Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondencePage 1 of 1 Bob Cowell - Aerofit From: Bob Cowell To: David Neeley Date: 5/26/2011 6:15 PM Subject: Aerofit David, As requested, I have followed up a bit with the Aerofit project and the complaints that were presented to the Mayor. My understanding is that the architect involved (Leon Williamson) was objecting to the process and alluding to delays. It is important to note that Mr. Williamson has been a long-time opponent of the City's architectural standards and I believe that is playing a role in his comments in this instance. Based on my review, the project has been submitted for a PDD and is in review with an anticipated P&Z date of June 16th and Council of July 14th. The project was first presented to the staff for review on May 4th and accepted as complete on May 6th. The first (and to date only) review comments were delivered to Mr. Williamson on May 16th and we are awaiting a response to schedule the item for P&Z. There were some conversations with Mr. Williamson about the project in March and April, though until May, no submittal was made for the project. It appears that there was some delay due to continued discussions between the owner and the architect during that period, but not the City. It is critical to note that the project schedule provided in March by Mr. Williamson indicated a desired P&Z date of June 16th and a desired Council date of July 14th and a project completion date of January 2013. A later project schedule provided by Mr. Williamson indicated the same P&Z and Council dates but had adjusted the project completion date to March 2013. It is not clear why the completion date was changed, but it is clear that it was not due to any delay by the City. On the contrary, I have found that Matt Robinson, the Staff Planner on the project has gone out of his way to help keep the project on schedule and has identified several ways to actually accelerate the review (for example concurrent site plan and rezoning reviews). Finally, it is critical to note that the groundbreaking for this project occurred in Mid -February, before anyone had approached the City about the project, before the project had correct zoning, had any type of plan, or even had an architect on board. I had expressed a concern via e-mail at that time that just such a situation was going to occur, where based on the ground breaking some unreasonable expectations were being established for a project that at that time didn't even exist. We will continue to work to keep the project moving along, as I believe we have done very consistently in this case. Please feel free to provide any of this you feel appropriate to the Mayor since she was inquiring about the project. If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. Thanks, file://C:ADocuments and Settings\bcowell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4DDE98ACCit... 5/26/2011 TRANSPORTATION 1. Because this proposed development is within the medical corridor study that is being conducted at this time a separate Traffic Impact analysis (TIA) was not required. The medical corridor study will take into account the trips generated by the proposed land use. Transportation infrastructure recommendations will be part of the study. 2. During the site plan stage another opportunity will present itself when more specific information is submitted, and at that time a TIA could be required. 3. During the site plan stage a right turn deceleration lane will be required as part of the proposed driveway into the site. The site will generate enough traffic to trigger the UDO requirement Article 7, Section 7.3, subsection 7 paragraph I, a right turn deceleration lane requirement for a site generating 50 vehicles per hour (VPH) if the posted speed is 40 mph or less, or 25 VPH if the speed limit is 40 mph or higher. 4. Cross access will also be required between the different pad sites and land uses adjacent to the site. Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: 6/02/2011 Page t of 3 Date: April 20, 2011 To: MATT ROBINSON, PLANNER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION From: Williamson Group Architects Subject: REZONING OF LONGMIRE PROPERTY TO PDD Project: Aeroft Health and Wellness at the MED Matt: Please find attached a 3Ox42 concept site plan (draft version) AI5o find Draft Versions of the Project Narrative and Negotiation Items below. We will follow up with an official re -zoning application in the near future. Upon your review of this information we need to set up a PAC meetmy to d150U55 these Items. Thanks Leon PDD Re -zoning application for G. I Acre tract adjacent to the C5MC Statement of Purpose and Intent for proposed development. The purpose for the proposed re -zoning of current C I and C2 zones to PDD. I) Meet future zonmy requirements of the Comprehen5we Plan of the College Station, Texas. ' 2) The intent r5 to develop the three Iot5 on this G. I acre tract into medical related occupancies. free 5tandmg buildings with a medical identity linked to the College Station Medical Center. Each building 15 to have it'5 own unique identity and unique architectural character with common building materials. 3) The use of cross access agreements will further enhance the connectivity of these three Iot5 with the existing College Station Medical Center. 4) By developing a boulevard entry off Longmire, this will further strengthen the character of the proposed Medical Corridor and create a major entry to the College Station Medical Center. This boulevard will also allow another entry/ exit pathway from the CSMC campus thereby facilitating the dilution of traffic congestion. 5) Aerofit has a land lease and i5 proceeding with a Health and Wellness Center on Lot 7. This 15 a land lease developer funded / operated project. Lots 5 and G will follow the same developer scenario, while owner5fip of all Iot5 will remain with CSMC. G) 1-15t of potential land u5e5 15 a5 follows: a. Medical clinic under 20,000 5f I?. Indoor Gym and fitness center c. Medical office buildmg5 7) Since the subject property 15 surrounded by C I zoning; no buffering i5 proposed in this rezone request to PDD. WII LIAM80N GROUP AP-CHMCT(S 100 East 26th Street, Bryan. Texas 77803 (v)373.775.1778 WILGRP@TXGYBER.GOM Page 2 of 3 Suggested items for negotiation with regard to PDD REZONING FOR G.2 AC SITE AT THE MED 1) WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ANY PROJECT ON TH15 SITE. 2) WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-51TE STORM WATER DETENTION; ALLOWING THE STORM WATER TO BE PIPED DIRECTLY TO THE EXISTING DETENTION STORAGE FACILITY AT THE C5MC. MODIFICATIONS TO THIS STORAGE FACILITY WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDED STORM FLOW. A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT WILL BE MADE TO THE DEEDS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. 3) WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL TRIGGERED BY THE m"yu INSTALLATION OF A JOGGING/ WALKING TRACK SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE G ACRE SITE. THI5 WALKING TRACT (UNTO ITSELF) SHALL NOT GIVE RISE TO THE ZONING USE �� OCCUPANCY OF "HEALTH CLUB / SPORTS FACILITY OUTDOOR". l_'Y WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR A DECEL LANE ON LONGMIRE AT NEW BOULEVARD ENTRY. � 5) PROVIDE THAT EACH BUILDING'S AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM OTHERj vow, .n,a« BUILDINGS IN THE PDD ZONING AND NOT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF ALL BUILDINGS J ON THE "COMMON PLOT" WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION OF THE NRA. G) PG 7-54; WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR DOUBLE LANDSCAPING POINTS AS SHOWN IN THE NRA . I 7) WAIVE S THE REQUIREMENT FOR FREE STANDING COMMERCIAL SIGN; TO ALLOW DOUBLING THE AREA OF THE SIGN FACE. THI5 SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY TO THE PYLON SIGN AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. 8) WAIVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE NRA AS FOLLOWS: a. THE ROOF PARAPET "RELIEF" REQUIREMENT. WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 2 ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS EVERY 45 FEET ALONG THE FACADE FACING ROW. ` WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 2 ARCHIECTURAL ELEMENTS EVERY GO FEET ALONG FACADES OTHER THAN FACING ROW. d. WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT AS FOLLOWS: "WITH AND COMMON TO THOSE USED ON THE MAIN/ PRIMARY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. THE COMMON DESIGN ELEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE BUILDING MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAIN/ PRIMARY 5TP.UCTURE." WHILE THE OWNER DESIRES THESE BULIDNG5 TO HAVE A UNIFIED LOOK; IT IS NOT DESIRED THAT THESE BUILDINGS MATCH THE MATERIALS/ ELEMENTS ON THE C5MC. e. WITH REGARD TO "REFLECTIVE GLASS" THE TERM SHALL APPLY TO GLASS WITH A VISIBLE LIGHT REFLECTANCE OF 70%OR GREATER AS DEPINEDPBY THE NATIONAL GLA55 ASSOCIATION (GLASS MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION). IN OUR PART OF THE COUNTRY IT 15 CONSIDERED ENERGY EFFICIENT TO REFLECT AS MUCH AS 70% OF THE VISIBLE LIGHT IN ORDER TO KEEP HEAT GAIN DOWN IN SUMMER MONTHS. IN COLDER CLIMATES OF THE COUNTRY; THE OPPOSITE 15 TRUE, THIS SECTION OF THE LIDO NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY THAT IS AVAILABLE WITH LOW E GLASS COATINGS nLIAMAON GROUP APCIMCTS 106 East 26th Street, Bryan. Texas 77803 (v)979.775.1778 WILGRP@TXGYBER.GOM Page 3 of 3 WITH REGARD TO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE. 9) WAIVE ITEM PG 7-54 ARE TO BE USED ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING FACADE. WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT POP TREE WELLS ALONG THE BUILDING FACADE. CANOPY TREES (AS REQUIRED) AND IRRIGATION WOULD PROVIDE A ROOT SYSTEM PROBLEM FOR THE FOUNDATION OF THE BUILDING. THE FACADE (WHERE TREE WELLS ARE REQUIRED) IS DESIRED TO BE GLA55 AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. TREE WELLS AND TREES BLOCK THIS "MARKETING VIEW'. IN LIEU OF THE TREE WELLS, THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES A "FORMAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN". 10) WAIVE ITEM G PG 7-5 1 "CONCEPT PARKING LOTS" IN CONSIDERATION OF THE BOULEVARD DRIVE AND LAYOUT OF PARKING (NOT IN A CONTIGUOUS RECTANGLE LAYOUT) . ADDITIONALLY THE PRIVATE BOULEVARD SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A "PUBLIC ROW' WHERE STATED IN THE NRA. I I) WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT PG 7-5 OF MAX 7 SPACES SEPARATED BY LANDSCAPE ISLAND AS STATED IN OFF STREET PARKING STANDARDS. INSTEAD USE THE 15 SPACE RULE. 12) WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF ITEM D SUB PARAGRAPH I (STONE OR MASONRY PRODUCTS) OF THE "ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS OF 20,000 5F OR GREATER'- "BUILDING MATERIALS" THIS BUILDINGS FACADE PRESENTATION TO THE LONGMIRE ROW IS CRITICAL TO EXHIBIT THE BUILDING'S USE AND OCCUPANCY(AND IN ARCHITECTURAL TERMS, SHOULD SHOW "MOVEMENT"). IT SHOULD EXHIBIT A MORE "UP TO DATE' USE OF ARCHITECTURAL MATERIALS THAN THAT OF THE TRADITIONAL STONE/BRICK MATERIALS. 1 3) ANY PRESENT OR FUTURE REVISIONS TO THE CSMC PARKING SHALL NOT TRIGGER REQUIREMENTS OF NKA ITEM G "PARKING LOTS" WITH REGARD TO "CONCEPT PARKING". 14) PARKING RATIO FOR FITNESS CLUB IS SET BY ADMINISTRATOR. REQUEST A RATIO NOT TO EXCEED I 5P/250 5F 1 5) CSMC 15 EXPECTED TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE HOSPITAL SITE (OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINES FOR LOT 7) A LEGAL INSTRUMENT MAKING THE CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT FOLLOW THE DEED MAY BE REQU I RED. END WII,I,IAMeSON GPOUID ARCIIlMM 106 East 26th Street, .Bryan. Texas 77803 (v)979.775.1778 WILGRP@TXGYBER.GOM Page 1 of 2 Matt Robinson - AEROFIT AT THE MED- rezoning From: "williamson group " <wilgrp@txcyber.com> To: "'Matt Robinson"' <Mrobinson@cstx.gov> Date: 5/2/2011 2:12 PM Subject: AEROFIT AT THE MED- rezoning Attachments: aerofit26 a.jpg Matt: the attached concept rendering is for your use in evaluating our request for NRA waivers... We are not set yet on colors... but you can see the "masonry" which will either be stone or brick or both... much warmer than in this rendering And the metal will simply be alucobond looking panels (anodized aluminum)... the glass will be slight blue in color and non -reflective Talk more tomorrow Leon Oh yes Frank Hartman from the MED will be there C. _con Williamson, Arckitcct WILLIAMSON GROUP ARCHITECTS 106 East 26th Street Bryan, Texas 77803 979-775-1778 Wilgrp@txcyber.com From; Matt Robinson [maiIto: Mrobinson@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:40 PM To: williamson group Cc; 'Adam Brumbaugh'; 'Kathy Langlotz'; 'Larry Isham Business Emails'; Frank' 'Hartman Subject: Re: AEROFIT AT THE MED- rezoning Leon, I have setup a meeting for tomorrow at 2pm if that works for you. If that doesn't work, let me know and I'll see if I can schedule another time. Thanks, Matt Robinson, AICP Senior Planner file:HC:\Documents and Settings\mrobinson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4DBEBBBF'