 4880 Class 1 to 30 ft. high, 5 room (1994) in. max. thickness configuration (UBC 17-5) *The numerical flame spread rating is not intended to reflect hazards presented by this or any other material under actual fire conditions. Thermal Properties ESP Wall Panel 2 of 3 1/14/05 4:40 PM Product Catalog http://www.insulated-panels.com/Electronic%20Product%20Catalog/... Product Code Thickness "U" Factor "R" Factor ESP 200 2" .063 16.0 ESP 250 2 1/2" .050 19.9 ESP 300 3" .042 23.9 ESP 400 4" .031 31.9 ESP 500 5" .025 40.0 Note:Insulation values determined by tests conducted in accordance with ASTM C 236 at a mean temperature of 75 degrees F., winter condition corrected to 15 mph outside and still inside. 3 of3 1/14/05 4:40 PM Product Catalog http://www.insulated-panels.com/Electronic%20Product%20Catalog/... .ipsTextured Finish SSP Roof Panel 1. . 4,• RWP Roof/Wall Panel ESP Wall Panel "•r" r.4„rrr.< � � IPP Wall/Partition Panel � '� �"�.�rX ` u ,2:4";.? EWP Wall Panel Rockwall Coating ;„" r. -,"` rs Textured Finish [Back] Description: The Textured Finish is a 100% acrylic based coating that is spray applied to the exterior metal face of the insulated panel. The net result is a stucco-like surface that adds architectural appeal. The factory application of the finish is a major advantage to contractors allowing the finished panel to be installed in cold and wet climates. Panels: IPP, ESP or EWP insulated wall panels. Colors: Four standard -Almond, Tundra, Slate Gray and Brownstone. Custom colors available with minimum quantity requirements. Length: Maximum recommended length is 20' 0". Fasteners: Concealed clips typical for the insulated panels, color matched screw heads for trim conditions, or pop rivets for trim conditions. Testing: The textured finish has endured freeze/thaw cycle testing on the metal surface to ensure excellent adhesion. IPS offers a 10-year limited warranty covering color change and coating delamination. Flame Spread testing (ASTM E84) has been conducted achieving a rating of<25, Class I. Maintenance: Dirt pickup resistance and mildew resistance technology are an integral part of the coating and provide for a virtually maintenance free condition. Should dirt accumulate over time, the product can be easily cleaned. Minor repairs are made with a factory supplied touch-up kit. The finish can also be painted. I of 1 1/14/05 4:40 PM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 3, 2005 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov For BARBERSHOP BAR (04-289) Zoning District: NG-1, Core Northgate Location: 215 University Drive Applicant: Morgan Pyle Item Summary: The old Bill's Barbershop was recently re-opened as a bar. There have been several facade changes to the building in the past year, including exterior color and alterations to existing windows. Photos of the paint color will be provided at the meeting. The proposed sign will be applied to the existing facade, where the previous sign was located. The applicant has also located a temporary storage structure on the east side of the Barbershop Bar building, between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. Staff suggests that it may be more aesthetically pleasing to require that the storage structure be located behind the permanent structure so that it is not visible from University Drive or require that the temporary structure be screened from University Drive by tall, dense shrubbery behind the iron fence. The Northgate Design Guidelines suggest that color and design be consistent with the surrounding block or area. The Guidelines also suggest using masonry (stone or brick) and that other materials be similar in character to those used in other areas of NG-1. Item Background: This property came before the Design Review Board in 2004 for facade and site improvements. The improvements were never completed. Because similar improvements were proposed at that time, the minutes from that meeting are attached. The 6-foot iron fencing and the expansion of the Zapatos patio was approved by the Northgate Revitalization Board in 1999. Issues/Items for Review: 1. Signage • Type • Design • Placement 2. Color 3. Architectural Elements 4. Location / Placement of structures Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. DRB minutes from February 2004 meeting 4. Copy of Sign Details 5. Pictures of facade changes and storage building available at the meeting CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services Agenda Design Review Board Friday, January 28, 2005 Administrative Conference Room City Council Office 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 a.m. 1. Call to Order. 2. Consider absence requests. 3. Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes for December 10, 2004. Discussion, consideration, and possible action on a proposed signage & facade changes for Barbershop Bar, located at 215 University Drive. (JP 04-289) 5. Discussion of the public meetings regarding concepts for a new Northgate Ordinance held on January 12, 2005, January 14, 2005 and January 18, 2005. (KFoutz/MH) 6. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 7. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Cikff CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d'Development Services Minutes Design Review Board December 10, 2004 10:30 AM Board Members Present: George McLean, Richard Benning, Alan King, Fred Patteson, Scott Shafer, and Nancy Sawtelle. Board Members Absent: Bill Trainor Staff Present: Planning and Development Services Director Joey Dunn, Economic Development Director Kim Foutz, Staff Planners Molly Hitchcock, Jennifer Prochazka, and Staff Assistant Mandi Alford Others Present: Larry Haskins and David Slattery AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 10:38 AM. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Bill Trainor Mr. King motioned to approve the request. Ms. Sawtelle seconded the motion, which passesd unopposed(6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes for November 12,2004. Ms. Sawtelle motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Benning seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on proposed lighting elements for Wolf Pen Ice Rink, located at 400 Holleman Drive East in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District. (JP 03-316) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the staff report stating that this is a review of the Wolf Pen Creek Ice Rink lighting details. Ms. Prochazka stated that the Design Review Board earlier this year had approved the site plan, landscaping plan and all other elements. The proposed lighting meets the requirements of Section 5.6.A.4, Wolf Pen Creek Lighting, and Section 7.10 Lighting of the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Benning questioned why the Design Review Board was seeing this case. Ms. Prochazka explained the Design Review Board would see cases if they do not meet the standard lighting already approved for Wolf Pen Creek. Mr. Slattery explained the reasoning for choosing the lighting was that it fit best with the buildings architectural design. Mr. Benning motioned to approve the lighting elements as presented, Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion of Northgate Ordinance (KFoutz). Economic Development Director Foutz presented the board with handouts that described the proposed vision for Northgate / Northgate Ordinance and sample provisions to implement the plan. Ms. Foutz went through the process of implementing the plan. Onsite meetings will be held for property owners on January 12, 2005 in Northgate, for merchants on January 14,2005 in Northgate, and an accumulative of the two will be held on January 18, 2005 at the City Conference Center if there are not any scheduling conflicts with the Merchants Association. After the meetings the, ordinance will go through work shops and then it would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and finally to City Council. Mr. Benning asked how the merchants and property owners would be notified of the meetings. Ms. Foutz stated that tax records are used to notify the merchants and property owners and a database from previous leaders of the Merchants Association is also used. There would also be poster put up the district advertising the meetings. Ms. Foutz stated that the look they are trying to acquire in all Northgate Districts is urban and dense type of development. This will continue to emphasize pedestrian orientation, and mixed use. Architectural standards provisions would be somewhat similar to what is in the Unified Development Ordinance for the non-residential standards. However, some of those things are not applicable, such as parking, and some building articulation because it is being looked at from a different scale. Building orientation is important to accomplish the overall redevelopment plan which is trying to focus everything internal to Church Avenue, University Drive and the Promenade. There will be tree-lined streets and wider brick paved sidewalks. There will be specific provisions that if all requirements are met that accomplish the theme of the district, then the administrator could approve the application. However, if the applicant diverges in any respect to any of the provision then the Design Review Board will hear the appeals of the provision. It is recommended because Northgate is a pedestrian oriented area that there will be a limitation on the size of retail tenants. The following are proposed visions for NG-1 Core Commercial. NG-1 will still primarily remain commercial but will allow mix uses. There will be some limitations on residential being on the first floor. There will be a maximum of 10,000 sq. ft. per single retail except with a variance. Zero lot line development and minimum two stories with minimum floor to area ration will still be allowed which already exists in the ordinance. NG-2 is a transitional area. The area could be commercial only as it currently stands or it could be mixed use. The maximum sq. ft. allowed is 50,000 feet per single unit. All new development would have a requirement of a 20 foot high building. There would be certain uses prohibited in the NG-2 area such as drive-thrus. However, there would be a strong grand fathering clause for drive-thrus. There may be restrictions added to that. There would be a maximum setback, but the number would be higher than the other NG districts. In NG-3 there will be mixed used allowed with limited commercial. The maximum sq. ft. allowed for a single retail tenant is 5,000 feet. Zero lot line will and minimum two stories with minimum floor to area ration will be allowed, which is already in the ordinance. Mr. Shafer suggested to Ms. Foutz that maybe the wording on the handouts to read as a vision statement. Ms. Foutz suggested that the districts may need to be renamed because of the mix used nature. Mr. Shafer agreed as well as Mr. King. Mr. Benning expressed his concerns about parking, if there is not parking then the consumer or businesses will not come to Northgate. Ms. Foutz stated that there is an evaluation in progress to allow on street parking back in certain areas. Ms. Foutz went over some of the provisions for the Northgate Ordinance that applies to all Northgate Districts. There would be build to lines, primary entrance façade orientation would have to do with the major streets for instance Church Street, and University Drive which has two orientations Church St. or the Promenade depending on how the building is situated. Mr. Shafer suggested that dual facades be encouraged and some how be written in the ordinance. Architectural standards would be similar to the Unified Development Ordinance Non- residential Standards pedestrian scale. Ground floor transparency for commercial uses on facades abutting right of ways will be encouraged. When there is multi-family and the park fees have to be paid, the parks fees that have been collected have not been reinvested into the Northgate area. Ms. Foutz explained that the funds will be lost if they are not spent. Mr. Shafer suggested watching a film that talks about small urban spaces. The film gives suggestions on how to plan small places so people can use them. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces is the name of the film. After some discussion it was determined that the Design Review Board should try and meet with the Parks Board on January 11, 2004 if there is room on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items— A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. > January 11, 2005 meeting with the Parks Board AGENDA ITEM NO 7: ADJOURN. Mrs. Sawtelle motioned to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Benning, and passed unopposed(6-0). APPROVED: Scott Shafer, Chairman ATTEST: Mandi Alford, Staff Assistant DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: January 20, 2005 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov For BARBERSHOP BAR (04-289) Zoning District: NG-1, Core Northgate Location: 215 University Drive Applicant: Morgan Pyle Item Summary: The applicant is proposing to open the old Bill's Barbershop as a bar. There have been several facade changes to the building in the past year, including color and alterations to existing windows. Color samples will be provided at the meeting. The proposed sign will be applied to the existing facade, where the previous sign was located. Item Background: This property came before the Design Review Board in 2004 for facade improvements in 2004. The improvements were never completed. Issues/Items for Review: 1. Signage • Type • Design • Placement 2. Color 3. Architectural Elements Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Sign and Facade Details , ) ,, •. -- lir --iti :t.. 46, 7=7. -04,‘ %4 P y� \ c,o`, ' A ,.... ..0 4 ,. ,o, „,,,, , .%. • Cfq \' ,,,c, _--)A � •. �' tips c).• : , ilip: O-� ,�\ \ 4‘‘, ' • off\ \ nOnoo �� ��°yp /1/ -6 \ n c„ 4 0 STO \v 0n ti° y`5 005 TO \ c3\.'' 0 .. 00 L • n ►� � 44iiiilkkoop V� 40 ♦��\ �0'a i ‘ c--:--,; is;-- 'A, % 110. . it \ o,X10• (a Siikitt,,, \ ti 4 p4, % , ,,---8 oc:o. _O '� �.: y: cti �, X40 0�c �» . S \. ``�.�te, '° ..,,* p op 4 5\ , ,/,,,,‘)> yam \\� 1, DE m )4*,,,,,,,,,c9Otion___.,N,c °i�, 40� \ aN 0�� � � Cil \\S do` �1, 0ti � o' 40ti `' 0 Oti 1�.+� \pti 9pti o� ,0� S4cn \ AML `�:, 'oi ti rn \ �� Ad /1IP T, 41001/k . N.) 14 C:16' III 1 .4.440/-1 .. OA ti 1 .C 1 es / •AIP' est `\44° 0 11 wI I 4,Pe At 4, cP 4 -=1 N IellIC- Oy�O ...d 00 Lb tijL sJ, y0 `„)_ , cs 0,Q LP /, C am' tz FOR OFFICE USESEONLY, -� �s) CASE NO. by ---31 Ck DATE SUBMITTED' \--'->Ct`61i COLLEGE STATION '-'ki V v 3'.1SpvIN DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board (Check one) E/ NG-1 ❑ NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC ❑ OV Staff Review Only MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS V.Application completed in full. V $200.00 Special District Application fee AM Ten (10) folded copies of facade details (including signage) with dimensions. (for Facades only) Ten (10) folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only) Aiir Color and material samples. If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign placement. Date of Preapplication Conference: nn����pp� ,�, NAME OF BUSINESS 7A-Pe�S CA-01-1 0. / Y 'U UYp t5A?. ADDRESS 2(I t�nl I Vr✓tis rf1 ! , IS lkietiV.P.ist Pr. u.3 . LEGAL DLJI^R;PT;0N PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY MAO 13sv►I-QdNG- r 04.1› t', (1 -sc^oC' PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY NFit) 4-Dp r rtm -lz, CA-Aft.N4 AJe)(/ 0-075,"e- APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name Mof t J n 1)y� Street Address (Li o44 E_Nt oP er City I Y State -rte Zip Code 77'01 E-Mail Address u . • 1 b ,:._ _ :.ca Phone Number q- - /5'o 5-'5(e' Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name biLL iketi -k_ Street Address na u-c.R-o-f e City State Zip Code 77131E ) E-Mail Address Phone Number 51,i2-52 Fax Number 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES R-451-`0 t c Desi 4-64 A-ri'Acifi 0 615L b, S av-D S i. 4, 10,A- 344- 67 2.5-AS - 12 1- err `feu- � � A-t_ w. �-s C 4t.• (T Art_s' 3" . AND/OR ATTACHED SIGN ❑ FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage I Square Footage All applications (except Overia •istrict applications) must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a meeting is scheduled, th •plica t will be notified of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss the proposal with the :•ard. Th: applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits :ttached h= eto are true and correct. (1 22 oY Sig •tur= . ' ,ent or pplicant Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 3, 2005 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov For BARBERSHOP BAR (04-289) p (,0 (.1\ Zoning District: NG-1, Core Northgate lo Location: 215 University Drive ;% . ,Sio\j'i(k(1' Applicant: Morgan Pyle 15 Item Summary: The old Bill's Barbershop was recently re-opened as a bar. There have been several facade changes to the building in the past year, including exterior color and alterations to existing windows. Photos of the paint color will be provided at the meeting. The proposed sign will be applied to the existing facade, where the previous sign was located. The applicant has also located a temporary storage structure on the east side of the Barbershop Bar building, between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. Staff suggests that it may be more aesthetically pleasing to require that the storage structure be located behind the permanent structure so that it is not visible from University Drive or require that the temporary structure be screened from University Drive by tall, dense shrubbery behind the iron fence. The Northgate Design Guidelines suggest that color and design be consistent with the surrounding block or area. The Guidelines also suggest using masonry (stone or brick) and that other materials be similar in character to those used in other areas of NG-1. Item Background: This property came before the Design Review Board in 2004 for facade and site improvements. The improvements were never completed. Because similar improvements were proposed at that time, the minutes from that meeting are attached. The 6-foot iron fencing and the expansion of the Zapatos patio was approved by the Northgate Revitalization Board in 1999. Issues/Items for Review: � • ())0 1 C I r 1, 1. Signage ( _ �� ( �' C l' • Type C • Design - �(< <.�' C0 ,yCy 1 �� • Placement 2. Color 3. Architectural Elements 4. Location / Placement of structures Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. DRB minutes from February 2004 meeting 4. Copy of Sign Details 5. Pictures of facade changes and storage building available at the meeting 601 J c (U) cz PY) ,(S, • ��/ 00 2 0, C7N o* J� 1 N V d' o •1;O w o U rn At4A41•44r, ,� �° a Ri * LiTh ..6 'OccN 01,6,7 P 11W 'SI' 41*, CZ) ti 44 .CXD , cn cNJ ti,�p O Itko,-.)\\-c) �� 411h. �ce is e1 .GQ� 'e ,1 .,°3 , , 0°`J�rd,� • ti M N • 1 �� o� ,1 p % -Th 4l° °\ ;V 0 1 0 t' ,s..„ _6(,%,--- , . c\, % 4, u .,..--,- il ,.__ *4 .4 CC) '\ 0 Cr) '''Q" a VIIIN - y\0 �� 5\ ,0' a% p 1.0 •,;(\ ,,c°F� ca , , �+ cC� ho\A cV ...ii 1 �� 1 a- ® 1 ���, ° 1�� rn 1 O O 94, Tli 0 ko "� p06 a \ �o� ; �S O c. b. „1 �^ cu �� _., ,,, `P. H _y -..'c--:?- 0" 8 A* W h o2')'-V. q fr Akt: 0 p 1 h .0 , 11 RI -.1,6k:--c_' Ats NIIP7;' 44IW a --- 0,*s t:. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY J CASE NO. bk DATE SUBMITTED' \ `61-i COLLEGE STATION '3'.15p� DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board (Check one) Eli NG-1 ❑ NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC ❑ OV Staff Review Only MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Application completed in full. V $200.00 Special District Application fee NA Ten (10) folded copies of facade details (including signage) with dimensions. (for Facades only) Ten (10) folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only) Air Color and material samples. If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign placement. Date of Preapplication Conference: �Q NAME OF BUSINESS ZLkPA-1 OS C I0� / �Ap�,E vY [ 'p� P& ADDRESS j(I i J 1 I/00-S rr1 tdr• U LEGAL DESCRIPTION IO PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY MAKI1 [ tit LQ4NCr- oLt> t'-a QEA-t- t^oC> PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY (. ) A-on ,nim Ales 1 o- APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name Marl tt Street Address (LLoS< ErrwP rr City P '' ' Tom; Y State -ric Zip Code 7710t E-Mail Address u . ti ,:._ _ c.tift r Phone Number Q'lq- yfa 36-3(e Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name 131 LL Street Address Ca� rc--ems 1�- City ei or.3 State T1 Zip Code 7-7 'e ) E-Mail Address Phone Number(TA) Sn-5Z- ; Fax Number 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 i r • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES e c o-c`t't c-a-+- D€s1 G-et A-trA ti 0-0- 6 -0.6 . Il bz ,.......-it. c_ v,. al-n & toj* 44- 6 z s • 15 it-A— Stift_ 12 l- et re--- r . • AL 12- 414.'i... c4, is � dka_S, n . AND/OR ATTACHED SIGN It' 0 FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage Square Footage All applications (except Overla •istrict applications) must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a meeting is scheduled, th pplica t will be notified of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss the proposal with the %•ard. Th: applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits :ttached h: eto are true and correct. /_ (l22oy Sig -tur= i /•" ' ' 'ent or 'pplicant Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 Minutes Design Review Board February 27, 2004 11:00 AM AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on the addition of a walk-in cooler and facade changes for Zapata's Cantina expansion at 215 University Drive West in Northgate. (04- 31 7P). Planning Intern Lauren Harrell presented the staff report. She told the Board that the applicant is proposing to open the old Bill's Barbershop as a bar. The existing front entrance will be closed to public access and will be for employee use only. The exiting windows will be "blacked out". Two additional doorways leading to the patio on the west side of the bar are proposed. Staff suggests that it may be possible to redesign the interior bar area so that the existing front entrance and windows can retain their original function. The applicant is also proposing the addition of a walk-in cooler on the east side of the proposed bar located between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. The applicant is proposing to apply a cedar plank fagade and a Spanish tile roof to the cooler. Staff suggests that it may be more aesthetically pleasing to require that the walk-in cooler be located behind the permanent structure so that it is not visible from University Drive or require that the cooler be screened from University Drive by tall, dense shrubbery behind the iron fence. The Northgate Design Guidelines suggest that color and design be consistent with the surrounding block or area. The Guidelines also suggest masonry (stone or brick) and that other materials be similar in character to those used in other areas of NG-1. The Guidelines also state, there where wood is used, it should be protected by a water sealant. The applicant is not proposing any other façade changes or signs at this time. Mr. Benning made the motion to approve the proposed location of the walk-in cooler, finish it with CMU painted to match the existing building instead of proposed cedar planks and the last 6-8-feet after the cooler must be landscaped to screen the area. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0). Home of Texas A&M University P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\P ROD\PZ2004\P0009351.DOC Mr. McLean asked the applicants to make sure the condensate line for the cooler is placed in the sewer system. Mr. King made the motion that the front entrance on University remain in the façade but not used as an entrance. The windows may not be "blacked out" as proposed, they must be designed with displays and some visual penetration into the bar. This may be approved at staff level as long as the proposal meets the recommendations. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0). Home of Texas A&M University P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2004\P0009351.DOC 9 r rts twf tA m N 1 P ci' -t, &‘.‘N I I) es ; t i. 1, In s 8, K m Pr i 4 e Ct 2 � i° IA ' N t N s m o F F I- 4 1 1 - 1a b p r A Ai `� lie i Nom— a � , t . - 0 0 6,,- wZ. m A r v A' 2 m r 3 4-2 J Z _,..jrii ° .`4 A 4' - V '..1 4n1 lIZI c./. ,cc - Ni ,g • Alk eo W k 2 U ii — Zill mo " , 4:1 2 ti J .--, '4t ll _ c4 1 41 iiggc0 a k.; t _11 i f ...-- o v 3 [! w Nvlizi t V • N4. 2gii- cr,3 .l . d 4 lI g 3 all i W N4-:"1 l'4'1 ► NQ F c'i a li ij rfit% Ci Z w V kkh. . 3 b 4 IP W ''. vt 1 DOS 'kJ 'c —. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 3, 2005 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov For BURGER BOY SIGN (05-22) Zoning District: NG-1 Core Northgate Location: 311 Church 11 Applicant: George Sopasakis Item Summary: The applicant is proposing a 48" diameter round sign on the west facade of Burger Boy in Northgate. The application states that the proposed sign has red neon lettering, blue neon rings around the sign, and a yellow logo to be lit by fluorescent tubes in the center. The Northgate Design Guidelines state that signs should be illuminated externally, however, exposed neon signs have been approved in this area in the past. Staff does not recommend approval of any portion of the sign that may be internally lit plastic. Issues/items for Review: 1. Signage Y`r)(\(,- � f \�, L • Type \\(k u:0( \1 \)--L x 1\(t_ ( -k • Design • Placement Supporting Materials: ( 1. Location Map ^, C C: 2. Application - � ,��c\C �)y'1 �� \} �) �� �� ( (\ 3. Sign Details i C°\ L� C L� �1 ' crick LAC E/\ �� �. ��- M , OvijerIV% 104 f' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ALA324/L, CASE:IiD DATE 49,2a f —05- Crry OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d.Development Soviets DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board (Check one) 5K1 NG-1 0 NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC 0 OV Staff Review Only MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ` Application completed in full. $200.00 Special District Application fee ✓3en (10) folded copies of facade details (including signage) with dimensions. (for Facades only) V 1V) n (10) folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only) t/Color and material samples. 1 If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign placement. Date of Preapplication Conference:G � Q NAME OF BUSINESS boP-6Cl 60/ ADDRESS `3U (614-C-0 , COLCEGt S? m 0V ;FY ‘717%-f 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY CO I4 ( AL — pe serfta , PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY SP Rt_ APPLICANTS INFORMATION: Name GAO P-6t so PA SA tS Street Address -51( C ti UP-CH City C©CL.EG- WIT State `T'?C##s Zip Code 7F g`(o E-Mail Address Phone Number 49 — 939- g`{G 2-1"/6 Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name 12-(CH-41-VD 5E di lit 1,X Street Address t %U`Z_ L A-wY E 4- City C'OCCe G L STPf1 OM State l X Zip Code 7i g`(o E-Mail Address Phone Number 6 i1, •zg. I g Fax Number 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES ATierCH A P)O51 w4 5( 614 TO -ri+e IJAcLi Nr:0e1pooJO AND/OR )3( ATTACHED SIGN / 0 FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage (6 Square Footage All applications (except Overlay district applications) must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a meeting is scheduled, the applicant will be notified of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss the proposal with the Board. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. (4 -- 0 Signature of Owner, Agent or Applicant Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 8_, , , , Th c\,\ ,\,) „.„ (,5 O 'S A % 1-* ,--,5-, V J ci-, i --I . •' t-s• • - \ a �, 0 A' \ \ co �� �ti4 OQ�ti� ; ,�'ill c ppb\ p0c 05' S • p\� - o �v�' 0 L Oc cm 04 �� �� v `A �`� „ ��� L X09 d oo ��� �� ���0\ �o •�'\�� `0� tips `" 300 Jo� 5 0,4fr 4 ' 7(/ c\Cy ' ' IC1' 0--' c C')\ />\- % 0 co �� ppb , ` co(„,,c tiroti , ,^ • Afr �7 sr 4k.%,---22 ����� v 4 \,..°' gC 11 co c„Oti p�� ti 1• Ot‘..,•,..,„ (0, ---..., 4k c-s-8 /.<::\\--) 4 N 04': •Co . /)> v IPV r) P ' > / ......._ --- c)) ti�0� �� PV „c) �� , rN3 cms, o\' Z qs, ,� �`0 , ive 400 �� ..� 0 ��4 o� ti ti0 c •'C* S �® Isto IN ti Op `I, I v4W —,54 c.,,, c: O%cv QJ-1 a. S., o \0* pc,�Ae O� 05.E ti tau © � t--, • o0o �•NN O cl e , cN , rsii4o /z._, 0, • r-r-1 — Oc Op ` lJ` DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN DISTRICT STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 3, 2005 E-mail: jprochazka@cstx.gov For ARCTIC WOLF ICE RINK (03-315) C Location: 400 Holleman Drive East �� � V', �.1 r L( Applicant: David Slattery, Architect Item Summary: The applicant has proposed a freestanding monument sign, approximately 11 feet tall, as measured from the top of the curb at the street edge. The proposal is an internally illuminated sign with an aluminum cabinet. The bottom portion of the sign is proposed to be electric reader board. The applicant is also proposing an internally illuminated attached sign on the north facade of the building that is approximately 115 square feet in area. Color and material samples will be provided at the meeting. Administrator Recommendations: The Unified Development Ordinance states that commercial signs for businesses in the Wolf Pen Creek District must meet the following criteria: • Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which is principally relates. • Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. • The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. • The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. • Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. Photos of existing signage in the area, the approved site plan, building elevations, and building materials will be provided at the meeting for the Board to determine whether the above criteria has been met. k ) (1 \ Issueslltems for Review: ( 1. Location of signs \:\ \ C\ C` -. �� �1 > ,. ,vS Ck- 2. Colors, materials, and lighting of signs, 3. Design and proportions of signs 4. Compatibility with existing signs in the area 5. Compatibility with the architecture of the building to which it relates Attachments: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Sign details 4. Elevations of building provided at meeting 5. Material samples provided at meeting F��FIC�USE ONLY `•, CASE NO. S DATE SUBMITTED j' l 1- C3 ((ll 11 G1 SIAIION ` , I rtutor DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board (Check one) ❑ NG-1 ❑ NG-2 ❑ NG-3 L►' WPC ❑ OV Staff Review Only MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS VApplication completed in full. $200.00 Special District Application fee V Ten (10) folded copies of facade details (including signage) with dimensions. (for Facades only) Ten (10) folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only) ..,J-i. Color and material samples. If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign placement.(X c Date of Preapplication Conference: /2. 7 -o, NAME OF BUSINESS A1o1-4°' 'EN Gifeg4 /GC A/NA ADDRESS MGL47'14 ' D,Q/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Gor BR #0L(. Jam/ AA-a' PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY I/A&,¢N1 PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY la 5A4f/VG' k APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name fillet./5 V,N7URES,LL G (G�1:764'G P,4 2.7 I e t ) 5�0 .6)//411.411/44. Street Address /3/Z7 A7NBe' Lq ZN. City /4C'S2N State 7"eXes- Zip Code 77071 E-Mail Address wrn-,.r ✓''44'4444i/,4Q.44 Phone Number 713 ?I'S"- 452 5 Fax Number 2f// Q66•/6 t Z PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name $*'.$Ie 4 4 A-Md Cir. Street Address City State Zip Code E-Mail Address Phone Number Fax Number 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES P,t'/WV Nett/ iar SkAT/N6- fr/NA', $/'W 9 Sit le. A-MVX 40 Doo &gars,;p.p _ 415a RtZjTrd Site' Deveuem /1'ar_ei, coilvASGA-P/A16.1,r . _- -` AND/OR ATTACHED SIGN FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage Square Footage All applications (except Overlay district applications) must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a meeting is scheduled, the applicant will be notified of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss the proposal with the Board. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. / ignature of Owner, Agent or Applicant Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 PSR' c2,_ D 1 ., ,i& >CI M § z'c., / 1 TT 1 V " o 70 0 O. ,:, ,. 0 \ 4 r ps` on Ftii ? ay� 4J -14 Pp ' '''; 4 •m . 6 ' '• 171*?(-1 ,40,‘01.44, ..;.) .„ ,z :,.„ •Mm: ,I FD M tp. ' . u) ' 4441/i1,,, ,,,,c- `47 PP, ',-2, --n 94 4" \'\ F . A '',0 (1 Z 44,674'' O 4,,,404:1104*_.4. �r �* im ,., -°,404.'It. ' ®� � 4it, �� 2% a : oilion „ �m � , sT41),z ,\ a- .. *AE4Ce 69 4. y Ika 4 442, Alirkti!. CO PP 0 . ttl �s� yeO,Q 0 g 1411116. a ® 0 go O = Aii 46 • 1118 44 Jo0 y �® 45 50c1 4 to 111111 41 ®nf n F- . � f ° �c°'tl-d� Aldo y�``�� ,61 A) c.) -0 CO y0 iii* AIA '-.4r-A Z F ‘A-_,...ci\ At &.. ----"T .,,? -41,_ J b 0 -v m co * --4 xzr O D Z r Z 0 i omo 410 i � mZ 9'6318" zmm o v+ -0 N my � D ; m70 I— _ I • DND I— Z a` m iw _ II o til, 1 —' O e b Z z n. aC O Ji a Z �-RtI II — E. g z c =1 0 0 1 — 1 x z m `_ _/ = CI . ^ mZz IIIIIIIIIIIII z zo mzy Ky = off H ,o Pa - m _ I =A oQz 111.1111 _ z z _ km -.4 T O p. > O _ Iii Saiil1,l,r.NI II rill 00 e I4 O' 5. �� I z� mx iSii gg 2e#2 n ME a( W z ;#3, n 2 rT�— t^,n d cJ > N n MX:, m c A Q w ". -o n o Rc�y "' i *'''M , Qom€ O O rmi �; �Cm l \�. # 17, z w - mr"'i "� x`Nz ,"n;c_v n i O••v• n z. v+ «„-i 7 } 1-- cn o m E' y o 3 .D cA" O o o r o * 5 ; um 0" 2 = o a -0 o o g �' !a m� 0pC o oA `naog31.m G7 ,cr. Nfl€rTI .O y ;cn ? "y' 0 Oy, O 3' 9 -ZA �,� �, •• IIii; Z - °xoz NM ta momOHOtipo t.ZO _-1 1_ 36c9 I a C ] F---, iii !©l iL�icinim10 • ,,, , Iri,w,„,„ L V 410:t 4.41104A0 lVOIdAl b3HSVO M01-11S (•31Td) 3NV1 %� 3413 301M ,OZ 03S0d08d , 4000( c I p _ _ _...,,\ ......., ,, „ ,-, t, 4,4,0P. N91S 9Ft167t I,a, ``� (-----/-03HOV11V 03S0d08 ' /'S'V1 3O S1N311381f103d \ - 11 2L9'l Ed ON A8 d 3191SS300 \ .LT0S / \\ VZVId J181N3 - 08l � 1 ONVISI 3dV0SQNV1 — \� 31380N00 0380100 ,\ � ‘ , / /-_______, ...... \�� 3913 SS300V-SS�:� \ �\ ` 3038 31VAI8d i0d08• ' N1VM30IS \ / 80N0 OIM ,17 / \ \--7 ti i P (.*:#"544 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning&Development Services Agenda Design Review Board Friday, March 11, 2005 Administrative Conference Room City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 a.m. 1. Call to Order. (Alan King to Chair) 2. Consider absence request. N Scott Shafer 3. Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes for January 28, 2005 and February 11, 2005. 4. Discussion, consideration, and possible action on a proposed sign, facade changes, and a portable structure for Barbershop Bar, located at 215 University Drive in Northgate. (JP 04-289) 5. Discussion, consideration and possible action on a proposed sign for Burger Boy, located at 311 Church Street in Northgate. (JP 04-55) 6. Discussion, consideration and possible action on proposed attached and freestanding signage for the Arctic Wolf Ice Rink, located at 400 Holleman Drive East in Wolf Pen Creek. (JP 03-315) 7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 8. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or(TDD) 1-800-735-2989. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Development Services Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name 6lGutt. acto12 Request Submitted on Date: -- 1`I -OS- I OS- I will not be in attendance at the meeting of E 1 1 - S for the reason(s) specified: (Date) JS-Q-Q_) ahq ajb Signature This request shall be submitted to Deborah Grace one week prior to meeting date Fax 764-3496. City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840 Attn: Deborah Grace o:councillabsenreq.doc Mandi Alford -Re: DRB 2/25/05 Pa•e 12 From: "Scott Shafer" <sshafer©ag.tamu.edu> To: <Malford©cstx.gov> Date: 2/16/2005 5:33:01 PM Subject: Re: DRB 2/25/05 Mandi- I will not be available for the March 11 meeting. I will be attending professional meetings out of town. If we have a meeting remind me to find a member to sub as chair. Scott >>>"Mandi Alford" <Malford@cstx.gov> 02/16/2005 11:08:17 AM »> Good Morning!!! Wanted to let you all know that there will not be a DRB meeting on 2/25/05. Items were not submitted on time to make it.... We will be having a meeting on 3/11/05. Have a great rest of the week and weekend Mandi Alford Staff Assistant Planning and Development Services City of College Station www.cstx.gov malford@cstx.gov "Life is a book and you are its author. You determine its plot and pace and you-only you-turn the pages." -Beth Mende Conny College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. (1J1414114 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning cr Development Services Minutes Design Review Board Friday, January 28, 2005 Administrative Conference Room City Council Office 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 AM Board Members Present: George McLean, Richard Benning, Alan King, Scott Shafer, and Nancy Sawtelle. Board Members Absent: Fred Patterson Staff Present: Development Coordinator Bridgette George, Economic Development Director Kim Foutz, Staff Planners Molly Hitchcock,Jennifer Prochazka, and Staff Assistant Mandi Alford Others Present: None AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 11:04 AM. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Fred Patterson was absent, but did not submit an absence request; therefore the Board did not take action on this item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes for December 10,2004. Ms. Sawtelle motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Trainor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Board members King and Mclean arrived at the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion of the public meetings regarding concepts for a new Northgate Ordinance held on January 12,January 14, and January 15, 2005. Economic Development Director Foutz presented the Board with minutes and a condensed list of re-occurring themes that highlighted the public input of the meetings. She stated that the following items will need to be addressed accordingly: D Grand-fathering a. Facade renovations b. Maintenance of non-conforming structures & sites c. Strong grand-fathering language for drive-thrus (behind buildings) d. When do the requirements start? Does the owner have to bring the property up to standards? D NG-2 transitional standards D Parkland Dedication and funds /public space requirements D Parking Caps D. Redevelopment—drawing the lines between"closer to the vision" vs. realizing the full vision D. Architectural requirements—allow some"funky" alternatives AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion, consideration, and possible action on proposed signage and facade changes for Barbershop Bar, located at 215 University Drive. (JP 04-289) The Board had questions for the applicant whom was not present. Mr.Tranior motioned to deny the applicant's request. Ms. Sawtelle seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items— A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. > Church Parking in Northgate and the City's involvement AGENDA ITEM NO 7: ADJOURN. Ms.Sawtelle motioned to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. King, and passed unopposed(6-0). APPROVED: Scott Shafer, Chairman ATTEST: Mandi Alford, Staff Assistant JOIE '141+03 yaks and,Recr ® ` • B � and Tuesday, Febl ry , , 11 0 a.m. City Hall, 110,t71741010 CellegeStoitlen, Texas City Staff Present: Parks and Recreation N Steve Beachy, Parks & Recreation Director; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Ross Albrecht, Forestry Superintendent; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; David Wood, Park Planner; Pamela Springfield, Staff Assistant Development Services '' Bridgette George, Development Coordinator; Jennifer Prochazka and Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planners; Mandl Alford, Staff Assistant Economic Development N Charles Wood, Assistant Economic Development Director Parks Board Members Present: Jodi Warner, Chair; Don Allison; Glenn Schroeder; Kathleen Ireland; Jeannie McCandless; Gary Thomas - Board Members Absent: Larry Farnsworth; Gary Erwin; Carol Blaschke Design Review Board Members Present: Scott Shafer, Chair; Fred Patterson; Bill Trainor; Nancy Sawtelle; George McLean Guest: Jessica Jimmerson 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 11:10 a.m. by Jodi Warner, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and Scott Shafer, Chair of the Design Review Board. 2. Presentation and discussion of the film "Social Life of Small Urban Spaces", and discussion of park concepts for Northqate. Scott Shafer explained that the film had been made as part of a research project designed to identify why some public, city spaces in New York City were not being used. The idea behind showing the film to both boards was to foster and generate new ideas as both groups move forward and work with staff in the development process. Seagram's Plaza was one of the areas researched and it was discovered that the greatest problem was not overuse but under-use. The key elements identified as a result of the research were: D Seating - people tend to sit where there are places to sit; D. Street accessibility - one of the most important aspects of a place is its relationship to the street; D Sunlight and water - people like to sit in the sun and like the sound of water - both are simple elements that make for a great urban space; D Trees - places that tended to draw the largest crowds had trees; and D. Food It was also discovered that from city to city the key variables were the same except for the scale of the space. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Page 1 of 2 Joint Meeting with the Design Review Board February 11, 2005 After the film ended, discussion followed. > Some of the ideas seen in the film could possibly be used in the Northgate area - in pocket parks - something that lends itself to people gathering. > The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was open to the concept of pocket parks - something other than a five-acre park, however, if they are too far off the beaten path, it could cause problems. > The comment was made that College Station is recreation-oriented and most of the places seen in the film were more like gathering places, however in some areas where the population density is greater, gathering places may be appropriate. Also, a bare plaza may not be viewed as a park, but if there are trees and grass, it can have a park-like feel that residents can use. > Ideas as to what amenities could be included in a play space for adults were discussed - adult-sized swings, etc. > Green space needed to be kept in the pocket parks in the Northgate area. > The comment was made that park land money comes from residential development - it all emanates from the residential need for open space. It was suggested that perhaps requirements should be broadened to include commercial development as well, instead of putting the burden solely on residential development. > A comment was made that the mall needed to view the film - perhaps they would include more seating in the mall area instead of just in the food court. Also, strip centers should add seating areas and outdoor cafes - amenities that are amenable to pedestrians. Nancy Sawtelle and Fred Patterson left the meeting - leaving the Design Review Board without a quorum. 3. Adjourn. A motion was made to adjourn by one of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members. The motion was seconded and the vote was called. Hearing no opposition, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m. APPROVED: Scott Shafer, Chairman ATTEST: Mandi Alford, Staff Assistant Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Joint Meeting with the Design Review Board Page 2 of 2 February 11,2005 BARBERSHOP BAR - DRB Proposed Sign • Rendering in packet • On Facade • Same location as previous sign Other Facade work • Work approved in early 2004 (Never completed) • Blocked out windows (asked for, but not approved in 2004) ■ Recommend that they retain original aesthetic and purpose. • Painted building (NDG suggest that color be consistent with the area.) • Storage shed (staff level review, have not received information on this) Minutes Design Review Board February 27, 2004 11:00 AM AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on the addition of a walk-in cooler and façade changes for Zapata's Cantina expansion at 215 University Drive West in Northgate. (04-31 JP). Mr. Benning made the motion to approve the proposed location of the walk-in cooler,finish it with CMU painted to match the existing building instead of proposed cedar planks and the last 6-8-feet after the cooler must be landscaped to screen the area. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Mr. McLean asked the applicants to make sure the condensate line for the cooler is placed in the sewer system. Mr. King made the motion that the front entrance on University remain in the facade but not used as an entrance. The windows may not be "blacked out" as proposed, they must be designed with displays and some visual penetration into the bar. This may be approved at staff level as long as the proposal meets the recommendations. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Home of Texas A&M University P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2004\P0009293.DOC Minutes Design Review Board February 27, 2004 11 :00 AM AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on the addition of a walk-in cooler and facade changes for Zapata's Cantina expansion at 215 University Drive West in Northgate. (04-31 JP). Planning Intern Lauren Harrell presented the staff report. She told the Board that the applicant is proposing to open the old Bill's Barbershop as a bar. The existing front entrance will be closed to public access and will be for employee use only. The exiting windows will be "blacked out". Two additional doorways leading to the patio on the west side of the bar are proposed. Staff suggests that it may be possible to redesign the interior bar area so that the existing front entrance and windows can retain their original function. The applicant is also proposing the addition of a walk-in cooler on the east side of the proposed bar located between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. The applicant is proposing to apply a cedar plank façade and a Spanish tile roof to the cooler. Staff suggests that it may be more aesthetically pleasing to require that the walk-in cooler be located behind the permanent structure so that it is not visible from University Drive or require that the cooler be screened from University Drive by tall, dense shrubbery behind the iron fence. The Northgate Design Guidelines suggest that color and design be consistent with the surrounding block or area. The Guidelines also suggest masonry (stone or brick) and that other materials be similar in character to those used in other areas of NG-1. The Guidelines also state, there where wood is used, it should be protected by a water sealant. The applicant is not proposing any other façade changes or signs at this time. Mr. Benning made the motion to approve the proposed location of the walk-in cooler,finish it with CMU painted to match the existing building instead of proposed cedar planks and the last 6-8-feet after the cooler must be landscaped to screen the area. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Mr. McLean asked the applicants to make sure the condensate line for the cooler is placed in the sewer system. Mr. King made the motion that the front entrance on University remain in the façade but not used as an entrance. The windows may not be "blacked out" as proposed, they must be designed with displays and some visual penetration into the bar. This may be approved at staff level as long as the proposal meets the recommendations. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4- 0). Home of Texas A&M University P:\GROUP\HTLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2004\P0009351.DOC (*ffill511111111 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services Agenda Design Review Board Friday, April 8, 2005 Administrative Conference Room City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 a.m. 1. Call to Order. 2. Consider absence request. 3. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes for March 11, 2005. 4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a proposed sign, facade changes, and a portable structure for Barbershop Bar, located at 215 University Drive in Northgate. (JP 04-289) 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the substitutions of a building material as required in the UDO Section 7.9.D Building Materials. (MH and JP) 6. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 7. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or(TDD) 1-800-735-2989. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: April 1, 2005 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov For BARBERSHOP BAR (04-289) Zoning District: NG-1, Core Northgate Location: 215 University Drive Applicant: Morgan Pyle & Cory Cassell Item Summary: This item was previously tabled by the Board at their January 28, 2005 meeting. The item was reheard at the March 11, 2005 meeting, and all requests associated with the project were denied. The Board stated that the before the proposed signage and new building color could be reconsidered, the portable structure, and window obstructions must be removed. Since the March 11, 2005 meeting, the sign has been installed. It has been applied to the existing facade, where the previous sign was located. The temporary structure and the window obstructions have been removed. Item Background: This property came before the Design Review Board in 2004 for similar facade and site improvements. The improvements were never completed. The 6-foot iron fencing and the expansion of the Zapatos patio was approved by the Northgate Revitalization Board in 1999. Issues/Items for Review: 1. Signage • Type • Design • Placement 2. Color Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. DRB minutes from March 11, 2005 4. Copy of Sign Details 5. Pictures of paint color available at the meeting AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes for January 28, 2005 and February 11, 2005. Mr. McLean motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Trainor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration, and possible action on a proposed sign, facade changes, and a portable structure for Barbershop Bar, located at 215 University Drive in Northgate. (JP 04-289) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the staff report stating that the old Bill's Barbershop was recently re-opened as a bar. There have been several façade changes to the building, including exterior color and alterations to existing windows. She added that the proposed sign will be applied to the existing façade, where the previous sign was located. Staff Planner Prochazka stated that the applicant has also located a temporary storage structure on the east side of the Barbershop Bar building, between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. The Board had questions for the applicant whom was not present. Mr. Trainor motioned to deny the applicant's request. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(5-0). The Board would like for the applicant to be present to provide more information on the paint color and signage. The Board added that the portable structure should be removed or moved to a location that is not visible from public property. Additionally,the Board stated that they would like to see the black material from the windows removed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion, consideration and possible action on a proposed sign for Burger Boy, located at 311 Church Street in Northgate. (JP 04-55) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the staff report stating that the applicant was proposing a 48"diameter round sign on the west façade of Burger Boy in Northgate. The proposed sign will have red neon rings around the sign, and a yellow logo to be internally lit by fluorescent tubes in the center. The applicant stated that the sign would only be 36" instead of the 48"to reduce keep the cost of the sign. Staff Planner Prochazka informed the Board that the Northgate Design Guidelines state that signs should be illuminated externally not internally as is being proposed by the applicant. After some discussion on the difference between a sign being illuminated externally and internally, Mr. Trainor motioned to approve the logo,sign design and color of the sign as proposed, with the exception that the sign will have to be illuminated externally instead of internally. The Board also stated that neon is acceptable.And they were not nnnncad fn Ih, clan haina dR"inctaad of?6"in dinnlatar_ Thv Rnard diranfad rtio o c F';') IP n pmr Ar014 Z Arc: v,,r t.c, R° .4\1+I 'c'N, Lg ►�. C� c» •. Oy CD ,� 4 p•' `� b ' _ C r . C NibrD 4, _ V 4m �p'eo O � �' oT, , \ te � \ cw 1-4- it, lii; ..% , „ ....... ..___ , , „,_, ,, , © _..., y40, t,,,k1‘,4�ti.. ,,,._•., , ... ,,,,,. ` `Sr � 010,, ,...,. , ti, 04 \t �� ..G,p r04 < rn y\t r0 B r. c' 104 t\ y� pr .� y y r N 0 r A ----.°° \\''‘ tot ')>241k)i d• Ro4� tOt �° d S, " 0� O y ' `o pp �' ` C \t 0 01, ti 1� t° \4\t o �p" ` \ \ 9oti ,o .. CP y � !°''4A‘e° , ti (c:1 ,,,,,A J'4144 r o . , , %� ti y0t • ,\s. ~ Q1 # �04 tOt 4.9�` �c / • 11 lie I 1\.) 104 c.,, • "1 © t0 ti ,PJ 4444 ft o 4 o 0 N 00 I c9C\ Fd, &,,, &A'/L .. F yO0 QSvTJ ,S), o,p . d tV (6S a 1 , DOORS hick BLUE NEON tubes ALUNINUM OUT in two concentric_rings � ~ BUSINES RED NEON lettering for SIGN name & the two stars -•\X---j C5 \\-1) - -,.,... j Yellow lexan LOGO space k TO BE BACKLIGHTED V,.- 17X by flourescent tubes B1ACK aluminum ~�'` backing for this ribbon, 4t% backing background for neon ,R:* SIGN diameter at 36 inches ``.`otc. �'V�! SIGN depth at 8 inches °ATHGA Substitute the word"NORTHGATE" in the logo with the word"AGGIELAND" , . DU c, . 0 . „.. .....,„ :,.., III'.' ..„ . , . ..., ,, ... „._ ..... . .,,.. .. . . _ . . . .. , , _ " , ., , .... ,„ „ w.._ . :. .„..., 0 . .,,. „. ,. . , 11.11< ._ '...,..: Z mamogin, . lb. • 0 P ,4 ' .ti•V-'..--, j//r/ • • - '-'I.' MOE H Cl) :,;; 2,1_ _.., , , 7 '". —- . ., . i .. ,, 1 , ..: ,. ..., .,.,, .., r. , AP: !•146 et H • •• •4... • 4101 otti;• "11 eti 41.7 kOb THS BURGER BOY neon sign r: . e-z . 9' c 0- .,...,,f.4.-v-, �. ate r , ii "rt4/ .'0''' ' '1,t, ,14.,43,-,.",Ydfx ir.S1 tf. 9,:,'1, R m ', m ; . a 1 . P 1. aE 1 gi7 i 1i..?J } ; i. iri. .1.1 ' . , • ,i, ‘.--- , S UIQ:. •i itili '- " ^ 'JE f i i i iusi.�s• — t.i* ,,c3 ll ti 1 F.n 3' i' 31 s, ; s f <4. F cP C{�a 6, e ,�.-- lialiga i .1,:,, tzs , s \ 7 `✓ Ili Al r r r � c x 1.5 J I , N s I ` 1:...ic_ r til 11 \ .M:"... l 111 F AI! ~ � r wA • f 1 71 IN,i 1 _ 1 1 1 •-111 1iui 1 • ...11. Tig som....— IR , '`• ,. ri is '. Ais- .1 sp.- • M IIIIIIIIIIIIIII7_ im,161111111111.11:-1.1- , „. ..... - 7 1 911r— ' IP' , IR ____ .• — smog mama t . it e. 414 ........„0„... • _.._ I • 1""g516r"m 1 b a I IWO° . ilai WIPPIP3 \ 1 . ..I . ..Vei.iiIIIPIIMM. I -=- I -- Ausimuisktf AI I .-ifrV"•- = -- ...L.- -.No• ---r.......:: R__ __ s _ .-11-. --- ' 4611116-- -74T1.17 %:•-li ALMON... 1.4.1134.-L-_---- :.- _.$ ,..vaMill■•••••• • 4 ' .4 1.1.7 1M......b"- -..00.= •• ,...s.: - \ . i /I/ ,. •- , • \\- . t . .....im........ . . - . Iill ...... .. ' . ... ---- ,.- .. - r - .------ ... 2. .,-- --- . Au acM116---.7 ' 1.--- v . _L----- _ - 41"/ 11111111111 gi • III l'*.,;';'''! i\ ice i ti � i .. \''; I.1 f I ' '°111 o I M ili - r 1 z ' �', ,1 _ 4 `\1''•, i 1 YTt , \ ' F•'r% el .4•D III 1 III 701, Li 0 \1 • CO \ 1 / MIIIIIIIIIIIII ." 410111111111111111111111111 , ibilliidIIIIIIIIIIMONINNIIIIIIII Tf ,.' ,• ,» 1) )2 ,) - . _ _ 1 it •,;, -... 1 , , ------.41e _ . 4( wie.---J, , . •--- (:; ,,— I.. ' 1 . % ruP_1111_ , 1 . - . - 1 , -4 . I. .- - Hi r• • ' /7 1(,__ '•• ...., -.-/ , .. .. , ;.• ., I g: i ... am I Iv. - tiMill I- I' ... 1.1.1 _. - , 1 , • ...I ii mis I , ' =ill E a-