Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Meeks + Partners M April 15,2008 P Jason Schubert,Staff Planner City of College Station,Development Services 1101 Texas Ave. College Station,Texas 77840 Donald J.Meeks,AIA Re: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Chairman 410 Holleman Somkiat Petchsrisom,AIA College Station,Texas 77842 Partner Apartment Elevation Changes Jon A.Prejean,NCARB Partner Dear Mr. Schubert: Larry P.Santich This letter is in response to your recent conversations with Natalie Ruiz of the IPS Group as well as Mark Partner Lindley with Asset Plus Companies regarding changes to the exterior building elevations of the above referenced project.Changes outlined below: Apartments(Buildings#1 thru#7)-As noted by both Natalie and Mark,the material and color palettes are largely unaffected by the elevation revisions in question.The principal exterior materials remain brick veneer and exterior stucco as was illustrated in our original DRB presentation elevations dated 10/8/07.The thrust of the changes at the apartments are: • Replace brick veneer with exterior stucco in many locations at"public"elevations facing Dartmouth,Holleman and Manuel Drive. • Add horizontal fiber cement siding at"non-public"exterior elevations/courtyard elevations • Add sloped composition shingle roof in place of a flat roof at all buildings except Building#3. Apartments(Buildings#8&#9)—These elevations remain unchanged. Retail Facade-The materials/colors at and above the retail and clubhouse spaces have not been revised.The materials as noted in Elevations'A'thru'C'on the exhibit dated 10/8/07 still apply. Garage-As illustrated in the approved garage permit drawings,the garage has been redesigned from steel to cast in place concrete.The stucco panels at each level have been replaced with horizontal barrier cables.The overall height of the garage remains within the variance previously granted. (See 1/G1.02 within the approved Permit Re-submittal drawings dated 3/14/08) In our professional opinion,the revisions described above do not adversely affect the quality of the job with respect to architecture or its relation to the Wolf Pen Creek district. Remaining sensitive to the original massing,the new sloped composition shingle roof has been provided at a relatively low slope angle of 4:12 in order to preserve the original feel of the elevations,and the above described material changes maintain brick and stucco on the"public"face of the buildings. I hope our explanation sheds some light on what in our opinion is the minor nature of these changes with regard to the project's relation to the Wolf Pen Creek district.Feel free to set up further discussions through Natalie's office if you should require additional explanation. Sincerely, Meeks+Partners i -1 Keith Malone, RA, NCARB ARCHITECTURE • LAND PLANNING • NEWPORT REACH • HOUSTON t6000 Memorial Drive Suite too Houston.Texas 77olg tel a8s.548.8787 fax z81.558.3337 meekspartners.com IPS Group Planning Solutions October 8,2007 Bridgette George,Development Coordinator City of College Station,Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station,Texas 77842 Re: Site Plan Package submittal for The Lofts,Wolf Pen Creek. Dear Bridgette, Attached please find the site plan submittal for The Lofts that is located at Dartmouth and Holleman in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. Along with the application and 12 copies of the plan,you will find the following supporting information: ❑ Development Permit Application—Supplemental Sheet ❑ Application and Review Fees in the amount of$1,200 o $200 Site Plan o $200 Wolf Pen Creek District o $200 Development Permit o $600 Public Infrastructure ❑ Landscape Plan— 1 copy(Includes freestanding sign details.) o Pavestone details for the hardscape n o Structural plans for the retaining walls—�. u"`'/eefs - • ❑ NRA Application o 1 set of building elevations—retail area only ❑ Colored Elevations of all buildings visible from a right-of-way. o 1 set of building elevations We are finalizing the materials and will have the board available on October 18,2007. I discussed this issue with Molly Hitchcock and she agreed to providing the actual materials before the DRB meeting. I also spoke with Nicole Menchaca several weeks ago to confirm a quorum with the Design Review Board on Friday,October 25, 2007. We look forward to working with you on this project and sharing our plans with the Board later this month. Please do not hesitate to call me at(979) 846-9259 if you have any questions or need additional information. Since y, / 1 Natali R(Ala: Principal Cc: Mark Lindley,Asset Plus Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan,LLP 511 University Drive East, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-9259 www.IPSGroup.us v 1t1 : 1(p IPS GroupPli . c� r� Planning Solutions .UI b, VO April 25,2008 Bridgette George,Development Coordinator City of College Station,Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station,Texas 77842 Re: Site Modifications for DRB Review-The Lofts,Wolf Pen Creek. Dear Bridgette, We have been working with Jason and Bob regarding a few site modifications to The Lofts, Wolf Pen Creek. Attached please find the following information: ❑ 12 copies of the Site Plan ❑ 1 copy of the Landscape Plan ❑ $200 Site Plan Review Fee f the next 3 rounds of review ❑ $200 DRB Review Fee �/''// ❑ Response to Planning S eview Comments#3 The following information was provided to Jason in the past few weeks in preparation of this submittal: ❑ 2 sets of black&white building elevations ❑ Letter from Architect Keith Malone explaining the changes to the proposed building elevations. We need to be placed on the next available DRB meeting agenda in order to keep construction moving on the site. Please do not hesitate to call me at (979) 846-9259 if you have any questions or need additional i ormation. Sincerely, atali 'uiz,AICP Principal Cc: Mark Lindley,Asset Plus Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan,LLP 511 University Drive East, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-9259 www.IPSGroup.us IPS Group OPPAIIIII Planning Solutions May 13,2008 Bridgette George,Development Coordinator City of College Station,Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station,Texas 77842 Re: DRB Meeting—The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek. Dear Bridgette, Attached please find the remaining items requested for the upcoming DRB meeting scheduled for Friday,May 23,2008. You will find the following supporting information: ❑ 10 sets of colored elevations— 11"x 17";and, ❑ Color sample sheet for stamped/dyed pavers. Please do not hesitate to call me at (979) 846-9259 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincere , Na uiz,AICP Principal Cc: Mark Lindley,Asset Plus Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan,LLP o� -off 05 511 University Drive East, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-9259 www.IPSGroup.us I Os IPS Group -7 - 1 Planning Solutions June 27,2008 Bridgette George,Development Coordinator City of College Station,Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station,Texas 77842 Re: DRB Meeting on July 25,2008—The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek. Dear Bridgette, Attached please fmd 3 complete sets of the Landscape Construction Plans for The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek. These are being submitted for DRB review of the patterns and colors of the stamped/dyed concrete in the Plaza area near the intersection of Dartmouth&Holleman. At our last meeting with the DRB,they asked that we provide more detailed information. In addition,during the building permit review,Jason Schubert asked that the DRB review the "stainless steel mesh"material referenced on the plans. We submitted the sample to Jason a few weeks ago. We request that the sample be forwarded to DRB with the stamped/dyed concrete details so that both issues may be resolved at once. Please do not hesitate to call me at (979) 846-9259 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sinc- ely, / 4%j Natalie"uiz,AICP Principal Cc: Mark Lindley,Asset Plus Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan,LLP 511 University Drive East, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-9259 www.IPSGroup.us Meeks + Partners June 16, 2008 The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Steel Mesh Samples Donald J.Meeks,AIA Chairman Jason, Somkiat Petchsrisom,AIA Partner In response to your recent comments received via e-mail on June 13th, regarding the steel mesh being used at Building#3,please find the material samples included. Each sample has the product Jon A.Prejean,RA,NCARB Partner name noted on the attached product identification card. Larry P.Santich I noted in my response to your comments noted above, which was sent to you via e-mail Partner yesterday,June 16th,that the stainless steel mesh panels above the retail space would no longer be used as signage. The signage will be provided above these panels at the stucco band below the Level 3 balconies, as illustrated in the construction documents. This signage will be submitted to the DRB for approval at a later date as previously discussed. However, I would like to take this opportunity to send these samples over such that all material issues other than signage could be closed,thus negating the need for us to remove anything from the drawings as was suggested in your most recent comments. Ashland 2015—This material,or an approved equal, will be used at the mesh panels directly above the retail glazing as noted at 2/A4.06. Techna 3100—This wire cloth,or an approved equal,will be used at the Building#3,Level 3 guardrails above the retail space and clubhouse/leasing center. Though these samples are stainless steel,the final finish will be determined at the submittal stage. In any case,they will be either stainless steel or painted to mimic stainless steel. I hope these samples, along with our recent written response to your June 13th comments and resulting revisions to the construction drawings serve to fully address your concerns. Sincerely, Keit alone,RA,NCARB Meeks +Partners A F',( JTY ( F,.), ; ,;y ARCHITECTURE • LAND PLANNING • MEEKSPARTNERS.COM 16000 Memorial Drive Suite ioo Houston,Texas 77079 tel 281. 558.8787 fax 281.558.3337 ( Aer-...--444s klir CITY OF COLLEGE STATION g !1 (/,,,s,—C. _36k Pr' S‘--) '-% Lt, 1 J- / / S ' 3.--2 Ai °.-5 7 "1`+7 7 7, 7 :47 t r c,iv-s.; .!... /'i tl. 7 f -C 1101 TEXAS AVENUE •COLLEGE STA I ION •TL-XAS• 7-840• sv s .csts.gov Staff Guidance for Fire Line Processing 4-24-7 "Public"Fire Line • Extent: ❑ From main to and including isolation gate valve ❑ Typically ends at street ROW or edge of existing easement but in no case closer than 15 feet to building edge • Design (on Site Plan and Construction Plans*): ❑ To public standards: BCS United Design Guidelines ❑ Coordinate sizing with Licensed Fire Sprinkler Engineer: 3", 4", and 6"are standard sizes ❑ *Less than a joint, does not require Plan and Profile, or PE— Provide details on Site Plan ❑ *More than a joint, does require Plan and Profile, and PE ❑ Isolation gate valve with a AmPro USE, LL562 lockable lid or equivalent approved by City ❑ Fire Hydrants, domestic, and irrigation services may be Tapped off Public Fire Lines (Hydrant and service taps not acceptable if after an external back flow prevention vault) • Inspection: ❑ Testing witnessed by Engineering ❑ Accepted with Letter of Completion "Private" Fire Suppression Line • Extent: ❑ From back side of isolation gate valve to the building • Design (on Building Plans): ❑ To NFPA 24 Standards ❑ Sized and Certified by Licensed Fire Sprinkler Engineer Cl Provide detailed engineered Sprinkler Plans covering Private Fire Suppression Line ❑ Does not require Plan and Profile ❑ No taps are permitted off Private Fire Suppression Lines • Construction: ❑ By either a Licensed Plumber or Licensed Fire Sprinkler Company • Inspection: ❑ Testing witnessed by Fire Department ❑ Acknowledged with Certificate of Occupancy "Private" Fire Sprinkler Line • Extent: ❑ From internal back flow device up into sprinkler system • Design (with Building Plans): ❑ Sized and Certified by Licensed Fire Sprinkler Engineer ❑ Provide detailed engineered Sprinkler Plans with Building Permit • Construction: ❑ By Licensed Fire Sprinkler Company with Certification of Installation • Inspection: ❑ Testing witnessed by Fire Department ❑ Acknowledged with Certificate of Occupancy � �-- /0/ °Luiz k at'4). 1) pe44A4) pleA.04A blj e &)1aL- (Yk,t44-g,e ? t3c.t.ao( dee p ccase�C � Dor Bk Vol Pe 00979795 OR 8296 44 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON,YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS:YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. TEMPORARY BLANKET UTILITY EASEMENT DATE: OrAt bet-2_ 1 0 ,2007 GRANTOR: APSHV-WOLF PEN,LP,a Texas limited partnership GRANTOR'S MAILING ADDRESS: 1515 San Felipe,Suite 2050 (including county) Harris County Houston,Texas 77056 GRANTEE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS GRANTEE'S MAILING ADDRESS: 1101 Texas Avenue (including county) Brazos County College Station,Texas 77842 CONSIDERATION: Ten Dollars($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration PROPERTY: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 8.689 acres,more or less,lying and being situated in the Morgan Rector League, Abstract No. 46, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and being all of a called 2.4723 acre tract as described by a deed to Grid Project 105,Ltd.Recorded in Volume 5930,Page 221 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County,Texas, and all of a called 6.26 acre tract as described by a deed to Grid Project 105, Ltd. Recorded in Volume 5879, Page 163, of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas; said 8.689 acre tract being more particularly described by metes and bounds on Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made a part hereof for all intents and purposes. ESTATE GRANTED: 1. GRANTOR grants to GRANTEE an undefined or"blanket" easement for various utilities, to be restricted hereafter to the as-built area, and defined by subsequent survey or plat. 2. GRANTOR does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, an undefined easement in and to the above-described parcel of land;GRANTEE to install,maintain,repair,rebuild,operate,inspect and remove all utility facilities, including conduits, duct lines, vaults, fittings, appliances and equipment,under the above-described property. bgllegal...group(o)/easements/apshv-wolfpen/temporary blanket utility/easement.doc 09/04/2007 DOC Bk Vol Ps 00979795 OR 5296 45 RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS: 1. This conveyance is only of the right, privilege and easement for the aforesaid purposes. GRANTOR and its successors and assigns shall have the right to use and to grant to others the right to u0 the easement area for any purpose which will not unreasonably interfere with the safe and reasonable maintenance and operation of installations to be made by GRANTEE therein. 2. GRANTEE covenants and agrees to interfere as little as possible with the normal flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic over and upon the site,and to restore the surface of the site,whenever and wherever disturbed by GRANTEE,to as good a condition as existed at the time of such disturbance. 3. GRANTEE hereby covenants and agrees that in the event the future development or expansion of either the site or adjacent land,or both,requires the relocation of the facilities already constructed and installed in the easement area, GRANTEE will relocate such facilities, at the request and expense of GRANTOR,provided such relocation is sound and feasible from an engineering standpoint as reasonably determined by GRANTEE,and provided further that GRANTOR shall grant to GRANTEE a substitute easement, by instrument in recordable form providing for such relocation. 4. The easement is intended to be temporary,but the rights granted hereunder shall not terminate unless GRANTOR shall deliver a final"As Built" survey or plat,as approved by GRANTEE, showing the location of utility service, equipment, and facilities. The "As Built" survey or plat shall delineate a proposed permanent easement area to enable GRANTEE to maintain, repair,rebuild,and operate the equipment described in paragraph number 2 above, and GRANTOR or its successors shall thereafter execute an instrument in recordable form perfecting the rights existing hereunder in and to the"As Built"area. 5. GRANTOR warrants that the right of GRANTEE shall be superior to those of all persons claiming under or through GRANTOR but not otherwise. APSHV-WOLF PEN,LP, a Texas limited partnership By: APGP-WOLF PEN,INC.a Texas corporation Its General Partner By e---_-) STEVE S.SP- SARD,Director By: r- ! ,\./..MI HAEL . ' GRAT ,Director APPROVED AS TO FORM THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE CHANGED WITHOU ' RE-SUBMIS IO FOR ;ROVAL. I/ .,.r City ',I cfey 'r 2 bg/legal...group(o)/easements/apshv-wolfpen/temporary blanket utiliry/easement.doc 09/04/2007 — Do. Bk Vol Ps 6.0979795 OR 8296 46 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF HARRIS § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the I t!— day of t+ , ,2007, by STEVE S. SPESSARD,Director of APGP-WOLF PEN,INC. a Texas corporation,General Partner of APSHV-WOLF PEN, LP, a Texas limited partnership, on behalf of said APSHV- WOLF PEN,LP,a Texas limited partnership. ;erri`n.. KEPI D.BLANCO °a°•' ` Notary Public,S[atB Of T8 cas 449- ^tf-� e. (1 _ = My Commission Expires ,/l ���iLs 'E " January 19,2011 Notary Public in and for the State of Texas THE STATE OF TEXAS § § ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF HARRIS § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the I " I day of Oei , ,2007, by MICHAEL S. McGRATH, Director of APGP-WOLF PEN, INC. a Texas corporation, General Partner of APSHV-WOLF PEN, LP, a Texas limited partnership, on behalf of said APSHV-WOLF PEN,LP,a Texas limited partnership. ow:, 1 KERI D. BiANCO ` t N MY ComlmissionBEx Texas Notary Public in and for the State of Texas •11 i" Y PitBs %8;;0", January 19,2011 PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: RETURN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO: City of College Station City of College Station Legal Department Legal Department P.O.Box 9960 P.O.Box 9960 College Station,Texas 77842-9960 College Station,Texas 77842-9960 3 bg/legal...group(o)/easements/apshv-woJjpen/temporary blanket udNry/easement.doc 09/04/2009 THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK Design Review Board— Site Plan Application Requested Waiver—Buffer Yard Requirementsds UDO Requirement: According to Section 7.6.E of the UDO, regarding the placement of "structures"within a buffer yard area. Staff has determined that the proposed retaining wall is a"structure"and is not permitted within the buffer yard area. Intent of Regulation: The intent of the UDO regulation was to provide an adequate buffer between different land uses to minimize the impact of the developing use. Requested Waiver: Allow the proposed retaining wall to be located within 6' of the rear property line within the 10' buffer area. Justification: The following elements justify the request: • The original site plan submittal met the buffer yard requirements and showed the retaining wall approximately 10' from the rear property line. However, at the request of the Engineering Department, we shifted the location of the retaining wall to provide adequate area to maintain utility lines in the area. • The proposed buffer yard measured from the property line to the parking area is approximately 18' in width. • The required fence and plantings will be installed along the rear of the single family homes at their current elevation. Our landscape architect has selected plant materials specifically for this location and he has determined that 6' of planting space is more than adequate. Background: Our original design incorporated the entire 10' buffer area. However,the City's Engineering Department requested that we move the wall so that maintenance of utilities in this area will be much easier and safer. In addition to the 10' buffer yard, there are additional neighborhood protection standards within the UDO that combine to ensure that incompatible. The height of the garage is limited based on the height of the adjacent single family homes along Crest. The 6' buffer area between the wall and the property line will contain the required privacy fence and plantings. The total buffer yard overall distance from the property line to the parking lot exceeds the minimum of 10'. Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group November 8, 2007 Mi IPS Group Planning Sal u, ion. THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK Design Review Board— Site Plan Application Requested Waiver—Parking Lot Standards UDO Requirement: According to Section 7.2.C.7 of the UDO, double landscaped islands are required along the retail parking area parallel to Holleman Drive because the parking row is within 15' of the right-of-way. The parking lot is currently setback 13.65' from the right-of-way. If the parking lot was shifted back approximately 1.35', double islands would not be required, a variance would not be necessary. Intent of Regulation: The intent of the UDO regulation was to minimize the impact of the parking lot from the street. If parking lots were placed closer to the street than 15', double islands are required to help soften the impact of the parking lot. Requested Waiver: Allow the parking row to remain approximately 13.65' from the right-of- way and allow the tree wells to meet the intent of the double island requirement. Background: The Lofts is a luxury student housing development with first floor retail space anchored in the heart of Wolf Pen Creek. The overall vision for this development is very urban with the focus on outdoor plaza space and building architecture versus suburban parking lots. Ideally, parking lots would not be visible from the intersection. However, in order for the first floor retail businesses to be successful, parking must be readily available. The challenge to our landscape architect is to design a parking lot that does not detract from the urban, pedestrian- friendly environment. Our landscape architect has developed an inviting, walkable and prominent sense of place within the outdoor plaza area. To minimize the impact of the retail parking lot, he has continued the use of pavers and tree wells throughout the lot so that it blends with the plaza. Similar designs have been successful in more urban areas such as Dallas. Due to the unique design, a waiver to the current parking standards is necessary because the City's current code was written for typical suburban parking lots. Justification: The following elements justify the request: • The pedestrian area between the parking lot and the retail businesses is very limited. If the waiver is not granted, the entire parking lot must be shifted toward the main building removing critical pedestrian space and potentially forcing pedestrians into the parking lot. • The typical circulation aisle between parking rows is 23' in width. Due to the size of the building, the Fire Department requires a 26' circulation aisle for their ladder truck resulting in a wider parking lot than originally proposed. • The at grade tree wells are placed approximately every 4 spaces along the exterior parking row in addition to the parking row next to the building. The number and location of tree wells, coupled with the unique parking surface of pavers, minimizes the impact of the parking lot from the street and meets the intent of the UDO requirement. Natalie Ruiz, AICP, IPS Group .uip IPS Group November 8, 2007 p a n r,:nSolutions E-mail Correspondence From: Alan Gibbs To: Schubert,Jason CC: Cotter, Carol; Cowell, Bob Date: 9/12/2007 8:52 AM Subject: Fwd:The Lofts-Wolf Pen Creek and Holleman Drive right-of-way Jason, I believe Bob elected you to draft a letter on the following below-"It is our understanding under Article 7.1.D(2)of the UDO that our site will NOT be considered non-conforming and that a setback reduction for public purposes will be granted." Alan Gibbs, P.E. Acting City Engineer City of College Station, Public Works >>>"Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us>9/10/2007 4:08 PM >>> First of all, let me say thank you for working with us on the abandonment of the Sterling and Richard's Street rights- of-way. My client has proven his commitment to working with City staff on complex issues when there is a public/private partnership. We understand that the City would like 9'of additional right-of-way along Holleman Drive for a future turn lane and additional maintenance room for the existing sanitary sewer line in the area. My client understands your situation and has graciously agreed to dedicate the right-of-way as long as it does not negatively impact his site plan. At this point in the design stage,there is no room to shift buildings, lose parking spaces or make other changes that substantially change the site plan. If issues are identified during the site plan,the necessary variances must be granted or we will not be able to dedicate the requested right-of-way. In an effort to avoid conflicts with the site plan,we propose to dedicate the right-of-way after issuance of the full building permit but before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. It is our understanding under Article 7.1.D(2)of the UDO that our site will NOT be considered non-conforming and that a setback reduction for public purposeswill be granted. We look forward to working with you through the site plan process to ensure that all issues are addressed. Thanks again for your help Alan! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Alan Gibbs"'<Agibbs@cstx.gov> CC: <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, <jane@ipsgroup.us>, <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>,"'Bridgette George"' <BGEORGE@cstx.gov> Date: 9/10/2007 4:09 PM Subject: The Lofts-Wolf Pen Creek and Holleman Drive right-of-way First of all, let me say thank you for working with us on the abandonment of the Sterling and Richard's Street rights- of-way. My client has proven his commitment to working with City staff on complex issues when there is a public/private partnership. We understand that the City would like 9' of additional right-of-way along Holleman Drive for a future turn lane and additional maintenance room for the existing sanitary sewer line in the area. My client understands your situation and has graciously agreed to dedicate the right-of-way as long as it does not negatively impact his site plan. At this point in the design stage,there is no room to shift buildings, lose parking spaces or make other changes that substantially change the site plan. If issues are identified during the site plan,the necessary variances must be granted or we will not be able to dedicate the requested right-of-way. In an effort to avoid conflicts with the site plan,we propose to dedicate the right-of-way after issuance of the full building permit but before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. It is our understanding under Article 7.1.D(2) of the UDO that our site will NOT be considered non-conforming and that a setback reduction for public purposes will be granted. We look forward to working with you through the site plan process to ensure that all issues are addressed. Thanks again for your help Alant Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station,TX 77840 Office (979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie@ipsgroup.us CC: mlindley@assetpluscorp.com; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 10/16/2007 6:35 PM Subject: The Lofts site plan comments Attachments: Staff review comments 1.DOC Natalie, I definitely understand why it has taken some time to develop the site plan, it is very complex. I have made a number of comments and have attached them for you. I am still awaiting engineering review however. I believe it may be necessary to set up a facilitation meeting to discuss the comments and work out the details. As for going to the Design Review Board, all major comments will be need to be addressed prior to being scheduled for a meeting. It may be possible, however,to take minor/ministerial comments forward to DRB, if necessary. I will be out of the office until next Monday due to state APA conference in Addison. I look forward to work with you on finalizing this project when I return. Regards, Jason Jason Schubert Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station Phone:979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 From: "Natalie Ruiz" <natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "Jason Schubert"<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, <v@mitchellandmorgan.com> Date: 10/16/2007 8:29 PM Subject: Re:The Lofts site plan comments Hey Jason, Thanks for the review comments. While there are a number of comments, many are simply FYI's or putting us on notice of future requirements. We'll certainly address the discrepancies between the site&landscape plans. However, I don't see anything major that should keep us from going to DRB. As discussed,we are willing to work with the city on the Holleman ROW AS LONG AS it does not negatively impact our site&certainly it cannot hold up our site plan. Will you be in the office in the morning to discuss these issues? We can turn the plans around quickly but we would like to be scheduled for the meeting we met the deadline for. Thanks Jason! Natalie Ruiz,AICP IPS Group From: Bob Cowell To: Jason Schubert Date: 10/24/2007 12:56 PM Subject: The lofts Jason, Hope this helps(at least avoid having to type it from scratch) Here is my follow-up to the items we discussed yesterday on the Lofts project: - Provided the parking area is curbed around its perimeter and at the nd islands as shown on the landscaping plans, then I am comfortable viewing the tree areas as tree wells rather than parking islands and thus not require them to be curbed. - I am comfortable with forwarding the site plan to DRB (assuming all other site plan issues have been addressed) with a condition that no building permits be issued (with the exception of the parking garage) until the architectural samples (except the patio/parking pavers which need approval with the site plan)are provided for review and approval to DRB. This would allow the site plan to be approved and site work and construction on the garage to begin while details are being worked out on the architectural details(such as bricks, railings, mesh screens, etc.) These items would then come back to the DRB (perhaps along with the sign package)prior to the issuance of the building permits for the apartment buildings. If this is not acceptable to the applicant,then all the materials will need to accompany the site plan review. Of course,the DRB may not approve the site plan until these items have been presented, though I would hope that they would recognize the value of the two step approval approach. - I am having Brittany poll the DRB members on their availability for a meeting on the 9th or the 14th. Once we know if a quorum is available we can set the meeting. Obviously the 14th would giver everyone a few extra days to make sure all issues have been addressed. I do not want the item to proceed to DRB unless we have a site plan that is in compliance and complete, exclusive of minor ministerial items. - I have let Chris Have know about scheduling a meeting with the applicant regarding phasing of construction. If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. Thanks From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Bob Cowell'<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert"' <Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 10/24/2007 3:35 PM Subject: FW:wolf pen Attachments: Autocourt2.JPG Good afternoon, Attached is a picture of what we're trying to achieve re:the retail parking lot"look". Please notice the tree plantings at grade or the"islands"that we discussed yesterday. We look forward to hearing from you guys soon. Thanks! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station,TX 77840 Office (979)846-9259 Mobile (979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Bob Cowell To: Natalie Ruiz CC: Jason Schubert Date: 10/26/2007 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Property on Harvey Mitchell Natalie, Thanks for the follow-up. On the lofts I sent Jason my thoughts(paraphrasing we can work out the no curbing around the tree wells and we can break the DRB review into two phases (the first dealing with the site plan and paver details,the second dealing with the architectural elements and the sign package. This would allow conditional site plan approval to be granted, site and utility work to begin along with construction of the parking garage.) Jason has just been swamped with getting staff reports out and will send you the complete response as soon as he can. Also, I had Brittany poll the DRB members about attendance at a meeting on either the 9th or 14th. At this point we do not have a quorum for either, but we're still working on it. Thanks, Bob From: Wally Urrutia To: Jason Schubert Date: 11/2/2007 2:49 PM Subject: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Good afternoon Jason, I met with Mr. Mark Lindley this morning regarding the trash collection at the Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek. He said that the trash collection method is still in the works, but did explain to me the system that he thinks will be in place. They will have what you mentioned to me where they roll-out the carts once full and place them out for a front end load collection.) suggested the location for placement of those carts,which is at the north-end of the small hammerhead.They would be responsible to place the containers out and remove them. He said that was a good recommendation and will also see about placing regular concrete on that hammerhead instead of the grasscrete just to make sure that it can handle our vehicles. He did have a meeting scheduled for today with Texas Commercial Waste in order to see what other options they may have for him regarding trash collection equipment. He is going to stay in contact with me on what system they decide to use to make sure that we approve it. I will keep you updated. Thanks, Wally Wally Urrutia Sanitation Superintendent (979) 764-3841 Fax(979) 764-3822 From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie@ipsgroup.us CC: mlindley@assetpluscorp.com; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 11/6/2007 8:21 AM Subject: The Lofts site plan comments 2 Attachments: Staff review comments 2.DOC Natalie, I have attached the next round of reviews for this site plan. Please be aware of the short deadline to make the next meeting. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert Staff Planner Planning&Development Services City of College Station Phone: 979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Bob Cowell-<Bcowell@cstx.gov> Date: 11/6/2007 10:40 AM Subject: The Lofts,WPC&Upcoming DRB Meeting Good morning, We're getting a bit anxious since we haven't heard back from you re: a DRB meeting. Since we didn't make the 9th, we're assuming we're on for the 15th? We want to make sure that we have everyone from our end at the meeting- which means I need to coordinate with an architect in Houston and a landscape architect in Dallas. Please let me know ASAP what you need for the meeting &when. Thanks Jason! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie CC: Cowell, Bob; Hitchcock, Molly Date: 11/6/2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re:The Lofts,WPC&Upcoming DRB Meeting Natalie, Based on the comments I sent out this morning, this site is still in the design process and therefore could not make the Nov. 9th meeting. The item will only be scheduled for the Nov. 15th meeting if the comments are sufficiently addressed by the deadline(not prior to the meeting). To be sufficient,all items that affect the layout and ultimate design of the site need to be resolved. Items that could be considered ministerial in nature may proceed as staff conditions similar to the"staff review comments" process with plats going to P&Z. As for what physical items are needed to go to DRB,those are spelled out on the comment cover letter. Specifically, 8 copies of the revised site plan, landscape plan and color building elevations(comment 9). Please note additional elevations than initially provided are necessary. In general, most of the comments would be incorporated into revisions of the above documents. Outside of that, either a revised application or letter for the 2 waiver/appeal items will also be needed (comments 11 & 12). Yes, additional time on Thursday until 1pm for resubmission is granted. Please be aware that Thursday is the day in which packets GO OUT to the DRB members for the Nov. 15th meeting. I will need to have reviewed the submission and finalize all items that day! I am doing what I can to have the item make the meeting. Please note, however,that submitting by that deadline does not guarantee going to that meeting. It is still contingent upon the revisions being made. I hope this helps clarify things for you. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station Phone:979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Bob Cowell"'<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Molly Hitchcock"'<Mhitchcock@cstx.gov> Date: 11/6/2007 12:01 PM Subject: RE: The Lofts,WPC & Upcoming DRB Meeting Thank you for the time extension. As I mentioned earlier,the difference between 10 and noon is only 2 hours to you; but, it's actually 24 hours to us. This extension allows everyone to overnight plans tomorrow evening versus tonight. I understand your explanation below; however, I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree on what is ministerial vs.what affects the"ultimate design"of the site. That said, I want to clarify a few of your comments: #3. "There is not an end island at least 180 sq.ft. at the east end of the parking area adjacent to the units." RESPONSE: Are you referring to the"townhome"area? The end island area is just under 180 sq.ft.; however, there is a sidewalk adjacent to it that should count toward the minimum sq. footage. We are proposing no change based on this comment. (If you're referring to another area, please let me know.) #9. "Material samples are requested for the aluminum mesh screen and steel mesh guardrail... Color building elevations for all buildings, including the garage,will need to be submitted." RESPONSE: The aluminum mesh screen is associated with the signage for the retail area. As discussed previously, there is a sign consultant on board designing a package for the entire site. Since signs are permitted separately,we propose to bring the sign package back to you at a future date. This should in no way hold up the site plan or building permits for development. It should simply hold up building permits for signage. With respect to the building elevations for the garage,we are modifying the elevations provided to you with the original submittal. The elevations provided are views from public rights-of-way. The garage will extend above the retail buildings for a short distance. However, in order to see the parking garage located in the center of the site, you will really have to look for it from the street. The revised elevations will show the garage building in the background and note that it will have a stucco finish. The only material sample remaining is the steel mesh guardrail that is manufactured out of Cleveland. There is no way to get a sample delivered in two days. Instead,we propose to bring this sample to the DRB meeting on November 15th. Surely,you could allow this one sample to be brought directly to the meeting? #12. "Due to the moving of the retaining wall, the proposed buffer yard along the Crest St. single family properties is no longer at least 10' in width." RESPONSE: We disagree. Retaining walls are allowed within buffer areas. We still have a minimum of 6' between the property line and retaining wall to incorporate the required plantings. The additional 4' is provided between the retaining wall and the parking lot. The engineering department asked that we relocate the retaining wall due to utility conflicts. #14. "Note that for the garage building permit to be approved, additional information is necessary..." RESPONSE: Have you had a chance to review the parking garage plans we provided? Ben McCarty has a copy-please see sheets G1.01 &G1.02. If this is not sufficient, please let us know ASAP. Thanks again Jason for all of your help&keeping this project on schedule. Natalie From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Bob Cowell"'<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, <edotson@cstx.gov> Date: 11/6/2007 4:15 PM Subject: The Lofts,WPC Attachments: bike.pdf; pavers.pdf Sorry,we're still trying to clarify comments to make sure we address everything to your satisfaction: #4. "Show the location of the proposed bike rack on the site plan". RESPONSE: The bike racks are noted on the landscape plan (see graphic above). Are you asking us to move this reference to the site plan? The landscape architect placed the racks there so that bicyclists would store their bikes behind the curved wall-out of the way of pedestrians walking within the plaza area. Fire department comment#1. "Need to see the pavers and a letter stating that they are capable of support for a fire lane." RESPONSE: We submitted specifications with the original site plan package. See attached "pavers" specifications. The average strength of this series is 8,000 psi. Please let us know that this is sufficient. Thanks! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 Office (979)846-9259 Mobile (979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie@ipsgroup.us CC: mlindley@assetpluscorp.com; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 11/9/2007 3:34 PM Subject: The Lofts to DRB Attachments: Staff Report.DOC Natalie, I appreciate all the effort your team has made in responding to comments. I am pleased to confirm that The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek site plan has been scheduled for the Thursday, November 15th DRB meeting. The meeting will be held at 11 am in our Administrative Conference Room within the City Management office area. I have attached the Staff Report for your convenience. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station Phone:979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert-<Jschubert@cstx.gov>, "'Bob Cowell-<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Carol Cotter"' <Ccotter@cstx.gov> Date: 11/16/2007 9:52 AM Subject: The Lofts,WPC First of all, thank you so much for all of your help on this project. Everyone at Asset Plus is thrilled that DRB went so well yesterday. I wanted to follow-up on where we are in the process and where we stand with permits. I understand that Carol is reviewing the full civil package with the drainage report and she probably will not be finished by Thanksgiving. In a perfect world,we would love to have a full DP by Thanksgiving; however, that doesn't seem to be realistic. In an effort to keep the contractor busy,we would like to get a development permit ASAP that would allow clearing, grading and the construction of retaining walls. Once Carol has completed her review and we have addressed her comments,we would like a full development permit for all site construction. I also spoke with Ben McCarty yesterday and he has completed his review of the garage plans. How quickly could we get a building permit for the parking garage? If it helps,we would be willing to pull a"slab only" permit first and then follow-up with a full permit once the engineering plans are approved. I was hoping to work out these issues today before everyone leaves for the Thanksgiving holiday. Please let me know if this schedule is workable and if we need to place conditions upon permits in order to get them issued now. Thanks again! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: "Natalie" <natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert-<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Mark Lindley' <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, "'Keith Malone"' <KMalone@meekspartners.com>, <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>, <jane@ipsgroup.us> Date: 3/25/2008 2:59 PM Subject: The Lofts,WPC Hey Jason, Just when you think we've gone away-we're back! I just spoke with Ben and he's completed the plans review for the parking garage. It's my understanding that the City will go ahead and issue the building permit for the"garage only"at this time. Before additional building permits are issued,the following needs to occur: • Final approval of the site plan,which includes: o Submittal of the PIPP application for the improvements in the rights-of-way; o Approval of the civil construction plans; and, o Stamping of the site plan previously approved by DRB. • Parkland dedication will be paid at BP for each building based upon the units in the building. Please confirm. We are anxious to get started on the garage. Thanks Jason! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station,TX 77840 Office (979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie CC: Cotter, Carol; jane@ipsgroup.us; Lindley', 'Mark; Malone', 'Keith; McCarty, Benjamin; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 3/25/2008 4:57 PM Subject: Re:The Lofts,WPC Natalie, I know the infrastructure has been worked on for a while, I was beginning to wonder if you would be able to move forward. As you know, to obtain a building permit site plan approval (stamped) must be obtained first. The site plan received conditional approval at DRB based on the construction documents being worked out. Once that's done, we'd need to verify that the site plan DRB saw has not substantially changed. For site plan approval the property must also be platted. I believe we still have not received the Mylar in order to file the plat. Though the garage is not within the bounds of the final plat area, it would still need to be filed so the site plan as a whole could be approved. I hope this helps clarify the steps, let me know if you have any questions. Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning&Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert"' <Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Mark Lindley- <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>,"'Benjamin McCarty- <BMcCarty@cstx.gov>, "'Carol Cotter'<Ccotter@cstx.gov>, "'Bob Cowell"'<Bcowell@cstx.gov> Date: 3/27/2008 9:55 AM Subject: RE:The Lofts,WPC Thanks for the clarification Jason; however, I thought that we agreed months ago that you guys would work with us on phasing the permitting of the development. In a meeting with you and Bob Cowell,we discussed issuing permits for the garage once the DRB reviewed the site plan. Then,while we're working out the final details(like the PIPP), you would issue the permit for the garage. The bottom line is that we need to get the parking garage under construction yesterday. Mark will be in town tomorrow morning. Could you and Bob make time to meet with us tomorrow morning? Thanks! Natalie From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie CC: Cotter, Carol; Cowell, Bob; Lindley', 'Mark; McCarty, Benjamin Date: 3/27/2008 2:55 PM Subject: RE:The Lofts,WPC Natalie, We did discuss proceeding with the garage ahead of the other buildings when we were looking to have you go to DRB in parts since the details and materials were still being worked out for the other buildings. The garage can still go first if it is located on an approved site plan,which the discussion involved phasing the site such that the garage area would be a separate phase. All minimum requirements for that phase would still need to be met. Phasing it though would still require the plat to be filed since the driveway access to the garage crosses the unplatted property. There was not any discussion of issuing building permits prior to filing the plat or site plan approval. As for the PIP,there is a note on the site plan that states those items are for illustration purposes only. The PIP does not need to be approved in order to get site plan approval, only the construction documents related to what is on the property and the infrastructure serving it. Bob is not available to meet tomorrow morning, let me know if you would still like to come in and visit with me. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning&Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert' <Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: "'Mark Lindley'<mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, "'Bob Cowell' <Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Benjamin McCarty' <BMcCarty@cstx.gov>, "'Carol Cotter"'<Ccotter@cstx.gov> Date: 3/27/2008 4:25 PM Subject: RE:The Lofts,WPC Thanks Jason; however,that's not what we recollect. How quickly could we meet with you and Bob to discuss phasing of the entire project? Friday afternoon, Monday morning? Thanks Jason, Natalie Natalie, From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie CC: Cowell, Bob Date: 3/27/2008 5:08 PM Subject: RE:The Lofts,WPC Bob is still in Council Workshop right now and is also scheduled to be out of the office tomorrow afternoon. I will let you know what we can get set up. Jason From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie Date: 3/28/2008 10:02 AM Subject: RE:The Lofts,WPC Natalie,will 3pm on Monday work? Let me know and I will schedule it. Jason From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 3/28/2008 11:59 AM Subject: RE:The Lofts,WPC We'll take it! Thanks Jason. Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile (979)229-6797 From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Bob Cowell-<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 4/8/2008 1:47 PM Subject: Revised elevations for The Lofts,WPC Good afternoon, Mark and I stopped by today to pick up development permits and we dropped off revised elevations-one for each of you. Once you've had a chance to review them, Mark would like to meet with you guys so that he can walk you through the changes. Please let me know when you will be available. Thanks again for all of your help! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station, TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile (979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie CC: Cowell, Bob; mlindley@assetpluscorp.com; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 4/10/2008 4:55 PM Subject: Re: Revised elevations for The Lofts,WPC Natalie, - As I just mentioned in my voicemail to you, Bob and I have had a chance to look at the revised elevations. The changes will require them to be approved by the Design Review Board. The UDO does not provide that the Administrator can approve material and facade changes to buildings within the Wolf Pen Creek district. I believe of greater importance to you to know is that the changes to the garage elevations will also need to go back as well. So you know, all the elevations previously approved by DRB could still be utilized when building permits are issued. I have reviewed the site plan and have not yet seen any changes that would require it to return to DRB. The copy provided last week though is not clear enough for me to see all the site details to verify that fully. There are some minor correction that need to be made but I will wait for Carol's review to detail those. Also, I have not seen the landscape plan to verify that as well. I would recommend to go ahead and start working on the elevations application for DRB and we'll go from there. Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning & Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, "'Bob Cowell"'<Bcowell@cstx.gov>, <v@mitchellandmorgan.com> Date: 4/11/2008 2:53 PM Subject: RE: Revised elevations for The Lofts,WPC Jason, Thanks for reviewing our elevations. At this late of date we would like to focus on obtaining final approval instead of arguing over who has what authority. As you know,timing is everything when it comes to going before the DRB especially this late in the permitting process. The next deadline is April 14th which is Monday! Is there any way you could give us an extension since we're only making minor changes? You mentioned that the site plan may not have to go back to DRB; however, it"is not clear enough for me to see all the site details to verify that fully". We need to know what those are ASAP. We ask that you not wait until Carol returns; but,to give us your comments ASAP. You also mentioned not having seen the landscape plan to verify compliance.The only change to the landscape plan is that we're substituting stamped/dyed concrete for pavers. We can provide you with a revised landscape plan ASAP. Here's what we propose. We will submit a letter from the architect summarizing the changes to the building elevations by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday,April 16th. We will also provide you with however many copies of the B&W elevation drawings you need. As a result,we will then be placed on the DRB agenda for May 9th. Please let us know if this is acceptable. Again, I appreciate your willingness to work with us on finalizing the construction plans. Thanks! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie CC: Cowell, Bob; mlindley@assetpluscorp.com; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 4/11/2008 6:39 PM Subject: RE: Revised elevations for The Lofts,WPC Natalie, In obtaining final approval, I will offer a couple of alternatives. First, like the buildings,the changing of materials on the site(pavers)will also require the site/landscape plan to go to DRB. The deadline for the May 9th meeting is this Monday,the 14th. We are able to extend the deadline to 4pm on Monday but it must include all the documents required on the application for a full submission. If that is not possible, I offer the following steps in order to continue working while waiting for DRB to approve the changes you have made: 1) Submit the mylar so the final plat can be filed. 2) Submit the site plan and landscaping plan as was conditionally approved by DRB with only grading and infrastructure changes(still with pavers, not stamped concrete, etc). I ask that only one original be submitted first for me to verify before submitting multiple copies. 3) Submit building permits for the retaining walls. 4)With the plat filed,the site plan can be stamped (pending Engineering's approval of the infrastructure). 5)With the site plan approved, a full development permit can be issued coupled with retaining wall building permits. 6)With a full DP, a slab only permit could be issued for the garage while waiting for DRB approval of the elevations. These steps are the action plan to follow in order to make progress outside of DRB. This project has already received conditional approval of the site plan and elevations and unfortunately the changes being made to the development require it to go back to DRB for consideration. Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> CC: <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, "'Bob Cowell"'<Bcowell@cstx.gov> Date: 4/13/2008 2:42 PM Subject: RE: Revised elevations for The Lofts,WPC Jason, First of all, please let me apologize for the length of this e-mail. I would prefer to discuss these issues with you and Bob in person as we requested last week; however, I understand that you guys have many other projects on your plate. I also want to thank you for extending the DRB deadline from 10:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. The purpose of this e-mail is to clarify what you are requiring of us to go back to DRB. We are proposing the following changes to the approved landscape plan and elevations: Elevations: (1) Changing the%of brick, rock and siding on the buildings. We are using the exact same materials&colors; however,we are proposing to move them around on the building and change the%of siding, brick&rock. (2) Changing the roof line. We are modifying the roof line from a flat roof to a pitched roof. (3) Changing the parking garage from steel construction to concrete. Landscape Plan: (1) Substituting stamped/dyed concrete for individual pavers. We offered to submit the following to get on the next available DRB meeting: (1) A letter outlining the changes. (2) As many copies of the elevations and landscape plans as you need. In response, you say that we"must include all the documents required on the application for a full submission"- which requires us to go back to square one. You are requiring us to submit a complete new package for the site plan when we are simply asking for 3 changes to the building elevations& 1 change to the landscape plan. The following is what you are requiring for these 4 changes and my comments are in 0: MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (1) Special District site plan application completed in full. (Again,we are not proposing any changes to the site plan. We will be happy to submit a copy of the original application&checklist submitted to the City on 10/8/07.) (2) $200 Application Fee. (Originally paid to the City on 10/8/07.) (3) $200 Wolf Pen Creek Special District Review Fee. (Originally paid to the City on 10/8/07.) (4) $200 Development Permit Application Fee. (Originally paid to the City on 10/8/07.) (5) $600 Public Infrastructure Inspection Fee. (Originally paid to the City on 10/8/07.) (6) Twelve (12)folded copies of site plan. (You have a copy of the most recent site plan to which you stated below that it did not appear any site plan changes were being made; however, "The copy provided last week is not clear enough for me to see all the site details to verify that fully. There are some minor corrections that need to be made but I will wait for Carol's review to detail those." I asked that you give us your comments ASAP so that we could begin addressing those while we are waiting for Carol to return. You did not provide us with your concerns; so, as a result,we are not able to make any of these changes between now and 4:00 p.m. on Monday. However,we will be happy to submit 12 copies of the site plan you already have.) (7) One (1) landscape plan. (No problem. The only change from what you have on file is a general note re:the substitution of stamped/dyed concrete for individual pavers.) (8) One(1)dimensioned building elevations, including signage. (You have 2 sets of building elevations that we submitted Tuesday,4/8/07. As previously agreed to and reported to the DRB, signage plans will be provided at a future date.) (9) Color and material samples. (Color and material samples were submitted to the City on 10/17/07. Again,the colors and materials are not changing.We are simply changing the%of siding, brick and rock used on the buildings.) (10)A copy of the site plan checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not checked off. (Again,this was originally submitted to the City on 10/8/07.) (11) Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks& Recreation Board, please provide proof of approval. (Fee in lieu of dedication was approved by the Parks Department with a letter submitted to the City with the final plat on 8/27/07 and again with the site plan on 10/8/07.) I'm extremely frustrated that we're being asked to resubmit old information and pay double review and inspection fees when we're not asking for changes to the site plan. Please let me be clear,we are not opposed to going back before DRB as long as we can continue to move forward with what has already been approved. At this point,we have no choice but to comply with your request in order to meet the 4:00 p.m. deadline on Monday. I also want to put on record that we strongly disagree with paying double review and inspection fees and we will appeal this decision. However,we are going to spend the next 24 hours making copies of the information above so that we can meet the deadline. You also suggested the following steps below while we are waiting for the next DRB meeting, my comments are in 0: 1) Submit the mylar so the final plat can be filed. (We have obtained all of the signatures necessary and the plat will be submitted to the City on Monday, 4/14). 2) Submit the site plan and landscaping plan as was conditionally approved by DRB with only grading and infrastructure changes (still with pavers, not stamped concrete, etc). I ask that only one original be submitted first for me to verify before submitting multiple copies. (We will be happy to provide you with an additional copy of the landscape plan that was approved by DRB. You should have a copy of the landscape plan in your file. As far as the site plan goes,this is the plan you have that Carol's reviewing now.We're simply waiting for Carol to approve the "infrastructure changes"and for your comments that we need to"verify"certain issues have been resolved.) 3) Submit building permits for the retaining walls. (As discussed with Bob, Carol and yourself on Monday, 3/21,we submitted the building permit application for the retaining walls. The permit was issued on 4/8.) 4)With the plat filed,the site plan can be stamped pending Engineering's approval of the infrastructure. (Great. We hope that the plans will be approved once Carol returns.) 5)With the site plan approved, a full development permit can be issued coupled with retaining wall building permits. (The full development permit was issued on 4/2 with the condition that no work occur around the retaining wall areas until we receive building permits. We received building permits on 4/8.) 6)With a full DP, a slab only permit could be issued for the garage while waiting for DRB approval of the elevations. (We would love to pick up the slab only permit on Monday 4/14. This is exactly what we requested in our meeting with you on Monday, 3/21.) If I have totally missed the boat here, please let me know. I initiated this e-mail last week so that everyone would be clear as to the minimum submittal requirements. Here it is on Sunday and I'm still confused. Feel free to call and correct me on Monday before I spend too much time making copies of old information. Thank you, Natalie From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie Date: 4/14/2008 10:49 AM Subject: RE: Revised elevations for The Lofts,WPC I left a voicemail at your office a little while ago. In case you weren't at the office with school being out I wanted to let you know to go ahead and give me a call. Thanks, Jason From: Jason Schubert To: Vanecek, Pete CC: Boyer, Lindsay; Natalie@ipsgroup.us; v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 5/1/2008 8:55 AM Subject: Re:The Lofts Attachments: The Lofts;The Lofts Parkland Dedication.DOC Pete, I've been working on this project and have attached the Administrative Approval form that Steve Beachy signed when they were platting the property last summer. Correct,they will not be dedicating land. Since the project came in before the parkland fees increased they will only need to pay the old fees ($160 fee in lieu of land +$292 development fee=$452 per unit). They will pay the fees per unit as each building permit is issued. Let me know if you have any questions. Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning&Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Brent Read' <bread@cstx.gov> CC: "'Jason Schubert-<jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 5/6/2008 1:44 PM Subject: FW:The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Hey Brent, I don't mean to argue; but, but the comments we received from Jason Schubert said that you guys weren't informed that we were going overhead until 5/1. I'm sorry if there was any confusion or if I wasn't clear. Please see the e-mail below. Regardless,we are looking forward to working out a solution-very soon. Thanks! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Natalie[mailto:natalie@ipsgroup.us] Sent: Friday, March 07,2008 12:56 PM To: 'David Gwin'; 'Brent Read' Cc: 'tmichals@cstx.gov' Subject:The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Good afternoon, First of all, I want to thank you for all of your help with this project-especially your efforts with regard to burying the existing overhead utility lines. We have all spent a lot of time strategizing ways to bury the overhead lines for the entire intersection. As you know, it all comes down to money. Unfortunately,there is not enough money in the budget to absorb the costs to bury the lines on our property plus the $125,000 cost participation. The last time we spoke,Asset Plus proposed to cover all of the costs except for the $125,000. We understand that the City is not in a position to waive or incent this amount. As a result,we have decided to leave the overhead lines. We will bury the overhead lines that bisect the property—basically,the ones that we have to relocate anyway. Everything else will remain overhead. Thanks again for your help! Natalie • Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station,TX 77840 Office(979)846-9259 Mobile (979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Brent Read To: Natalie CC: Jason Schubert Date: 5/12/2008 9:18 AM Subject: Re: FW:The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Natalie, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond. As you know, I was out of town last week and didn't get a chance to write you back. I received this email that you sent on March 7, 2008. I understood that the new plan was to only bury the overhead lines bisecting the property, and not the overhead lines along Dartmouth. The phone conversations between Brazos Paving and myself, and then between you and I after this email led me to believe that the decision was still up in the air. The following week, on March 12, I received a phone call from Brazos Paving. Their estimator asked me for a copy of the plan to bury the overhead lines. I told him the situation as I understood it from your email the previous week. The estimator for Brazos Paving explained that he had received a call asking if his bid still stood at the original amount for the underground conversion. I sent him the conversion plan so he could look it over and check his bid numbers. I then called you almost immediately.You were taking some personal leave due to it being spring break so I tabled the issue until you were back in the office. After spring break, on March 18 I contacted you regarding this situation with Brazos Paving. I was told that you had a meeting with Mark Lindley of Asset Plus that afternoon and that you would bring this up and let me know what was going on. I understood that the issue was being addressed and I would hear back when a final decision had been made. May 1 I spoke with Mark Lindley over the phone and he informed me that the lines were definitely staying up with the exception of the overhead lines bisecting the property. This was when I was informed of the final decision by Asset Plus. This is when I began working out a new electric plan for this development. Brent Brent Read Electric Project Coordinator College Station Utilities (979) 764-5026 From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie@ipsgroup.us Date: 5/23/2008 4:22 PM Subject: The Lofts is stamped The DP is ready for you to sign and plans have been stamped. I'm finishing up the notes at the front counter and should be ready when you get here. Jason From: "Natalie"<natalie@ipsgroup.us> To: "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 6/23/2008 8:21 PM Subject: The Lofts,WPC-Holleman ROW Dedication Hey Jason, I'm working on the Holleman ROW dedication and need to confirm the width. I thought we decided on 9'. Please confirm so that I can order the survey work. Thanks! Natalie Natalie Thomas Ruiz,AICP IPS Group, Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 205 College Station,TX 77840 Office (979)846-9259 Mobile(979)229-6797 www.ipsgroup.us From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie Date: 6/24/2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re:The Lofts,WPC-Holleman ROW Dedication Natalie, It was originally 9'along Holleman but was reduced to 8'. The details are that the parking lot on the site plan is 13.65' from the current ROW and to meet the Reduction for Public Purpose section and keep from creating a non- conformity, 5'would need to remain(to still have half of the NRA 10' parking setback). So 8.65'could be dedicated but we rounded down to allow some wiggle room. Hope that helps. Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Carol Cotter To: Mark Smith CC: Alan Gibbs Date: 7/25/2008 4:56 PM Subject: The Lofts© Holleman and Dartmouth Mark- Since Alan and I are both out next week you will probably be getting a call from Veronica regarding the boring of Holleman Drive. The Lofts project has a proposed 36" RCP crossing Holleman. The contractor is wanting to open- cut Holleman instead of bore as shown on approved plans. Billy Prewitt initially provided a letter of pros and cons for boring,tunneling, and open cutting the street. Of course he showed that open cutting would result in less of an impact on the integrity of the street. He also pointed out that we allowed the open cutting of Horsehaven Drive (Gander Mountain)and Southwest Parkway. Alan and I discussed his letter and requested that the Engineer (Veronica)weigh in on the matter. Veronica saw no major technical reason why the street shouldn't be bored. However,with further discussion between her and the General Contractor she called to say that the bore is the critical path in the construction project. The bore pit for the 54"casing is so large that it would necessitate the halting of work in the area and delay the project 2 months. She wants to meet to show me the construction schedule and the bore's impact. I told her Alan and I were not here next week and she mentioned contacting you. I wanted you to have some background on the issue if she does. Thanks! Carol From: Carol Cotter To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com CC: Alan Gibbs; Jason Schubert Date: 5/21/2009 4:12 PM Subject: The Lofts Attachments: Carol Cotter.vcf Veronica- City Staff from concerned departments met on site yesterday to look at the drainage issues that you raised. It was determined that the drainage pattern was in existence prior to the Lofts development. It now appears that with the construction of the retaining wall,fence and or landscaping,the flow across the lots is now being concentrated in the area between the two fence lines until it can find a release point at the retaining. It was further determined that modification to the retaining wall,grading, and/or landscaping)will need to be implemented prior to CO. On a related note,the swale between the retaining wall and Building 1 appears rather shallow compared to the finished floor of Building 1 and the downstream inlet grate. You might want to confirm that it was constructed according to plan. Doesn't look like it would take much to impact the building, especially if grate or swale were not properly maintained. Carol Carol L. Cotter, P.E. Development Engineer City of College Station, Public Works (979)764-3570 Fax:(979) 764-3496 From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Carol Cotter"'<Ccotter@cstx.gov> CC: "'Alan Gibbs'<Agibbs@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert"' <Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 5/28/2009 8:56 AM Subject: RE:The Lofts Thanks carol, I am talking to mark lindley now about what to put behind that wall to capture that flow. I have also told Doug Pederson (twin city properties-the property owner of the last two lots)that we will be finding a way between his lots and the wall (our property)to fix the drainage coming over the wall (wont help doug's problem so we have told him to contact the city directly to work out a fix to his problem). I don't think we will want to mess with doing something in the right of way of the street as it would take too long to get that worked out and more expensive than us putting in a pipe and yard drains at the wall to take the flow to the junction box that we built at Richards. V From: "Mark Lindley"<mlindley@assetpluscorp.com> To: "Jason Schubert"<Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 6/11/2009 7:06 PM Subject: FW: Bike rack Attachments: BikePost.jpg Jason This is the bike rack we want to use From: Jason Schubert To: Lindley, Mark Date: 6/12/2009 11:51 AM Subject: Re: FW: Bike rack Mark, using this type of bike rack will be fine. The only thing is to make sure that there's at least 2 1/2 feet between them so that each side of each one can be used. Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Staff Planner Planning &Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Jason Schubert To: Natalie@ipsgroup.us Date: 8/14/2009 4:39 PM Subject: Easements for The Lofts Natalie, I am following up regarding your question earlier this afternoon about dedicating easements. With plat(or replat) applications, additional right-of-way dedication is necessary if the adjacent rights-of-way do not meet current street standards. With the new Comprehensive Plan some of the thoroughfare designations were changed but right-of-way dedications would still be required with the new street cross sections. If you are seeking to avoid right-of-way dedications,the easements will need to be done by separate instrument. FYI, I have RSVP'd for next Wednesday so I'll see you then. Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Senior Planner Planning&Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: Jason Schubert To: mlindley@assetpluscorp.com Date: 9/29/2009 1:50 PM Subject: The Lofts sanitation Mark, I hope you are doing well. I just left a voicemail for you regarding a sanitation question I have for you. We have been reviewing the Red Mango building plans and our building division has asked how The Lofts commercial tenant spaces will be served for sanitation. My recollection was that all trash would be handled through the compactor in the garage area. Please confirm if this is the case and how these businesses will have access to that. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert,AICP Senior Planner Planning& Development Services City of College Station tel: 979.764.3570 fax: 979.764.3496 www.cstx.gov From: "Mark Lindley" <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com> To: "Jason Schubert"<Jschubert@cstx.gov> Date: 9/29/2009 1:59 PM Subject: Re:The Lofts sanitation That is correct and they can have access thru the door that is right of the main club entry. Sent from my iPhone From: Carol Cotter To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com CC: Alan Gibbs; Bob Cowell; Chris Haver; Jason Schubert; Keith Tinker; Mark Lindley Date: 12/14/2009 8:40 AM Subject: The Lofts Record Drawings Attachments: Carol Cotter.vcf Veronica- Over the past few months there have been a number of lengthy discussions regarding certification language on record drawings for drainage infrastructure. While we understand you have concerns with the language required in the Stormwater Design Guidelines,there has been no acceptance by the City of your proposed modifications to the current language. The Letter of Completion is still outstanding on drainage and sidewalks for this project due to the record drawings not being submitted. While the discussions over certification language were ongoing, building COs were issued as well as several tenant finish outs. Unfortunately, I need to inform you that it is our intent to issue no more COs or tenant finish outs pending record drawings and subsequent LOC. Please call if you have any questions. Carol Carol L. Cotter, P.E. Senior Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department PO Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,Texas 77842 Office: (979)764-3570 Fax: (979) 764-3496 Email: ccottere.cstx.gov From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Carol Cotter"'<Ccotter@cstx.gov> CC: <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, "'Alan Gibbs"'<Agibbs@cstx.gov>, "'Bob Cowell"' <Bcowell@cstx.gov>,"'Chris Haver"' <Chaver@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov>,"'Keith Tinker"' <Ktinker@cstx.gov> Date: 12/14/2009 9:41 AM Subject: RE:The Lofts Record Drawings Carol, As you know we have been trying desperately over the last 2 months to coordinate the language for these as-builts with alan. Despite several emails and phone calls to come up with some language that we can feel comfortable signing we haven't made any headway..We do have a meeting set up for later this week with CS and Bryan officials about this but I have called alan this morning to get that meeting held today so that we don't hold up any c.o's on the lofts.There are several other engineers in town who are just as concerned about the as-built language that is written and they have asked to attend that meeting as well. I will contact them to get them to free up their calendars today to meet. The lofts as-builts as well as others that we have in our possession are all complete and ready to ship out the door with the exception of placing the certification language on it. All we are asking is to make the language much clearer about what it is we are actually certifying. Folks that attended the drainage ordinance rewrite meetings have said that the certification language that ended up in the document is not what they remembered agreeing upon. There are some things that our insurance companies wont allow us to do without voiding our insurance as well as some things that the State Board wont allow us to sign unless we have actually performed that service. I believe Brett has or is going to call the Board to get their take on the certification language.We believe that the way the certification reads it is so loosely written that it appears we are responsible for several services like inspection that we did not perform. And then we are sealing a document that says we have performed those services when we did not. I look forward to meeting with you all today to get the language resolved. I will make my schedule open all day. Thanks for your help in getting this resolved. Veronica From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Carol Cotter"' <Ccotter@cstx.gov> CC: <mlindley@assetpluscorp.com>, "'Alan Gibbs"'<Agibbs@cstx.gov>, "'Bob Cowell' <Bcowell@cstx.gov>, "'Chris Haver' <Chaver@cstx.gov>, "'Jason Schubert"<Jschubert@cstx.gov>, 'Keith Tinker"' <Ktinker@cstx.gov> Date: 12/14/2009 1:42 PM Subject: RE:The Lofts Record Drawings Carol, Alan and mark were kind enough to meet with me today at 10am and I think we have the as-built language for the lofts worked out...We will continue to have our meeting later this week to iron out the details for the language to place on the remainder of the projects. We are working on plotting the lofts drawings this afternoon and getting the contractor over to sign his portion of the drawing. I will call you when we have them done. Thanks Veronica